905278006
GCA-TR-78-38-G(l)
EVALUATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS INSPECTION AND
MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS IN OHIO
PHASE II
Final Report
by
David B. Ramsay
Lee A. Coda
Robert 0. Phillips
Nancy K. Roy
Frederick M. Sellars
Thomas P. Snyder
GCA CORPORATION
GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
Bedford, Massachusetts
August 1978
Contract No. 68-02-2607
Work Assignment No. 15
EPA-905/2-78-006
EPA Project Officer
Carlton Nash
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region V
Chicago, Illinois
-------
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.
-------
ABSTRACT
Recent data for the State of Ohio 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 date beyond 1982. In order for this request to be considered,
the state must, among other things, have adopted a firm schedule for implement-
ing a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in the highly
urbanized nonattainment areas. In this connection, the State of Ohio is cur-
rently in the initial stages of planning for the implementation of an I/M pro-
gram. 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 eventually be implemented.
iii
-------
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract
List of Figures
List of Tables
Acknowledgments
Sections Page
1 Executive Summary 1
Introduction 1
The Seven I/M Program Options 3
Study Findings 8
References 22
2 Introduction 23
Background 23
Description of Inspection/Maintenance Programs 24
The Seven I/M Program Options 29
Program Assumptions 29
Basis and Organization of This Report 32
3 Methodologies 34
Introduction 34
Costs Considerations 35
Total Cost Methodology 41
References 48
4 Option 1 - • Statewide Coverage
• Contractor Administers Centralized Lanes in
Urban Areas
• Private Garages in Rural Areas
Alternate A - 12 Urban Counties
Alternate B - 18 Urban Counties 49
Option Definition 49
Network Requirements 49
Option Costs 61
Fee Computation 86
Manpower Requirements 100
5 Option II - • Statewide Coverage
• State Administers Centralized Lanes in Urban Areas
• Private Garages in Rural Areas
Alternate A - 12 Urban Counties
Alternate B - 18 Urban Counties 103
Option Definition 103
Network Requirements 103
Option Costs 105
Fee Computation 108
Manpower Requirements 121
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Sections Page
6 Option III - • Urban County Coverage
• Contractor Administers Centralized Lanes
Alternate A - 12 Urban Counties
Alternate B - 18 Urban Counties 124
Option Definition 124
Network Requirements 124
Option Costs 127
Cost Summary 133
Manpower Requirements 133
7 Option IV - • Urban County Coverage
• State Administers Centralized Lanes
Alternate A - 12 Urban Counties
Alternate B - 18 Urban Counties 140
Option Definition 140
Option Costs 143
Summary 145
Manpower Requirements 150
8 Option V - • Statewide Coverage
• Contractor Administers Centralized Lanes in
Urban Areas
• Random Roadside Pullovers in Rural Areas
Alternate A - 12 Urban Counties
Alternate B - 18 Urban Counties 153
Option Definition 153
Network Requirements 153
Option Costs 157
Summary 159
Cost Calculations for Random Inspection in Rural Areas . . . 163
9 Option VI - • Statewide Coverage
• State Administers Centralized Lanes in Urban Areas
• Random Roadside Pullovers in Rural Areas
Alternate A - 12 Urban Counties
Alternate B - 18 Urban Counties 169
Option Definition 169
Summary 174
Cost Calculations for Random Inspection in Rural Areas . . . 174
10 Option VII - • Statewide Coverage
• Private Garage Testing in Urban and Rural Areas
• State or Contractor Conducts Surveillance/
Quality Control of Garages 184
Option Definition 184
Option VII Manpower Requirements 206
11 Benefits 209
Emission Reduction Benefits 209
Fuel Economy Benefits 211
12 Possible Externalities: Indirect Impacts 219
Introduction 219
vi
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Sections Page
General Program Impacts ..... 219
References 225
13 Legislative Considerations in I/M Implementation 226
Introduction 226
Methodology 226
Possible Political Constraints 226
Potential Option Specific Issues 228
Concluding Remarks 231
14 Comparison of Options 232
Comparison of Emission Reduction Benefits 232
Fuel Economy Benefits 234
Comparison of Costs 238
Comparison of Political Issues 242
References 245
15 Public Information Programs 246
Methodology 246
Initial Public Relations Programs 246
Ongoing Public Relations 248
16 Comparison of Motor Vehicle Registration Versus Sticker/Ticketing
as Enforcmenet Procedures 249
References 252
17 State Versus Contractor Surveillance of Private Garages 253
General Comments 253
18 Glossary 256
Appendices
A Detailed Description of Methodology for Calculating Emission
Inventories 261
References 275
B Estimated Fuel Savings Resulting From I/M For 1987 276
Introduction 276
Detailed Calculations 277
References 283
C Sensitivity of Breakeven Fees 284
D Detailed Description of Costs and Fee Calculations 286
Initial Capital Costs 286
E Uniform Fee in Actual Dollars For Options 290
F Tax Rates and Annual Taxes 294
G Technical Considerations and Costs of a Loaded-Mode Option . . . 297
Introduction 297
Test Mode Descriptions 297
Discussion 299
A Loaded Mode Alternative 299
Option Definition 300
Network Requirements 300
Option Costs 303
vii
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Sections Page
Cost Summary 320
Manpower Requirements 325
Summary 325
viii
-------
FIGURES
Number
1 Urban counties in Ohio 7
2 Urban counties in Ohio 28
3 Administrative network Option II . 44
4 Ohio EPA district offices 46
5 Market factors affecting private garage participation 59
6 Conceptual floor plan for an idle mode inspection facility ... 71
7 Administrative organization, Option I 101
8 Administrative organization, Option II 102
9 Administration organization, Option III . . 138
10 Administrative organization, Option IV 151
11 Administrative organization, Option V 167
12 Administrative organization, Option VI 182
13 Administrative organization, Option VII 207
G-l Conceptual floor plan for a one-lane loaded-mode inspection
facility 304
G-2 Administrative organization 326
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No.
1 Seven Ohio I/M Program Options 4
2 Percent Reduction in Daily Vehicle Emission Resulting
From I/M in 1987 9
3 Emissions and Percent Reductions in Scenario 1, Options I, II,
and VII (kg/day) 10
4 Emissions and Percent Reductions in Scenario 2, Options III, IV,
V, and VI Under Alternate B (kg/day) 11
5 Emissions and Percent Reductions in Scenario 3, Options III, IV,
V, and VI Under Alternate A (kg/day) 12
6 Annual Costs 15
7 Comparison of Fees 16
8 Manpower Requirements, All Options (Number of Employees),
Alternate A . . 21
9 Manpower Requirements, All Options (Number of Employees) ,
Alternate B 21
10 Seven Ohio I/M Program Options 30
11 Outline of Program Cost Categories and Elements 36
12 Estimated Value for Commercially-Zoned Land in Ohio 38
13 Annual Number of Inspections Required by County for 1987,
Centralized System 51
14 Total Centralized Inspection Lanes Required to Satisfy 1987
Urban Inspection Demand . 53
15 Inspection Network Requirements for Option I - Alternate A -
12-County 54
16 Inspection Network Requirements for Option - Alternate B,
18-County 55
x
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
No. Page
17 Vehicle Registrations in Urban and Rural Areas, 1987 56
18 Vehicle Inspections Required in Urban and Rural Areas, 1987. . . 56
19 Minimum Private Garage Network in Rural Areas 58
20 Service Area Radius and Market Participation Rate, Minimum
Rural Private Garage Network 59
21a Maximum Private Garage Participation (Number of Garages) -
12-County Urban Area Alternative 62
21b Maximum Private Garage Participation (Number of Garages) -
18-County Urban Area Alternative 62
22 Maximum Private Garage Participation in Rural Areas 63
23 Service Area Radius and Market Participation Rate, Maximum
Rural Private Garage Network 63
24 Private Garages in Rural Areas: Midparticipation Levels .... 63
25 Land Costs for Each Facility in Option I - Alternate A,
12-County 65
26 Land Costs for Each Facility in Option I - Alternate B,
18-County 66
27 Pavement and Landscaping Requirements for Option B Facilities,
ft2 67
28 Land Improvement Costs for Inspection Facility Sites Under
Option I 67
29 Land Improvements Cost for Facilities Under Option I -
Alternate A - 12-County 68
30 Land Improvements Cost for Facilities Under Option I -
Alternate B - 18-County 69
31 Building Floor Area for Various Facility Configurations -
Option I 72
32 Building Cost Estimates for Option I - Alternate A - 12-County . 73
33 Building Cost Estimates for Option I - Alternate B - 18-County . 74
xi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
No.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Equipment Costs as a Function of Facility Configuration for
Equipment Costs for Option I - Alternate A - 12-County
Cost of Training Option I
Start-Up Costs for Option I
Annual Personnel Costs for Facility Personnel - Option I,
Annual Personnel Costs for Facility Personnel - Option I,
Urban Motorist Fee Calculation, Option I, i = 0.03, Alternate A.
Urban Motorist Fee Calculation, Option I, i = 0.03, Alternate B.
Urban Motorist Fee Calculation, Option I, i = 0.06, Alternate A.
Urban Motorist Fee Calculation, Option I, i = 0.06, Alternate B.
Rural Sticker Fee Calculation, Option I, i = 0.03, Alternate A .
Rural Sticker Fee Calculation, Option I, i = 0.03, Alternate B .
Rural Sticker Fee Calculation, Option I, i = 0.06, Alternate A .
Rural Sticker Fee Calculation, Option I, i = 0.06, Alternate B .
Private Garage Fee, Option I, Alternates A and B, i = 0.03 or
0.06
Option I: Total Inspection Fee, i = 0.03, Midprivate Garage
Network
la
70
7S
76
79
8i
8?
8?
84
85
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
97
xii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
No. Page
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67a
67b
68a
Option I: Total Inspection Fee, i = 0.06, Midprivate
Garage Network
Equitable Participation Rates for Private Garages in Rural
Areas, Option I
1987 Total Inspections
1987 Centralized Lane Requirements
Vehicle Inspections Required in Urban and Rural Areas, 1987 . .
Minimum, Midlevel and Maximum Garage Participation in Rural
Areas
Initial Capital Costs, Alternate A and B
Comparison of Administrative Salaries for Option I and II
Start-Up Costs for Option II
Annual Cost for Utilities, Services, Supplies for Option II . .
Annual Administrative Costs for Option II
Cost Summary - Option II, Alternate A
Cost Summary - Option II, Alternate B
Urban Motorist Fee Calculation, Option II, i = 0.03,
Alternate A
98
99
102
104
104
104
104
105
106
106
107
108
109
110
111
68b Urban Motorist Fee Calculation, Option II, i = 0.03,
Alternate B 112
68c Urban Motorist Fee Calculation, Option II, i = 0.06,
Alternate A 113
68d Urban Motorist Fee Calculation, Option II, i = 0.06,
Alternate B 114
69a Rural Sticker Fee Calculation, Option II, i = 0.03,
Alternate A 115
xiii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
No. Page
69b Rural Sticker Fee Calculation, Option II, i = 0.03,
Alternate B 116
69c Rural Sticker Fee Calculation, Option II, i = 0.06,
Alternate A 117
69d Rural Sticker Fee Calculation, Option II, i = 0.06,
Alternate B 118
70 Private Garage Fee, Option II, Alternatives A and B,
i - 0.03 or 0.06 120
71 Option II: Total Inspection Fee, i = 0.03, Midprivate Garage
Network 120
72 Option II: Total Inspection Fee, i = 0.06, Midprivate Garage
Network 120
73 Equitable Participation Rates for Private Garages in Rural AReas,
Option II 121
74 Manpower Requirements, Option II 123
75 Inspection Network Requirements for Option III - Alternate A,
12-County 125
76 Inspection Network Requirements for Option III - Alternate B,
18-County 126
77 Capital Costs for Option III 127
78 Facility Personnel Start-Up Salaries 129
79 Start-Up Costs for Option III 130
80 Annual Cost for Test Facility Personnel 130
81 Maintenance Costs Annually For Test Equipment in Option III . . . 130
82 Annual Cost for Utilities, Services and Supplies, Option III . . 132
83a Cost Summary Option III Alternate A (12 Counties) 134
83b Cost Summary Option III Alternate B 135
84a f Option III Alternate A 136
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
No. Page
84b f Option III Alternate B 137
c r
85 Option III Manpower Requirements 139
86 Inspection Network Requirements for Option IV - Alternate A,
12-County 141
87 Inspection Network Requirements for Option IV - Alternate B,
18-County 142
88 Capital Costs for Option IV 143
89 Start-Up Costs for Option IV 144
90 Annual Cost For Utilities, Supplies, and Services - Option IV,
Alternate A 144
91 Cost Summary - Option IV, Alternate A 146
92 Cost Summary - Option IV, Alternate B 147
93 fc - Option IV, Alternate A 148
94 f£ - Option IV, Alternate B 149
95 Manpower Requirements, Option IV 152
96 Inspection Network Requirements for Option III - Alternate A,
12 Counties 155
97 Inspection Network Requirements for Option III - Alternate B,
18 Counties 156
98 Capital Costs for Option V 157
99 Start-Up Costs for Option V 158
100 Annual Cost for Test Facility Personnel in Option V 158
101 Annual Maintenance Costs for Test Equipment in Option V 158
102 Annual Cost for Utilities, Services and Supplies for Option V . . 159
103 Annual Administrative Costs for Option V 159
104 Cost Summary Option V - Alternate A, 12 Counties 160
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
No. Page
105 Cost Summary Option V - Alternate B 161
106 fc - Option V, Alternate A 162
107 f - Option V, Alternate B 163
108 Mobile Inspection Vans Required, State Patrol Random
Pullover Program 164
109 Capital Costs, State Patrol Random Pullover Program 164
110 Annual Operating Costs, State Patrol Random Pullover Program . . 165
111 Manpower Requirements for Option V 168
112 Inspection Network Requirements for Option IV - Alternate A,
12-County 171
113 Inspection Network Requirements for Option IV - Alternate B,
18-County 172
114 Capital Costs for Option VI 170
115 Start-Up Costs for Option VI 173
116 Annual Cost for Utilities, Services, Supplies Option IV,
Alternate A 173
117 Annual Administrative Costs for Option VI 174
118 Cost Summary Option VI Alternate A 175
119 Cost Summary Option IV Alternate B 176
120 f Option VI, Alternate A 177
121 fc Option VI, Alternate B 178
122 Mobile Inspection Vans Required, State Patrol Random Pullover
Program 179
123 Capital Costs, State Patrol Random Pullover Program 179
124 Annual Operating Costs, State Patrol Random Pullover Program . . 180
125 Manpower Requirements for Option VI 183
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
No. Page
126 Vehicle Registrations in Urban and Rural Areas, 1987 185
127 Vehicle Inspections Required in Urban and Rural Areas, 1987 . . 185
128 Number of Garages, Service Area Radius and Market Participation
Rate, Minimum Statewide Private Garage Network 186
129 Minimum Urban Private Garage Participation, Option VII 187
130 Maximum Private Garage Participation (Number of Garages),
Statewide Private Garage Network 188
131 Number of Garages, Service Area Radius, and Market Participation
Rate, Maximum Statewide Private Garage Network 188
132 Maximum Urban Private Garage Participation, Option VII 189
133 Private Garages Statewide Midparticipation Level 189
134 Capital Costs for Referee Lane Facilities, Option VII 190
135 State Inspection and Licensing Vans Required, Option VII .... 191
136 State Complaints Investigation Vehicles Required, Option VII . . 191
137 Personnel Training Costs, Option VII 193
138 Personnel Salaries, Start-Up Phase, Option VII 193
139 Annual Calibration Costs for Option VII 195
140 Uniform Costs, Option VII 195
141 Annual Costs for Utilities, Supplies, and Services, Option VII . 196
142 Annual State Administrative Salary Payments, Option VII .... 196
143 Annual Personnel Training Costs, Option VII 197
144a Cost Summary, Option VII, Minimum Private Garage Network .... 198
144b Cost Summary, Option VII, Midlevel Private Garage Network . . . 199
I44c Cost Summary, Option VII, Maximum Private Garage Network .... 200
xvii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
No. Page
145a F = State Sticker Fee Calculation, Option VII,
Minimum Network 201
145b F = State Sticker Fee Calculation, Option VII,
Midlevel Network 202
145c F = State Sticker Fee Calculation, Option VII,
Maximum Network 203
146 F, State Sticker Fee, Option VII, Constant Dollars 204
147 State Sticker Fee, Private Garage Fee, and Total Inspection
Charge, Option VII, Assuming i = 0.03 205
148 State Sticker Fee, Private Garage Fee, and Total Inspection
Charge, Option VII, Assuming i = 0.06 205
149 Manpower Requirements, Option VII 208
150 Percent Reduction in Daily Vehicle Emission Resulting From
I/M in 1987 210
151 Daily Hydrocarbon Emissions for Options I, II, and VII (kg/day) . 213
152 Daily Hydrocarbon Emissions for Options III, IV, and VI Under
Alternative B (kg/day) 214
153 Daily Hydrocarbon Emissions for Options III, IV, and V and VI
Under Alternate A (kg/day) 215
154 Daily Carbon Monoxide Emissions for Options I, II, and VII
(kg/day) 216
155 Daily Carbon Monoxide Emissions for Options III, IV, V, and
VI Under Alternative B (kg/day) 217
156 Daily Carbon Monoxide Emissions for Options III, IV, V, and VI
Under Alternative A (kg/day) 218
157 Percent Reduction in Daily Vehicle Emission Resulting From
I/M in 1987 233
158 Emissions and Percent Reductions in Scenario 1, Options I, II,
and VII (kg/day) 235
159 Emissions and Percent Reductions in Scenario 2, Options III, IV,
V, and VI Under Alternate B (kg/day) 236
xviii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
No. Page
160 Emissions and Percent Reductions in Scenario 3, Options III, IV,
V, and VI Under Alternate A (kg/day) 237
161 Annual Costs 239
162 Comparison of Fees 240
163 Manpower Requirements, All Options (Number of Employees),
Alternate A 243
164 Manpower Requirements, All Options (Number of Employees),
Alternate B 243
165 Estimated Cost of Initial/Ongoing Public Relations Program for
Ohio Alternatives 248
A-l Travel Weighting Factor Calculation Light-Duty Vehicles .... 262
A-2 1977 Ohio DOT Data 264
A-3 1975 Ohio DOT Data 265
A-4 Data From Ohio KI 267
A-5 Source of VMT, Average Speed, and Vehicle Data for 1977 and 1987 268
A-6 Derived Daily VMT (000) for 1977 and 1987 269
A-7 Derived Average Speed and VMT Distributions for 1977 and 1987 . 270
A-8 Hydrocarbon I/M Credits 272
A-9 Carbon Monoxide I/M Credits 273
A-10 Journey to Work Data 274
B-l Annual Fuel Savings (Gallons) 277
B-2 Estimated Daily VMT Figures for Selected Counties for 1987 . . . 278
B-3 Travel Weighting Factor Calculation for Light-Duty
Vehicles , 279
B-4 EPA MPG Specifications and Average Fleet Mileage for LDVs
Covered by I/M in 1987 280
xix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
No. Page
B-5 Potential Yearly Fuel Savings From I/M for Selected Counties
in 1987 (1000 gallons) 282
C-l Increase in Breakeven Fees With a 25 Percent Increase in
Personnel Wages (i = 0.03) 284
C-2 Decrease in fc (Breakeven Fee in Constant 1978 Dollars) With
Paid Retest Policy, i = 0.03 285
D-l Fee, f , Amortization Factors 288
3.
E-l f and Cost Components With i = 0.03 (All Figures Are 1978
Collars) 292
E-2 f and Cost Components With i = 0.06 (All Figures Are 1978
^Dollars) 293
F-l Tax Rates and Annual Taxes for Options I, III and V 295
G-l Estimated Test Time Requirements for Four I/M Test Modes .... 299
G-2 Inspection Network Requirements for Alternate A (12 County) . . 301
G-3 Inspection Network Requirements for Alternate B (18 County) . . 302
G-4 Building Floor Area for Various Facility Configurations .... 305
G-5 Building Costs for Alternate A 306
G-6 Building Costs for Alternate B 307
G-7 Land Investments for Each Facility in Alternate A, 12-County . . 308
G-8 Land Investments for Each Facility in Alternate B, 12-County . . 309
G—9 Major Equipment Items Required for Loaded-Mode Emissions
Testing 311
G-10 Equipment Costs as a Function of Facility Configuration For
Loaded-Mode Emission Testing 303
G-ll Equipment Costs for Alternate A, 12-County 312
G-12 Equipment Costs for Alternate B, 18-County 313
G-13 Capital Costs for Loaded-Mode Alternative 314
xx
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
No. Page
G-14 Facility Personnel Startup Salaries 316
G-15 Startup Costs for Loaded-Mode Emission Testing 317
G-16 Annual Cost for Test Facility Personnel 317
G-17 Maintenance Costs Annually For Test Equipment 318
G-18 Annual Cost for Utilities, Services and Supplies 320
G-19 Cost Summary Alternate A (12 Counties) 321
G-20 fc Alternate A (12 Counties) 323
G-21 f Alternate B (18 Counties) 324
\
G-22 Manpower Requirements 327
G-23 Increase in Breakeven Fees (f ) With a Change in Test Mode
(Idle to Loaded) 325
xxi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the rather significant contributions
made by several individuals and organizations throughout this project. We are
especially grateful to Mr. Jeffrey Hunter of the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Pollution Control, with whom we worked most closely on
many state-specific technical matters. Also, we would like to express our
appreciation to all the members of the Ohio I/M Advisory Group who provided
necessary inputs for our study. Finally, we wish to thank the EPA Task Officer,
Mr. Carlton Nash, who provided general direction throughout the study effort.
xxii
-------
SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Need for Inspection/Maintenance Programs
Recent ambient air quality data for the State of Ohio indicates widespread
and frequent violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for carbon monoxide (CO) and photochemical oxidants (Ox).1 These national
standards have been established in order to protect the health and welfare of
the population. Both CO and Ox are gases which in sufficient concentrations
in the atmosphere are potentially harmful to the public health. A major source
of CO and Ox in Ohio are the motor vehicles. Carbon monoxide is directly pro-
duced by gasoline-burning internal combustion engines and photochemical oxidants
are indirect products, formed through a complex series of atmospheric reactions
in which two other direct products of combustion, unburned gaseous hydrocarbons
(HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) combined in the presence of sunlight.
