905278003
GCA-TR-78-38-G
EVALUATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS INSPECTION AND
MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS IN WISCONSIN
PHASE II
Final Report
by
Theodore P. Midurski
Lee A. Coda
Robert 0. Phillips
Nancy K. Roy
Frederick M. Seliars
Thomas P. Snyder
GCA CORPORATION
GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
Bedford, Massachusetts
September 1978
Contract No. 68-02-2607
Work Assignment No. 16
EPA-905/2-78-003
EPA Project Officer
Carlton Nash
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region V
Chicago, Illinois
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
DISCLAIMER
This Final Report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
by GCA Corporation, GCA/Technology Division, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730, in
fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-2607, Work Assignment No. 16. The opinions,
findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the authors and not neces-
sarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency or of cooperating agencies.
Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an endorsement
by the Environmental Protection Agency.
: > -f-Oc-O-} J*
-------
ABSTRACT
Recent data for the State of Wisconsin indicates that the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for CO and Ox will not be attained in all areas of the
state by 1982, even if all reasonably available control technologies are
applied. In view of this, it is likely that the state will request from U.S.
EPA an extension of the compliance data beyond 1982. In order for this request
to be considered, the state must, among other things, have adopted a firm
schedule for implementing a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (l/M) pro-
gram in the highly urbanized nonattainment areas. In this connection, the
State of Wisconsin is currently in the initial stages of planning for the im-
plementation of an I/M program. As part of this initial effort, several can-
didate program configurations have been analyzed from the standpoint of costs,
benefits, and other requirements. These analyses, which are reported herein,
will provide the basis for the state to select one specific option that will
eventually be implemented.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract
List of Figures viii
List of Tables ix
Acknowledgments xv
Sections
1 Executive Summary 1
Introduction 1
Background of This Study 3
I/M Options Considered 3
Study Results 3
2 Introduction 16
Background 16
Programs Options Considered 18
Basis and Organization of this Report 22
3 Methodologies 23
Introduction 23
Benefits 23
Cost Considerations 29
Total Cost Methodology 36
Personnel Requirements 37
4 Option 1 - Centralized, Contractor-Operated, Loaded-Mode With
Safety and Noise Testing 43
Option Definition 43
Network Requirements 43
Option Costs 46
Fee Computation 64
Benefits 68
Additional Discussion on the Safety Inspection
Element 70
5 Option 2 - Centralized, Contractor-Operated Loaded Mode
Emissions Inspection Only 72
Option Definition 72
Option Costs 73
Summary 84
6 Option 3 - Centralized, Contractor-Operated, Idle Mode
Emissions Test 88
Option Definition 88
Network Requirements 88
Option Costs 89
Summary 101
-------
CONTENTS (continued).
Sections
7 Option 4 - Centralized, State-Operated, Loaded-Mode Emissions
Inspection With Safety and Noise Testing 104
Option Definition 104
Network Requirements 104
Option Costs 104
Summary 119
Benefits 120
8 Option 5 - Centralized, State-Operated, Idle Mode
Emissions Test 122
Option Definition 122
Network Requirements 122
Option Costs 122
Summary 138
9 Decentralized Program of Idle Mode Emissions Testing 140
Option Definition 140
Network Development 140
Mobile State Inspections of Private Garages 148
Costs 148
10 Possible I/M Program Externalities 157
Introduction 157
General Externalities 157
References 164
11 Legislative Considerations in I/M Implementation 165
Methodology 165
Potential Legal Issues 165
Legislative and Other Potential Roadblocks 166
Concluding Remarks 167
12 Public Information Programs 168
Methodology 168
Initial Public Relations Programs 168
Ongoing Public Relations 169
13 Comparison of Options 170
Comparison of Options 170
Appendices
A Detailed Description of Methodology for Calculating Emission
Inventories 177
References 184
B Estimated Fuel Savings for 1987 Due to I/M 185
VI
-------
CONTENTS (continued).
Appendices
C Detailed Description of Costs and Fee Calculations 190
Initial Capital Costs 190
D Sensitivity of Breakeven Fees 194
E Glossary 196
vii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Nos. Page
1 Wisconsin Counties Affected by I/M 21
2 Administrative Organization 38
3 Conceptual Floor Plan for a Combined Safety, Noise, and Loaded-
Mode Emission Inspection Facility 49
4 Conceptual Floor Plan for a Loaded-Mode Emission Inspection
Facility 75
5 Conceptual Floor Plan for an Idle Mode Inspection Facility ... 90
6 Conceptual Floor Plan for an Idle Mode Inspection Facility . . . 125
7 Market Factors Affecting Private Garage Participation 144
8 State Manpower Requirements 150
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Nos. Page
1 I/M Options Analyzed 4
2 Emission Reductions (kg/day) 6
3 LDV and LDT Emissions Reductions Resulting From I/M (kg/day) . . 7
4 Annualized Cost Summary for the Six Options Considered 9
5 Option 6 Costs 10
6 Breakeven Fees, f , for Options 1 to 5 12
7 Summary of Personnel Requirements 13
8 I/M Options Analyzed 19
9 Summary of Hydrocarbon Emissions per VMT (gm/VMT) 25
10 Summary of Carbon Monoxide Emissions per VMT (gm/VMT) 26
11 Summary of Daily Hydrocarbon Emissions (kg/day) 27
12 Summary of Daily Carbon Monoxide Emissions (kg/day) 28
13 Outline of Program Cost Categories and Elements 30
14 Estimated Value for Commercially-Zoned Land in Nine Wisconsin
Counties 31
15 Estimated Hourly Starting Salaries for Administrative and
Operational Personnel Involved in Inspection and Main-
tenance Programs in Wisconsin 41
16 1977 Motor Vehicle Registrations by County - LDV and LDT
Only 44
17 Projected 1990 LDV and LDT Registrations by County 44
18 Annual Number of Inspections Required by County for 1990 .... 45
19 Total Inspection Lanes Required to Satisfy 1990 Inspection
Demand 46
ix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued).
Nos. Page
20 Inspection Network Requirements for Option 1 47
21 Building Floor Area for Various Facility Configurations -
Option 1 50
22 Building Cost Estimates for Option 1 52
23 Land Costs for Each Inspection Facility in Option 1 53
24 Pavement and Landscaping Requirements for Option 1
Facilities 54
25 Land Improvement Costs for Inspection Sites Under
Option 1 54
26 Land Improvement Costs for Facilities Under Option 1 55
27 Major Equipment Items Required for Option 1 56
28 Equipment Costs as a Function of Facility Configuration for
Option 1 57
29 Equipment Costs for Option 1 58
30 Administrative Personnel Costs Associated With Program
Start-Up - Option 1 61
31 Annual Personnel Costs for Facility Personnel -
Option 1 62
32 Annual Calibration Costs for Option 1 63
33 Annual Cost for Utilities, Services, and Supplies 64
34 Annual Administrative Personnel Costs - Option 1 65
35 Cost Summary - Option 1 66
36 Annualized Costs for Option 1 67
37 Total Inspection Lanes Required to Satisfy 1990 Inspection
Demand 72
38 Inspection Network Requirements for Option 2 74
39 Building Floor Area for Various Facility Configurations -
Option 2 73
x
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued).
Nos. Page
40 Building Cost Estimates for Option 2 76
41 Land Costs for Each Inspection Facility in Option 2 78
42 Pavement and Landscaping Requirements for Option 2
Activities, ft2 77
43 Land Improvement Costs for Inspection Sites Under Option 2 ... 77
44 Land Improvement Costs for Facilities Under Option 2 79
45 Equipment Costs as a Function of Facility Configuration
For Option 2 81
46 Equipment Costs for Option 2 81
47 Annual Personnel Costs for Facility Personnel - Option 2 .... 82
48 Annual Costs of Utilities, Services and Supplies 84
49 Cost Summary - Option 2 85
50 Total Inspection Lanes Required to Meet 1990 Inspection
Demand 88
51 Inspection Network Requirements for Option 3 89
52 Building Floor Area for Various Facility Configurations -
Option 3 92
53 Building Cost Estimates for Option 3 93
54 Land Costs for Each Inspection Facility in Option 3 94
55 Pavement and Landscaping Requirements for Option 3
Facilities, ft2 95
56 Land Improvement Costs for Inspection Facility Sites Under
Option 3 95
57 Land Improvement Costs for Facilities Under Option 3 96
58 Equipment Costs as a Function of Facility Configuration for
Option 3 96
59 Equipment Costs for Option 3 97
xi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued).
Nos. Page
60 Annual Personnel Costs for Facility Personnel -
Option 3 99
61 Annual Cost of Utilities, Services, and Supplies - Option 3 . . 100
62 Cost Summary - Option 3 102
63 Total Inspection Lanes Required to Meet 1990 Inspection
Demand 105
64 Inspection Network Requirements for Option 4 105
65 Building Floor Area for Various Facility Configurations -
Option 4 107
66 Building Cost Estimates for Option 4 108
67 Land Costs for Each Inspection Facility in Option 4 109
68 Pavement and Landscaping Requirements for Option 4 Facilities. . 110
69 Land Improvement Costs for Inspection Sites Under Option 4 ... 110
70 Land Improvement Costs for Facilities Under Option 4 Ill
71 Major Equipment Items Required for Option 4 112
72 Equipment Costs as a Function of Facility Configuration
for Option 4 113
73 Equipment Costs for Option 4 114
74 Annual Personnel Costs for Facility Personnel - Option 4 .... 117
75 Annual Cost of Utilities, Services, and Supplies for
Option 4 118
76 Cost Summary - Option 4 121
77 Total Inspection Lanes Required to Meet 1990 Inspection
Demand 123
78 Inspection Network Requirements for Option 5 123
79 Building Floor Area for Various Facility Configurations -
Option 5 126
xii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued).
Nos. Page
80 Building Cost Estimate for Option 5 127
81 Land Costs for Each Inspection Facility in Option 5 128
82 Pavement and Landscaping Requirements for Option 5
Facilities 129
83 Land Improvement Costs for Inspection Facility Sites Under
Option 5 129
84 Land Improvement Costs for Facilities Under Option 5 130
85 Equipment Costs as a Function of Facility Configuration for
Option 5 131
86 Equipment Costs for Option 5 131
87 Annual Personnel Costs for Facility Personnel - Option 5 ... 134
88 Annual Cost of Utilities, Services, and Supplies - Option 5 . . 135
89 Cost Summary - Option 5 137
90 Vehicle Registrations and Inspections for Selected Counties
for 1987 141
91 Private Garages Eligible to Participate in I/M in 1987 .... 141
92 Minimum Private Garage Network Needed in 1987 142
y
93 Minimum Service Area Radii and Market Participation Rates . . . 144
94 Maximum Private Garage Participation, (Number of Garages) . . . 146
95 Maximum Garage Network for Inspector Wage of $5.50 and 4-hour
Inspection Day 147
96 Maximum Service Area Radii and Market Participation Rates . . . 147
97 Mobile Inspector Requirements for Minimum and Maximum Private
Garage Networks 148
98 State Manpower Requirements 151
99 System Costs, Private Garage Option 152
100 Emission Reductions - 1000 gm/day 171
xiii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued).
Nos. Page
101 Annual Cost of Options and Fees With i = 0.03 173
102 Annual Cost of Options and Fees (With i = 0.06) 174
103 Option 6 Costs 175
104 Summary of Personnel Requirements 176
105 Travel Weighting Factor Calculation Light-Duty Vehicles .... 178
106 Daily VMT for Brown and Dane Counties 180
107 Daily VMT and Avarage Speed 181
108 Wisconsin VMT 1977 182
109 Wisconsin VMT 1987 183
110 Travel Weighting Factor Calculation for Light-Duty Vehicles . . 186
111 EPA MPG Specifications and Average Fleet Mileage for LDVs
Covered by I/M in 1987 187
112 Potential Annual Fuel Savings From I/M for Selected Counties
in 1987 (000 gallons) 189
113 Fee, f , Amortization Factors 192
3.
114 Increase in Costs for Loaded Mode Emissions Testing With a
1-minute Increase in Throughput (i=0.03) 194
115 Increase in Breakeven Fees With a 25 Percent Increase in
Personnel Wages (i=0.03 Percent) 195
116 Increase in fc (Breakeven Fee in Constant 1978 Dollars) With
a Free Retest Policy (i=0.03) 195
xiv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the significant contributions made
by several individuals and organizations throughout this project. We would
like to express our appreciation to the members of the Inter-Agency Task Force
and to several individuals associated with the Wisconsin Departments of Natural
Resources and Transportation who provided the necessary inputs for our study.
Included are Messrs. Ed Hammer and Carl Zutz of the Department of Transpor-
tation, and Mr. John Michelson of the Department of Natural Resources. Also,
we wish to thank the EPA Task Officer, Mr. Carlton Nash, who provided general
direction throughout the study effort.
xv
-------
SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Need for Inspection and Maintenance Programs
Amendments to the Clean Air Act enacted in 1970 established National Am-
bient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for a number of pollutants including carbon
monoxide (CO) and photochemical oxidants (Ox), Further, amendments enacted in
1977 require that the NAAQS for both CO and Ox be attained in all areas no
later than 31 December 1982, The U,S, Environmental Protection Agency requires
that all states submit revisions to their existing State Implementation Plans
(SIP) early in 1979 demonstrating that areas currently violating the NAAQS will
be in compliance by 31 December 1982, If it cannot be demonstrated that, even
with the application of all reasonably available control technologies, the
standards will be obtained, EPA may grant an extension to 31 December 1987
providing that the state meets certain requirements; one such requirement is
the establishment of a specific schedule for implementing a motor vehicle in-
spection and maintenance (I/M) program in urban nonattainment areas with popu-
lations greater than 200,000.
Recent ambient air quality data for the State of Wisconsin indicates wide-
spread and frequent violations to both the CO and Ox standards and, further, it
is doubtful that all areas in the state can be brought into compliance by
31 December 1982. As a result, it is quite likely that an I/M program will be
required in several areas of the state.
What Are Inspection and Maintenance Programs?
Beginning with 1968 model-year vehicles, automobiles manufactured in or
imported into the U.S. have had to comply with emission standards specified in
the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program (FMVECP). Under this pro-
gram, maximum emission rates are established for new vehicles, and manufacturers
must demonstrate through an auditing program that their vehicles are in com-
pliance with these emission limits. The emission standards specified by the
FMVECP require progressively more stringent control of emissions with each sub-
sequent model year.
To comply with the emission standards, manufacturers have retained their
existing engine design concepts, but developed emission control devices (crank-
case ventilation control, catalytic converters, etc.) and revised certain
system parameter specifications (air-to-fuel ratio, ignition timing, etc.).
-------
This approach to emission control ostensibly satisfied the requirements of the
FMVECP for new vehicles. However, surveillance studies conducted by EPA dis-
closed that the emission rate for these "controlled" vehicles generally in-
creased with time at a much greater rate than was expected, therefore reducing
greatly the overall effectiveness of the FMVECP. Further analyses determined
that the root causes of the rapid deterioration of these emission control sys-
tems could be traced to either improper or inadequate maintenance, or tampering
with the devices or system settings.
In light of these findings, effort has been expended on developing tech-
niques for reducing the air quality impact of poor maintenance practices and
tampering. One result of this effort is the evolution of the inspection and
maintenance concept.
In its most basic sense, inspection and maintenance refers to a program
where vehicle exhaust emission levels are measured during specified operating
conditions and compared with a specified standard for that particular vehicle
configuration. If the measured rate exceeds the standard, the need for some
form of maintenance, adjustment or repair is indicated. This is a very sim-
plistic explanation of I/M, but it does serve to define the basic concept in-
volved. A more precise discussion of various technical aspects of I/M may be
found in the EPA report, entitled "Summary Report on Vehicle Emissions Inspec-
tion and Maintenance Programs."
A variety of approaches have been used to run I/M programs, but the major
types are generally in three organizational categories, as follows:
1. Government - Centralized test facilities operated by state,
city, or local government (as in New Jersey; Cincinnati, Ohio;
Portland. Oreeon: and Chicaeo. Illinois').
*-J-uy, *->!. J.VJl^cl-1. gw V Cl. iiillCLIC V01^ -LLL "CW iJCL
Portland, Oregon; and Chicago, Illinois)
2. Contractor - Centralized facilities operated by a private
corporation under contract to a government (as in Maricopa
and Pima Counties, Arizona).
3. Private Garage - Decentralized facilities operated by private
automobile service garages, certified or licensed by govern-
ment (as in Rhode Island and Nevada).
The major issues that need to be addressed in setting up an I/M program
include the following:
1. Type of Emissions Test - Idle or Loaded
2. Geographical Coverage
3. Organizational Approach
4. Frequency of Inspection
5. Enforcement Procedure
6. Vehicles to be Tested
7. Vehicles to be Exempted
-------
8. Data Handling Procedures
9. Adjunctive Programs (e.g., Public Information, Consumer Protection,
Mechanic Training, etc.)
BACKGROUND OF THIS STUDY
Given the likelihood of I/M being required in the state, a decision was made
to establish an interagency technical committee comprised of staff members
from the Departments of Natural Resources and Transportation, whose responsi-
bility would be to develop the initial program framework and provide technical
support for state policy makers.
The initial effort by the committee was to review the most current litera-
ture relevant to I/M, and investigate a number of specific technical issues
that would eventually have to be addressed in the development of the I/M pro-
gram. From this literature review, a total of 55 possible program scenarios
were defined and evaluated. As a result, a final list of six specific program
options, which appeared to be the options that were best suited for the state,
was defined. These six options were analyzed in detail through a study funded
by the Region V Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in order
to provide a sound basis for selecting one specific program scenario for im-
plementation; this document reports the details of the analysis.
I/M OPTIONS CONSIDERED
As mentioned, a total of six options were analyzed. These are defined in
detail in Table 1. Upon reviewing Table 1, it is quite apparent that there are
many similarities among the options. The primary differences relate to test
type (idle or loaded mode), operation (contractor-run centralized facilities,
state-operated centralized facilities, or private garage operation), and whether
or not additional types of inspections (i.e., safety and noise) are integrated
into the program.
A decision was made to limit the coverage of the I/M program to the nine
counties listed below:
Brown County Racine County
Dane County Walworth County
Kenosha County Washington County
Milwaukee County Waukesha County
Ozaukee County
These counties represent the most highly urbanized areas within the state, and
are, therefore, the most appropriate for implementing I/M. Owing to the rural
nature of the remaining counties, there would likely not be a significant ad-
vantage to extending the program to statewide coverage at the present time.
STUDY RESULTS
The primary objective of this study is to provide a comparative analysis
of the six options discussed previously, in terms of benefits, costs, and per-
sonnel requirements. Each of these elements is discussed below.
-------
TABLE 1. I/M OPTIONS ANALYZED
Op t ion Geograph ic
no . coverage
*
1 Nine counties
*
2 Nine counties
*
3 Nine counties
4 Nine counties
*
5 Nine counties
*
6 Nine counties
Operation and
Test mode
operating agency
Loaded Centralized facilities ;
contractor operated
Loaded Centralized facilities;
Idle Centralized facilities;
contractor operated
Loaded Centralized facilities;
state operated
Idle Centralized facilities;
state operated
Idle Inspections performed
in private service
stations and garages
Vehicles to be inspected
All passenger cars and light
trucks with GVW less than
8,500 pounds except those
less than 1 or more than
12 years old
Same as Option 1
Same as Option 1
Same as Option 1
Same as Option 1
Same as Option 1
Remarks
30 percent stringency factor;
annual inspections; mechanic
training to be performed ; safety
and noise inspections to be per-
formed, also"*"
30 percent stringency factor;
training to be performed
Same as Option 2
Same as Option 1 (includes safety
and noise inspections)"'"
Same as Option 2
Same as Option 2
Includes Brown, Dane, Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Walworth, Washington, and Waukesha Counties
Safety and noise inspections would be statewide
-------
Benefits
Emission Reductions—
Again, the two primary benefits that will accrue as a result of an I/M
program are reductions in emissions (namely carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon),
and fuel savings. The extent of emissions reduction achievable through an I/M
program is directly related to a number of factors concerning (1) the nature
of the program (i.e., the specific stringency factor used, types of vehicles
to be affected, whether or not mechanics are trained specifically in emission-
related repair work, etc.), (2) the geographic coverage of the program, (3)
nature of the vehicle population affected (i.e., vehicle age and type distribu-
tions), and (4) travel characteristics in the affected area (i.e., vehicle
miles of travel distribution by vehicle age and type, amount of travel in the
area by vehicles registered in other areas, etc.). These features are constant
across all six program options being considered here, hence the emission re-
ductions that should occur are the same for each option.
Estimates of emissions reductions for each of the nine counties were
developed using travel data provided by the Wisconsin Department of Transpor-
tation, and vehicle emission factors and credits (for the I/M program) for
EPA's MOBILE 1 model. Included in the computations were hydrocarbon and CO
emissions for 1977, 1982, and 1987; emissions for 1982 and 1987 were computed
both with and without an I/M program. Table 2 summarizes the emissions from
all highway vehicles for 1977 and 1987, and indicates the effect that I/M will
have on these emissions in 1987.
It is noted that the U.S. EPA's guidance on I/M program requirements state
that by 1987 the (I/M) program must result in a reduction of emissions from af-
fected vehicles, of at least 25 percent. Considering only light-duty vehicles,
then, emissions were again computed to establish whether or not the required
reduction would be achieved by 1987 using the program factors mentioned pre-
viously. A summary of these computations is shown in Table 3. As indicated
in Table 3, the computations do not include credit for emissions reductions
for light-duty trucks, since these particular credits have not yet been defined
by the U.S. EPA. Even without these credits, the emissions reductions expected
during 1987 with the I/M program are greater than the required 25 percent. It
can be assumed, then, that the options, as defined, meet EPA requirements with
regard to minimum standards for emissions reductions. A detailed analysis of
emissions reductions by individual vehicle types within each county, is pre-
sented in Section 3.
Fuel Savings—
One of the important benefits of I/M programs, in addition to the reduc-
tion in vehicular emissions, is potential fuel conservation. A properly tuned
engine operates with greater efficiency and therefore consumes less fuel. Re-
ports of improvement in fuel economy differ somewhat from one program to
another but most sources agree that a 5 to 10 percent fuel economy improvement
for those vehicles undergoing emission-related repair can be expected. One of
the purposes of I/M is to provide an incentive to motorists to maintain their
cars better than they normally would in the absence of I/M.
-------
TABLE 2. EMISSION REDUCTIONS (kg/day)
1977 1987 -
without I/M
Milwaukee - 7 County
Metro Area
Kenosha Co. Freeway 9,176
& Arterials
Milwaukee Co. F4A 70,552
Ozaukee Co. F&A 5,012
Racine Co. F&A 12,011
Walworth Co. F&A 5,910
Washington Co. F&A 6,622
Waukesha Co. FiA 21,726
7 County Local 20,502
Aggregate 151,571
Brown County
Aggregate
Dane County
Aggregate
3,500
23,031
1,916
4,226
2,359
2,454
8,150
6,861
52,497
6,170
10,310
Hydrocarbons
1987 Percent
" I /Ml reduction
' 1977-1987 I/M+
2,664 71
17,519 75
1,472 71
3,222 73
1,877 68
1,944 71
6,389 71
5,264 74
40,356 73
4,685
7,838
reduction 1977 . t
1987--1987 I/M: without I/M
24
24
23
24
20
21
22
23
23
24
24
64,663 33,918
445,290 242,761
35,460 19,332
88,172 42,946
42,018 25,551
45,405 25,803
159,339 90,466
175,198 69,895
1,055,545 550,672
61,718
102,948
Carbon monoxide
1987 Pfcent
T/M± reduction _
' 1977-1987 I/Mt
23,621 64
175,906 61
13,706 61
30,559 65
19,485 54
19,455 57
68,999 57
50,166 71
401,897 62
435,461
73,343
Percent
reduction
1987~-1987 I/MT
30
28
29
29
24
25
24
28
27
29
29
t
Does not reflect reductions from light duty trucks
Reflects only changes in VMT and the effects of the Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Program (FMVECP)
^Reflects changes in VMT, effects of FMVECP, and the impact of I/M
-------
TABLE 3. LDV AND LOT EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS RESULTING FROM I/M Og/day)
Carbon
County
1977
Milwaukee - 7 County
Metro Area
Kenosha Co. Freeway 53,951
& Arterlals
Milwaukee Co. F&A 337,928
Ozaukee Co. F&A 28,146
Racine Co. F&A 71,282
Walworth Co. FSA 30,139
Washington Co. F&A 35,254
Waukesha Co. F&A 115,888
7 county locals 135,257
Total 807,845
Brown County
Total
Dane County
Total
1987
without I/M
26,003
164,218
13,797^
31,066
16,342
17,445
56,347
49,289
374,507
48,462
76,111
monoxide
Hydrocarbons
„„ 2 reduction for 1987 g_7 % reduction for 1987
,*h T/M with I/M with respect 1977 ' ™' . .Zur/v with I/M with respect
with I/M to 198? without I/M without I/M with I/M to 198? wi(.hout I/M
15
97
8
18
10
11
34
29
225
30
46
,706
,363
,171
,679
,276
,097
,880
,560
,732
,290
,506
39.
40.
40.
39.
37.
36.
38.
40.
39.
37.
38.
6
8
8
9
1
4
1
I
7
5
9
8,054 3
59,930 18
4,361 1
10,344 3
4,183 1
5,675 2
17,790 6
16,124 _5
127,061 42
5
8
,036
,519
,621
,590
,923
,042
,627
,248
,606
,312
,639
2
13
1
2
1
1
4
_3
30
3
6
,200
,007
,177
,586
,441
,532
,866
,656
,465
,827
,167
28
29
27
28
25
25
26
30
28
28
28
.5
.8
.4
.0
.1
.0
.6
.£
.5
.0
.9
This table does not reflect emission reductions for light-duty trucks since the appropriate credits for these vehicles
have not yet been defined by U.S. EPA
-------
For this study, a 7 percent increase in fuel economy was assumed for those
vehicles undergoing emissions-related repair. Based on this assumption and
data regarding vehicle travel in the nine counties, expected fuel economy
characteristics for 1987, and relevant program parameters, it is estimated that
during 1987 a total of 8.64 million gallons of gasoline would be saved as a
result of an I/M program being implemented. Further, if fuel costs $0.70 per
gallon in 1987, these motorists would save an estimated $6,050,000, or about
$12.76 per vehicle undergoing maintenance.
Costs
The cost computations for Options 1 through 5 are very similar in that
the major cost categories are similar in nature for each option. The major
cost categories associated with the first five options include (1) capital
costs, (2) initial start-up costs, (3) annual operating costs, and (4) annual
administrative costs. Again, Options 1 through 5 involve centralized test
facilities operated by either a contractor or the state where either emissions,
or emissions, safety, and noise testing are conducted. Option 6, however,
involves emissions testing at private garages and service stations; therefore
the same types of costs as for centralized facilities will not be applicable.
Table 4 presents the annualized costs by major category associated with
Options 1 through 4. Several types of comparisons can be made using Table 4.
First, and most obvious, the differences in total program costs across these
five options are apparent. Options 1 and 4 are the most costly, being ap-
proximately twice as expensive as Options 2, 3, and 5. Options 1 and 4, how-
ever, include safety and noise inspections therefore requiring more facilities
with higher startup and annual operating costs.
It is of interest, too, to compare options that are most similar. Op-
tions 1 and 4, for instance, are identical except that the programs are run
by a private contractor and by the state, respectively.
The difference in costs between a private contractor-run and state-run
options, then, can seem to result primarily from differences in initial start-
up costs and annual operating costs. In this example, the state-run program
has a higher start-up cost owing to a longer personnel phase-in period (2%
years as opposed to 1% years). On the other hand, the annual operating costs
for the contractor-run options are about 10 percent higher than those for the
state-run options owing mainly to taxes levied on the contractor that will not
be required of the state. These types of comparisons can also be made between
Options 2 and 3, or 3 and 5 to determine the impact on loaded versus idle mode
testing, or contractor versus state operated, idle mode inspections,
respectively.
Costs associated with Option 6 depend on the level of participation by
private facilities; fewer participants mean that each garage will conduct more
inspections, therefore a lower breakeven fee will result. The breakeven fee
as a function of market participation is shown in Table 5. Also associated
with this option is an annual administrative cost to cover adjunctive programs
such as surveillance, quality control, public information, etc. This is
-------
TABLE 4, AKNUALIZED COST SUMMARY FOR THE six OPTIONS CONSIDERED
Category
Annualized cost for each option
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
I. Capital Costs
1. Land $ 221,493 $ 78,751 $ 70,459 $ 221,493 $ 70,459
2. Buildings 855,080 303,445 331,198 855,080 268,558
3. Equipment 2,338,734 879,686 667,687 2,338,734 667,687
II. Initial Start-up Costs 826,309 583,920 566,707 946,008 686,416
III. Annual Operating Costs 8,912,152 3,962,268 3,778,983 8,077,452 3,599,688
IV. Annual Administrative Costs 684,810 684,474 684,474 684,810 684,474
Total $13,838,578 $6,492,814 $6,016,980 $13,123,577 $5,977,282
— — - .
Assumed interest rate is 6 percent
-------
TABLE 5. OPTION 6 COSTS
Market participation
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Private garage breakeven charge
1.57
2.36
3.14
3.93
4.72
5.49
6.27
7.06
7.84
10
-------
estimated to be $974,543 for a minimum network and $1,327,943 for a network
with maximum participation. Cost data is translated to a fee by dividing the
total annualized costs found in Table 4 by the average number of yearly in-
spections; if a free retest is provided, the annualized costs are divided by
the average annual registrations, Breakeven fees in constant 1978 dollars are
provided in Table 6 for options 1 through 5. The fee for the private garage
option is strongly related to the number of individual stations participating
in the program. For this type of system, however, the fee is set and the num-
ber of stations participating becomes the dependent variable. For this study,
an inspection fee of $4.50 was selected, therefore limits could be established
on the maximum and minimum number of stations participating. The maximum num-
ber occurs where the breakeven fee equals $4.50 (see Table 6); beyond this
number, stations would lose money. The minimum number would be limited by the
ability of the garages to accommodate the vehicle population to be tested.
Based on these limits, the maximum and minimum number of stations required in
the nine counties would be 1,130 and 394, respectively.
The fee also must include the state's administrative costs, which are
directly related to the number of inspection stations operated. This means
that this portion of the fee varies by participation level. For the minimum
program participation, this portion of the fee is $0.46; for the maximum par-
ticipation level, it is $0.59. The total fee in constant 1978 dollars, then,
is the sum of the inspection, $4.50, and the administrative fee or from $0.46
to $0.59, for a total of $4.96 to $5.09.
Manpower Requirements
Manpower requirements vary among options reflecting differences in inspec-
tion activity and/or administrative requirements. The specific requirements
for each option are shown in Table 7, by two categories - administrative per-
sonnel and operations personnel.
From Table 7 it can be seen that the administrative personnel requirements
are fairly constant across all six options while the operations personnel re-
quirements vary substantially. Administrative personnel would be entirely
state employees while the operations personnel would be employed either by the
state (in Options 4, 5, and 6) or a contractor (in Options 1, 2, and 3).
Indirect Impacts and Political Issues
In addition to the primary benefits of reducing vehicular emissions and
improving air quality, inspection and maintenance programs have indirect impacts.
Several aspects of an I/M program may have the potential for becoming political
issues and hinder the legislative approval of any particular option. To de-
termine what the potential impacts and issues might be other states' I/M pro-
grams were studied and the options themselves were analyzed in detail. The
research on these impacts and issues are discussed in detail in Sections 10,
11, and 12, while a brief summary of some of the more salient issues is provided
here.
11
-------
TABLE 6. BREAKEVEN FEES, fc, FOR OPTIONS 1 TO 5*
Option I II III IV V
Total annualized cost $13,838,578 $6,492,814 $6,016,980 $13,123,577 $5,977,282
Average annual registrations (1982-87) 1,470,000 1,470,000 1,470,000 1,470,000 1,470,000
Average annual inspections (1982-87) 1,911,000 1,911,000 1,911,000 1,911,000 1,911,000
fc, paid retest $7.24 $3.40 $3.15 $6.87 $3.13
fc, free retest $9.41 $4.42 $4.09 $8.93 $4.07
_—________ ____
Assumed interest rate is 6 percent. Fees represent constant 1978 dollars in the absence of
inflation. These figures are for comparison of options only and do not reflect what the motorist
would be charged.
-------
TABLE 7.
SUMMARY OF PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS
Title Annual salary
Administrative
Administrator
Assistant Administrator (Support)
Assistant Administrator
(Operations)
Legal Council
Purchasing/Contracts Officer
Accountant
Engineer
Systems Analyst
Statistician/Programmer
Mechanic Training Coordinator
Regional Manager
Regional Inspector
Regional Public Information
Coordinator
Mechanic Training Instructor
Instrument Repair Technician
Inspector/Licensing Officer
Clerk
Typist /Secretary
Operations
Manager
Assistant Manager
Maintenance Persons
Inspectors
Total Personnel
$25,000
17,000
21,000
15,000
13,000
12,000
10,400
11,000
10,500
13,000
21,500
15,500
15,500
11,000
12,000
15,500
7,000
8,000
20,000
13,500
12,000
10,400
Number of positions for each option
Option 1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
3
1
1
1
-
—
20
20
9
344
419
Option 2
I
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
3
1
1
1
-
—
20
20
7
216
289
Option 3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
3
1
1
1
-
—
15
15
5
141
202
Option 4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
3
1
1
1
-
—
20
20
9
344
419
Option 5
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
3
1
1
1
-
—
15
15
5
141
176
Option 6
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
3
5
—
6-17
5
10
1
—
1
2
53-64
-------
Indirect Impacts—
There are several indirect impacts that do not relate to specific options
but which would result from the implementation of any I/M program. These in-
clude the following:
• Health benefits
• Improvement in vehicle performance and vehicle life
• Impact of required maintenance
• Impact on repair and automotive parts industry
The improvement in air quality in those areas where the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards are currently exceeded are likely to have some benefits
in the health of the affected population. The nature of the benefit would de-
pend, of course, on the severity of air pollution prior to the implementation
of the I/M program and the amount of reduction in air pollution resulting from
I/M.
Fleet maintenance records indicate that emission inspection and regular
maintenance of vehicles improves vehicle performance and decreases overall
maintenance costs. There is not yet sufficient data to dimension this benefit
although there is currently research underway to establish some quantified
relationships.
Studies indicate that average repair costs are in the range of $16 to $32
per failed vehicle. Most repairs consist of carburetor adjustment or a minor
tuneup. Repair ceilings, ranging from $50 to $100, or a certain percent of the
vehicle's value have been set in many states to mitigate against potential hard-
ships for the small percentage of vehicles that require major repairs.
