Analysis of the cost effectiveness of motor vehicle inspection programs and selected transportation control measures for reducing air pollution

Analysis of the cost effectiveness of motor vehicle inspection programs and selected transportation control measures for reducing air pollution

Material Information

Analysis of the cost effectiveness of motor vehicle inspection programs and selected transportation control measures for reducing air pollution
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Motor vehicles--Inspection--Florida ( lcsh )
Motor vehicles--Inspection--Cost effectiveness ( lcsh )
letter ( marcgt )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
C01-00158 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.158 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00158
2 110
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research.
0 245
Analysis of the cost effectiveness of motor vehicle inspection programs and selected transportation control measures for reducing air pollution
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 1996 November
Motor vehicles--Inspection--Florida
Motor vehicles--Inspection--Cost effectiveness
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856




Center for Urban Transportation R esearch Uni..,.ityofSoulh Flocida 4202 E Fowler A venue. ENB 118 Tampa, FL 33620 (813) 974-3 120 Sunoom 574-3120 Fax (813) 974 Gary/... Bros ch. Director Project Mana1er: Edward A Ph.D" P . Project Staffi lAura C. Lacllance F R o n Jones Ph.D. Rob

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............... .......... ................... . . vi LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii I. BACKGROUND .................................. ... ........... I CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990 ....... .... ........ ...... 2 NONATrAINMENT AREAS IN FLORIDA ....................... ...... 4 PURPOSE OF STUDY ................................................ 4 II. MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING .............. ................. 6 CHARACTERISTICS OF EM I SSION TESTING PROGRAMS . .... .... .... . 6 Altemati ve Inspection/Maintenance (liM) Testing Methods .... .... 6 EPA s Enhanced liM Program ......... ... ... . .... ..... 7 Acceleratio n Simu l ation Mode Tests ......... . . ......... 8 Remote Sensing Devices (RSD) .......... .... .......... 8 Future RSD Application ..... ... ...... ... .............. 9 EFFICACY OF 11M AND INTERPRETATION OF 11M TEST DATA .......... 9 Emission Test Variability . .... . .......................... ... 9 National Regula tory Perspective ........ ............... .... . I 0 Florida MVIP Data ............................. .... ........ I 0 III. MODELING POLLUTANT EMISSION ................. . . ......... . 12 DESCRIPTION OF MOBILE5A MODEL ........ ............... ....... I2 EVALUATION OF MOBILE MODEL ............................... 13 Operating Mode and Temperature ................. .... .... 13 Speed .................................. . .... . . . .... I4 Vehicle Miles T raveled (VMT) .............. ........... . .... 14 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS ........ ... 1 4 IV. COST EFFECTIVENESS OF MOTOR VEH ICLE INSPECTION PROGRAMS ............. ..... ................ .... . .... . 16 ALTERNATIVE ONE: EXI STING INSPECTION PROGRAM AT CURRENT FREQUENCY (ONCE A YEAR) ................ ...................... 16 Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 7 Inspection Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Vehicle Operating and Tim e Costs ............. ......... 17 Repair Costs and Fuel Savings Offset ........... . ...... 20 Total Costs ....................................... . 20 ALTERNAT I VE TWO: EXISTING TECHNOLOG Y PROGRAM AT DECREASED FREQUENCY (ONC E EVERY 2 YEARS) .................. 21 U1


Costs . ...................................... . . .... .... 21 Inspection Costs ...................... . .... . .... . 21 Vehicle Operating and Time Costs ... .... ...... ........ 21 Rep air Costs and Fuel Savings Offset ... ......... .... .... 21 Total Costs ................. ..... ........... .... . . 2 2 ALTERNATIVE T HREE: IM 240 INSPECTION PROGRAM (BIENNIAL) . . 22 Costs ....... ..... ........ .... ........ ................. 23 Inspect ion Costs ......................... . .......... 23 Vehicle Operating and Time Costs ............. ......... 23 Repair Costs and Fuel Savings Offset ....... ............ . 23 T otal Costs ......... ......... .... .................... 24 ALTERNATIVE FOUR: IM240 INSPECTION PROGRAM/WITH PRESSURE TEST (BIENNIAL) .............. ........ .................... ....... 24 Costs ............ .................. .................. ... 25 Inspection Costs .................. .................. 2 5 V chicle Operating and Time Cos ts . . ........ ...... ... 25 Repair Costs and Fuel Sa ving s Offset .... ...... ......... 25 Tota l Costs .......... ........... ........ ........ ... 26 A L TERNATIVE FIVE: ASM INSPECTION PROGRA M WITH PRESSURE T EST (BIENNIAL) ............................. ....... . ................ 27 Costs ............ ....... ... ......... . . . ... ....... 27 I nspectio n Costs .............. ..... . . .......... 27 Vehic le Operating and Time Costs ...... .. ... .... . .... 27 Repair Costs and Fuel Savings Offset ................. ... 28 To ta l Costs ........................... .......... ... 29 ALTERNATIVE SIX: CURRENT INSPECTION P ROGRA M SUPP LEMENTE D WITH LIMITED REMOTE SENSING DEVICES .............. ........... 29 Costs ............... ....................... ............... 29 COST EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON Of INSPECTION ALTERNATIVES .......... .................. ... ....... ... 30 Emission Reductions .................... .......... ........ 30 Cost Effeet ivenes s . ........................ . ............ 3 1 V. COST EFFECTIVENESS OF TRANSPORTATION CONTROL M EASURE S ... 34 PARKIN G PRICING ...... ............. ............ ......... ....... 37 HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES .................. . ...... ..... 38 TELECOMMUTING ... ...... ....................... ...... . .... 39 COMPRESSED WORK WEEK .......................... ............ 39 FLEXIBLE WORK HOURS ........... .............. ......... .... .... 40 STAGGERED WORK HOURS .... ........ ...... . ....... ..... .. .. 41 TRAFFIC SIGN A L OPTIMIZATION .... ..... ..... ...... ............. 4 1 RIDESHARIN G .................... ..... ... .... ............... 41 P ARK-AND-RIDE LOTS .............. . ....... . ............. .... . 42 IV


HILLSBOROUGH COUNT Y IMPACTS ................................. 43 Parking Pricing ... .. .. ................. . . ............ .... 4 3 High-Occ upancy-Vehi cle Lanes ................ ...... .... . . 44 T e lecommuting .................................... .... . 44 Compressed Wor k W e ek ......... ......... ......... ... ..... 45 Flex ible Work Hours and Staggered Work Hours .... . .......... 45 Traffic Signal Optimization ..................... . ....... ... 46 Ridesharing ......... .................. ....... .... ...... .. 46 Park-and-Ride Lots ....... ...................... . . ........ 46 COST EFFECTIVENESS OF TCMs .. ........................ ........ 47 VI. CONCLUSION S ....... ..................................... .... .... . 4 9 VII. ENDN OT E S ........... ................................................. 51 VIII. REFERENCES ..... ........... .... ........................ .. .... 55 v


LIS T OF TABLE S Table I : National Amb ien t Q u ality S tand ards (NAAQS) ......... ............ . . ..... I T able 2 : Attainment Schedule for O z o n e NonAttainmen t Areas . . ............. . ..... 3 Table 3 : S t atew ide Initial Emission s I nspections: Gas/Diesel Failure Rates by Mod el Year ........................... ...... ........... ......... ... ... II T able 4: Hillsborough County On-Road Emissions Sum m ary ... .... . . . ............. 1 5 Tab l e 5: Costs : Mai n taining E xisti n g Program . .......... ......... ... ............ 1 8 Table 6 : Costs: Existing T echnology ( B i enni al) ...... .. ... ... ...... . .............. 22 Tabl e 7: Cos t s: IM240 (Bienn i al) ............ .................... . . ......... 24 T able 8: Costs : IM240 + Pressure ..... . ................ . . . . ......... 2 6 T able 9: C o s t s : ASM + Pre s sure ............. . ....... ... . .... ........... . 28 Table I 0: Costs: Existing Program + Remote Sensing ............... . . . .... .... . 30 Table I I : Annu al E missio n R eductio ns ......................... .... .... ........ 3 1 T able 12: Annual Cost Effec t iveness oflnspe c t ion P rograms ....... . ...... . ... .... 32 Tab l e 13: Da il y Area Wid e Percent Reduction D ue to TCMs ................... . . ... 36 Table 14: Annual Cos t of Usin g TCMs to Reduce Em i ssions .... . . .... .... ...... 48 V I


LIST OF FIGURES Figure I: Hillsborough County Motor Vehicle Inspection Stations with I 0-mile Radius Around Each Station (Map I) ....................................... ......... 19 vii


I BACKGROUND The C l ean Air Act directs the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (El'A) to set and enforce air quality standards for the protection of the public health and welfare. EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which prescribe maximum acceptable concentrations of pollutants in the ambient air over specified periods of time, as indicated in T able I Vehicular sources account for a significant portion of a number of these air pollutants. Tabl e 1 Nationa l Ambient A i r Qual ity S t andards (NAAQS) / CO (Carbon Monoxide) 8-hour Average 9ppm 1 -hour Average 3Sppm NO, (Ni trogen Dioxide) Annual Arithmetic Mean 0 053 ppm 0, (Ozone) lhour 0 12 ppm PB (Lead) Quarter l y Average 1.5 micrograms/cubic meter PMIO (Paniculate

Nitrogen ox.ides (NOJ are the second precursor pollutant to ozone fomtation i n addition to contributing to acid rain. NO, can irritate the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory inflections like the flu Prol onged exposure to high concentrations ofNOx can cause acute respiratory disease in children. The EPA has set national air quality standards for one type ofNO., ni t rogen dioxide (N02). PM-I 0 is particulate matter of less than 10 m i crons in size (about half the diameter of a human hair). PM-I 0 which can be toxic because it i s small enough to be br ea thed into human lungs, is composed of soot, dust smoke, sulfate, and nitrate partic les L ess than one-third of PM-I 0 pollution is caused by transportation sources. However, of that one-third, diesel exhaust is a main contributor (It is also important to note that diesel emissions are almost all in the PM2 .5 range, 2.5 micro ns or less which poses a more significant health risk than PM-I 0 ) The remainder of PM10 pollution i s caused by burning fossil fuel for manufacturing and electricity generation. Breathing large amounts of carbon monoxide (CO) from automobile exha us t emitted in an enclosed space can be lethal. Hemoglobin, an iron-co n tai n ing protein in red b loo d cells is responsible for carrying oxygen to the body's organs CO blocks hemoglobin's ability to carry oxygen. As a result, CO is threatening even at relatively low levels to people suffering from cardiovascular disease. At higher levels CO can impair motor skills, visual perception and ability to perform complex tasks. Because unburned gasoline is the primary source of carbo n monoxide, the pollutant is a particular problem in areas with cold winters, when starting a cold engine requires a richer gaso lin e-ai r mixture. Because of the removal of lea d from most gasoline sold in the United States, lead emissions have decreased 98 percent since 1970 Lead is a heavy metal that accumulates in the body tissue, including blood and bones For children and pregnant women, even low levels oflead can affect the central nervous system. At higher levels, neurological damage such as seizures, mental retardation, and behavioral disorders can appear in adults The EPA also sets nationa l air quality stand ards for sulphur dioxide (SO,) because i t i s a major cause of lung disease and acid rain. However only a small amount of the total SO, emissions come from transportation, with the majority being emitted by coal-burning electricity generation plants. NAAQS violations in Florida have been violations of the ozone standard. As a result, our primary focus should be on reducing emissions of volat ile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO,), the principal precursors to ozone formation. CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 199il The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) impose much more stringen t requirements on transportation than previous amendments to the Clean Air Act. State and metropolitan 2


transportation plans must be consis tent with state air quality p l ans and demonstrate progr e s s toward attainment of the NAAQS Areas that do not meet air quality standards are designated as nonattainment areas. These areas fall into one of six categories: transitional, marginal, moderate, serious severe and extreme States with nonattainment areas mus t submit, as part of the State Implementati o n Plan (SIP), a detailed description of ho w the affected s ta te and local agencies plan to attain and maintain safe air quality levels The SIP must address e a c h region's approach to air quality conformity and maintenance and outli n e the strateg i e s t h at will be used to satisfY the needs of each area. As the seve ri ty of the air quality prob lem increases, requireme n ts become more rigorous. Marginal areas must complete a series of required actions intended to r educe ozone levels. Moderate areas m ust meet all requirements for marginal areas, as well as additional, more stringent req ui reme n ts. Beyond the moderate classification areas may also be identified as serious (examp les include Atlanta and Washington D.C.), severe (e.g., Baltimore and C h icago), or extreme (Los Angeles) Without proper mitigation strategies, air quality could decline to the point that aggressive improvement measures could be req u ired. Each category of nonattainment requires different time schedules and abatement measures to help ensure the NAAQS will be attained. For example, ozone (03 ) has been divid ed according to the criteria shown in Tab l e 2 Table2 Attainment Scbedu.le for O zone NonAttainment Areas Concentration Not to Catrgory be Exceeded More Attainme-nt Date . Transit ional <0.120 06/30193 Marginal 11115193 Mod crate 1996 Serious 0 160-0.180 1999 Severe 2005 0.190 -0 .280 2007 2010 The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP ) is responsible for Florida's SIP. DEP has developed a mobile source contro l program to address air pollution from motor vehicles. The program is aimed at improvin g air quality by reducing the amount of exhaust emissions from cars and light-duty trucks. For urban areas, the metropolitan planning organiza ti ons must (MPO) demonstrate conformity. This means Long Range Transportation Plans and Fi veYear 3