Inspection/maintenance programs are a cost-effective strategy to reduce these
emissions from motor vehicles. Other strategies that have been suggested, such
as restricting travel, are more difficult to enforce, tend to reduce individual
mobility and may require major changes in driving habits. By significantly
reducing the emission of HC and CO from in use motor vehicles in Ohio, an I/M
program will enhance the likelihood of the attainment of NAAQS.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 have specific provisions that require
the establishment of inspection/maintenance programs. According to the U.S.
EPA, the state must submit by January 1979 revisions to its State Implementation
Plan (SIP), which specifies methods to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. These methods include control of stationary sources of air pollu-
tion and various transportation control measures whose objective is to reduce
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and hence reduce pollution from sources such as
motor vehicles. If in these revisions, the state cannot demonstrate attain-
ment of the NAAQS by 1982 by using all reasonably available pollution control
measures, then an extension to 1987 can be requested if several provisions
are met. One such provision is the establishment of a specific schedule
for the implementation of an I/M program. Because it is doubtful that the
NAAQS can be attained in many areas of Ohio through other measures, an I/M
program is likely to be required.
What Are Inspection/Maintenance Programs?
In the inspection phase of I/M the motor vehicle exhaust emissions are
measured and compared to the applicable standards for the vehicle. If the vehi-
cle fails the exhaust emission test then it must be repaired. This is the
maintenance phase of I/M.
1
-------
The Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) under the Federal Clean
Air Act of 1970 was established to ensure that new cars coming off the assembly
line are designed to meet increasingly stringent emission standards.
The FMVCP consists of three parts including certification of prototype vehicles
prior to actual production, selective enforcement testing of vehicles at the
assembly line, and testing of in-use vehicles around the country to discover
design defects in emission controls as well as to provide data to recall
vehicles with inadequate or defective emission devices. Federal testing of
in-use vehicles throughout the United States, unfortunately, has demonstrated
that motor vehicles are not meeting the emission standards for which they are
designed. The primary reasons the vehicle exceed the standards include improper
or inadequate maintenance, tampering, and defective emission control devices.
Regardless of the cause, it has become clear that some in-use vehicle emission
inspection programs are necessary to ensure that the emission controls continue
to operate as they were intended over their useful life.
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
The other program areas or issues which will require more attention in
the detailed evaluation of the selected option and also during the program
design phase are the following:
1. Type of Motor Vehicles To Be Tested
2. Vehicle Exemptions
3. Data Handling
-------
4. Mechanic Training
5. Quality Assurance
6. Consumer Protection
7. Public Education
Background of This Study
In order to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977
in establishing a schedule of implementation for an I/M program in Ohio, the
Ohio Inspection/Maintenance Advisory Group was established early in 1978. The
Ohio I/M Advisory Group met in March 1978 to initiate action on considering
various possible I/M options and to select the option most suited to the needs
and desires of the State of Ohio. The Advisory Group is composed of members
of various agencies including representatives of the Ohio Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, the Department of Highway Safety which includes the Bureau of
Motor Vehicles and the State Highway Patrol, the Department of Transportation,
the Attorney General's Office, the Governor's Office, and the Department of
Energy.
The initial effort of the I/M Advisory Group was the development of back-
ground data regarding the technical and administrative aspects of I/M programs.
A summary report describing I/M program elements and other states' experience
in I/M and various technical memoranda were produced to assist in the selection
of a limited number of I/M options. In April 1978 the Advisory Group selected
seven I/M program options, which will be described later in this section. The
purpose of this report is to analyze these seven options in terms of their
costs and benefits such that the Advisory Group may then select one option for
detailed study, which will constitute the final task of the overall work
program.
THE SEVEN I/M PROGRAM OPTIONS
As indicated earlier, the Ohio I/M Advisory Group has selected seven
specific program options for evaluation. All seven options have in common
these elements:
• Idle mode testing
• Annual inspection
• Motor vehicle registration enforcement
• Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Motor
Vehicles as administrative agencies
The seven options are shown in Table 1.
-------
TABLE 1. SEVEN OHIO I/M PROGRAM OPTIONS
OPTION I
Statewide coverage
Contractor administers centralized lanes in urban areas
Private garages in rural areas
• Alternate A - 12 urban counties - all counties with population
greater than 200,000
• Alternate B - 18 urban counties - 12 counties with population
greater than 200,000 plus 6 adjacent counties
OPTION II
- Statewide coverage
State administers centralized lanes in urban areas
Private garages in rural areas
• Alternate A - 12 urban counties
• Alternate B - 18 urban counties
OPTION III
Urban counties only
Contractor administers centralized lanes
• Alternate A - 12 urban counties
• Alternate B - 18 urban counties
OPTION IV
Urban counties only
State administers centralized lanes
• Alternate A - 12 urban counties
• Alternate B - 18 urban counties
OPTION V
Statewide coverage
Contractor administers centralized lanes in urban areas
State highway patrol conducts random inspection in rural areas
• Alternate A - 12 urban counties
• Alternate B - 18 urban counties
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1 (continued). SEVEN OHIO I/M PROGRAM OPTIONS
OPTION VI
Statewide coverage
State administers centralized lanes in urban areas
- State highway patrol conducts random inspection in rural areas
• Alternate A - 12 urban counties
• Alternate B - 18 urban counties
OPTION VII
Statewide coverage
Private garage testing in urban and rural areas
State or contractor conducts surveillance/quality control
of garages
-------
Urban Counties
The 12 urban counties with populations greater than 200,000 that would
be covered in Alternate A are listed below:
1. Butler County
2. Cuyahoga County
3. Franklin County
4. Hamilton County
5. Lake County
6. Lorain County
7. Lucas County
8. Mahoning County
9. Montgomery County
10. Stark County
11. Summit County
12. Trumbull County
The six adjacent urban counties included in Alternate B are as follows:
1. Clermont County
2. Geauga County
3. Greene County
4. Medina County
5. Warren County
6. Wood County
The 12 urban counties with populations greater than 200,000 and six
additional counties are shown in Figure 1.
In determining which counties should be included in the geographical
coverage of the I/M program several factors were considered. According to
the U.S. EPA the minimum acceptable area for an I/M program includes urban-
ized areas with populations greater than 200,000 for which extensions to
1987 have been requested for the attainment of CO and HC NAAQS. For enforce-
ment purposes, counties were decided upon as jurisdictional boundaries. The
smallest geographical coverage considered includes the 12 urban counties with
populations greater than 200,000 (as in Alternate A). In addition, since the
urban area definition includes portions of several adjacent counties where
commuter travel is significant, six more counties were added, which resulted
in the 18 county Alternate B.
-------
_J MAMito* ! M»*VW I
; /
LEGEND:
ALTERNATE A-12 URBAN COUNTIES WITH
. -- POPULATION > 200,000
* LJ ALTERNATE B- |f UMAN COl
COUNTIES
Figure 1. Urban counties in Ohio.
-------
STUDY FINDINGS
Comparison of Emission Reduction Benefits
The levels of emission reduction that result from the implementation of
I/M programs depends on the number of vehicles inspected in the program and
also on the travel characteristics in the county where the vehicles are
registered. This is because emission reduction credits are calculated as
grams per mile multiplied by the VMT (vehicle miles traveled) per unit of
time. The emission reductions ("tail pipe reductions") refer to the decrease
in carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC) from the I/M vehicles. The
resulting change in the concentrations of these substances in the ambient
atmosphere is not being considered here.
The emission reductions vary according to the geographical coverage.
As the geographical coverage is increased, more vehicles are included in the
program. However, the actual emission reductions are modified to a degree
by the fact that, due to commuting patterns, there is overlap in travel among
the counties. Vehicles traveling outside their county of registration, in
other words, may either increase or decrease the emission reductions in the
counties traveled to, depending on whether the counties traveled to or from
have I/M programs. If vehicles registered in a county with I/M regularly
travel to counties without I/M, then the county traveled to will experience
a benefit in emission reduction. Conversely, if vehicles registered in
counties without I/M travel to a county with I/M, then the county traveled
to would experience less benefits. In the calculations made in this study
(described in detail in Section 2 - Benefits, and Appendix A) all the above
factors have been considered.
To estimate the emission reductions, the options have been grouped
into three benefit scenarios as shown below:
BENEFIT SCENARIOS
12 Most populous
counties
6 Next populous
counties
Remainder of
state
First scenario: Mandatory
(Options I, II, VIIO inspection
Second Scenario: Mandatory
(Options III, IV, V, inspection
VI under Alternate B)
Third Scenario: Mandatory
(Options III, IV, V, inspection
VI, under Alternate A)
Mandatory
inspection
Mandatory
inspection
NO mandatory
inspection
Mandatory
inspection
NO mandatory
inspection
NO mandatory
inspection
-------
Within each benefit scenario the geographic areas having mandatory inspection
are identical. In benefit scenario 1, all I/M programs are statewide and
mandatory. In the second and third scenarios there is mandatory inspection
only in the urban; i.e., most populous areas, whereas in the remainder of
the state there is no mandatory inspection. In Options V and VI the random
pullover inspection program for the rural areas does not constitute mandatory
inspection.
Table 2 presents the benefits (percent reduction in daily vehicle emis-
sions) for 1987 that result from an I/M program beginning in 1982. In terms
of carbon monoxide it may be seen that in scenario 1 the statewide mandatory
inspection options bring about the highest level of emission reduction of
27 percent throughout the state. Next, the second scenario with mandatory
I/M in the 18 urban counties gives the second highest reduction 25, 3, and
17 percent in the 18 urban counties, remaining rural, and statewide average,
respectively. Finally, the third scenario, with mandatory inspection in the
12 urban counties with populations greater than 200,000 have the least emission
reduction of 23, 3, and 15 percent for the 18 counties, remaining counties,
and statewide average, respectively. As discussed earlier in both the second
and third scenarios in the counties without I/M, there is some emission
reduction due to inspected vehicles traveling to these counties. The reduc-
tions in hydrocarbons follows the same pattern as the carbon monoxide
reductions, discussed above.
TABLE 2. PERCENT REDUCTION IN DAILY VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTING
FROM I/M IN 1987*
First Scenario Second Scenario Third Scenario
(Options I, II (Options III, IV, V, (Options III, IV, V,
and VII) VI, under Alternate B) VI, under Alternate A)
CARBON MONOXIDE
18 Counties 27 25 23
Rural areas 27 3 3
Statewide 27 17 15
HYDROCARBONS
18 Counties
Rural areas
Statewide
22
22
22
21
2
14
19
2
12
*
No reductions in light-duty truck emissions was calculated because the credits
for this particular vehicle category have yet to be established by EPA.
Appropriate adjustments will be made when the credits are made available.
-------
TABLE 3. EMISSIONS AND PERCENT REDUCTIONS IN SCENARIO 1, OPTIONS I, II, AND VII (kg/day)'
County
1977
Butler
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Loraine
Lucas
Man on ing
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Total - 12
Clermont
Geauga
Greene
Medina
Warren
Wood
Total - 6
Total - 18
26,495
144,270
68,261
91,740
25,506
10,132
31,713
20,390
39,894
26,149
42,177
20,772
counties 547,499
11,668
4,330
5,720
8,040
12,938
9,563
counties 52,259
counties 599,758
1987
without I/M
10,676
54,544
26,477
40,072
9,393
3,659
11,605
7,344
14,534
9,158
15,571
7,358
210,391
5,530
1,531
2,111
3,360
6,719
3,792
23,043
233,434
No reduction in light-duty truck emissions
Hydrocarbons
Percentf 1987
1987 reduction between reduction
I/M 1977 and 1987, due to
I/M plus FM\TC I/M
8,277
42,772
19,830
31,547
7,322
2,884
9,116
5,836
11,437
7,149
12,255
5,819
164,244
4,395
1,192
1,673
2,642
5,307
3,044
18,253
182,497
was included
68.8
70.4
71
65.6
71.3
71.5
71.3
71.4
71.3
72.7
71
72
70
62.3
72.5
70.6
67.1
59
68.2
65.1
69.6
because
22.5
21.6
25.1
21.3
22.1
21.2
21.5
20.5
21.3
21.9
21.3
20.9
11.9
20.5
22.2
20.8
21.4
21
19.7
20.8
21.8
the credits for
Carbon monoxide
Percent1' 1987
5077 1987 1987 reduction between reduction
without I/M I/M 1977 and 1987, due to
I/M I/M
195,628
1,090,073
459,838
721,871
178,360
68,283
210,184
136,419
266,402
175,498
283,204
140,188
3,925,948 2,
85,822
31,163
38,361
54,832
91,231
63,849
365,318
4,291,266 2,
this particular
106,494
554,660
254,564
397,954
94,447
37,066
107,828
72,990
153,684
92,073
157,791
80,281
109,832
52,620
15,34.8
22,849
33,512
67,871
38,760
230,960
340,792
vehicle
77,712
397,580
187,834
290,544
68,856
27,375
86,836
54,182
108,809
67,102
116,866
60,864
1,548,554
38,723
11,107
17,361
25,525
50,395
29,457
172,568
1,721,122
category have yet
60.3
63.5
59.2
59.8
61.4
59.9
58.7
60.3
59.2
61.8
58.7
56.6
60.6
54.9
64.4
54.7
53.4
44.8
53.9
52.8
59.9
to be
27.0
28.3
26.2
27.0
27.1
26.1
19.5
25.8
29.2
27.1
25.9
24.2
26.6
26.4
27.6
24.0
23.8
25.7
24.0
25.3
26.5
EPA. Appropriate adjustments will be made when the credits are made available.
Reduction attributable to Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) and I/M.
-------
TABLE 4. EMISSIONS AND PERCENT REDUCTIONS IN SCENARIO 2, OPTIONS III, IV, V, AND VI UNDER
ALTERNATE B (kg/day)*
Hydrocarbons
County
Butler Co.
Cuyahoga Co.
Franklin Co.
Hamilton Co.
Lake Co.
Lorain Co.
Lucas Co.
Mahoning Co.
Montgomery Co.
Stark Co.
Summit Co.
Trutnbull Co.
Total - 12 counties
Clermont Co.
Geauga Co.
Green Co.
Medina Co.
Warren Co.
Wood Co.
Total - 6 counties
Total - 18 counties
1977
26,495
144,270
68,261
91,740
25,506
10,132
31,713
20,390
39,894
26,149
42,177
20,772
547,499
11,668
4,330
5,720
8,040
12,938
4,563
52,259
599,758
1987
witnout I/M
10,676
54,544
26,477
40,072
9,393
3,659
11,605
7,344
14,534
9,158
15,571
7,358
210,391
5,530
1,531
2,111
3,360
6,719
3,792
23,643
233,434
No reduction in light-duty truck emissions
EPA. Appropriate
adjustments
will be made
Percent 1987
1987 reduction between reduction
I/M 1977 and 1987, due to
I'M
8,370
42,893
20,193
32,157
7,368
2,907
9,247
5,891
11,581
7,313
12,367
5,874
166,161
4,464
1,208
1,712
2,684
5,362
3,093
18,523
184,684
was included
plus FMY
68.4
70.3
70.4
65.0
71.0
71.3
70.9
71.1
71.0
72.0
70.7
71.7
69.7
61.8
72.1
70.0
66.6
58.6
67.7
64.6
69.2
because
when the credits are
Reduction attributable to Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program
PC I/M
21.6
21.4
23.7
19.6
21.6
20.6
20.3
19.8
20.3
20.2
20.6
20.2
21.0
19.3
21.1
18.9
10.8
20.2
18.4
21.7
20.9
the credits for
made available.
(FMVCP) and I/M.
1977 198?
" without I/M
195,628
1,090,073
459,838
721,871
178,360
68,283
210,184
136,419
266,402
175,498
283,204
140,188
3,925,948 2,
85,882
31,163
38,361
54,832
91,231
63,849
365,318
4,291,266 2,
this particular
106,494
554,660
254,564
397,954
94,447
37,066
107,828
72,990
153,684
92,073
157,791
80,281
109,832
52,620
15,348
22,849
33,512
67,871
38,760
230,960
340,792
vehicle
Carbon raonoxide
Percent* 1987
1987 reduction between reduction
I/M 1977 and 1987, due to
78,846
399,198
191,484
301,762
69,422
27,658
87,942
54,867
110,891
68,151
118,249
61,555
1,570,025
39,571
11,302
17,847
25,996
51,077
30,062
175,844
1,745,880
category have
I/M
59.7
63.4
58.4
58.2
61.1
59.5
58.2
59.8
58.4
61.2
58.3
56.1
60.0
53.9
63.7
53.5
52.6
44.0
52.9
51.9
59.3
yet to be
I/M
17.4
28.0
24.8
24.2
26.5
25.4
18.2
24.8
27.9
26.0
25.0
23.3
25.6
24.8
17.4
21.9
22.4
24.8
17.8
23.9
25.4
established by
-------
TABLE 5. EMISSIONS AND PERCENT REDUCTIONS IN SCENARIO 3, OPTIONS III, IV, V, AND VI UNDER
ALTERNATE A (kg/day)*
County
Butler Co.
Cuyahoga Co.
Franklin Co.
Hamilton Co.
Lake Co.
Lorain Co.
Lucas Co.
Mahoning Co.
Montgomery Co.
Stark Co.
Summit Co.
Trumbull Co.
Total - 12 counties
Clermont Co.
Geauga Co.
Greene Co.
Medina Co.
Warren Co.
Wood Co.
Total - 6 counties
Total - 18 counties
1977 198?
without I/M
26,495
144,270
68,261
91,740
25,506
10,132
31,713
20,390
39,894
26,149
42,177
20,772
547,499
11,668
4,330
5,720
8,040
12,938
9,563
52,259
599,758
10,676
54,544
26,477
40,072
9,393
3,659
11,605
7,344
14,534
9,158
15,571
7,358
210,391
5,530
1,531
2,111
3,360
6,719
3,792
23,643
233,434
Hydrocarbons
Carbon monoxide
Percent7 1987
1987 reduction between reduction lg?7
I/M 1977 and 1987, due to
I
8,407
43,085
20,193
32,458
7,403
2,909
9,315
5,891
11,758
7,233
12,407
5,876
166,945
5,445
1,491
2,053
3,305
6,582
3,672
22,548
189,493
'M plus FMVPC
68.3
70.1
70.4
64.6
71.0
71.3
70.6
71.1
70.5
72.3
70.6
71.7
69.6
53.3
65.6
64.1
58.9
49.1
61.6
56.9
68.4
I/M
21.3
21.0
23.7
19.0
21.2
20.5
19.7
19.8
18.1
21.0
20.3
18.0
20.9
1.5
2.0
2.7
1.6
2.0
3.2
2.0
18.8
1987
without I/M
Percent^ 1987
1987 reduction between reduction
I/M 1977 and 1987, due to
I'M
195,628
1,090,073
459,838
721,871
178,360
68,283
210,184
136,419
266,402
175,498
283,204
140,188
3,925,598
85,882
31,116
38,361
54,832
91,231
63,849
365,318
4,291,266
106,494
554,660
254,564
397,954
94,447
37,066
107,828
72,990
153,684
92,073
157,791
80,281
2,109,832
52,620
15,348
22,849
33,512
67,871
38,760
230,960
2,340,792
79,292
404,758
191,484
305,712
69,857
27,682
88,518
54,867
113,454
68,151
118,745
61,579
1,584,099
51,583
14,845
22,118
32,899
66,169
37,261
224,875
1,808,974
59
62
58
57
60
59
57
59
57
61
58
56
59
39
52
42
40
27
41
38
57
.5
.9
.4
.7
.8
.5
.9
.8
.4
.2
.1
.1
.7
.9
.4
.4
.0
.5
.7
.5
.9
I/M
25.6
27.0
24.8
23.2
26.0
25.3
17.9
24.8
26.2
26.0
24.8
23.3
24.9
1.9
3.3
3.2
1.8
2.5
3.9
2.6
22.7
*No reduction in light-duty truck emissions was included because credits for this particular vehicle category have yet to be established by EPA.
Appropriate adjustments will be made when the credits are made available.
"Reduction attributable to Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) and I/M.
-------
Tables 3 through 5 present much more detailed emissions and emission reduction
figures by county both in actual emission levels by volume and in percent
reduction levels with and without I/M programs. In the first three columns
for HC and CO actual emissions are given. The first column for HC and CO
shows total emissions in 1977, the base year. Next, the emissions expected
in 1987 without an I/M program are given. The lower figures for 1987 as
compared to 1977 are attributable to the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission
Control Program (FMVCP) and changes in VMT. The third column, 1987 I/M,
indicates the level of emissions that would occur with I/M in addition to
the FMVCP. The fourth columns (HC and CO) percent reduction between 1977
and 1987 I/M give the percent reduction for the total vehicle population
(not just the inspected vehicles) emissions that would occur as a result
of FMVCP, and an I/M program. Finally, the fifth columns, 1987 reduction
due to I/M, present the percent reduction on emissions from all vehicles
that is attributable to I/M in addition to the FMVCP. In other words, this
is the additional reduction above that which would have occured in 1987
without I/M.
Fuel Economy Benefits
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. This improvement in fuel economy varies somewhat from one program to
another but most sources agree that a 5 to 10 percent fuel economy improve-
ment for the failed and maintained vehicles can be expected.3 This may
understate the overall fleet improvement as some motor vehicle owners are
likely to schedule tune-ups just prior to having their cars inspected.
One of the purposes of I/M is to give an incentive to motorists to maintain
their cars better than they normally would in the absence of I/M.