The mandatory repair of failed vehicles and the increased incentive for
vehicle maintenance resulting from I/M programs is likely to produce direct and
indirect benefits to the automobile repair and parts industry. There would be
an increase in repair work and an increased demand for parts, especially tune-
up parts and emission controls. At the beginning of the I/M program, the in-
creased demand for repair work may cause some initial shortages, but with time
these should diminish.
Travel to and from the inspection station and waiting time may vary among
the options. Generally, the decentralized garage approach requires less travel
time. However, there would be more inspection stations spread through the popu-
lation; this is offset somewhat by the longer waiting time and the possible need
to leave the car at the private garage.
Political Issues—
I/M programs, although producing significant benefits to the public such
as improvements in air quality, have other potential impacts that the public
may perceive as not being particularly desirable and therefore may hinder the
overall political acceptance of the program. Such issues or impacts include
the following:
14
-------
• Economic impact on low income citizens;
• Potential overcharging for repairs and performance of unnecessary
repair work; and
• Problems of conflict of interest and uniformity of inspection in
the private garage approach.
One of the fears expressed about I/M programs has been that it would place
a burden on low income citizens by forcing them to make expensive repairs,
thereby resulting in rather severe economic hardship. This problem has been
significantly ameliorated by instituting repair cost ceilings. Thus, if the
cost of the repairs needed to meet the standard exceed the cost ceiling, say
of $75 to $100, then the vehicle may receive an inspection waiver. Given the
relatively small percentage of vehicles that have been found to need these major
repairs, little is sacrificed in terms of air quality benefits by making these
exemptions and much is gained in terms of overall public acceptance.
The problem of dealing with repair overcharging or unnecessary repair work
can be dealt with in several ways. Some states have instituted formal repair
procedures that are specified for various emission failure problems. Mechanics
training programs address these problems by encouraging a generally higher level
of repair competence and motivation. Quality assurance programs can be designed
to identify those garages that charge significantly more than the average repair
cost or identify garages generally drawing numerous consumer complaints. Such
procedures can be relatively informal or can be tied in with formal licensing
of garages or mechanics.
The option with inspection as well as repair in licensed private garages
may pose quality assurance and consumer protection problems. With a large num-
ber of garages having emission analyzers of varying degrees of quality, and
with less uniform supervision, there will probably be less uniformity in the
inspection in garages. Moreover, there is an inherent conflict of interest in
having the same station conduct both the testing and maintenance phases of I/M.
15
-------
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were adopted during 1977 have
established that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollu-
tants such as carbon monoxide (CO) and photochemical oxidants (Ox) must be
attained in all areas of the U.S. no later than 31 December 1982. The Amend-
ments also require that each state submit a revised State Implementation Plan
(SIP) during January 1979 demonstrating compliance by 31 December 1982. That
all states will not be able to demonstrate total compliance by the end of 1982
is recognized in the Amendments and provisions are made for extending the com-
pliance date to 31 December 1987. In order to obtain the extension, however,
the revised SIP to be submitted in January 1979 must include (among other
things) a specific schedule for the implementation of a motor vehicle emis-
sions inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in those nonattainment areas
that have an urbanized population greater than 200,000. Failure to submit an
acceptable I/M schedule (or if a reasonable effort toward submitting an accep-
table schedule is not being made) will result in rather severe sanctions being
imposed on the state.
Preliminary reviews of the status of air quality control regions in the
State of Wisconsin have indicated that the NAAQS for Ox and/or CO will not be
achieved by 31 December 1982 in all instances. Given the requirements of the
Clean Air Act Amendments mentioned above, a decision was made to initiate
action that would serve to identify the overall requirements for I/M in the
State. This action involved the establishment of an Inter-Agency Task Force,
comprised of representatives from the Departments of Natural Resources and
Transportation, which will provide a technical advisory function for the
State. Also, to assist the State in its early efforts, the Region V Office of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency contracted a consulting firm - GCA/
Technology Division - to provide specific technical assistance to the Inter-
Agency Task Force.
The initial effort in this connection was the development of background
data regarding the general technical and administrative aspects of I/M pro-
grams, and a summary of various states' experiences to date with actual pro-
gram operation. GCA provided this background information through a series of
technical memoranda and a summary report.
Based in part on the data provided by GCA, the inter-Agency Task Force
identified and evaluated a series of 55 possible I/M program options. As a
result of the evaluation, the Task Force selected a total of six specific I/M
16
-------
program scenarios that appeared to be the most desirable for implementation.
The six program options were then transmitted to GCA for detailed analysis
and evaluation under a continuing contractual agreement with EPA. The intent
was to provide a comparative analysis of the options in terms of costs, bene-
fits, degree of difficulty regarding implementation, etc., that the Task Force
could utilize as a primary reference in selecting the one particular option
that will eventually be implemented. The purpose of this document is to
present the details and conclusions of the analysis.
What are Inspection and Maintenance Programs?
Prior to discussing specific details regarding inspection and maintenance
(I/M) program issues in Wisconsin, a general discussion of the basic concepts
of I/M are in order.
Beginning with 1968 model-year vehicles, automobiles manufactured in or
imported into the U.S. have had to comply with emission standards specified
in the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program (FMVECP). Under this
program, maximum emission rates are established for new vehicles, and manu-
facturers must demonstrate through an auditing program that their vehicles
are in compliance with these emission limits. The emission standards spec-
ified by the FMVECP require progressively more stringent control of emissions
with each subsequent model year.
To comply with the emission standards, manufacturers have retained their
existing engine design concepts, but developed emission control devices
(crankcase ventilation control, catalytic converters, etc.) and revised cer-
tain system parameter specifications (air-to-fuel ratio, ignition timing,
etc.). This approach to emission control ostensibly satisfied the require-
ments of the FMVECP for new vehicles. However, surveillance studies conducted
by EPA disclosed that the emission rate for these "controlled" vehicles gen-
erally increased with time at a much greater rate than was expected, therefore
reducing greatly the overall effectiveness of the FMVECP. Further analyses
determined that the root causes of the rapid deterioration of these emission
control systems could be traced to either improper or inadequate maintenance,
or tampering with the devices or system settings.
In light of these findings, effort has been expended on developing tech-
niques for reducing the air quality impact of poor maintenance practices and
tampering. One result of this effort is the evolution of the inspection and
maintenance concept.
In its most basic sense, inspection and maintenance refers to a program
where vehicle exhaust emission levels are measured during specified operating
conditions and compared with a specified standard for that particular vehicle
configuration. If the measured rate exceeds the standard, the need for some
form of maintenance, adjustment or repair is indicated. This is a very
simplistic explanation of I/M, but it does serve to define the basic concept
involved. A more precise discussion of various technical aspects of I/M
may be found in the EPA report entitled "Summary Report on Vehicle Emissions
Inspection and Maintenance Programs."
17
-------
A variety of approaches have been used to run I/M programs, but the
major types are generally in three organizational categories as follows:
1. Government - Centralized test facilities operated by state,
city, or local government (as in New Jersey; Cincinnati, Ohio;
Portland, Oregon; and Chicago, Illinois).
2. Contractor - Centralized facilities operated by a private
corporation under contract to a government (as in Maricopa
and Pima Counties, Arizona).
3. Private Garage - Decentralized facilities operated by private
automobile service garages, certified or licensed by a govern-
ment (as in Rhode Island and Nevada).
The major issues that need to be addressed in setting up an I/M program
include the following:
1. Type of Emissions Test - Idle or Loaded
2. Geographical Coverage
3. Organizational Approach
4. Frequency of Inspection
5. Enforcement Procedure
6. Vehicles to be Tested
7. Vehicles to be Exempted
8. Data Handling Procedures
9. Adjunctive Programs (e.g., Public Information, Consumer
Protection, Mechanic Training, etc.)
PROGRAMS OPTIONS CONSIDERED
As indicated above, the State Inter-Agency Task Force has selected six
specific I/M program scenarios for consideration here. Included are (1)
centralized, contractor-operated, steady-state loaded mode emission testing,
combined with noise and safety inspections; (2) centralized, contractor-
operated, steady-state, loaded mode emission testing; (3) centralized, con-
tractor-operated, idle mode emission testing; (4) centralized, state-operated,
steady-state, loaded mode emission testing, combined with safety and noise
testing; (5) centralized, state-operated, idle mode emission testing; and (6)
decentralized, private garage/service station operation using idle mode
emission testing, with provisions for a referee station. The primary features
of each option are listed in Table 8.
The programs must be defined further in several respects. First, it is
intended that only nine counties be affected by I/M, including:
18
-------
TABLE 8. I/M OPTIONS ANALYZED
Option Geographic
no. coverage
Operation and
operating agency
Vehicles to be inspected
Remarks
Nine counties
Loaded
Centralized facilities
contractor operated
All passenger cars and light 30 percent stringency factor;
Nine counties Loaded Centralized facilities;
contractor operated
trucks with GVW less than
8,500 pounds except those
less than 1 or more than
12 years old
Same as Option 1
annual inspections; mechanic
training to be performed; safety
and noise inspections to be per-
formed, alsoT
30 percent stringency factor;
annual inspections; mechanic
training to be performed
3
4
5
6
Nine counties Idle Centralized facilities;
Nine counties Loaded Centralized facilities;
state operated
Nine counties Idle Centralized facilities;
state operated
*
Nine counties Idle Inspections performed
in private service
stations and garages
Same
Same
as Option
as Option
1
1
Same
Same
as
as
Option
Option
2
1 (includes safety
and noise inspections)'''
Same
Same
as Option
as Option
1
1
Same
Same
as
as
Option
Option
2
2
Includes Brown, Dane, Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Walworth, Washington, and Waukesha Counties
Safety and noise inspections would be statewide
-------
1. Brown County
2. Dane County
3. Kenosha County
4. Milwaukee County
5. Ozaukee County
6. Racine County
7. Walworth County
8. Washington County
9. Waukesha County
These counties are shown in Figure 1. The Task Force indicated that the noise
and safety inspection aspects shall be considered for statewide implementation.
Secondly, several additional aspects of the candidate programs were
defined concerning parameters such as cut points, vehicle exemptions, inspec-
tor training, etc. Specifically, these are:
• Inspection Frequency - Annual inspections will be performed and
a staggered schedule will be established so that approximately
11 percent (accounting for reinspections of failed vehicles) of
the affected vehicle population will be inspected each month.
• Vehicle Categories to be Inspected - Vehicles to be included
in the mandatory I/M program include: (a) all light-duty,
gasoline-powered vehicles other than those that are less than
1 year old (based on model year) or more than 12 years old;
and (b) all light-duty, gasoline-powered trucks with a gross
vehicle weight (GVW) of 8,500 pounds or less.
• Stringency Factor - This parameter has been defined as
30 percent.
• Test Types - The safety and noise inspection programs will be
entirely new. It is intended that the safety program provide
detailed, diagnostic inspections utilizing both dynamic and
static test modes, as well as visual and manual inspections.
The noise program is envisioned as focusing on ensuring that
adequate exhaust system components are used on all vehicles,
therefore, the pass/fail criterion would simply be a standard
specifying the maximum exhaust noise level permitted under
some operating mode specification (e.g., idle, idle at a
specific engine speed, etc.).
• Inspector and Mechanic Training - Regardless of the program
option selected, a basic requirement would be that individuals
performing either inspections or performing maintenance would
be required to participate in a training program.
20
-------
KEY:
COUNTY AFFECTED
BY Z/M
Figure 1. Wisconsin counties affected by I/M.
21
-------
The inspection frequency, vehicle category, stringency, and inspector/mechanic
training parameters described above will be identical for all six basic
options; the safety and noise inspection program specifications will be iden-
tical for two options where these elements are to be considered.
BASIS AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
Again, the basic intent here is to provide a comparative analysis of the
six-candidate I/M scenarios delineated above. A logical question at this
point would be: What would constitute an appropriate basis for gaging the
relative merits of each program option? The approach used here focuses on
identifying the costs, benefits, and other implications associated with each
scenario, and developing comparisons of these among the six program options.
In presenting the results of the analysis of the options, a detailed discussion
of the basic methodologies used is first provided in Section 3. The discussion
encompasses (1) basic techniques, assumptions and data sources used to define
the costs associated with each option; (2) benefits associated with the I/M
programs in general and the program applied in Wisconsin, specifically; and
(3) considerations used in developing estimates of personnel requirements -
both the number of individuals required and the associated costs are described.
Sections 4 through 9 discuss the specific options with regard to costs,
benefits and personnel requirements, on an individual basis. The discussion
is option-specific in each of these sections, although it is based to a large
extent on the methodologies defined in Section 3.
Sections 10 and 11 discuss two issues that are of tangential importance
in I/M planning, but which should be considered nevertheless. These include
(1) external costs and benefits relative to implementation of a I/M program,
and (2) legislative considerations in the implementation process, which are
discussed in Sections 10 and 11, respectively.
Section 12 provides a comparison among options regarding costs, benefits,
and manpower requirements, and a discussion of additional features of each on
a comparative basis. Finally, several Appendices are provided describing
method used to compute emission benefits, public information programs, a
sensitivity analysis, and a glossary of terms commonly used in reference to
I/M.
Again, it is stressed here that this report does not attempt to provide
recommendations regarding the choice of a specific option; rather it is
intended to provide the State Inter-Agency Task Force with a sufficient basis
for selecting one specific option for implementation.
22
-------
SECTION 3
METHODOLOGIES
INTRODUCTION
As previously indicated, this section is intended to provide a compara-
tive analysis of the primary factors associated with the six options. Speci-
fically, the primary factors that will serve as the basis for developing the
comparisons include benefits, costs, and manpower requirements associated
with the various options. It is noted that there are several elements in all
the factors that are common to all options; these will be indicated in the
discussion.
BENEFITS
The primary benefits associated with an I/M program are, first, reductions
in hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions, and second, improvements in the
fuel efficiency of vehicles undergoing related maintenance. The expected level
of benefits (that is, the amount of emission reduction and fuel savings) is
constant across all six I/M options being considered here. The following
provides both a description of the methods used to quantify these benefits
and the results of the analysis. It is noted that other benefits (both posi-
tive and negative) may accrue also, however, these are considered to be
secondary and will be discussed in a subsequent section as external factors.
Emissions Reductions
To assess the reductions from the I/M program being considered here,
county emission inventories for 1977 and 1987 without I/M, and 1987 with I/M,
were prepared. Comparison of the two inventories without I/M indicates the
general trend in vehicular emissions, taking into account both increases
(usually) in travel and a general decrease in the average vehicle emission
rate with time resulting from the increased stringency of the Federal Motor
Vehicle Emission Control Program. The actual effectiveness of the I/M pro-
gram is seen by comparing the two inventories reflecting 1987 emissions.
The emission inventories were developed using EPA's Mobile I computer
routine. Input data regarding vehicle-miles of travel by vehicle type and
roadway category, travel speeds, etc., were provided for each county by the
Wisconsin Department of Transportation. As indicated previously, an assumed
stringency factor of 30 percent and specification of mandatory I/M applying
*
1977 emissions data were not prepared for Dane and Brown Counties owing to
the lack of required data.
23
-------
only to light-duty, gasoline-powered cars and trucks between 1 and 13 years
old were used (a detailed description of the development of these inventories
is provided in Appendix A). It is assumed, further, that the program is
fully implemented by the end of 1982. It is noted that the emission reduc-
tions are identical for all options being evaluated here, therefore only one
set of data are presented.
Emissions are reported in two forms; first as an emission rate (in grams
per mile) in Tables 9 and 10, and secondly, as total daily emissions in
Tables 11 and 12. As can be seen, the I/M program should, by 1987, result
in reductions in hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions in the individual
counties ranging from 20 to 24 percent and 24 to 30 percent, respectively,
beyond those reductions expected from the FMVECP. Again, these reductions
reflect the impact of any one of the six options under consideration.
Fuel Savings
There are no firm figures to date regarding the effect of an I/M program
on fuel economy. It is generally accepted that the inspection sequence has
a favorable influence on fuel economy by providing the incentive for owners
to maintain their vehicles at higher standards than they would in the absence
of I/M.
Estimates of fuel savings vary from a 4 percent improvement, noted in
California's Riverside Trial Program (idle mode), to a 10 percent savings,
based on the first 6 months that Hamilton Test Systems operated a program
for Arizona. These figures are for light-duty vehicles that failed the
emissions test and have thus been repaired. Noting such studies as these,
EPA has suggested a range of 5 to 10 percent for expected fuel savings on
repaired vehicles. A 7 percent figure is used here as an average for calcu-
lations. This figure may be revised if the results from an ongoing study in
Oregon prove more conclusive.
These fuel economy figures must be qualified somewhat in order to be
meaningful. If the 4 percent improvement figure noted in California is
"deteriorated" over 1 year and distributed equally over the total vehicle
population tested, fuel economy improvement is only 0.6 percent. Over time,
the fuel economy realized by I/M will decline. This is particularly true for
that segment of the vehicle population that upgraded maintenance levels to
meet I/M standards.
There are also other important variables to be considered that influence
fuel economy figures, and perhaps can be pointed to as the reasons for so
many different study results thus far. These include test mode, character-
istics of the pertinent vehicle population, geographic coverage of the
program and stringency rate used as well as the amount of time the program
has been in effect.
24
-------
TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS PER VMT (gm/VMT)
Heavy-duey trucka
°nt' 1977
Milwaukee - Seven County-
Metropolitan Area
Kenoiha County , 259
Milwaukee County, 2.64
freeway and arterial*
Ozaukee County, 2.57
freeway and arterial*
•acme County, 2.52
freeway and arterial*
Walworth County, 2.64
freeway and arterial*
Vaahington County, 2.57
Vauke»ba County, 2.59
freeway and arterial*
Seven-County local 4.42
Aggregate 2.83
Brown County
Aggregate
Dane County
Aggregate
1987
1 51
1.78
1.41
1.47
1.53
1.50
1.54
3.36
1.59
2.46
2.12
1977
15 40
17 85
15.49
16.24
13.08
12.79
13.87
28.76
19 39
-
-
1987
5.22
6.93
4.62
5.39
4.02
4.43
4.65
12.76
7.25
8.05
5.34
1977 19
5 12
5.76
4.81
5.31
4.83
4.73
4.96
7.17
5.56
-
-
Light-duty vehicle*
'87 without I/M 1987 I/M
auto auto
1.39
1.63
1.31
1.42
1.27
1.31
1.34
2.22
1.54
1.77
1.58
0 95
1.08
0.90
0.96
0.81
0.90
0.91
1.43
1.03
1.17
1.05
1977 1987 without I/M 1987 I/M
LD-truck LD-truck U>-truck*
7.06
7.63
5.73
7.31
6.51
6.43
5.96
9.43
7.18
-
-
2.72
3.15
2.53
2.82
2.16
2.55
2.63
4.22
2.91
3.10
2.81
2 72
3.15
2.53
2.82
2.16
2.55
2 63
4.22
2.94
3.10
2.81
Travel-weighted average
1977 .
5.45
6.44
5.07
5.83
5.42
5.20
5 59
8.45
6.22
-
-
Percent
1987 1987 reduction
xittrout I/M I/M 1977-1987 I/M
1.59
2.60
1.50
1.66
1.54
1.57
1.65
2.88
1.88
2.12
1.89
1 21
1.52
1.15
1.26
1.23
1.26
1.29
2.21
1.44
1.61
1.44
78
76
77
78
77
76
77
74
77
-
-
Percent
reduction
1987-1987 I/H
24
24
23
24
20
20
22
23
23
24
24
Ho reduction in light-duty truck eauaaiona wai calculated becauae the credita for thia particular vehicle category have yet to be
eetabliehed by IPA. Appropriate adjuatienti vill be Bade when the credita are aude available.
-------
TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS PER VMT (gm/VMT)
Ni
ON
Llwaukee - Se^en-C^untv
;tropolitan \rea
freevay aid artenals
Ozaukee Count) ,
freeway and artenals
Racine Couity,
freeway and arterial*
Walworth County,
freeway and arterial*
Wauke)h4 County,
Seven-County local
Aggregate
rotm County
Aggregate
me County
Aggregate
.
191?
dieael
15 "I
25 0:
15 30
13 45
15.21
15.29
30.28
16 99
-
-
tatablished by EPA Appropriate
eavy uty tr^c s
1987 1977
11 30 161 =5
13 21 if: 36
10 52 156 02
10.97 174.61
11 25 148.87
11.46 157 68
27.18 268.72
11.89 180.90
18 89
15 88
1
adjustment* will be
1937
1U 49
125 93
111 84
116 61
107 87
119.94
164.22
129 17
133 34
121.78
197' 1"87
34 tl
32 06
31.05
36.93
30.93
32.24
60 75
35.28
-
-
1 i b t
made when the credit*
auto auto I.D-truck
11.73 6 24 41 38
14 21 7 57 49 98
11 01 5 85 36 60
12.07 6 42 46.12
10 61 5.64 37.01
11.29 6.01 39 38
20 28 10.85 71.04
13 35 7.11 47.82
15 72 8.38
13.65 7.26
f IT 1 h 1
are made available.
D
M>- truck Mi-truck* 19" without I/" I '» 1977-1931 I/M
.5 -2 '5 *2 38 41 15 45 10 76 72
30 S2 30 82 -C *3 21 03 15.14 92
23 34 23 34 35 46 15 13 10 73 70
26 53 26 53 42 76 16 84 11.99 72
22 73 22.73 38 52 16.71 12.74 67
23.37 23.37 40 98 18.26 13.92 66
43.63 43 63 72.20 29.33 21.05 71
2! 92 28.18 43.29 19,68 14 36 67
31 81 31.81 - 21.19 14.95
27 84 27 84 - 18.89 13 45
„
res.ction
•.9S--D61 I/H
K
28
29
29
-~
24
28
27
29
29
-------
TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF DAILY HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS (kg/day)
N3
Lijht-dyty vehiclef *U vehicle!
i°87 1987 1987 1987 1987 1987 P*rc«at
197? 1987 1977 ;987 1977 1987 1977 vichout I/H l /„ 197? without 1/H I/M 1977 viEhout I/M I/M 1M7 1«7 «*Kttoo
K«-;»f» County, 2*4 457 378 307 1,122 464 7,312 2.607 1 T>2 742 428 428 8054 3,036 2.200 9,176 3,500 2,664 71
freeway and arterial* *
frtevij tad artariali
fracway and artarxals '
tfaukaiha County, 239 152 3,697 1,371 3,936 1,523 16,052 5,557 3,796 1,738 1,070 1 070 17 790 6,627 4,866 21,726 8,150 6,389 71
freeway and arterial* '
•rowa Cowity
to"l - 108 - 750 - 858 - 4,382 2,897 - 930 930 - 5,312 3,827 - 6,170 4,685
Dm* CoMty
*«t*1 - 289 - 1,382 - 1,671 - 7,337 4,865 - 1,302 1,302 - 8.639 6.167 - 10,310 7.838
Perceac
reduce ioe
1987-1987 Ifn
24
24
23
20
21
22
23
23
24
24
-------
TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF DAILY CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS (kg/day)
00
197'
Jtetropc.itan Are*
Keactba County, 1,^81
Milwaukee Countv, 2,J62
freeway and arterials
IACLM County, 1,018
Walvorth County, 967
freeway and arterial*
Washington County. 787
freeway and arterial*
Waukeaha County, 1,413
Seven-County local 2.643
Total 11,635
Brown County
Total
Dne Comty
Total
%o redaction in light-duty truck e
L
198- i98-
i,l 'I* 9,: 31 6,741 11, 7 i: 7,915 49,399 22 006 11,709 .,352
2,40i 105,000 76,139 10,736 '8,543 309.848 143,141 76,285 :S,080
996 15,872 10.884 16,890 11,880 64,834 26,469 14,082 6,448
943 10,912 8,266 11,879 9,209 26,227 12,913 6,868 3,912
8W2 9,364 7,556 10,151 8,358 31,003 13,566 7,212 4,251
1,129 42.038 32,990 43,451 34,119 104.M9 *6,916 24,9*9 11,479
259 37,298 20.347 39.941 20,606 124,331 42,428 22,699 10,926
8,426 236,065 167,739 247,700 176,165 736,122 319,457 170,176 71.723
825 - 12,431 - 13,256 - 38.919 M.747
2,163 - 26,548 - 26,837 - 63,244 33,639
•i*ai.ofu waa calculated becaua* the credit a for thia particular vehicle category have yet
ight-dutv v
19c
3 ,997
21,07''
4,597
3,409
3,879
9,931
6,861
55,050
9,543
12,867
to be
•et-icles All vehiclei
L9e" 1987 L?a' Percent
3,997 53,951 26,003 15,706 64,663 33,918 23,621 64
21,078 337.928 1*4,216 97,363 445,290 242,761 175,906 61
4,597 71,282 31,066 18,679 88,172 i2,946 30,559 65
3,408 30,139 16,3*2 10,276 42,018 25,551 19,485 54
3,885 35,254 17.445 11,097 45.405 25.803 19,455 57
9,931 115, US 54,3*7 34,880 159,339 90.466 68,999 57
6.861 135.157 4*. 119 29,560 175,198 69,895 50,166 71
55.056 807,8*5 374, »7 225,732 1,055.545 550,672 401,897 62
9,5*3 - *«,*« 30,290 - 61,718 43.546
12,867 - 76,111 46,506 - 102,948 73,343
-
30
28
29
29
24
25
24
28
27
29
29
-------
Keeping these in mind, some interesting facts and figures on I/M fuel
savings may then be quoted. The U.S. Department of Transportation in the
"Department of Motor Vehicle Diagnostic Inspection Program (DMVDIP)" projected
nationwide impacts of I/M related fuel savings. These show a resulting conser-
vation of 1.8 billion gallons of gasoline/year or $1.1 billion saved by con-
sumers. While the accuracy of this estimate is open to speculation, its
magnitude is impressive. Hamilton Test Systems has noted a decrease in
vehicle failure in the field, thus saving vehicle owners towing charges as
well as other related expenses. The EPA has noted that improvement in fuel
economy is greatest when the failure rate is minimized. This occurs because
lowering the stringency rate isolates those vehicles most in need of repairs.
An estimate of the fuel savings resulting from implementation of I/M in
nine counties in Wisconsin can be made based on several assumptions. Setting
the program's stringency rate at 30 percent, assuming the average increase in
fuel economy is 7 percent for failed vehicles and that daily VMT in these
counties is 36,305,655 yields a reasonable estimate of potential fuel savings
in 1987. Correcting VMT to reflect the LDV population minus those LDVs
exempt from program coverage (over 12 years old) the program will realize
a fuel savings on the order of 8,642,000 gallons over the year 1987. If fuel
costs $.70 per gallon in 1987 this reduction results in a savings to motorists
of $6,049,400 for that year.
Since the stringency rate is a policy variable that will have a substan-
tial impact on fuel savings accruing from the program, Table B-3 in Appendix B
presents fuel savings estimates for stringency rates varying from 10 to 50
percent. I/M programs have not been of sufficient duration to accurately
assess the actual magnitude of fuel improvements that will be experienced by
failed (and subsequently repaired) vehicles, therefore Table B-3 also varies
this factor between 2 and 10 percent. In addition to reporting these esti-
mates, Appendix B presents the methodology used to generate the 1987 fleet
mileage estimate and the determination of what portion of LDV VMT are generated
by vehicles less than 13 years old.
COST CONSIDERATIONS
The technique used in developing the cost analysis was to focus on spe-
cific cost categories so that very elemental comparisons among programs would
be possible. The specific cost categories, and elements thereof, that were
used are outlined in Table 13.
All the costs specified in Table 13 are reported in 1978 dollars. At this
stage of the analysis, inflation is assumed to be nonexistent.
Initial Capital Costs
These costs reflect the initial outlay of money required for the design
and implementation of a program. These costs are very sensitive to the type
of program selected as well as to the specific features incorporated into any
particular option. As indicated in Table 13, there are three primary elements
associated with these costs.
29
-------
TABLE 13. OUTLINE OF PROGRAM COST CATEGORIES AND ELEMENTS
Pi imary category
1 . Initial Capital Costs
Principal Element
1 . Land investment
2. Building investment
a.
b.
a.
Items included
Actual land cost
Pavement and landscaping
Construction cost
II. One-Time Start-Up Coats
III. Annual Operating Costs
I V Annun 1 Administrative Costs
3. Equipment costs
1. Land acquisition
2. Facilities planning
3. Program design
4. Develop data handling systems
software
5. Personnel training
6. Personnel salaries and overhead
prior to start-up
7. Initial public information program
1. Facility personnel
2. Maintenance
3, Utilities/services/supplies
1. Program administrative personnel
2. Enforcement
3. Consumer protection/quality
Assurance
4. Public information
5. Training, licensing, certification
a. Primary test equipment
b. Ancillary equipment
c. Office equipment/furnitures
d. Maintenance equipment
a. Site location studies
b. Title transfer costs
a. Design study
b. Bid evaluation
c. Construction monitoring
a. Develop equipment specifications
b. Develop subprograms (e.g., public
information, surveillance, quality
control, enforcement, etc.)
c. Define personnel organizational
structure
d. Define data handling needs
e. Plan program effectiveness
studies
Inspectors
Managers
Quality control personnel
a. Wages, benefits, etc.
a. Equipment
a. Electric
b. Heat
c. Insurance
d. Miscellaneous
e. Taxes
a. Wages, overhead
30
-------
Land Investments—
A number of issues beyond the obvious one of land area are extremely
crucial in estimating land costs. The basic unit cost, for example, is in
most instances, lot-specific to the extent that the cost per square foot
within any block may vary by a factor of 3; within any city or town, the cost
may vary by a factor of 10 or more. It is obvious, then, that a precise unit
cost for land cannot be provided here. Alternatively, estimates were developed
by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Bureau of Real Estate, based
on the general requirements for each option specified by GCA regarding size,
access, zoning, etc., for each county and in some instances for specific muni-
cipalities within counties. These estimates, shown in Table 14, reflect early
1978 average market value of commercially zoned land located along major
arterial streets.
TABLE 14. ESTIMATED VALUE FOR COMMERCIALLY-ZONED
LAND IN NINE WISCONSIN COUNTIES
. . n. , Estimated value
County Municipality/area ($/ft2)
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Green Bay
Suburbs
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Cedarburg
Racine
All
West Bend
Brookfield
Muskego
Waukesha
1.70
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.70
1.50
0.60
0.75
0.67
0.85
2.50
1.85
2.30
Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation,
Bureau of Real Estate.
That these estimates represent an average of a fairly wide range in actual
unit costs is acknowledged here and should be borne in mind in comparing these
with lot-specific estimates, which, undoubtedly, will be developed in subsequent
studies if a centralized inspection option is selected.
Improvements to the land are also included in this category. This involves
primarily pavement and landscaping. Estimates provided by the Bureau of Real
Estate indicated that the unit costs for pavement and landscaping are approxi-
mately $0.80 per square foot and $0.25 per square foot, respectively.
31
-------
Building Investments—
Building costs are obviously dependent on specific designs and features
utilized, therefore the unit costs, generally on a dollar-per-square foot
basis, can be expected to vary somewhat. For the centralized facility options
being considered here, a general design description was developed and sub-
mitted to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Bureau of Real Estate,
for an assessment of the likely unit cost. The general building design calls
for a clear span, metal structure, utilizing metal sandwich panel walls with
normal wall and ceiling finish for the administrative areas, and no wall or
ceiling finish in the inspection area. Equipment such as an air exchange and
forced hot air heaters in the inspection area, and central heating and air-
conditioning in the administrative areas are also included. No provisions are
made for specialized systems such as exhaust fume collection, etc.; these are
included in the equipment costs.
Based on the general design features described above and on the building
size requirements, the Bureau of Real Estate estimated that the cost of construct-
ing the buildings required for centralized test facilities would be $25 per
square foot. This value was used in the cost evaluations developed here.
Equipment Costs—
The equipment cost estimates used in this study were developed primarily
from interviews with manufacturer's representatives. These interviews focused
on identifying the most appropriate type and model for various major items and
determining the general level of skill required to operate and maintain each.
Specific costs are presented in the detailed discussion of each option.
One-Time Start-Up Costs
Implementation of an I/M program will require the expenditure of monies
for noncapital items and services on a one-time basis prior to the actual start-
up. Costs associated with this category are perhaps the most difficult to de-
fine at this point primarily because the elements involve services (program
planning, design, and development), which are inherently much more variable in
cost than, for instance, equipment or land costs. This is especially true for
this analysis where a specific scope for these services has not been developed.
Considerations used in developing cost estimates for each element are discussed
below.
Land Acquisition—
Included in this element are the costs for locating candidate sites,
negotiating the purchase, and completing title transfers. Costs for locating
and negotiating the purchase of land reflect personnel time requirements of
approximately 200 man-hours of professional technical time, plus 40 hours of
professional legal time for each site. To translate the man-hours to cost,
a $20-per-hour and $50-per-hour value were assigned to the technical and legal
hours, respectively; this represents a total cost of $6,000 per site for this
component. The final component - title transfer - is considered to include
physical surveys, title searches, site plan preparation, and miscellaneous
support functions required to execute the purchase. The cost associated with
this component was assumed to be 10 percent of the purchase price of the land.
32
-------
Facilities Planning—
This element reflects the costs associated with engineering and design
for the test facilities, bid review, and construction monitoring. The value
of these services was estimated as a function of the total building cost for
each option. Specifically, for total building construction costs of up to
$3 million, a value of 20 percent of the construction cost estimate was used;
for building costs of $3 million to $6 million, 15 percent of the cost was
used, while for building costs greater than $6 million, 10 percent was used.
Program Design—
This element reflects the cost of additional planning studies required to
establish specific formats for the operation and administration of both the
actual inspection program and adjunctive programs such as public information.
These costs are, again, likely to be quite variable depending on factors such
as the extent of in-house effort undertaken by the State; the relative cost is
expected to vary somewhat as a function of the particular option selected. In
deriving an estimate, the experiences of other states were considered primarily
to complement our analyses.
Data Handling Software—
Regardless of the option selected for implementation, a data software
package will be required to provide both basic recordkeeping and program anal-
ysis functions. The estimates developed were based largely on both the experi-
ences of various states and conversation with representatives of commercial
data processing firms.
Personnel Training—
Although personnel training will require an ongoing effort, an initial,
highly intensive program must be undertaken to essentially train and certify
both the entire staff of inspectors and managerial personnel, as well as
mechanics from the private sector who will be performing the required main-
tenance. It is noted that the maintenance phase of I/M programs is generally
phases such that the first several months include voluntary maintenance;
therefore, the intensity required to train mechanics is somewhat less than
that for inspectors.