Transportation Improvement Programs must show (through emission analyses) tha t they will not increase the frequency or severity of ozone violations by contributing to any increase in precursor pollutant emissions. NONA'ITAJNMENT AREAS IN FLORIDA Even prior to the 1 990 CAAA, U.S. EPA had cited the six Florida counties ofBroward, Dade, Duval Hillsborough Palm Beach, and Pinellas as nonattainment areas for exceeding the NAAQS for ozone. Faced with potential federal sanctions in the form of withheld highway construction funds, the Florida Legislature enacted the Clean Outdoor Air Law (COAL), which created the Motor Vehicle Inspection Program (MVIP) in the six nonattainmeot counties. Under the direction of the State Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, with technical assistance provided by the Department of Environmental Regulation, private contractors began performing motor vehicle inspections in 1991 At the time of passage of the 1990 CAAA, the six Florida counties were again identified as nonattainment areas for ozone: Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach count ies comprised the Miami moderate nonattainmeot area; Pinellas and Hillsborough counties comprised the marginal Tampa/St. Petersburg/Clearwater nonanainment area; and Duval County (Jacksonville) was listed as a transitional nonanainment area. Since then, air quality in all Florida counties has improved to the extent that all six of the previous nonattainment counties have earned redesignation as maintenance areas. Although all of the counties are now attaining the ozone NAAQS, the State Implementation Plan is required to demonstrate contin ued achievement of maintenance of acceptable air quality. More recently, in the summer of 1996, isolated ozone violations have been recorded. Although not required under the provision of the 1990 CAAA, Florida's SIP includes the Motor Vehicle Inspection Program as one element in its program to maintain clean air. PURPOSE OF STUDY With the redesignation of all Florida counties as maintenance areas, there has been interest on the part of some to terminate the state's MVIP. The past two sessions of the Florida Legislature have seen attempts to introduce legislation terminating the program. Since the emission inspection program is currently part of Florida's SIP, if it were eliminated the state would need to implement alternative measures to demonstrate continued compliance with the ambient air quality standards. Alternative measures that might be used to maintain clean air include a wide range of transportation control measures (TCMs), generally aimed at reducing vehicle miles of travel (VMT). 4


The purpose of this study is to examine the relative cos t effectiveness ofthe present MVIP possible alternative emission inspection programs, and transportation control measures. For purposes of this study a sing l e county--Hillsborough--has been used as a prototype. While the methods employed are necessarily approximate, they nonethele ss provide usefu l information about the comparative cost effectiveness of various measures Further, although some of the charac t eristics of Hillsborough County have been used for purposes of creating a prototypical analysis, the major conclusions should be applicable to Florida's other air quality maintenance counties. 5


II. MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING CHARACI'ERISTICS OF EMISSION TESTING PROGRAMS Programs for inspection/maintenance (liM) of vehicle emission control systems can be either centrali zed or decentralized. Central.ized programs are "test only" programs where the State or a certified contractor performs the test on the vehicle emissions and, if failure occurs, the motorist uses a third party to repair the vehicle before retesting. Florida currently operates under this program. A decentralized program provides both test and repair of vehicle emissions systems by independent contractors (i.e. service stations or auto repair shops) which are licensed to conduct tests as well as perform vehicle repairs. Technology for testing vehicle emissions includes tests conducted while the engine is idling at no load on the engine, or more sophisticated testing of the emissions while the engine is loaded and operated over a cycle of speeds while placed on a dynamometer. In Florida, the motor vehicle inspection program (MVIP) is required by the COAL in the Ozone Maintenance Areas. T he current testing procedure typically includes the following:' Inspector checks to see if the vehicle is equipped with a catalytic converter and unvented fuel cap. If these items are missing or damaged the vehicle is failed. While the engine is operating at idle speed, a probe with a gas analyzer is inserted into the vehicle s tailpipe to measure the levels of hydrocarbon s (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) emitted. The analyzer is computerized to compare emissions to pass/fail cut points (based on the vehicle model year) for the acceptable levels of emissions. If the vehicle fails the HC or CO test, it is placed on a dynamometer to run the vehicle engine at a higher speed (to ensure it is properly warmed) and then retested at idle speed. Subsequent f a ilure will require the vehicle to be repaired and subject to retest. Since the Florida counties previously classified as nonattainrnent have been reclassified as maintenance areas, an MVIP is not required by EPA. However, an MVIP is included as part of the State Implementation Plan for Florida. Alternative Inspection/Maintenance (liM) Testing Methods There are a number of alternative emission inspection methods that Florida might consider. It should be recognized that the technology of emission testing is rapidly changing as existing methods are enhanced and new methods are being developed. There is considerable controversy and disagreement among experts regarding the costs and effectiveness of various technologies. 6


EPA's Enhanced 11M Program. An enhanced liM testing program was proposed by the EPA in the November 5, 1992, Federal Register, as a recommended program. The recommended EPA enhanced liM program also provides for central ized testing facilities to conduct biennial testing of I 968 and newer light-duty vehicles and trucks (gross vehicle weight ,; 14,000 lbs), which include the following elements.2 IM240 emission testing of engine exhaust gases. The emissions are sampled and measured while the vehicle is operated at various speeds (rather than at idle speed) on a dynamometer for a period up to 240-second test (4 minutes). In addition to measuring HC and CO emissions, oxides of nitrogen emissions (NO,) are also measured. Also, the IM240 test captures the entire exhaust gases during the test, rather than a periodic small volume of gas concentration as experienced in the idle test. As typically administered, it is not normally required to conduct a full 240 minute test. The first minute or two of the test can indicate clear compliance for the majority of vehicles, for which a shortened test is adequate. Purge flow test of evaporative emission canister. Since 1971, fuel tanks on vehicles have been designed as closed systems. Excess vapors from the fuel system, under pressure, are routed to a charcoal canister. The purge test is used to ascertain that vapors trapped in the canister and fuel tank are being drawn into the engine with combustion air. If not purged, the canister will become saturated with vapors and vent them into the atmosphere increasing HC emissions, wasting fuel, and impacting economical operation of the engine. The purge rate can only be tested while the engine is operated over a speed range (i.e., only during the IM240 driving cycle). Further the test requires hoses, universal fittings, and a flow meter to test the process, as well as a computer to control the test process, record data, and interpret pass/fail status. Consequently, this test cannot be performed in remote situations or during the idle test. Due to difficulties in performing the purge test there are to the best of our knowledge no current U.S. applications. (Although several states are continuing to develop alternative procedures.) Evaporative system pressure test. This test checks the fuel systems for leaks. One test method includes a pressure decay procedure that involves pressurizing the fuel system with an inert gas such as nitrogen, and measuring loss of pressure with a computer. Conducting this test requires locating the evaporative canister, removing the vapor line from the fuel tank, and connecting various hoses and fittings to a nitrogen source and computer. This test may be conducted without operating the vehicle's engine. A more sophisticated technology may alternatively be used, which includes the use of helium gas and a mass spectrometer gas analyzer. EPA's enhanced UM program also provides for periodic on road surveillance of vehicles. Idle emission testing and testing of on-board diagnostic systems are 7


recommended to include:. 0.5% of the air quality control region's vehicles, or at least 20,000 per year. Since EPA issued its guidelines for enhanced JIM programs, there has been widespread opposition. Due to the requirement for precision dynamometers and instrumentation, the equipment costs of an IM240 program are substantially higher than the cost of the current program. As a result. it appears that JM240 needs to be implemented as a centralized test program. The equipment costs are considered prohibitive for use by service stations and auto repair shops. The opposition has been so strong, that in the Conference Report of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995,' a moratorium was placed on EPA's requirement to implement its enhanced liM program. Since then, a n u mber of states that had either begun to implement IM240 or were planning to do so have canceled their plans. Acceleration Simulation Mode Tests. Because of the widespread opposition to the 11M 240 program over the past year there has been increased interest in alternative enhanced test the Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM) test. Like IM240 ASM measures NO., in addition to CO and HC. ASM is characterized as a loaded steady-state test. ASM is more like IM240 than it is like the current idle test. The ASM test requires the use of a dynamometer along with instrumentation that tests a vehicle at a specified load factor and operating speed. Commonly, ASM is performed at a 50 percent load fac tor at 15 miles per hour (ASM 5015) or at a 25 percent load factor at 25 miles per hour (ASM2525). Apparently tberc is a considerable cost savings of ASM over I M240, as the dynamometer and test equipment are much less expensive (albeit less precise). The reduced cost of the test equipment makes it possible for a program to be operated in a d e centralized mode. Even when the primary emission testing is centralized, ASM makes a decentralized repair and retesting system practical. Remote Sensing Devices (RSD). Remote sensing provides the means to measure a vehicle's exhaust gaseous emissions (HC, CO and NO,) while the vehicle is in active use on the highway. EPA perceives its application to be principally to provide on-road surveillance as part of the enhanced 11M program. Besides technical difficulties with the methodology itse lf, the other major limitation of the methodology is that it cannot measure the evaporative emissions (i.e., gasoline vapors) provided in the enhanced 11M program with the purge and pressure tests RSD measurement technology involves projecting a beam of infrared radiation from the roadside through the exhaust gases from a passing vehicle to measure the absorption of the infrared energy due to HC and CO in the exhaust. Measurement ofNO, is similar l y measured using an ultraviolet light beam or a light from a tunable diode laser. The system provides for measuring emissions ahead of and then behind the vehicle to assess the gas emission levels. 8


The system also includes freeze-ftame video camera/equipment to digitize an image of the license plate number. When employed w ith a computer the system can store the emission information for each vehicle monitored, along with the license plate number This provides the means to identify and notify owners of high emission vehicles and provide follow up for further emissions testing at a centralized facility . Future RSD Applications. The application ofRSD techn ology may also play a significant role in future 11M programs by identifying malfunctions in vehicl e emissions control systems (on-board diagnostic systems), which are required beginning with 1994 vehicle mode ls. Such malfunctions could be reported to a roadside RSD thro ugh a radio frequency transponder installed on the vehicle with the on-board diagnostics. This permits the transponder to be measured remotely with roadside monitors, to assess the efficiency of the vehicle's emission contro l systems. EFFICACY OF 1/M AND INTERPRETATION OF 1/M TEST DATA There is significant controversy reported in the scientific literature relative to the effectiveness of mandated liM progtams to achieve calculated or mathematically predicted reduction in vehicle emissions.' This controversy is fueled by several factors. First, the accuracy of emission test procedures has been questioned. Second there is concern that human behavioral aspects of liM have not been adequately addressed. Finally, there are confounding factors, such as that most data used to evaluate emission reduction from 11M progtams are based on California 11M progtams. The California data may d iffer from other MV!Ps. Emissi o n Test Variability Bishop and Stedman evaluated the variability of emission data taken using multiple emission test data that included the following test methods: Federal Test Procedure (used to test new vehicle models), IM240 and remote sensing. A number of vehicles tested had emission control failure on one day and subsequently passed the emission test without performing any repairs. Vehicles expected to demonstrate high test-to-test variability are estimated to comprise 2 to 5 pereent of the vehicle fleet. This variability appears to be larger with higher average emissions and was most prevalent among newer vehicles with untampered closed loop emission control systems ( 1981 and later models) Further, vehicles with lower emissions were noted to exhibit little test-to-test variability. EPA has also long recognized that vehicles in need of repair have highly variable emission rates. 9


National Regulatory Perspedive EPA's 1/lvf Briefing Boo!? provides a synthesis of the regulatory perspective on testing program efficiency, degree of emission reductions expected impact on minimizing fraud (a facet of human behavior); and costs. EPA' s position has been that only the enhanced test including the IM240 purge flow, and pressure testing of the evaporative emission control system can effectively achieve vehicle emissions reduction when administered on a test only, centralized, biennial basis. However, it is acknowledged that even "1th these stringent test requirements vehicle emissions will vary from test to test on clean and dirty vehicles. In spite of these views, the expected emission reductions (using national defaults) i n areas applying the IM240 test techno logy along with the pressure and purge tests are projected to be 32 percent in VOC 34 percent in CO, and I I percent i n NO,. This compares to the projection of 10% reduction ofVOC with the basic tailpipe emissions test. More recently, EPA bas backed off!M240 as the only acceptable method, as it appears that ASM may also yield substantial reductions at a somewhat lower cost. Florida MVIP Data Data relative to vehicle emission failure rates were extracted from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle 1995 annual report and are excerpted in Table 3 Review of these data indicate extremely low failure rates for recent model year gasoline vehicles, with the most recent model year exhibiting approximately I percent or less. Diesel vehicles on the other hand, show similar failure rates regardless of vehicle age. These data d o suggest that it might be possible to exempt the most recent model years, from a motor vehicle inspection program and maintain a high level of emission reduction. 10


Table 3 Statewide Init ia l Emissions I n spection s Gas/Diesel F ailure Rates b y Model Yea r > ,:': E: : ; n c ?<' .. :> .. Model T otal Percent Pen;ent Total Pe r ce nt Percent Year I nspected Passed Failed Inspected Passed Failed 1975 12,950 73.58 26.42 259 9 4 9 8 5 28 1976 23,001 75.79 24.21 383 93.47 6 .98 1977 40,504 76.76 23.24 444 97.07 3 .02 1978 59,970 73.61 26. 39 6 1 3 97.72 2 34 1979 80,465 76.12 23. 88 1,235 9 7 4 1 2.66 198 0 7 4 ,864 76.45 23.55 1,9 1 9 96.66 3.4 5 1981 92,337 71.47 28.53 3 307 96.98 3 .12 1982 107,639 74. 20 25.80 4 ,314 96.50 3.363 1983 152,856 79. 5 1 20.4 9 3,864 97. 00 3,09 1 984 241,210 82.03 17.97 4 118 96 70 3. 2 4 1985 291,909 84 80 15.20 3,2 88 96.08 4.08 1986 3 4 0 943 88,06 11.94 1 ,860 96.51 3.62 1987 358 ,331 91. 1 2 8.88 1,595 95.80 4.38 1988 380,662 94.53 5.47 711 96.34 3.80 1989 366 ,002 96.17 3.8 3 939 95.53 4.68 1990 326,206 97.71 2 .29 972 96.40 3.7 4 1991 339,184 98.26 1.74 1 ,260 96.67 3.4 5 1992 367,136 98.92 1.08 1 ,25 9 94.52 5.8 0 1993 472 ,76 8 99.55 0 .45 2,093 96. 85 3 26 1 994 393,18 4 99. 84 0. 1 6 1 630 96.13 4.02 1995 96,150 99.90 0.10 385 97.40 2 .6 7 S<>urce: FDHSMV/MVJP Annual Report 199S. 11