A 7 percent fuel economy improvement was utilized in this study to
calculate the fuel savings from the I/M program options. With a stringency
(failure) rate of 30 percent, the amount of fuel saved averaged for the total
motor vehicle population will amount to a 2.1 percent of total fleet fuel
consumption. For a detailed discussion of the methodology used for calculating
fuel savings the reader is referred to Appendix B - Estimated Fuel Savings
Resulting from I/M in 1987. As shown below, for the 12 county Alternate A,
28,898,530 gallons of fuel would be saved in 1987. At $0.70 per gallon,
vehicle owners will save $20,228,970 which is approximately $11.80 per failed
vehicle. If coverage is extended to 18 counties as in Alternate A, motorists
will consume 31,844,630 fewer gallons than without I/M saving a total of
$22,291,241, which is approximately $11.85 per failed vehicle. The statewide
program coverage provides the largest savings of 37,171,280 gallons which
would amount to $26,019,896, which would be approximately $9.10 per failed
vehicle.
13
-------
ANNUAL FUEL SAVINGS (GALLONS)
Total Dollar savings Savings per
fuel savings at $0.70 gallon failed vehicle
Alternate A -
Alternate B -
Statewide
12 County
18 County
28,898,530
31,844,630
37,171,280
$20;228,970.00
$22,291,241.00
$26,019,896.00
$11.80
$11.85
$ 9.10
Comparison of Costs
The major cost components are summarized for all options in Table 6. In
the first four columns are shown the cost components for the urban areas only,
alternates A and B for Options I through VI. In Options I, III, and V the
higher contractor costs result from taxes, which increase annual operating costs
by over $1 million. However, when choosing between state and contractor run
facilities, fee differences due to taxes should not be considered, since taxes
are just transfers. The $1 million dollars that motorists pay the contractor
for taxes will reduce the government's revenue requirements by $1 million
dollars, and thus reduce taxes by $1 million. A second impact of taxes,
redistribution of revenue between governmental bodies, should be considered.
In particular, the loss of property tax revenue in communities with state-run
I/M facilities may be politically important.
In terms of the start-up costs there is a cost saving of approximately
$600,000 for a contractor approach in comparison to a state-run option. The
reason for this is that the implementation period for a contractor is about
1-1/2 years in comparison to 2-1/2 years for the state.
In the fourth and fifth columns the state costs to administer and conduct
surveillance of the private garage program in the rural areas are shown. The
totals in columns six through nine reflect the urban and rural areas costs.
Finally the last three columns show the costs to the state for administration
and surveillance of a statewide private garage program. These costs are shown
for three levels of participation. The first column is the minimum level of
participation, when approximately 18 percent of the total service stations,
garages, and car dealers participate. In the other two columns are shown a
midlevel, 33 percent and maximum level of 45 percent. As explained in detail
in Sections 4 and 10, these levels were derived on the basis of certain assumptions.
The minimum participation level represents the minimum number of garages needed
to actually conduct all the inspections working a full 8-hour day. As par-
ticipation increases there would be fewer cars inspected per station. At the
maximum participation level a participating station would just break even in
terms of the total revenues being equal to the total expenses including salaries,
overhead, analyzer costs, etc. The midlevel is a midpoint between the minimum
and maximum levels.
14
-------
TABLE 6. ANNUAL COSTS
I.
11.
III.
IV.
Annuallzed costs
Annualiied Capital Costs
1. Land
2. Building
3. Equipneat
Annualized Start-up Costa
Annual Operating Coats
Ammal Administrative Costa
Tocal Annual Costa
1, III, V (Contractor)
urban areas?
A
160,378
1,046,442
1,856,824
1,124,953
11,725,853
1,469,574
17,384,006
B
179,837
1,159,747
2.096,503
1,219,102
12,788,409
1,547,608
18,991,206
II, IT, VI
urban
A
160,378
1,046,422
1,856,824
1,259,981
10,667,013
1,469,576
16,460,194
(State- run)
areaa*
B
179,837
1,159,747
2,096,503
1.354,129
11,609.803
1.547,608
17,947.627
I. III.'
Rural areas
state costs
A
0
0
103,269
176.323
577.856
1,123 ,9 JO
1,981,368
B
0
0
87,601
157.745
496,788
970,920
1,713,054
Options
I
Total
A
160,378
1,046,422
1,960,093
1,301,276
12,303.709
2,593,496
19,365.374
B
179,837
1,159.747
2,184,104
1,376,847
13,285,197
2,518,528
20,704,260
II
Total
A
160.378
1,046,422
1.960,093
1,436,304
11.245,681
2.593,496
18,442,255
B
179,837
1,159,747
2.184,104
1,511,874
12,106,591
2. 712,93*
19.735,649
Min
103,008
47,502
33,236
898,685
2,409,777
2.712,938
6.205,146
VII!
Total
state costs
Mid
103,008
76,734
52,228
1,070,634
2,625,977
3,314,720
7,243,301
M«'
103,008
104,748
72.407
1,242,583
2,833,377
3.917,043
8.273,166
Interest rate assuaed to be 6 percent la absence of Inflation.
Urban areas - 12 Boat populous counties under Alternative A.
18 most populous counties under Alternative B.
Rural areas - counties not Included In urban areas.
TRural costs are the additional coats for providing state support of rural private garage inspection.
Does not include costs to the private garages.
Hlni»usi oldlevel and maziaHas levels of participation of private garages in the inspection process.
-------
In Table 7 are shown the comparison of possible fees. These are derived by
dividing total costs in 1978 dollars by average 1981 through 1987 vehicle popu-
lations. The fees are to be used only to compare the options and do not repre-
sent what a motorist would actually pay when the program is operational in 1981.
In comparing the urbanized areas' fees, it can be seen first that the fees
for Alternates A or B (12 and 18 counties) are very similar, only differing by
2 to 10 cents. The difference between the urban fees for the contractor or
state options is also small, 18 to 26 cents and this results primarily from
the taxes paid by the contractor, as discussed earlier.
TABLE 7. COMPARISON OF FEES*
Centralized lanes in urban areas
Options I, III, V Options II, IV, VI
Contractor State-run
Alternate A Alternate B Alternate A Alternate B
12-County 18-County 12-County 18-County
$3.43 $3.33 $3.17 $3.15
Private garages
Option Options I, II Options I, II Option VII
Alternate A Alternate B . ,
n -, , » statewide
rural areas only rural areas only
Participation
Level
Minimum
18%
Midlevel
33%
Maximum
45%
$2.88
$4.13
$5.88
$2.94
$4.20
$6.04
$2.92
$4.41
$5.87
*
Fees represent constant 1978 dollars in the absence of in-
flation. These figures are for comparison of options only and
do not reflect what the motorists would have to pay. An
annual interest rate of 0.06 is assumed.
16
-------
Options I and II differ from Options III and IV or Options V and VI in the
service provided in rural areas (the part of the state outside the urban areas
discussed above). Rural areas Options I and II require mandatory emission
inspection by private garages. In these two options, state incurs a cost of
about $0.64 to $0.86 per paid private garage inspection depending on the num-
ber of garages participating in the system. This cost covers the administrative
and monitoring network required to oversee the private garage operations. In
addition, the motorist incurs the cost of the actual inspection.
Option VII is a statewide private garage approach. As is the case in the
rural areas of Option I and II there are the state costs as well as the private
garage charge which together equal the private garage fee. As the level of
participation increases, the charge per vehicle increases to offset the fewer
number of vehicles being inspected. If there were a mechanism to insure that
the number of stations participating in inspections remained at a low level,
somewhere between the minimum and midlevels, then, the fees charged in rural
areas would equal the urban motorist fees for centralized state or contractor
stations. Alternatively, the urban fees could be raised to equal the expected
breakeven participation level. Limiting station participation levels through
high license fees or other means would be difficult to implement and potentially
unpopular. In reality some stations that would not breakeven on the inspection
fee would nevertheless be willing to participate in order to increase business
especially for the repairs needed for failed vehicles.
Except for the potentially higher fees for private garages in rural areas
of Option I, and II or in statewide garage Option VII, the costs and fees are
very similar among all options. Not shown are the state costs for the random
emission inspection program conducted in rural areas by the Ohio State Highway
Patrol in Options V and VI. The capital costs of these programs are estimated
to be approximately $827,500 in Alternate A and $703,500 for Alternate B while
the operating costs were estimated at $2,792,200 and $2,374,600 for Alternates A
and B, respectively. These costs would probably be paid for through state re-
venues as is the cost of the present random safety program.
The costs were also estimated for a loaded mode option which was like
Option III except for the test type. The fee calculations for the loaded test
indicates that it would cost approximately $0.20 more per inspection than the
comparable idle mode test looked at in Option III. This cost is due to the
addition of a dynamometer for each test lane. The test time is about the same
and consequently, the actual number of inspection lanes would be the same.
Also, the manpower requirements would be equal for either test type due to the
use of automated equipment. There is no need for additional personnel to per-
form the loaded mode test.
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 also have the potential of becoming political
17
-------
issues and hinder the legislative approval of one or more options. To dis-
cover what the potential impacts and issues might be, other states' I/M
programs were studied and the options themselves were analyzed.
The findings of the research on these impacts and issues are discussed in
detail in Section 12, Externalities: Indirect Impacts; Section 13, Legislative
Considerations in I/M Implementation; and Section 14, Comparison of Options.
A brief summary of some of the more salient issues is provided here.
Indirect Impacts—
There are several indirect impacts that do not relate to specific options
but would result from the implementation of any I/M program option. These
include 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 amount and nature of the benefit
would depend, of course, on the severity of air pollution prior to the imple-
mentation 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.1* There is not yet sufficient data to specify the exact
amount of this benefit to I/M programs, although there is currently research
underway to help establish some quantified relationships.
Under an I/M program, the public is required to make necessary repairs
so as to bring vehicles up to performance levels to pass the emissions test.
Studies indicate that average repair costs are in the range of $16 to $32 per
failed vehicle. Most repairs consist of carburator adjustment or a minor
tune-up. 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
hardships 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 increase demand for parts, especially tune-up
parts and emission controls. At the beginning of the I/M program, the increased
demand for repair work may cause some initial shortages, but with time should
become ameliorated.
18
-------
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 throughout the
population, 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 improvement in air quality, have other potential impacts which the public
may perceive as barriers and which may hinder the overall political acceptance
of the program. Such issues or impacts include the following:
• Impacts on low income citizens.
• Potential overcharging for repairs and performance of
unnecessary repair work.
• Problems of conflict of interest and uniformity of in-
spection 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. This
could potentially force people with marginal vehicles to give up the vehicle
faced with repiar costs that exceed the value of the vehicle. This problem
has been significantly ameliorated by instituting repair cost ceilings. Thus,
if the cost of the repairs needed to meet the standard excwed 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 on 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 options 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 degress 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 phase of I/M.
19
-------
Comparison of Manpower Requirements
Alternate A—
Table 8 summarizes manpower requirements for all the options. Options
III and IV, with smaller geographic coverage, require the fewest employees of
any of the centralized system options. Because of the rural private garage
networks incorporated in Options I and II, 52 more employees than for Options
III and IV are required to perform complaints investigation and inspection
and licensing functions. In Options V and VI, 212 state patrol employees are
required to carry out the random roadside pullover inspection program in rural
areas. Option VII requires by far the fewest state employees of all the
options, but it must be remembered that thousands of private garage employees
will also be required. Option VI has by far the greater number of state
employees.
Alternate B—
Table 9 summarizes manpower requirements for all the options. Manpower
requirements for Alternate B are all somewhat larger for all the centralized
options due to the larger geographic area covered. Option VI with 846 people
would have more state employees than any other option, although Options II and
IV with 710 and 664 would rank close behind.
20
-------
TABLE 8. MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS, ALL OPTIONS (NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES), ALTERNATE A
Level of employment
State Administrative
State Regional
State Local
Contractor State
Contractor Regional
Contractor Local
State Patrol
I II III
10 12 10
52 84
- 580
2 - 2
32 - 32
580 - 580
- _ _
IV V
12 10
32
580
3
32
580
212
VI
12
32
580
-
-
-
212
VII
(mid)
11
127
66
-
-
-
_
Random Pullover Program 676
Total - All 676 676 624 624 836 836 204
Total - State 62 676 10 624 222 836 204
(includes State Patrol)
TABLE 9. MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS. ALL OPTIONS (NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES), ALTERNATE B
Level of employment
State Administrative
State Regional
State Local
Contractor State
Contractor Regional
Contractor Local
VTT
I II III IV V VI , 7\
(mid)
10 12 10 12 10 12 11
46 80 - 34 - 34 127
618 - 618 - 618 66
2 - 2 - 2 -
34 - 34 - 34
618 - 618 - 618
State Patrol - - 182 182
Random Pullover Progrem
Total - All 710 710 664 664 846 846 207
Total - State 56 710 10 664 192 846 207
(includes State Patrol)
21
-------
REFERENCES
1. The areas not meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
were reported in the Federal Register. Volume 43, No. 43.
Friday March 3, 1978. p. 9026.
2. The National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards
were promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in
40 CFR 50; FR 22384, November 25, 1971; as amended by the Code
of Federal Regulations Volume 40, revised as of July 1, 1976;
41 FR 52686, December 1, 1976.
3. Personal communications with Bruce Everlane, U.S. EPA, Washington,
D.C. May, 1978.
4. Automotive Fleet. Benefits of an Inspection/Maintenance Program.
Reprinted for Hamilton Test Systems, Inc. July 1975.
22
-------
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Need for Inspection/Maintenance Programs
Recent ambient air quality data for the State of Ohio indicates widespread
and frequent violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for carbon monoxide (CO) and photochemical oxidants (Ox). These national
standards have been established in order to protect the health and welfare of
the population. Both CO and Ox are gases which in sufficient concentrations
in the atmosphere are potentially harmful to the public health. A major source
of CO and Ox in Ohio are the motor vehicles. Carbon monoxide is directly pro-
duced by gasoline-burning internal combustion engines and photochemical oxi-
dants are indirect products, formed through a complex series of atmospheric
reactions in which two other direct products of combustion, unburned gaseous
hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) combined in the presence of
sunlight. Inspection/maintenance programs are a cost-effective strategy to
reduce these emissions from motor vehicles. Other strategies that have been
suggested, such as restricting travel, are more difficult to enforce, tend to
reduce individual mobility and may require major changes in driving habits.
By significantly reducing the emission of HC and CO from in-use motor vehicles
in Ohio, an I/M program will enhance the likelihood of the attainment of NAAQS.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 have specific provisions that require
the establishment of inspection/maintenance programs. According to the U.S.
EPA, the state must submit by January 1979 revisions to its State Implemen-
tation Plan (SIP) which specifies methods to achieve the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. These methods include control of stationary sources of
air pollution and various transportation control measures whose objective is
to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and hence to reduce pollution by mobile
sources such as motor vehicles. If in these revisions, the state cannot demon-
strate attainment of the NAAQS by 1982 by using all reasonably available
pollution control measures, then, an extension to 1987 can be requested, if
several provisions are met. One such provision is the establishment of a
specific schedule for the implementation of an I/M program. Because it is
doubtful that the NAAQS can be attained in many areas of Ohio through other
measures, an I/M program is likely to be required.
23
-------
Background of This Study
The Ohio I/M Advisory Group was established in March 1978 to initiate
action on considering various possible I/M options and to select the option
most suited to the needs and desires of the State of Ohio. The Advisory
Group is composed of members of various agencies including representatives
of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Highway Safety
which includes the Bureau of Motor Vehicles and the State Highway Patrol, the
Department of Transportation, the Attorney General's Office, the Governor's
Office, and the Department of Energy.
The initial effort of the I/M Advisory Group was the development of back-
ground data regarding the technical and administrative aspects of I/M programs.
A summary report describing I/M program elements and other states' experience
in I/M and various technical memoranda were produced to assist in the selection
of a limited number of I/M options. The Advisory Group in April 1978 selected
seven I/M program options which will be described later in this section. The
purpose of this report is to analyze these seven options in terms of their
costs and benefits such that the Advisory Group may then select one option for
detailed study, which will constitute the final report of the overall work
program.
DESCRIPTION OF INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
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 (FMVCP). Under this pro-
gram, maximum emission rates were established for new vehicles, and manufac-
turers had to demonstrate, through an auditing program, that their vehicles
were in compliance with these emission limits. The emission standards speci-
fied by the FMVCP required progressively more stringent control of emissions
with each subsequent model year.
The FMVCP consists of three parts including certification of prototype
vehicles prior to actual production, selective enforcement testing of vehicles
at the assembly line, and testing of in-use vehicles around the country to
discover design defects in emission controls as well as to provide data to
recall vehicles with inadequate or defective emission devices. Federal testing
of in-use vehicles throughout the United States, unfortunately, has demon-
strated that motor vehicles are not meeting the emission standards for which
they are designed. The primary reasons the vehicles exceed the standards
include improper or inadequate maintenance, tampering, and defective emission
control devices. Regardless of the cause, it has become clear that some
in-use vehicle emission inspection programs are necessary to ensure that the
emission controls continue to operate as they were intended over their use-
ful life.
24
-------
Description of Inspection/Maintenance Programs
Inspection/maintenance programs, thus evolved through the need to ensure
that in-use vehicles meet the emission standards for which they were designed.
I/M programs consist of two basic components. In the inspection phase, the
motor vehicle exhaust emissions are measured and compared to a test standard
that relates to the model year of the vehicle. In the second phase, that is
maintenance, those vehicles failing to meet the applicable standards are
required to undergo repair or maintenance until the vehicle is able to
pass the test.
I/M is not a new strategy and much operation information has been
collected documenting the effectiveness of the program to reduce motor vehicle
emissions. Several states now have I/M programs in operation and several are
about to be implemented. A variety of approaches have been used to run I/M
programs, but the major types fall generally into 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).
In addition to these primary types, there can be combinations. For
example, a decentralized private system may also include one or several state-
run facilities as quality control measures and to discourage unethical or
ineffective testing or maintenance.
In Rhode Island, the system is the decentralized private garage approach
but the state has one publicly run "challenge station" which acts as a
referee to retest unsatisfied customers from any private station.
Each organizational approach has various advantages and disadvantages.
The centralized state-run or contractor approaches allow for greater accuracy
in testing, better quality assurance, and better consumer protection, but the
centralized cases incur higher capital costs. The decentralized private
garage approach, if properly planned may offer greater consumer convenience
but due to the lack of separation between the inspection and maintenance
function may offer less consumer protection. Also, there may be problems in
quality assurance due to variability in testing equipment and calibration
practices. The costs and benefits of the approaches are discussed in detail
in the sections on the options.
25
-------
Geographic Coverage
Another important issue in developing an I/M program concerns the geo-
graphical coverage of the program. In determining what area should be included
in the Ohio I/M program, several factors were considered. According to U.S. EPA
the minimum acceptable area for an I/M program includes urbanized areas with
population greater than 200,000 which have requested an extension to 1987 for
the attainment of CO and HC NAAQS. For enforcement purposes counties were
established as jurisdictional boundaries. The smallest geographical coverage
looked at were the 12 urban counties with population greater than 200,000 as
in Alternate A. In addition, since the urban area definition includes portions
of several adjacent counties where communter travel is significant, six more
counties were added, resulting in the 18 county Alternate B.
The 12 urban counties with population greater than 200,000 which would be
covered in Alternate A are listed below:
1. Butler County
2. Cuyahoga County
3. Franklin County
4. Hamilton County
5. Lake County
6. Lorain County
7. Lucas County
8. Mahoning County
9. Montgomery County
10. Stark County
11. Summit County
12. Trumbull County
The six adjacent urban counties included in Alternate B are as
follows:
1. Clermont County
2. Geauga County
3. Greene County
4. Medina County
5. Warren County
6. Wood County
The 12 urban counties with population greater than 200,000 and six addi-
tional counties are shown in Figure 2.
26
-------
The major issues which 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
Type of Emissions Test
An important issue in I/M programs concerns the type of emissions test,
idle or loaded-mode test. Basically, the idle-mode test consists of measuring
gases from the vehicle at constant idle speed or at idle after the vehicle
exhaust system has been purged by having it run at high idle (usually 2500 rpm)
In the loaded-mode test, the drive wheels are placed on a chassis dynamometer
which simulates actual driving conditions and the vehicle is driven at various
speeds, such as 50 mph, 30 mph and then allowed to idle. Exhaust gas measure-
ments are taken in each driving mode and at idle, although for the pass-fail
decision the idle measurement is commonly used. There are several variations
on the loaded-mode test, but the important distinctions concern the test
accuracy, diagnostic data provided by the test, its ability to measure various
exhaust gases, and the test time. If the idle test includes a high idle purge,
it is approximately equal to the loaded-mode test in its ability to identify
the vehicles exceeding the appropriate standards. The loaded-mode provides
superior diagnostic information by simulating actual driving conditions during
which many of the emission controls become active. Furthermore, the loaded-
mode test can identify nitrogen oxide gases which the idle test cannot, since
these gases are not easily detected at idle speed.
The loaded-mode may take 1/2 minute longer than the idle test, but if the
idle test includes a purging high idle period, they are approximately equal.
This issue of test time becomes critical when considering the design and cost
of a large centralized network of inspection stations, because the more effi-
cient and less time consuming test, other factors being equal, allows for a
shorter throughput capacity per lane. This allows for greater lane capacity
and the need to build fewer stations. A more detailed discussion of the
idle versus loaded-mode test is provided in Appendix G. In this appendix,
in addition to a discussion of the technical issues, a cost evaluation of an
insepction network identical to the contractor run centralized lane approach
analyzed in Option III, Section 6, has been included.
27
-------
LEGEND:
ALTERNATE A-12 URBAN COUNTJES WITH \
POPULATION > 200,000 A
*" I I ALTERNATE B- 18 URBAN COUNTIES
Figure 2. Urban counties in Ohio.
28
-------
THE SEVEN I/M PROGRAM OPTIONS
As indicated earlier, the Ohio I/M Advisory Group has selected seven
specific program options for evaluation. All seven options have in common
these elements:
• Idle mode testing
• Annual inspection
• Motor vehicle registration enforcement
• Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Motor
Vehicles as adminsitrative agencies
The seven options are shown in Table 10.
PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS
In order to evaluate the costs and benefits of the seven program options,
it was necessary to make certain assumptions about the option regarding certain
program variables. These assumptions are listed below:
• Inspection Frequency - Annual inspections will be performed
on a monthly staggered schedule.
• Stringency Factor - 30 percent of the vehicles inspected will
be failed and hence require reinspection. Consequently,
approximately 2.5 percent of the total vehicle population will
need reinspection monthly.