To develop cost estimates for training, it was considered that a logical
approach would be for the State to provide instructors who would be trained at
workshops or through vocational education programs designed specifically to
meet the requirements of I/M. These instructors, then, would provide training
for the actual inspectors and mechanics. Programs designed specifically for
this type of an approach are available from the Colorado State University
through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Cost estimates were developed based on information obtained from the lit-
erature and directly from Colorado State University. The training costs asso-
ciated with the private garage option are likely to be higher than for the
others. The primary reasons for this are that (I) more inspectors/mechanics
will have to be trained, and (2) special facilities and equipment will have to
be provided for training. The training considers three technical levels,
including: (1) instructors, (2) investigators, and (3) inspector/mechanics.
33
-------
Based on a 40-hour program for both instructors and investigators, and a
12-hour program for inspectors/mechanics, the estimated per person cost of
training, respectively, is $74.00, $59.00, and $22.00 for the private garage
option. If centralized inspection facilities were used for training, the
cost per instructor, investigator, and inspector/mechanic would be $53.00,
$43.00, and $16.00, respectively.
Personnel Salaries—
The literature and interviews with both officials from states with
existing I/M programs and private contractors involved in I/M program opera-
tion, indicate that for centralized programs, the managerial, support, and
technical personnel should be phased into the program prior to beginning
mandatory inspection. This phase-in would bring managerial personnel in 6
months prior to startup, while inspectors would begin 1 month before the
mandatory phase. Support personnel would be phased-in throughout this period.
During this period, personnel would become familiar with their specific job
functions and general procedures. This phase could include voluntary inspec-
tion, which would provide a realistic working environment without the stress
of maintaining a rather rigid production schedule as required during the
mandatory phase. This phase serves as a "shake-down" period for the equip-
ment and test itinerary, as well.
The personnel cost of the first month operation, then, is included in the
one-time start-up cost category for operations personnel (technical, managerial,
and support) for centralized facility options. There is no parallel require-
ment for the private garage option.
The state administrative personnel function would begin 30 months and 18
months prior to start-up for the state-operated and contractor-operated
centralized facility options, respectively. For the private garage option,
administration at the state level would begin 30 months prior to start-up.
Initial Public Information Program—
The experience thus far with I/M program operation shows that there is a
definite requirement for a rather vigorous public information effort prior to
program start-up. While there are no specific requirements defined regarding
the lead-time necessary or the program content and budgetary requirements, the
general experience indicates that it would be reasonable to expect that the
effort should begin anywhere from 6 to 12 months prior to start-up, and that
a preimplementation budget based on $0.10 to $0.12 per vehicle (to be inspected)
is warranted. These general assumptions were used in deriving an estimate of
the initial public information program requirements for Wisconsin; it is noted
that the program requirements are essentially identical for all six options
under consideration here.
Annual Operating Costs
Annual operating costs include all costs associated with the actual oper-
ation of the program. For the purposes here, the costs of adjunctive programs
such as ongoing public information and inspector/mechanic training programs
are not included; rather, the costs associated with these programs are clas-
sified as annual administrative costs, which are discussed later.
34
-------
Facility Personnel—
Determinants of costs associated with the operation of the inspection
facilities are (1) the total number of individuals and relative level of
job responsibility, and (2) the per-unit personnel cost including both wages
and overhead.
In computing the personnel costs, the actual number of persons required
by skill level was derived for each option based on the specific level of work
effort associated with the particular option. The per-hour wage rate for
various categories was derived from data obtained from the State of Wisconsin
Bureau of Personnel, Department of Administration, and the overhead estimates
were based on data from the U.S. Department of Labor and State data, and from
conversations with private contractors involved in operating I/M programs.
The hourly overhead rate was determined to be 25 percent of the basic hourly
wage rate.
Maintenance—
Costs associated with equipment maintenance and upkeep were based on the
experience of other states. In this connection, it was found that these costs
represent approximately 20 percent of the original equipment costs.
Calibration Cost—
The costs for calibration of emission analyzers are composed of the
calibration/maintenance people salaries, the calibration runs, annual oper-
ating expenses for the runs (fuel, maintenance, insurance, etc.) plus the
cost of calibration gases. The first two elements are discussed under
operating personnel costs and equipment costs, respectively. The annual
insurance and fuel costs were assumed to be $1,000 each annually, and the
cost of calibration gases was obtained from a supplier.
Utilities/Services/Supplies—
Included in this element are the costs associated with electricity, heat,
water, building services, insurance, office supplies, inspection forms, etc.
These costs were estimated based on several sources concerning equipment and
facility power requirements determined from manufacturers and the general
literature and the prevailing utility rates in the state, average heating re-
quirements data for similar facilities, insurance costs and general building
service requirements from existing programs.
Annual Administrative Costs
The costs included in this category reflect the overall program adminis-
tration effort. Specifically, the salaries of personnel involved in areas
such as enforcement, consumer protection, public information, and training,
licensing, and certification are included. For the private garage option, an
additional item - data handling - becomes important since the effort is largely
manual. The centralized facilities utilize a high degree of automation,
therefore, data handling costs are reflected as utility and service costs,
which are included as operating costs.
35
-------
TOTAL COST METHODOLOGY
In order to compare costs among various alternatives, the costs appearing
in Table 13 are converted into annual figures. Appendix E contains a complete
description of the methodology used. The more salient points follow.
Initial Capital Costs
The primary elements associated with this category are the costs asso-
ciated with land, buildings, and equipment. These costs were computed in
constant 1978 dollars using appropriate amortization factors.
Since land yields services in perpetuity, the amortization factor is
assumed to be the marginal rate of return on capital. This factor, then, is
sensitive to the source of financing (i.e., equity, debt, or taxes). For
this analysis, a factor of 0.06 is assumed.
Structures are assumed to have a 20-year service life and to yield equal
service throughout this period. The annual cost of each dollar invested in
structures, then, is: -
Similarly, equipment is assumed to provide service for 5 years, thus the
annual cost per dollar invested in equipment is: -
One-Time Startup Costs
One-time startup costs, like capital costs, are incurred only during
initial startup. The startup costs are recouped over the first 5 years of
the project. Thus, the annual cost of each dollar of expenditure is the same
as that for capital equipment, -
Annual Operating and Administrative Costs
These costs are already presented as annual amounts. These amounts must
be added to the annualized capital and startup costs, to arrive at the total
annual cost of the whole project.
Fee Calculations
A fee, fc, is calculated by dividing total annual costs by the number of
paid inspections per year. This fee, along with all other costs, is expressed
in real 1978 dollars. To get figures in actual dollars for years other than
1978, costs and fees must be increased by the amount of inflation since 1978.
36
-------
Interest rates used with real or constant dollar calculations reflect the
real return on capital. Actual interest rates include compensation to offset
the diminished buying power of money under inflation, and thus, are inappro-
priate here.
In the Appendices, another fee, (fa), is presented. This fee is also
expressed in 1978 dollars; however, it is uniform in actual dollars and will
not increase with inflation for 5 years after the program begins.
PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS
The basic requirements of an I/M program call for both operating and
administrative personnel. Operating personnel are those directly involved in
performing inspections or providing managerial functions at the inspection
site. Administrative personnel are involved in operating support programs
such as enforcement and quality control, or in providing overall program
management and administration.
Operating Personnel
This category is the more sensitive to a specific option than is the
administrative category. The basis for determining the requirements for
operating personnel include both analyses of tasks associated with each ele-
ment on the program options, and the experiences of programs currently in
operation. In general, the manpower allocation for centralized facilities
consists of (1) three inspectors per lane for emission inspections or four
inspectors per lane for combined emission, safety and noise inspection,
(2) one manager and one assistant manager for each facility, and (3) one
equipment maintenance person for every three emission inspection facility or
for every two facilities for the combined emission, safety, and noise option.
Specific manpower requirements for each option are delineated in the sections
discussing each option in detail. The requirements for the private garages
are entirely different and will also be discussed in the report section
describing the private garage option.
Administrative Personnel
A scenario of the administrative personnel requirements was developed
based on the overall scope of each option, including geographic coverage and
level of operational activity. The actual requirements are not expected to
vary substantially among options since the relative scope of the program de-
fined by each option does not vary to any extent.
A schematic diagram of the organizational network is presented in
Figure 2. This figure indicates that the I/M program would be coordinated
by an administrator who would oversee actions of supporting services and
station operations sections. Each of these sections would be headed by
respective assistant administrator. The supporting services assistant in
addition to supervising the legal, financial, engineering, and mechanic train-
ing officers, would be responsible for assisting the administrator in policy
decisions. The station operations assistant would supervise regional managers
and be directly responsible for overseeing the operation of state-operated
challenge lane facilities (if utilized).
37
-------
00
1
[Legal Counsel
Pure
Off
Asst Admlnistz
for
4
4
Financial Section
S i N,
Baaing Contracts Accountmnt ,
icer Officer
ator
Engineering Section
/ \ N
A
Systems Statistical
nslM" Analyst Prograoner
Station Operations;
Mechanics
Training Supervisor
Mechanic* Training
Instructor*
1
Regional
Managers
>
State Level
p
I
Challenge Lanes
Figure 2. Administrative Organization.
-------
The legal counsel position, probably handled by the State of Wisconsin
Attorney General's Office, would assist the administration in interpretation
of any legal issues that might arise in the operation of the program.
The financial section of supporting services would consist of three po-
sitions: (1) a purchasing officer, (2) a contracts officer, and (3) an
accountant. The purchasing officer, in addition to handling actual acquisition
of equipment and supplies, would be responsible for formulation of current and
future budget requirements.
The contracts officer would be responsible for negotiation and review of
all contracts necessary to I/M system construction and operation. The
accountant would be in charge of keeping records of all financial transactions
involved in the system operation, possibly including receipt of registration
fees from motorists.
The engineering section would consist of three positions: (1) a systems
engineer, (2) a systems analyst, and (3) a statistician/programmer. The
systems engineer formulates and reviews standards for inspection and strin-
gency rates. The systems analyst reviews system performance and develops more
efficient system operations methodology.
The statistician/programmer would perform statistical analyses and tabu-
lations required for evaluation of station, regional, or statewide operations
and design and update software for data handling.
The mechanics training program coordinator would be responsible for the
hiring and education of instructors, arranging training programs, and devising
tests for licensing of inspectors and repairmen.
The regional managers would supervise operation of all I/M inspection
facilities within each geographic district (to be later defined), direct
surveillance of operations and calibration of test equipment, as well as
preparing budget requirements of the specific region.
The regional inspection and licensing supervisor would be responsible for
certification of repair facilities, and assuring that repair industry analyzers
are in proper calibration and working order. Serving under this position would
be inspection and licensing officials.
The regional complaints investigator would be responsible for following
up on consumer complaints in the geographic region.
The regional Public Relations Coordinator would serve as spokesperson for
the program and provide the public with information to assure participation
and support of I/M.
The mechanic training program instructor would develop and conduct classes
for mechanics and conduct certification testing.
The instrument repair technician would be responsible for equipment repairs,
39
-------
TABLE 15. ESTIMATED HOURLY STARTING SALARIES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND
OPERATIONAL PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
PROGRAMS IN WISCONSIN
I/M job title
State classification
Hourly salary
($)
Administrator
Assistant Administrator
for supporting services
Assistant Administrator
for station operations
Legal Counsel
Purchasing Officer
Contracts Officer
Accountants
Engineer
Systems Analyst
Statistician/Computer
Programmer
Mechanic Training Program
Coordinator
Regional Manager
Regional Inspection and
Licensing Supervisor
Regional Complaints
Investigator
Regional Public Relations
Coordinator
Mechanic Training Program
Instructor
Instrument Repair
Technician
Inspection and Licensing
Official
Administrative Officer 5 12.91
Administrative Assistant 5 (MGT) 8.39
Administrative Officer 3 10.87
or Administrative Officer 4 11.85
Attorney
(all types start at:) 7.47
Purchasing Agent 1 6.54
Account Examiner 1 3.85
or Accountant 1 6.05
Environmental Engineer 1 6.68
or Engineering Technician 1 5.21
Research Analyst 1 5.42
or Research Analyst 2 5.78
Program Writer-Producer 5.26
Program Coordinator 7.09
or Training Officer 1 6.54
Administrative Officer 3 10.87
or Administrative Officer 4 11.85
Motor Vehicle Investigation 7.70
Supervisor 3 or Motor Vehicle
Investigation Program Assistant 6.25
Public Information Officer 4 7.70
or Public Information Officer 1 4.92
Public Information Officer 4 7.70
Teacher I 5.36
or Mechanician I 5.21
Maintenance Mechanic 3 5.91
Motor Vehicle Investigation Super- 7.10
visor 2, or Motor Investigation
Supervisor 3 7.70
(continued)
41
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
I/M job title
State classification
Hourly salary
($)
Inspection Station
Supervisor
Inspection Station
Supervisor
Motor Vehicle Investigation
Supervisor 3
Motor Vehicle Investigation
Supervisor 3
Motor Vehicle Inspector Motor Vehicle Inspector 1
Note: Contact for this information:
Mike Soehner
Bureau of Personnel
Wisconsin
(608) 266-3626
7.70
7.70
5.21
Clerk - Inspection
Station
Inspection Station Main-
tenance Person
Secretary /Typist
Clerk - Office
Keypunch Machine Operator
Lane Supervisor
Clerk 1
Clerk 2
Custodial Supervisor 1
Typist 3 Supervisor
(no secretary listing)
Clerk 1
Clerk 2
Data Processing Machine
Operator I
Motor Vehicle Inspector 3
3.12
3.46
4.60
4.06
3.12
3.46
3.46
6.05
42
-------
SECTION 4
OPTION 1 - CENTRALIZED, CONTRACTOR-OPERATED,
LOADED-MODE WITH SAFETY AND NOISE TESTING
OPTION DEFINITION
This option involves a private contractor establishing a network of cen-
tralized emission, safety, and noise inspection stations throughout the nine-
county area defined in Section 2. The emission inspection would involve loaded-
mode testing of light-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles less than 13 years old,
on an annual basis.
The safety inspection would apply to all light-duty vehicles regardless
of age or fuel used. As a minimum, safety inspections would focus on (1) dyna-
mic brake testing; (2) visual and measured tire and wheel inspection; (3) vi-
sual inspection of suspension components and dynamic steering tests; (4) visual
lamp function and mechanical headlamp aiming; (5) visual glazing; (6) visual
body and sheet metal; and (7) visual exhaust system.
Noise inspections would be conducted on all vehicles undergoing safety
inspection. The primary focus of the noise inspection would be to ensure that
vehicles are equipped with adequate muffler systems.
NETWORK REQUIREMENTS
Two factors are critical in the analysis of network requirements for any
option. The first factor is the size of the vehicle population to be tested.
Motor vehicle registration data for 1977 by county and by vehicle type were
provided by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WDOT) as shown in
Table 16. For this analysis, the system requirements as of 1990 are of in-
terest, therefore projections of vehicle registration to 1990 were derived by
assuming a steady 3 percent annual growth rate in the motor vehicle population
and applying the growth rate to the 1977 data. Although county "vehicles
available" data were obtained from the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission (SEWRPC), comparisons with actual registration data indicated that
the projected growth rates used by SEWRPC were too low, and that a 3 percent
rate was appropriate. The projected 1990 vehicle registration for light-duty
cars and trucks, by county, are shown in Table 17.
The assumed stringency factor throughout this analysis is 30 percent,
meaning that 30 percent of all vehicles tested will fail, by design. Assuming
that all failed vehicles would have to be retested, the number of inspections
to be performed is actually 30 percent higher than the actual number of individ-
ual vehicles required to participate in the program. The actual number of
43
-------
TABLE 16. 1977 MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS BY COUNTY -
LDV AND LOT ONLY
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Total
1977 LDV registrations 1977
77,564
148,718
57,254
454,181
33,867
82,500
33,104
37,250
135,430
1,059,868
LOT registrations
11,503
19,030
8,131
34,722
3,507
10,310
5,892
5,691
17,285
116,071
Total
89,067
167,748
65,385
488,903
37,374
92,810
38,996
42,941
152,715
1,175,939
TABLE 17. PROJECTED 1990 LDV AND LOT
REGISTRATIONS BY
County Total LDV's
Brown 131
Dane 246
Kenosha 96
Milwaukee 718
Ozaukee 55
Racine 136
Walworth 57
Washington 63
Waukesha 225
Total 1,727
COUNTY
and LDT's
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
44
-------
inspections, then is equal to 1.3 times the affected population, as shown in
Table 18.
TABLE 18. ANNUAL NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS REQUIRED
BY COUNTY FOR 1990
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Number of annual inspections
170,000
320,000
125,000
933,000
72,000
177,000
74,000
82,000
293,000
By making various assumptions about the throughput capabilities of a
single lane, the number of such lanes required for each county can be derived.
Assume:
1. One vehicle can be inspected every 4 minutes.
2. An inspection facility is open for business 48 hours per
week, 52 weeks per year.
3. An efficiency factor of 0.67 to account for random arrival
of motorists, equipment downtime, etc.
Then the number of vehicles that can be inspected by one lane per year is:
= (15 cars/hour)(48 hrs/week)(52 weeks/yr)(0.67) =
25,085 vehicles
By dividing the number of inspections by this per-lane annual throughput
figure, the number of lanes required in each county is obtained.
A detailed analysis of the individual tasks associated with the testing
scenario for Option 1 indicates that the throughput time is 4 minutes. This
means that the annual capacity for each inspection lane is 25,085 vehicles,
as indicated above. The number of lanes required in each county, then, is
the number of annual inspections required divided by the lane capacity; the
actual lane requirements are shown in Table 19.
45
-------
TABLE 19. TOTAL INSPECTION LANES REQUIRED TO
SATISFY 1990 INSPECTION DEMAND
County
Number of lanes required
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
7
12
5
35
3
7
3
3
11
Total
86
The desirable allocation of inspection lanes throughout each county (that is,
the number of separate inspection facilities) was determined based on iden-
tifying the lane requirements for (1) the county seat, and (2) the rest of the
county, using the following guidelines:
1. single-lane stations should be avoided owing to the relatively
low level of cost-effectiveness compared to multilane faci-
lities; and
2. the maximum station size should be limited to six lanes owing
to the excessively high cost of, and probable difficulty in,
acquiring parcels large enough to accommodate facilities beyond
six lanes.
Lane facilities required to handle county seat populations were sited within
the county seat, while the remaining facilities were sited in towns or cities
that are most accessible to the remainder of the county. The resulting distri-
bution of facilities by size and by location (municipality) is shown in
Table 20.
OPTION COSTS
The costs associated with the implementation and operation of this option
are presented here. Reference should be made to the discussion in Section 3
concerning the analytical techniques used.
Capital Costs
As indicated in the discussion presented in Section 3, the types of build-
ings that are likely to be used are estimated to cost $25 per square foot to
construct, regardless of which of the centralized facility options is con-
sidered. The problem, then, in developing an estimate of the building cost
46
-------
TABLE 20. INSPECTION NETWORK REQUIREMENTS FOR OPTION 1
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Town
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Bristol
Milwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Rochester
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookf ield
Waukesha
Number of facilities
1
1
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Configuration
3- lane
4- lane
4- lane
4- lane
2-lane
3-lane
6-lane
5-lane
3-lane
4- lane
3-lane
3-lane
3-lane
6-lane
5-lane
Total network
20
86 lanes
47
-------
for any specific option is reduced to one of defining the basic size of the
building.
For this option, an analysis of the specific inspection tasks (including
equipment required) was made to define the general features required of an
inspection facility. Literature searches and interviews with individuals in-
volved in operating similar programs, were then conducted, which resulted in
being able to define the specific building requirements and to dimension the
various work areas. A conceptual floor plan for the basic type of facility
required for safety, noise, and emission testing is shown in Figure 3.
Although Figure 3 shows a one-lane facility, the total floor area for a
multilane facility would increase primarily by the single inspection-area
floor space, times the number of inspection lanes; additional space for
waiting areas, rest areas, etc., would also be required. Table 21 shows the
building area requirements for facility configurations ranging from one to
six lanes.
The cost, then, is computed as the product of (1) the building area, and
(2) the unit cost, assumed here to be $25 per square foot. The actual cost
estimate for the facilities defined in Table 20, then, can be computed. These
are shown in Table 22.
48
-------
•P-
vo
•
•
I
t
1
f
f
^
REST ROOMS 89 ft
ADMINISTRATION
I.OOOft2
STORAGE/UTILITY
39O ft 2
ClMCfe
Track
STATION 1 STAT ON 2
CHECK IN 01
i — r
err
~i
rNAMIC ALIGNMENT LOADED MODE EMISSION
, NOISE ANALYSIS
1 INSPECTOR H UN»ER "ff'V,,
-Jminut., U J.4NSuS2?
\ I I
EMPLOYEE
REST AREA
300 ft2
WAIT/COUMCIL
960 ft 2
J
' STATION 3 1 STATION -4
^^EXHAUST SYSTEM"" ' OYN**"C BRAItE TEST
1 . . J 1 riurni/ m
II 1 INSPECTOR ^T^ m
I ~3 MlMt** ||- T
^
~*
TOTAL TEST AREA' 3,200 fts
TOTAL NONTEST AREA = 2,699 H2
TOTAL BUILDIN6 AREA'9,899 ft2
TOTAL =4 INSPECTORS
13 niliivtM RESIDENCE TIME
4 Mlmitts THROUGH PUT TIME
Figure 3. Conceptual floor plan for a combined safety, noise, and loaded-mode
emission inspection facility.
-------
TABLE 21. BUILDING FLOOR AREA FOR VARIOUS FACILITY CONFIGURATIONS - OPTION 1
Floor area required (
Configuration
1-lane
2-lane
3- lane
4- lane
5-lane
6- lane
Test area
3,200
6,400
9,600
12,800
16,000
19,200
Administration
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
Employee
rest
300
350
410
450
500
550
Storage
350
400
450
500
550
600
ft2)
Waiting
960
1,440
2,240
3,360
4,800
6,560
Restrooms
85
85
85
85
85
85
Total
5,895
9,675
13,785
18,195
22,935
27,995
-------
Land Costs—
The primary determinants of land cost for any option are (1), the unit
cost per square foot, and (2) the total size (square feet of the land to be
acquired. In Section 3, unit cost estimates for land in each county were
presented, and these will be used here.
The lot size requirements are a function of facility size (i.e., the
number of lanes). A general relationship exists between the land area required
and the size floor area of the test facility; this relationship is that the
ratio of land area to building area is approximately 5:1. The building sizes
can be defined as a function of the number of inspection lanes; therefore,
since the number of facilities by configuration (i.e., number of lanes) has
been defined, the land areas for each facility can be defined, as well. The
total land costs, then, are presented in Table 23.
A cost for land improvements is added to the basic land cost to obtain the
total land investment. The primary elements involved in improvements are
paving and landscaping. Based on analyses of parking requirements, standard
pavement and landscaped areas have been developed for each type of facility.
These are shown in Table 24.
Based on a unit price of $0.80 per square foot and $0.25 per square for
paving and landscaping, the improvement costs for each facility type can be
computed. These are shown in Table 25. The actual improvement costs asso-
ciated with each facility are shown in Table 26.
Equipment Costs—
The major equipment items required to operate a combined safety, noise and
emissions test facility were identified based on analyses of each inspection
task requirements and conversations with individuals currently involved in
these types of testing programs. Outlined in Table 27 are the equipment
requirements and associated costs for a combined emission, safety, and noise
inspection program.
51
-------
TABLE 22. BUILDING COST ESTIMATES FOR OPTION 1
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Total
Facility configuration
3-lane
4-lane
4- lane
2- lane
3-lane
6- lane
5-lane
3-lane
4-lane
3-lane
3-lane
3-lane
6-lane
5-lane
Per facility cost
($)
344,625
454,875
454,875
241,875
344,625
699,875
573,375
344,625
454,875
344,625
344,625
344,625
699,875
573,375
Number facilities
required
1
1
3
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total cost
($)
344,525
454,875
1,364,625
241,875
344,625
3,499,375
573,375
344,625
454,875
344,625
344,625
344,625
699,875
573,375
9,828,500
-------
TABLE 23. LAND COSTS FOR EACH INSPECTION FACILITY IN OPTION 1.
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Mi Iwaukee
Ozankee
Racine
Wai worth
Washington
Warkesha
Municipality Facility Number of buil^1arca Land area
configuration facilities ( f. (ft2)
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Bristol '
Milwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Rochester
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookf ield
Warkesha
3
4
4
4
2
3
6
5
3
4
3
3
3
6
5
1
1
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13,785
18,195
36,390
18,195
9,675
13,785
139,975
22,935
13,785
18,195
13,785
13,785
13,785
27,995
22,935
397,200
68,925
90,975
181,950
90,975
48,375
68,925
699,875
114,675
68,925
90,975
68,925
68,925
68,925
139,975
114,675
1,986,000
Unit cost Total
of land land cost
($/ft2) ($)
1.70
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.70
1.70
1.50
1.50
0.60
0.75
0.75
0.67
0.85
2.50
2.50
117,173
90,975
363,900
90,975
82,238
117,173
1,049,813
172,013
41,355
68,231
51,694
46,180
58,586
349,938
286,688
2,986,932
-------
TABLE 24. PAVEMENT AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
FOR OPTION 1 FACILITIES
Facility
configuration
1 lane
2 lane
3 lane
4 lane
5 lane
6 lane
TABLE 25.
_ . , Paved area Landscaped area
Total area (f);2) (fj}
29,475
48,375
68,925
90,975
114,680
139,980
6,620
13,105
19,725
25,940
32,560
38,775
LAND IMPROVEMENT COSTS
INSPECTION SITES UNDER
Facility
configuration
1 lane
2 lane
3 lane
4 lane
5 lane
6 lane
Pavement
Cost
$ 5,296
10,484
15,780
20,752
26,048
31,020
16,960
25,595
35,415
46,840
59,185
73,210
FOR
OPTION 1
Landscaping Total
Cost Improvement Cost
$ 4,240
6,399
8,854
11,710
14,796
18,303
$ 9,536
16,883
24,634
32,462
40,844
49,323
54
-------
TABLE 26. LAND IMPROVEMENT COSTS FOR FACILITIES UNDER OPTION 1.
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozankee
Racine
Wai worth
Washington
Waukesha
M • • 1--. Facility
Municipality ... "_ .
J configuration
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Bristol
Milwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Rochester
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookf ield
Waukesha
3
4
4
4
2
3
6
5
3
4
3
3
3
6
5
Number of Cost per
facilities facility
1
1
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
$24,634
32,462
32,462
32,462
16,883
24,634
49,323
40 , 844
24,634
32,462
24,634
24,634
24,634
49,323
40 , 844
Total
improvement
cost
$ 24,634
32,462
64,924
32,462
16,883
24,634
246,615
40 , 844
24,634
32,462
24,634
24,634
24,634
49,323
40 , 844
$704,623
The total land investment, then, is $2,986,932 + $704,623 = $3,691,555 .
55
-------
TABLE 27. MAJOR EQUIPMENT ITEMS REQUIRED FOR OPTION 1
Program element
Item
Remarks
Unit cost ($)
I. Emissions 1. Chassis dynamometer
2. Emssion analvzer
II. Safety 1. Dynamic brake tester
2. Scuff gauges
3. Dynamic alignment
4. Headlight-aim photocell
5. Chassis lift
III. Noise 1. Sound level meter
IV. Data Systems 1. CRT Terminals
2. Mini-computer
Needed for loaded-mode emission test. 14,000
One unit per test lane required. Cost
based on conversations with manufacturers
(Clayton, Maxwell).
Since loadcd-iaode is used, analyzer should 26,500
be capable of measuring CO, HC, and MOX.
Extremely wide range in analyzer costs;
cheaper analyzers found to be inadequate.
Analyzers should be capable of being tied
into computer data handling system. Costs
based on discussions with manufacturers
(Olson-Horiba, Hamilton Test Systems). One
unit per test lane required.
Analyzes relative and overall braking effort. 14,000
One required per lane. Costs based on dis-
cussion with manufacturer's representative
(Clayton, Hofraan, Bear, Sum, Maxwell, Weaver).
One required per lane. Cost estimate based on 800
discussion with manufacturer's representative
(AAMCO, Weaver).
One unit required per lane. Cost estimate 25,000
based on discussion with manufacturer's
representative (Hunter, Dunlop, Bear)
One system required per lane. Cost based on 625
discussion with manufacturer's representative
(Hunter, Bear).
One required per lane. Cost based on discus- 4,000
sion with manufacturer's representative (AAMCO).
One required per lane. Cost based on discus- 650
sions with B&K Instruments and GenRad.
Two required per lane. Costs based on liter- 2,500
ature and discussions with manufacturer's
representatives (Honeywell, Digital, Olivetti,
Sperry Univac), and experiences of other states.
One required per facility (equivalent to 80,000
Digital PDP-11-05). Generally assumed to be
included in the cost of facility furnishings.
V. Miscellaneous 1. Miscellaneous tools
As required.
1,000
-------
Equipment costs for any facility configuration, then, can be derived from
Table 27. A summary of equipment cost as a function of the facility configu-
ration is shown in Table 28.
TABLE 28. EQUIPMENT COSTS AS A FUNCTION OF FACILITY
CONFIGURATION FOR OPTION 1
Number of lanes
1
2
3
4
5
6
Equipment cost
171,575
263,150
354,725
446,300
537,875
629,450
The total cost for equipment can now be computed based on the number of
facilities by configuration, developed previously. These costs are shown in
Table 29. Two additional items must be included with equipment costs; these
include calibration vans and equipment, and a central computer. The number of
vans is a function of the specific program scope, therefore will vary according
to the particular option being considered. Only one computer is required for
each option.
For option 1, it is estimated that nine vans would be required. The es-
timated unit cost for the van plus calibrating gases and equipment is $14,000.
The total cost, then, is $126,000.
A cost of $250,000 for the central computer was suggested by several
manufacturers, including Digital, Olivetti, and Sperry Univac.
One-Time Start-Up Costs
Land Acquisition—
Land acquisition costs reflect the effort required to locate and evaluate
candidate sites, perform required surveying, negotiate price, and convey title.
As explained in Section 3, these costs are computed on the basis of $6,000 per
site to cover locating, evaluating, and performing surveys, plus 10 percent of
the purchase price to cover the costs associated with conveying the title.
For this option, a total of 20 sites are required reflecting a total
land investment (basic cost only) of $2,986,932. The acquisition cost, then,
is:
These are —— - ton light-duty vehicles.
57
-------
TABLE 29. EQUIPMENT COSTS FOR OPTION 1
01
CW
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Town
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Bristol
Milwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Rochester
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookfield
Waukesha
Facility
configuration
3-lane
4- lane
4-lane
4-lane
2-lane
3-lane
6-lane
5-lane
3-lane
4-lane
3-lane
3-lane
3-lane
6-lane
5-lane
Number
facilities
1
1
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
,. Equipment
, cost per
required , . , "
facility
$ 354,725
446,300
446,300
446,300
263,150
354,725
629,450
537,875
354,725
446,300
354,725
354,725
354,725
629,450
537,875
Central computer
Maintenance /calibration
vans
Total cost
of equipment
$ 354,725
446,300
892,600
446,300
263,150
354,725
3,147,250
537,875
354,725
446,300
354,725
354,725
354,725
629,450
537,875
$9,475,450
250,000
126,000
$9,851,450
-------
(20 facilities)($6,000/facility) + (0.10)(2,986,932) =
$120,000 + $298,693 = $418,693
Facilities Planning—
This element is computed as a function of the total building construction
cost. Specifically, for building construction costs less than $3 million, the
facilities planning cost is 20 percent of the construction cost; for costs
between $3 million and $6 million, 15 percent is used, and for building costs
greater than $6 million, 10 percent is used. Since the building cost for this
option is $9,828,500, the estimated planning cost would be 10 percent of that,
or $982,850.
Program Design—
Based on both an analysis of the likely requirements specific to Wisconsin,
and the experience of other states, a cost of $100,000 was arrived at for the
program design estimate.
Data Handling Software—
Based on discussions with computer systems analysts, an estimate of
$200,000 was developed.
Personnel Training—
As indicated in Section 3, an initial, intensive training effort is re-
quired prior to program start up. Discussions with states and private con-
tractors involved with I/M program operation, the personnel requirements for
each facility was derived. The allocation of personnel are:
• One manager and one assistant manager per facility;
• Three inspectors per test lane for emission testing only;
• Four inspectors per test lane for combined emission, safety,
and noise testing; and
• One maintenance person for every 10 lanes.
Applying these rates to the facility requirements developed previously,
the basic operating personnel requirements for Option 1 are:
• 20 managers
• 20 assistant managers
• 344 inspectors
• 9 maintenance persons
The training cost per individual, as discussed in Section 3, are $53.00,
$43,00, and $16.00, for instructors, investigators, and inspectors. Assuming
that (1) the managers are to be trained as instructors, (2) assistant managers
are to be trained at the inspector level, and (3) inspectors are to be trained
59
-------
at the inspector level, the total cost of training can be determined. This
is computed as:
(20 manager)($53.00)+(20 assistant managers)($16.00)+(344 inspectors)($16.00)
= $6,884.00
Personnel Salaries—
Assuming (1) that all managerial personnel would be phased into the pro-
gram 6 months prior to start-up; (2) inspectors would be phased into the pro-
gram 1 month prior to start-up; and (3) the wage scale (a) for managers is
$20,000 per year ($1,667.00 per month) (b) for assistant managers is $13,500
per year ($1,125.00 per month), (c) for maintenance personnel is $12,000 per
year ($1,000.00 per month), and (d) for inspectors is $10,400 ($867.00 per
month), (e) overhead is computed as 25 percent of the wage rate; a total person-
nel cost estimate for start-up can be derived. This is:
(20 managers) ($1,667.00 per month) (6 months) +
(20 assistant managers) ($1,125 per month) (6 months) +
(9 maintenance persons) ($1,000.00 per month) (1 month) +
(344 inspectors ($867.00 per month) (1 month)] L1-25]
= $802,860.00
The administrative personnel costs must also be included in the start-up phase
These persons would be phased-in 18 months prior to start-up for this option.
Based on the discussion of personnel requirements and salaries presented in
Section 3, the costs associated with 18 months of start-up can be computed.
These are shown in Table 30. The total personnel cost for start-up, then,
is the total of the operational personnel and administrative personnel costs,
or:
$802,860 + $756,375 = $1,559,235
Initial Public Information Program—
The cost estimate for this element was based on experience of various
states and private contractors currently involved in operating I/M programs.