HI. MODELING POLLUTANT EMISSION The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated computer programs to estimate the rate at which pollutants are produced by motor vehicles. The data have been used in the development of a computer model called "MOBILE" to estimate motor vehicle emissions. The model accounts for a variety of local parameters. The latest version, MOBILE5A addresses the motor vehicle emission inventory requirements stemming from the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and earlier.* DESCRIPTION OF MOBILESA MODEL The modeling approach used to produce a mobile source emission inventory is based on a two step process. First, a set of emission factors (EF) is determined. Second, a set of estimates of vehicle activity is produced. The emission inventory is calculated by multiplying the results of these two steps. The model is an integrated collection of mathematical equations that estimate the grams of pollutants emitted per mile driven based on certain input variables including vehicle age and mileage driving conditions, average vehicle speed ambient temperature and rate of tampering w ith emission control systems. MOBILE5A will pred ict fleet-average EFs for 20 years and can estimate vehicle EF for past years. MOBILE5A can be used to estimate area-wide mobile source emissions of CO, NO., and VOC, as well as to project effects of different control strategies. The EF represents the mass of a pollutant emitted per a defined activity rate. Mathematically it may be shown as: [EF., = Mass Emitted of Pollutant xx I Activity Rate] where: EF"" = Emission Factor for Pollutant xx In the case of the MOBILE model, mass emissions of CO, NO., and VOC are predicted as a function ofVMT. MOBILE calculates vehicle emissions based on an urban test cycle, which averages 19.6 miles per hour. The EF multiplied by its activity rate (miles driven) provides estimates of the total mass emitted. The emissions estimates are performed by first determining the emissio ns rate of each model year making up a vehicle class, weighting the model-year specific emission rate by the fractional usage experienced by that model year, and summing over all model years that comprise the vehicle class. In addition, a variety of corrections that are not included in the standard test cycles are used to develop the base emission rate 12


EVALUATION OF MOBILE MODEL Several limitations are associated with the MOBILE model program. Travel demand estimation procedures and air quality models were developed independently of each other, for separate purposes, and have shown a lack of coordination. Analysis of the outputs are complicated by the models' treatment of different vehicle classi.fication types with different algorithms. Also, EPA models assume that vehicles that fail inspections will include some type of emission repair with long-lasting benefits. 10 McCargar and Snapp reported that longlasting benefits cannot be demonstrated.'' CTitics argue that the model is difficult to understand and is insufficiently documented.1 2 Most emission inventory models relate average emission rates to traffic volumes and speeds This approach may be subject to error since no consideration is given to vehicle operation parameters that are more closely related to emissions output." Recent studies have shown the MOBILESA can produce reasonable emission results for freeway situations, but comparisons between observed and predicted emissions suggest that mob i le sources remain underpredicted." The requirements of the EPA assume the ability to estimate within a few percent. With current state-of-the-art methods, accuracy of plus or minus 15-30 percent in the estimation of CO, NO., and VOC emissions is the best that can be achieved." Errors may compound in the MOBILE output. If several different model inputs have errors that are in the same direction, the errors will be compounded. An analysis of several important input parameters and how they affect the emission output is provided below. Thus, the EPA expects accuracy and precision in estimating air pollution emissions from mobile sources far beyond what is possible with current transportation planning and emissions models. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 beginning with the date of enactment, required a 15 percent reduction in VOC emission over a 6-year period in moderate and worse ozone nonattainment areas Operating Mode and Temperature MOBILE recognizes three operating modes (cold start, bot start, and hot stabilized) for cars and light trucks. Differences in operating mode have an impact on the emission rates. Cold start operation results in the highest grams per mile emission for al l pollutants followed by hot starts, then hot stabilized. Emissions of CO and VOC tend to be highest during cold start operations. Cold and hot start emission rates are measured during the first 505 seconds of vehicle operation. On-road cold start fractions vary for different facility types, times of day and proximity to trip origin : Many studies have estimated the average cold start vehicle miles traveled (VMT) percentage. Kishan estimated the average cold start VMT percentage at about 20 percent1 6 and Venigalla et al. estimated 31.2 percent on a national basis. Miller et al. reported the difference in emissions due to operating mode for VOC and CO during cold conditions (32 degrees F or colder) at five and three times higher, respectively, than bot stabilized operations. 13


Speed HC and CO emissions tend to be high at low speeds and NO emis sions tend to be high at h igh speeds. Studies have shown all three primary pollutants arc lowest when the engine is idling, and increase with vehicle acceleration. The incremental rate of increase is gr eat est for NO, and least for C0.19 Along with these trends, average errors of37. 8 percent in vehicle speed estimates have been reported between measured and mode led speeds when using the posted speed limits as the basis for speed estimates.20 Vehicle Miles Traveled Mobile source emissions are estimated by multiplying EF in gram/mile by the VMT or activity rate. Emission estimates are directly related to VMT, so errors in estimating VMT produces the same amount of error io the emission estimates. VMT estimation may contain errors of 5 to I 0 percent or higher, depending on the traffic counting and/or travel modeling system used2 1 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS The Tampa Bay airshed including Hillsborough and Pinellas counties, and was classified in 1990 by the EPA as a marginal nonanainment area for ozone. However, the area has rec ent ly been re classified as a maintenance area. Neverthele s s, efforts must be continued to maintain air quality, to prevent the area from falling back into nonattainment. Within Hillsborough and Pinellas counties the state operates annual, centralized, idle-mode 11M programs The Tampa Bay area was required to produce a detailed emission inventory for the baseline year 1 990 and to follow-up with a 1994 inventory. The 1994 emissions inventory includes the use of the EPA's fleet-average emission factor model (MOBILESA) estimates of the 1994 average daily vehicle miles traveled (ADVMT) by roadway type from U.S.DOT's Highw ay Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) and national average travel speeds by f a cility type provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A). The FHW A considers HPMS estimates of VMT to be accurate to plus or minus 5 percent at a level of confidence of95 percent11 In Table 4, the Hillsborough County estimations of on-road emissions for 1990 and 1994 are presented. The 1990 baseline emission estimates reflect no 11M program in operation. The primary pollutants have all declined fro m the 1990 baseline, with NOx emiss ions showing the smallest reduction These reductions have been realized even though vehicle trips have increased during this time period. Many factors contribute to emission reduction. One 14


Table 4 Hillsborough County On-Road Emissions Summaryu (tons) < : . :' ', 01-one Season voc co ; }'j O ;:: per Day ,, < ':' 1990 Baseline 90 694 70 No liM 1994 51 436 61 primary parameter for the reduction is the date of manufacture of the average vehicle in the four years between analyses. Many of the older, more polluting vehicles have been retired and the liM program has been successful at keeping most of the high polluters off the road since implementation of the program. 15


IV. COST EFFECTIVENESS OF MOTOR VEHICLE I NSPECTION PROGRAMS In this section est i mates are made to the cost effectiveness of alternative moto r vehicle ins p ection programs in reducing mobile source emissions of volatile organ ic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NO,) i n Hillsborough County Six combina t ions of current MVIP t e chn o logies were chosen as the alternatives for analysi s I. Maintain existing program 2. Use existing technology at decreased frequency (biennial) 3. IM240 (bienn.ial) 4 IM240 plus a p ressure test (biennial) 5. ASM plus a pr e ssure test 6 Use existing program plus remote sensing These six alternatives sufficiently repres ent the range of options available for a motor vehicle inspection progrdlll. In this section, cost estimate s and potent i al emission red uctions are presen t ed for each alternative. Costs for each of the alternatives were developed based on a variety of so u rces, including EPA, the curre n t Hillsbo rough County MVIP contractor, and scientific literature. The differe nt compon en ts of the cost s for MVIP altern a tives include inspection an d oversight c ost vehic le operating and time cost, and net r ep air cost. Following the analy ses of costs for each of the alternatives i s a cost effect i veness an alysis comparing the costs of each a lt ern ative to their associated emiss ion reductions in H ill sborough County. ALTERNATIVE ONE: EXISTING INSPECTION PROGRAM AT CURRENT FREQUENCY (ONC E A YEAR) This alternative consists of maintaining the curren t inspection program that has been in effect s i nce 1992. The current program is a tailpi pe test pe rf ormed annually on all registered vehicles i n Hillsborou g h County. The five centralized inspection sta tions are opera ted by Gordon-Darby, Inc. u n der contract to the State of Florida. H ills borough County operates a basic inspe ction and maintenance program defined by the EPA in the C l ean Air Act Amendments of 1 991. T h i s t est consists of an idle inspection (vehicle emissions are monitored while the vehicle is in an idl e s ta te), an i nspe c tion of the vehi cl e's catalyst a ta ilpipe test, and a check of the gas cap for a vapo r-t i ght fit. 16


Costs Inspection Costs. The inspection costs include all capital, operating, and oversight costs associated with the inspection of vehicles under the current inspection program. The capital and operating costs include land for facilities, buildings, inspection equipment, non-labor operating costs, and labor costs. Under their contract with the State of Florida to perform tests in Hillsborough County Gordon-Darby, Inc. receives $6 per inspected vehicle to cover all of the capital and operating costs. In Hillsborough County, the state collects an additional $4.00 per vehicle o f which approximately $0.50 per vehicle is used for direct oversight of the MVIP program. The remainder of the $4 is placed in the Florida Highway Safety Operating Trust Fund and is used by the state for pwposes other than oversight. For pwposes of this analyses only $6.50 of the $10 inspection fee per vehicle was included as the inspection cost because the other $3.50 does not go towards capital, operating or oversight costs of the MVIP. In 1994, a total of 611,838 vehicles were inspected in Hillsborough County incurring an inspection cost of$3,976,947, as shown in Table 5. Vehicle Operating and Time Costs. In addition to the direct inspection costs to the vehicle owner, the driver of the inspected vehicle incurs other costs associated with the vehicle inspection. These costs include the value of the driver's time and the cost of driving the vehicle to the inspection site. Every vehicle owner makes one round-trip to the inspection facility and the vehicle-owners of vehicles that fail inspection must have a re-inspection. The value of the driver's time is associated with the travel time to the inspection facility the waiting time at the inspection facility, and the time of the inspection test. The travel time is calculated by determining the average distance of each vehicle owner to the nearest inspection station and the average speed of travel to the inspection facility. There are five inspection stations in Hillsborough County. As illustrated in Figure I, the majority (92.5 percent) of the County's population live within I 0 miles of an inspection station Assuming that the population is evenly distributed throughout the county, an estimation of the average travel distance of residents to an inspection facility can be accomplished by determining the average distance within each of the circles shown in Figure I. This average distance is approximately 7 miles, or a round trip 14 miles. An approximation of the average travel speed in Hillsborough County is I 9 miles per hour as provided by the Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization." Therefore, the average travel **The $10 inspection fee paid by vehicle-owners was adopted by the state for all six counties. The standardization of the fee was established in the interest of making the program the same cost at all locations. The $61$4 split between the state and the contractor applies tO four of the six counties with an MVIP program. In oade County, the split between the contractor and the state is $8.20/$1.80 and in Palm Beach County it is $8.SOISI.50. Therefore, if this cost effectiveness analysis was performed for other counties in Florida the actual cost of the inspection could vary. 17


time to and from an inspection facility must be estimated at 44 minutes per vehicle. According to Florida's Motor Vehicle Inspection Program, the average wait time at the inspection facility is 5 minutes, and the average time of the inspection test is 2.5 minutes." Adding these three components of time yields an average time of 5 1.5 minutes, which includes driving time, wait time, and the duration of the test. TableS Inspection Costs: Maintaining Existing Program Type of Cost A vg. Annilal Cost per Total Annual Vehicle Cost Inspection Cost S6.50 $3,976,947 Sub-Total S6.SO S3 976,947 Vehicle Operating and Time Cosrs Value of Time $5.56 S3,401.130 Vehicle Operating $4.37 $2,672.491 Sub-Total $9.93 S6,073,6ll Net Repair Costs Repair Costs $10.70 $6,543,951 Fuel Efficiency Savings ($5.75) ($3,519,994) Sub-Total $4.95 $3,023,957 Total Costs $21.38 Sl3,074,SlS The value of this 51.5 minutes of driver time was then estimated using a methodology developed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHT0).2 AASHTO's methodology computes value of time based on the amount of travel time and type of trip and is expressed as a percentage of the traveler's hourly income. For travel times exceeding 15 minutes, 52.3 percent of the average wage rate is multiplied against the travel time. The average hour ly wage rate in Florida for 1994, as reported by the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, was $11.51 ; 52.3 percent of this hourly wage rate is $6.02. Using this hourly wage rate, the average driver's value of time in this alternative is $5.56. The total annual value of time for all drivers was esti mated at $3,401 ,130 as shown in Tabl e 5 18


Figure 1: Hillsborough County Motor Vehicle Inspection Stations with 10-mile Radius Around Eacb Station 19 . . . . Legend 8 5512 w. Yla\trl Avt. Tampa e 11103 N.4&lhSt.. Tampa 0 3926 W. Sou1h Ave .. Tampa C) 5310 16th Ave. S Tampa 0 2009 N. A;rpo !;d . Plant City