• 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.
• 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.
• Enforcement - For purposes of cost analysis, enforcement
through motor vehicle registration will be assumed.
A comparative analysis of sticker/ticketing versus motor
vehicle registration was conducted and this appears in
Section 16.
29
-------
TABLE 10. SEVEN OHIO I/M PROGRAM OPTIONS
• OPTION I
Statewide coverage
Contractor administers centralized lanes in urban areas
- Private garages in rural areas
• Alternate A - 12 urban counties - all counties with population
greater than 200,000
• Alternate B - 18 urban counties - 12 counties with population
greater than 200,000 plus 6 adjacent counties
• OPTION II
Statewide coverage
State administers centralized lanes in urban areas
Private garages in rural areas
• Alternate A - 12 urban counties
• Alternate B - 18 urban counties
• OPTION III
Urban counties only
Contractor administers centralized lanes
• Alternate A - 12 urban counties
• Alternate B - 18 urban counties
• OPTION IV
Urban counties only
State administers centralized lanes
• Alternate A - 12 urban counties
• Alternate B - 18 urban counties
• OPTION V
Statewide coverage
Contractor administers centralized lanes in urban areas
- State highway patrol conducts random inspection in rural areas
• Alternate A - 12 urban counties
• Alternate B - 18 urban counties
(continued)
30
-------
TABLE 10 (continued)
OPTION VI
Statewide coverage
State administers centralized lanes in urban areas
State highway patrol conducts random inspection in rural areas
• Alternate A - 12 urban counties
• Alternate B - 18 urban counties
OPTION VII
Statewide coverage
Private garage testing in urban and rural areas
State or contractor conducts surveillance/quality control
of garages
31
-------
BASIS AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
The basic intent of this report is to provide a comparative analysis of
the seven I/M program options selected by the Ohio I/M Advisory Group
which have been outlined above. The approach of the report focuses on the
costs, benefits, and manpower requirements of each of the seven program
options. To familiarize the reader with the basic methodologies by which
the benefits, costs, and manpower requirements were derived, Section 3,
has been provided. The discussion encompasses (1) basic techniques,
assumptions and data sources used to derive the costs associated with each
program option; (2) benefits associated with the I/M programs in general and
the specific benefits projected for Ohio; and (3) considerations used in
developing estimates of personnel or manpower requirements including both
the categories of personnel and organizational structure.
Sections 4 through 10 discuss the specific options themselves focusing
on costs and personnel requirements. The discussions are option specific
in each of these sections and are based on the methodologies defined in
Section 3. The methodologies by which the specific lane requirements
were derived appear in the first section in which a particular organizational
approach appears. Thus, for example, the methodology whereby the require-
ments for the contractor run centralized networks are derived appear in
Section 4. Also, as a split option with private garage testing in the
rural areas, the methodology for deriving the requirements for the
number of garages in the rural areas is also discussed in this section.
In the following sections, the reader will be referred back to this section
where appropriate to eliminate needless repetition of these methodological
considerations.
Section 11, "Benefits" describes the emission reduction and fuel economy
benefits which result from the various options. The emission reduction
benefits are basically the same for each option. Fuel economy benefits in
terms of fuel savings per vehicle are the same for each option, but the
aggregate fuel savings increases as the geographical coverage expands.
Section 12, "Externalities: Indirect Impacts" and Section 13, "Legislative
Considerations in I/M Implementation" deal with two important fields in eval-
uating the options and their potential impacts. Section 12, "Externalities:
Indirect Impacts" deals with impacts, costs and benefits which are indirect,
secondary, or somehow external to the primary effect of the I/M
program which is of course the reduction of motor vehicle emissions.
Impacts on the general population, impacts on vehicle owners, impacts
on the repair industry, and impact of test type are included. In some
cases the impact on the individual citizen or vehicle owner may be small
but in the aggregate very large. In other cases, the indirect impacts
are as yet poorly defined or the studies concerning them to date are
inconclusive. Also, for the most part these impacts are not option
specific, i.e., they either occur more or less uniformly over all options
or the differential effect is not measurable or not clearly related
to program elements. Even though difficult to measure, it was felt
that these issues needed clarification at this early planning stage
to identify them for study later in association with the detailed option
evaluation.
32
-------
Section 13, "Legislative Considerations in I/M Implementation" deals with
legislative, legal or political issues which may potentially become roadblocks
and which may adversely affect one or several options. Although the Ohio
Legislature has not yet become involved in this early comparative evaluation
stage, it was deemed important to look ahead based on an analysis of the
options themselves and other state's experience, and anticipate what kind
of problems or issues might be associated with one or another options.
Section 14 compares the seven options based on costs, benefits, manpower
requirements, and other qualitative considerations such as externalities or
legislative issues.
Section 15, "Public Information Programs" describes the general features
of I/M public information program elements and discusses the basis for the
cost estimates for public information included in the cost of each option.
Section 16 is a comparison of the motor vehicle registrations and the
sticker/ticketing procedures for the basic enforcement of I/M programs.
Section 17 discusses the issues concerning whether the state government
or a private contractor should conduct surveillance of the private garage
inspection system.
Section 18 is a glossary of technical terms.
The appendix includes a technical analysis of the cost and benefit
methodologies and an analysis of a loaded-mode option. This analysis looks
at both the technical aspects of both idle and loaded-mode and the costs
of a loaded-mode, centralized contractor-run option that is similar to
Option III, described in Section 6 of the text.
33
-------
SECTION 3
METHODOLOGIES
INTRODUCTION
This section provides a discussion of the factors used to analyze and
compose each I/M program option, namely:
1. Air Quality Benefits
2. Costs
3. Personnel/Manpower Requirements
The purpose of the discussion is to provide background information on
the assumptions and methodologies used to derive the costs and benefits of
each option.
Air Quality Benefits
The primary benefit associated with an I/M program is the reduction in
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions from mobile sources. To assess the
reductions from the I/M program being considered here, emission inventories
for 1977 and 1987 without I/M, and 1987 with I/M were prepared for each of
the 18 largest counties in Ohio. Comparison of the two inventories without
I/M indicates the general trend in vehicular emissions, taking into account
both increases in travel and a general decrease in the average vehicle emis-
sion rate with time resulting from the increased stringency of the Federal
Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program. The actual effectiveness of the I/M
program is seen by comparing the two inventories reflecting 1987 emissions.
The emission inventories were developed using EPA's Mobile I computer
routine. Credits for an I/M program are applicable only with mandatory
inspection. Thus for the scenarios considered in this report, credits are
applied to registered vehicles as follows:
34
-------
USE OF I/M CREDITS FOR VEHICLES REGISTERED IN VARIOUS COUNTIES
Option considered 12 counties 6 counties Remainder of state
Option III, IV, V, VI
with Alternative A
Option III, IV, V, VI
with Alternative B
Option I, II with
applied
applied
applied
not applied
applied
applied
not applied
not applied
applied
Alternative A or B
and Option VII
When the vehicles registered in a particular county are subject to mandatory
inspection, there is still travel in that county by vehicles registered in
counties without mandatory inspection. Thus for options that do not include
mandatory inspection statewide, travel is divided between inspected and
uninspected vehicles using U.S. Census Journey to Work Data. A complete
description of the development of the inventories used in this report is
provided in Appendix A.
In using Mobile I, several assumptions were made about the nature of the
I/M program. As indicated previously, the I/M stringency level is at 30
percent and mandatory maintenance is required of failed vehicles. Since
credits are presently available only for autos, autos are the only vehicles
subject to I/M credits. Other assumptions were: inspection of vehicles
between 1 and 13 years old, that the program is fully implemented by the end
of 1982, and that temperature is 75°F. The last assumption yields inventories
for a typical July day when daily emissions are most acute.
COSTS 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 11.
All the costs specified in Table 11 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 11, there are three primary elements
associated with these costs.
35
-------
TABLE 11. OUTLINE OF PROGRAM COST CATEGORIES AND ELEMENTS
Primary category
Principal Element
Items included
1. Initial Capital Costs
II. One-Time Start-Up Costs
Ml. Annual Operating Costs
i V. Annua I Admi nistrative Costs
1. Land investment
2. Building investment
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. Actual land cost
b. Pavement and landscaping
a. Construction cost
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 personne1
a. Wages, benefits, etc.
a. Equipment
a. Hlectric
b. Heat
c. Insurance
d. Miscellaneous
e. Taxes
a. Wages, overhead
36
-------
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 Ohio Department of Economic and Community Development, based
on the general requirements for each option in terms of lot size and configu-
ration, access, zoning, etc., and were verified by private contractors who
have built similar facilities.
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 submitted to
the Ohio Department of Transportation 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 administra-
tive areas is 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 Ohio Department of Transportation examined the most
recent building cost figures for buildings of similar construction. Then,
these figures based on five Ohio Department of Transportation (O.DOT) projects
(four in 1971 and one in 1972) were updated to reflect 1978 costs. For mid
1978, the average cost figure was estimated at $27.75 per square foot. This
value was used in the building cost evaluations for all centralized lane
facilities. These estimates shown in Table 12 were developed on a statewide
basis and broken down into three major subcategories: major metropolitan,
50,000 (core city) and rural. All the centralized lanes in Ohio being located
in urbanized counties were considered as major metropolitan or core city, the
majority being major metropolitan. Costs were reported in ranges and an
average cost.
Improvements to land including pavement and landscaping are also included
in this category. Standard estimates for pavement and landscaping of $0.80
per square foot and $0.25 per square foot, respectively, were used.
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.
37
-------
TABLE 12. ESTIMATED VALUE FOR COMMERCIALLY-
ZONED LAND IN OHIO
. Cost average Cost range
Population of county (ft2) (ft2)
Major metropolitan
50,000 (core city)
Rural
$0.92
$0.34
$0.23
$0.57-1.95
$0.28-0.46
$0.18-0.34
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
startup. Costs associated with this category are perhaps the most difficult
to define 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.
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 associated 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.
38
-------
Data Handling Software—
Regardless of the option selected for implementation, a data software
package will be required to provide both basic recordkeeping and program
analysis functions. Two cost estimates were derived for initial software
development. For the centralized lanes, with fully automated data handling
capabilities and minicomputers, representatives of several computer companies
as well as companies who have put together emission testing plus computerized
data handling systems were consulted. An average cost of $200,000 was esti-
mated for a centralized system. For private garages, a manual data handling
system would be required that ties in with the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles
registration data system computer. The Bureau of Motor Vehicles estimated
that for any tie-in with the system being currently developed regardless of
the size of the system - whether it be for the rural areas or for a statewide
system - an initial software development cost of approximately $67,000 would
be necessary.
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 and mechanics
from the private sector who will be performing the required maintenance. It
is hoped that the maintenance phase of I/M programs is generally phased 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. Already in Ohio there are 11 instructors who
have participated in a workshop offered by Colorado State University, the
university which has specialized in .the development of in-depth, comprehensive
programs in emissions training for instructors, inspectors, and mechanics
involved in inspection/maintenance programs. These instructors now teach
emissions inspection and automotive emissions repair and maintenance at
vocational/technical schools and career development campuses as well as adult
education centers. They are available to both set up special emissions
inspection/maintenance courses as well as to train other instructors.
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 (l) 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.
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 instruc-
tor, investigator, and inspector/mechanic would be $53.00, $43.00, and $16.00,
respectively.
39
-------
Personnel Salaries—
The literature and interviews with both officials from states with existing
I/M programs and private contractors involved in I/M program operation, indi-
cate that for centralized programs, the managerial, support, and technical
personnel should be phased into the program prior to beginning mandatory inspec-
tion. This phase-in would bring managerial personnel in 6 months prior to start-
up, while inspectors would begin 1 month before the mandatory phase. Support
personnel would be phased-in throughout this period. During this period, per-
sonnel would become familiar with their specific job functions and general pro-
cedures. This phase could include voluntary inspection, 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 equipment 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 requirement
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 cen-
tralized facility options, respectively. For the private garage option, ad-
ministration 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 for 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 Ohio. Consequently,
there will be variations among the options because the vehicle population
varies between the urban area only and statewide options.
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.
Facility Personnel—
Annual determinants of costs associated with the operation of the inspec-
tion faiclities 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.
40
-------
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 Ohio Department of Adminis-
trative Services, Division of Personnel, and the overhead estimates were
based on data from the U.S. Department of Labor and State data, and from con-
versations 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 replacement 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 operat-
ing 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.
TOTAL COST METHODOLOGY
In order to compare the cost of the various options, all costs found in
Table 11 are converted into annual figures. Appendix E contains a complete
description of the metholology used. The more salient points follow.
41
-------
Initial Capital Costs
The capital costs found in Table 11 occur at the beginning of the pro-
ject. These costs - expressed in constant 1978 dollars - are converted to
annual cost - also in 1978 dollars - by use of amortization factors. Amorti-
zation factors are determined for each of the three subclasses of capital
costs - land, structures, and equipment. Different amortization factors
arise from the various life expectancies of the three kinds of investments.
Land yields services in perpetuity. Thus the amortization factor (or
yearly cost of one dollar of land investment) is the marginal rate of return
on capital, i. The marginal rate of return on capital is the interest rate
in an economy without inflation. This rate ranges from 0.03 to 0.06 depending
on the source of financing - equity, debt, or taxes.
Structures last 20 years and yield equal services during each year of
their life. Thus the annual cost of each dollar invested in building
i
is — .
Equipment lasts 5 years and yields equal services for each of the 5 years,
Thus annual cost of each dollar invested in equipment is .
One-time Start-up Costs
One-time start-up costs, like capital costs, occur at the beginning of
the project. The start-up costs are recouped over the first 5 years of the
project. Thus the annual cost of each dollar of expenditure is the same as
for capital equipment, — .
Annual Operating and Administrative Costs
These costs are already presented as annual amounts. These figures are
added to the annualized capital start-up costs, so as to arrive at the annual
cost of the whole project.
Fee Calculations
A fee, fc, has been calculated for each option by dividing the total
annualized costs by the average motor vehicle population, 1981 through 1987.
This assumes a free reinspection for each of the failed vehicles. The 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. Consequently, these fees are for
purposes of comparing the options only and would not reflect what the
motorist would actually have to pay during the years 1981 through 1987.
42
-------
A realistic fee will be estimated in the Phase III report after the Ohio
Advisory Group selects one option for a more detailed analysis. In Appendix E
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.
Interest rates used with 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 inappropriate
here.
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 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 of 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, (2) one
manager and one assistant manager for each facility, and (3) one equipment
maintenance person for every three emission inspection facilities. 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 pri-
vate 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, other states operational programs of a similar
scope and nature, and previous studies of I/M programs. The Ohio I/M program
administration was formulated to fit with the existing Ohio EPA system.
A schematic diagram of an organizational network is presented in Figure 3.
This figure indicates that the I/M program would be coordinated by an adminis-
trator who would oversee actions of supporting services and station operations
sections. Each of these sections would be headed by a respective assistant
administrator. The supporting services assistant in addition to supervising
the legal, financial, engineering, and mechanic training officers, would be
responsible for assisting the administrator in policy decisions. The station
operations assistant would supervise regional managers and be directly respon-
sible for overseeing the operation of state-operated challenge lane facilities
(if utilized).
43
-------
1 ADMINISTIUTOft I
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOI
ran
STATION OPERATIONS
Figure 3. Administrative network Option II.
-------
The legal counsel position, probably handled either by the Ohio EPA's
Legal Counsel or the Ohio Attorney General's Office, would assist the admin-
istration 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 acquisi-
tion 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 accoun-
tant would be in charge of keeping records of all financial transactions in-
volved 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 facilities
within each geographic district which would correspond to the five Ohio EPA
districts. In the urban area only options, III and IV, only the Southeast
EPA District would not have a corresponding I/M district. In all the other
options, I, II, V, VI, and VII, there would be regional administrators and
other regional personnel for each I/M region. The Ohio EPA district offices
are shown in Figure 4. In addition to overall administration, the I/M
regional managers would direct surveillance of operations and calibration of
test equipment, as well as preparing budget requirements for the 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.
45
-------
NWOO-NORTHWEST DISTRICT OFFICE
SWDO - SOUTHWEST DISTRICT OFFICE
CDO-CENTRAL DISTRICT OFFICE
NCDO -NORTHEAST DISTRICT OFFICE
SEDO -SOUTHEAST DISTRICT OFFICE
Figure 4. Ohio EPA district offices,
46
-------
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.
All of the above descriptions of administrative personnel apply to all
the options. However, in the split options I and II in which private garages
are used in rural areas and in option VII, statewide private garage option,
the inspection and licensing officials are the investigators or surveillance
people who visit each station to check equipment calibration, audit records,
etc. Separate organization charts will be included in the option descriptions
themselves to clarify these differences.
Personnel Costs
The costs for operating and administrative personnel were derived from
the Ohio Revised Code 124.152 which lists the state civil service salary
schedule. Essentially, I/M program personnel titles were matched with existing
state positions as closely as possible. Salary levels used were those for
"starting" personnel. There is one notable exception. The station managers
duties included considerably more than the most comparably listed state position,
Specifically, the manager would be involved in many aspects of computer opera-
tion necessary in a highly automated facility. It was for this reason that
the station managers salary was assumed started at 25 percent more than the
comparable position classification.
47
-------
REFERENCES
1. Personal communication with Donald F. Cort, Data Systems Administrator,
Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Columbus, Ohio, June 1978.
48
-------
SECTION 4
OPTION I - • STATEWIDE COVERAGE
• CONTRACTOR ADMINISTERS
CENTRALIZED LANES IN URBAN AREAS
• PRIVATE GARAGES IN RURAL AREAS
ALTERNATE A - 12 URBAN COUNTIES
ALTERNATE B - 18 URBAN COUNTIES
OPTION DEFINITION
This option involves a private contractor establishing a network of
centralized well mode test lanes in either 12 urban counties with population
greater than 200,000 (Alternate A) or in 18 urban counties (Alternate B), which
consists of the 12 urban counties mentioned above plus 6 adjacent urban counties.
In the remaining rural counties; i.e. outside of the 12 or 18 urban counties,
emission inspection would be conducted in a decentralized network of private
garages, new car dealers, and service stations. The Ohio Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and Bureau of Motor Vehicles are the administrative agencies.
Ohio EPA would have overall administrative control of the contractor as well as
overseeing the private garages. In Section 17 there is a discussion on the re-
lative advantages and disadvantages of having the state or a private contractor
oversee the private garages in the rural areas. The Bureau of Motor Vehicles
would be primarily responsible for enforcement in this option. In the motor
vehicle registration approach to obtain a valid annual motor vehicle registration
the motor vehicle must have passed the emission inspection. In Section 16 there
will be a discussion of motor vehicles registration enforcement versus the
Sticker/Ticketing method.
NETWORK REQUIREMENTS
In order to derive the basic network requirements in this option for both
the centralized lane and the private garages, it is necessary to determine the
number of motor vehicles included in the inspection program and thus , to pro-
ject these figures for 1982 and 1987.
Motor Vehicle Population
Motor vehicle registration data was obtained from the Ohio Motor Vehicle
Registry for the most recent year available, 1975. The data for this year was
broken down into these categories: passenger cars, trucks, farm trucks, trailers,
49
-------
house vehicles, motor cycles, dealers, buses, church buses, public owned, and
total registration. Inspection/maintenance requirements include inspection of
all gasoline passenger vehicles and gasoline light duty trucks less than 8500
pounds gross vehicle weight. In order to estimate the number of 1975 base
year vehicles in these categories the following assumptions were made relative
to Ohio Motor Vehicle Data:
• all "passenger cars" will be inspected
• 75 percent of the category "trucks or gasoline light duty
vehicles less than 8500 Ib GVW" will be included
• 80 percent of the "farm trucks" category estimated to be
less than 8500 Ib GVW will be included
• all publicly owned vehicles will be included; few vehicles in
this class would exceed 8500 Ib GVW
• all "trailers," "house vehicles," "motor cycles," "dealers,"
"buses," and "church buses" will not be included because they
are either not required e.g. trailers or motor cycles or
largely over 8500 Ib GVW e.g. house trailers
In light of these assumptions the data was aggregated for 1975. Next the
motor vehicle populations were projected to 1982 and to 1987. A growth rate
of 3 percent per year was used to project motor vehicle populations based on
recent trends in the state and the nation.
The following discussions describe how using this motor vehicle registra-
tion data the centralized network and the private garage network were derived.
Centralized System
The assumed stringency factor throughout this analysis is 30 percent, mean-
ing that the program is designed to fail 30 percent of the vehicles tested.
Assuming that all failed vehicles would have to be retested before registration,
the actual number of inspections to be performed is 30 percent higher than the
number of individual vehicles required to participate in the program. The actual
number of inspections, then, is 1.3 times the affected vehicle population, as
shown in Table 13 for both the 12- and 18-county urban area alternatives. By
making various assumptions about the throughput capabilities of a single cen-
tralized facility inspection lane, the number of such lanes for each of the
urban counties can be derived. The assumptions are as follows:
• One vehicle enters the inspection lane every two minutes. This
figure was derived from studies of existing facilities in several
states' program
50
-------
TABLE 13. ANNUAL NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS REQUIRED BY
COUNTY FOR 1987, CENTRALIZED SYSTEM
County
Butler
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
12-County Total
Clermont
Geauga
Greene
Medina
Warren
Wood
18-County Total
Number of annual inspections
270,500
1,775,900
968,100
947,700
248,000
318,400
541,800
343,600
680,700
428,700
619,400
293,200
7,436,000
132,800
84,900
150,600
122,700
106,300
115,000
8,148,300
51
-------
• Inspection facilities in urban counties are open for business
44 hr/wk, 52 wk/yr. This is a reasonable estimate based on
actual operating times being used in Arizona and other states.
• An efficiency factor of 0.67 would be used to account for
random arrival of motorists, equipment down time, etc.
Several studies have coroborated this estimate. Hamilton Test
Systems, Inc. which runs the program in Oregon also agrees with
this figure as being reasonable.