The basic assumption is that a budget for initial public information should
be apparently $0.12 per vehicle to be inspected, which translates to $213,000.
Annual Operating Costs
Facility Personnel—
Based on the facility staffing requirements and annual salaries associated
with job category, the annual personnel costs can easily be computed. This
estimate is shown in Table 31.
60
-------
TABLE 30. ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROGRAM START-UP - OPTION 1
Number
Job title of
positions
Administrator
Assistant Administrator (support)
Assistant Administrator (operations)
Legal Council
Purchasing Officer
Contracts Officer
Accountant
Engineer
Systems Analysts
Statistician/Programmer
Mechanic Training Coordinator
Regional Manager
Regional Inspector (licensing)
Regional Manager (surveillance)
Regional Public Information Coordinator
Mechanic Training Instructor
Instrument Repair Technician
Inspectors and Licensing Officers
Total salaries for 18 months
Overhead @ 25 percent of salary
Total Administrative personnel costs
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
Annual salary
per position
$25,000
17,000
21,000
15,000
13,000
13,000
12,000
10,400
11,000
10,500
13,000
21,500
15,500
15,500
15,500
11,000
12,000
15,500
Total 18-month
salaries for
all positions
$ 37,500
25,500
31,500
22,500
19,500
19,500
18,000
15,600
16,500
15,750
19,500
96,750
69,750
69,750
69,750
16,500
18,000
23,250
$605,100
$151,275
$756,375
-------
TABLE 31. ANNUAL PERSONNEL COSTS FOR FACILITY
PERSONNEL - OPTION 1
T, .. n u Total annual
Total number ,
T , ..-..i c • *.• Annual salary salary for
Job title of positions J * . .
all positions
Manager
Assistant Manager
Maintenance Person
Inspectors
Total salaries
Overhead @ 25 percent
20
20
9
344
$ 20,000
13,500
12,000
10,400
$ 400,000
270,000
98,000
3,577,600
$4,345,600
$1,086,400
Total Annual Personnel Cost
$5,432,000
Maintenance—
Primary costs for maintenance reflect equipment repair, and preventive
maintenance. In this connection, the yearly cost of these items was estimated
to be 20 percent of the original cost. Specifically, this would be:
$9,851,450 x 0.20 = $1,970,290.00
Utilities/Supplies/Services
Utilities—
Annual cost for utilities were derived from electric usages experienced
by other states (Arizona). For Option 1 these were found to be: 166 kWh/day
for each lane, plus 325 kWh/day per facility. Per kilowatt costs were obtained
from Wisconsin Power and Light, and were found to be$0.05 kWh on average. The
annual cost, then, for utilities is calculated below:
($86 lanes)(166 kWh/day)($0.05)(250 operating days per year) = $178,450
+ (20 facilities)(325 kWh/day)($0.05)(250 operating days per year) = 81,250
Total utilities cost annually $259,700
Insurance—
It is assumed that the operation would cover fire and theft as well as
liability insurance. Based on previous experience (Arizona, HTS), insurance
costs are generally about $l,500/lane. Annual costs based on this estimate
are calculated below:
(86 lanes) ($1,500 per lane) = $129,000
62
-------
Computer Operation—
Central computer operation costs for automated inspection systems have
been estimated at $0.15 per test. This would compute to an annual cost of
$225,000 for Option 1.
Inspection Forms—
In addition to the computer operation costs, a cost of $0.03 per test has
been estimated based on previous experience (Arizona). This computes to a
total annual cost of $45,000 for Option 1.
Calibration Costs—
The recurring annual cost of equipment calibration is defined as the cost
of calibration gases plus the operating cost of the maintenance/calibration
vans. The total annual calibration costs for Option 1 are outlined in
Table 32, and was found to equal $79,200 annually.
TABLE 32. ANNUAL CALIBRATION COSTS FOR OPTION 1
Item Cost ($)
Gases (20 sets per year @ $200 per set) 4,000
Maintenance on van 2,800
Insurance on van and equipment 1,000
Fuel, oil, etc. 1,000
Per calibration van 8,800
Vans 9
Annually 79,200
Taxes—
The cost for real estate and personal property taxes annually were calcu-
lated based on full value rates for each individual municipality, and totals
were found to be $623,356 for general property and $99,481 for real estate,
equalling $722,837 for Option 1.
Uniforms—
Uniforms cost $125.00 per year annually, based on previous experience
(Arizona). For Option 1 this translates to $49,125 annually for 393 uniformed
employees.
The total annual cost for Utilities, Services and Supplies computed
in Table 33, was found to be $1,509,862.
Town, Village, and City Taxes - 1976, Bulletin Nos. 176, 276, and 375,
Wisconsin Department of Revenue.
63
-------
TABLE 33. ANNUAL COST FOR UTILITIES, SER-
VICES, AND SUPPLIES
Utilities $ 259,700
Insurance 129,000
Computer operation 225,000
Inspection forms 45,000
Calibration costs 79,200
Taxes 722,837
Uniforms 49,125
Total $1,509,862
Annual Administrative Costs
Program Administrative —
Annual administrative personnel costs are computed from the personnel
requirements and salaries, which were delineated previously. The annual cost
computation is shown in Table 34.
Public Information—
The actual cost of public information can only be determined by state
officials on an annual basis. For the purposes here, however, an estimate was
developed based on other states experiences; this estimate is $180,000 annually.
Personnel Training—
This element reflects the ongoing requirement to train inspectors. The
replacement rate (that is, the number of new inspectors to be trained annually)
was estimated to be 10 percent of the inspector force, based on the experience
of the Arizona program. Assuming an inspector work force of 344 (this will be
derived later), the training (replacement) rate is 34, say 35, individuals per
year. The cost for each individual trained is assumed to be approximately
$16, therefore the entire cost is:
35 persons x $16/person = $560.00
Summary
The total cost of Option 1 is summarized in Tables 35 and 36.
FEE COMPUTATION
Initial capital costs and one-time start-up costs are converted to annual
figures using the amortization factors found in Section 3. These annualized
costs are added to annual operating costs and annual administrative costs to
arrive at total annual costs in constant 1978 dollars. For Option 1 this pro-
cedure is as follows:
64
-------
Table 34. ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL COSTS - OPTION 1
Job title Number of
positions
Administrator
Assistant Administrator (Support)
Assistant Administrator (Operations)
Legal Council
Purchasing Officer
Contractor Officer
Accountant
Engineer
Systems Analyst
Statistician/Programmer
Mechanic Training Coordinator
Regional Manager
Regional Inspector (Licensing)
Regional Manager (Surveillance)
Regional Public Information Coordinator
Mechanic Training Instructor
Instrument Repair Technician
Inspectors and Licensing Officer
Total salaries
Overhead @ 25 percent
Total Annual Administrative Costs
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
Annual salary
per position
($)
25,000
17,000
21,000
15,000
13,000
13,000
12,000
10,400
11,000
10,500
13,000
21,500
15,500
15,500
15,500
11,000
12,000
15,500
Total annual
salaries for
all positions
($)
25,000
17,000
21,000
15,000
13,000
13,000
12,000
10,400
11,000
10,500
13,000
64,500
46,500
46,500
46,500
11,000
12,000
15,500
403,400
100,860
504,250
65
-------
Table 35. COST SUMMARY - OPTION 1
Primary category
I. Initial capital costs
II. One-Time Start-Up Costs
-
III. Annual Operating Costs
IV. Annual Administrative Costs
n • • i n . Element cost
Principal element ,*.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
Land investment
Building investment
Equipment costs
Land acquisition
Facilities planning
Program design
Development of data handling
system hardware
Personnel training
Personnel salaries and
overhead
Initial public information
program
Facility personnel
Maintenance
Utilities /services /supplies
Program administrative per-
sonnel salaries and overhead
Public information
Training
3,691,555
9,828,500
9,851,450
418,693
982,850
100,000
200,000
6,884
1,559,235
213,000
5,432,000
1,970,290
1,509,862
504,250
180,000
560
Total category
cost* ($)
23,371,505
3,480,662
8,912,152
684,810
-------
When i = 0.03
TABLE 36. ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR OPTION 1
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Cost class
Capital Costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Start-Up Costs
Operating Costs
Administrative Costs
Total
, ^ Amortization factor Annualized cost
tost ^) for i = 0>Q3 (column 2)x(column 3)
3,691,555 0.03 110,747
9,828,500 0.067 658,509
9,851,450 0.2184 2,151,557
3,480,662 0.2184 760,177
8,912,152
684,810
13,277,952
When
i = 0.06
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Cost class
Capital Costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Start-Up Costs
Operating Costs
Administrative Costs
Total
x,sx Amortization factor Annualized cost
tost u; for i = 0>Q6 (column 2)x(Column 3)
3,690,555 0.06 221,493
9,828,500 0.087 855,080
9,851,450 0.2374 2,338,734
3,348,095 0.2374 826,309
8,912,152
684,810
13,838,578
-------
To arrive at the uniform fee in constant dollars (fc), the above total
costs are divided by the number of paid inspections, 1,911,000. So, for
i = 0.03
13 277 QS2
_ u,^/ /,?:>/. _
c 1,911,000 '"
and for i = 0.06
= 13,838,578 =
c 1,911,000
To calculate a uniform fee in actual dollars (fa) and expressed in 1978
dollars, we follow the above procedures using the appropriate amortization
factors found in Section 3.
The uniform fee in actual dollars (fa) and is expressed in a similar
manner. For i = 0.03, f = 8.74, and i = 0.06, f = 9.04.
S. 3.
BENEFITS
The primary benefits associated with this option are in terms of emission
reductions and potential safety improvements. The emission reduction beenfits
described in Section 3 apply uniformly to all options, therefore there is no
need to repeat the discussion here.
Benefits that accrue because of a safety inspection program are much more
difficult to quantify than are emission benefits. Whereas the safety program
is still in a preliminary, conceptual stage, it may not be appropriate to
attempt a quantitative analysis at this point.
The intent of motor vehicle safety programs is to reduce accident potential
by taking steps to ensure that motor vehicles are maintained at least to mi-
nimum standards with regard to safety-related system and components. Very
strong arguments have been made both for and against the need for periodic safety
inspection programs. One of the difficulties in assessing the potential bene-
fits of safety programs is the lack of definitive studies of the effectiveness
of these programs in reducing actual accidents. Many studies have been conducted
that attempt to assign causes to accidents and these have generall indicated
that a relatively small percentage - about 5 to 7 percent - of all accidents
are a direct result of vehicle system or component failures or defects. However,
these studies also indicate that vehicle system defects are thought to be a con-
tributing factor in up to about 24 percent of all accidents. These types of
statistics have often been used to support arguments either for or against the
need for inspection programs. Yet, upon closer consideration it becomes clear
that statistics regarding causal aspects of accidents are not performance indi-
cators of safety inspection programs. One can make a general inference that
safety inspections have the potential for reducing accidents provided that the
inspection program is, in fact, able to reduce the number of safety defects
found in in-use vehicles. For most individuals, the primary benefit of the
safety inspection program will essentially be the opportunity of having their
vehicle inspected and being made aware of any safety-related deficiencies.
68
-------
When i = 0.03
TABLE 36 (continued).
VO
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Cost class
Capital Cost
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Start-Up Costs
Operating Costs
Administrative Costs
Total
Cost ($)
3,691,555
9,828,500
9,851,450
3,480,662
8,912,152
684,810
Amortization factor
for i = 0.03
0.10
0.117
0.264
0.264
1.215
1.215
Annualized cost
(column 2)x(column 3)
369,155
1,149,934
2,600,782
918,895
10,828,265
832,044
16,699,075
When
I.
II.
III.
IV.
i = 0.06
Cost class
Capital cost
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Start-Up Costs
Operating Costs
Administrative Costs
Total
Cost ($)
3,691,555
9,828,500
9,851,450
3,480,662
8,912,152
684,810
16,699,075
Amortization factor
for i = 0.06
0.13
0.142
0.284
0.284
1.210
1.210
Annualized cost
(column 2)x(column 3)
479,902
1,395,647
2,797,811
988,508
10,783,704
828,620
17,274,192
= 9.04
-------
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON THE SAFETY INSPECTION ELEMENT
Two additional points should be made regarding safety inspections. The
first concerns the definition of what constitutes either a failure or a defi-
ciency, particularly with regard to what affect the interpretation has on
whether a vehicle must be reinspected or not. Experience has shown, for
instance, that the use of a photocell headlight aiming device will result in
identifying many deficiencies in headlight aim since, in most instances, head-
light adjustments are made in a very unprecise manner. The question, then,
concerns whether or not (for instance) a vehicle whose headlights are found to
be out fo adjustments according to the photocell device should be considered
to have failed the inspection and, therefore, require a reinspection after the
proper adjustments have been made. This will obviously have a large impact on
the population of vehicles to be tested.
Another question that arises (again, using the headlight aiming problem
as an example) is whether or not adjustments of any deficiencies should be
attempted during inspection. If a headlight adjustment were made, it would
require only a few minutes, but considering the very short throughput time used
in calculating station requirements, even these relatively quick adjustments could
overload the facility from time to time.
A third question related to the discussion thus far concerns the ability
of the automobile repair industry to actually perform repairs to the standards
measured by several of the inspection devices, unless the repair facilities are
equipped with similar pieces of equipment. If the repair industry cannot
utilize the diagnostic information provided from the use of a device such as a
photocell headlight aiming device, then the merit of using the device is
questionable.
Expansion of the Safety Program to the Rest of the State
The following analysis of expanding the safety program to cover the entire
state is offered.
Discussion—
Given the 1977 registrations of LDV's and LDG's in the 63 counties (ex-
cluding the counties previously studied) = 1,242,761. Assuming a steady 3 per-
cent growth rate in the vehicle population, there will be approximately
1,670,000 registrations in this area in 1987.
Assume that no motorist need drive over 5 miles to an inspection garage.
Then the total service area per station = ir (5)2 = 78.54 m2 . Then, in order
to completely cover this rural area, ',., = 638 garages are needed.
Assuming that the number of garages in 1987 is 60 percent of 1972 totals,
there will be (8627)(0.6) = 5,176 garages in the entire state in 1987. Sub-
tracting out the nine urban counties, leaves 5,176 - 1,973 = 3,203 rural
garages. Given the 5-mile service area radius, a participation rate of
/• o Q
= 20 percent of private garages will be needed, and each garage should
3 203
have a daily throughput of (638)(250?days/yr) * 10'5 cars/day-
70
-------
Assuming that the private garages need not make any additional investment
in capital or labor to become an inspection station, but rather merely pay a
licensing fee to the state, costs to a garage will be minimal, and the above
participation will be easily attained. Costs to the state will be restricted
to cars and salaries for private garage licensing and inspection officials. If
one inspector can visit 70 garages per month, then a maximum of 10 or 15
inspectors would be needed to make monthly visits to each garage, safety spot
checks, etc. These inspectors would need only small cars rather than the ex-
pensive calibration vans needed for the urban network. Then state expenses
would be (assuming one inspector car = $4,500 and his salary = $10,000/yr),
$145,000 to $217,500. If each garage pays an annual licensing fee of $100.00,
the state would have to charge from $145,000 to $63,800 = $ 81,200 _
1,670,000 " ?0-05'
to $217,500 to $63,800 = i 570*000 = $°-09 Per inspection, depending on the
number of inspectors hired.
71
-------
SECTION 5
OPTION 2 - CENTRALIZED, CONTRACTOR-OPERATED
LOADED MODE EMISSIONS INSPECTION ONLY
OPTION DEFINITION
This option involves a private contractor establishing a network of central-
ized emission inspection stations throughout the nine-county area defined in
Section 2. The emission inspection would be a loaded-mode test, and would in-
volve all light-duty gasoline-powered vehicles under 13 years old, on an annual
basis.
The vehicle population to be tested in this option is the same as that
described in the discussion of Option 1. Due to the fact that safety and noise
inspection tasks are not required by this option, the throughput time per vehicle
inspected is assumed to be two minutes. If a work week of 48 hours and an
efficiency factor of 0.67 are assumed, the number of vehicles that can be in-
spected by one lane per year is:
(30 vehicles/hour) (48 hours/week) (52 weeks/year) (0.67) = 50,170
Dividing the number of inspections to be performed by this per-lane annual
throughput figure yields the number of inspection lanes required in each county.
These lane requirements are shown in Table 37.
TABLE 37. TOTAL INSPECTION LANES REQUIRED TO SATISFY 1990
INSPECTION DEMAND
County Numbers of Lanes Required
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Dzaukee
Racine
Wai worth
Washington
Waukesha
4
6
3
18
2
4
2
2
6
Total 47
72
-------
Using the same approach for facility allocation and siting in each of the
counties as that described for Option 1, a 15 facility network was derived, with
station locations and configurations as shown in Table 38.
OPTION COSTS
The costs associated with the implementation of this option are presented
below. Reference should be made to the discussion in Section 3 concerning the
analytical techniques used.
Capital Costs
Buildings—
As indicated in the discussion of Option 1, a building cost of $25.00 per
square foot was assumed for all the centralized options. For this option, an
analysis of the specific inspection tasks to be performed, including dimensions
of equipment required, was made to define the general features that would be
included in an inspection facility. A conceptual floor plan for a basic one-lane
facility for loaded emissions inspection is shown in Figure 4. Multi-lane
facilities would require roughly the inspection area shown times the number of
lanes, although some additional space would be required for waiting and rest
areas. Table 39 shows the building area requirements of facility configura-
tions ranging from 1 to 6 lanes.
TABLE 39. BUILDING FLOOR AREA FOR VARIOUS FACILITY
CONFIGURATIONS - OPTION 2
Floor Area Required (ft^)
Configuration
Administration EmPloye« storage wait Jest Total
Area Rest 6 Rooms
1 lane
2 lane
3 lane
4 lane
5 lane
6 lane
1,800
3,600
5,400
7,200
9,000
10,800
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
300
350
400
440
485
525
325
350
380
410
435
465
570
930
1,530
2,370
3,450
4,770
85
85
85
85
85
85
4,080
6,315
8,795
11,505
14,555
17,645
Taking $25.00 as a unit building cost per square foot, the actual cost
estimates for network facilities can be computed for this option, and are shown
in Table 40.
Land Costs—
The primary determinants of land cost for any option are the unit cost
per square foot and the total size (in square feet) of the land to be acquired.
In Section 3, the unit cost estimates for land in each county were presented,
and these estimates will be used here.
73
-------
TABLE 38. INSPECTION NETWORK REQUIREMENTS FOR OPTION 2
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Total Network
Town
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookf ield
Waukesha
Number of
Facilities
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15 facilities
Configuration
2 lanes
2 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
5 lanes
3 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
47 lanes
74
-------
l>
1
3
»
!
.
8
ADMINISTRATION
I.OOO ft2
1
STATION 1 |
CHECK IN PAPER WORK |
~ 2 ntliwtct -
1 INSPECTOR '
1
1
1
|
J| BOOTH J (
EMPLOYEE
REST AREA
300 ft2
STORAGE
325 ft2
WAIT/COUNCIL
57O ft2
REST
ROOMS
85 n2
1
STATION 2 | STATION 3
- LOADED MODE EMISSIONS 1 CHECK OUT/COUNCH.LINS
~ 3 MlMlM | ~ 2 minute*
1 INSPECTOR - 1 INSPECTOR
DYNAMOMETER j
|
I x r~ — i
(ANALYZER* 1 1 *| BOOTH J
N
^
8
0^
en"
2 M
5 ^
|. B
a j.
j *
* <
J U
1 '
i
o
M -1
* I
§ !
» ~j
H
"i
j
4
i
TOTAL' 3 INSPCCTCM, ?•<•*•« RESIOCNCE TIME, 9«iM«M TMROIMH PUT TIME
Figure 4. Conceptual floor plan for a loaded-mode emission inspection facility,
-------
TABLE 40. BUILDING COST ESTIMATES FOR OPTION 2
Facility
County Configuration
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Total Network
2 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
5 lanes
3 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
3 lanes
47 lanes
Per
Facility
Cost ($)
157,875
219,875
219,875
363,875
219,875
157,875
287,625
157,875
157,875
219,875
Number
Facilities
Required
2
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
15 Facilities
Total
Cost ($)
315,750
439,750
219,875
1,091,625
219,875
157,875
287,625
157,875
157,875
439,750
$3,487,875
76
-------
Lot size requirements are a function of facility size (i.e., the number
of inspection lanes). As in Option 1, we will define the land to building ratio
as 5:1. Thus, for each facility in the network, raw land costs can be calculated,
and are shown in Table 41.
Adding the land improvement costs to the raw land costs listed above yields
the total land investment. Standard paving and landscaping formulas, used in the
Option 1 analysis, were applied to the lot requirements for this option;
Table 42 lists Total Area, Paved Area, and Landscaped Area for each facility
configuration.
TABLE 42. PAVEMENT AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR
OPTION 2 FACILITIES, ft2
Facility
Configuration
1 lane
2 lane
3 lane
4 lane
5 lane
6 lane
Total Area
20,400
31,575
43,975
57,520
72,275
88,225
Paved Area
6,485
13,105
19,320
25,620
32,020
38,235
Landscaped
Area
9,835
12,155
15,860
20,346
25,800
32,345
The same per square foot costs for paving and landscaping used in Option 1
are assumed. The improvement costs for each facility type are shown in Table 43.
TABLE 43. LAND IMPROVEMENT COSTS FOR INSPECTION SITES UNDER OPTION 2
Facility
Configuration
1
2
3
4
5
6
lane
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
Pavement
Costs
$5
10
15
20
25
30
,188
,484
,456
,536
,616
,588
Landscaping
Cost
$2
3
3
5
6
8
,459
,039
,965
,087
,450
,086
Total
Improvement
Cost
$7
13
19
25
32
38
,647
,523
,421
,623
,066
,674
Land improvement costs can then be calculated for the entire option 2 network,
are shown in Table 44. The total land investment, then, is $1,006,547 +
305,962 = $1,312,509.
77
-------
TABLE 41. LAND COSTS FOR EACH INSPECTION FACILITY IN OPTION 2
—i
00
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Wai worth
Washington
Waukesha
Total
Municipality
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookfield
Waukesha
Facility
configuration
2 lanes
2 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
5 lanes
3 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
2 1 ane s
3 lanes
3 lanes
47 lanes
Numbe r of
facilities
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
Total building
Area (ft2)
6,315
6,315
8,795
8,795
8,795
43,665
8,795
6,315
11,505
6,315
6,315
8,795
8795
Land area
(ft2)
31,575
31,575
43,975
43,975
43,975
218,325
43,975
31,575
57,520
31,575
31,575
43,975
43,975
Unit cost
of land
($/sq ft)
1.70
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.70
1.50
1.50
0.60
0.75
0.67
0.85
2.50
2.30
Total land
cost
($)
53,678
31,575
87,950
43,975
74,758
327,488
65,963
18,945
43,140
21,155
26,839
109,938
101,143
1,006,547
-------
TABLE 44. LAND IMPROVEMENT COSTS FOR FACILITIES UNDER OPTION 2
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Total
Municipality
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookfield
Waukesha
Facility
Configuration
2 lanes
2 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
5 lanes
3 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
Number of
Facilities
1
I
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cost Per
Facility
$13,523
13,523
19,421
19,421
19,421
32,066
19,421
13,523
25,623
13,523
13,523
19,421
19,421
Total
Improvement
Cost
$13,523
13,523
19,421
19,421
19,421
96,198
19,421
13,523
25,623
13,523
13,523
19,421
19,421
$305,962
79
-------
Equipment Costs—
The equipment items required to operate a loaded-mode emissions inspection
facility were identified through consultations with equipment manufacturers and
state and local officials. For this option, the equipment required are a chassis
dynamoter and an emission analyzer as costed in Tables 45 and 46.
As in Option 1, the costs of calibration vans and associated equipment and
a central computer should be included in total equipment costs. For this option
five calibration vans will be required, each estimated at $14,000. The central
computer will be the same as described in Option 1, and will cost approximately
$250,000. The total equipment investment for Option 2 then is the sum of
facility test equipment, calibration vans and central computer as:
$3,385,500 + $70,000 + $250,000 = $3,705,500
One-Time Startup Costs
Land Acquisition—
As explained in Section 3, the cost of site location and evaluation, sur-
veying, price negotiation and title conveyance are assumed to be $6,000 per
site plus 10 percent of the purchase price to cover the costs associated with
purchasing the land.
For this option, a total of 15 facilities are required reflecting a total
land investment (unimproved) of 1,006,547. The aquisition cost, then, is:
(15 facilities) (6,000/facility) + (0.10) (1,006,547) = 190,655
Facilities Planning—
This element is computed in the same manner as for Option 1. For building
investments of $3 million to $6 million, 15 percent of the construction cost
is used. The building cost of this option is $3,487,875, so the estimated
planning cost would be 15 percent of that or $523,181.
Program Design—
As explained for Option 1, a cost of $100,000 was used.
Data Handling Systems—
The cost of development of data handling software are assumed to be the
same as those for Option 1, $200,000.
Personnel Training—
The numbers of personnel to be trained are as follows for Option 2:
• 15 managers
• 15 assistant managers
• 141 inspectors
• 5 maintenance persons
80
-------
TABLE 45. EQUIPMENT COSTS AS A FUNCTION OF
FACILITY CONFIGURATION FOR
OPTION 2
Number of Lanes
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Total
TABLE
Munici-
pality
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookfield
Waukesha
1
2
3
4
5
6
*
46. EQUIPMENT
Facility
configuration
2 lanes
2 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
5 lanes
3 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
Equipment Cost
$126,500
173,000
219,500
266,000
312,500
359,000
COSTS FOR OPTION 2
Number of
facilities
required
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Equipment
cost per
facility
$173,000
173,000
219,500
219,500
219,500
312,500
219,500
173,000
266,000
173,000
173,000
219,500
219,500
Total cost
of equipment
$173,000
173,000
219,500
219,500
219,500
937,500
219,500
173,000
266,000
173,000
173,000
219,500
219,500
3,385,500
81
-------
The training costs for these individuals are as discussed in Section 3:
$53.00, $43.00 and $16.00 for instructors, investigators, and inspectors, re-
spectively. Using the same assumptions for training as in Option 1, training
costs for Option 3 are as follows:
(15 managers)($53.00) + (15 assistant managers)($16.00)
+ (146 inspectors and maintenance persons)($16.00) = $3,371
Personnel Salaries—
The same assumptions for startup personnel requirements for Option 1 were
used. Substituting the personnel numbers for Option 2, the cost of test per-
sonnel for the startup period is calculated below:
(15 managers)($16666.67/month)(6 months) + (15 asst. managers)($1125/month)
(6 months) + (5 maintenance/calib.)($1000/month)(1 month) + (141 inspectors)
($866.67/month) (1 month)! x [l.25j = $473,063.
•
The administrative personnel costs for the startup phase will be the same
as for Option 1, Table 29, or $756,375.
The total personnel cost for startup then is the sum of the above two
figures, or
$473,063 + $756,375 = $1,229,438
Initial Public Information Program—
As explained in Option 1, the cost for initial startup of a public rela-
tions campaign would be approximately $0.12 per vehicle inspected, or $213.000.
Annual Operating Costs
Based on the facility staffing requirements and annual salaries previously
discussed, the annual personnel costs can easily be computed. These costs are
shown in Table 47.
TABLE 47. ANNUAL PERSONNEL COSTS FOR FACILITY
PERSONNEL - OPTION 2
Job Title
Manager
Assistant manager
Maintenance person
Inspectors
Total Number
of Positions
Annual
Salary
15 $20,000
15 13,500
5 12,000
141 10,400
Total Salaries
Overhead (§
25%
Total Annual
Salary for all
Positions
$300,000
270,000
60,000
$1,466,400
$2,028,900
507,225
$2,536,125
82
-------
Maintenance—
Primary costs for maintenance in this option reflect equipment repair and
preventive maintenance. The annual cost of these functions is estimated to be
20 percent of the original test equipment cost, or:
($3,385,500)(0.20) = $677,100
Utilities, Services, and Supplies
Utilities-
Annual costs for utilities were derived from electric usage experienced by
similar facilities in other states (Arizona). For Option 2, these were found
to be 120 kWh per day per land plus 325 kWh per day per facility. Assuming the
same cost per kWh as in previous options, the annual cost for all facilities
is calculated below:
47 lanes @ 120 kWh/day x $0.05 per hour x 250 days = $ 70,500
15 facilities @ 325 kWh/day x $0.05 per hour x 250 days = $ 60,938
Total utility costs per year = $131,438
Insurance—
Based on the $1,500 per lane insurance costs assumed for Option 1, total
annual insurance costs for Option 2 will be:
$1,500 x 47 = $70,500
Computer Operation—
Central computer operation costs for automated inspection systems have been
estimated at $0.15 per test, or $225,000, as in Option 1.
Inspection Forms—
Using the $0.03 per inspection assumption as under Option 1, the inspec-
tion form printing and distribution costs will be $45,000 per year.
Calibration Costs—
The recurring annual cost of equipment calibration is defined as the cost
of calibration gases plus the operating costs of maintenance/calibration vans.
Using the $8,800 annual cost per van derived in the discussion of Option 1,
calibration costs will be:
$8,800 x 5 = $44,000
Taxes—
The annual cost for real estate and personal property taxes were calculated
based on full valuation rates for each municipality in which stations are to be
located. Total taxes were found to be:
General Propery Tax $189,293
Real Estate Tax 31,812
Total $221,105
83
-------
Uniforms—
Based on the assumption of $125.00 annual uniform costs, and a total of
176 uniformed employees, a total annual uniform costs of $22,000 will be ex-
perienced in Option 2.
The total annual cost of utilities, services, and supplies is shown in
Table 48.
TABLE 48. ANNUAL COST OF UTILITIES,
SERVICES AND SUPPLIES
Utilities $131,438
Insurance 70,500
Computer operation 225,000
Inspection forms 45,000
Calibration costs 44,000
Taxes 221,105
Uniforms 22,000
Total 759,000
Annual Administrative Costs
Program Administrative Personnel—
Annual administrative personnel costs are the same for Option 2 as for
Option 1. From Table 31 these are found to be $504,250 annually.
Public Information—
The annual cost for public information for Option 2 was assumed the same
as previously stated for Option 1, $180,000.
Personnel Training—
Using the same assumptions as fdr Option 1, an annual turnover of 10 percent,
or 14 employees, can be expected. This relates to an annual cost of $224 based
on a $16 per inspection charge.
SUMMARY
The total cost of Option 2 is summarized in Table 49.
Initial capital costs and one-time startup costs are converted to annual
figures using the amortization factors found in Section 3. These annualized
costs are added to annual operating costs and annual administrative costs to
arrive at total annual costs in constant 1978 dollars. For Option 2 this
procedure is as follows;
84
-------
TABLE 49. COST SUMMARY - OPTION 2
00
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Primary
category
Initial capital
costs
One-time startup
costs
Annual operating
costs
•
Annual adminis-
trative costs
Principal
element
Land investment
Building investment
Equipment costs
Land acquisition
Facilities planning
Program design
Development of data han-
dling system software
Personnel training
Personnel salaries and
overhead
Initial public information
program
Facility personnel
Maintenance
Utilities /Supplies /Services
Program administrative
salaries
Public information
Training
Element
cost ($)
$1,312,509
3,487,875
3,705,500
190,655
523,181
100,000
200,000
3,371
1,229,438
213,000
2,536,125
667,100
759,043
504,250
180,000
224
Total category
cost ($)
$8,505,884
$2,459,645
$3,962,268
$ 684,474
-------
fc
When i = 0.03
00
I.
II.
III.
IV.
fc0.
fc
When
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Cost class
Capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Startup costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Total
03 cost per inspection
i = 0.06
Cost class
Capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Startup costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Total
Cost ($)
1,312,509
3,487,875
3,705,500
2,459,645
3,962,268
684,744
= 6,266,542/
Cost ($)
1,312,509
3,487,875
3,705,500
2,459,645
3,962,268
684,744
Amortization factor
for i = 0.03
0.03
0.067
0.2184
0.2184
1.0
1.0
1,911,000
Amortization factor
for i = 0.06
0.06
0.087
0.2374
0.2374
1.0
1.0
Annualized cost
(column 2)x(column 3)
39,375
233,688
809,281
537,186
3,962,268
684,474
6,266,542
= 3.28
Annualized cost
(column 2) x (column 3)
78,751
303,445
879,686
583,920
3,962,268
684,474
6,492,814
fc0.06 c°st per inspection = 6,492,814/1,911,000
=3.40
-------
fa
When i = 0.03
00
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Cost class
Capital costs
1 . Land
2 . Buildings
3. Equipment
Startup costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Total
„ ff,^ Amortization factor
Cost ($) for i = 0.03
1,312,504
3,487,875
3,705,500
2,459,645
3,962,268
684,744
0.10
0.117
0.264
0.264
1.215
1.215
Annualized cost
(column 2)x(column 3)
131,251
408,081
978,252
649,346
4,814,156
831,964
7,813,050
fa0.
fa
When
03 cost per inspection
i = 0.06
= 7,813,050/1,
911,000
= 4.09
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Cost class
Capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Startup costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Total
_ _ ff.^ Amortization factor
C°St ($) for i = 0.06
1,312,509
3,487,875
3,705,500
2,459,645
3,962,268
684,744
0.13
0.142
0.284
0.284
1.210
1.210
Annualized cost
(column 2)x(column 3)
170,626
495,278
1,052,362
698,539
4,794,344
828,540
8,003,689
fa0.o6 c°st per inspection = 8,003,689/1,911,000 = 4.19
-------
SECTION 6
OPTION 3 - CENTRALIZED, CONTRACTOR-OPERATED,
IDLE MODE EMISSIONS TEST
OPTION DEFINITION
This option involves a private contractor establishing a network of cen-
tralized emissions inspection stations throughout the 9~county area defined in
Section 2. The emissions inspection would be an idle-mode test, and would be
required of all light-duty gasoline-powered vehicles under 13 years old on an
annual basis.
NETWORK REQUIREMENTS
The vehicle population to be tested in this option is the same as that
described in the discussion of Option 1. Detailed consultations with both
equipment manufacturers and state and local officials have led us to conclude
that a reasonable estimate for per-vehicle throughput time for an idle mode
inspection is 2 minutes. If the previous 48-hour work week and 0.67 efficiency
factor are still assumed, the number of vehicles that can be inspected by one
lane per year is:
(30 cars/hour)(48 hours/week)(52 weeks/year)(0.67) = 50,170 vehicles
Dividing the number of inspections to be performed by this per-lane annual
throughput figure yields the number of inspection lanes required in each county.
These lane requirements are shown in Table 50.
