New Curbs on Cars

Throughout most of this century, the American's private automobile has been a vehicle of personal freedom, of both convenience and romance. Now the whole era of the open road may be ending--or at least fading--because of a document entitled the Clean Air Amendments of 1970.

By this act, in the name of public health, Congress has set strict federal limits on key air pollutants across the nation. During a period that started last week and will continue until a Feb. 15 deadline, every state must report how it plans to obey the federal standards for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and photochemical oxidants--all of which come mainly from cars. Detroit is already working to cut these emissions sharply, but even if the automakers develop highly effective antipollution devices by 1975, there will still be so many old cars on the road that the problem will last until the mid-1980s. In 28 auto-jammed metropolitan areas with 30% of the U.S. population, therefore, the law's mandate is painfully simple: local officials must figure out ways to restrict the use of the car. After their "transportation strategies" are announced, citizens can express their views in public hearings. After that, the plans go to the Environmental Protection Agency for approval, and they must go into effect by 1977.

Gas Rationing. The most startling of the strategies is to be announced in the city that has by far the worst smog problem: Los Angeles. State officials despaired--the city is almost completely dependent on cars for transportation--and they asked the EPA to help provide an answer for them. Meantime two nearby cities filed suit for faster action, and the court ruled that EPA Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus would have to reveal his proposal for L.A. this week. With no time to develop a really workable plan, he is expected to announce an unprecedented interim expedient: World War II-style rationing that would reduce gasoline consumption by over 80% during the smoggiest six months of the year.

When word of this drastic proposal leaked out, the Los Angeles Times editorialized: "That our cars have made a health-harming and aesthetic mess of things is undeniable. But calling a screaming halt to auto use would be more destructive still." Los Angeles' neighbors disagree. The cities of Riverside and San Bernardino, which filed the suit to speed EPA action, are suffocating under a pall of Los Angeles' pollutants; they lie at the end of a natural funnel east of L.A.--and the prevailing winds blow from the west. Says their lawyer, Mary Nichols: "They see the Clean Air Act as their only hope."

Other cities do not have to go to the extreme of gas rationing, but their own transportation plans will undoubtedly change old, freewheeling ways. In general, TIME found in roundup interviews last week, the cities count on three simultaneous measures. They will improve mass-transit systems (mainly bus) by buying new equipment and reserving highway lanes for express buses to the suburbs. They will require that old cars be "retrofitted" with devices to reduce exhaust emissions. Finally, they will encourage car pools by incentives such as free trips through toll gates.

Some of the other plans:

>A study in Seattle has shown that many motorists are either lost or looking for a cheap parking space. The city therefore hopes to design clearer traffic signs and start charging equal amounts for all parking within a given area. For commuters, it will provide express bus rides from free parking lots on the outskirts of town.

>New York's major pollution problem is caused not by the private car but by fleets of taxis and trucks. The city will restrict cabs cruising in the mid-and downtown areas in search of fares. It also hopes to reorganize truck systems so that each truck will make all its deliveries in one compact area.

>Washington, D.C., which is building a new subway system, proposes to buy 1,300 new buses by 1975 and to set up a computerized service to help commuters form car pools by collating home and office addresses, telephone numbers and work hours.

>Boston may put all its federal, state and city employees on a four-day week to stagger traffic flows.

>Colorado plans to give Denver commuters special state income tax credits for using public transportation. The state air-pollution control commission will also work with the land-use commission to try to control any suburban growth that might create more air pollution. Construction of suburban shopping centers, with their vast parking lots, might thus be stopped.

"The question is how the public will react to all the plans," says Robert Sansom, head of the EPA's air and water programs. "For the public will finally feel the bite." Fitting old cars with expensive (up to $100) antipollution equipment is bound to be criticized as "regressive," since the people owning old cars are often poor. Similarly, downtown merchants will object to parking surcharges, which will almost surely reduce their suburban clientele.

Stilt preliminary indications are that most citizens are ready to accept some deterrents to driving in cities. In a nationwide poll by the Highway Users Federation, hardly a foe of the automobile, 57% of the respondents were in favor of restrictions on vehicles in cities. In fact, the prospect of less congested, less noisy, less fume-filled cities is rather appealing. The real problems will come in enforcing the Clean Air Act--it provides no federal funds to reward states for compliance and no financial penalties (yet) for noncompliance. In the end, the resolve to clean up the air and improve public health lies squarely with the American people. As Senator Edmund Muskie said two years ago: "Clean air will not come easy, and it will not come cheap."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.