Then the number of vehicles that can be inspected by one centralized lane
per year is:
(30 cars/hour)(44 hours/week)(52 weeks/year)(0.67) = 45,989 vehicles
A detailed analysis of the individual tasks associated with the testing
remains in centralized facilities and experience from similar programs in other
states indicates that throughput time is 2 minutes. This means that the annual
capacity for each inspection lane is almost 46,000 vehicles, as indicated
above. The number of such lanes required for each of the urban counties, then,
is the number of annual inspections divided by the lane capacity; the actual
lane requirements are shown in Table 14.
The desirable allocation of inspection facilities throughout each county
was determined based on identifying lane requirements for (1) the population
center, or core city within an urban county, and (2) the rest of the county,
using the following guidelines:
• Single-lane stations should be avoided due to their relatively
low level of cost-effectiveness compared to multilane facilities;
and
• 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 larger
than six lanes
Facilities required to handle core city populations were sited within these
cities while the remaining facilities were sited in towns or cities that are
most accessible to the remainder of the county. The resulting distribution of
facilities, by size and by location (municipality) is shown in Tables 15
and 16.
52
-------
TABLE 14. TOTAL CENTRALIZED INSPECTION
LANES REQUIRED TO SATISFY
1987 URBAN INSPECTION DEMAND
County Numbers
Butler
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
12-County Total
C lermont
Geauga
Greene
Medina
Warren
Wood
18- County Total
of lanes required
6
39
21
21
6
7
12
8
15
10
14
7
166
3
2
4
3
3
3
184
53
-------
TABLE 15. INSPECTION NETWORK REQUIREMENTS FOR OPTION I -
ALTERNATE A - 12-COUNTY
County
Butler
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Kami 1 ton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
„ Number of
Town . . - . .
facilities
Hamilton
Middletown
Cleveland
Cleveland
Co lumbus
Columbus
Cincinnati
Norwood
Mentor-on-the-Lake
Painsville
Lorain
Elyria
Toledo
Youngs town
Ellsworth
Dayton
Englewood
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Cuyahoga Falls
Warren
Niles
1
1
6
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Configuration
3 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
Total network
35
166 lanes
54
-------
TABLE 16. INSPECTION NETWORK REQUIREMENTS FOR OPTION -
ALTERNATE B, 18-COUNTY
County
Butler
Clermont
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Geauga
Green
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain'
Lucas
Mahoning
Medina
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Warren
Wood
Number of
Town , -,...•
facilities
Hamilton
Middletown
Batavia
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Char don
Fairborn
Cincinnati
Norwood
Mentor-on-the-Lake
Painsville
Lorain
Elyria
Toledo
Youngs town
Ellsworth
Medina
Dayton
Englewood
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Cuyahoga Falls
Warren
Niles
Lebanon
Bowling Green
1
1
1
6
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Configuration
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
Total network
41
184 lanes
55
-------
Decentralized Systems
In establishing network requirements for a decentralized system of private
inspection stations in rural counties, the vehicle population to be tested was
estimated using the same assumptions as those used for the centralized system
in urban counties as shown earlier.
Assuming a steady 3 percent per year growth rate in vehicle registrations,
the 1987 vehicle population will be divided between urban and rural counties
as shown in Table 17.
TABLE 17. VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS IN URBAN
AND RURAL AREAS, 1987
Number of registrations
12-County urban 18-County urban
alternative , alternative
Urban
Rural
Statewide
Total
5,720,000
3,839,700
9,559,700
6,267,900
3,291,800
9,559,700
Making the same assumption about test stringency in rural areas as in ur-
ban, 30 percent more inspections than actual registrations will be required,
as shown in Table 18.
TABLE 18. VEHICLE INSPECTIONS REQUIRED IN URBAN AND
RURAL AREAS, 1987
Number of inspections required
Location
Alternate A - 12 County Alternate B - 18 County
Urban 7,436,000 8,148,300
Rural 4,991,600 4,279,300
Statewide total 12,427,600 12,427,600
There are thousands of private garages in the rural counties of Ohio
which could potentially serve as motor vehicle emissions inspection stations.
Rather than arbitrarily choose an "optimum" number of such stations to com-
prise a rural I/M network, minimum and maximum levels of private garage
participation were derived by making certain assumptions about private garage
performance and profitability. Somewhere in the range of participation be-
tween these minimum and maximum levels is the level at which a network of
56
-------
private garages can reasonably be expected to operate; the average of the mi-
nimum and maximum levels (the "mid" level) has been chosen for analysis as one
such participation level.
Minimum Rural Private Garage Network—
The formula below was used to calculate private participation in an I/M
network:
G =
DN
where G = the number of garages required to participate in an I/M program
I = the total number of inspections to be performed per year
D = the number of inspection days per year
N = the number of vehicles inspected by each garage per day.
Thus, G, the number of garages, and N, the daily throughput per garage, are
inversely related. If I and D are held constant, then maximizing N will re-
sult in a minimum value for G, or the minimum network required to perform
inspections. By making reasonable assumptions about inspection efficiency,
and therefore the daily throughput rate of private garages, minimum values
for G can be calculated as follows:
• All reinspections of failed vehicles are performed by private
garages
• One work-day = 8 hours
• One work-year = 250 days
• The maximum possible throughput for a private garage with one
HC/CO analyzer and one person performing inspections is one
vehicle every 15 minutes. In an 8-hour day, if inspections
are performed continuously, this means that (8 hours)x(4 vehicles/
hour) = 32 vehicles can be inspected.
• An efficiency factor of 0.67 to account for equipment downtime,
mechanic lunch breaks, random motorist arrival, etc. The daily
throughput thus becomes (32 vehicles/day)x(0.67) = 21 vehicles
per day, or 5,250 vehicles per year. Substituting this through-
put for N in the above formula, yields the results shown in
Table 19.
57
-------
TABLE 19. MINIMUM PRIVATE GARAGE NETWORK
IN RURAL AREAS
Urban area alternative Number of garages
12-County 951
18-County 815
The following two characteristics are useful in describing a private
garage network:
• Service Area Radius:
Assume no motorist need drive more than a certain distance, R,
to an inspection station. Assuming cars and garages are
spread evenly across the landscape, this distance R is the
radius of the service area of the station, and irR2 is its ser-
vice area. Given a certain number of garages within a given
area, R can be calculated by the formula:
where R = service area radius
A = given geographical area
IT = 3.14159...
G = number of garages in area A.
• Market Participation:
where P = market participation, expressed as a percentage
G = number of private garages serving as inspection
stations in a given area
T = total number of private garages within the same
area.
Table 20 shows the service area radius and the market participation le-
vels for the minimum private garage network derived above:
58
-------
TABLE 20. SERVICE AREA RADIUS AND MARKET PARTICIPATION
RATE, MINIMUM RURAL PRIVATE GARAGE
NETWORK
TT , ,^ . Service area Market participation
Urban area alternative ,. f -\ /°,\
radius (mi) rate (%)
12-County
18-County
3.45
3.58
18.0
17.6
Maximum Private Garage Network—
As the number of private garages increases, the service area and through-
put rate for each garage will decline. The number of licensed inspection sta-
tions can increase beyond the minimum network described above. There is,
however, a constraint on the total number of such stations that can exist at
any one point in time. Private garages are motivated to participate in an I/M
program by the potential profits which they can make by charging for inspec-
tions. The minimum revenue from I/M participation that is acceptable to pri-
vate garages would be the costs they incur in performing inspections, as shown
in Figure 5 below:
COSTS
NUMBER OF PARTICATING STATIONS
Figure 5. Market factors affecting private garage participation.
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 5. 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
59
-------
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>ob. pi = $751.88
[0. 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.
substituting and solving for M:
M = (A + S + L + 0)
= A + (4/3) (H) (W) (D) + L
(C - F)
recalling the formula:
G ~ DN
60
-------
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 neces-
sary 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.
Tables 21a and 21b reveal 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, for both the 12- and 18-county urban area
alternatives.
A reasonable combination of variables would be an inspector wage rate of
$5.50 per hour and a 4-hour inspection day; a break-even throughput of 1,819
vehicles per station per year results. Table 22 shows the maximum network
participation for both the 12- and 18-county urban area alternatives using the
above assumptions.
Table 23 shows the service area radii and market participation rates
associated with the above maximum levels.
Taking the average of the above-derived minimum and maximum participation
levels yields what will be referred to as the "mid" level in the cost analysis
of this option. Information concerning this "mid" level of participation is
summarized in Table 24.
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. In order to determine the costs
for this combined option, one which has both centralized state run lanes in
the urban areas and private garages in the rural areas, it was necessary to
make some assumptions in the distribution of costs:
• Initial start-up costs would be paid for only by urban motor
vehicle owners. These costs, including land investment,
building investment, and equipment costs for central lanes
add up to a very large amount and would raise the rural fee
making it difficult for a private garage to break even without
charging a fee higher than the one derived for the centralized
lanes.
• One-time start-up costs would be paid for by the urban motor
vehicle owners. It would be administratively difficult to
estimate some of the costs attributable solely to the rural
61
-------
TABLE 2la. MAXIMUM PRIVATE GARAGE PARTICIPATION
(NUMBER OF GARAGES) - 12-COUNTY URBAN
AREA ALTERNATIVE
Hours per Inspector hourly wage rate
day spent
on inspections $4.50 $5.50 $6.50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
7,342*
4,485
3,229
2,523
2,070
1,755
1,523
1,345
6,432*
3,825
2,719
2,111
1,725
1,458
1,262
1,113
5,722*
3,330
2,348
1,814
1,477
1,246
1,078
949
*
The number of garages indicated here ex-
ceeds the total number of rural garages;
this combination of hours and wages is
therefore not feasible.
TABLE 21b. MAXIMUM PRIVATE GARAGE PARTICIPATION
(NUMBER OF GARAGES) - 18-COUNTY URBAN
AREA ALTERNATIVE
Hours per Inspector hourly wage rate
day spent
on inspections $4.50 $5.50 $6.50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
6,294*
3,845
2,768
2,163
1,775
1,505
1,305
1,153
5,514
3,278
2,332
1,810
1,479
1,250
1,082
955
4,906*
2,855
2,013
1,555
1,266
1,068
924
814
*
The number of garages indicated here ex-
ceeds the total number of rural garages;
this combination of hours and wages is
therefore not feasible.
62
-------
TABLE 22. MAXIMUM PRIVATE GARAGE PARTICIPATION
IN RURAL AREAS
Urban area alternative
Number of garages
12-County
18-County
2,111
1,810
TABLE 23. SERVICE AREA RADIUS AND MARKET PARTICIPATION
RATE, MAXIMUM RURAL PRIVATE GARAGE NETWORK
„ , , . Service area Market participation
Urban area alternative , • /• • \ ,_ f°/\
radius (mi) rate (%;
12-County
18-County
2.32
2.40
40.1
39.1
TABLE 24. PRIVATE GARAGES IN RURAL AREAS: MID
PARTICIPATION LEVELS
Urban area
alternative
12-County
18-County
Number of
garages
1,531
1,313
Service area
radius (mi)
2.72
2.82
Market
participation
rate (%)
29.1
28.3
63
-------
garage program. Those clearly attributable to the rural
garage program would not raise the fees more than a few cents.
• Annual operating costs are solely costs related to operation
of the centralized lanes.
• Annual administrative costs would be summed for both centralized
and rural garage administration.
Capital Costs
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 floor area size 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 Tables 25 and 26.
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 27.
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 28. The actual improvement costs asso-
ciated with each facility are shown in Tables 29 and 30.
Building 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 $27.75 per square foot
to construct, regardless of which of the centralized facility options is con-
sidered. The problem, then, in developing an estimate of the building cost
for any specific option is reduced to one of defining the basic size of the
building.
For this option, an analysis of the specific inspection tasks (including
equipment required) was made to define the general features required of an
inspection facility. Literature searches and interviews with individuals in-
volved in operating similar programs, were then contacted, which resulted in
being able to define the specific building requirements and to dimension the
various work areas. A conceptual floor plan for the basic type of facility
64
-------
TABLE 25. LAND COSTS FOR EACH FACILITY IN OPTION I - ALTERNATE A, 12-COUNTY
County
Butler
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Loraim
Lucas
Maboning
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Total
Municipality
Hamilton
Middletown
Cleveland
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Columbus
Cincinnati
Cincinnati
Norwood
Mentor on the Lake
Painsville
Lorain.
Elyrla
Toledo
Young s town
Ellsworth
Dayton
Englewood
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Akron
Cuyahoga Falls
Warren
Niles
Facility
configuration
3 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
Number of
facilities
1
1
3
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total
building area
(ft2)
7,785
7,785
47,070
47,070
7,785
15,690
31,380
7,785
31,380
15,690
7,785
7,785
7,785
10,185
7,785
31,380
15,690
5,615
31,380
7,785
15,690
10,185
15,690
15,690
5,615
10,145
7,785
Land area
(ft2)
38,925
38,925
235,350
235,350
38,925
78,450
156,900
38,925
156,900
78,450
38,925
38,925
38,925
50,925
38,925
156,900
78,450
28,075
156,900
38,925
18,450
50,925
78,450
78,450
28,075
50,925
38,925
Unit cost
o f land
($)
0.92
0.92
0.34
0.92
0.92
0.34
0.92
0.92
0.34
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0. 2
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.34
0.92
0.92
0.92
Total land
cost ($)
35,811
35,811
80,019
216,522
35,811
26,673
144,348
35,811
53,376
72,174
35,811
35,811
35,811
46,851
35,811
144,348
72,174
25,829
144,348
35,811
72,174
46,859
72,174
26,673
25,829
46,851
35,811
1,675,296
-------
TABLE 26. LAND COSTS FOR EACH FACILITY IN OPTION I - ALTERNATE B, 18-COUNTY
County
Butler
C lerroont
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Geauga
Green
Hami Iton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Medina
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Warren
Wood
Total
, . Facility
Municipality .- . .
configuration
Hamilton
Middletown
Ba tavia
C leveland
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Columbus
Chardon
Fairborn
Cincinnati
Cincinnati
Norwood
Mentor on the Lake
Painsville
Lorainc
Elyria
Toledo
Youngstown
Ellsworth
Medina
Dayton
Englewood
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Akron
Cuyahoga Falls
Warren
Niles
Lebanon
Bowling Green
3
3
3
6
6
3
6
6
3
2
4
6
6
3
3
3
4
3
6
6
2
3
6
3
6
4
6
6
2
4
3
3
3
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
Number of
facilities
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total
. - , , . Land area
building area rr^2\
(ft?) (ft '
7,
7,
7,
47,
47,
7,
15,
31,
7,
5,
10,
31,
15,
7,
7,
7,
10,
7,
31,
15,
5,
7,
31,
7,
15,
10,
15,
15,
5,
10,
7,
7,
7,
785
785
785
070
070
785
690
380
785
615
185
380
690
785
785
785
185
785
380
690
615
785
380
785
690
185
690
690
615
185
785
785
785
38,
38,
38,
235,
235,
38,
78,
156,
38,
28,
50,
156,
78,
38,
38,
38,
50,
38,
156,
78,
28,
38,
156,
38,
78,
50,
78,
78,
28,
50,
38,
38,
38,
925
925
925
350
350
925
450
900
925
075
925
900
450
925
925
925
925
925
900
45f
075
925
900
925
450
925
450
450
075
925
925
925
925
Unit cost _ , ,
, , . Total land
of land .„.
,,, cost ($)
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.34
0.92
0.92
0.34
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.34
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.96
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.34
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
35,
35,
35,
80,
216,
35,
26,
144,
35,
25,
46,
53,
72,
35,
35,
35,
46,
35,
144,
72,
25,
35,
144,
35,
72,
46,
72,
26,
25,
46,
35,
35,
35,
1,891,
811
811
811
019
522
811
673
348
811
829
851
346
174
811
811
811
851
811
348
829
811
348
811
174
859
174
673
829
851
811
811
811
218
-------
TABLE 27. PAVEMENT AND LANDSCAPING
REQUIREMENTS FOR OPTION B
FACILITIES, ft2
Facility Total Paved
configuration area area
1
2
3
4
5
6
lane 18,550 6,215
lane 28,075 12,430
lane 38,925 18,645
lane 50,925 24,725
lane 64,175 30,940
lane 78,450 37,020
Landscaped
area
8,625
10,030
12,495
16,015
20,400
25,740
TABLE
28. LAND IMPROVEMENT COSTS FOR INSPECTION
FACILITY SITES UNDER
OPTION I
Facility Pavement Landscaping
configuration costs costs
1 lane
2 lane
3 lane
4 lane
5 lane
6 lane
$ 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
$36,051
67
-------
TABLE 29. LAND IMPROVEMENTS COST FOR FACILITIES UNDER OPTION I -
ALTERNATE A - 12-COUNTY
oo
County
Butler
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Total
Municipality
Hamilton
Middletown
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Cincinnati
Norwood
Menter-on-the-Lake
Painsville
Lorain
Elyra
Toledo
Youngs town
Ellsworth
Dayton
Englewood
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Cuyahoga Falls
Warren
Niles
. . , , Cost per
Facility Number of faciuty
configuration facilities ,<,^
3 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
1
1
6
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
18,040
18,040
36,051
18,040
36,051
18,040
36,051
18,040
18,040
18,040
23,784
18,040
36,051
36,051
12,452
36,051
18,040
36,051
23,784
36,051
12,452
23,784
18,040
Total
improvements
($)
18,040
18,040
216,306
18,040
108,153
18,040
108,153
18,040
18,040
18,040
23,784
18,040
72,102
36,051
12,452
72,102
18,040
36,051
23,784
72,102
12,452
23,784
18,040
997,676
-------
TABLE 30. LAND IMPROVEMENTS COST FOR FACILITIES UNDER OPTION I
ALTERNATE B, 18 COUNTY
County
Ikitler
Clermont
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Geauga
Green
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Medina
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trurabull
Warren
Wood
Total
. . , . Facility
Municipality ...
configuration
Hamilton
Middletown
Batavia
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Chardon
Fairborn
Cine innat i
Norwood
Mentor on the Lake
Painsville
Lorain
Elyria
Toledo
Youngs town
Ellsworth
Medina
Dayton
Englewood
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Cuyahoga Falls
Warren
Niles
Lebanon
Bowling Green
3
3
3
6
3
6
3
2
4
6
3
3
3
4
3
6
6
2
3
6
3
6
4
6
2
4
3
3
3
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
Number of
facilities
1
1
1
6
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Cost per
facility ($)
18
18
18
36
18
36
18
12
23
36
18
18
18
23
18
36
36
12
18
36
18
36
23
36
12
23
18
18
18
,040
,040
,040
,051
,040
,051
,040
,452
,784
,051
,040
,040
,040
,784
,040
,051
,051
,452
,040
,051
,040
,051
,784
,051
,452
,784
,040
,040
,040
Total
improvements ($)
18
18
18
216
18
108
18
12
23
108
18
18
18
23
18
72
36
12
18
72
18
36
23
72
12
23
18
18
18
1,106
,040
,040
,040
,306
,040
,153
,040
,452
,784
,153
,040
,040
,040
,784
,040
,102
,051
,452
,040
,102
,040
,051
,784
,102
,452
,784
,040
,040
,040
,072
-------
required for safety, noise, and emission testing is shown in Figure 6.
Although Figure 6 shows a one-lane facility, the total floor area for a mul-
tilane 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 31 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 $27.50 per square foot. The actual cost
estimate for the facilities, then, can be computed. These are shown in
Tables 32 and 33.
Equipment costs for any facility configuration, then, can be derived from
Tables 32 and 33. A summary of equipment cost as a function of the facility
configuration is shown in Table 34.
TABLE 34. EQUIPMENT COSTS AS A
FUNCTION OF FACILITY
CONFIGURATION FOR
OPTION I
Number of lanes Equipment cost ($)
1 107,500
2 135,000
3 162,500
4 190,000
5 217,500
6 245,000
The total cost for equipment can now be computed based on the number of
facilities by configuration, developed previously. These costs are shown in
Tables 35 and 36. 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 I, it is estimated that twelve maintenance/calibration vans
would be required. The estimated unit cost for the van plus calibrating gases
and equipment is $14,000. The total cost, then, is $168,000.
An additional 25 vans are required for inspection and licensing officials,
costing a total of $350,000.
A cost of $38,500 was suggested by a contractor from another state for
installation of security systems.
A cost of $85,000 was included to cover 17 Complaint Investigators cars,
estimated to cost $5,000 each.
70
-------
i
J
3
i
>
f
o*
V
w
s
o
i
w
A
3_
*
^
•»
•
•
a
PI
<2
PI
-»
I
PI
•
M
3
9
C
0
«
-t
O
X
I
H
i
PI
XXX
"^i"1 c 2
fi Z X
Pi o C
ri 1 m O
hU z 3*0,
-~ Sx>
x« §_H
'1 *i*
o • « PI
H • C "»-
8 *S
n »
x *
?!
X
55
2 r
> PI ni
5 > r
P — o o ~l
•< —to o o >
&• X — C PI _j
D (/> ' z —
ml' 229
r> -» r s z
_a <• r CA
^1 IT • W»
o z - M
1
i
w*
XXX ~ ? ^ ^ _|
T 1 a 'S?
3| " c ^ Z
i : §§«,
v
REST ROOMS
85ft2
STORAGE ond UTILITY
325 ft2
EMPLOYEE REST AREA
o
300ft2
ADMINISTRATIVE
1000 ft2
WAITING /COUNCILLING
500 ft2
1
7!
\
, i
5
TOTAL TEST AREA'1,900 ft2 NONTEST AREAt2£IOft2
TOTAL BUILDING AREA =3,710 ft 2
Figure 6. Conceptual floor plan for an idle mode inspection facility.