TABLE 50. TOTAL INSPECTION LANES REQUIRED TO
MEET 1990 INSPECTION DEMAND
County Number of lanes required
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
4
6
3
18
2
4
2
2
6
Total 47
88
-------
Using the same approach for facility allocation and siting in each of the
counties as that described for Option 1, a 15-facility network was derived,
with station locations and configurations as shown in Table 51.
TABLE 51. INSPECTION NETWORK REQUIREMENTS FOR OPTION 3
County
Brown
Dane
Town
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Number of facilities
1
1
1
1
Configuration
2 lanes
2 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
Kenosha
Kenosha
3 lanes
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Milwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookfield
Waukesha
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5 lanes
3 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
Total network
15 facilities
47 lanes
OPTION COSTS
The costs associated with the implementation of this option are presented
below. Reference should be made to the discussion in Section 3 concerning the
analytical techniques used.
Capital Costs
Buildings—
As indicated in the discussion of Option 1, a building cost of $25.00 per
square foot was assumed for all the centralized facility options. For this
option, an analysis of the specific tasks required for idle mode inspection,
including dimensions of equipment required, was made to define the general
features that would be included in an inspection facility. A conceptual floor
plan for a basic one-lane facility for idle mode inspection is shown in
Figure 5. Multi-lane facilities would require roughly the inspection area
shown times the number of lanes, although some additional space would be
89
-------
o
w
3
o
3
X
M
O)
3
VI
5
PI
J"
ro
3
H
i
A .. J
™ ^u *|
XX X
1, onj
-^J z S*o,
Z 3 I H
w * 2 o
o • 5 SZ
i £*"
o
O X
z x
m
0
X
2 5
2T f"
> m n
I ' «5i2
F — ° o — i
•< _ ro 0 o >
B u i:s
o Si f~ ' 35
H • r M
o " = w ro
39 0 0
z
1
xxx ~ i 55_5
3 ' C/> 1*1 n *~4
O -n 3 a " '
Jj | 1 ggi
><
REST ROOMS
85ft
STORAGE ond UTILITY
325 ft2
EMPLOYEE REST AREA
300ft2
ADMINISTRATIVE
,WVV ,,
WAITING /COUNCILLING
500 ft2
!
ft
f %
i
i
k
F
'
Figure 5.
TOTAL TEST AREA'1,500 ft2 NONTEST AREA' 2£IO ft2
TOTAL BUILDING AREA =3,710 ft 2
Conceptual floor plan for an idle mode inspection facility.
90
-------
required for waiting and rest areas, etc. Table 52 shows the building area
requirements of facility configurations ranging from one to six lanes.
Taking $25.00 as a unit building cost per square foot, the actual cost
estimates for network facilities can be computed for this option, and are shown
in Table 53.
Land Costs—
The primary determinants of land cost for any option are the unit cost per
square foot and the total size (in square feet) of the land to be acquired.
In Section 3, the unit cost estimates for land in each county were presented,
and these estimates will be used here.
Lot size requirements are a function of facility size (i.e., the number
of inspection lanes). As in Option 1, we will define the land:building ratio
as 5:1. Thus, for each facility in the network, raw land costs can be calcu-
lated, and are shown in Table 54.
Adding the land improvement costs to the raw land costs listed above yields
the total land investment. Standard paving and landscaping formulas, used in
the Option 1 analysis, were applied to the lot requirements for this option;
Table 55 lists Total Area, Paved Area, and Landscaped Area for each facility
configuration.
The same costs per square foot used in Option 1 are assured. The improve-
ment costs for each type of facility are shown in Table 56.
Land improvements cost can then be calculated for the entire Option 3
network, as shown in Table 57. The total land investment, then, is
$890,481 + $283,840 = $1,174,321.
Equipment Costs—
The equipment items required to operate a loaded-mode emissions inspection
facility were identified through consultations with equipment manufacturers and
state and local officials. For this option, the eqqipment required is an auto-
mated CO/HC analyzer which costs $21,500. When added to computer facilities
and miscellaneous tools, the total equipment investment as a function of facility
configuration is shown in Table 58.
The total cost for equipment in the Option 3 network can be computed based
on the number of facilities by configuration developed previously. These costs
are shown in Table 59.
One-time Startup Costs
Land Acquisition—
As before, the cost of land acquisition is assumed to be $6,000 per site
plus 10 percent of the purchase price. For this option a total of 15 sites
are required. The total unimproved land investment being $890,481, the ac-
quisition cost is:
91
-------
TABLE 52. BUILDING FLOOR AREA FOR VARIOUS FACILITY CONFIGURATIONS - OPTION 3
Floor area required (ft2)
Configuration
1 lane
2 lane
3 lane
4 lane
5 lane
6 lane
Test area
1,500 ft2
3,000
4,500
6,000
7,500
9,000
Administration
1,000 ft2
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
Employee rest
300 ft2
330
375
400
450
480
Storage
325 ft2
350
375
400
425
425
Waiting
500 ft2
850
1,450
2,300
3,375
4,700
Restrooms
85 ft2
85
85
85
85
85
Total
3,710 ft2
5,615
7,785
10,185
12,835
15,690
-------
TABLE 53. BUILDING COST ESTIMATES FOR OPTION 3
_ Facility
County ... '.
configuration
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
2
3
3
5
3
2
4
2
2
3
Total network-47
lane
lane
lane
lane
lane
lane
lane
lane
lane
lane
lanes
Per facility cost
$140
194
194
320
194
140
254
140
140
194
,375
,625
,625
,875
,625
,375
,625
,375
,375
,625
Number of
facilities required
2
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
15 facilities
Total cost
$ 280,750
389,250
194,625
962,625
194,625
140,375
254,625
140,375
140,375
389,250
$3,086,875
93
-------
TABLE 54. LAND COSTS FOR EACH INSPECTION FACILITY IN OPTION 3
VO
-P-
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Wai worth
Washington
Waukesha
Totals
Municipality
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookf ield
Waukesha
Facility
configuration
2 lane
2 lane
3 lane
3 lane
3 lane
5 lane
3 lane
2 lane
4 lane
2 lane
2 lane
3 lane
3 lane
47 lanes
Number of
facilities
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
Total building
area (ft2)
5,615
5,615
7,785
7,785
7,785
38,505
7,785
5,615
10,185
5,615
5,615
7,785
7,785
123,475
Land
area (ft2)
28,075
28,075
38,925
38,925
38,925
192,525
38,925
28,075
50,925
28,075
28,075
38,925
38,925
617,375
Unit cost
of land/ft2
$1.70
$1.00
$2.00
$1.00
$1.70
$1.50
$1.50
$0.60
$0.75
$0.67
$0.85
$2.50
$2.30
Total land
$ 47,728
$ 28,075
$ 77,850
$ 38,925
$ 66,173
$288,788
$ 58,388
$ 16,845
$ 38,194
$ 18,810
23,864
$ 97,313
$ 89,528
$890,481
-------
TABLE 55. PAVEMENT AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
FOR OPTION 3 FACILITIES, ft2
Facility Total Paved
configuration area area
1 lane
2 lane
3 lane
4 lane
5 lane
6 lane
18,550 6,215
28,075 12,430
38,925 18,645
50,925 24,725
64,175 30,940
78,450 37,020
Landscaped
area
8,625
10,030
12,495
16,015
20,400
25,740
TABLE 56.
LAND IMPROVEMENT COSTS
FOR INSPECTION
FACILITY SITES UNDER OPTION 3
Facility
configuration
1 lane
2 lane
3 lane
4 lane
5 lane
6 lane
Pavement Landscaping
costs costs
$ 4,972 $2,156
$ 9,944 $2,508
$14,916 $3,124
$19,780 $4,004
$24,752 $5,100
$29,616 $6,435
Total improvement
costs
$ 7,128
$12,452
$18,040
$23,784
$29,852
$36,051
95
-------
TABLE 57. LAND IMPROVEMENT COSTS FOR FACILITIES UNDER OPTION 3
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Total
Municipality
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookfield
Waukesha
Facility Number of
configuration facilities
2 lane
2 lane
3 lane
3 lane
3 lane
5 lane
3 lane
2 lane
4 lane
2 lane
2 lane
3 lane
3 lane
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cost per
facility
$12,452
12,452
18,040
18,040
18,040
29,852
18,040
12,452
23,784
12,452
12,452
18,040
18,040
Total
improvement s
$ 12,452
12,452
18,040
18,040
18,040
89,556
18,040
12,452
23,784
12,452
12,452
18,040
18,040
$283,840
TABLE 58.
Number
EQUIPMENT COSTS AS A FUNCTION OF
FACILITY CONFIGURATION FOR OPTION 3
of lanes
1
2
3
4
5
6
Equipment cost
107,500
135,000
162,500
190,000
217,500
245,000
, $
96
-------
TABLE 59. EQUIPMENT COSTS FOR OPTION 3
vo
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Municipality
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookfield
Waukesha
Configuration
2
2
3
3
3
5
3
2
4
2
2
3
3
lane
lane
lane
lane
lane
lane
lane
land
lane
lane
lane
lane
lane
Number of
facilities
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Equipment cost
per facility
$135
$135
$162
$162
$162
$217
$162
$135
$190
$135
$135
$162
$162
,000
,000
,500
,500
,500
,500
,500
,000
,000
,000
,000
,500
,500
Total Network
Total cost
of equipment
$135
$135
$162
$162
$162
$652
$162
$135
$190
$135
$135
$162
$162
$2,492
,000
,000
,500
,500
,500
,500
,500
,000
,000
,000
,000
,500
,500
,500
-------
(15 facilities)($6,000/facility) + (0.10)(890,481) = $179,048
Facilities Planning—
This element is calculated as before. For building costs of between
$3 million and $6 million, 15 percent of the total building cost is used. The
facility planning cost, then is equal to:
(15 percent)(3,081,875) = $462,281
Program Design—
As explained for Option 1, a cost of $100,000 is assumed for the program
design estimate.
Data Handling System Development—
The costs of development of data handling software are assumed to be the
same as those for Option 1; $200,000.
Personnel Training—
The numbers of personnel to be trained are as follows for Option 3:
15 managers
15 assistant managers
141 inspectors
5 maintenance persons.
The training costs for these individuals are as discussed in Section 3:
$53.00, $43.00 and $16.00 for instructors, investigators, and inspectors, re-
spectively. Using the same assumptions for training as in Option 1, training
costs for Option 3 are as follows:
(15 managers)($53.00) + (15 assistant managers)($16.00)
+ (146 inspectors and maintenance persons)($16.00) = $3,371
Personnel Salaries—
The same assumptions for startup personnel requirements for Option 1 were
used. Substituting the personnel numbers for Option 3, the cost of test per-
sonnel for the startup period is calculated below:
(15 managers)($1666.67/month)(6 months) + (15 asst. managers)($1125/month)
(6 months) + (5 maintenance/calib.)($1000/month)(1 month) + (141 inspectors)
($866.67/month)(l month)] x [l-25j = $473,063.
The total personnel cost for startup then is the sum of the above two figures, or
$473,063 + $756,375 = $1,229,438
Initial Public Information Program—
As explained in Option 1, the cost for initial startup of a public rela-
tions campaign would be approximately $0.12 per vehicle inspected, or $213,000.
98
-------
Annual Operating Costs
Facility Personnel—
Based on the facility staffing requirements and annual salaries associated
with the various job categories, the annual personnel costs can easily be com-
puted. These costs are shown in Table 60.
TABLE 60. ANNUAL PERSONNEL COSTS FOR FACILITY PERSONNEL - OPTION 3
T . . , Total number Annual
Job title .. . . ,
of positions salary
Manager
Assistant manager
Maintenance person
Inspectors
15
15
5
141
Total
$20,000
13,500
12,000
10,400
Salaries
Overhead @ 25%
Total annual
salary for
all positions
$ 300,000
270,000
60,000
1,466,400
$2,028,900
507,225
$2,536,125
Maintenance—
Primary costs for maintenance in this option reflect equipment repairs
and preventive maintenance. The annual cost of these functions is assumed
to be 20 percent of the original equipment cost or:
$2,492,500 x (0.20) = $498,500
Utilities, Services, and Supplies
Utilities—
Annual costs for utilities were derived from electric usage experienced by
similar facilities in other states (Arizona). For Option 3, these were found
to be 120 kWh per day per lane plus 325 kWh per day per facility. Assuming the
same cost per kWh as in previous options, the annual cost for all facilities
is calculated below:
47 lanes @ 120 kWh/day x $0.05 per hour x 250 days = $ 70,500
15 facilities @ 325 kWh/day x $0.05 per hour x 250 days = $ 60,938
Total utility costs per year = $131,438
99
-------
Insurance—
Based on the $1,500 per lane insurance costs assumed for Option 1, total
annual insurance costs for Option 3 will be:
$1,500 x 47 = $70,500
Computer Operation—
Central computer operation costs for automated inspection systems have been
estimated at $0.15 per test, or $225,000, as in Option 1.
Inspection Forms—
Using the $0.03 per inspection assumption as under Option 1, the inspec-
tion form printing and distribution costs will be $45,000 per year.
Calibration Costs—
The recurring annual cost of equipment calibration is defined as the cost
of calibration gases plus the operating costs of maintenance/calibration vans.
Using the $8,800 annual cost per van derived in the discussion of Option 1,
calibration costs will be:
$8,800 x 5 = $44,000
Taxes—
The annual cost for real estate and personal property taxes were calculated
based on full valuation rates for each municipality in which stations are to be
located. Total taxes were found to be:
General Property Tax $174,392
Real Estate Tax $ 32,028
Total $206,420
Uniforms—
Based on the assumption of $125.00 annual uniform costs, as used in Op-
tion 1, and a total of 176 uniformed employees, a total annual uniform cost of
$22,000 will be experienced for Option 3.
The total annual cost of utilities, services, and supplies is shown in
Table 61.
TABLE 61. ANNUAL COST OF UTILITIES, SERVICES,
AND SUPPLIES - OPTION 3
Utilities $131,438
Insurance $ 70,500
Computer Operation $225,000
Inspection Forms $ 45,000
Calibration Costs $ 44,000
Taxes $206,420
Uniforms $ 22,000
Total $744,358
100
-------
Annual Administrative Costs
Program Administrative Personnel—
Annual administrative personnel costs are the same for Option 3 as for
Option 1. From Table 31, these are found to be $504,250 annually.
Public Information—
The annual cost for public information for Option 3 is assumed to be the
same as that previously stated for Option 1, or $180,000 annually.
Personnel Training—
Using the same assumptions as for Option 1, an annual turnover of inspec-
tors of 10 percent, or 14 employees, can be expected. This relates to an an-
nual cost of $224 based on a cost of $16/inspector.
SUMMARY
The total cost of Option 3 is summarized in Table 62.
Initial capital costs and one-time startup costs are converted to annual
figures using the amortization factors found in Section 3. These annualized
costs are added to annual operating costs and annual administrative costs to
arrive at total annual costs in constant 1978 dollars. For Option 3 this
procedure is as follows:
when i = 0.03
Cost class
Cost ($)
Amortization factor
for i = 0.03
Annualized cost ($)
(column 2 * column 3)
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Startup costs
Operating
costs
Administrative
costs
1,174,321
3,086,875
2,812,500
2,387,138
0.03
0.067
0.2184
0.2184
35,230
206,821
614,250
521,351
3,778,983
684,474
Total
5,841,109
101
-------
TABLE 62. COST SUMMARY - OPTION 3
Primary category
I.
II.
Ill
IV.
Initial
capital
costs
One-time
startup
costs
. Annual
operating
costs
Annual
administra-
tive costs
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
Principal element
Land investment
Building investment
Equipment costs
Land acquisition
Facilities planning
Program design
Development of data handling
system
Personnel training
Personnel salaries
and overhead
Initial public information costs
Facility personnel
Maintenance
Utilities /supplies /services
Program administrative personnel
salaries and overhead
Public information
Training
i7i Total
Element cost
category cost
$1,174,321
$3,086,875
$2,812,500
Total $7,073,696
$ 179,048
$ 462,281
$ 100,000
$ 200,000
$ 3,371
$1,229,438
$ 213,000
Total $2,387,138
$2,536,125
$ 498,500
$ 774,358
Total $3,778,983
$ 504,250
$ 180,000
$ 224
Total $ 684,474
102
-------
when i = 0.06
Cost class Cost ($) Amortization factor Annualized cost ($)
for i = 0.06 (column 2 x column 3)
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Capital costs
1. Land 1,174,321 0.06
2. Buildings 3,806,875 0.087
3. Equipment 2,812,500 0.2374
Startup costs 2,387,138 0.2374
Operating
costs
Administrative
costs
Total
70,459
331,198
667,687
566,707
3,778,983
684,474
6,016,980
To arrive at the uniform fee in constant dollars (f ), the above total
annual costs are divided by the number of paid inspections: 1,911,000.
So, for i = 0.03:
5.841.109 nfi
c 1,911,000
and for i = 0.06
, = 6,016.980 =
c 1,911,000
The uniform fee in actual dollars (fa) and expressed in 1978 dollars is
calculated in a similar manner:
for i = 0.03,
and for i = 0.06
fa = 3.81
fa = 3'91
103
-------
SECTION 7
OPTION 4 - CENTRALIZED, STATE-OPERATED, LOADED-MODE
EMISSIONS INSPECTION WITH SAFETY AND NOISE TESTING
OPTION DEFINITION
This option calls for a network of centralized emissions, safety, and
noise inspection stations to be established by the State of Wisconsin through-
out the nine-county area defined in Section 2. The emissions inspection would
be a loaded-mode test, and safety and noise inspections like those described
for Option 1 would be performed on all light-duty gasoline-powered vehicles
under 13 years old, on an annual basis.
NETWORK REQUIREMENTS
The vehicle population to be tested in this option is the same as that
described in the discussion of Option 1. A per-vehicle throughput rate of
4 minutes is also assumed, since all the inspection tasks to be performed are
the same as for Option 1. Assuming the same 48-hour work week and 0.67 effi-
ciency factor as in the previous options yields a per-lane annual throughput
of
(15 vehicles/hour)(48 hours/week)(52 weeks/yr)(0.67) = 25,085 vehicles.
Since this annual per-lane throughput is exactly the same as that derived for
Option 1, the county lane requirements will also be the same, as shown in
Table 63. Using the same approach for facility allocation and siting in each
of the counties as that described for Option 1, a 20-facility network was
defined, with station locations and configurations as shown in Table 64.
OPTION COSTS
The costs associated with the implementation of this option are presented
below. Reference should be made to the discussion in Section 3 concerning the
analytical techniques used.
104
-------
TABLE 63. TOTAL INSPECTION LANES REQUIRED
TO MEET 1990 INSPECTION DEMAND
County
Number of lanes required
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Total
7
12
5
35
3
7
3
3
11
86
TABLE 64. INSPECTION NETWORK REQUIREMENTS FOR OPTION 4
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Town
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Bristol
Milwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Rochester
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookfield
Waukesha
Number of facilities
1
1
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Configuration
3- lane
4- lane
4- lane
4- lane
2-lane
3-lane
6-lane
5-lane
3-lane
4- lane
3-lane
3-lane
3-lane
6-lane
5-lane
Total network
20
86 lanes
105
-------
Capital Costs
Buildings—
As indicated in the discussion of Option 1, a building cost of $25.00 per
square foot was assumed for all the centralized options. For this option, an
analysis of the specific inspection tasks to be performed, including dimen-
sions of equipment required, was made to define the general features that
would be included in an inspection facility. A conceptional floor plan for a
basic one-lane facility for loaded emissions inspection is shown in Figure 3,
presented in Section 4. Multilane facilities would require roughly the inspec-
tion area shown times the number of lanes, although some additional space would
be required for waiting and rest areas. Table 65 shows the building area re-
quirements of facility configurations ranging from one to six lanes.
Assuming a construction cost of $25.00 as a unit cost per square foot,
the actual cost estimates can be computed; these are shown in Table 66.
Land Costs—
The land costs are based on the facilities requirements, land-to-building
ratio defined previously, and unit land costs. For this option, the total
land cost estimate is shown in Table 67.
Adding the landimprovement costs to the raw land costs listed above
yields the total land investment. The land improvements associated with
paving and landscaping were described in Section 4 and are summarized in
Tables 68; these factors, in terms of cost by facility configuration, are
shown in Table 69. The total land improvement costs for each facility are
shown in Table 70.
Equipment Costs—
The equipment items required for this option are identical to those for
Option 1. A summary of these is provided in Table 71. The costs for equip-
ment items shown in Table 71 can be summarized by facility configuration;
such a summary is provided in Table 72.
The total cost for equipment can now be computed based on the number of
facilities by configuration, developed previously. These costs are shown in
Table 73. Two additional items must be included with equipment costs; these
include calibration vans and equipment, and a central computer. The number of
vans is a function of the specific program scope, therefore will vary accord-
ing to the particular option being considered. Only one computer is required
for each option.
For Option 4, it is estimated that nine vans would be required. The esti-
mated unit cost for the van plus calibrating gases and equipment is $14,000.
The total cost, then, is $126,000.
A cost of $250,000 for the computer was suggested by several manufacturers,
including Digital, Olivetti, and Sperry Univac.
106
-------
TABLE 65. BUILDING FLOOR AREA FOR VARIOUS FACILITY CONFIGURATIONS - OPTION 4
Floor area required (ft2)
Configuration
1-lane
2-lane
3-lane
4- lane
5- lane
6- lane
Test area
3,200
6,400
9,600
12,800
16,000
19,200
Administration
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
Employee
rest
300
350
410
450
500
550
Storage
350
400
450
500
550
600
Waiting
960
1,440
2,240
3,360
4,800
6,560
Rest rooms
85
85
85
85
85
85
Total
5,895
9,675
13,785
18,195
22,935
27,995
-------
TABLE 66. BUILDING COST ESTIMATES FOR OPTION 4
o
00
_. • , • .. ,-• .. • Per facility cost Number facilities Total cost
Facility configuration ,-.N J . . ,.,,
($) required ($)
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Total
3-lane
4-lane
4-lane
2-lane
3-lane
6- lane
5-lane
3-lane
4-lane
3-lane
3-lane
3-lane
6- lane
5-lane
344,625
454,875
454,875
241,875
344,625
699,875
573,375
344,625
454,875
344,625
344,625
344,625
699,875
573,375
1
1
3
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
344,625
454,875
1,364,625
241,875
344,625
3,499,375
573,375
344,625
454,875
344,625
344,625
344,625
699,875
573,375
9,930,000
-------
TABLE 67. LAND COSTS FOR EACH INSPECTION FACILITY IN OPTION 4
o
•-O
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
« . . .... Facility
Municipality -.
r J configuration
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Bristol
Mi Iwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Rochester
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookfield
Waukesha
3
4
4
4
2
3
6
5
3
4
3
3
3
6
5
Number of , - , , . Land area
".,:." building area , 2.
facilities (ft*) (ft^)
1
1
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13,785
18,195
36,390
18,195
9,675
13,785
139,975
22,935
13,785
18,195
13,785
13,785
13,785
27,995
22,935
397,200
68,925
90,975
181,950
90,975
48,375
68,925
699,875
114,675
68,925
90,975
68,925
68,925
68,925
139,975
114,675
1,986,000
Unit cost Total
of land land cost
($/ft2) ($)
1.70
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.70
1.70
1.50
1.50
0.60
0.75
0.75
0.67
0.85
2.50
2.50
117,173
90,975
363,900
90,975
82,238
117,173
1,049,813
172,013
41,355
68,231
51,694
46,180
58,586
349,938
286,688
2,986,932
-------
TABLE 68. PAVEMENT AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
FOR OPTION 4 FACILITIES
Facility
configuration
1 lane
2 lane
3 lane
4 lane
5 lane
6 lane
TABLE 69.
Total area
29,475
48,375
68,925
90,975
114,680
139,980
Paved area
(ft2)
6,620
13,105
19,725
25,940
32,560
38,775
LAND IMPROVEMENT COSTS
Landscaped area
(ft2)
16,960
25,595
35,415
46,840
59,185
73,210
FOR INSPECTION
SITES UNDER OPTION 4
Facility
configuration
1 lane
2 lane
3 lane
4 lane
5 lane
6 lane
Pavement
Cost
$ 5,296
10,484
15,780
20,752
26,048
31,020
Landscaping
Cost
$ 4,240
6,399
8,854
11,710
14,796
18,303
Total
Improvement Cost
$ 9,536
16,883
24,634
32,462
40 , 844
49,323
110
-------
TABLE 70. LAND IMPROVEMENT COSTS FOR FACILITIES UNDER OPTION 4
.... Facility
County Municipality configuration
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Wai worth
Washington
Waukesha
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Bristol
Milwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Rochester
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookfield
Waukesha
3
4
4
4
2
3
6
5
3
4
3
3
3
6
5
Number of Cost per
facilities facility
1
1
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
$24,634
32,462
32,462
32,462
16,883
24,634
49,323
40,844
24,634
32,462
24,634
24,634
24,634
49,323
40 , 844
Total
improvement
cost
$ 24,634
32,462
64,924
32,462
16,883
24,634
246,615
40,844
24,634
32,462
24,634
24,634
24,634
49,323
40 , 844
$704,623
The total land investment, then, is $2,986,932 + $704,623 - $3,690,555 .
Ill
-------
TABLE 71. MAJOR EQUIPMENT ITEMS REQUIRED FOR OPTION 4
Program element
Item
Remarks
Unit cost (S)
I. Emissions 1. Chassis dynamometer
2. Emission analyzer
II. Safety
III. Noise
1. Dynamic brake tester
2. Scuff gauges
3. Dynamic alignment
4. Headlight-aim photocell
5. Chassis lift
1. Sound level meter
IV. Data Systems 1. CRT Terminals
2. Mini-computer
Needed for loaded-mode emission test. 14,000
One unit per test lane required. Cost
based on conversations with manufacturers
(Clayton, Maxwell).
Since loaded-mode is used, analyzer should 26,500
be capable of measuring CO, HC, and NOX.
Extremely wide range in analyzer costs;
cheaper analyzers found to be inadequate.
Analyzers should be capable of being tied
into computer data handling system. Costs
based on discussions with manufacturers
(Olson-Horiba, Hamilton Test Systems). One
unit per test lane required.
Analyzes relative and overall braking effort. 14,000
One required per lane. Costs based on dis-
cussion with manufacturer's representative
(Clayton, Hofman, Bear, Sum, Maxwell, Weaver).
One required per lane. Cost estimate based on 800
discussion with manufacturer's representative
(AAMCO, Weaver).
One unit required per lane. Cost estimate 25,000
based on discussion with manufacturer's
representative (Hunter, Dunlop, Bear)
One system required per lane. Cost based on 625
discussion with manufacturer's representative
(Hunter, Bear) .
One required per lane. Cost based on discus- 4,000
sion with manufacturer's representative (AAMCO).
One required per lane. Cost based on discus- 650
sions with B&K Instruments and GenRad.
Two required per lane. Costs based on liter- 2,500
ature and discussions with manufacturer's
representatives (Honeywell, Digital, Olivetti,
Sperry Univac), and experiences of other states.
One required per facility (equivalent to 80,000
Digital PDP-11-05). Generally assumed to be
included in the cost of facility furnishings.
V. Miscellaneous 1. Miscellaneous tools
As required.
1,000
-------
TABLE 72. EQUIPMENT COSTS AS A FUNCTION
OF FACILITY CONFIGURATION FOR
OPTION 4
Number of lanes Equipment cost
1 $171,575
2 263,150
3 354,725
4 446,300
5 537,875
6 629,450
113
-------
TABLE 73. EQUIPMENT COSTS FOR OPTION 4
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Town
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Bristol
Milwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Rochester
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookfield
Waukesha
Facility
configuration
3- lane
4- lane
4-lane
4- lane
2-lane
3- lane
6-lane
5-lane
3-lane
4-lane
3-lane
3-lane
3-lane
6-lane
5-lane
Number of
facilities required
1
1
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Equipment
cost per
facility
$ 354,725
446,300
446,300
446,300
263,150
354,725
629,450
537,875
354,725
446,300
354,725
354,725
354,725
629,450
537,875
Total cost
of equipment
$ 354,725
446,300
892,600
446,300
263,150
354,725
3,147,250
537,875
354,725
446,300
354,725
354,725
354,725
629,450
537,875
$9,475,450
-------
One-Time Start-Up Costs
Land Acquisition—
Land acquisition costs reflect the effort required to locate and evaluate
candidate sites, perform required surveying, negotiate price, and convey title.
As explained in Section 3, these costs are computed on the basis of $6,000 per
site to cover locating, evaluating, and performing surveys, plus 10 percent of
the purchase price to cover the costs associated with conveying the title.
For this option, a total of 20 sites are required, reflecting a total
land investment (basic cost only) of $2,986,932. The acquisition cost, then,
is :
(20 facilities)($6,000/facility) + (0.10)($2,986 ,932)
= $120,000 + $298,693 = $418,693 .
Facilities Planning—
This element is computed as a function of the total building construction
cost. Specifically, for building construction costs less than $3 million, the
facilities planning cost is 20 percent of the construction cost; for costs
between $3 million and $6 million, 15 percent is used, and for building costs
greater than $6 million, 10 percent is used. Since the building cost for this
option is $9,828,500, the estimated planning cost would be 10 percent of that,
or $982,850.
Program Design—
Based on both an analysis of the likely requirements specific to Wiscon-
sin, and the experience of other states, a cost of $100,000 was arrived at for
the program design estimate.
Data Handling Software—
Based on discussions with computer systems analysts, an estimate of
$200,000 was developed.
Personnel Training—
As indicated in Section 3, an initial, intensive training effort is re-
quired prior to program start up. Discussions with states and private con-
tractors involved with I/M program operation, the personnel requirements for
each facility was derived. The allocation of personnel are:
• One manager and one assistant manager per facility;
• Three inspectors per test lane for emission testing only;
• Four inspectors per test lane for combined emission, safety,
and noise testing; and
• One maintenance person for every 10 lanes.
115
-------
Applying these rates to the facility requirements developed previously,
the basic operating personnel requirements for Option 4 are:
• 20 managers
• 20 assistant managers
• 344 inspectors
• 9 maintenance persons.
The training cost per individual, as discussed in Section 3, are $53.00,
$43.00, and $16.00, for instructors, investigators, and inspectors. Assuming
that (1) the managers are to be trained as instructors, (2) assistant managers
are to be trained at the inspector level, and (3) inspectors are to be trained
at the inspector level, the total cost of training can be determined. This is
computed as:
(20 managers)($53.00) + (20 assistant managers)($16.00)
+ (344 inspectors)($16.00) = $6,884.00 .
Personnel Salaries—
Assuming (1) that all managerial personnel would be phased into the pro-
gram 6 months prior to start up; (2) that inspectors would be phased into the
program 1 month prior to start up; and (3) that the wage scale (a) for mana-
gers is $20,000 per year ($1,667.00 per month), (b) for assistant managers is
$13,500 per year ($1,125.00 per month), (c) for maintenance personnel is
$12,000 per year ($1,000.00 per month), and (d) for inspectors is $10,400 per
year ($867.00 per month), and (e) overhead is computed as 25 percent of the
wage rate; a total personnel cost estimate for start up can be derived.
This is:
(20 managers) ($1,667.00 per'month) (6 months)
+ (20 assistant managers) ($1,125.00 per month) (6 months)
+ (9 maintenance persons) ($1,000.00 per month) (1 month)
+ (344 inspectors) ($867.00 per month) (1 month)] [1-25J
= $802,860.00 .
The administrative personnel cost requirements, reflecting the longer start up
period, increase to $1,260,625. A detailed discussion of these administrative
persortnel and associated costs is provided in Section 4.
The total personnel cost for start up, then, is:
$802,860 + $1,260,625 = $2,063,485 .
116
-------
Annual Operating Costs
Facility Personnel—
Based on the facility staffing requirements and annual salaries associated
with the various job categories, the annual personnel costs can easily be com-
puted. These costs are shown in Table 74.
TABLE 74. ANNUAL PERSONNEL COSTS FOR FACILITY PERSONNEL - OPTION 4
Job title
Manager
Assistant manager
Maintenance person
Inspector
Total Salaries
Overhead at 25 percent
Total Annual Personnel
Total number
of positions
20
20
9
344
Cost
Annual
salary
$20,000
13,500
12,000
10,400
Total annual salary
for all positions
$ 400,000
270,000
108,000
3,577,600
4,355,600
1,088,900
5,444,500
Maintenance—
Primary costs for maintenance in this option reflect equipment repair
and preventive maintenance. The annual cost of these functions is assumed
to be 20 percent of the original equipment cost, as in Option 1, or:
$9,475,450 x (0.20) = $1,895,090 .
Utilities, Services and Supplies
Utilities—
Annual costs for utilities were derived from electric usages experienced
by similar facilities in other states (Arizona). For Option 4, these were
found to be 120 kilowatt-hours per day per lane, plus 325 kilowatt-hours per
facility. Power costs were obtained from Wisconsin Power and Light, and are
assumed to be $0.05 per kilowatt-hour, on average. The annual cost for all
facilities is calculated below:
86 lanes at 120 kWh/day x $0.05/kWh x 250 days/yr = $129,000 per year;
20 facilities at 325 kWh/day x $0.05/kWh x 250 days/yr = $81,250 per year;
Total utility cost = $129,000 + $81,250 = $210,250.
117
-------
Insurance—
Based on the $1,500 per lane insurance costs assumed for Option 1, total
annual insurance costs for Option 4 will be:
$1,500 x 86 lanes = $129,000 .
Computer Operation—
Central computer operation costs for automated inspection systems have
been estimated at $0.15 per test, or $225,000, as in Option 1.
Inspection Forms—
Using the $0.03 per inspection assumption as under Option 1, the inspec-
tion form printing and distribution costs will be $45,000 per year.
Calibration Costs—
The recurring annual cost of equipment calibration is defined as the
cost of calibration gases plus the operating cost of maintenance/calibration
vans. Using the $8,800 annual cost per van derived in the discussion of
Option 1, calibration costs will be:
$8,800 x 9 = $79,200 .
Uniforms—
Based on the assumption of $125.00 annual uniform costs, as used in
Option 1, and a total of 393 uniformed employees, a total annual uniform
cost of $49,125 will be experienced for Option 4.
The total annual cost of utilities, services, and supplies for Option 4
is shown in Table 75.
TABLE 75. ANNUAL COST OF UTILITIES, SERVICES,
AND SUPPLIES FOR OPTION 4
Item Annual cost
Utilities $210,250
Insurance 129,000
Computer operation 225,000
Inspection forms 45,000
Calibration cost 79,200
Uniforms 49,125
Total $737,575
118
-------
Annual Administrative Costs
Program Administrative Personnel—
The annual administrative personnel costs for Option 4 are the same as
for Option 1, or $504,250.