In addition to driver time cost, there is also a vehicle operating cost associated with MV!Ps. Vehicle operating costs consist of the wear and tear costs and gasoline costs of operating the vehicle to and from the inspection facility. The 1994 Fede ral Income Tax reimbursement rate per vehicle mile ($0.29 per mile ) was used as an approximation of average vehicle operating costs. Applying the rate of $0.29 per mile to the average round trip of 14 miles results in an annual vehicle operating cost of$4.06 per trip to the i nspe ction facility. If all vehicle-owners make one round trip and vehicle-owners of failed vehicles make two round trips, the average annual cost per vehicle would be $4.37. The total annual vehicle o perating cost would be $2,672,491, as shown in Table 5. Repair Casts and Fuel Saving s Offset. An additional cost in a MVIP is the repair cost for vehicles that fail the inspection minus the expected fuel savings that occur as a of the repair. According to the Annual Report for Florida s Motor Vehicle Inspection Program, 46,411 (7 .6 percent) of vehicles failed inspection i n Hillsborough County in 1994. The average repair cost for these vehicles was $141(although the median was less than $50). Therefore, using the average, the total repair cost for Hillsborough County was $6,543,951, as shown in Table 5. However resulting from the repair cost is an expected fuel savings due to increased efficiencies of the vehicle after repair. The expected fuel savings was estimated using the assumptions that the average vehicle is driven I 0,550 miles per year the average cost of a gallon of unlea ded gasoline is $1.1 J,la and the average vehicle fuel efficiency is 20 miles per This results in approximately $583 per year in gasoline expenditures for each vehicle. The estimate of increased fuel efficiency due to repairs on vehicles failing the current inspection program is 13 percent, reported by EP A.30 Therefore, the savings in gasoline per year per repaired vehicle was estimated to be $75.84. This information is also contained in Table 5. Fuel efficiency savings averaged annually over all vehicles yielded savings of$5.75 per veh icle. Estimates of net repair costs of maintaining the existing program (repai r costs minus fue l efficiency savings) are also contained in Table 5. Total Casts. The average annual cost per vehicle for the existing inspection program in Hillsborough County is $21.38, as shown in Table 5. The total annual cost is $13,074 525. Table 5 contains a summary of inspection, driver, and net repair costs fo r this alternative. The total average annual cost per vehicle, $24.62, i ndicates the estimate of the average cost that each vehicle owner will incur per vehicle per year due to the inspection program. The total annual cost originates from all annual costs attributed to the inspection program in Hillsborough County. 20


ALTERNATIVE TWO: EXISTING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM AT DECREASED FREQUENCY (ONCE EVERY 2 YEARS) This alternative is identical to the existing program with the exception of the frequency of the i nspection. The current program is on an annual basis; while this alternative calls for inspections on a bienn ia! basis It needs to be noted that the Environmental Protection Agency recommends that a basic inspection program (tailpipe test) be performed on an annual basis not a biennial basis Costs Inspection Costs. The estimation of inspection costs for this alternative is also very similar to the first alternative. The differences in costs between the two alternatives are a result of the inspection being perfonned on a biennia l basis as opposed to an annual bas is Under this alternative only 305,919 vehicles would be inspected (hal f of the total v ehi cles inspected in . Hillsborough in 1994) in one year In addition, the inspection contractor would operate the current number of inspection locations. Based on conversations with the current contractor in Hillsborough County, a significant portion of their costs are fixed. Th erefore because only half of the vehicles will be inspected each year the i nspection cost was estimated at $10 ($9 for the contractor operating and capital cost and $1 for state oversight costs). The ave rag e annual inspection cost per vehicle is $5 and the total annual inspection cost is $3 059,190 as shown in Tabl e 6. Vehicle Operating and Time Costs. Vehicle operating and time costs are based on the same assumptions as in the first alternative. All vehicle owners would make one round-trip to an inspection station on a biennial basis. And, the owners of vehicles that failed the inspection test would make an additiona l round-trip to the station for retesting. The failure rate is assumed to be 12 percent. (This is higher than tbe current failure rate (8 percent) because the i nsp ection is on a biennial basis) As shown in Table 6, the value of time in this alternative is $2.89 annually per vehicle and $1,770, 343 for a total annual cost. The average annual operating cost per vehicle is $2.27 and total annual vehi cle operating cost is $1,391 ,075 Repair Costs and Fuel Savings Offset. As in the first alternative, average repair cost per failed vehicle are assumed to be $141. Given an annual failure rate of 12 percent, the average annual repair cost per vehicle, in this alternative, is $8.46 The total annual repair cost is $5 ,17 6,149. 21


Table 6 Costs: Existing Technology (Biennial) T}'lle or Cost A'Vg. Annual Cosfper Total A nnual Vehicle Cost Inspection Cost $5.00 $3.059.190 SubTotal ss.oo $3 059 190 Vehicle Operat i n g and Time Cost!r Value of Time $2.89 $1,770,343 Vehicle Operating $2.27 $1,391,075 Sub-Total $5.16 $3,161,418 Net Repair Costs Repair Costs $8. 46 $ 5,176,149 fuel Effic-iency Savings ($ 4.55) ($2,784,253) Sub-T ota l $3.91 $2 391,896 Total Costs $14.07 $8 612,504 Fuel efficiency improvements for repaired vehicles as in the first a lt ernative, is assumed to be 13 percent. Therefore, th e average annual savings per vehicle would be $4.55 and total savi ngs wou l d be $2,784 ,253, as d isplayed in Tabl e 6. Total Costs. Also contained in Table 6 is a swnmary of inspection costs, vehicle operating and time costs, and net repair costs for this alternativ e in H illsborough County. The average annual cost per vehicle would be $14.07 and the total annual cost would be $8, 6 1 2 ,5 04. ALTERNATIVE THREE: IM240 INSPECTION PROGRAM (BIENNIAL) Under this alternative, the IM240 inspe ctio n program, which provides for the emissions to be sampled and measured while the vehicle is operated at various speeds on a dynamometer would replace the current inspection program. This test measures VOC CO, and NOx emission s Even though the length oftime for an i nspection wou l d be greater, Gordon-Darby, Inc. expects the same number of inspection stations would be needed for IM240 as for the current ins pect ion program because vehicles would be inspected every other year rather than every year 22


Costs Inspection Costs. An estimation of the inspection cost per vehicle for an 1M240 program was determined based on fees paid by vehicle owners of different areas of the United States that currently usc the IM240 inspection program. According to the EPA, the average inspection fee for an "enhanced" inspection program (IM240, plus pressure test) from a sample of 13 states was approximately $19, excluding state oversight costs This alternative however includes only the IM240 test, not the pressure test. Therefore, the cost of the pressure test was deducted from the $19 test fee. Based on conversations with the current H i llsborough County contractor, the cost of the pressure test was estimated at $2, leaving $17 for the capital and operating costs of an IM240 program. The state oversight cost was estimated at $1 per vehicle for this allemative. Therefore, as shown in Table 7 the average inspection cost per vehicle would be $18 and the average annual cost per vehicle owner would be $9. The total annual inspection cost would be $5,506,542 Vehicle Operating and Time Cost. Time costs for an IM240 program were estimated similarly to the previou s alt ernatives Th. e travel time to and from the inspection facility was assumed to be 44 minutes, the same as in the fin.1 two alternatives because this alternative assumes the same number of inspection stations at the same locations The inspection was as.sumed to take three minutes and the inspection wait time was assumed to be twice the inspection time or six minutes. This information was based on estimates by the EPA." Given these three components of time, total driver time per round-trip sums up to 53 minutes. Assuming that half of the vehicles would be inspected in one year and 25 percent of those inspec ted would return for reinspectioo, the average annual time cost per ve h icle was estimated at $3 32, as shown in Tabl e 7. Table 7 also contains the estimate of tota l annual time cost at $2,033,378. The methodology for determining vehicle operating cost, was assumed to be identical to the previous alternative because IM240 assumes the same number of inspection stations at the same locations with vehicles being i nspected on a biennial basis. The average annual costs per vehicle and total annual costs for vehicle operating costs are i ncluded in Table 7. Repair Costs and Fuel Savings Offset. The annual repair cost for IM240 was based on an estimation that 25 percent of inspected vehicles would fail inspection in Hillsborough County for an average cost of$141 per vehicle repaired This failure rate was based on an estimate by EPA that 20 to 30 percent of vehicles would fail the IM240 test during the first phase of the testing program Increased fuel efficiency was assumed to be \3 percent for each repaired vehicle, based on estimates by the EPA,32 producing a savings per year in gasoline costs of$75.84 per failed vehicle. If these savings were averaged over all vehicles inspected in Hillsborough County the average annual savings per vehicle would be $9.48, as displayed in Table 7. 23


Table 7 Costs: IM240 (Biennial) Type of Cost Avg. Annual Cost per Total .Annual Vehicle Cost Inspection Cost $9.00 $5,506,542 Sub-Tota l $9.00 $5,506 542 Vehicle Operating and Time Co!il!l Value of Time $3.32 $2,033,378 Vehicle Operating $2.54 $1,552.539 Sub-Total $5.86 $3,585,917 Net Repair Costs Repair Costs $17.63 $10,783 64 5 Fuel Effic-iency Savings ($9.48) ($5,800,526) Sub-Total S8.15 $4,983,119 Total Costs $23.0t SI4,07S,S78 Subtracting fuel efficiency savings from repair costs, the average net repair cost per failed vehicle would be $65.16. Averaging the net repair costs over all vehicles in Hillsborough County, the annual cost would be $8.15. The total annual net repair cost for Hillsborough County would be $4,983,119 Total Costs. Contained in Table 7 is a summary of all of the cost est imates under IM240, including inspection, vehic l e operating and time costs, and net repair costs. The total average annual cos t per vehicle would be $23.01 and total annual cost for all vehicles would be $ 14 ,075,578 ALTERNATIVE FOUR: IM240 INSPECTION PROGRAM!WlTH PRESSURE TEST (BIENNIAL) This alternative is similar to the previous alternative with the addition of the pressure test. This test adds the capability of measuring evaporative emissions in addition to tailpipe emissions for each vehicle. The pressure test would be performed independent of the IM240 test. It is estimated that it would add only one minute to the inspection time. 24


Costs Inspection Costs. As in the alternative consisting only of the lM240 test. the inspection fee paid by the vehicle owner in th i s alternative was estimated based on fees paid by residents of different areas of the U nited States that currently use the enhanced (IM240 plus pre ssure test) inspec t ion program. The average inspection fee for an enhanced inspection program from a sample of 13 s tate s was approximately $19 excluding state oversight costs." As in the previous alternative, the state oversight cost was estimated at $1 per vehicle. Contained in Table 8 is the calculation of the total inspection for the lM240 pressure tes t based on $19.00 for each test and $1.00 oversight cost for each test, for a total of $20.00 per vehicle on a biennial basis. The annualized cost for a vehicle owner would be $10 per vehic l e. Vehicle Operating and Time Cost. Driver costs in this alternative were estimated in a similar way as the previous alternatives. The travel time to and from the inspection facility was assumed to be 44 minutes The inspection was assumed to take four minutes, and the inspection wait time was assumed to be twice the inspection time or eight minutes. This information was based on estimates by the EPA that assumed that the pressure test would take an additional one minute to Given these three components of time, total driver time per round-trip sums up to 56 minutes. Using the same methodology to calculate value of time as in the other alternatives, the averag e value of time per vehicle was estimated at $3.68, as shown in Table 8. Table 8 also contains the estimate of total annual cost for the value of time at $2,251,602. Vehicle operating costs were estimated similarly to the IM240 alternative Every vehicle was assumed to make at least one round-trip to the inspection station bieMially. In addition, vehicles that either fail the IM240 or pressure test would make an additional round-trip for retesting. The average annual operating costs per vehicle and total annual operating costs are included in T able 8. Repair Costs and Fuel Savings Offset. The annual repair cost for this alternative was separated into two cost areas related to the IM240 test and the pressure test. These are separated because each test has an estimated failure rate associated with it and the estimate of average repair cost is different depending on which test a vehicle fails As in the IM240 alternative it was estimated that 25 percent of tested vehicles would fail the IM240 test, and the average repair cost would be $141. For the pressure test, the failure rate was estimated at 6 percent with an average repair cost of $38 fo r each vehicle that fails the test, as estimated by the EPA." Information on the total repa i r costs for each inspection test is contained in Table 8. 25


Increased fue l efficiency is also dependent on which inspection test a vehicle fails. Vehic les that fail the IM240 test co u ld expect an average increase of I 3 percent in fuel efficiency after repairs, producing an average savings per year per repaired vehicle in gasoline of$75. 84. An incre ase in fuel efficiency of 6 percent would be associ ated with the pressure test, as reported by EPA producing an annual gasoline savings per vehicle of$35.01 for each repai re d vehic)e.36 Th e average annual net repair cost per vehicle for each type of test and the total annual net repair cost for Hillsborough County is contained in Table 8. TableS Costs: IM240 + Pressure . A \'g, An nual Cost .. Tofal A n nual Type or cost .. < Vehicle Cost .. Inspection Cost $10.00 $6,118,380 Sub-Total $10. 00 $6 118 380 Vehicle Operating and Time Costs Value of Time $3 68 $2 ,251, 602 Vehicle Operat ing $2.66 $1,627,06 1 Sub-Toral $6.34 $3,878,663 Nel Repair Costs IM240 Repair Cost $17.63 $10,783,645 IM240 Fuel Efficiency Savings ($9.48) ($ 5. 800 ,526) Pressure Test Repair Cost $1.1 4 $697,495 Pressure Test Fuel Efficiency ($1.05) ($642 520) Savings Sub-Total $8 24 $5 038,094 Total Costs $24 .58 St5, 035,137 Total Costs. A lso Con tai n ed in Table 8 is a swnmary of all of the costs under this alternative incl u ding inspection vehicle operating and time and net repair costs. T he average annual cost per vehicle would be $24.58 and total annual cost would be $15,035 ,137. 26