71
-------
TABLE 31. BUILDING FLOOR AREA FOR VARIOUS FACILITY CONFIGURATIONS - OPTION I
Configuration Test area
1-lane
2-lane
3- lane
4- lane
5- lane
6- lane
1,500 ft2
3,000
4,500
6,000
7,500
9,000
Administration
1,000 ft2
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
Floor area
required (ft2)
Employee rest Storage
300 ft2
330
375
400
450
480
325 ft2
350
375
400
425
425
Waiting
500 ft2
850
1,450
2,300
3,375
4,700
Restrooms
85 ft2
85
85
85
85
85
Total
3,710 ft2
5,615
7,785
10,185
12,835
15,690
-------
TABLE 32. BUILDING COST ESTIMATES FOR OPTION I - ALTERNATE A
12-COUNTY
County
Butler
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Man on ing
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Total
Facility
configuration
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
Per facility
cost ($)
216,034
435,398
216,034
435,398
216,034
435,398
216,034
216,034
282,634
216,034
435,398
435,398
155,816
435,398
216,034
435,398
282,634
435,398
155,816
282,634
216,034
Number of
facilities
required
2
6
1
3
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Total cost
($)
432,068
2,612,388
216,034
1,306,194
216,034
1,306,194
216,034
432,068
282,634
216,034
870,796
435,398
155,816
870,796
216,034
435,398
282,634
870,796
155,816
282,634
216,034
12,027,834
73
-------
TABLE 33. BUILDING COST ESTIMATRS FOR OPTION I - ALTERNATE B
18-COUNTY
County
Butler
Clermont
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Geauga
Greene
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Medina
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Warren
Wood
Total
Facility
configuration
3
3
6
3
6
3
2
4
6
3
3
4
3
6
6
2
3
6
3
6
4
6
2
4
3
3
3
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
lanes
Per facility
cost ($)
216
216
435
216
435
216
155
282
435
216
216
282
216
435
435
155
216
435
216
435
282
435
155
282
216
216
216
,034
,034
,398
,034
,398
,034
,816
,634
,398
,034
,034
,634
,034
,398
,398
,816
,034
,398
,034
,398
,634
,398
,816
,634
,034
,034
,034
Number of -r f i
facilities (*^
required
2
1
6
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
432
216
2,612
216
1,306
216
155
282
1,306
216
432
282
216
870
435
155
216
870
216
435
282
870
155
282
216
216
216
13,330
cost
,068
,034
,388
,034
,194
,034
,816
,634
,194
,034
,068
,634
,034
,796
,398
,816
,034
,796
,034
,398
,634
,796
,816
,634
,034
,034
,034
,420
74
-------
TABLE 35. EQUIPMENT COSTS FOR OPION I - ALTERNATE A, 12-COUNTY
County
Butler
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Total
Central
Town
Kami Iton
Middletown
C leve land
Cleveland
Columbus
Co lumbus
Cincinnati
Norwood
Mentor-on-the-Lake
Painsville
Lorain
Elyra
Toledo
Youngs town
Ellsworth
Dayton
Englewood
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Cuyahoga Falls
Warren
Niles
computer
Facility
t (in I i ^.nr.'il inn
3 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lane:;;
4 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
Number of
facil i ties
tequired
1
1
6
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Equipment
cost per
1 m i 1 i t y
($)
162,500
162,500
245,000
162,500
245,000
162,500
245,000
162,500
162,500
162,500
190,000
162,500
245,000
245,000
135,000
245,000
162,500
245,000
190,000
245,000
135,000
190,000
162,500
Maintenance/calibration vans
Security system;!
Inspec t
ion/ licensing vans (14
Complaints Investigators cars
, 000 ) ( 2 5 )
(5,000)(17)
Total cost
of e<|iii pnient
($)
162,500
162,500
1,470,000
162,500
735,000
162,500
735,000
162,500
162,500
162,500
190,000
162,500
490,000
245,000
135,000
490,000
162,500
245,000
190,000
490,000
135,000
190,000
162,500
7,365,000
250,000
168,000
(8,500
350,000
85,000
8,256,500
75
-------
TABLE 36. EQUIPMENT COSTS FOR OPTION I - ALTERNATE B, 18-COUNTY
County Town
Butler Hamilton
Middletown
Clermont Batavia
Cuyahoga Cleveland
Cleveland
Franklin Columbus
Columbus
Geauga Chardon
Greene Fairborn
Hamilton Cincinnati
Norwood
Lake Mentor-on-the-Lake
Pains vi 1 le
Loraim Lorain
Elyra
Lucas Toledo
Mahoning Youngstown
1'! 1 l.swortli
Medina Medina
Montgomery Dayton
Enj'li'woocl
Stark Canton
Alliance
Summit Akron
Cuyahoga Falls
Trumbull Warren
Niles
Warren Lebanon
Wood Bowling Green
Total
Central computer
Maintenance/calibration vans
Security systems
Inspection/licensing official
Complaints Investigators cars
Facility
configuration
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
2 l.llll'H
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
vans (21)
(15)
.. , , Equipment
Number of M K
.- . , . . cost per
facilities . ...
. facility
required ... '
1
1
1
6
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
162,500
162,500
162,500
245,000
162,500
245,000
162,500
135,000
190,000
245,000
162,500
162,500
162,500
190,000
162,500
245,000
245,000
ns.ooo
162,500
245,000
162,500
245,000
190,000
245,000
135,000
190,000
162,500
162,500
162,500
Total cost
of equipment
($)
162,500
162,500
162,500
1,470,000
162,500
735,000
162,500
135,000
190,000
735,000
162,500
162,500
162,500
190,000
162,500
490,000
245,000
135,000
162,500
490,000
1 f>2 , 500
245,000
190,000
490,000
135,000
190,000
162,500
162,500
162,500
8,340,000
250,000
196,000
45,100
294,000
75,000
9,200,100
76
-------
One-Time Start-Up Costs
Land Acquisition—
Land acquistion 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
tje purchase price to cover the costs associated with conveying the title.
This is computed for Alternates A and B below:
Alternate A = (35 sites x $6,000) + (0.10) (1,675,294) = $377,529
Alternate B = (41 sites x $6,000) + (0.10) (1,891,218) = $435,122
Program Design—
Based on an analysis of likely requirements for Ohio I/M program
and experiences in other states program estimates were derived of $100,000
for the centralized lane program and an additional $75,000 for the private
garage program in the rural areas. The total program would cost $175,000.
Data Handling Software—
Based on discussions with computer systems analysts, an estimate of
$200,000 was developed for the centralized lanes. For the rural areas, an
additional $67,000 would be needed for batch mode software development. The
total software development would then be $267,000 for the entire state.
Facilities Planning—
It is assumed that the cost of facilities planning will be equal to
10 percent of the buildings cost or $1,202,783 for Alternate A, and $1,333,042
for Alternate B.
Personnel training—
As indicated in Section 3, an initial intensive training effort is re-
quired prior to program startup. The personnel requirements for each facility
was determined from discussions with state and private contractors involved
with I/M programs. The allocation of personnel for the centralized facilities
are:
» One manager and one assistant manager per facility
• Three inspectors per test lane
• One maintenance/calibration person for every three facilities
• One investigator for every region (five in total).
Additional personnel to be trained for the private garage supervision are:
• One inspection and licensing official for 70 garages
• One complaints investigator for every 100 garages.
The basic operating personnel requirements for Option I are:
77
-------
Alternate A
35 managers
35 assistant managers
5 investigators
12 maintenance/calibration people
478 inspectors - centralized lanes
25 inspection/licensing officials
17 complaints investigators
627
Alternate B
41 managers
41 test managers
5 investigators
14 maintenance/calibration people
522 inspectors - centralized lanes
21 inspection and licensing offcials
15 complaints investigators
659
The training costs per individual as discussed in Section 3, are $53.00
for instructors, $43.00 for investigators, and $16.00 for emissions inspectors.
Assuming that (1) managers need to be trained at the instructors level,
(2) investigators, inspection and licensing officials, and claims investiga-
tors need training at the investigator level, and (3) assistant managers,
maintenance calibration personnel and inspectors need training at the emission
inspector level, then the costs of training may be calculated, as shown in
Table 37.
Personnel Salaries—
Assuming (1) that all managerial personnel would be phased ^nto 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
$15,000 per year ($1,250 per month), (b) for assistant managers is $13,000
per year ($1,083 per month), (c) maintenance/calibration persons is $12,000
per year ($1,000 per month), and (d) for inspectors is $9,000 per year $1,000
per month). The total test personnel for startup can be derived. This is:
78
-------
TABLE 37. COST OF TRAINING OPTION I
VO
1.
2.
3.
Instruction level
Instructor level
$53.00 each
Investigator
$43.00 each
Emission inspectors
$16.00 each
Total
Job titles
Manager
Investigator
Inspect ion/ licensing
Claims investigator
Assistant Manager
Maintenance calibration
Inspectors
Numb e r of
Alternate
A
35
47
545
627
positions
Alternate
B
41
41
577
659
Costs ($)
Alternate
A
1,855
2,021
8,720
12,595
Alternate
B
2,175
1,763
9,232
13,170
-------
Alternate A:
(35 managers) ($1,250/month) (6 months) = $ 262,500
+ (35 assistant manager) ($1,083/month) (6 months) = 227,500
+ (12 maintenance/calibration people) ($1,000/
month) (1 month) = 12,000
+ (498 inspectors) ($750/month) (1 month) = 373,500
$ 875,500
+ Overhead @ 25 percent 218,875
Total $1,094,375
Alternate B:
(41 managers) ($1,250/month) (6 months) = $ 307,500
+ (4 assistant managers) (1,083/month) (6 months) 266,418
+ (14 maintenance/calibration) ($1,000/month)
(1 month) = 14,000
+ (522 inspectors) ($750/month) (1 month) = 391,500
$ 979,418
+ Overhead @ 25 percent 244,855
Total $1,224,273
The administrative personnel costs must also be included in the start-up
phase. The administrative personnel needed in this option are discussed at
the end of this section under manpower requirements. As discussed in the
methodology section, salaries are based in correlations with existing civil
service pay levels. Based on these salary levels for the 18-month period
including a 25 percent overhead, the total administrative personnel costs for
Option I both Alternates A and B, are $853,164.00.
Public Relations—
As explained in Section 3, the cost for initial start-up public relations
would be approximately $0.12 per vehicle to be tested or $1,498,920 for
Alternates A and B.
The total starting costs for Option I, Alternates A and B, are summarized
in Table 38.
80
-------
TABLE 38. START-UP COSTS FOR OPTION I
Land acquisition
Facilities Planning
Data Handling Software
Program design
Test personnel salaries and overhead
Administrative salaries and overhead
Initial public relations
Personnel training
Total
Alternate A
$ 377,529
1,202,783
267,000
175,000
1,094,375
853,164
1,498,920
12,595
5,481,366
Alternate B
$ 435,122
1,333,042
267,000
175,000
1,224,273
853,164
1,498,920
13,170
5,799,691
Facility Personnel—
Based on the facility staffing requirements and annual salaries asso-
ciated with job category, the annual personnel costs can be computed. This
estimate for 12- and 18 county alternatives are shown in Tables 39 and 40.
Maintenance—
Primary costs for maintenance reflect equipment repair, replacement, and
preventive maintenance. The yearly cost of these items was estimated to be
20 percent of the original cost of facility equipment:
• Alternate A
(7,365,000) (0.20) = $1,473,000 annually
• Alternate B
(8,340,000) (0.20) = $1,668,000 annually
Utilities, Services, Supplies
Utilities—
Annual cost for utilities were derived from electric usages experienced
by other states. For Option I these were found to be 120 kWh/day per lane,
plus 325 kWh/day per facility. Per kilowatt costs were obtained from several
utilities companies and were found to be $0.05 kWh. The annual costs, then,
for utilities are calculated below:
81
-------
TABLE 39. ANNUAL PERSONNEL COSTS FOR FACILITY PERSONNEL -
OPTION I, ALTERNATE A
Job title
Manager
Assistant Manager
Maintenance/Calibrators
Inspectors
Total salaries
Overhead @ 25 percent
Total number
of positions
35
35
12
498
Annual
salary
($)
15,000
13,000
12,000
9,000
Total annual
salary for
all positions
($)
525,000
455,000
144,000
4,482,000
5,606,000
1,401,500
7,007,500
TABLE 40. ANNUAL PERSONNEL COSTS FOR FACILITY PERSONNEL -
OPTION I,
ALTERNATE B
Job title
Manager
Assistant Manager
Calibration/Maintenance
Inspectors
Total salaries
Overhead @ 25 percent
Total number
of positions
41
41
14
522
Annual
salary
($)
15,000
13,000
12,000
9,000
Total annual
salary for
all positions
($)
615,000
533,000
168,000
4,698,000
6,014,000
1,503,500
7,517,500
82
-------
Alternate A - 12 Counties
(166 lanes)(120 kWh/day)($0.05)(250 operating
days per year) = $ 249,000
+ (35 facilities)(325 kWh/day)($0.05)(250 operat-
ing days per year) = 142,188
Total utilities cost annually $ 391,188
Alternate B - 18 Counties
(184 lanes)(120 kWh/day)($0.05)(250 operating
days per year) = $ 276,000
+ (41 facilities)(325 kWh/day)(250 operating
days per year) = 166,563
Total utilities cost annually $ 442,563
Insurance—
The owner of the centralized facilities would be required to carry liabi-
lity and property insurance. Based on experiences of other states, it would
cost approximately $1,500 per lane. Using this figure, total insurance costs
for Alternates A and B are computed below:
Alternate A: (166 lanes) ($1,500 = $249,000
Alternate B: (184 lanes) ($1,500) = $276,000
Computer Operation and Test Forms—
Based on experience of other states, central computer operation costs for
the centralized facilities have been estimated at $0.15 per test, and forms
at $0.03 per test. The annual cost for the centralized facilities then can be
easily computed, and are:
Alternate A = $1,338,475
Alternate B = $1,466,690
The additional cost for data handling for cars tested in the private
garages are as follows:
Alternate A Alternate B
Data entering $148,960 $129,360
Posting, storage, tape drive: 179,208 155,628
$328,168 $284,988
The total data handling cost, then, is the sum of costs for centralized
facilities, and private garages. They are:
83
-------
Alternate A: $1,338,475
328,168
$1,666,643
Alternate B: $1,466,690
284,988
$1,751,678
Calibration Costs—
The recurring cost of equipment calibration is defined as the cost of
calibration gases plus the operating cost of maintenance/calibration vans.
The total annual calibration costs for Option I are outlined in Table 41
for Alternates A and B.
TABLE 41. ANNUAL CALIBRATION COSTS FOR OPTION I
Item Cost ($)
Gases (20 sets per year at $200 per set) 4,000
Maintenance on vans 2,800
Insurance on van and equipment 1,000
Fuel, oil, etc. 1,000
Per calibration van 8,800
Alternate A = 12 vans = $105,600
Alternate B = 14 vans = $123,200
Taxes—
The annual cost for real estate and personnel property taxes were calcu-
lated based on full valuation rates for each municipality in which stations
are to be located. Total annual taxes were found to be:
Alternate A (12 counties): $1,058,028
Alternate B (18 counties): $1,178,606
These are broken down for specific municipalities in Appendix I.
Uniforms—
Based on the experience of other states, an annual cost of $125.00 per
uniformed employes is assumed. For Option I this cost is computed below:
Alternate A (622 unfiormed employes)($125) = $77,500
Alternate B (684 uniformed employes)($125) = $85,500
84
-------
Security Systems—
The annual cost of maintaining security systems, based on experiences of
other states, was assumed to be $850 per facility. The annual cost, thus can
be computed for Alternates A and B:
Alternate A: (35 facilities) ($850) = $29,750
Alternate B: (41 facilities) ($850) = $34,850
Inspection and Licensing Vans
The annual cost of operating the Inspection/Licensing Vans is assumed to
be the same as the annual cost of maintenance/calibration van operating, or:
$8,800 each. The total cost, then, for operation of Inspection/Licensing Vans
is computed below:
Alternate A: (25) ($8,800) = $220,000
Alternate B: (21) ($8,800) = $184,800
Complaints Investigators Cars
The cost of operating complaints investigators cars was assumed to be
$0.15/mile, and it was assumed that they would be operated over 10,000 miles
annually or $1,500 each. The total cost can be computed for Alternates A
and B:
Alternate A; ($1,500) (17) = $25,500
Alternate B: ($1,500) (15) = $22,500
The total cost for Utilities, Services, and Supplies are summarized for
Alternates A and B in Table 42.
TABLE 42. ANNUAL COST FOR UTILITIES, SERVICES, SUPPLIES
Utilities
Insurance
Computer Operations and Forms
Calibration
Taxes
Un i f o rms
Security
Inspection/Licensing Vans
Complaints Investigator
Alternate A
$ 391,188
249,000
1,666,643
105,600
1,058,028
77,500
29,750
220,000
25,500
Alternate B
$ 442,563
276,000
1,751,678
123,200
1,178,606
85,500
34,850
184,800
22,500
Total $3,823,209 $4,099,697
85
-------
Annual Administrative Costs
The annual costs of Administrative Personnel were computed using the job
titles described in Section 3, and salaries form Ohio Department of Adminis-
trative Services, Division of Personnel. The total cost for Alternates A and
B were found to be $1,093,776 and $1,018,776, respectively. These figures
include an overhead cost of 25 percent of the salaries.
Personnel Training—
Based on experiences of other states, it is assumed that a turnover of
10 percent of the inspectors or 50 new inspectors for Alternate A and 52 for
Alternate B, is expected annually. This relates to an annual cost of training
new inspectors of $800 for Alternate A and $832 for Alternate B. This is
based on a $16 per inspector charge derived earlier.
Public Information—
The annual cost of public information is again assumed to be $0.12 per
vehicle to be tested, or $1,498,920 annually for both Alternates A and B.
Cost Summary
The total costs for Option I are summarized in Tables 43 and 44.
FEE. COMPUTATION
The fee to be charged a motorist for an emissions inspection in Option I
for either urban area alternate will not necessarily be the same in rural areas
as in urban areas. In this option, urban area motorists will be required to pay
a fee that reflects the total annual costs incurred by the centralized, urban
system. Rural area motorists will be charged a fee that is made up of two com-
ponents: (1) a state fee, called the "sticker fee," which reflects the total
an nual costs incurred by the state for administration of the I/M program in
the rural counties, and (2) a private garage charge, called the "private garage
fee," which will be used to defray equipment, labor, and other costs incurred
by a private garage in performing emissions inspections.
Urban Motorist Fee Calculation
Tables 45, 46, 47, and 48 summarize the urban motorist fee calculation
for social rates of discount i = 0.03 and i = 0.06 for both urban area alter-
nates, using appropriate amortization rates as discussed in Section 3. The
motor vehicle population used to calculate the urban motorist fee is the
average 1981-1987 vehicle population. This assumes a free retest.
Rural Sticker Fee Calculation
The sticker fee charged to the rural motorist in Option I will be equal
to the total annual costs incurred by the state divided by the total rural
registrations; note that it is assumed that retests of failed vehicles in rural
areas will be performed free of charge. Tables 49, 50, 51, and 52 present the
rural sticker for calculation for social rates of discount i = 0.03 and
i = 0.06 for both urban area alternates, using appropriate amortization rates
as discussed in Section 3.
86
-------
TABLE 43. COST SUMMARY OPTION I - ALTERNATE A
00
-vl
Primary category
Initial Capital Costs
One-Time Start-Up Costs
Annual Operating Costs
Annual Administration 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
(includes vans, computer,
security systems)
Land acquisition
Facilities planning
Program design
Development of data handling
system software
Personnel training
Personnel salaries
and overhead
Initial public information
program
Facility personnel
Maintenance
Utilities, services, supplies
Program administrative salaries
Public information
Training
Element
cost ($)
2,672,968
12,027,834
8,256,500
377,529
1,202,783
175,000
267,000
12,595
1,947,539
1,498,920
7,007,500
1,473,000
3,823,209
1,093,776
1,498,920
800
Total category
cost ($)
22,957,302
5,481,366
12,303,709
2,593,496
-------
TABLE 44. COST SUMMARY OPTION I - ALTERNATE B
Primary category
Principal element
Total category
cost ($)
do
oo
Initial Capital Costs
One-Time Start-Up Costs
Annual Operating Costs
Annual Administrative Costs
1. Land investment 2,997,290
2. Building investment 13,330,420
3. Equipment costs 9,200,100
(includes vans, computer,
security systems) 25,527 ,810
1. Land acquisition 435,122
2. Facilities planning 1,333,042
3. Program design 175,000
4. Development of data handling 267,000
system software
5. Personnel training 13,170
6. Personnel salaries 2,077,437
and overhead
7. Initial public information 1,498,920
program 5,799,691
1. Facility Personnel 7,517,500
2. Maintenance 1,668,000
3. Utilities, Services, Supplies 4,099,697 13,285,197
1. Program administrative 1,018,776
salaries
2. Public information 1,498,920
3. Training 832 2,518.528
-------
TABLE 45. URBAN MOTORIST FEE CALCULATION, OPTION I,
i = 0.03, ALTERNATE A
Cost class
Capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Start-Up Costs
Operating Costs
Administrative Costs
Urban motorist fee =
„ _ fe,\ Amortization Annualized
Cost (i?) ,.,-.
factor cost (.?;
2,672,968 0.03
12,027,834 0.067
7,821,500 0.2184
4,738,640 0.2184
11,725,853
1,469,576
$16,824,618
5,200,000
80,189
805,865
1,708,216
1,034,919
11,725,853
1,469,576
= $3.24
89
-------
TABLE 46. URBAN MOTORIST FEE CALCULATION, OPTION I,
i = 0.03, ALTERNATE B
Cost class
Capital Costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Start-Up Costs
Operating Costs
Administrative Costs
Urban motorist fee =
„ ^ /
-------
TABLE 47. URBAN MOTORIST FEE CALCULATION, OPTION I,
i = 0.06, ALTERNATE A
Cost class
Capital Costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Start-Up Costs
Operating Costs
Administrative Costs
Urban motorist fee
x.,\ Amortization Annualized
C°St ($) factor cost ($)
2,672,968 0.06
12,027,834 0.087
7,821,500 0.2374
4,738,640 0.2374
11,725,853
1,469,576
$17,834.006
5,200,000
160,378
1,046,422
1,856,824
1.124,953
11,725,853
1,469,576
$3.43
91
-------
TABLE 48. URBAN MOTORIST FEE CALCULATION, OPTION I,
i = 0.06, ALTERNATE B
Cost class
Capital Costs
1 . Land
2. Building
3 . Equipment
Start-Up Costs
Operating Costs
Administrative Costs
Urban motorist fee
Cost ($) Amortization
factor
2,997,290 0.06
13,330,420 0.087
8,831,100 0.2374
5,135,224 0.2374
12,788,409
1,547,608
$18,991,206
5,700,000
Annual ized
cost ($)
179,837
1,159,747
2,096,503
1,219,102
12,788,409
1,547,608
= $3.33
92
-------
TABLE 49. RURAL STICKER FEE CALCULATION, OPTION I,
i = 0.03, ALTERNATE A
Cost class
Capital Costs
1 . Land
2. Beuildings
3 . Equipment
Start-Up Costs
Operating Costs
Administrative Costs
Rii-ra1 c t*-i r»lr*ai- fc*a
_ ._ fe,\ Amortization
Cost ($) _ .
factor
0 0.03
0 0.067
435,000 0.2184
742,724 0.2184
577,856
1,123,920
$1,958,991
Annual ized
cost ($)
0
0
95,004
162,211
577,856
1,123,920
3,500,000
= $0.56
93
-------
TABLE 50. RURAL STICKER FEE CALCULATION, OPTION I,
i = 0.03, ALTERNATE B
Cost class
Capital Costs
1. Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Startup Costs
Operating Costs
Administrative Costs
Rural sticker fee
,*^ Amortization
Cost ($) , ..
factor
0 0.03
0 0.067
369,000 0.2184
664,000 0.2184
496,000
970,000
= $1,693,418
Annualized
cost ($)
0
0
80,590
145,120
496,788
970,000
3,000,000
$0.56
94
-------
TABLE 51. RURAL STICKER FEE CALCULATION, OPTION I,
i = 0.06, ALTERNATE A
Cost class
Capital Costs
1 Land
2 . Buildings
3 . Equipment
Start-Up Costs
Operating Costs
Administrative Costs
Rural sticker fee =
,t,^ Amortization
Cost 1.9; ..
factor
0 0.06
0 0.087
435,000 0.2374
742,724 0.2374
577,856
1,123,920
$1,981,368
3,500,000
Annualized
cost ($)
0
0
103,269
176,323
577,856
1,123,920
= $0.57
95
-------
TABLE 52. RURAL STICKER FEE CALCULATION, OPTION I,
i = 0.06, ALTERNATE B
Cost class
Capital Costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Start-Up Costs
Operating Costs
Administrative Costs
RiiT-fll et-nrke-r fc*(* =
Cost ($) Amortization
factor
0 0.06
0 0.087
369,000 0.2374
664,469 0.2374
496,788
970,920
$1,713,054
Annualized
cost ($)
0
0
87,601
157,745
496,788
970,920
3,000,000
$0.57
96
-------
Private Garage Fee Calculation
The fee charged by private garages for performing an emissions inspection
will be based on those cost factors discussed in the derivation of the three
private garage network participation levels and on annual station throughput.