Public Information—
The same cost, $180,000, was assumed for both Options 1 and 4.
Personnel Training—
The training costs for this element are the same as for Option 1; these
are $560.
SUMMARY
The total cost of Option 4 is summarized in Table 76.
Initial capital costs and one-time start-up costs are converted to annual
figures using the amortization factors found in Section 3. These annualized
costs are added to annual operating costs and annual administrative costs to
arrive at total annual costs in constant 1978 dollars. For Option 4, this
procedure is as follows:
when i = 0.03
Amortization . , • ,
Annualized cost
Cost class Cost factor , , „ , _N
c • n no (column 2 x column 3)
for i = 0.03
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Startup costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
$3,691,555
9,828,500
9,851,450
3,984,872
0.03
0.067
0.2184
0.2184
$ 110,747
658,509
2,151,557
870,296
8,077,452
684,810
Total $12,553,340
119
-------
when i = 0.06
Cost class
Amortization
Cost factor
for i = 0.06
Annualized cost
(column 2 x column 3)
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Capital costs
1. Land $3,691,555 0.06
2. Buildings 9,828,500 0.087
3. Equipment 9,851,450 0.2374
Startup costs 3,984,872 0.2374
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Total
$ 221,493
855,080
2,338,734
946,008
8,077,452
684,810
$13,123,577
To arrive at the uniform fee in constant dollars (f ), the above total
annual costs are divided by the number of paid inspections: 1,911,000.
So, for i = 0.03:
and for i = 0.06:
= 12,553,340
c 1,911,000
m 13,123,577 _
c 1,911,000
The uniform fee in actual dollars (f ) and expressed in 1978 dollars is
calculated in a similar manner:
for i = 0.03,
and for i = 0.06,
BENEFITS
f = 8.75
a
f =9.08
a
The discussion on benefits provided in Option 1 applies identically to
this option. This is also true of the additional discussion on safety inspec-
tion programs presented in Option 1, as well.
120
-------
TABLE 76. COST SUMMARY - OPTION 4
II.
III.
Primary cost category
Total
One-time startup costs
Principal element
Element cost
Total
category cost
I.
Initial capital costs
1.
2.
3.
Land investment
Building investment
Equipment costs
$3,691,555
9,828,500
9,475,450
IV.
Total
Annual operating costs
Total
Annual administrative costs
Total
1. Land acquisition 418,693
2. Facilities planning 982,850
3. Program design 100,000
4. Development of data handling
system hardware 200,000
5. Personnel training 6,844
6. Personnel salaries and
overhead 2,063,485
7. Initial public information
costs 213,000
1. Facility personnel 5,444,500
2. Maintenance 1,895,090
3. Utilities/supplies/services 737,575
1. Program administrative
salaries and overhead
2. Public information
3. Training
504,250
180,000
224
$22,995,505
3,984,872
8,077,165
684,474
-------
SECTION 8
OPTION 5 - CENTRALIZED, STATE-OPERATED,
IDLE MODE EMISSIONS TEST
OPTION DEFINITION
This option calls for a network of centralized idle-mode emissions in-
spection stations to be established by the State of Wisconsin throughout the
nine-county area defined in Section 2. Coverage would include all light-duty
gasoline-powered vehicles under 13 years old on an annual basis.
NETWORK REQUIREMENTS
The vehicle population to be tested in this option is the same as that
described in the discussion of option 1. A per-vehicle throughput rate of
2 minutes has been assumed, since all inspection tasks to be performed are
the same as those described for option 3. Assuming the same 48-hour work
week and 0.67 efficiency factor yields an annual per-lane throughput of
(30 vehicles/hour) (48 hours/week) (52 weeks/year) (0.67)
= 50,170 vehicles
Since this annual per-lane throughput is exactly the same as that derived for
option 3, the county lane requirements will also be the same as shown in
Table 77. Since the same approach for facility siting and allocation was
also used, an identical network to that derived for Option 3, with 15 stations
and 47 lanes, was arrived at, as shown in Table 78.
OPTION COSTS
The costs associated with the implementation of this option are presented
below. Reference should be made to the discussion in Section 3 concerning the
analytical techniques used.
Capital Costs
Buildings—
As indicated in the discussion of option 1, building cost of $25.00 per
square foot was assumed for all the centralized facility options. For this
option, analysis of the specific tasks required for idle-mode inspection, in-
cluding dimensions of equipment required, was made to define the general
features that would be included in an inspection facility. A conceptual
122
-------
TABLE 77. TOTAL INSPECTION LANES
REQUIRED TO MEET 1990
INSPECTION DEMAND
TABLE 78.
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Total
INSPECTION
Number of lanes required
4
6
3
18
2
4
2
2
6
47
NETWORK REQUIREMENTS
FOR OPTION 5
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Town
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookf ield
Waukesha
Total network
Number of facilities
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
Configuration
2-lane
2-lane
3-lane
3-lane
3-lane
5- lane
3-lane
2-lane
4- lane
2-lane
2-lane
3-lane
3-lane
47 lanes
123
-------
floor plan for a basic one-lane facility for idle-mode inspection is shown in
Figure 6. Multilane facilities would require roughly the inspection area
shown times the number of lanes, although some additional space would be re-
quired for waiting and rest areas, etc. Table 79 shows the building area
requirements of facility configurations ranging from one to six lanes.
Taking $25.00 as a unit building cost per square foot, the actual cost
estimates for network facilities can be computed for this option, and are
shown in Table 80 below.
Land Costs—
The primary determinants of land cost for any option are the unit cost
per square foot and the total size (in square feet) of the land to be acquired.
In Section 3, the unit cost estimates for land in each county were presented,
and these estimates will be used here.
Lot size requirements are a function of facility size (i.e., the number
of inspection lanes). As in option 1, we will define the land : building
ratio as 5:1. Thus, for each facility in the network, raw land costs can be
calculated, and are shown in Table 81 below.
Adding the land improvement costs to the raw land costs listed above
yields the total land investment. Standard paving and landscaping formulas,
used in the Option 1 analysis, were applied to the lot requirements for this
option; Table 82 lists total area, paved area, and landscaped area for each
facility configuration.
The same costs per square foot used in Option 1 are assumed. The im-
provement costs for each type of facility are shown in Table 83.
Land improvements cost can then be calculated for the entire Option 3
network, as shown in Table 84. The total land investment, then, is
$890,481 + $283,840 = $1,174,321
Equipment Costs—
The equipment items required to operate a loaded-mode emissions inspec-
tion facility were identified through consultations with equipment manufac-
turers and state and local officials. For this option, the equipment required
is an automated CO/HC analyzer which costs $21,500. When added to computer
facilities and miscellaneous tools, the total equipment investment as a
function of facility configuration is shown in Table 85.
The total cost for equipment in the Option 5 network can be computed
based on the number of facilities by configuration developed previously.
These costs are shown in Table 86.
124
-------
1
TOTAL • 3 INSPECTORS, 6 •!••!•• RESIOCI
n
m
H
N
i
a
•
-4
2
XX X
IP c °
JJ • if,,
!• 1 ^ H
Z *
M
Z "
i i~ ill
m f S n 6
o • r 5 *
o 5 £ 8 N,
«S
|
i
^"* ^~ •— ^»^ <^» ^^ ^«" ^^M «l^ ^™
x xx ~ J J 5 H
"f 1 ? is?;
li H i*l
-*-' Hi 2 fi
O • jp C
V
J
• iJ ^2 1
1
REST ROOMS
85ft2 1
STORAGE ond UTILITY
325 ft2
EMPLOYEE REST AREA
300ft2
ADMINISTRATIVE
1000 ft2
WAITING /COUNC ILL ING
500 ft2
1
7!
»'
TOTAL TEST AREA«1,900 ft2 MOHTC8T AREA' 2£IO ft2
TOTAL BUILDING AREA "3,710 ft 2
Figure 6. Conceptual floor plan for an idle-mode inspection facility.
125
-------
TABLE 79. BUILDING FLOOR AREA FOR VARIOUS FACILITY CONFIGURATIONS - OPTION 5
Floor area required (ft2)
Configuration
1-lane
2- lane
3-lane
4- lane
5-lane
6- lane
Test area Administration mp oyee
rest
1,500
3,000
4,500
6,000
7,500
9,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
300
330
375
400
450
480
Storage
325
350
375
400
425
425
Waiting Restrooms Total
500
850
1,450
2,300
3,375
4,700
85
85
85
85
85
85
3,710
5,615
7,785
10,185
12,835
15,690
-------
TABLE 80. BUILDING COST ESTIMATE FOR OPTION 5
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Facility configuration
2-lane
3-lane
3-lane
5-lane
3-lane
2-lane
4- lane
2-lane
2-lane
3-lane
Total network 47 lanes
Per facility cost
($)
140,375
194,625
194,625
320,875
194,625
140,375
254,625
140,375
140,375
194,625
15 facilities
Number facilities
required
2
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
Total costs
($)
280,750
389,250
194,625
962,625
194,625
140,375
254,625
140,375
140,375
389,250
3,086,875
-------
TABLE 81. LAND COSTS FOR EACH INSPECTION FACILITY IN OPTION 5
NJ
00
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Wai worth
Washington
Waukesha
Total
Municipality
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookfield
Waukesha
Facility
configuration
2-lane
2-lane
3- lane
3- lane
3- lane
5-lane
3- lane
2-lane
4- lane
2-lane
2-lane
3- lane
3- lane
47 lanes
Number of
facilities
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
Total
, . , , . Land area
building area .- r ? \
(ft?) Cft }
5,615
5,615
7,785
7,785
7,785
38,505
7,785
5,615
10,185
5,615
5,615
7,785
7,785
123,475
28,075
28,075
38,925
38,925
38,925
192,525
38,925
28,075
50,925
28,075
28,075
38,925
38,925
617,375
Unit cost Total
of land land cost
($/ft2 ($)
1.70
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.70
1.50
1.50
0.60
0.75
0.67
0.85
2.50
2.30
47,728
28,075
77,850
38,925
66,173
288.788
58,388
16,845
38,194
18,810
23,864
97,313
89,528
890,481
-------
TABLE 82. PAVEMENT AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
FOR OPTION 5 FACILITIES
Facility
configuration
1 lane
2 lane
3 lane
4 lane
5 lane
6 lane
Total area
18,550
28,075
38,925
50,925
64,175
78,450
Paved area Landscaped area
(ft2) (ft2)
6,215
12,430
18,645
24,725
30,940
37,020
8,625
10,030
12,495
16,015
20,400
25,740
TABLE 83. LAND IMPROVEMENT COSTS FOR INSPECTION
FACILITY SITES UNDER OPTION 5
Facility
configuration
1 lane
2 lane
3 lane
4 lane
5 lane
6 lane
Pavement
cost
$ 4,972
9,944
14,916
19,780
24,752
29,616
Landscaping
cost
$2,156
2,508
3,124
4,004
5,100
6,435
Total
improvement cost
$ 7,128
12,452
18,040
23,784
29,852
36,051
129
-------
TABLE 84. LAND IMPROVEMENT COSTS FOR FACILITIES UNDER OPTION 5
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Municipality ... .
configuration
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookef ield
Waukesha
2-lane
2-lane
3-lane
3-lane
3-lane
5- lane
3-lane
2-lane
4- lane
2-lane
2-lane
3-lane
3-lane
Number of Cost per
facilities facility
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
$12,452
12,452
18,040
18,040
18,040
29,852
18,040
12,452
23,784
13,452
12,452
18,040
18,040
Total
improvement
cost
$ 12,452
12,452
18,040
18,040
18,040
89,556
18,040
12,452
23,784
12,452
12,452
18,040
18,040
283,940
130
-------
TABLE 85. EQUIPMENT COSTS AS A
FUNCTION OF FACILITY
CONFIGURATION FOR
OPTION 5
Number of lanes Equipment cost ($)
TABLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
86 . EQUIPMENT
107,500
135,000
162,500
190,000
217,500
245,000
COSTS FOR
OPTION 5
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Town
Green Bay
Bellevue
Madison
Suburbs
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Greenfield
Cedarburg
Racine
Elkhorn
West Bend
Brookf ield
Waukesha
Facility
configuration
2-lane
2-lane
3-lane
3-lane
3-lane
5-lane
3-lane
2-lane
4- lane
2-lane
2-lane
3-lane
3-lane
Number of
facilities
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Equipment
cost per
facility
$135,000
135,000
162,500
162,500
162,500
217,500
162,500
135,000
190,000
135,000
135,000
162,500
162,500
Total network
Total cost
of equipment
$ 135,000
135,000
162,500
162,500
162,500
652,500
162,500
135,000
190,000
135,000
135,000
162,500
162,500
$2,492,500
131
-------
One-Time Startup Costs
Land Acquisition—
As before, the cost of land acquisition is assumed to be $6,000 per site
plus 10 percent of the purchase price. For this option a total of 15 sites
are required. The total unimproved land investment being $890,481, the
acquisition cost is:
(15 facilities) ($6,000/facility) + (0.10) (890,481) = $179,048
Facilities Planning—
This element is calculated as before. For building costs of between
$3 million and $6 million, 15 percent of the total building cost is used.
The facility planning cost, then, is equal to:
(15%) (3,081,875) = $462,281
Program Design—
As explained for Option 1, a cost of $100,000 is assumed for the program
design estimate.
Data Handling System Development—
The costs of development of data handling software are assumed to be the
same as those for Option 1: $200,000.
Personnel Training—
The numbers of personnel to be trained are as follows for Option 5:
15 Managers
15 Assistant Managers
141 Inspectors
5 Maintenance Persons
The training costs for these individuals are as discussed in Section 3,
are $53.00, $43.00, and $16.00 for instructors, investigators, and inspectors,
respectively. Using the same assumptions for training as in Option 1, training
costs for Option 3 are as follows:
(15 Managers) ($53.00) + (15 Assistant Managers) ($16.00)
+ (146 inspectors and maintenance persons) ($16.00) = $3,371
Personnel Salaries—
For the state-owned options, startup personnel requirements are different
from privately-owned approaches, as a longer lead time is required for site
acquisition, receiving of bids on equipment, etc. For administrative personnel,
a startup time of 2-1/2 years is assumed; for station managers and personnel,
the previously-assumed 6 months is still held to be the case. For option 5,
the cost of test personnel for the startup period is calculated below:
132
-------
[(15 managers)($1,666.67/month)(6 months)
+ (15 assistant managers)($1,125/month)(6 months)
+ (5 maintenance/calib)($l,000/month)(l month)
+ (141 inspectors)($866.67/month)(1 month)]
x [1.25] = $473,063
The administrative personnel cost requirements, reflecting the longer startup
period, increase to $1,260,625.
The total personnel cost for startup, then, is
$473,063 + $1,260,625 = $1,733,688
Initial Public Information Program—
As explained in Option 1, the cost for initial startup of a public
relations campaign would be approximately $0.12 per vehicle inspected, or
$213,000.
133
-------
Annual Operating Costs
Facility Personnel—
Based on the facility staffing requirements and annual salaries associated
with the various job categories, the annual personnel costs can easily be com-
puted. These costs are shown in Table 87.
TABLE 87. ANNUAL PERSONNEL COSTS FOR FACILITY
PERSONNEL - OPTION 5
_, . , , Annual Total annual
T , . , Total number , , ..
Job title - . . salary salary for
of positions ,..,,. J .... J . .
(?) all positions
Manager 15
Assistant Manager 15
Maintenance Person 5
Inspectors 141
Total salaries
Overhead @ 25 percent
20,000 $ 300,000
13,500 270,000
12,000 60,000
10,400 1,466,400
$2,028,900
507,225
$2,536,125
Maintenance—
Primary costs for maintenance in this option reflect equipment repairs
and preventive maintenance. The annual cost of these functions is assumed
to be 20 percent of the original equipment cost or:
$ 2,492,500 x (0.20) = $498,500
Utilities, Services, and Supplies
Utilities—
Annual costs for utilities were derived from electric usage experienced
by similar facilities in other states (Arizona). For Option 5, these were
found to be 20 kWh/day per lane plus 325 kWh/day per facility, assuming the
same cost per kWh/hr as in previous options; the annual cost for all facilities
is calculated below:
47 lanes @ 120 kWh/day x $0.05 per hour x 250 days: $ 70,500
15 facilities @ 325 kWh/day x $0.05 per hour x 250 days: $ 60,938
Total utilities cost per year $131,438
134
-------
Insurance—
Based on the $1,500 per lane insurance costs assumed for Option 1, total
annual insurance costs for Option 5 will be:
$1,500 x 41 = $70,500
Computer Operation—
Central computer operation costs for automated inspection systems have
been estimated at $0.15 per test, or $225,000 as in Option 1.
Inspection Forms—
Using the $0.03 per inspection assumption as under Option 1, the inspec-
tion form printing and distribution costs will be $45,000 per yea.
Calibration Costs—
The recurring annual cost of equipment calibration is defined as the cost
of calibration gases plus the operating costs of maintenance/calibration vans.
Using the $8,800 annual cost per van derived in the discussion of Option 1,
calibration costs will be:
$8,800 x 5 = $44,000
Uniforms—
Based on the assumption of $125.00 annual uniform costs, as used in
Option 1, and a total of 393 uniformed employees, a total annual uniform cost
of $49,125 will be experienced for Option 5.
The total annual cost of utilities, services, and supplies, computed in
Table 88, was found to be:
TABLE 88. ANNUAL COST OF UTILITIES,
SERVICES, AND SUPPLIES -
OPTION 5
Utilities $131,438
Insurance 70,500
Computer operation 225,000
Inspection forms 45,000
Calibration costs 44,000
Uniforms 49,125
Total $565,063
135
-------
Annual Administrative Costs
Program Administrative Personnel—
Annual administrative personnel costs are the same for Option 5 as for
Option 1. From Table 89, these are found to be $504,250 annually.
Public Information—
The annual cost for public information for Option 5 is assumed to be the
same as that previously stated for Option 1, or $180,000 annually.
Personnel Training—
Using the same assumption as for Option 1, an annual turnover of inspec-
tors of 10 percent, or 14 employees, can be expected. This relates to an
annual cost of $224 based on a cost of $16/inspector.
136
-------
TABLE 89. COST SUMMARY - OPTION 5
CO
Priamry category
I. Initial capital costs 1.
2.
3.
II. One-Time Start-Up Costs 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
„ . . , , _ Element cost Total category
Principal element ,** /•,-.>,
(?) cost (?)
Land investment
Building investment
Equipment costs
Land acquisition
Facilities planning
Program design
Development of data handling
system
Personnel training
Personnel salaries and
overhead
Initial public information
costs
1,174,321
3,086k875
2,812,500
7,073,696
179,048
462,281
100,000
200,000
3,371
1,733,688
213,000
III. Annual Operating Costs
1.
2,
3.
Facility personnel 2,596,125
Maintenance 498,500
Utilities/supplies/services 565,063
IV. Annual Administrative Costs
2.
3.
Program administrative per-
sonnel salaries and overhead
Public information
Training
504,250
180,000
224
2,891,388
3,599,688
684,474
-------
SUMMARY
The total cost of Option 5 is summarized in Table 89.
Initial capital costs and one-time start-up costs are converted to annual
figures using the amortization factors found in Section 3. These annualized
costs are added to annual operating costs and annual administrative costs to
arrive at total annual costs in constant 1978 dollars. For Option 5 this
procedure is as follows:
when i = 0.03
Cost class Cost ($)
Amortization factor
for i = 0.03
Annualized cost ($)
(column 2)x(column 3)
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Capital costs
1. Land 1,174,321
2. Buildings 3,086,875
3. Equipment 2,812,500
Startup costs 2,891,388
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Total
0.03
0.067
0.2184
0.2184
35,230
206,821
614,250
631,479
3,599,688
684,474
5,771,942
when i = 0.06
Cost class Cost ($)
Amortization factor
for i = 0.06
Annualized cost ($)
(column 2)x(column 3)
I. Capital costs
1. Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
1,174,321
3,086,875
2,812,500
II. Start-up costs 2,891,388
III. Operating costs
IV. Administrative
Total
0.06
0.087
0.2374
0.2374
70,459
268,558
667,687
686,416
3,599,688
684,474
5,977,312
To arrive at the uniform fee in constant dollars (fc), the above total
annual costs are divided by the number of paid inspections: 1,911,000. So,
for i = 0.03:
138
-------
and for i = 0.06
f = 5,771,942 =
c 1,911,000 J-
f - 5,977,312 _
c 1,911,000 •3<
The uniform fee in actual dollars (fa) and expressed in 1978 dollars is
calculated in a similar manner:
for i = 0.03,
and for i = 0.06
f =3.835
a
f = 3.932
a
139
-------
SECTION 9
DECENTRALIZED PROGRAM OF IDLE MODE EMISSIONS TESTING
OPTION DEFINITION
A decentralized approach to emissions testing utilizes existing private
garages and the personnel employed by them to conduct the actual vehicle
testing procedure. Each station participating in I/M inspection must have an
HC/CO analyzer that is inspected and certified routinely by the state agency
overseeing the program.
To accomplish this periodic certification the state will need mobile
vans that have been suitably equipped to test the accuracy of HC/CO analyzers
owned by participating private garages. To maintain program integrity a
referee or challenge inspection lane should be operated by the state. Should
a vehicle owner disagree with the results of a test performed by a private
garage he may have the test repeated at the challenge lane. The results of
a challenge lane test are final.
There will be certain administrative personnel required at the state
level to oversee the equipment certification procedure, licensing of private
garages to perform inspections and coordinate the program in general.
NETWORK DEVELOPMENT
Relevant Vehicle 'Population
In order to properly determine minimum and maximum acceptable inspection
station networks the number of vehicle inspections that must be performed in
1987 is needed. This figure can be estimated based on 1977 vehicle registra-
tions in the program area. The vehicle population estimates for 1987 are
based on the assumption that the quantity of light duty vehicles is increasing
at a constant rate of 3 percent per year. Total inspections required in 1987
appear in the right hand column of Table 90 and assume a stringency rate of
30 percent and that no vehicle fails re-inspection.
140
-------
TABLE 90. VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS AND INSPECTIONS
FOR SELECTED COUNTIES FOR 1987
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Wai worth
Washington
Waukesha
Total
1987 registrations
119,697
255,437
87,871
657,037
50,226
124,734
52,410
57,712
205,245
1,580,369
1987 inspections
155,606
293,068
114,232
854,148
65,294
162,154
68,133
75,026
266,819
2,054,480
Private Garages Available to Perform I/M Inspections
Table 91 is based on 1972 figures on the number of auto repair shops,
dealers and gasoline service stations as published in Motor/Age. It is calcu-
lated with the assumption that 1987 figures will be 60 percent of their 1972
values. This anticipated decline is based on several things. First, the
number of service stations has been declining since 1972. Self-serve stations
that have no maintenance facilities at all are growing in popularity and are
likely to continue to do so in the future. Finally, a certain proportion of
these facilities will simply not be interested in becoming involved with I/M
for various reasons.
TABLE 91. PRIVATE GARAGES ELIGIBLE TO
PARTICIPATE IN I/M IN 1987
County
Number of garages
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Total
159
308
124
784
56
164
91
79
208
1,973
141
-------
There is no reason why all, or any arbitrarily chosen number of these
garages should be included in an I/M network. The analysis that follows de-
rives minimum and maximum levels of private garage participation based on as-
sumptions about variables that determine private garage performance and
profitability.
Minimum Private Garage Networks
The minimum number of private garages is determined by the number of in-
spections that must be performed each year. The following formula determines
this minimum:
G DN
where: G = the number of garages required to participate in an I/M program
I = total number of inspections performed per year
D = number of inspection days per year
N - number of vehicles inspected by each garage each day.
The number of garages (G) is inversely related to throughput rate (N). Maxi-
mizing N will minimize G. Thus, G is dependent on the maximum number of ve-
hicles that can be processed per station per day.
The maximum number of vehicles that can be reasonably handled at a service
station is 21 per day or 5,250 per year.1 Using this figure and Table 91, the
following figures can be computed:
TABLE 92. MINIMUM PRIVATE GARAGE
NETWORK NEEDED IN 1987
County
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Total
Number of garages
30
56
22
163
13
31
13
13
51
394
142
-------
Service Area Radius and Market Participation Rate—
There are two concepts that are useful in evaluating a private garage net-
work. They are service area radius and extent of market participation by
garages in an I/M scheme.
The concept of service area radius assumes that no motorist needs to
travel more than distance R to reach an inspection facility. It assumes ve-
hicles and garages are spread out evenly across the landscape. R is the radius
of a service station's area of coverage and that area is equal to uR2. If the
number of garages (G) in an area is known, R can be determined with the fol-
lowing formula:
where:
R
A
IT
G
service area radius
given geographical area
3.14159
number of garages in area A
Market participation is a figure that represents the number of private
garages participating as inspection stations as a percentage of the total num
ber of facilities that could be used for I/M in a given area. While this
figure doesn't affect the calculated minimum and maximum network sizes, it is
useful because it gives an idea of how easily the number of inspection sites
can be changed. The market participation rate can be determined with the fol
lowing equation:
where: P = market participation, expressed in percent
G = number of private garages serving as inspection stations in a given
area
T = total number of private garages within that same area.
Minimum Network Service Area Radii and Market Participation Rates —
Using the equations above, the following figures result for a minimum
private garage network:
143
-------
TABLE 93. MINIMUM SERVICE AREA RADII AND
MARKET PARTICIPATION RATES
County
Service area radius
(miles)
Market participation
(percent)
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Waukesha
2.36
2.60
1.98
0.68
2.40
1.86
3.69
1.86
18.9
18.2
17.7
20.8
23.2
18.9
14.3
24.5
Maximum Private Garage Network
As the number of private garages increases the service area and through-
put rates for each garage will decline. The number of inspection stations
(licensed service stations) can increase beyond the minimum network described
above. There is, however, a constraint on total number that can exist at any
one point in time. Private garages are motivated to participate by the po-
tential profits I/M can generate for them. The minimum revenue from I/M par-
ticipation that is acceptable to private garages would be the cost they incur
in purchasing the requisite equipment and wages spent for personnel performing
the tests. This is illustrated in Figure 7.
H
CO
w
COSTS
REVENUE
NUMBER OF PARTICIPATING STATIONS
Figure 7. Market factors affecting private garage participation.
144
-------
As the number of stations increases the number of inspections occurring
at each station declines and revenues fall correspondingly. This is reflected
by the negative slope of the revenue curve in Figure 7, Garages will con-
tinue to enter the I/M business (for that is what it is to them) until the
total number of stations is equal to A. At this point each station makes zero
return on its investment. Stations will operate at this seemingly irrational
margin because repair business is likely to be generated for garages that have
the capability to perform inspections. No stations are likely to operate in
excess of A because to do so would be to operate at a loss. To the right of
point A costs exceed revenues.
The formula that governs private garage market entry behavior is:
Total Revenue (TR) = Total Cost (TC)
This equation can be separated into component parts in the following manner:
M (C-F) = (A) + (S) + (L) + (0)
where: M = number of cars inspected per year
C = inspection charge, assumed to be $5.00
F = state fee per inspection to cover administrative costs,
assumed to be $0.50
A = cost of analyzer and accessories. If a typical station purchases
an analyzer and accessories costing $3,000 over a 5-year period
at 8 percent interest, its annual payment will be
Payment = r(1-08)b _ ^-f = $751.88
LO.08(1.08)5 J
S = the salary of the inspector. This can be calculated using the
following formula. S can be further disaggregated into its
components:
S = (H) (W) (D)
where: H = number of hours per day spent performing inspections
W = the hourly wage of the inspector
D = the number of days per year spent performing inspections
L = annual licensing fees, assumed not to exceed $100.00.
0 = station overhead, assumed to be 1/3 of inspector salary S.
145
-------
substituting and solving for M,
(A + S -t- L + 0)
M =
(C - F)
recalling the formula
- A + (1.33) (H) (W) (D) + L
(C - F)
G ~ DN
and solving for G yields the number of garages participating in an I/M
network. Since the number of cars inspected per year for one station equals
the number of inspection days per year times station throughput:
M = DN
Using the above cost assumptions the number of vehicle inspections nec-
essary for a facility to cover its costs (M) can be calculated for various
salary (S) rates and operating costs (0). The minimum quantity of vehicle
inspections thus calculated determine the maximum number of private garages
that can be licensed for the assumed 1987 vehicle population.
Table 94 reveals the maximum number of garages that market forces will
allow to operate for different inspector wages and hours per day devoted to
I/M inspections.
TABLE 94. MAXIMUM PRIVATE GARAGE
PARTICIPATION, (NUMBER
OF GARAGES)
Inspector
Hours per day , ,
^ J hourly wage rate
spent on
inspections $4>5()
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3,922*
2,400"
1,728
1,350
1,108
939
815
720
3,441*
2,046"
1,455
1,129
923
780
676
596
3,662*
1,782
1,257
970
790
667
577
508
*
These combinations of time devoted
to I/M and inspector wage rates re-
quire vehicle throughputs that are
unachievable given the limited num-
ber of vehicles that can be in-
spected in a given year.
146
-------
A reasonable combination of variables would be an inspector wage rate
of $5.50 per hour and a 4-hour inspection day and a break-even throughput
rate of 1819 vehicles per year per station results.2 Table 95 distributes
the maximum garage network for a $5.50 wage rate and 4-hour day (calculated
in Table 94) over the relevant nine-county region.
TABLE 95. MAXIMUM GARAGE NETWORK
FOR INSPECTOR WAGE OF
$5.50 AND 4-HOUR
INSPECTION DAY
County Number of garages needed
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
Total
86
161
63
470
36
89
37
41
147
1,130
Maximum Network Service Area Radii and Market Participation Rates—
Applying maximum network figures to the service area radii and market
participation rate formulae yields:
TABLE 96. MAXIMUM SERVICE AREA RADII AND
MARKET PARTICIPATION RATES
County
Service area radius Market participation rate
(miles) (percent)
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
1.39
1.54
1.17
0.40
1.44
1.09
2.19
1.82
1.10
54.0
52.2
50.8
59.9
64.3
54.2
40.6
51.9
70.7
147
-------
MOBILE STATE INSPECTIONS OF PRIVATE GARAGES
All private facilities serving as inspection facilities should be visited
by a mobile state inspector at least once a month to:
1. gather data recorded on vehicles inspected
2. follow up on complaints and inquires
3. calibrate HC/CO analyzer to ensure its accuracy
An inspection/calibration visit is likely to take 1 hour at most. If
travel time between inspection visits is 30 minutes, on an average a state
inspector can perform five such visits in an 8-hour day (104 per month).
Assuming a 67 percent efficiency factor, they can visit 70 sites per
month.
Applying this figure to the minimum and maximum private garage networks
described above, inspector requirements become quantifiable.
TABLE 97. MOBILE INSPECTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR
MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PRIVATE
GARAGE NETWORKS
County
Minimum network
Maximum network
Brown
Dane
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Walworth
Washington
Waukesha
0.43
0.80
0.31
2.33
0.19
0.44
0.19
0.21
0.73
1.23
2.30
0.90
6.71
0.51
1.27
0.53
0.59
2.10
Total 5.63 16.14
or approximately 6 or approximately 17
COSTS
Referee Lane
The referee or challenge lane, designed to resolve vehicle owner complaints
about private garage test results, is assumed to be a one-lane, idle-mode only
facility. Cost breakdowns for this lane are:
148
-------
Building $ 92,750
Land 27,825
Improvements 7,128
Equipment 27,500
Total $155,203
(Note: The methodology used in arriving at these figures is the same as that
used in the main costing section.)
It is assumed that the state already has the necessary computer facilities
in place. Software development costs will be $20,000 and will be written on
a contract basis.
The value of equipment will be depreciated 20 percent annually.
State Manpower Requirements
State personnel that will have to be added to accommodate a private garage
approach are depicted in Figure 8. They are listed and costed out in Table 98.
With the exception of mobile inspector salaries these figures will remain
constant regardless of whether a minimum or maximum private garate network
is developed. State salary commitments vary between $695,340 and $864,740
annually.
Total Private Garage Costs
In addition to state manpower and mobile van costs (a mobile van fully
equipped for inspection and licensing costs $14,000) the garages conducting I/M
inspections face costs. The costs faced by private garages are HC/CO analyzer
cost, mechanic's salary, licensing fee and overhead. Assuming a mechanic's
wage of $5.50 per hour and 250 8-hour inspection days per year, the private
garages in the minimum network will incur $17,766 in I/M costs.3 With 394
private garages participating, the total cost to private garages totals to
$6,999,804.
For a maximum network each private garage will incur $10,433 in I/M
costs.1* This calculation assumes mechanic salary to be $5.50 per hour and
250 4-hour inspection days per year. With 1,130 stations participating,
private garage costs for the maximum network total to $11,789,290.
System Costs
Table 99 summarizes the total costs for both the minimum and maximum
private garage networks. In addition to the total costs born by private
garages, the State expense for a minimum network is $974,543 and $1,327,943
for a maximum network.
149
-------
T
Asst Administrator for
Station Operation*.
(Legal Counsel! Financial Section
1 y . ^
\
—J -
Engineering Section
/ I N.
St.tt level
Figure 8. State manpower requirements.
-------
TABLE 98. STATE MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
Number of
positions
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
• 3
3
3
5
6-17
10
5
1
2
1
Title
Administrator
Assistant Administrator for S.S.
Assistant Administrator for Sta. Ops.
Legal Counsel
Purchasing Officer
Contracts Officer
Accountant
Engineer
Systems Analyst
Statistician Programmer
Mechanics Training Coordinator
Regional Managers
Regional Inspection and Licensing
Supervisors
Regional Complaints Investigators
Regional P.R. Coordinators
Mechanics Training Program Instructors
Mobile State Garage Inspectors
Secretary /Typists
Clerks
Referee Lane Supervisor
Referee Lane Inspectors
Referee Lane Maintenance/Calibration
Total
Annual
salary
$25,000
17,000
21,000
15,000
13,000
13,000
12,000
10,400
11,000
10,500
13,000
21,500
15,500
15,500
15,500
11,000
15,500
8,000
7,000
20,000
10,400
12,000
Total cost
$25,000
17,000
21,000
15,000
13,000
13,000
12,000
10,400
11,000
10,500
13,000
64,500
46,500
46,500
46,500
55,000
93,000- 263,500
80,000
35,000
20,000
20,800
12,000
$680,700-$851,200
151
-------
TABLE 99. SYSTEM COSTS, PRIVATE GARAGE OPTION
Minimum network ($) Maximum network ($)
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Inspection vans
Referee lane
Software
84,000
155,203
20,000
238,000
155,203
20,000
RECURRING EXPENDITURES
Salaries 695,340 864,740
Equipment replacement 20,000 50,000
TOTAL COST TO STATE 974,543 1,327,943
Number of private 394 1,130
garages
Estimate of total pri- 6,999,804 11,789,290
vate garage expense
(dollars)
152
-------
Break-even Fees
Based on 394 garages paying a licensing fee of $100 each, the state must
raise $935,143 from fees each year to cover program costs.5 Spread over the
1987 expected inspection figure of 2,054,480 inspections, each inspection
must yield a net revenue to the state of $0.46. The private garage earns
$4.50 per inspection. This results in a total vehicle inspection fee of $4.96
for the minimum network private garage option.