ALTERNATIVE FIVE: ASM INSPECTION PROGRAM WITH PRESSURE TEST (BIENNIAL) Under this alternative the ASM test would be administered with the same pressure test that would be administered in the previous alternative. As described earlier, the ASM test measures VOC, CO, and NO emissions (similar to 1M240). The ASM test was developed as a lower cost alternative to IM240. However the test is not as effective in identifying polluting vehicles, and it produces more false-failures than IM240. In order to compare this alternative to IM240 the ASM test presented in this alternative assumes a similar false-failure rate to the IM240 test presented in previous alternatives. This produces an emission reduction level 70 percent as effective as the IM240 test. Costs Inspection Costs. The inspection cost for an ASM inspection program with a pressure test was estimated based on conversations with the current inspection contractor in Hillsborough County. Operating and capital costs were estimated at $12 for ASM and $2 for the pressure test per vehicle. Similar to the other alternatives that would be administered on a biennial basis, state oversight costs were estimated at $1 per vehicle. Contained in Table 9 is the calculation of the total inspection cost for the ASM plus pressure test alternative based on a test cost of $15 per vehicle on a biennial basis. The annualized cost for a vehicle owner would be $7.50. Vehicle Operating and Time Costs. Time costs in this alternative were estimated in a similar way as the previous alternatives. The traveltime to and from the inspection facility was assumed to be 44 minutes, the same as in the other alternatives because this alternative assumes the same number of inspection stations at the same locations. The inspection was assumed to take four minutes, and the inspection wait time was assumed to be twice the inspection time or eight minutes. Given these three components of time, total driver time sums up to 56 minutes. Using the same methodology to calculate value of time as in the other alternatives, the average annual time cost per vehicle would be $3.40 as shown in Table 9. Table 9 also contains the estimate of total annual cost for the value of time at $2,079,724. Vehicle operating costs for this alternative, are also similar to the IM240 alternative because the ASM alternative assumes the same number of inspection stations at the same locations with vehicles being inspected on a biennial basis. The average annual operating cost per vehicle and total annual vehicle operating costs are included in Table 9. 27


Table 9 Cos ts: ASM + Pressure ./';:.. : >:;:n '. : l\vg! 'i\:nbW.i ci>St per" : ; i' :rotal;Alinil'iil -"' f"'!t , t;, if f; ; ; S ;; ; . ; C ost . ::' ltttpection $7.50 $4 ,588 785 Sub-Total S7.SO $4 588 785 Vehit;/e Oper<1ling and Time Cosls Value of Time $3.40 $2 079 724 Vehic l e Operating $2.45 $1,502,858 Sub Total $5.85 $3,582,582 Ne1 Repair Costs ASM Repair Cost $10.58 $6 470,187 ASM Fu el Efficiency Sav ings ($5.69) ($3 ,480,316) Pressure Test Repair Cost $l.14 $697 ,4 95 Pressure Test Fuel Efficiency ($1.05) ($642 520) Savings Sub-Total $4 .98 $3,0 44,846 Total Costs $18.33 Sll,2l6,213 Repair C()sfS and Fuel Savings Offtet. The annual repair cost fo r this alternative was separated into two cost areas related to the ASM test and the pressure test. These are separated because each test has an estimated failur e rate associated with it, and t h e estimate of average repa i r cost is diffe rent depending on which test a veh icle fails It was estimated that 15 percent of tested vehicles would fail the ASM test, and the average repair cost would be $141. For the pressure tes t, the failure rate was es ti ma ted at 6 percent wit h an average repa ir cost of $38 for each vehicle that fails the test, asestimated by the EP A.37 In fo rmation o n the total repair costs for each inspect ion test is contained in Tabl e 9. Increased fue l effi ciency is also dependent o n which i ns pection tes t a v ehicle fails Vehicles that fai l the ASM test could expect an average i n c rease of 13 percent in fuel e fficie nc y after repa irs producing an a verage sav ings per year per repaired vehicle i n gasoline of $75.84. An increase in fuel efficiency o f 6 perc ent would be associated with the pressure t est, as reported by EPA, prod ucing an annual gasoline savings per vehicle of $35 0 I for each repaired ve hicle." 28


The average annual net repair cost per vehicle for each type of test and the total annual net repair cost for H illsbo rough County is contained in Table 9. Total Costs. Also contained i n Table 9 is a summary of all of the costs under this alternative, including inspec tion, vehicle operating, time cost, and net repair costs. The average annual cost per vehicle would be $18.33 and total annual cost would be $11,216,213. ALTERNATIVE SJX: CURRENT INSPECTION PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTED WITH LIMITED REMOTE SENSING DEVICES In this alternat ive remote sensing devices (RSD) would be used to supplement the current annual inspection program. One mobile team with an RSD van operator, a Highway Patro l officer, and inspectors would move from one lo cation to another on a daily basis throughout Hillsborough County Using the remote sensing devices, high-emitting vehicles would be identified and pulled over by Highway Patrol officers. A visual i nspect ion would be immediately performed on the vehicle to identify tampering. Failing vehicles would be required to be repaired and retested. The added advantage of the RSD supplement is the ability to perform immediate visual i nspections, thereby creating a tampering deterrence. It is a deterrent because an under-the-hood inspection would be seen by all traffic that passes by the remote site. Costs Since remote sensing would be use d as a supplement to the existing inspection program, the cost estimates would include all costs associated with current insp ec tion program plus addit i onal the additional labor and capital costs of the mobile team and net repair costs for vehicles failed by the mobile inspection team. An estimate of the labor and capital cost of the mobile team was taken from a study prepared by Sierra Research, Inc., for the EPAJ9 This study estimated that to outfit each mobile team would cost $556,954 annually, as shown in Table 10. Sierra Research estimated that six mobile teams would be needed to adequately cover the study area (the Los Angeles Basin) inspecting 64,000 vehicles (one percent) annually. Using this methodology, i t was estimated that one mobil e team would be adequate to annually inspect one percent of total vehicles in Hillsborough County. One mobile team could annually visually inspect approximately I 0, 700 vehicles Net repair costs for vehicles failing the remote inspection was estimated based on an average repair cos t of $141 for all vehicles (the same repai r cost as for vehicles inspected at the fixed facility). The increased fuel efficiency for the repaired vehicles was estimated at 13 percent which would create an annual savings of $75.84. Therefore, the total repair cost and the fuel efficiency 29


savings was estimated to be $1, 508 700 and $811,530 respective ly, as shown in Table I 0. T otal annual cost fo r this alternative was estimated at $14 328,649 Table 10 Cost: Existing Program + Remote Sensing Avg. Annual Type or Co Cost Total Cost oer Vehicle Existing Program Cost $21.38 Sl3,074,525 RSDCost s 0 .91 $556,954 Repair Cost s 2.47 $1,508,700 Fuel Emttency Savings (S 1.33) ($811 530) Total Cost $23.43 St4 328,649 COST EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON OF INSPECTION ALTERNATIVES Emission Reductions Contained i n Table II are the estimates of annual emission reductions for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO ) for each of the vehicle emission inspection alternatives. The reductions are represented as percentage reductions of each pollutant and the number of tons reduced in one year. For all of the alternat i ves except the alternative using remote sensing devices, the estimates of emission reductions were based on national defaults calculated through the EPA s Mobile SA Model with an adjustment for the amoun t of travel in Hillsborough County by vehicles that are not required to be in s pected (e.g., v ehicles that enter or pass through Hillsborough County from other counties) To estimate this amount of travel FDOT estimated the percen t of trips made by vehicles that are not inspected. The estimate in 1995 was that I 0.5 percent of trips were by vehicles that were not inspected. Assuming that these non-inspected vehicles represent an average cros s -section of the Hillsborough County fleet, estimated emission reductions were adjusted down by I 0.51 percent. As shown in Table II, the current inspection program annually reduces VOC emissions by 9 percent. NO emissions is reduced by 1.3 4 percent. The current test does not measure for NO,. However, because of repairs in the vehicles that fail because of other pollutants, there are some reductions in NOx due to the inspection program. 30


The annual emission reductions for the alternative reflecting the existing technology on a biennial basis, as shown in Table II, would be less than those for the current inspection program on an annual basis for both VOC and NO,. An nual NO, reductions in the 1M240 alternative would be much greater than in the current program. Th is jump in reduction can mainly be attributed to the fact that the 1M240 test measures for NO,. Annual VOC reductions would also increase in this alternative. By adding the pressure test to IM240, annual VOC reductions would increase by 8 percent in comparison to IM240 by itself but annual NO, reductions would rema i n constant This resu l t is due to the fact that the pressure t est does not measure NO, emissions. Under the ASM plus pressure alternative, VOC emissions wou l d be reduced annually by approximately 1 8 percent. For N O., the annual reductions would be 7 percent for this a lternati ve The final alternative as shown in T able I l, would result in an annual reduction of 10.85 percen t in VOC and 1.94 percent in NO,. Because this alternative contains the existing program plus the supplement of remote sensing devices it would create a net increase in reduction of 1.9 percent and 0 6 percent o f VOC and NO" over the current inspection program Table 11 Annual Emission Reductions ,,.. .,; Annual . Annual Perce-ot'Annual Pereent Annua h ' RedU,ction "; RedUction of I Redu

ofVOC and NO, is based on the cost effectiveness analysis perfonned by Sierra Research, Inc.'s report.'0 In this report, VOC and NO, emissions are combined with one-seventh of CO emissions, t here by discounting the air quality degradation associated with CO em i ssions For this report, VOC and NO, emissions were used without CO because these two pollutants combined with sun li ght produce ambien t ozone w h ich i s the most cri t ical pollu tion issue in the Tampa Bay airshed. As previously noted, the 1 M240 and ASM alternative are estimated t o reduce annual em i ssions to a greater extent. In addition, the annual cost effectiveness measures for these alternatives are greater than for the current program Of all of the alternatives, the alternative con t aining the ASM test plus the pressure test has the lowest (i. e., the best) annual cost effect i veness measure at $2,2 1 0 per ton of emissions. However, the IM240 plus pressure alternative is very close in cost effectiveness at $2 ,293 per ton of emissions. T able 12 Annual Cost Effectiveness of I nspection Programs 1:; '} i >-" "-;; .. ; $' Annual C ost > ..... ..-' AoDual > ; r or Total Annual'. f Ell'eetlveness : ., Alte rl1)ltivj;. :: j

This decrease in reductions in emissions must be balanced against the decrease in annual cost that result s from eliminating these vehicles from inspe ction The owners of these newer vehicles would not incur the expenses associated with the inspection program. Under this option the total annual cost would b e $13,102,908 for the IM240 pl us pressure alternative and $9,619,8 1 5 for the ASM plus pressure alternative. The annual cost effect i veness would be lower (i.e. better) than any of the previously presented alternatives at $2,01 4 per ton for IM240 plus pre s sure and $ 1 ,911 per ton for ASM plus pressure. 33


V. COST EFFECTIVEN ESS OF TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES In this section estimates are made of the effectiveness of transportation control measures (TCMs) in reducing mobile source emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) Current transportation planning models do not permit accurate estimation of the impac ts of most transportation contro l measures. As a result, the available literature on the effectiveness of TCMs is largely anecdotal and related to the characteristics of specific areas. Generalizing results to Hillsboro ugh County is problematic but it represents the only available option. The results reported here give a reasonable picture of the relative cost effectivenes s of the TCMs in reducing emissions but the absol ute cost and emission-reduction values should be used with caution. This report does not evaluate the cost effectiveness ofTCMs in reducing congestion, nor are the benefits of reduced congestion included in the calculations. Most TCMs are actions taken to reduce the length or number of trips by single-occupant vehicles. These actions arc usually taken with the primary objective of reducing congestion by reducing the number of vehicles on the road but they also result in reduced vehicle emissions. Most TCMs arc targeted primarily at work trips, which typically are about 30 percent of total trips, while vehicle inspection programs contribute to reduced emissions for all trips. There are also TCMs that attempt to reduce emissions not by reducing the number of vehicles on the road, but by reduced idling and increased average speed, which generally also results in reduced vehicle emissions. The major categories ofTCMs involve either incent ive s to change travel patterns or disincentives to continue current travel patterns. The disincentive category consists primarily of strategies that make it relatively more expensive or difficult to use an automobile, especially during peak hours. These include in creases in the cost of parking, reductions in the supply of parking, increased tolls during peak hours (congestion pricing), and increased taxes based on consumption of fuel or miles driven. Another disincentive TCM is an emissions fee that varies according to emission l evels. It is targeted directly at emiss ions and, as is generally the case with direct actions is likely to be more efficient than indirect measures in achieving air-quality objectives. Most TCMs invo lve incentives to use other modes of travel or to change time of day of travel. The incentives to change modes include transit improvements, park-and-ride programs, improved accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians, and provision of ridesharing services and accompanying incentives such as high-occupancy-vehicle (HOY) lanes and special parking privileges. Incentives to change travel times include alternative work schedules (e.g., programs such as compressed work weeks, flexible hours, staggered hours and telecommuting). There also is a group ofTCMs that involve mechanical or technological fixes such as the coordination of traffic signals. 34