The formula used to determine the total rural inspection charge, C, is the
following:
M
where all the above cost variables are assigned the same values as those used
previously. By dividing the total number of paid rural inspections (here
assumed to be the same as registration levels since retests of failed vehicles
are assumed to be free) by the total number of garages in the mid network
(since this is the network assumed in all the preceding cost analysis), annual
throughput rates per station for this network can be calculated. Substituting
these throughput rates for M in the above equation, and using all the cost
assumptions listed previously, the total inspection charge C for this network
can be calculated. Subtracting the sticker fee, F, derived above, yields the
private garage fee. Table 53 summarizes the calculations of the rural private
garage fee for the mid network, Alternates A and B, in constant dollars, for
i = 0.03 or i = 0.06.
TABLE 53. PRIVATE GARAGE FEE, OPTION I, ALTER-
NATES A AND B, i = 0.03 OR 0.06
Urban area alternative Private garage fee
A $3.58
B $3.58
Tables 54 and 55 presents the total inspection fee for both urban and
rural areas, assuming i = 0.03 and i = 0.06, respectively, and the mid private
garage network, for both urban area alternatives.
TABLE 54. OPTION I: TOTAL INSPECTION FEE, i=0.03,
MID PRIVATE GARAGE NETWORK
Urban area alternative
Fee element
A B
Urban motorist fee $3.24 $3.22
Rural motorist fee $4.14 $4.20
97
-------
TABLE 55. OPTION I: TOTAL INSPECTION FEE, i=0.06,
MID PRIVATE GARAGE NETWORK
Urban area alternative
Fee element
Urban motorist fee
Rural motorist fee
$3.43
$4.13
$3.33
$4.20
Conclusion
Since higher levels of market participation mean smaller annual through-
puts for each private garage, private garages must charge more per inspection
to break-even as participation levels increase. From the preceding cost
analysis, it can be seen that a rural motorist must pay approximately $0.70
more for an emissions inspection than an urban motorist. This inequitable
urban-rural difference can be eliminated by decreasing the rural private garage
participation below the mid level, for which the preceding fees were calculated,
to a level where the rural notorist fee equals the urbam motorist fee. This
equitable participation rate is easily calculated using the above cost for-
mulas. Table 56 presents this equitable participation rate for both urban
area alternates and both social rates of discount.
It is, therefore, desirable, both from a state administrative viewpoint
and a private motorist's viewpoint, to hold participation to the above levels.
Various controls which the state might exercise on the participation rate
are as follows:
1. Establishment of a fixed number of inspection station licenses to
be granted in a given year.
2. Establishment of a maximum garage charge, to be applied statewide,
which would render inspections unprofitable at inefficient garages
and profitable only at efficient garages; and
3. Regulation of annual licensing fees to be paid by inspection
stations.
Alternatively, in view of some of the administrative and practical diffi-
culties in holding the participation rates to s minimum level, the garages
would be allowed to charge the same rate as the urban fee. Many stations while
not breaking even on the inspection process would participate because of the
increased business in repairs.
98
-------
TABLE 56. EQUITABLE PARTICIPATION RATES FOR PRIVATE GARAGES IN
RURAL AREAS, OPTION I
Social rate of discount
Urban area alternative
Number of Participation Number of Participation
garages rate (%) garages rate (%)
VO
A
B
1,052
906
20.0
19.5
1,087
937
20.6
20.2
-------
MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
The methodology used in deriving the personnel requirements, discussed in
Section 3, Methodologies, is based on an analysis of the tasks associated with
each program element and from an examination of various programs in other
states.
A schematic diagram of the basic organizational network shown in Fig-
ure 7 was derived, which is very similar to the basic scheme presented in
the methodology section. The primary difference is the line which separates
the state from the contractor functions. In Option I the personnel functions
are divided by two basic criteria: (1) operating level - state level, regional
level, and station level; and (3) primary control or responsibility - state or
contractor. It should be noted here that although most of the basic responsi-
bilities can be delineated, it was not possible to allocate all positions
clearly to state or contractor responsibility for some of the regional posi-
tions. Such ambiguities, however, will not significantly alter the overall
manpower allocations.
In the lower left quadrant of the diagram are the personnel which oversee
the private garage operations in rural areas. These include regional inspec-
tion and licensing officials, inspection and licensing personnel, regional
complaints officials, and complaints investigators. The same personnel are
included in Option II.
Table 57 shows the actual number of personnel required for all the func-
tions shown in the organizational chart. Summaries and comparisons of man-
power needs for the various options will appear in the comparison of options,
Section 14.
100
-------
CONTRACTOR-
RUN
CNGWtCRIIM SECTION
/ 1 \
Figure 7. Administrative organization, Option I.
-------
TABLE 57. MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR OPTION I
Contractor/state personnel are state level personnel who work for the contractor
Contractor/State Personnel
Numbe r Position
1 Assistant Administrator for station operations
1 Inspector Training Coordinator
Contractor regional personnel work on the regional level for the contractor
Contractor/Regional Personnel
Number Position
5 Regional managers
5 Instrument repair technicians
5 Public relations officials
5 Calibration/maintenance coordination
12-14 Mobile calibration/maintenance officials
Contractor local personnel work at the individual station level for the contractor
Contractor/Local Personnel
Number „ ...
Position
Alternate A Alternate B
^
35 41 Station managers
35 41 Assistant managers
498 522 Station inspectors
12 14 Station maintenance personnel
State administrative personnel are those working at the state level for the state
State Administrative
Number Position
1 Administrator
1 Assistant Administrator for supporting services
1 Legal Council
1 Purchasing officer
1 Contracts officer
1 Accountant
1 Engineer
1 Systems analyst
1 Stastician/programmer
1 Mechanic/inspector and licensing official
training coordinator
State regional personnel work on the regional level for the state
State Regional
Number „ . .
Position
Alternate A Alternate B
5 5 Regional inspection and licensing coordinators
25 21 Mobile inspection and licensing officials
5 5 Regional complaints investigator
17 15 Mobile complaints investigators
102
-------
SECTION 5
OPTION II - • STATEWIDE COVERAGE
• STATE ADMINISTERS CENTRALIZED
LANES IN URBAN AREAS
• PRIVATE GARAGES IN RURAL AREAS
ALTERNATE A - 12 URBAN COUNTIES
ALTERNATE B - 18 URBAN COUNTIES
OPTION DEFINITION
This option involves the State Government establishing a network of cen-
tralized idle mode test lanes in either 12 urban counties (Alternate A) or
18 urban counties (Alternate B). In the remaining rural counties', i.e.,
counties outside of the 12 or 18 urban counties, emission inspection would
be conducted in a decentralized network of private garages, new car dealers,
and service stations. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau
of Motor Vehicles are the Administrative Agencies. Ohio EPA would direct the
overall program including purchasing land and equipment, building the test
facilities, designing the program, training personnel, organizing a public
relations campaign, manning the test lanes themselves, data handling and
special studies, supervising the private garages, and in fact all program
elements except enforcement. In Section 17 there is a discussion of the
relative advantages and disadvantages of having the state or private contrac-
tor oversee the private garages. The Bureau of Motor Vehicles would be
primarily responsible for enforcement in this option. In Section. 16 there
will be a discussion of the sticker/ticketing method of enforcement.
NETWORK REQUIREMENTS
The basic network requirements for centralized lanes in the urban areas,
for Alternates A and B, and for private garages in the rural areas have been
derived in detail in Section IV preceeding.
Centralized Network
For the centralized lanes in urban areas, Tables 58 and 59 show the number
of inspections derived for 1987, assuming that 30 percent of the cars would fail
the inspection by design.
103
-------
TABLE 58. 1987 TOTAL INSPECTIONS
• Alternate A - 12 County 7,436,000
• Alternate B - 18 County 8,148,300
Next the number of centralized lanes needed for both alternatives were derived
in Section IV which were:
TABLE 59. 1987 CENTRALIZED LANE REQUIREMENTS
• Alternate A - 12 County 166
• Alternate B - 18 County 184
Finally the actual inspection network in terms of the approximate locations
and station size were computed. They are shown in Table 60.
Decentralized Network
The decentralized network was also derived and is explained in detail
in the preceeding section. The following table shows the number of inspec-
tions required. This equals the 1987 motor vehicle registrations multiplied
by 1.3 to include the failed vehicles.
TABLE 60. VEHICLE INSPECTIONS REQUIRED IN URBAN AND RURAL AREAS, 1987
Number of inspections required
Location Alternate A - 12 County Alternate B - 18 County
Urban 7,436,000 8,148,300
Rural 4,991,600 4,279,300
Statewide total 12,427,600 12,427,600
The next step was to derive a minimum, maximum, and mid-level participation
rate for private garages based on assumptions concerning throughput rates,
equipment and personnel costs, etc., all of which is explained in detail in
the preceeding option. These participation levels are shown in Table 61.
TABLE 61. MINIMUM, MID-LEVEL AND MAXIMUM GARAGE PARTICIPATION
IN RURAL AREAS
Urban area alternative
Alternate A - 12 county
Alternate B - 18 county
Minimum
951
815
Mid-level
1,531
1,313
Max imum
2,111
1,810
104
-------
OPTION COSTS
In Option II, most of the costs are very similar to those described in
Option I in the previous section. Rather than repeating each in detail, the
approach used here will be to describe in detail only those costs where dif-
ferences actually exist.
Initial Capital Costs
The initial capital costs for Option II for the state run approach are
estimated to be exactly the same as those for the private contractor. These
estimates are based on an analysis of the cost items themselves and on dis-
cussions with Hamilton Test Systems, the private contractors which has set
up and is currently operating the I/M program in Arizona.
As described in the preceeding section, there is a difference between
Alternate A, the 12 County Alternate and Alternate B, the 18 County
Alternate. The following Table 62 illustrates the differences between
the alternates:
TABLE 62. INITIAL CAPITAL COSTS, ALTERNATE A AND B
Alternate A Alternate B
Principal element —
Element cost Element cost
Land investment 2,672,960 2,997,290
Building investment 12,027,834 13,330,420
Equipment costs 8,256,000 9,200,100
Totals 22,957,294 25,527,810
Alternate B has more land and facilities, and consequently more equipment
since it covers a larger number of counties than Alternate A.
One Time Start-up Costjs
In Option II, the one time start-up costs are the same as in Option I,
a contractor approach, with the exception of administrative personnel salaries.
In the state run approach in this option the state will require a longer
start-up or implementation period, namely a 2-1/2 year start-up, in contrast
to the 1-1/2 year period required for a contractor in Option I. The reason
for this has to do with the fact that the state must follow specific detailed
procedures in letting out bids and making contracts for acquiring land, con-
structing the facilities, purchasing the equipment, etc. The state is required
to get several bids on a contract for services or equipment, for example,
whereas a contractor may acquire equipment on the private market. For this
reason, the administrative salaries will be higher than for the contractor
approach. In Table 63 which follows, a comparison has been made of Option I
to illustrate these differences.
105
-------
TABLE 63. COMPARISON OF ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES FOR OPTION I AND II
(INCLUDES 25 PERCENT OVERHEAD)
Option I (Alternates A & B) Option II (Alternates A & B)
$853,164 $1,421,940
Difference: Option II - Option I = $ 568,776
It should be noted that the salaries are for administrative state personnel
and the differences between the contractor and state option are due entirely
to the different start-up period as explained above. The personnel salaries
for station and operating personnel are the same in both Option I and II.
After an analysis of the job tasks and consultation with private contractors,
it was decided that the salaries which the State of Ohio would pay were
comparable to civil service positions, as explained in the methodology sec-
tion. A summary of the total start-up costs for Option II, Alternates A and
B, is provided in Table 64.
TABLE 64. START-UP COSTS FOR OPTION II
Item
Land acquisition
Facilities planning
Program design
Development of data
Alternate A
$ 377,529
1,202,783
175,000
267,000
Alternate B
$ 435,122
1,333,042
175,000
267,000
handling software
Personnel training 12,195 13,170
Test personnel salaries
and overhead 1,094,375 1,224,273
Administrative personnel 1,421,940 1,421,940
salaries and overhead
Initial public informa- 1,498,920 1,498,920
tion program
Total $6,050,142 $6,368,467
Annual Operating Costs
Facility Personnel--
The costs for test personnel in Option II are identical to those discussed
previously in Option I, Section 4. Again these are
106
-------
Alternate A: $7,007,500
Alternate B: $7,517,500
Maintenance--
The costs for equipment repair, replacement, and the preventive main-
tenance of test equipment are exactly the same in Option II as they were in
Option I, Section IV. Again, this is equal to 20 percent of the initial
test equipment expeditive, or:
Alternate A: $1,473,000
Alternate B: $1,498,920
Utilities, Services, Supplies--
The annual cost for utilities, insurance, computer operation and forms,
calibration, uniforms, security, inspection and licensing an operation, and
operation of complaints investigators cars are exactly the same as those
presented in Option I, Section 4. In Option II however, there will be no
annual cost for taxes, as the facilities will be state owned and operated.
The total annual cost for utilities, services, and supplies is presented in
Table 65.
TABLE 65. ANNUAL COST FOR UTILITIES, SERVICES,
SUPPLIES FOR OPTION II
Item
Utilities
Insurance
Computer operation and forms
Calibration
Uniforms
Security
Inspection/licensing vans
Complaints investigators
cars
Alternate A
$ 391,188
249,000
1,666,643
105,600
77,500
29,750
220,000
25,500
$2,765,181
Alternate B
$ 442,563
276,000
1,751,678
123,200
85,500
34,850
184,800
22,500
$2,921,091
Annual Administrative Costs--
The annual cost for program administrative salaries, public information,
and inspector training are exactly the same as those presented for Option I
in Section 4. These costs are presented in Table 66.
107
-------
TABLE 66. ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR OPTION II
Item Alternate A Alternate B
Program administrative salaries $1,093,776 $1,093,776
Public information 1,498,920 1,498,920
Inspector training 800 800
Total $2,593,496 $2,593,496
Summary
The total cost of Option II is summarized in Table 67a and 67b for
Alternates A and B.
Initial capital costs and one-time start-up costs are converted to
annual figures using the amortization factors discussed 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. These totals
are used in the computation of break-even fees.
FEE COMPUTATION
The fee to be charged a motorist for an emissions inspection in Option II
for either urban area alternate will not necessarily be the same in rural areas
as in urban areas. In this option, urban area motorists will be required to
pay a fee that reflects the total annual costs incurred by the centralized,
urban system. Rural area motorists will be charged a fee that is made up of two
components: (1) a state fee, called the "sticker fee," which reflects the total
annual costs incurred by the state for administration of the I/M program in the
rural counties; and (2) a private garage charge, called the "private garage
fee," which will be used to defray equipment, labor, and other costs incurred
by a private garage in performing emissions inspections.
Urban Motorist Fee Calculation
Tables 68a, 68b, 68c, and 68d summarize the urban motorist fee calcula-
tion for social rates of discount i = 0.03 and i = 0.06 for both urban area
alternates, using appropriate amortization rates as discussed in Section 3.
Rural Sticker Fee Calculation
The sticker fee charged to the rural motorist in Option II will be equal
to the total annual costs incurred by the state divided by the total rural
registrations; note that it is assumed that retests of tailed vehicles in rural
areas will be performed free of charge. Tables 69a, 69b, 69c, and 69d
present the rural sticker fee calculation for social rates of discount i = 0.03
and i = 0.06 for both urban area alternatives, using appropriate amortization
rates as discussed in Section 3.
108
-------
TABLE 67a. COST SUMMARY - OPTION II, ALTERNATE A
Primary category
Principal element
Element cost
($)
Total category
cost ($)
o
VO
Initial capital costs
Total
One-time start-up costs
Total
Annual operating costs
Total
Annual administrative costs
Total
1. Land investment
2. Building investment
3. Equipment costs
(includes vans, computer, security systems)
1. Land acquisition
2. Facilities planning
3. Program design
4. Development of data handling
system software
5. Personnel training
6. Test personnel salaries and overhead
7. Administrative personnel salaries and
overhead
8. Initial public information program
1. Facility personnel
2. Maintenance
3. Utilities, services, and supplies
1. Program administration salaries
2. Public information
3. Training
2,672,960
12,027,834
8,256,000
377,529
1,202,783
175,000
267,000
12,195
1,094,375
1,421,940
1,498,920
7,007,500
1,473,000
2.765,181
1,093,776
1,498,920
800
22,957,294
6,050,142
11,245,681
2,593,496
-------
TABLE 67b. COST SUMMARY - OPTION II, ALTERNATE B
Primary category
Principal element
Element cost
($)
Total category
cost ($)
Initial capital costs
Total
One-time start-up costs
Total
Annual operating costs
Total
Annual administrative costs
Total
1. Land investment
2. Building investment
3. Equipment costs
(includes vans, computer, security systems)
1. Land acquisition
2. Facilities planning
3. Program design
4. Development of data handling
system software
5. Personnel training
6. Test personnel salaries and overhead
7. Administrative personnel salaries and
overhead
8. Initial public information program
1. Facility personnel
2. Maintenance
3. Utilities, services, and supplies
1. Program administration salaries
2. Public information
3. Training
2,997,290
13,330,420
9,200,100
435,122
1,333,042
175,000
267,000
13,170
1,224,273
1,421,940
1,498,920
7,517,500
1,498,920
2.921,091
1,093,776
1,498,920
800
25,527,810
6,368,467
11,937,511
2,593,496
-------
TABLE 68a. URBAN MOTORIST FEE CALCULATION, OPTION II,
i = 0.03, ALTERNATE A
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Cost class
Capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Start-up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
TT_U „_ .
Cost ($)
2,672,967
12,027,835
7,821,500
5,307,418
10,667,013
1,469,576
Amortization factor
0.03
0.067
0.2184
0.2184
$15,889,999 _ „,
Annual ized cost
80,189
805,865
1,708,216
1,159,140
10,667,013
1,469,576
-------
N>
TABLE 68b. URBAN MOTORIST FEE CALCULATION, OPTION II,
i = 0.03, ALTERNATE B
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Cost class
Capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Start-up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Cost ($)
2,997,300
13,330,400
8,831,100
5,703,900
11,609,803
1,547,608
Amortization factor
0.03
0.067
0.2184
0.2184
$17,314,933 m ,„ n.
Annualized cost
89,919
893,138
1,928,712
1,245,753
11,609,803
1,547,608
$ 5,700,000
-------
TABLE 68c. URBAN MOTORIST FEE CALCULATION, OPTION II,
i = 0.06, ALTERNATE A
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Cost class
Capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Start-up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
TJ — U««
Cost ($) Amortization factor
2,672,967 0.06
12,077,835 0.087
7,821,500 0.2374
5,307,418 0.2374
10,667,013
1,469,576
$16,460,194 „.