Looking at the maximum network, a break-even fee of $5.09 must be charged
to cover all state costs.6 In addition to the $4.50 the private garage earns,
this represents a $0.59 charge per inspection to cover $1,214,943 in state
expenses that exceed the total funds collected from license fees for 1,130
inspection sites.
153
-------
FOOTNOTES FOR SECTION 9
1. Based on the following assumptions:
1) all reinspections of failed vehicles are performed at private
garages
2) 1 day = 8 hours
3) 1 year = 250 days
4) minimum test time = 15 minutes
5) private garages are 67 percent efficient (to account for random
arrival, equipment downtime, etc.)
N = 8 hours x^6Q minutes x 25Q x Q^ =
15 minutes
Note: this calculation rounds daily throughput down to 21
2. This figure is calculated using the modified TR = TC equality:
M(C-F)=A+S+L+0
It assumes that (C - F), the fee received by an inspection station is $4.50
M (4.50) = 751.88 + (4)(5.50)(250) + (4)(3'^0)(250)
M = 1,819
3. Total private garage expense, minimum network, 1987
From discussion above, total costs =
TC = A+S + L + 0
where: A = cost of analyzer = $3,000
S = mechanic salary = (250)(8)($5.50)
= $11,000 per year
L = licensing fees = $100
0 = overhead = 1/3 (11,000) = $3,666
154
-------
For one station,
TC = (3,000) + (11,000) + (100) + (3,666)
= $17,766
For the minimum network of 394 stations, the total expense =
(394) ($17,766) = $6,999,804
4. Total private garage expense, maximum private garage network, 1987
From discussion above, total costs =
TC=A+S + L + 0
where: A = cost of analyzer = $3,000
S = mechanic salary = (250)(4)($5.50)
= $5,500
L = licensing fees = $100
0 = station overhead = 1/3 ($5,500)
= $1,833
For one station,
TC = (3,000) + (5,500) + (100) + (1,833)
= $10,433
For the maximum network of 1,130 stations, the totalxexpense =
(1,130) ($10,433) = $11,789,290
5. Break-even state charge, minimum private garage network, 1987
Assume each private garage in the network pays a $100 license fee per year.
Then total license revenue =
(394) ($100) = $39,400
Subtracting this license revenue from total costs yields the amount of
revenue to be raised through inspection charges to private motorists:
$974,543 - $39,400 = $935,143
155
-------
Dividing this revenue by the number of inspections to be performed yields
the break-even state charge per inspection:
$ 935,143 =
2,054,480 ?
Based on our previous assumption of a $4.50 garage charge, the inspection
would cost a private motorist $4.50 + $0.46 = $4.96.
6. Break-even state charge, maximum private garage network, 1987
Assume each private garage in the network pays a $100 license fee to the
state each year. Then total license revenue =
(1,130) ($100) = $113,000 per year
Subtracting this license revenue from total costs yields the amount of
revenue to be raised through inspection charges to private motorists:
$1,327,943 - $113,000 = $1,214,943
Dividing this revenue by the number of inspections to be performed yields
the break-even inspection charge:
$1.214.943 = $
2,054,480
Based on our previous assumption of a $4.50 garage charge, the inspection
would cost a private motorist $4.50 + $0.59 = $5.09.
156
-------
SECTION 10
POSSIBLE I/M PROGRAM EXTERNALITIES
INTRODUCTION
The subject of externalities arising from an I/M program is quite complex.
To provide a complete picture of the program there are indirect, as well as
direct, impacts that should be considered. The issues raised by these potential
externalities are extremely difficult to quantify. Many of these costs and
benefits are qualitative and, as such, highly subjective. Also, much of the
data that is available pertaining to these issues is either incomplete or in-
conclusive. In light of the problems inherent in these issues, attempts to com-
pletely quantify them would obfuscate matters rather than provide useful in-
formation. In consideration of this the discussion that follows is fairly gen-
eral and primarily qualitative in nature. It is intended to identify some of
the pertinent issues and the likely direction, if not the magnitudes, of various
impacts.
I/M is designed to achieve a reduction in motor vehicle emissions levels.
All other effects the program has are considered secondary or indirect. This
section opens with a general discussion of these secondary impacts. General
impacts on the vehicle user population and the repair industry are also noted.
Some of the impacts of program implementation that are dealt with in this sec-
tion are:
• Health benefits
• Impact on vehicle performance and vehicle life
• Impact of required maintenance costs
• Time costs of traveling to and from the inspection site
• Impact on repair industry employment
GENERAL EXTERNALITIES
General Impacts
There are a number of positive externalities that are likely to accrue to
society at large from a successfully implemented I/M program. Improving ambient
air quality should create significant health benefits. A reduction in respira-
tory related medical problems is likely. This will, in turn, lead to a series
of secondary or indirect effects. If the general population becomes healthier,
fewer days of production will be lost due to illness. Industry costs for sick
157
-------
leave pay will decline as a result. The average longevity of the population
should also increase slightly. This change should help ease the workload of
medical personnel who are in short supply, freeing them to turn their attention
to other pressing needs.
To date a substantial investment has been made in pollution control equip-
ment on automobiles. This investment will continue to grow as new cars equipped
with control devices are produced to replace older vehicles lacking them. Emis-
sion control systems deteriorate steadily in efficiency with use unless they are
periodically maintained. If unchecked, this deterioration can completely elim-
inate the benefits of installing the systems to begin with. As there are no
user observable signs of this deterioration or incentives to correct it were
it known, the necessary maintenance is likely to remain undone. Thus an I/M
program can have a major impact by insuring the integrity of these control
devices. In addition to protecting a projected nationwide investment of
$150 billion by 19801 benefits accruing from foregone pollution costs may run
to several billions of dollars per year, nationwide.
Should a vehicle safety inspection program be implemented in conjunction
with an I/M program, substantial operating economies are possible. Combining
these two programs in one facility can avoid duplication of personnel and
fixed costs. Overhead can be shared, land requirements for a combined set-up
would be less than separate facilities require, etc. The incremental cost of
adding safety inspections to an I/M network would be lower than the cost of
establishing it independently. One private contractor estimates that the ad-
dition of safety inspections to a fully operational loaded mode emissions
testing facility would increase costs by roughly 20 to 30 percent. This esti-
mate assumes the I/M facility has been designed with this expansion in mind.
Impact on Vehicle Performance and Vehicle Life
The impact of I/M on these considerations is difficult to quantify. The
studies to date have not been conclusive. They have centered on the way I/M
affects short and long run vehicle deterioration curves. The short run deter-
ioration curve reflects the rate at which a vehicle deteriorates after it has
been tuned while the long run curve reflects the overall degradation in vehicle
performance that occurs as it ages. Both curves, especially the short run de-
terioration curve, influence vehicle performance while the slope of the long
run curve is the primary determinant of vehicle longevity.
A study of Colorado's I/M program indicates that after a vehicle is re-
paired under that program it deteriorates to a prerepair condition in as little
as 6 months. This result is likely to be atypical though since Colorado's
program is carried out at high altitude where engine adjustments required to
yield acceptable vehicle performance necessitate frequent tuneups. Another
study, under more typical conditions, set the short run deterioration rate low
enough so repaired vehicles remain above their prerepair level over a yearly
inspection interval.3
To the extent that I/M influences the short run curve it should have a
positive impact on vehicle performance. If an engine stays closer to manu-
facturer's specifications it should perform at a higher level due to I/M.
158
-------
The influence on performance and longevity resulting from I/M's impact
on the long run deterioration curve is unknown now. No I/M program has been
in effect long enough to draw definitive conclusions on this issue. As time
goes by and the history of these programs lengthens, the relationship between
I/M and the long run deterioration curve for vehicles will become clear and
better inferences on its effect on vehicle life and performance can be drawn.
Impacts on Vehicle Owners
While energy conservation may well turn out to be a tangible benefit in
the large sense, its impact on the individual vehicle owner is somewhat neb-
ulous. He perceives fuel savings as an economic issue, not as a conservation
concern. That is, how much will his operating costs be reduced by the in-
creased efficiency he experiences in upgrading his vehicle's maintenance
level to meet I/M standards. Most estimates indicate that the fuel savings
resulting from I/M are negated in a monetary sense by the costs of attaining
them.
This argument overstates the maintenance cost disadvantage to a degree.
While it is true that a vehicle owner is forced to make a repair if his
vehicle doesn't comply, it is inaccurate to charge the entire cost of mandated
repairs to I/M requirements. I/M will cause vehicles to be repaired more
completely and frequently than they would be without it. Indeed, this is
the purpose of I/M. But, a fraction of the repair cost would have been in-
curred anyway. While an estimate of what fraction is induced by I/M (esti-
mates vary from 25 to 75 percent) is open to debate regarding it's magnitude,
the general principle holds.
This issue of mandated repairs is central to I/M program externalities.
The cost of these repairs is a burden on the vehicle owner. These costs
won't be distributed evenly throughout the population. It is safe to assume
that older vehicles are more likely to be out of compliance than newer
vehicles which are generally more completely maintained and equipped with
control devices. These older vehicles will generally be owned by individuals
at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum. Coupled with the larger
and more frequently required repairs on older vehicles, this fact illustrates
the regressive nature of the burden I/M compliance requirements places on
society. This uneven impact partially is mitigated by establishing exemptions
to compliance based on vehicle age and ceilings on the dollar value of man-
dated repairs.
As the vehicle mix changes over time this problem will become less severe
than it is now. As older vehicles, those that are costly to maintain to
standards, drop out of the vehicle population they will be replaced by used
vehicles that are more likely to have been well maintained and hopefully less
costly to maintain throughout their serviceable life.
This trend will be countered to a certain extent because vehicles filter-
ing down via resale will be equipped with various emission control devices.
This equipment and the catalytic converter in particular will require major
servicing and replacement as vehicles age. This replacement cost will not
occur until an equipped vehicle is several years old. By that time the
159
-------
vehicle has most likely changed hands, placing the burden of control device
replacement on the used car buyer who is generally in a lower income category
than is the initial purchaser. This postponement of replacement cost is
reinforced by federal warranty provisions which stipulate that a vehicle
manufacturer is responsible for replacing properly maintained control devices
that have failed during the first 50,000 miles of vehicle use.
The increased purchase price of vehicles due to the inclusion of costly
control devices in it's manufacture is likely to increase vehicle prices in
the resale market. Adding this to the potential control device burden during
the later years of vehicle life results in a significant redistributional
impact of I/M that is highly regressive in nature.
Establishing an accurate average cost for repairs that are induced by
I/M is difficult. General data from existing programs can provide a starting
point in contemplating the magnitude of this figure. For California's River-
side Trial Program the average repair cost for a vehicle failing inspection,
including parts, tax and labor was $16.96. This figure includes extra
repairs completed in addition to those recommended of $10.90 and $9.30 for
idle mode and $10.20 and $9.40 for key mode testing in each respective state.5
These figures apply repair costs for a 40 percent stringency rate over the
entire fleet population tested, underestimating the actual cost per vehicle
repaired. Average repair values for California were $27.33 and $32.08 for
idle and key modes. For Michigan these figures were $23.29 and $36.56.
In both these and other studies the repair costs calculated as resulting
from I/M will be underestimated. Repair cost figures are collected for
vehicles that have failed inspection and received repairs as a result of that
failure. No accounting is made, nor can it be made with current data, of
extra repair costs incurred in anticipation of inspection. It is likely that
some vehicles that pass the first time through inspection have attained higher
maintenance standards than they would have otherwise in order to avert failure
and the inconvenience of travelling to the inspection site a second time for
retesting. Until a study is designed to uncover these costs they will continue
to remain elusive.
The nature of repairs required to meet I/M standards for failed vehicles
can help shed light on the burden noncomplying vehicle owners must bear. The
Riverside Trial Program found that 66 percent of the diagnosed repair evalua-
tions consisted of an imbalance in the idle air-to-fuel ratio. An additional
18 percent of vehicles failing were diagnosed as experiencing rich carburetion.
These problems are not difficult or costly to rectify. Thus the average repair
cost figures are probably misleading. Most vehicles requiring service will
experience costs lower than the average reported figure. A small portion
will have bills considerably in excess of the average. If these large bills
fall into waiver regions (either an absolute dollar limit on repair cost or
a percentage of vehicle value figure) then assuming an average repair cost
for all failed vehicles can overstate the total repair cost burden to vehicle
owners.
There are other costs to vehicle owners relating to I/M in addition to
repair costs and the actual inspection fee. Two major costs to consider are
160
-------
time and operating costs experienced travelling to and from inspection sites.
Actual operating costs can be calculated fairly accurately. Time costs have
a much more subjective nature.
The vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as a result of an I/M program depend
on the size of the affected vehicle population, density of that population,
siting of inspection stations and so forth. A fairly reliable total VMT
estimate can be used to determine total vehicle operating costs and time
spend on those induced VMTs. Applying an average emission level to these
extra VMTs can provide a rough estimate of emissions induced by the implemen-
tation of I/M.
An elusive but probably more significant figure is the time cost of travel
to and from, and waiting time at inspection facilities. There are evaluative
decisions about the value of time spent travelling, waiting time and so on
that must be resolved before a dollar figure can be computed. The issue is
complicated because different people value their time differently and even
value different types of time differently (e.g., time spent driving versus
time spent waiting at an inspection site). The value an individual places
on his time is related to his income level. As income rises an individual
tends to value his time more highly.
Estimating operating and time costs is further complicated because it
is difficult to determine what portion of these costs to assign directly to
I/M requirements. Many times the trip to an inspection site is combined
with other errands and stops. The total costs, time and operating, of such
trips should be allocated between the different purposes served by them. It
is also difficult to determine how circuitous the I/M stop is. It may require
a substantial detour in some cases and none in others.
A potential benefit for the vehicle owner is money saved by utilizing
diagnostic information provided by I/M (especially for loaded mode testing)
to correct small problems before they become serious. By prompting repairs
now I/M can help eliminate substantial costs to the vehicle owner.
This brief overview of the impacts I/M may have for vehicle owners serves
to emphasize the elusive nature of program costs and benefits. A qualitative
evaluation of them helps assure that they will be considered when implementing
I/M.
Impacts on the Automotive Repair and Parts Industry
It is safe to state that I/M implementation will result in an increased
demand for repair activities and replacement parts. To the extent that I/M
induces new repairs that would not have been performed otherwise the repair
industry will directly benefit from the program.
Job creation will be necessary to increase the supply of repair personnel
to meet new demand. The ratio of mechanics to vehicles has been declining
significantly over the last few decades. In 1950 there were 73 vehicles for
every mechanic nationwide. By 1975 this ratio shifted, with one mechanic
available for every 146 vehicles. This trend cannot continue if I/M becomes
161
-------
a reality. As emissions regulations increase vehicle complexity and extend
repair times for existing components as well as creating new subsystems that
will eventually require repairing, the demand for mechanic time will increase
for each vehicle.
In addition to recruiting and training new mechanics, existing personnel
should undergo at least a limited retraining phase to orient them to the
purposes and goals of I/M and emissions control. In some cases the needs of
I/M are in conflict with maintenance standards now existing that emphasize
engine performance. It is important that the repair industry is aware of the
different criteria demanded by I/M and acts accordingly.
No matter how responsive the supply of mechanics is to this increase in
demand some lag is inevitable. Because of this, windfall profits are likely
to accrue to existing members of the industry for a time at least. The tight
supply situation could result in some overcharging and unnecessary repair
work. This should only be transitory as new mechanics are trained and enter
the labor pool and the public becomes aware of the implications of I/M. Also,
a well supervised maintenance sequence should help deter potentially disruptive
behavior by the repair industry.
Impact of Test Type
The choice of a loaded mode option would result in certain benefits that
would not be present with idle mode testing. These benefits are of two gen-
eral types. First, the loaded mode alternative has the capability of measuring
oxides of nitrogen. This pollutant is not emitted in measurable quantities
unless an engine is under load conditions. Idle mode tests are not able to
measure it at all. There are only a small number of areas in the country that
are not in compliance with NOX standards. Thus, this capability is useful in
certain areas but for most areas this potential will remain unrealized.
A second benefit that loaded mode testing provides is additional diag-
nostic information for each vehicle inspected. When utilized correctly,
this information can help pinpoint problems early and accurately. This should
increase the benefits resulting from repair work and lower the incidence of un-
necessarily (knowingly and unknowingly) performed repair work.
The value of this improved diagnostic information is dependent on the
ability of the repair industry to accurately interpret it. There has been
speculation that currently the repair industry would have difficulty utilizing
this data. The information needed to correctly analyze these test results is
not extensive. It is entirely feasible to supply this information along with
the test results to insure that it finds its way into the hands of mechanics
who can utilize it. Since the interpretation required is not complex, once
mechanics have been exposed to it they will be able to use it as another tool
on a daily basis.
These benefits are not cost-free. Traded off against them are equipment
costs that are larger than idle mode costs and higher utility costs (principally
for the dynamometer required); implying that loaded mode testing will increase
overall operating costs.
162
-------
It would be ideal if the benefits peculiar to loaded mode testing and
the added diagnostic information in particular could be quantified and com-
pared to the added costs associated with it. Statements about the cost dif-
ferential between test mode types can be made with fair certainty. Unfortu-
nately the same can not be said for the benefits side of the issue. There
hasn't been a program of sufficient duration yet that is designed to collect
the information needed to quantify these benefits. Beyond subjective expo-
sition on the likely nature of them, little can be said about their likely
magnitude.
The actual cost of inspection to the vehicle owner will be higher for
loaded testing than it would be for idle mode operations. Depending on
public reaction to program costs this could create an unfavorable political
climate for more expensive options.
163
-------
REFERENCES
1. Weiss, D. W., and J. Meteyka. Future Motor Vehicle Inspections Must
Offer Better Diagnosis, Automotive Engineering. January 1973.
2. Colorado State University. High Altitude Vehicular Emissions Control
Program. Volume II. Experimental Characterization of Vehicular Emis-
sions and Engine Deterioration. Final Report. Prepared for Colorado
and the Environmental Protection Agency. August 1976.
3. Walsh, M. P. Future Motor Vehicle Inspections Must Offer Better
Diagnosis, Automotive Engineering. January 1973.
4. A Citizen's Guide to Automotive Inspection. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Region I, Boston, Massachusetts.
5. U.S. Department of Transportation. Motor Vehicle Diagnostic Inspection
Demonstration Program. October 1977.
164
-------
SECTION 11
LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATIONS IN I/M IMPLEMENTATION
Legislative requirements and potential roadblocks that are not applicable
to all options, but which could adversely affect implementation of one or
several options, were researched for the Wisconsin inspection/maintenance
options. The reason for looking at these potential problem areas is to deter-
mine, at an early planning/evaluation stage, if there are any legal, legisla-
tive or other issues related to any option under consideration which poten-
tially would hinder its acceptance by the state legislature.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology to research this problem consisted of two stages. In the
first stage the options themselves were studied in detail to determine what
legal, organizational, or institutional problems, conflicts, or implications
there were, if any. Also, model legislation for inspection/maintenance pro-
grams provided by U.S. EPA was studied. U.S. EPA was also consulted to deter-
mine if they had uncovered problem areas which should be further researched.
The second phase consisted of studies of other states' inspection/maintenance
programs. Directors and staff members were asked to comment on particular
problems they had encountered, and the state enabling legislation was studied.
Because the State of Wisconsin has itself not involved the legislature
in this early planning phase, and would not be able to provide appropriate
comments on the options, they were not contacted. At a later stage in the
development of the I/M program, the legislature will become more directly
involved and will presumably draft enabling legislation that minimizes poten-
tial problem areas.
POTENTIAL LEGAL ISSUES
There are no intrinsic problems with the options themselves in terms of
purely legal issues. Whether the State decides on a contractor centralized
approach, a decentralized private approach, or State-run centralized lanes
does not matter from a legal framework. Nor are there any legal grounds that
would hinder combining emissions testing with safety and noise testing. Fed-
eral law requires states to have at least pilot programs for periodic motor
vehicle safety inspection. However, there is no current federal law govern-
ing in-use vehicles for noise inspection. Federal standards have been set
for safety and noise for vehicles being manufactured. The lack of federal
legislation for noise, however, does not prohibit the state from exercising
its constitutional police power to regulate the health, safety, and morals of
165
-------
its citizens. Consequently, the state using its police power may legally
pass appropriate legislation and set standards for both motor vehicle safety
and noise for in-use vehicles.
LEGISLATIVE AND OTHER POTENTIAL ROADBLOCKS
There are other considerations that are not directly in conflict with
legal requirements that may affect the prospects of certain options passing
successfully through the legislative process. While not strictly of a legal
nature, these considerations are worth keeping in mind when analyzing the
legislative feasibility of different options.
Some options may encounter licensing problems, especially the private
garage and contractor approaches. Both are subject to EPA licensing require-
ments that do not affect the state approach. An EPA-approved training and
certification program for mechanics must be established by the state for these
two approaches. A private garage must have a licensed mechanic present in
order to be certified as an I/M inspection station. Facilities operated by
private contractors must also have certified personnel on hand.
At this point, EPA officials have declined to elaborate on licensing
requirements and procedures pending the release of a position paper (due in
July) that will deal explicitly with these issues. The licensing procedure
should consist of similar requirements for the nongovernment options, con-
tractor and private garage. There should be no problem from the state view-
point regarding a licensing procedure of the type the EPA is contemplating.
The private garage approach incurs higher administrative costs because
more facilities must be licensed and federally-required monthly inspections
of equipment in those facilities will be more costly than for centralized
I/M lanes.
While licensing requirements reduce the attractiveness of private
approaches, tax considerations favor them over state-operated facilities.
From a municipal point of view, the contractor approach is most favorable
while a state-run facility is least favorable. If the latter approach is
chosen, the land on which inspection facilities are sited would be purchased
by the state, removing it from municipal property tax rolls. While this is
technically a transfer from the municipality to the state and not a cost or
benefit, it is a real loss in funds to the municipality. This fact may
generate opposition from the affected municipalities.
Options that call for state-run facilities will demand a large personnel
commitment. This could prove unpopular, resulting in implementation diffi-
culties. Adding a significant number of employees to the state payroll will
incur a large expense that will be difficult to reduce in the future. In
fact, future pension requirements are not likely to be fully covered by in-
spection fees, possibly leading to an ongoing deficit problem.
Regarding personnel policies, more flexibility exists with the private
approaches. If program manpower requirements change, a contractor will be
able to respond more rapidly and with fewer political pressures than the
state could.
166
-------
A final consideration that may have option-specific implications is the
different types of funding required for various options. The availability of
funding for capital costs versus operating and administrative costs may have
a significant impact on the probability of implementing certain options. Con-
sideration may be given to leasing state facilities to contractors or leasing
private facilities for state use to ameliorate adverse effects that funding
problems may cause.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In large part, legislative problems are likely to be political in origin.
There are no purely legal federal or state roadblocks to any of the options
presented. Rather, the nonlegal ramifications of the various options are more
pertinent.
While it would be ideal if all potential problems could be anticipated
when enacting I/M legislation, it is unlikely that all such difficulties will
be taken into account. The enabling legislation should be flexible enough to
allow a degree of discretion for the administrative agencies involved. Lee-
way on quality controls, cut points, etc. should improve program effectiveness
considerably. Building such discretion into regulatory authority should
shorten lead times and prove cost effective as well as flexible.
167
-------
SECTION 12
PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAMS
Experiences in several states that recently established inspection/
maintenance programs emphasize the importance of an effective public infor-
mation program. A well-designed, comprehensive program that introduces the
public to the basic need for and benefits of I/M and clarifies the misunder-
standings that surround I/M is critical during the early stages of implemen-
tation. A well thought-out program can help eliminate potentially adverse
reactions that other states with inadequate public information programs
experienced (e.g., Arizona, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Chicago).
METHODOLOGY
To estimate the costs of public information programs all states with
experience in I/M public information programs were contacted. Included were
states with currently operational programs and those just beginning the early
planning stages. The U.S. EPA was consulted to determine basic program
elements and a literature search was conducted. From contacts and research a
full range of possible activities was established and basic cost figures
derived. It is important to note, as will be explained later in this section,
that the range of possible activities and comprehensiveness of public infor-
mation programs varies considerably. Therefore, broad assumptions concerning
the range of public information activities that Wisconsin will conduct must
be made to present potential cost figures. These assumptions will be defined
in the following sections.
INITIAL PUBLIC RELATIONS PROGRAMS
The initial public information program may be conducted from several
months to over a year prior to the actual beginning of mandatory inspection
and maintenance. The range of activities among the various programs has
varied considerably depending on the particularities of each state. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recently made grants available for
I/M public relations work through their regional offices. These grants have
generally been $15,000, although this is subject to the total amount made
available by Congress in appropriating the funds. U.S. EPA cannot commit
itself now to the exact amount that will be available in the future due to
the uncertainties in appropriations. As examples of the types of programs
utilizing these funds, both Rhode Island and Massachusetts are currently
establishing public information programs with these $15,000 grants. Rhode
Island is in the first year of a mandatory inspection and voluntary mainten-
ance program. It is the first state to implement a private, decentralized
garage approach. Massachusetts, as yet undecided as to which type of program
168
-------
to implement, is also utilizing these funds. In both states the local lung
association, a voluntary nonprofit citizens group presenting clean air pro-
grams and disseminating information on health and clean air, has been given
the job of organizing the public information program. Massachusetts' program
involves several elements including a slide show for presentation to civic
and other groups. A mobile van with an emission analyzer plus an informa-
tional display is being taken to major shopping centers and other key activity
centers around the state. Automobile oriented groups including automobile
associations are being contacted in order to solicit their support. Also,
brochures are being prepared for mass circulation to citizens and motorists.
These program elements are typical of the activities conducted early in the
planning or implementation stage.
Similarly, Portland, Oregon has utilized mobile vans with emission analy-
zers. Oregon found that bumper stickers (at $0.10 to $0.15 each) were one of
the most successful public information tactics. Another tactic commonly used
in such campaigns was to depict an important public official such as the
governor having his car inspected on television. It should be noted here that
some tactics, while successful in one area, would not be particularly useful
in other states.
In New Jersey, posters were circulated in large volumes around the state.
Each new car dealer and garage that purchased an emission analyzer was con-
tacted and the state compiled lists of approved analyzers. The dealers and
garages displayed signs indicating they had the analyzer. This was an impor-
tant public information program element.
Two program elements stand out as being widely used as I/M public infor-
mation techniques. One is the use of radio and television spot announcements
and newspaper advertisements. A second technique that is key to reaching the
individual motorist is preparing an informational pamphlet and mailing it to
all vehicle owners, usually along with motor vehicle registration forms to
save extra mailing costs.
In relating these program elements to the specific options, the most
useful cost figure is a per vehicle cost of $0.12; both California and Arizona
have indicated costs in this range. Basically these costs cover pamphlet
preparation and distribution costs (to each motorist) and mass media announce-
ments. In Wisconsin, given that neither the geographical coverage nor the
number of vehicles varies among the options, this cost calculation would remain
the same for all options. At a later stage in implementation, Wisconsin may
design a public information program with elements specified to a degree that
will allow costs to be more closely estimated.
ONGOING PUBLIC RELATIONS
The ongoing public information program costs and elements are not as
variable as the initial program elements. The major elements found in other
state's programs are the same elements described above for the basic initial
costs; a pamphlet mailed to each motorist and periodic mass media coverage,
usually spot announcements and newspaper advertisements. Consequently, the
annual cost of the ongoing public information program is estimated by multi-
plying the number of vehicles times $0.12.
169
-------
SECTION 13
COMPARISON OF OPTIONS
COMPARISON OF OPTIONS
Emission Reductions
The amounts of emission reductions attributable to an I/M program are a
function of stringency level, mechanic's training, the geographic coverage,
the vehicle population, and the travel characteristics of the affected areas.
Since these factors are constant across all six I/M program options considered
here, the emission reductions are considered the same for each option.
Emission reductions are summarized in Table 100. However, there would con-
ceivably be some minor differences among the options. For example, it is
generally accepted that quality control of private garages makes uniformity
of inspection somewhat less than for centralized facilities. If fewer cars
were failing the emissions test or cars were being passed that actually
exceeded the standards, then presumably the emission reductions would be
somewhat less in private garages. Having a well-run quality control and
mechanics/inspection training program should offset such lack of uniformity.
Also, the test type would result in some difference in emissions. An idle
test without a high idle purge during hot weather creates unusally high
emission readings. With high idle purge, the idle test is approximately
as accurate as the basic loaded-mode test. Again, such variations cannot
readily be predicted but may influence the emission reductions.
Fuel Savings
The factors which influence total fuel savings are the percent increase
in fuel economy, and the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and the stringency
factor. Since these factors are the same across all options, the fuel savings
is considered equal for each of the six options. As was the case for emission
reductions, however, there may be some minor variation among the options.
Centralized lane approaches, state or contractor-operated will generally have
a higher level of quality control and greater uniformity of inspection. They
may result in a somewhat better improvement in fuel economy, although this
would be difficult to estimate. Again, the loaded-mode test being somewhat
more accurate than the idle-mode, especially if a high idle purge is included,
may bring about better overall fuel savings.
170
-------
TABLE 100. EMISSION REDUCTIONS - 1000 gm/dayc
1977 1987 -
without I/H
Milwaukee - 7 County
Metro Area
Kenosha Co. Freeway 9,176
& Arterials
Milwaukee Co. F&A 70,552
Ozaukee Co. F&A 5,012
Racine Co. F&A 12,011
Walworth Co. F&A 5,910
Washington Co. F&A 6,622
Waukesha Co. F&A 21,726
7 County Local 20,502
Aggregate 151,571
Brown County
Aggregate
Dane County
Aggregate
3,500
23,031
1,916
4,226
2,359
2,454
8,150
6,861
52,497
6,170
10,310
Hydrocarbons
1987 ^rcent
r T/M! reduction
' f 1977-1987 I/Mt
2,664 71
17,519 75
1,472 71
3,222 73
1,877 68
1,944 71
6,389 71
5,264 74
40,356 73
4,685
7,838
Percent
reduction 1977 . . ' .+
1987--1987 I/Mi ""h0"' 1/M
24
24
23
24
20
21
22
23
23
24
24
64,663 33,918
445,290 242,761
35,460 19,332
88,172 42,946
42,018 25,551
45,405 25,803
159,339 90,466
175,198 69,895
1,055,545 550,672
61,718
102,948
Carbon monoxide
1987 ^rcent
T /«i reduction
1 1977-1987 I/Ml
23,621 64
175,906 61
13,706 61
30,559 65
19,485 54
19,455 57
68,999 57
50,166 71
401,897 62
435,461
73,343
Percent
reduction
)987T-1987 I/M!
30
28
29
29
24
25
24
28
27
29
29
*
Does not reflect reductions from light duty trucks
Reflects only changes in VMT and the effects of the Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Program (FMVECP)
TReflects changes in VMT, effects of FMVECP, and the impact of I/M
-------
Costs
The major cost components of Options 1 through 5 are summarized in
Tables 101 and 102. All these options involve centralized facilities run
either by the state (Options 4 and 5) or a contractor (Options 1, 2 and 3).
Options 1 and 4 are loaded inspection combined with safety, Option 2 is a
loaded inspection only, and Options 3 and 5 are idle inspection only.
The major cost differences occur between options involving different
inspection modes. Loaded inspection is approximately 50 percent more expensive
than idle inspection, and adding safety inspection increases cost another
50 percent. Government run facilities are 2.5 percent more expensive than
contractor-run facilities for idle inspection, and 1 percent more expensive
for loaded safety inspection. The difference between the state and contractor
approach is in the area of startup costs where the state is bound by restric-
tive bidding procedures. Potential cost difference may also occur in wage
rates which were assumed to be identical in this report.
Fees per paid inspection are also given in Tables 101 and 102. The fc
fee is a uniform fee in constant dollars and increases with inflation, while
the fa fee is uniform in actual dollars. These fees are designed to recoup
state as well as contractor costs for all options.
The costs of Option 6, private garage inspections, are reported in
Table 103. These costs consist of two components, the private garage costs
and state administrative costs. The state administrative costs range from
$0.46 to $0.59 per inspection. The costs to the garage depend upon the number
of inspections performed yearly. For 20 percent of the private garages pro-
viding inspections, the average garage would have volume sufficient to charge
a dollar fee of $1.57 per inspection. As increased numbers of garages provide
inspections, average inspections per garage decrease and costs increase to
$7.84 per inspection with 100 percent participation.
Care should be taken in comparing the costs of Options 1 through 5 with
the costs of Option 6. The breakeven costs reported for Option 6 are for each
inspection, while the fees for Options 1 through 5 are for each paid inspection.
Since Options 1 through 5 include a free reinspection for failed vehicles,
there are 1,470,000 paid inspections compared to 1,911,000 actual inspections.
Manpower Requirements
Manpower requirements vary among options reflecting differences in
inspection activity and/or administrative requirements. The specific require-
ments for each option are shown in Table 104, by two categories - adminsitrative
personnel and operations personnel.
From Table 104 it can be seen that the administrative personnel require-
ments are fairly constant across all six options, while the operations per-
sonnel requirements vary substantially. Administrative personnel would be
entirely state employees while the operations personnel would be employed
either by the state (in Options 4, 5, and 6) or a contractor (Options 1, 2,
and 3).
172
-------
TABLE 101. ANNUAL COST OF OPTIONS AND FEES WITH i = 0.03.
(ALL FIGURES ARE 1978 DOLLARS)
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Total
(f :
c
(f :
a
Option
Annualized capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Annualized start-up costs
Annual operating costs
Annual administrative cost
annual costs
)
)
I
110,747
658,509
2,151,557
760,177
8,912,152
684,810
13,277,952
7.481
9.408
II
39,375
233,688
809,281
537,186
3,962,268
684,474
6,266,542
3.279
4.089
III
35,230
206,821
614,250
521,351
3,778,983
664,586
5,841,109
3.291
4.146
IV
110,747
658,509
2,151,557
870,296
8,077,452
684,810
12,553,340
7.072
9.416
V
35,230
206,821
614,250
631,479
3,599,688
684,474
5,771,942
3.252
4.129
f = uniform fee in constant dollars.
c
f = uniform fee in actual dollars.
a
-------
TABLE 102. ANNUAL COST OF OPTIONS AND FEES (WITH i = 0.06).