The TCMs in the disincent i ve category can be quite effective i f the price or fee is s e t high enough Travel in single-occupant vehicles can be reduced significant!) if the use of the automobi l e is made sufflciently expensive or difficult. However the use of these TCMs is severely constrained by their l ack of public and po lit ical acceptance. The TCMs in the incentive category have much greate r p u blic acceptance but are not n early as effective. Each TCM tend to reduce emissions less than one percent. Many studies done across the U.S. have evaluated the effectiveness of1'CMs As noted ear l ier, these studies have typically involved the reporting of anecdotal experiences of specific programs. The absence of suitable transportation planning models to deal with TCMs makes it difficult to make inferences from other experiences Probably the most generalizable study was performed for the National Association of Regional Councils by Apogee Research In c." This study developed generalized estimates ofVMT and VOC reductions for a typical large urbanized area The TCMs that seem to have the greatest poten t ial for reducing emissions and being poli tically acceptabl e in Hillsborough County, and that have been examined i n more detail, arc listed below. (Parking pricing is not as political l y acceptable as the other TCMs but it bas been included to illustrate the cost effectiveness of disincentive TCMs) Parking pricing for work trips HOY lanes Telecommuting Compressed work week Flex ible work hours Staggered work hours Traffic signal optimization Ridesharing Par k -and-ride lots A serious concern with many of these TCMs is the long-term adjustment t hat drivers may make in response to them. IfTCMs result in improvements in travel conditions through increases in speed and reductions in congestion, they may induce more travel. The end result could be higher VMT cold starts, and emissions than before the TCMs were implemented, although a rece n t report doe s suggest that increases in highway capacity result in a net reduction in emissions.'2 Nonetheless, it must be kept in mind that TCMs for the most part are designed to improve mobility, not reduce emissions This analysis looks solely at the impacts TCMs have on emiss i ons ; it does not consider other be n efits that T CMs may confer. 35


Table l3 Daily AreaWide Percent Reduction Due to TCMs TCM VMT Trips VOC Emissions (Percent) (Percont) (Percent) Congestion pricing' s.o 3.8 8.2 Parkin g pricing: non-workz 4.2 5.4 4.6 work3 3.0 2.5 2 .8 Emissions/VMT tax 0.4 0.7 4.1 HOV l anes 1.4 0.5 1.1 Telecommutin( 1.1 1.0 1.0 Rail transit improvements 1.0 0 8 0 9 Compress <:

Trip end emissions = 75 percent of all emissions on a 5-mile trip = 61 percent of all e m issions on a I 0-milc trip = 45 percent of all emissions on a 20-mile trip The discussions of each TCM that follow include a variety of cost and benefit data from various studies. Some studies i nclude reduced vehicle operating costs, for example, as a benefit of some TCMs with the result that there is a negative cost" of reducing emissions. Other studies use just the implementation cost ofTCMs to calculate the cost of reducing emissions. In this study, it is assumed that if the benefits to a driver of ridesharing, for example, or other TCMs are greater than the cos ts, the driver would already be ridesharing. It also is assumed that changes in travel pattems and modes caused by the implementation ofTCMs will occur near the margin. That is, it is assumed that the benefits of reduced vehicle operating costs, etc., attributable to ridesharing are equal to the costs of increased travel time, reduced convenience etc. Also transfers of money from individuals to the govemment are not counted as costs, such as would occur if public parking prices were increased. Therefore, the costs that were calculated for the reduction of emissions are based on the economic or "real" costs of implementing the TCMs. PARKING PRICING Increasing the cost of parking makes driving more expensive relative to other modes. The purpose is to discourage single occupant vehic le (SOV) drivers. The policy can be aimed at all drivers or it can be targeted at peak-hour drivers, at SOV drivers or at long-tenn parkers (i.e. work commuters). If increased parking prices are in effect only during peak hours, the effect, in part, is to shift trips to non-peak hours, in addition to reducing total SOV trips. If higher prices are set for long-term use, one consequence is to free up more parking for short-term parkers, which may actually result i n an increase in total trips and VMT. It is likely that these new trips would be at non-peak hours and, therefore peak-hour congestion would be reduced. Govemment can most easily affect the price of public parking (both on-and off-street) over which it has direct control. It may be limited in its ability to affect private parking prices, though a general tax on parking is one approach that has been used. The ideal setting for this TCM is a dense central business district (CBD) that has extensive transit service, limited private parking, a small proportion of through traffic, a small proportion of employer-paid parking, and little competition from suburban office development. San Francisco and Boston are good examples. In other cities, as a rule, the danger of harming downtown economic development makes it politically very difficult to implement policies that make CBD parking more expensive or less convenient. Other issues to consider include the impact on low-income workers and the possibility of parkers spilling over into residential areas. Nonetheless, this TCM has been implemented in numerous cities including Madison, Seattle San F rancisco Chicago, and Eugene. In Madison it was estimated that a one dollar peak-hour parking surcharge resulted in 5 to 8 percent of customers at the four public parking lots 37


to transit."' An analysis for Phoenix's suggested that in 1995 a county-wide average price increase of$1.50 per day for those who currently pay to park would affect only a third oftbe employees and woul d reduce trips 0.48 percent and YMT 0.56 percent, while peak-hour speeds would increase 0.67 percent and off-peak speeds would increase 0.13 percent. A similar study for the California Air Resources Board46 su ggested that instituting a minimum daily parking fee of$3.00 would reduce YMT, trips, and emissions between 2 and 3 percent. The Phoenix study concluded that the public cost of administering and enforcing a parking program and providing the necessary additional transit service would be more than offset by the additional revenue generated by the $1.50 daily increase in parking fees, with the net result being an annual saving of $12.41 per registered vehicle. There also would be additional revenues flowing to the private sector amounting to $216.85 per vehicle per year. Individual costs for the higher parking fees and increased transit usage minus savings resulting from reduced vehi cle operating costs would result in a net increase in individual costs of $298 39 per vehicle per year. The combined total cost of the parking program would be $69.13 perregistered vehicle per year in 1995. A report prepared by Cambridge Systematics says that in the early 1980s the costs of administering and enforcing comprehensive pricing programs in Eugene and Santa Cruz were between $30,000 and $50,000.<' HIGH-OCCUPANCY -VEHICLE LANES HOY lanes are lanes on limited-access and arterial roadways that are reserved for all or part of the day (often during peak hours only) for buses and for other vehicles carrying a minimum number of persons (often a minimum of three persons). These lanes often are reversible; that is, they may be restricted to inlx:>und traffic in the morning and outbound traffic in the evening. B y reducing travel time and costs for high-occupancy vehicles, they are an obvious encouragement to ridesharing and the benefits that come with a ridesharing program. They also promote the use of transit. They often are constructed in coordination with park-and-ride lots and ridesharing programs. They typically reduce travel time between 1.5 and 2.0 minutes per mile They are one of the more effective of the incentive TCMs, but they are expensive to construct. If existing lanes are converted to HOY lanes, the remaining lanes become more congested, defeating much of the purpose of the HOY lanes. There also usually is strong public opposition to converting existing lanes to HOY lanes. If new lanes are built especially for HOY s, the reduced congestion on the other lanes will induce some additional travel, offsetting at least some--if not all--of the reduction in trips and YMT caused by persons switching to HOV s. Another possibility is that HOY lanes will cause some transit users to switch to car pools. HOY lanes are common in large urban areas The San Francisco Bay area had 77 miles of HOY lanes in 1990 and had plans to have 140 miles by 1995 and 330 miles by 2005.41 San Francisco 38


projects that this extensive system in 2005 will result in reductions of 1.0 percent in VMT and 2 3 percent in work-trip VOC emissions. In 1990 Houston had 47 miles ofHOV Janes with plans for 48 more miles.'9 Houston's cost of construction including adjoining park-and-ride lots and transit centers was $8.7 million per mile The cost ofHOV facilities varies greatly depending on right-of-way costs, interchange modifications needed, and the extent of accompanying facilities provided. TELECOMMUTING Telecommuting is simply working at home or at a nearby telecommute center, thereby avoiding the round-trip commute to work. Some types of jobs are not suitab l e for telecommuting, such as many manufacturing and service-sector jobs; office jobs are generally the most suitable. A study in Philadelphia by COMSIS Corporation so estimated that 15. 6 percent of the jobs in the region would be suitable for telecommuting. Another study suggests that if an emp loyer offers a telecommuting option, 32 percent of the employees will telecommute an average of I .8 days per week. There is some concern that telecommuting may reduce the number of persons participating in ridesharing programs. Also, some trips that previously were linked with the commute trip such as day care trips--may still need to be made on the telecommute work day. There is little or no governmental cost in implementing a telecommuting program, unless local government undertakes a public information campaign to encourage the adoption of s uch programs. The primary cost, altho ugh relatively minor, is the administrative and employee training cost a firm would incur. This cost may be more than offset by employer savings on parking subsidies and, possibly, office space. It also is argued that tele commuting programs increase employee morale and productivity. Employees save through reductions in expe nses such as commuting, laundry and meals but may also have increased expenses for add i tional home utilities and home work equipment. Studies by the state of California and the Southern California Association of Goverrunents show the benefits exceeding the costs. The Phoenix study cited earlier concluded that the cost of a telecommunications program would be $15.38 per registered vehicle per year for additional computer equipment and that there would be a reduction in vehi c l e operating costs of $11.62 per vehicle per year, resulting in a ne t cost for the program of $3.76 per vehicle per year. An FHW A study suggests that the cost of additional compu ter equipment would be $350 per telecommute employee." Widespread telecommuting programs are not yet common, but l..<)s Angeles County goverrunent and California State government in Sacramento both have inst ituted programs. COMPRESSED WORK WEEK Employees participating in compressed work week programs work more hours per day and fewer days per week. The most common programs are referred to as 4/40 and 9/80 programs. In the 39


4140 program, employees work four ten-hour days each week and have three days off. In the 9180 program employees work nine-hour days and get one extra day off every two weeks. As with telecommuting, not all jobs are suitable for compressed work weeks School teacher positions would be an obvious example. The COMSIS Philadelphia study concluded that 9. 7 percent of the jobs in the region were suitable for compressed work weeks. These programs atiect work trips in two ways. They reduce total work t rip s due to the extra days off, and, because of the longer work days, they move at least one end of work trips outside of the peak hour which helps to reduce congestion. Unlike telecommuting this TCM works as well f or many manufacturing and service-sector jobs as for office workers. But it may reduce the ability of employees to participate in ridesharing programs o r to use transi t that is scheduled around traditional work schedu l es. The cos t s of implementing these programs are primarily the expenses of administering the programs. Tbe Phoenix study cited previously concluded that the cost of administering alternative work-hours programs amount to $0.88 per registered vehicle per year. There may be some increased utility costs at the work place due to the longer work day but there also are longer customer hours. There also may be some reduction in transit opera t ing costs. Employee savings are the same as with telecommuting programs. There are numerous e>

users saved nine minutes per trip." The costs of these programs are the same as for compressed work weeks, i.e., administration and increased office utilities As noted above, the Phoenix study estimated the administrative cost for this type of program to be $0.88 per registered vehicle per year. STAGGERED WORK HOURS This program is very s imilar to the flexible work hours program. The primary difference i s that employees have less flexibiliry in setting their start and stop times. This program is usually instituted in an attempt to reduce congestion in the vicinity of the work place such as at a plant entrance. A typical program may have 20 percent of the employees scheduled to start at 7:00 a.m and then 20 percent more each half hour until the final 20 percent start at 9:00 a.m The program impacts are likely to be similar to the flextime i mpacts but perhaps not quite as great since employees have less flexibiliry in adjusting their travel patterns. The costs also would be similar. TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPTIMIZATION The purpose of improving the coordination and timing of traffic signals is to increase the efficiency of the existing road system. The result is increased speeds and reduced idling. But an improved traffic flow may draw more traffic resulting in an increase in VMT and the number of trips and an increase in cold starts and hot soaks. Unlike some TCMs that arc aimed primarily at peak-hour traffic, traffic signal coordination affects traffic all day. A signal timing program in Sacramento resulted in a I 0 percent increase in speed on the roads involved. An analysis in Philadelphia concluded that a I 0 percent increase in speeds could be achieved on the affected arterials and a 6.5 percent in crcasc in the CBD. Other studies suggest that travel time improvements of I 0 to 25 percent are possible on the facilities involved. Signal coordination and timing is often a part of the ongoing transportation improvement program in urban areas. These programs are popular with the public and very practical. They arc more expensive than some of the other TCMs, but less expensive than other options. One study suggests that, depending on the level of coordination involved, the cost of a signal timing program can range from $5,000 to $13,000 per traffic signal. RIDESHARING Ridesharing often is informally organized by friends or co-workers who decide to share a ride to work or to some other destination. Many area-wide ridesharing program were formally organized by local and state governments in the 1970s in response to the energy crisis. These large, formally organized programs have a staff that is responsible for promoting the program and matching 41


