Commonly considered strategies for reducing the environmental impact of light-duty transportation include using alternative fuels and improving vehicle fuel economy. We evaluate the air qualityrelated human health impacts of 10 such options, including the use of liquid biofuels, diesel, and compressed natural gas (CNG) in internal combustion engines; the use of electricity from a range of conventional and renewable sources to power electric vehicles (EVs); and the use of hybrid EV technology. Our approach combines spatially, temporally, and chemically detailed life cycle emission inventories; comprehensive, fine-scale state-of-the-science chemical transport modeling; and exposure, concentration-response, and economic health impact modeling for ozone (O 3 ) and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ). We find that powering vehicles with corn ethanol or with coal-based or "grid average" electricity increases monetized environmental health impacts by 80% or more relative to using conventional gasoline. Conversely, EVs powered by lowemitting electricity from natural gas, wind, water, or solar power reduce environmental health impacts by 50% or more. Consideration of potential climate change impacts alongside the human health outcomes described here further reinforces the environmental preferability of EVs powered by low-emitting electricity relative to gasoline vehicles.S ociety is in the midst of a great effort to understand and mitigate anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their effects on the global climate (1-5). However, GHG damages are not the only environmental impact of human activities, and are often not even the largest. In transportation, for example, non-GHG air pollution damage externalities generally exceed those from climate change (6-8). Here, we explore the air quality impacts of several proposed transportation fuel interventions: liquid biofuels (9), electric vehicles (EVs) powered by conventional and alternative energy sources (3), biomass feedstocks to power EVs (10, 11), compressed natural gas (CNG) powered vehicles (5), and improved vehicle fuel economy.The air quality impacts of biofuels, transportation electrification, CNG vehicles, and improved fuel economy have been studied (refs. 7, 8, and 12-21; results are summarized in Table S1); our work advances prior research by combining estimates of life cycle emissions [i.e., emissions from production ("upstream") and consumption ("tailpipe") of the fuel] with an advanced air quality impact assessment. In addition, we incorporate greater spatial, temporal, and chemical detail than have prior research efforts. We also report non-GHG air quality life cycle impacts of biomass-powered EVs, which to our knowledge have not yet been described.We use a spatially and temporally explicit life cycle inventory model (22) to estimate total fuel supply chain air pollutant emissions for scenarios where 10% of US projected vehicle miles traveled in year 2020 are driven in 1 of 11 types of passenger cars: (i) conventional gasoline powered vehicles (abbrevi...