(ALL FIGURES ARE 1978 DOLLARS)
Option
I
II
III
IV
V
I. Annual ized capital costs
1.
2.
3.
II.
III.
IV.
Total
(f )
c
(f )
a
Land
Buildings
Equipment
Annual ized start-up costs
Annual operating costs
Annual administrative cost
annual costs
221
855
2,338
826
8,912
684
13,838
7
9
,493
,080
,734
,309
,152
,810
,578
.796
.732
78
303
879
583
3,962
684
6,492
3
4
,751
,445
,686
,920
,268
,474
,814
.398
.188
70
268
667
566
3,778
664
6,016
3
4
,459
,558
,687
,707
,983
,586
,980
.390
.265
221
885
2,338
946
8,077
684
13,123
7
9
,493
,080
,734
,008
,452
,810
,577
.394
.744
70
667
686
3,599
684
5,977
3
4
,459
,687
,416
,688
,474
,282
.367
.233
f = uniform fee in constant dollars.
f = uniform fee in actual dollars.
a
-------
TABLE 103. OPTION 6 COSTS
Market Participation Private Garage Breakeven Charge
0.20 1.57
0.30 2.36
0.40 3.14
0.50 3.93
0.60 4.72
0.70 5.49
0.80 6.27
0.90 7.06
1.00 7.84
175
-------
TABLE 104. SUMMARY OF PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS
Title Annual salary
Administrative
Administrator
Assistant Administrator (Support)
Assistant Administrator
(Operations)
Legal Council
Purchasing/Contracts Officer
Accountant
Engineer
Systems Analyst
Statistician/Programmer
Mechanic Training Coordinator
Regional Manager
Regional Inspector
Regional Public Information
Coordinator
Mechanic Training Instructor
Instrument Repair Technician
Inspector/Licensing Officer
Clerk
Typist /Secretary
Operations
Manager
Assistant Manager
Maintenance Persons
Inspectors
Total Personnel
$25,000
17,000
21,000
15,000
13,000
12,000
10,400
11,000
10,500
13,000
21,500
15,500
15,500
11,000
12,000
15,500
7,000
8,000
20,000
13,500
12,000
10,400
Number of positions for each option
Option 1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
3
1
1
1
-
-
20
20
9
344
419
Option 2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
3
1
1
1
-
-
20
20
7 •
216
289
Option 3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
3
1
1
1
-
-
15
15
5
141
202
Option 4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
3
1
1
1
-
-
20
20
9
344
419
Option 5 Option 6
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
3
1
1
1
-
-
15
15
5
141
176
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
3
5
-
6-17
5
10
1
-
1
2
53-64
-------
APPENDIX A
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY FOR
CALCULATING EMISSION INVENTORIES
Emission inventories were calculated using the Mobile I computer program.
The Mobile I routine is based upon vehicle-specific emission factors for ve-
hicles operating through the EPA's Federal Test Procedure (FTP) urban driving
cycle. The program, thus, contains tables of emission levels for each model
year vehicle from 1950 to 1990 for various vehicle ages between 0 and 20 years
old. Separate tables are used for light-duty vehicle (LDV), light-duty truck 1
(under 6,000 Ib gross) LDT-1, light-duty truck 2 (between 6,000 Ib and 8,500 Ib
gross) LDT-2, heavy duty diesel, and heavy duty gasoline. Separate tables are
also given for three geographic regions: California, high altitude areas, and
the rest of the country. The latter tables are used for Wisconsin.
Since the basic emission factors are FTP specific, factors must be adjusted
to reflect driving patterns in local areas. Mobile I contains correction fac-
tors for temperature, speed, hot/cold/stabilized travel, air conditioning,
vehicle load, trailer towing, and humidity. Due to lack of reliable data for
Wisconsin, default values (FTP-specific conditions) are used for air condition-
ing, vehicle load, and trailer towing. Humidity affects nitrogen oxide only
and, thus, is irrelevant for our applications. Hot/cold/stabilized VMT is as-
sumed to be the same as national averages: 21 percent/27 percent/52 percent.
Temperature is taken at 75°F - this represents a typical July day when vehicle
emissions are most acute.
The most important correction factor is vehicle speed. Emissions are not
linear with respect to speed. So, whenever possible, speed classes must be
differentiated. For all counties except Brown and Dane, speed classes are
created by dividing travel between freeways, arterials, and local roads.
For a particular year, say 1987, the above factors give emissions per mile
traveled for vehicles of various ages. To get aggregate per mile emissions for
1987, the emission factors for the various aged vehicles are weighted by the
travel proportion for vehicles of that age (e.g., see the last column of
Table 105). The data used in calculating travel proportions, the distribution
of vehicle ages and the travel of vehicles by age, are national averages con-
tained in Mobile I. A Wisconsin vehicle age distribution for a particular year
is inappropriate since it would reflect low sales in periods of recession and
these cyclic fluctuations would be projected into the future periods.
To get aggregate emissions per mile for a particular county or region
(Table 9 and Table 10), values must be combined across the various speed
classes (freeways, arterials, local roads). This is achieved by taking
177
-------
Table 105. TRAVEL WEIGHTING FACTOR CALCULATION
LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES
Vehicle
age
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
(a)
Fraction total
registration
0.075
0.107
0.107
0.106
0.100
0.092
0.085
0.077
0.066
0.052
0.039
0.027
0.018
0.014
0.009
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
Annual mileage (a)*(b) ((«)*(b)/sUm)
, .. . Travel fraction
accumulation rate
15,900
15,000
14,000
13,100
12 , 200
11,300
10,300
9,400
8,500
7,600
6,700
6,600
6,200
5,900
5,500
5,100
5,000
4,700
4,400
4,400
1,192.5
1,605.0
1,498.0
1,388.6
1,220.0
1,039.6
875.5
723.8
561.0
395.2
261.3
178.2
111.6
82.6
49.5
30.6
25.0
23.5
22.0
17.6
Sum: 11,301.0
0.106
0.142
0.133
0.123
0.108
0.092
0.077
0.064
0.050
0.035
0.023
0.016
0.010
0.007
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
178
-------
weighted averages using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the weighting fractions.
To calculate total daily emission levels (Table 11 and Table 12), emissions per
mile are multiplied by VMT. The raw VMT and speed data used in this study are
given in Table 106 and Table 107. These data are interpolated to the analysis
years of 1977 and 1987 and are given in Table 108 and Table 109.
To calculate the effect of an I/M program on emissions, EPA derived -
Appendix N, credits (percent reductions) are applied to emission factors. I/M
credits are given for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, various technologies
of vehicles (technology 1 vehicles built prior to 1975, technology 2 vehicles
built from 1975 to 1979, technology 3 vehicles built in 1980 and technology 4
vehicles built after 1980) with and without mandatory maintenance, with strin-
gency levels of 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 percent, and for the number of years I/M
has been in effect. In this study, I/M included mandatory maintenance, was at
a stringency level of 30 percent, and had been in effect for 5 years (from 1982
to 1987). These I/M credits are also specific to vehicle type. These credits
differ substantially from those found in the May 1977 version of Appendix N.
Current I/M credits are not yet available for other vehicle types, thus I/M is
assumed to apply only to light duty vehicles.
179
-------
TABLE 106. DAILY VMT FOR BROWN AND DANE COUNTIES
Brown County - VMT analysis is for an area which is 85.4 percent of the
county population. VMT is approximately 10 percent low since some
local streets are omitted.
1974 1,441,506
2000 3,081,910
Average speeds are:
1974 31.6 mph
2000 23.0 mph
Vehicle types are
Auto 85.0%
Light truck 10.3%
Heavy truck (gas) 3.2%
Heavy truck (diesel) 1.5%
Dane County - VMT analysis is for an area which is 72.8 percent of the
county population. VMT is approximately 10 percent low since some
local streets are omitted.
1970 2,725,797
2000 4,278,454
Average speeds are'
1970 32.4 mph
2000 30.9 mph
Vehicle types are
Auto 85.0%
Light trucks 8.5%
Heavy trucks (gas) 4.0%
Heavy trucks (diesel) 2.5%
Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Madison, Wisconsin.
180
-------
TABLE 107. DAILY VMT AND AVERAGE SPEED
-------
TABLE 108. WISCONSIN VMT 1977
Z VMT
(000)
Kenosha Co.
Freeway
Arterial 1,
Milwaukee Co.
Freeway 4,
Arterial 6,
Ozaukee Co.
Freeway
Arterial
Racine Co.
Freeway
Arterial 1,
Walworth Co.
Freeway
Arterial
Washington Co.
Freeway
Arterial
Waukesha Co.
Freeway 1,
Arterial 2,
7 County
Local 2,
412.4
271.3
422.1
538.8
348.7
651.3
509.9
552.0
189.7
901.1
287.0
986.1
262.6
626.0
426.5
% LDV
79
86
86
89
81
85
80
86
77
77
82
81
84
82
84
.7
.4
.0
.7
.2
.5
.7
.6
.9
.7
.9
.3
.6
.6
.3
% LDT 1
1
4
3
3
3
3
2
4
5
5
4
5
3
5
3
.7
.4
.1
.1
.5
.4
.1
.7
.7
.8
.4
.9
.5
.0
.8
% LDT 2
1
3
2
2
2
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
.1
.0
.1
.0
.3
.2
.4
.2
.8
.9
.0
.9
.4
.3
.5
% HDG
0.9
4.2
5.6
5.0
2.4
5.0
2.9
4.9
4.0
7.3
2.3
5.8
4.9
7.8
5.7
% HDD
16.6
2.0
3.2
0.2
10.7
3.9
13.0
0.6
8.6
5.3
7.5
3.2
4.5
1.3
3.6
Average
speed (mph)
60
33
45
24
59
37
60
31
60
40
60
41
57
36
20
.7
.6
.7
.7
.5
.7
.5
.0
.3
.0
.4
.3
.8
.1
.0
All data is derived directly from Table 107 by linear interpolation.
Light-duty trucks are divided into LDT 1 and LDT 2 in proportions
of 0.6 and 0.4.
182
-------
TABLE 109. WISCONSIN VMT 1987
Kenosha Co .
Freeway
Arterial
£ VMT
(000)
521
1,674
% LDV % LDT 1 % LDT 2 % HDG
79.8
87.2
2.9
4.7
1.9
3.2
0.7
3.3
7 mn AveraSe
/0 HDD speed (mph)
14.8
1.6
53.9
35.1
Milwaukee Co.
Freeway
Arterial
Ozaukee Co .
Freeway
Arterial
Racine Co.
Freeway
Arterial
Walworth Co
Freeway
Arterial
5,232
6,277
567
711
737
1,811
.
464
1,063
86.5
88.4
80.8
88.8
83.2
87.2
79.9
79.8
3.2
3.6
3.7
3.5
2.5
4.7
4.9
6.1
2.1
2.4
2.5
2.4
1.6
3.2
3.2
4.1
5.2
5.3
1.7
4.7
2.1
4.3
3.0
5.9
3.0
0.4
11.3
0.6
10.6
0.7
8.9
4.0
41.2
25.1
54.2
36.3
54.2
33.2
53.6
40.6
Washington Co.
Freeway
Arterial
Waukesha Co
Freeway
Arterial
7 County
Local
Brown Co .
All
Dane Co .
All
All data is
Light duty
0.6 and 0
TTn T* Rt~ f\rim
499
1,047
1,750
3,706
2,382
2,912
5,451
derived
79.5
80.6
85.2
83.1
.8 87.8
.6 85.0
.1 85.0
directly
trucks are divided
.4.
\rMrr = ( i
, Table
5.4
6.9
4.1
5.4
4.0
8.7
6.8
from Tables
into LDT 1
(G) Value
3.6
4.6
2.7
3.6
2.6
1.6
1.7
107
and
1.8
5.7
4.2
6.9
5.2
3.2
4.0
and 108
LDT 2 in
9.8
2.2
3.8
1.0
0.4
1.5
2.5
by linear
53.2
38.2
53.1
35.9
20
27.3
31.6
interpolation
proportions of
^ no™ ^7MT - M liable (G) Value
0.854 ' 0.728
183
-------
APPENDIX B
ESTIMATED FUEL SAVINGS FOR 1987 DUE TO I/M
Fuel savings dut to I/M implementation in selected counties is calculated
by determining the average fleet mileage for all vehicles less than 13 years
old in 1987. Total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per day is divided by this
figure to yield a daily fuel consumption figure in gallons. Actual daily fuel
conservation figures are calculated using this figure and various stringency
rates and levels of fuel economy.
The formula used to calculate fuel savings:
gallons saved per year = (VMT)(^!:862) * S * F * 322
where: VMT = daily vehicle miles traveled by LDVs in 1987 in the nine
counties I/M will cover
0.862 = portion of VMT generated by vehicles covered by I/M
(see Tables 110, 111)
FM - average fleet mileage of LDVs covered by I/M in 1987
(see Table 111)
S = stringency rate
F = improvement in fuel economy realized by failed vehicles
undergoing required maintenance
322 = factor to adjust daily VMT to yearly VMT
The total projected daily VMT by LDVs in the nine county area is 36,305,655.
Only a portion of these VMTs are generated by LDVs covered by I/M. Since ve-
hicles over 13 years old will be exempt from the program, their VMTs must be
removed from this figure. This is accomplished using data in the EPA Mobile I
computer routine that estimates vehicle registration fractions by model year
along with average annual mileage accumulation rates by model year (Table 110).
Summing these travel fractions determines that 86.2 percent of LDV VMTs will be
generated by vehicles covered by an I/M program (Table 111).
An estimate of the 1987 average fleet mileage (FM) figure for vehicles
covered by the program can be made using these travel fractions and estimated
185
-------
TABLE 110. TRAVEL WEIGHTING FACTOR CALCULATION FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES
v Vehicle
Year
age
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
Pre-
1976
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13+
(a)
Fraction total
registration
0.075
0.107
0.107
0.106
0.100
0.092
0.085
0.077
0.066
0.052
0.039
0.027
0.066
Annuafmileage (a) * (b) J(a> *
-------
TABLE 111. EPA MPG SPECIFICATIONS AND AVERAGE FLEET MILEAGE
FOR LDVs COVERED BY I/M IN 1987
Year EPA mllea8e
standard
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
Total
27.5
27.5
27
26
24
22
20
19
18
17.5
16.8
JL |
Travel fraction
0.142
0.133
0.123
0.108
0.092
0.077
0.064
0.050
0.035
0.023
0.015
0.862f
Column (1) x column (3)
0.968
4.530
4.243
3.853
3.258
2.562
1.965
1.485
1.102
0.731
0.467
0.292
24,488
From Table 110
Note: This column totals less than 1 indicating that part
of the vehicle population is 12 or more years old.
SOURCE: Federal Register, Book 1, Vol. 42, No. 126, p. 33534,
Thursday, June 30, 1977 and Table 110.
187
-------
fuel economy standards that have been set by EPA by model year. This calcu-
lation results in an average figure of 24.488 miles per gallon in 1987
(Table 111).
Table 112 presents estimated savings in gallons in 1987 varying the strin-
gency rate between 10 and 50 percent and varying the increase in fuel economy
realized by vehicles that failed between 2 and 10 percent.
188
-------
00
vO
TABLE 112. POTENTIAL ANNUAL FUEL SAVINGS FROM I/M FOR SELECTED COUNTIES
IN 1987 (000 GALLONS)
Increase in
(%) 10
2 823
3 1,234
4 1,646
5 2,058
6 2,469
7 2,880
8 3,292
9 3,704
10 4,115
Stringency level (%)
15
1,234
1,852
2,469
3,086
3,704
4,321
4,938
5,555
6,173
20
1,646
2,469
3,292
4,115
4,938
5,761
6,584
7,407
8,230
25
2,058
3,086
4,115
5,144
6,173
7,201
8,230
9,259
10,288
30
2,469
3,704
4,938
6,173
7,407
8,642
9,876
1,111
12,346
2
4
5
7
8
10
11
12
14
35
,880
,321
,761
,202
,642
,082
,522
,963
,403
3
4
6
8
9
11
31
14
16
40
,292
,938
,584
,230
,876
,522
,168
,815
,461
3
5
7
9
11
12
14
16
18
45
,704
,555
,407
,259
,110
,963
,815
,666
,518
50
4,115
6,173
8,230
10,288
12,346
14,403
16,461
18,518
20,576
-------
APPENDIX C
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF COSTS AND FEE CALCULATIONS
This appendix contains a detailed description of the methodology used in
calculating annual costs and fees. First, capital and start-up cost are con-
verted to annual figures in real dollars. These figures are then added
to annual operating and administrative costs, so as to arrive at the yearly
cost of the whole project. A uniform real dollar fee is then calculated,
along with a second fee that is uniform in actual dollars.
INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS
The capital investment in equipment is assumed to yield equal benefits for
each of 5 years and be fully depreciated thereafter. The interest rate is the
marginal return on capital in the absence of inflation.
In annualizing equipment costs, the following formulas are employed.
The net present value of an investment (NPV) that yields 1 dollar of service
for each of n years at a capital growth rate of i is:
" (i)
Thus, an investment of 1 dollar yields annual benefits: ^5= = - — for
each of n years. Thus -JT— represents amortized costs in constant dollars.
In the case of n = 5 and i = 0.03, NPV = 4.580 and •— = 0.2184, and in the
case of n = 5 and i = 0.06, NPV = 4.212 and = 0.2374.
For buildings and structures, investment is assumed to yield a constant
flow of -capital services for 20 years and be fully depreciated thereafter.
The above formulas are employed with n = 20. This yields NPV = 14.877 and
arid - = 0.067 when i = 0.03; and NPV = 11.469 and ~ = 0.087 when i = 0.06.
If structures are liquidated before 20 years, their sale price is assumed to
be the capitalized flow of the remaining capital services (i.e., if sold after
j years, the sale price will be:
190
-------
for each dollar of initial investment). This assumption enables use of the
above amortization factor, troy"' without making further adjustments.
Land is assumed to yield a constant level of services in perpetuity
(n = °° in the above formulas). So a dollar investment yields 1 _ . j,_-na_a
— - i dollars
of service each year. Again, we assume the resale price of investment (in this
case, land) is the capitalized flow of the remaining services. This implies
that the value of land is unchanged from year to year, and the annual benefit
(cost of capital service) is (land value) (i), regardless of when land liquida-
tion occurs.
One-Time Start-Up Costs
One-time start-up costs, like capital costs, occur at the beginning of the
project. However, these expenditures do not yield a flow of services or have
a resale value, as do capital investments. Even still, start-up expenditures
can be recouped over a period of time. We assume a 5-year period of repayment
with equal yearly payments in constant dollars. Therefore, the annual cost
of each dollar of start-up cost is: ^rr = - - - - , which equals 0.2184
~
when i=0.03 and 0.2374 when i=0.06.
Annual Operating and Administrative Costs
These costs are presented as annual figures. To obtain total annual cost
in constant dollars, the annual operating and administrative costs are added
directly to the annual capital and start-up costs.
Fee Calculations
A fee, fc, reflecting constant dollars, is calculated by dividing total
annual costs by the number of paid inspections per year. This fee is designed
to recoup all of the costs included in Table 3-1.
Interest Rates and Constant Dollars
All of the proceeding calculations are performed in constant 1978 dollars.
To get figures in actual dollars for years other than 1978, all annual costs,
amortized costs, and fees must be increased by the amount of inflation since
1978.
Interest rates used with constant dollars are those reflecting the real
return on capital. Actual interest rates include compensation to offset the
diminished buying power of money under inflation, and thus, are inappropriate
191
-------
here. In this study, we employ two real rates of return for capital, 3 percent
and 6 percent. These rates are lower and upper bounds; the exact rate depends
upon the source of financing (i.e., debt, equity, or taxpayers' foregone
investment.)
Inflation
The above-mentioned fee is in real (constant) dollars and must be adjusted
for inflation. These adjustments will cover increased operating costs as well
as the difference between the market rate of interest and the real rate of re-
turn on capital.
A second fee, f , will also be calculated. This fee will be uniform in ac-
tual dollars over time. In calculating this fee, an inflation rate p must be
assumed.* In this report, it will be assumed that p = 0.07. For notational
convenience, let r = market rate of interest and i = real return on capital
(r = i+p). Then, for investments (capital costs and start-up costs) an assump-
tion of uniform capital services in actual dollars allows the use of the pre-
vious formulae for r—— with r substituted for i. The factors for amortization
NPV
are shown in Table 113 below:
TABLE 113. FEE, f , AMORTIZATION FACTORS
3.
Cost category ^^ i=0.03 i=0.06
Land r Q.10 0.13
Buildings and structures — 0.117 0 143
l-U+r)"20
Equipment and start-up costs =— 0.264 0.284
Annual operating and administrativd costs must be transformed from con-
stant to actual dollars. Actual annual cost, is equal to the product of (1)
constant annual cost and (2) a transformation factor, T; this transformation
factor is determined from:
*
It shall be noted that the first fee, f , was independent of p.
Capital investments no longer yield uniform services, but now yield acceler-
ated depreciation.
192
-------
n /, . K n .
E( 1+P \ _ r ___ /
M -T^^V(
n / x. > \l+ry , ,,...N-n > | 1+ 1+r
k=l k=l
/ ^n \
r(l+p) f l-(l+i/l+p) \
1 \ l-(l+r)-n /
where n = number of years = 5. Therefore, when i = 0.03 then T = 1.215, and
when i = O.Ot then T = 1.210.
The fee, fa, is calculated in a manner similar to the original fee, fc.
Annualized costs are summed and divided by the annual number of paid inspec-
tions to arrive at f .
a
193
-------
APPENDIX D
SENSITIVITY OF BREAKEVEN FEES
The breakeven fees are dominated by the annual operating costs in all of
the centralized approaches. The annual operating costs are highly dependent
primarily on two factors: the throughput rate, and the personnel wages. The
breakeven fees, therefore, will change considerably by varying these two
elements. As an example, loaded mode emission testing at a 3-minute throughput
rate could be experienced. The effective changes result in a 29 percent increase
in both the breakeven fee in constant dollars (fc) and the breakeven fee in
actual (inflated) dollars (fa). The calculations showing effective changes are
shown in Table 114.
TABLE 114. INCREASE IN COSTS FOR LOADED MODE EMISSIONS TESTING WITH A
1-MINUTE INCREASE IN THROUGHPUT (i=0.03)
Land costs
Building costs
Equipment costs
Test personnel
Adm. personnel
Calibration vans
Central computer
Equipment calibration
Equipment maintenance
Property tax
Real estate tax
Utilities
Insurance
Public relations
Annual inspector training
Start-up costs
Cc (fee in constant dollars)
fa (fee in actual dollars)
3-Min throughput
$1,940,271
5,294,000
4,948,000
3,755,500
504,250
98,000
250,000
61,600
989,600
301,984
50,411
189,250
108,000
180,000
528
2,874,439
4.23
5.28
2-Min throughput
$1,312,509
3,487,875
3,385,000
2,536,125
504,250
70,000
250,000
44,000
677,100
189,293
31,812
131,438
70,500
180,000
336
2,169,072
3.28
4.09
Increase
32%
34%
32%
32%
0%
29%
0%
29%
32%
37%
37%
31%
35%
0%
36%
25%
29%
29%
194
-------
By changing the personnel wages to reflect a 25 percent increase (perhaps
due to unionization or a civil service raise, assumed over a time span of
3 years) the reflected change in fc (fee in constant dollars) would be 10 to
11 percent higher. The change in fa (fee in actual dollars) would be a 10 to
11 percent increase.
Table 115.
The current and increased breakeven fees are shown in
TABLE 115.
INCREASE IN BREAKEVEN FEES WITH A 25 PERCENT INCREASE IN PERSONNEL
WAGES (i=0.03 percent)
Option
1
2
3
4
5
fc
fa
fc
fa
fc
fa
fc
fa
fc
fa
Current wages
7.425
9.341
4.845
6.055
3.251
4.052
7.490
9.416
3.324
4.129
25% Higher wages
8.195
10.273
5.377
6.700
3.608
4.486
8.257
10.348
3.648
4.562
Increase
10%
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
10%
10%
10%
10%
A policy of providing a free retest to owners of failed vehicles as a
consumer protection measure results in an increase in the breakeven fee equal
to the stringency factor, since the total annualized cost of the program would
be split by that many fewer tests. In this example, a 30 percent stringency
factor, the cost for an inspection would be 30 percent higher in a program
allowing for a free retest than in one requiring a paid retest. The breakeven
fees for both alternatives are provided in Table 116.
TABLE 116. INCREASE IN f (BREAKEVEN FEE IN CONSTANT 1978 DOLLARS) WITH
A FREE RETEST POLICY (1=0.03)
Option
I
II
III
IV
V
fc with
paid retest
$6.95
3.28
3.06
6.57
3.02
fc with
free retest
$9.03
4.26
3.97
8.54
3.93
195
-------
APPENDIX E
GLOSSARY
accuracy: The degree by which an instrument is able to determine the true
concentration of a pollutant in the exhaust gas sampled.
actual dollars: The face value of money in any particular year. With infla-
tion, the buying power of actual dollars decreases.
air contaminants: Any fumes, smoke, particulate matter, vapor gas, or any
combination, but excluding water vapor or stream condensate.
air-fuel ratio: The expression of the proportional mixture of air and gaso-
line created by the carburetor. Usually expressed as a numerical rela-
tionship such as 14:1, 13:1, etc.
ambient air: The surrounding or outside air.
amortization factor: The annual cost of 1 dollar of capital expenditure.
Amortization factors are applied to capital costs to determine annual
costs.
calibration gases: A blend of HC and CO gases using nitrogen as a carrier gas.
carbon monoxide: A nonirritating, colorless, odorless gas at standard condi-
tions which has the molecular form of CO.
catalytic emission control system: Device to reduce automobile emissions by
converting CO and HC emissions to harmless carbon dioxide and water.
certificate of compliance: A document which is issued upon completion of the
inspection which records the results of the inspection and serves as
proof of said inspection for vehicle owner.
certified mechanic: An individual licensed to install, repair and adjust
motor vehicle engine .emissions related components and pollution control
devices in order that the motor vehicle meet applicable- emissions
standards.
certified station: A private facility licensed to install, repair and adjust
motor vehicle engine emissions related components and pollution control
devices in order that the motor vehicle meet applicable emissions
standards.
chassis dynamometer: A machine equipped with two parallel rollers which sup-
port the rear wheels of a motor vehicle. When positioned on the dynamo-
meter the vehicle may be "driven" to simulate the loadings the engine
would experience when the vehicle is operated on the road. A power
196
-------
absorption unit is connected to the rollers to simulate the loading
from the various sources of fluid and mechanical friction present during
road operation. Weights can also be coupled to the rollers to simulate
the inertial effects of vehicle mass during acceleration and decelleration.
crankcase emissions: The products of combustion emitted into the ambient air
from portions of the engine crankcase ventilation or lubrication system.
degradation: The decreased effect of I/M on emission reduction due to normal
wear of engine system.
deterioration: A synonym for degradation indicating an increase in emission
levels due to wear.
drift: The amount of meter reading change over a period of time. Zero drift
refers to change of zero reading. Span drift refers to a change in
reading of a calibration point on the upper half of the scale. The
calibration point is established by reading a calibration gas of known
concentration.
emission inspection program: An inspection and maintenance program in which
each vehicle is subjected at specified intervals to a test of its emis-
sions under specified conditions. The emission levels are compared with
a standard established for the vehicle class. If the emissions are higher
than the standard, the vehicle is failed and must be adjusted or repaired
to bring its emissions into compliance with the standards.
exhaust gas analyzer: An instrument for sensing the amount of air contaminants
in the exhaust emissions of a motor vehicle.
exhaust emissions: The products of combustion emitted into the ambient air
from any opening downstream of the exhaust ports of a motor vehicle
engine.
fleet owner authorized stations: A permit issued to a qualified fleet owner
to perform vehicle emissions inspection limited to his fleet only.
fleet operator: The owner of a fleet of a designated number of vehicles.
hang-up: HC which clings to the surface of the sampling and analyzer system
in contact with the gas sample stream which causes an erroneous indica-
tion of HC in the measured value. t
heavy-duty vehicle: Any motor vehicle designed for highway use which has a
gross vehicle weight of more than 8,500 pounds.
hydrocarbons: A compound whose molecular composition consists of atoms of
hydrogen and carbon only.
idle test: An emission inspection program which measures the exhaust emissions
from a motor vehicle operating at idle. (No motion of the rear wheels.)
A vehicle with an automatic transmission may be in drive gear with brakes
applied or in neutral gear.
197
-------
independent contractor: Any person, business firm, partnership or corporation
with whom the state may enter into an agreement providing for the con-
struction, equipment, maintenance, personnel, management and operation
of official inspection stations.
inspection and maintenance program: A program to reduce emissions from in-use
vehicles through identifying vehicles that need emissions control related
maintenance and requiring that maintenance be performed.
inspection station: A centralized facility for inspecting motor vehicles and
pollution control devices for compliance with applicable regulations.
inspector: An individual who inspects motor vehicles and pollution control
devices for compliance with applicable regulations.
instrument: The system which samples and determines the concentration of the
pollutant gas.
key mode test: A loaded mode test in which exhaust emissions are measured at
high and low cruise speeds and at idle. The cruise speeds and dynamometer
power absoprtion settings vary with the weight class of the vehicle. The
dynamometer loading in the high cruise range is higher than normal load
in order to more efficiently expose malfunctions leading to high emissions.
light-duty vehicle: A motor vehicle designed for highway use of less than
8,501 pounds gross vehicle weight. Further distinctions are sometimes
made between light-duty automobiles and light-duty trucks such as pickup
trucks.
loaded mode test: An emission inspection program which measures the exhaust
emissions from a motor vehicle operating under simulated road load on a
chassis dynamometer.
manufacturer's specifications: The specifications or settings established by
the manufacturer for proper operation. These settings must be followed
in order to maintain proper emission controls and vehicle performance.
market rate of interest: An interest rate that includes the real return on
capital, a risk premium, and compensation for inflation.
model year of vehicle: The production period of new vehicle or new vehicle
engines designated by the calendar year in which such period ends.
motorcycle: A motor vehicle having a seat or saddle for use of the rider and
designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the
ground, but excluding a tractor.
motor vehicle: Any self-propelled vehicle which is designed primarily for
travel on public right of ways and which is used to transport persons
and property.
198
-------
net present value (NPV): The present value of future benefits and cost. When
actual dollars are used, benefit and costs are discounted by the market
rate of interest. When real dollars are used, benefits and costs are
discounted by the real return on capital.
nonattainment area: An area designated by the EPA which does not meet
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for a specific pollutant.
photochemical oxidants:: Those pollutants resulting from the chemical combina-
tion of reactive hydrocarbons with nitrogen oxides in the presence of
sunlight. These produce ozone and other complex chemical compounds,
which are dangerous to human health.
positive crankcase ventilation: A system designed to return blowby gases from
the crankcase of the engine to the intake manifold so that the gases are
burned in the engine. Blowby gas is unburned fuel/air mixture which leaks
past the piston rings into the crankcase during the compression and ig-
nition cycles of the engine. Without positive crankcase ventilation these
gases, which are rich in hydrocarbons, escape to the atmosphere.
prescribed inspection procedure: Approved procedure for identifying vehicles
that need emissions control related maintenance.
real dollars: (Sometimes called constant dollars.) Dollars that have the
same buying power from year to year. To arrive at actual dollars, real
dollars must be increased by the amount of inflation. For example: with
an annual inflation of 7 percent, $100 in year x is equal to $107 actual
dollars in year x + 1.
(real) rate of return on capital; The return on capital in the absence of
inflation. This is equal to the marginal product of capital when com-
bined with land and labor in production.
registered owner: An individual, firm, corporation or association whose name
appears in the files of the motor vehicle registration division of the
department of motor vehicles as the person to whom the vehicle is
registered.
repeatability: The instrument's capability to provide the same value for
successive measures of the same sample.
response time: The period of time required by an instrument to provide
meangingful results after a step change in gas concentration level
initiated at the tailpipe sample probe.
smoke: Small gasborne and airborne particles, exclusive of water vapor,
arising from a process of combustion in sufficient number to be
observable.
stringency factor: The percentage of total vehicles tested in an inspection/
maintenance program in a given time period that fail inspection and are
required to have maintenance performed.
199
-------
tampering: The illegal alteration, modification, or disconnection of emis-
sion control devices or adjustments or manufacturer tuning specifications
on motor vehicles for the purpose of controlling vehicle emissions.
vehicle dealer: An individual, firm, corporation or association who is
licensed to sell motor vehicles.
vehicle emissions standard: A specific emission limit allowed for a class of
vehicles. The standard is normally expressed in terms of maximum
allowable concentrations of pollutants (e.g., parts per million).
However, a standard could also be expressed in terms of mass emissions
per unit of time or distance traveled (e.g., grams per mile).
200
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
. REPORT NO.
EPA-905/2-78-003
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSK
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
Evaluation of Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection and
Maintenance Programs in Wisconsin
5. REPORT DATE
September 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHORis) Theodore p. Midurski, Lee A. Coda, Robert 0.
Phillips, Nancy K. Roy, Frederick M. Sellars, Thomas P
Snyder
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
GCA-TR-78-38-G
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
GCA Corporation
GCA/Technology Division
Burlington Road
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2607, TO No. 16
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V Office
Chicago, Illinois
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Recent data for the State of Wisconsin indicates that the National Ambient Air Qual-
ity Standards for CO and Ox will not be attained in all areas of the state by 1982,
even if all reasonably available control technologies are applied. In view of this,
it is likely that the state will request from EPA an extension of the compliance
date beyond 1982. In order for this request to be considered, the state must, among
other things, have adopted a firm schedule for implementing a motor vehicle inspec-
tion and maintenance (I/M) program in the highly urbanized nonattainment areas. In
this connection, the State of Wisconsin is currently in the initial states of plan-
ning for the implementation of an I/M program. As part of this initial effort,
several candidate program configurations have been analyzed from the standpoint of
costs, benefits, and other requirements. These analyses, which are reported herein,
will provide the basis for the state to select one specific option that will even-
tually be implemented.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Automobile engines
Exhaust detection
Exhaust emissions
wen
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Automobile emissions
ction /maintenance
source control
'., -,
------- |