potential riders. There was a significant decline in ridesharing in the mid-1980s as gas prices dropped. Ridesbaring has increased since then due to its extensive promotion as a TCM As with many TCMs, ridesharing's impact is somewhat limited because it targets primarily work trips which, according to the reports by Apogee and Cambridge Systematics, are only 25 to 33 percent of all trips in urban areas and 32 to 36 percent of YMT. Other types of trips, such as driving children to school, can also be targeted In 1977, actual area-wide YMT reductions of between 0.05 percent and 0.28 percent were recorded for IS different ridesharing programs. In 1978 the ave rage cost per VMT reduced was estimated at 2.4 cents. It is estimated that over the past several years the ridesharing program in Hillsborough County has reduced VMT in a range of between 1,197 ,401 and 3,545,246 miles at a cost of$938 877, which would translate to be between 26.5 and 78.4 cents per YMT reduced. Ride sh aring programs are very common, existing i n most urban areas They usually are organized and promoted through a local commute management organization and operated through employers PARK-AND-RIDE LOTS The intent of park-and-ride lots is to collect SOY drivers and transfer the m to high-occupancy modes, such as ridesharing and transit. These parking lots ne ed to be located so they can in t ercept vehicles before they enter congested areas; this can be on the CBD periphery or out in the suburbs. They can be dedicated lots or joint-use lots such as a church parking lot. Usually there is either no parking fee or a very low one, so the costs of building and maintaining the lots are usually not recovered. Their success is, in large part, a function of the level of transit service. The effect of park-and-ride lots is to move SOV trip ends (hot soak and cold start) out of congested CBDs Moving cold starts from the CBD to suburban parking lots may reduce local concentrations of vehicle emissions but it is less effective in reducing area-wide emissions The total number of trips generally is not reduced but YMT are reduced since SOV trips between the parking lots and downtown are replaced by fewer HOY trips. If services such as dry cleaning and day care are made available at the lots, some side trips can be eliminated. Bicycle storage facilities also can re sult in the elimination of some automobile trips. One study of park-and-ride facilities in several urban areas determined that 49 percent of the users previously had commuted to the CBD s in single-occupant-vehicles. Of the remaining users, 23 percent bad previously been carpoolers and I 0 percent had used transit; 15 percent of the trips were new trips This study suggests that park -and-ride lots actually increase the number of cold starts. In part, this may be due to the fact that if there is high demand for limited CBD parking, park-and-ride lots can free up some CBD parking and induce new trips to the CBD, resulting in a n et increase in cold starts. There are numerous examples in Florida and around the country of park-and-ride lots. They are easy to implement, but they are costly. Surface parking typically costs $2,500 to $3,000 per 42


space. In Hillsborough County the cost has been somewhat less. A study of par k -and-ride in P hiladelphia used a c os t of $4,000 per space e xcludin g land costs and assu med an operating and maintenance cost of$0.50 per space per day. The Phoenix study calculated the cost of constructing park-and-ride lots minus the savings from reduced vehicle operating costs and arrived at a net cost for such a program of$5. 77 per registered veh icl e per year HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY IMPACTS TCM impacts will vary among communities. Applying average results obtained in other communities to Hillsborough Coun ty will not give precise measurements, but should give reasonable orders of magnitude and relative effectiveness. It should also be noted that these estimates do not account for the maximum attainable under the most forceful implementation program. Rather, they reflect typical experiences in other regions To calculate the reduction in emissions in Hillsborough County the county's average combined cnriss ion rates per VMTof0. 01741 pounds ofVOC and NO, was used. Also used was the tripend enrissions data calculated by Cambridge Systematics which indicate that trip-end emissions account for 75 percent of all emissions on a 5-m ile trip and 61 percen t on a I 0-mile trip This suggests that for the average 7.51-mile trip in Florida s urban areas trip-end emissions accoWlt for 68 percent of total emissions and VMT account for 32 percen t The calculations then give u s estimated trip-end enrissions for each trip of0.08891 pounds combined ofVOC and NO,. Each VMT is responsib l e for 0.00557 pounds of VOC and NO,. Therefore, tota l emissions for the average 9.1 9-mile "work trip (by auto or van) in Florida's urban areas are 0 140 I 0 pounds of VOC and NO,. For the a verage 2.71-nrile "other'' trip in Florida's urban areas the total emissions are 0.1040 1 pounds ofVOC and NO,. Parking Pricing If Hillsborough County adopted a pricing policy that increased the daily parking rate in central business areas (i.e downtown and Westshore) by $2 .0 0 for work trips, Apogee's analysis suggests that VOC enrissions would be reduced 2 .8 percent. Based on the $30,000 to $50, 000 annual cost in Eugene and Santa Cruz to administer and enforce a parking pricing program," it is estimated that Hillsborough CoWlty could Wldertake such a program for no more than $500,000 per year (perhaps a generous assumption). If a p roportional reduction i n NO, is assured, this would result in a cost per ton ofVOC and NO, elinrinated of $431. However, this impact assumes that there are several good alternatives to the single-occupant automobile. In Hillsborough CoWlty a likely result of this policy would be that many jobs would be relocated from the CBD to suburban areas and the reduction in total trips would be significantly less than computed in the Apogee study. 43


Used in the appropriate location parking pricing can be an effective TCM However, parking pricing also is the least publicly acceptable TCM and in our view, Hillsborough County is not today an appropriate location for any significant application of such a program. Consequently, it is unlikely that it would be considered by local government in Hillsborough County in the foreseeable future. High-Occupancy -Vehi cle Lanes HOV lanes are an effective TCM but they can be expensive. They also may be more effective in urban areas larger than the Tampa area. Apogee's analysis suggests that if an extensive network of HOY lan es were constructed, in a typical large urban area, the area could expect a 1.1 percent reduction in VOC emissions at a cost of$109,000 per ton. If we assume that HOV lanes would be equally cost-effective in H ills borough County, the cost of reducing VOC and NO, would be $50,629 per ton. Telecommuting and compressed work weeks may be the most effective TCMs that Hillsborough County could undertake, but perhaps not quite as effective as Apogee's analysis suggests. Apogee's assumption that 10 percent of the total workforce would telecommute two days per week seems optimistic. To calculate the effect in Hillsborough County findings from the COMSIS Philadelphia study were used, 5 6 which estimated that 15.6 percent of the jobs in the region would be suitable for telecommuting. That percentage will vary, among regions and a local percentage could be calculated for Hillsboro ugh County to refine the estimated impacts, but for this estimate the Philadelphia percentage is reasonable. A synthesis of national experience in the December 1992 ITE Journal states that on average if telecommuting is offered as an optio n 32 percent of employees will teleconunute 1.8 days per week. 1bese percentages suggest that 5.0 percent (15.6 percent times 32 percent) of Hillsborough County's workforce might telecommute. If it is assumed that I 0 percent of employers (of persons in jobs suitable for telecommuting) will offer the option, 0.5 percent of Hillsborough's workforce of546 000 employees, or 2,730 employees will telecommute. If they telecommute 1.8 days per week for 50 weeks per year, that would be a reduction of 180 work trips per year per employee, or a total of 491,400 trips. Before calculating what emissions reduction will result from the reduction in trips, the fact that must first be taken into account is that some of those trips would have been made by transit and other non SOV modes. Methodologies developed by the state of California u se a factor of 0.85 to adjust for this. Multiplying the 491, 400 trips by 0.85 gives a total reduction of 417 690 trips. Using the em i ssions per 9.19-mile work trip calculated previously, yields a reduction in emissions of29.26 tons ofVOC and NOx One final adjustment is necessary to account for new trips that telecommuters may make on the days that tbey are working at home. It was assumed that each telecomm uter will make on average one-half new "other" round-trip each week for 50 weeks per 44


year. This will amount to 136,500 new 2.71-mile trips which will increase emissions by 7.10 tons ofVOC a nd NO, The net reduction then is 22.16tons ofVOC and NO, Not included here are emissions reductions that may resul t from an increase in the average speed due to reduced congestion. If we assume that any costs for home computer equipment are borne privately and are offset by the benefits that individuals receive from telecommuting, the only costs of a telecommu t e program are the administrative costs. If an administrative cost of S20 p er year per telecommute employee issued, which is approximately wbat was calculated by Sierra Research and Charles River Associates for Phoenix,'8 the total cost for a county-wide telecommute program would be $54,600 per year and a cost of emissions reductions of$2,464 per ton. Compressed Work Week T he calculation of the impacts of a compressed work week program is similar to the calculation for telecommuting. The COM SIS Philadelphia estimates that 9. 7 percent of jobs are suitable for compressed work weeks and that if a 4/40 compressed work week program were offered 32 percent of employees would accept it are used. As with telecommut ing, it is assumed that I 0 percent of emp loyers (of persons in jobs suitable for compressed work weeks) will offer the option. This would mean that a total of I ,695 employees would be participating in Hillsborough County. On a 4/40 program, this would result in I 00 fewer work trips per year per employee (one extra day off per week for 50 weeks times two one-way trips per day) for a total reduction of 169,500 trip s per year. Reducing this by the 0.85 factor explained in the telecommuting calculation gives us a reduction of 144,075 SOY trips per year. The reductions in emissions for these 9 .19-mile work trips are then calculated to be 10.09 tons of VOC and NO,. Next the same adjustment for new "other" trips was made for telecommuting, assuming that each employee on a compressed work week schedule would make on average one halfnew"other" round-trip per week. These new trips would add 4.41 tons ofYOC and NO,. The net reduction in emission would be 5.68 tons ofVOC and NO,. As with telecommuting, reduced emissions due to increased av erage speeds are not included. If an administrative cost of$20 per participant is used total cost of$33,900 per year, which yields a cost of emissions reductions of $5,968 per ton Flexibl e Work Hours and Staggered Work Hours To calculate the impacts of these two TCMs, the assumptions and results from JHK's study of California's San Joaquin Valley are used. 59 That is, it is assumed th at 2 percent of the workforce would participate i n each of these programs and that this would result in a 0.11 percent reduction in VOC emissions attributable to each program. It is assumed that the same $20 administrative 45


cost is used for telecommuting and compressed work weeks. This results in I 0,920 employees participating and emissions reductions of21.19 tons of VOC. At $20 per year per participant the total cost of the program would be $218 400 If p roporti onal reductions in NO, are assumed, the cost of the reductions is $4,787 per ton. Traffic Signal Optimization For this TCM, Apogee's estimate that an extensive program of optimizing traffic signals would result in a 0.4 percent reduction in VOC emissions and tha t the cost of this reduction would be about $18,000 per ton was used. If a proportional reduction in NO, is assumed the tota l cost per ton would be $8,360. However, i t is important to note that in Hillsborough County programs for traffic signal optimization, ridesbaring, and park and-ride lots have been i n place for many years. Therefore, these are not new programs that can be adopted to bring about new reductions in emissions; for the most part a substantial amount of the potential impacts of such programs has already been realized in Hillsborough County. These are ongoing programs and they can be expected to result in additional reductions in emissions but not at the level for new programs estimated by Apogee although for the sake of comparison the impacts for new programs were used. It is also important to note that congestion reduction benefits such as reduced travel tim e, of these TCMs have not been factored into the emission-reduction cost calculations In the case of traffic signal optimization, travel time savings ean be significant and would likely result in net cost savings. Ridesbaring Apogee estimates that an area-wide ridesharing program can result in a 0.4 percent reduction in VOC emissions at a cost of$16,000 per ton. Historically, Hillsborough County's cost has been substantially higher. It has been estimated that at a cost of$938,877 the county's ridesharing program has resulted in VMT reductions berween 1 197,401 and 3,545,246 VMT. If the highest of these estimates and the county's average emission rates per VMT are used, the costs ofVOC and NO, reductions attributable to the ridesharing program are calculated as $30,424 per ton. Parkand Ride Lots Apogee estimates that an extens ive park-and-ride program can result in a 0.3 percent reduction in VOC emissions at a cost of $ 146,000 perton. However, Apogee used a cost per park-and-ride space of $10,000, while Hillsborough County's experience is more like $2,000 per space. Adjusting this by dividing Apogee's cost figure by five yields an emiss ions red uction cost of $29,200 per ton. If a proportion a l reduction in NO, is assumed, there is a reduction cost of $13,563 per ton. 46


As sugges ted prev iou sly Hillsborough County has numerous park-and-ride lots in place and there does not appear to be a substantial unrnet demand for such lots. COST EFFECTIVENESS OF TCMs This report does not address the question of whether or not local government should implement or encourage the implementat ion of transportation contro l measures. That decision should be based on an analysis of the complete costs and benefits of each TCM. Those benefits include reductions in traffic congestion as well as reductions in vehicle emissions. This report looks only at the question of how effective TCMs are in reducing vehicle emissions. It does not consider the ir relative effectiveness in reducing congestion Other than parking pricing, the TCMs that are most cost effective in reducing emissions are those that involve modifica tions in employees' work sc hedu les. Telecommuting compressed flexible or staggered work hours and compressed work week all appear to be significantly more cost effective than the other TCMs. Although les s cost-effective, traffic signal optimizatio n park-and ride lots and ridesharing are TCM programs that are already in place in Hillsbo r ough County and are contributing to emissions reduction. As noted previously, parking pricing probably is not an appropriate TCM to implement i n Hillsborough County, primarily because of public opposition and the negative impact it might hav e on economic development in Tampa's central business district. Any decision to construct HOV lanes probably should be based on m e rits other than their cost effectiveness in reducing emissions. It a lso should be noted that combinations of TCMs may result in greater or le sser impacts than the total of the individual impacts For example HOV lanes and ridesharing are synergistic while staggered work hours will reduce the effectiveness ofridcsharing. This analysis suggest as part of an overall air quality improvement program, loca l govenunent should promote the imp lem entation of te lecommut ing, flexible or staggered work hours, and compressed work weeks. However as shown in Table 14, the actual amount of emissions these TCMs eliminate is relatively small. If it becomes necessary or desirable to use TCMs to eliminate larger amounts of emissions, i t will be necessary to go to more aggressive TCMs, such as parking pricing or to more costly TCMs. 47


Table 14 Annual Cost o f Using TCMs to Reduce Emissions TCM Tons ofVOC and Annual Cost NO EUminattd Cost oerTon Parking pricing 1161 $ 500,000 $400 Telecommuting 22 55,000 2.500 Flexible work hours 46 218,000 4,800 Staggered work hours 46 218 ,000 4 800 Compressed work week 6 34,000 6.000 Traffic signal optimi:tation 166 1,387,000' 8,4001 Park-and-ride lots 124 1,688,000 13,600 Rides baring 311 939,000' 30,400' HOY lanes 456 23.099,000 50,6 00 1 J fthc positive benefits of travel time savings were included, traffic signal optimization would probably show as net benefit. 1 Tons and total cost for ridcsharing arc for several years. 48


VI. CONCLUSIONS As indicated in the previous sections TCMs are not generally as costeffective as emission inspection programs. In addition, the scale of their impact is modest, at best. There are two notable exceptions Parking surcharges, which can be effective, are likely to be politically unacceptable Considering the policy implications on downtown development we are not prepared to recommend widespread implementation of parking surcharges. Traffic flow improvements can be cost-effective because of their travel time savings benefits, though the scale of their impact on a ir quality is modest. On the other hand, motor vehicle inspection programs are generally cost-effective and they achieve substantial reductions in pollutant emissions. This is particularly true for enhanced inspection and maintenance programs such as IM240 and ASM. Because of the reported high level of effectiveness of IM240 and ASM, inspection requirements can be reduced to every other year. Furthermore, due to the very low failure rates for late model year vehicles it is recommended to exempt the most recent three model years from the inspection requirement. Based on a consideration of the cost effectiveness and the absolute impact of various alternatives we have come to the following conclusions: Motor vehicle inspection programs yield substantial reductions in mobile source emissions. Motor vehicle inspection programs are comparatively cost-effective. Although many TCMs are good public policy, as they reduce congestion and improve the efficiency of the transportation system, their impact on mobile source emissions is likely to b e modest. Florida should continue program of motor vehicle emission inspections with the following features: ASM as the basic inspection method, with inclusion of a pressure test. Centralized inspection, with provision for certification of remot e reinspection sites at service stations and repair shops. Biennial inspection. E xemption of vehicles of the current model year, as well as the two preceding model years. A mobile roadside testing program to serve as a countermeasure to vehicle tampering. 49


The Florida Department of Environmental Protection and local air quality agencies should continue to monitor ambient air quality, as well as to update emissions inventories. Based on future condi t ions, it may become nec e ssary to consider a more stringent test, such as 1 M240, at some time in the future The Florida Department of Environmenta l Protection and Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles should continue to monitor emerging motor vehicle inspection technologies. This combination of program elements can achieve substantial emission reduction s cost-effectively and with minimal intrusion into personal lifestyles. 50


VII. ENDNOTES United States E n vironmental Protection. Agency EPA JIM Briefing Book, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Inspection and Maintenance, February 1995. 1 Florida Department of Motor Vehicles, Annual Report 1990, Fl o r ida D e partment of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Congress National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, Conference Report November 15, 1995. Florida Department of Motor Vehicles, Annual Report 1990, Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 1990. s D.R Lawson, "The Cost of "M" in liM Reflections on lnspection!Maintenance Programs," Journal of Air and Waste Management Association 45(1995): 465-476. 6G.A. Bishop and D.H. Stedman, "Motor Vehicle Emissions Variability," submitted for publication 3110195, Journal of Air and Waste Management Association. 7 United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA liM Briefing Book, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know Abour Inspection and Maintenance. 8Florida Department of Environmental Protection, MVJP Development Workshop, Bureau of Air Monitoring and Mobile Sources, Tallahassee, April 12, 1995. 9 University of Central Florida "Modeling of Mobile Source Air Quality Impacts Short Course, Orlando, 1994. 1 0 E.L. Glover and D.J. Brzezinski MOBTLE4, Emission Factors and Inspection/Maintenance Benefits for Passenger Cars, EPA-AA-Tss-IIM-89-3, U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, 1989. 11 J.A. McCargar and L.M. Snapp, Report on rhe EVA/Manufacture Cooperative JIM Testing Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ann Arbor, 1992 12 W. Harrington and V. McConnell, "Modeling In-Use Vehicle Emissions and Effect of Inspection and Maintenance Program, Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, 44(1994):791-799. M.J Barth, R.R. Tadi, and J. Norbeck, "The Development of an lmegrated Transportation!Emissions Model for Estimating Emission Inventories, Transportation Congress, 2 (New York 1996): 1 225-1236. 51


1 4 S.H. Cadle, M. Carlock, K. Cullen, R.A. Gorse, K.T. Knapp, and D R. Lawson, "Rea l World Vehicle Emissions: A Summary of the Fourth Annual CRC-APRAC On-Road Vehicle Emissions Workshop," Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, 44 (1994): 1180 1187. 15 T.L. Miller, A. Chatterjee, and C Ching "Travel Related Inputs to Air Quality Models: An Analysis of Emissions Model Sensitivity and the Accuracy of Estimation Procedures," Transportation Congress, ASCE, 2 (New York) 1996 : 1149 1163. 16 S. Kishan T. DeFries, and C. Weyn, A Study of Light Duty Vehicle Driving Behavior: Applicat i o n to Real World Emissions Inventories SAE Technical Paper Series Fuels and Lubricants Meeting Philadelphia, October 1993 "M. Venigalla, T Miller, and A. Chatterjee, "Alternative Operating Mode Fractions to FTP Mode M ix for Mobile Source Emissions Modeling," presented a t Transportation Research Board Meeting, Paper No 950742 Washington D.C. 1995 8 Miller, Chatterjee, and Ching. 19 Ibid w W.T. Walker and H. Peog. "Alternative Methods to Iterate a Regional Travel Simulation M odel Computational Practically and Accuracy," prese nt ed a t Transportat i o n Resea rch Boa r d Meeting Paper No. 950493, Was hington, D.C. 1995. 21 Miller Chatterjee, and Ching. 22 Pinellas Cou nty Department of Environmental M anag e ment and Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough Cou nty, 1994 Ozone Emission Inventory Update for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Total Oxides of Nitrogen (NO) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) for Tampa Bay Florida Ozone Nonattainment Area, September 1995 23 Environmental Protection Commi s sion of Hillsborough County, Base Y ear Emission Inventory Calendar Year 1990, N ovember 1992 z Based on interviews of the staff of the Hillsboro u gh County Metropolitan P l anning Organization zs Flodda Departm e nt of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Florida's Motor Vehicle Inspection Program: 1995 Annua l Report, T allaha s see, 1995. 26 American Association of Sta t e Highway and T ransportation Officials A Manual on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and Bus-Transit Improvements, Was h ington D.C., 1977 52


"Motor Vehicle Manufacturers As s ociation of the United States Inc., MVMA Motor Vehicle Facts & Figures '90, Washing t on, D C., 1990. 28 Burea u o f Economic and Business Research University of Flor i da, Florida Statisrical Abstract: 1995, Gainesville : U niversity Press o f Florida 29Motor Vehicle Man u facturers Association of the United States, Inc. 1990 30 United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA TIM Briefing Book: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Inspecrion and Mainrenance, Washington D .C., February 1995 31 Ibid. 32lbid. 33 Ibid. "' Ibid. 35 Ibid 36lbid 37 Ibid. l8 Ibid. 39Sierra Research, Inc., Analysis ojrhe Effecliveness and Cosr Effectiveness of Remote Sensing Devices, Prepared for the Ame ri can Automobi le Manufacture r s Association, May 1994. 40 Ibid 1 Apogee Research, Inc Coszs and Effectiveness of Transport arion Conrrol Measures (TCMs): A Review and Analysis of the lirerature National Association of Regional Councils January 1994. 1 Ibid. 43 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Control Measure Information Documenrs, Prepared for the U.S. Environmental ProteCtion Agency Office of M obile Sources, March 1992,VIII-6. "Ibid. "Si erra Researcb,Inc pp. 84 ,88. 53


' 6D.S. Eisinger, D.S. E .A. Deakin L.A. Mahoney, R.E. Morris and R.G. Ireson, Transponarion Conrrol Measures: State Implementation Plan Guide, Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Pac ific Envirorunental Services, Inc., Table 7.2, September 1990. "Cambridge Systematics, Inc. "Ibid., p VI-2. 9 Ibid., p. IV-4. 50 COM SIS Corporation, Evaluation of Transponation Control Measures for Philadelphia Region 15% Emissions Reduction SIP. Prepared for the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. February 1994. 5 Ibid. 52 Cambridge Systematics, Inc., p. ill-3. 53 Ibid ., p. VII-6 5 4 Ibid. ss Ibid, p. VIII-8. 56 COMSIS Corporation 51 D.Rathbone, "Telecommuting in the United States," lTE Journal (December 1992). sa Sierra Research, Inc 59 JHK & Associates San Joaquin Valley Transponation Control Measure Program, In association with Sierra Research, Inc. and Project Technical Working Group, January 1994, pp. 1-20. 54


Vlll. REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transporta tion Officials. A Manual on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and Bus-Transit Improvements Washington D .C .. 1977 Apogee Research. Inc Co sts and Effectiveness

Deakin E and G. Harvey. Transportation Pricing Strategies for California: An Assessment of Congestion, Emissions Energy and Equity Impacts. Draft Final Report, Prepared for California Air Resources Board, June 1995. Eisinger, D.S., E.A. Deakin, L .A. Mahoney, R.E. Morris and R.G. Ireson. Transportation Control Measures: State Implementation Plan Guide. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Pacific Environmental Services Inc., Table 7.2, September 1990. Environmenta l Protection Commission of Hillsborough County. Base Year Emission Inventory Calendar Year 1990. November 1992. Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County. Emission Contro l Inspections Hillsborough County. Personnel Communication, 1996. Florida Departmen t of Motor Vehicles Annual Report 1990. Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 1990. Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Florida's Motor Vehicle Inspection Program : 1995 Annual Report. T allahassee, FL, 1995. Florida Department of Safety and Motor Vehicles ,'v[VJP Annual Report/995 Glover E .L, and DJ. Brzezinski. MOB/L, Exhaust Emission Factors and Inspection! Maintenance Benefits for Passenger Cars. EPA-AA-Tss-1/M-89-3, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, I 989. Guenther, P. L, Stedman, D. H., Lesko, J M. "Prediction of IM240 Mass Emissions Using Portable Gas Analyzers," Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, 46 (April 1996):343-348. Harrington, Winston and McConnell, Virginia. "Cost Effectiveness of Remote Sensing of Vehicle Emiss i ons (A Discussion Paper) Resources For The Future, September 1993. Harrington, W. and V. McConnell, "Modeling In-Use Vehicle Emissions and Effect of inspection and Maintenance Programs," Journal of Air & Waste Management Association, 44 (1994): 791-799. Institute of Transportation Engineers and COMSIS. Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures. Sponsored by the United States Department of Transportation: Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration, June 1993. 56


JHK & Associates Sierra Research Inc and Project T echnical Working Group. San Joaquin Va lley Transportation Control Measure Program, Final Report January 1994. Kishan, S., T. DeFries, and C. Weyn "A Study of Light-Duty Vehicle Driving Behavior: Application to Real-World Emissions Inventories." SAE Technica l Paper Series, Fuels and Lubricants Meeting, Philadelphia October 1993 Lawson, D. R "The Cost of 'M' in 11M Reflections on Inspection/Main t enance Programs," Journal of Air and Waste Management Association 45 (1995): 465 476. Loudon W.R., Deborah A Dagang and JH.K & Associates. Predicting the Impact of Transportation Control Measures on Travel Behavior and Pollutant Emissions. January 1992. McCargar J.A., and L.M. Snapp, Report on the EPA/Manufacture Cooperative JIM Testing Program, EPA/AA/EPSD-1/M 92 01. U S. Environmental Protection Agency Ann Arbor, 1992. McConnell, Virginia & Harrington, Wins t on. Cost Effectiveness of Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs (A Discussion Paper). Resour ces For T he Future, August 1992. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc AfVMA Motor Vehicle Facts & Figures 90 Washington, D.C Miller,T.J., A. Chatterjee, and C Ching "Travel Related In puts to Air Quality Models: An Analysis of Emiss ions Model Sensitivity and the Accuracy of Estima t ion Procedures" Transportation Congress, 2 (New York, ASCE 1996): 1149-1163 Sierra Research, Inc. Analysis of the Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Remote Sensing Devices May 1994 Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management and Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County /994 Ozone Emission Inventory Update for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Total Oxides of Nitrogen (NO,) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) for Tampa Bay Florida Ozone Nonallainment Area, September 1995. Sierra Research, Inc. The Cost Effectiveness of Further Regulating Mobile Source Emissions Prepared for the American Automobile Man u facturers Association, February 28,1994. Transportation Research Board Energy and Environment : Transportation-Related Air Quality. Transportation-Related Air Quality No. 1472, Washington D.C : National Academy Press, 1995 57


Transporta tion Research Board. "Expanding Metropolitan Highways." TR News (MarchApril 1996): 38-39,56. Venigalla, M., T. Miller, and A. Chatterjee. "Alternative Operating Mode Fractions to FTP Mode Mix for Mobile Source Emissions Modeling." Presented at Transportation Research Board Meeting, Paper No. 950742, Washington, D.C., 1995. Walker, W.T., and H. Peng "Alternative Methods to Iterate a Regional Travel Simulation Model -Computational Practicality and Accuracy." Presented at Transportation Re searc h Board Meeting, Paper No. 950493, Washington, D.C., 1995. University of Central Florida. "Modeling of Mobile Source Air Quality ImpactsShort Course," Orlando, 1994. U.S. Department of Transportation. EvaluaJion of MOBILE Vehicle Emission Model, Washington, D.C., 1994. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA UM Briefing Book, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Inspection and Maintenance, EPA-AA-EPSD-IM-94-1 226 (February 1995). United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources. 1992 Transportation & Air Quality Planning Guidelines, Report EPA 420/R-92-001, July 1992. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sour ces. Variability of liM Test Scores Over Time, Report EPA 460/3-88-008, September 1988. United States General Accounting Office. Urban Transportation: Reducing Vehicle Emissions with Transportation Control Measures. Report to Congressional Requesters, August 1993. 58


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.