Annualized cost
160,378
1,046,422
1,856,824
1,259,981
10,667,013
1,469,576
$ 5,200,000
-------
TABLE 68d. URBAN MOTORIST FEE CALCULATION, OPTION II,
i = 0.06, ALTERNATE B
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Cost class
Capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Start-up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Cost ($)
2,997,300
13,330,400
8,831,000
5,703,900
11,609,803
1,547,608
Amortization factor
0.06
0.087
0.2374
0.2374
$17,947,627 _ *„ , r
Annual! zed cost
179,837
1,159,747
2,096,503
1,354,129
11,609,803
1,547,608
$ 5,700,000
-------
TABLE 69a. RURAL STICKER FEE CALCULATION, OPTION II,
i = 0.03, ALTERNATE A
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Cost class
Capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Start-up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Cost ($) Amortization factor
0 0.03
0 0.067
435,000 0.2184
742,724 0.2184
577,856
1,123,920
Annual ized cost
0
0
95,004
162,211
577,856
1,123,920
_ . „. . , $1.958.991 _
Rural sticker fee = $3,500,000 "
-------
TABLE 69b. RURAL STICKER FEE CALCULATION, OPTION II,
i = 0.03, ALTERNATE B
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Cost class
Capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Start-up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Di *•*•<% 1
Cost ($) Amortization factor
0 0.03
0 0.067
369,000 0.2184
664,469 0.2184
496,788
970,920
„,.,.,,,. ,,. _ $1,693,418 _ ,n ,,
Annualized cost
0
0
80,590
145,120
496,788
970,920
$3,000,000
-------
TABLE 69c. RURAL STICKER FEE CALCULATION, OPTION II,
i = 0.06, ALTERNATE A
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Cost class
Capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Start-up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
RllT-ol
Cost ($) Amortization factor
0 0.06
0 0.087
435,000 0,2374
742,724 0.2374
577,856
1,123,920
„.;,„„,. fao $1,981,368 ftn „
Annualized cost
0
0
103,269
176,323
577,856
1,123,920
$3,500,000
-------
oo
TABLE 69d. RURAL STICKER FEE CALCULATION, OPTION II,
i = 0.06, ALTERNATE B
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Cost class
Capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Start-up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Rural
Cost ($) Amortization factor
0 0.06
0 0.087
369,000 0.2374
664,469 0.2374
496,788
970,920
_ $1,713,054 _ $Q 5?
alieket Tee $3>00o,000 *"'*'
Annualized cost
0
0
87,601
157,745
496,788
970,920
-------
Private Garage Fee Calculation
The fee charged by private garages for performing an emissions inspection
will be based on those cast factors discussed in the derivation of the three
private garage network participation levels and on annual station throughput.
Recalling the formula used in Section 4 to determine the total rural inspection
charge, C,
where all the above cost variables are assigned the same values as those used
previously. By dividing the total number of paid rural inspections (here as-
sumed to be the same as registration levels since retests of failed vehicles
are assumed to be free) by the total number of garages in the mid network
(since this is the network assumed in all the preceding cost analysis), annual
throughput rates per station for this network can be calculated. Substituting
these throughput rates for M in the above equation, and using all the cost
assumptions listed previously, the total inspection charge, C, for this net-
work can be calculated. Subtracting the sticker fee, F, derived above, yields
the private garage fee. Table 70 summarizes the calculations of the rural
private garage fee for the mid network, Alternates A and B, in constant dollars,
for i = 0.03 or i = 0.06.
Table 71 presents the total inspection fee for both urban and rural
areas, assuming i = 0.3, and the mid private garage network, for both urban
area alternatives.
Table 72 presents the total inspection fee for both urban and rural
areas, assuming i = 0.06, and the mid private garage network, for both urban
area alternatives.
Conclusion
Since higher levels of market participation mean smaller annual through-
puts for each private garage, private garages must charge more per inspection
to break even as participation levels increase. From the preceding cost anal-
ysis, it can be seen that a rural motorist must pay approximately $1.50 more
for an emissions inspection than an urban motorist. This inequitable urban-
rural difference can be eliminated by decreasing the rural private garage
participation below the mid level, for which the preceding fees were calculated,
to a level where the rural motorist fee equals the urban motorist fee. This
equitable participation rate is easily calculated using the above cost
formulas; Table 73 presents this equitable participation rate for both urban
area alternates and both social rates of discount.
119
-------
TABLE 70. PRIVATE GARAGE FEE, OPTION II,
ALTERNATES A AND B, i - 0.03 OR 0.06
Urban area „ . ,.
, . Private garage fee
alternative
A $3.58
B $3.58
TABLE 71. OPTION II: TOTAL INSPECTION FEE,
i - 0.03, MID PRIVATE GARAGE
NETWORK
Urban area alternative
Fee element
A B
Urban motorist fee $3.06 $3.04
Rural motorist fee $4.14 $4.14
TABLE 72. OPTION II: TOTAL INSPECTION FEE,
i - 0.06, MID PRIVATE GARAGE
NETWORK
Urban area alternative
ret; eminent.
Urban motorist fee
Rural motorist fee
A
$3.17
$4.15
B
$3.15
$4.15
120
-------
TABLE 73. EQUITABLE PARTICIPATION RATES FOR PRIVATE
GARAGES IN RURAL AREAS, OPTION II
Urban area
altefnative
A
B
i =
Number of
garages
994
855
Social rate
0.03
Participation
rate, percent
18.9
18.4
of discount
i
Number of
garages
1,030
886
= 0.06
Participation
rate, percent
19.6
19.0
It is therefore desirable, both from a state administrative viewpoint and
from a private motorist's viewpoint, to hold participation to the above levels.
Various controls which the state might exercise on the participation rate
are as follows:
1. Establishment of a fixed number of inspection station licenses
to be granted in a given year;
2. Establishment of a maximum garage charge, to be applied
statewide, which would render inspections unprofitable at
inefficient garages and profitable only at efficient garages;
and
3. Regulation of annual licensing fees to be paid by inspection
stations.
MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
Manpower requirements for Option II remain the same as those for Option I;
the state, however, assumes responsibility for all functions performed by the
contractor in Option I. The resulting organizational network is shown in
Figure 8. Table 74 lists total state manpower allocations.
121
-------
N5
N3
1 ADMINISTRATOR |
1
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR
SUPPORT SERVICES
J,
1 1 1
ILESAL COUNSEL 1 T '
1 FINANCIAL SECTION EN8INEERINS SECTION
IS X >a If X \ \,
1
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR
STATION OPERATIONS
^ >
PURCHASING CONTRACTS SYSTEMS STATISTICAL MECHANIC/INSPECTION INSPECTOR
WF^M OTCER «e~«T*«T EHBNBR J£LT£ PROG^A^MER AMO <•«=«"« <"""»• TRAININ.
"•""'""" TRAINUK COOmNATDR COORDINATOR
. \r
MECHANIC/INSPECTION
AMD LICENSING TRAININS
PROMAM INSTRUCTORS
' 1 1
INSTRUMENT fVBLIC
REPAIR RELATIONS
TECHNICIANS OFFICIALS
X
STATE LeVCL
| RC6IONAL UANMCR* |
COMPLAINTS INSPECTION AND
INVCSTl«ATtON LICENSING
COORDINATORS COORDINATORS
J,
,
MOBILE COMPLAINTS MOSILE INSPECTION
INVESTIGATORS AND
(RURAL AREA ONLT) LICENSING OFFICIALS
j
^ <£"*
1
CALIBRATION/
MAINTENANCE
COORDINATORS
> f
MOBILE CALIBRATION
MAINTENANCE
OFFICIALS
REGIONAL LEVEL
f STATION LEVEL
PKIVATE OAIMES
STATION MANAGERS
STATION PCKSOWKL
Figure 8. Administrative organization, Option II.
-------
TABLE 74. MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS, OPTION II
State administrative personnel
I Administrator
1 Assistant Administrator for Supporting Services
1 Legal Counsel
1 Purchasing Officer
1 Contracts Officer
1 Accountant
1 Engineer
1 Systems Analyst
1 Statistician/Programmer
1 Mechanical/Inspection and Licensing Training Coordinator
1 Assistant Administrator for Station Operations
1 Inspection Training Coordinator
State regional personnel
5 Regional Managers
5 Instrument Repair Technicians
5 Public Relations Officials
5 Calibration/Maintenance Coordinators
Number
Alternate A
12
5
17
5
?S
Alternate B
14
5
15
5
21
State
Mobile Calibration/Maintenance
Officials
Complaints Investigation
Coordinators
Mobile Complaints Investigators
(rural areas only)
Inspection and Licensing Coordinators
Mob ili> Inspection nnd l.iconx in>>.
Officials (rural areas only)
local personnel
Number
Alternate A
35
35
498
12
Alternate B
41
41
522
14
Station Managers
Station Assistant Managers
Station Inspectors
Station Maintenance Personnel
123
-------
SECTION 6
OPTION III • URBAN COUNTY COVERAGE
• CONTRACTOR ADMINISTERS CENTRALIZED LANES
ALTERNATE A - 12 URBAN COUNTIES
ALTERNATE B - 18 URBAN COUNTIES
OPTION DEFINITION
This option involves a private contractor establishing a network of
centralized idle mode test lanes in either 12 urban counties (Alternate A) or
18 urban counties (Alternate B). A private contractor, under the direction of
Ohio EPA, would assume responsibility for the overall program including purchas-
ing land and equipment, building the test facilities, designing the program,
training personnel, providing public information, operating the test lanes,
data handling and analysis, and all other program elements with the exception
of enforcement. The Bureau of Motor Vehicles would be primarily responsible
for enforcement of this option. In Section 16 there will be a discussion of
the sticker ticketing method of enforcement.
NETWORK REQUIREMENTS
The basic network requirements for Option III Alternates A and B are the
same as for the centralized lanes in urban areas discussed in Options I and II,
Sections 4 and 5 respectively. Again, the following numbers of inspections to
be performed were derived from 1987 registration projections, assuming a 30
percent stringency rate. They are as follows:
1987 Total Inspections
• Alternate A - (12 counties) 7,436,000
• Alternate B - (18 counties) 8,148,300
Next the number of centralized lanes needed for both alternates were
derived in Section IV which were:
1987 Centralized Lane Requirements
• Alternate A - (12 counties) 166 lanes
• Alternate B - (18 counties) 184 lanes
Again the actual inspection network in terms of the approximate locations
and station size were computed. They are shown in Tables 75 and 76.
124
-------
TABLE 75. INSPECTION NETWORK REQUIREMENTS FOR OPTION III ALTERNATE A
(12 COUNTY)
County
Butler
Cuyahuga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Lor a in
Lucas
Mahoning
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
TOTAL Network
Town
Hamilton
Middletown
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Cincinnati
Norwood
Merton on the Lake
Painsville
Lor a in
Elyria
Toledo
Youngstown
Ellsworth
Dayton
Englewood
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Cuyahuga Falls
Warren
Niles
Number of facilities
1
1
6
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
35 facilities
Configuration
3 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
166 lanes
125
-------
TABLE 76. INSPECTION NETWORK REQUIREMENTS FOR OPTION III ALTERNATE B (18 COUNTY)
Butler
Clermont
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Geauga
Greene
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Medina
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Warren
Wood
Hamilton
Middletown
Batavia
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Chardon
Fairborn
Cincinnati
Norwood
Mentor on the Lake
Painsville
Lorain
Elyria
Toledo
Youngs town
Ellsworth
Medina
Dayton
Englewood
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Cuyahoga Falls
Warren
Niles
Lebanon
Bowling Green
Number of Facilities
1
1
1
6
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Configuration
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lane s
6 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
Total network
41 facilities
184 lanes
126
-------
OPTION COSTS
In Option III most of the costs are similar to those relating to the cen-
tralized facilities in Options I and II. Where costs are the same, the approach
here will be to summarize the major cost categories. Where the costs differ,
then that category will be broken down to illustrate actual cost figures.
Initial Capital Costs
The initial capital costs for land, land improvements, buildings, equip-
ment, calibration vans, central computer, and security systems are the same as
in Options I and II. As there is no private garage network in this option,
there is no capital expenditure for Inspection and Licensing Officials' Vans,
or Complaints Investigators' Cars. A summary of the capital costs for Option III
is provided in Table 77.
TABLE 77. CAPITAL COSTS FOR OPTION III
Item Alternate A Alternate B
Land Investment (includes improvements) $ 2,672,970 $ 2,997,290
Building Investment 12,027,834 13,330,420
Test Equipment 7,365,000 8,340,000
Central Computer 250,000 250,000
Maintenance/Calibration Vans 168,000 196,000
Security Systems 38,500 45,000
Totals $22,522,304 $25,158,810
One Time Start Up Costs
Land Acquisition—
As explained for Option I, the costs of the site location and evaluation,
surveying, price negotiation and title conveyance are assumed to be $6,000 per
site plus 10 percent of the purchase price of the land. For Alternates A and
B this is:
Alternate A = (35 sites x $6,000) + (0.10) (1,675,294) = $377,529
Alternate B = (41 sites x $6,000) + (0.10) (1,891,218) = $435,122
Facilities Planning—
This element is computed in the same manner as for Option 1. For Alter-
nates A and B the planning cost is 10 percent of the buildings cost or
$1,202,783 for Alternate A and $1,333,042 for Alternate B.
127
-------
Program Design —
As explained for Option I, a cost of $100,000 was used for the program
design estimate.
Data Handling Software —
Based on discussions with computer systems analysts, an estimate of $200,000
was arrived at for development of data handling software.
Personnel Training —
As indicated in Section 3, an initial, intensive training effort is required
prior to program startup. Facility personnel allocation rates are assumed to
be the same as those presented in the discussion of Option I. Applying these
rates to the facility requirements derived previously, the basic operating per-
sonnel requirements for Option III are:
Alternate A:
•
•
35 Managers
35 Assistant Managers
12 Maintenance/Calibration people
5 Investigators
498 Inspectors
Thus
= (35) ($53) = $ 1,855
+ (5) ($43) = 215
+(545) ($16) = 8,720
$10,790
Alternate B: • 41 Managers
• 41 Assistant Managers
• 14 Maintenance /Calibration people
• 5 Investigators
• 522 Inspectors
Thus:
(41) ($53) = $ 2,175
+ (5) ($43) = 215
+(577) ($16) = 9,232
$11,622
Personnel Salaries —
The same assumptions for personnel requirements for Option I were used.
The costs of test personnel for the start up period are calculated for
Alternates A and B in Table 78 below.
128
-------
TABLE 78. FACILITY PERSONNEL START-UP SALARIES
Alternate A:
(35 managers) ($l,250/month) (6 mos.) = $ 262,500
+ (35 asst. managers) ($l,083/month) (6 mos.) = 227,500
+ (12 maintenance/calibration people) (1,0.00/mo.) (1 mo.) = 12,000
+ (498 inspectors) ($750/mo.) (1 mo.) = 373,500
875,500
+ Overhead @ 25 percent 218,875
Total $1,094,375
Alternate B:
(41 managers) ($l,250/mo.) (6 mos.) = 307,500
+ (4 asst. managers) ($l,083/mo.) (6 mos.) = 266,418
+ (14 maintenance/calibration people) (1,000/mo.) (1 mo.) - 14,000
+ (522 inspectors) ($750/month) (Imo.) = 391,500
979,418
+ Overhead @ 25 percent 244,855
Total $1,224,273
The cost of administrative personnel will be the administrative salaries
and overhead for 1-1/2 years or $853,164 for both Alternates A and B, as
described in Option I.
Initial Public Relations Program—
As explained for Option I, the cost for initial start-up public relations
would be approximatly $0.12/vehicle to be tested, or $900,000 for Alternate A,
and $978,000 for Alternate B.
The total start-up costs for Option III Alternates A and B are summarized
in Table 79.
129
-------
TABLE 79. START-UP COSTS FOR OPTION III
Land Acquisition
Facilities Planning
Data Handling Software
Program Design
Test Personnel Salaries + Overhead
Administrative Salaries + Overhead
Initial Public Relations Program
Personnel Training
Totals
Alternate A
$ 377,529
1,202,783
200,000
100,000
1,094,375
853,164
900,000
10,790
$4,738,641
Alternate B
$ 435,122
1,333,042
200,000
100,000
1,224,273
853,164
978,000
11,622
$5,135,223
Annual Operating Costs
Facility Personnel—
The annual cost for centralized facility personnel salaries and overhead
is the same as for Options I and II; these are summarized in Table 80.
TABLE 80. ANNUAL COST FOR TEST FACILITY PERSONNEL
Alternate A Alternate B
Salaries $5,606,000 $6,014,000
Overhead @ 25 percent 1,401,500 1,503,500
Total $7,007,500 $7,517,500
Ma intenance—
The annual cost of equipment repair, replacement and preventive maintenance
is the same as for Options I and II, as this cost is a function (20 percent)
of the initial equipment expenditures for the centralized lanes, which is also
the same for Options I and II. These costs are summarized in Table 81.
TABLE 81. MAINTENANCE COSTS ANNUALLY FOR TEST EQUIPMENT IN OPTION III
Alternate A Alternate B
Annual Maintenance Costs $1,473,000 $1,668,000
130
-------
Utilities/Supplies/Services
Utilities—
Annual cost for utilities was derived from electric usage rates experienced
by other states. For Option III these were found to be 120 kWh/day/lane, plus
325 kWh/day/facility. Per kilowatt costs were obtained from several utility
companies and were found to be $0.05/kWh. The annual costs, then, for utilities
are calculated below:
Alternate A - 12 Counties
(166 lanes) (120 kWh/day) ($0.05) (250 operating days/year) = $249,000
+ (35 facilities) (325 kWh/day) ($0.05) (250 operating days/year = 142,188
Total Utilities Cost Annually $391,188
Alternate B - 18 Counties
(184 lanes) (120 kWh/day) ($0.05) (250 operating days/year) = $276,000
+ (41 facilities) (325 kWh/day) ($0.05) (250 operating days/year)= 166,563
Total Utilities Cost Annually $442,563
Insurance—
Based on the $l,500/lane insurance costs assumed for Option I, total
annual insurance costs for Option III are computed below for both alternates:
Alternate A - 12 Counties
(166 lanes) ($1,500) = $249,000
Alternate B - 18 Counties
(184 lanes) ($1,500) = $276,000
Computer Operation and Test Forms—
Central computer operation costs for automated inspection systems have
been estimated at $0.15/test, and forms at $0.03/test as in Option I. The
annual cost for these categories can then be easily computed:
Alternate A - 12 County = $1,338,475
Alternate B - 18 County = $1,466,690
Taxes—
The annual cost of real estate and personal property taxes were calculated
based on full valuation rates for each municipality in which stations are to
be located. Total annual taxes were found to be:
Alternate A - (12 counties) $1,058,028
Alternate B - (18 counties) $1,178,606
These are broken down for specific municipalities in Appendix I .
131
-------
Uniforms—
Based on the assumption of $125 annual uniform cost/employee, as used in
Option I, the total annual uniform costs for Alternates A and B are shown below:
Alternate A = (580 uniformed employees) ($125) = $72,500
Alternate B = (648 uniformed employees) ($125) = $81,000
Security—
The annual cost of maintaining security systems, as in Option I, is
assumed to be $850/facility. The annual cost of this item for Alternates A
and B are thus:
Alternate A: (35 facilities)($850) = $29,750
Alternate B: (41 facilities)($850) = $34,850
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 annual cost/van derived in Option I as $8,800; the calibration costs
for both alternates are shown below:
Alternate A: ($8,800)(12 vans) = $105,600
Alternate B: ($8,800)(14 vans) = $123,200
The total annual cost for utilities, services, and supplies is summarized
in Table 82.
TABLE 82. ANNUAL COST FOR UTILITIES, SERVICES AND SUPPLIES OPTION III
Utilities
Insurance
Computer Operation and Forms
Taxes
Uniforms
Security
Calibration
Totals
Alternate A
$ 391,188
249,000
1,338,475
1,058,028
72,500
29,750
105,600
$3,244,541
Alternate B
$ 442,563
276,000
1,466,690
1,178,606
81,000
34,850
123,200
$3,602,909
Annual Administrative Costs
Program Administrative Personnel—
Annual Administrative Personnel costs are essentially the same as for
Option I minus the costs of complaints investigators and inspection/lieensing
officials. These are found to be $568,776 annually - for both Alternates A and B.
132
-------
Public Information—
The annual cost for public relations is again assumed to be $0,12 for
each vehicle to be inspected or $900,000 for Alternate A and $978,000 for
Alternate B.
Personnel Training—
Using the same assumptions as for Option I, the annual turnover of 50 in-
spectors for Alternate A, and 52 for Alternate B is anticipated. This relates
to an annual cost of $800 for Alternate A, and $832 for Alternate B based on
a $16/need inspector charge.
COST SUMMARY
The total cost of Option III for Alternates A and B is summarized in
Table 83a and 83b.
Initial capital costs and one-time start-up costs are converted to annual
figures using the amortization factors discussed in Section 3. These annualized
costs are added to annual operating costs and annual administrative costs to
arrive at total annual costs in constant 1978 dollars,
A uniform fee in constant dollars (fc) was calculated by dividing the
annual costs by the average annual vehicle registrations for the period
1981 through 1987 (5,200,000 for Alternate A, 5,700,000 for Alternate B). This
assumes a free retest. The fee calculations are provided in Tables 84a and 84b.
MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
Manpower requirements are slightly smaller for Option III than for the
preceding options due to the decrease in geographic coverage in this Option
from Options I and II. Since there are no private garages participating in
the I/M network under this Option, the inspection and licensing, as well as
the complaints investigation functions are not required. The resulting
organizational network is shown in Figure 9. Table 85 lists total state
and contractor manpower allocations.
133
-------
TABLE 83a. COST SUMMARY OPTION III ALTERNATE A (12 COUNTIES)
Primary category
Initial capital costs
One time startup costs
Annual operating costs
Annual administrative costs
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
Principal element
Land investment
Plus improvements
Building investment
Equipment costs
(includes, vans, computer, security
Land acquisition
Facilities planning
Program design
Development of data handling
System structure
Personnel training
Personnel salaries and overhead
Initial public information program
Facility personnel
Maintenance
Utilities, services, supplies
Program administrative salaries
Public information
Training
Element
cost ($)
$2,672,970
12,027,834
systems) 7,821,500
377,529
1,202,783
100,000
200,000
10,790
1,947,539
900,000
7,007,500
1,473,000
3,244,541
568,776
900,000
800
Total category
cost ($)
$22,522,304
4,738,641
11,725,853
X
1,469,576
(continued)
-------
TABLE 83b. COST SUMMARY OPTION III ALTERNATE B
Primary category
Principal element
Element cost
($)
Total category cost
($)
Initial capital costs
One time start-up costs
LO
Ul
Annual operating costs
Annual administrative costs
1. Land investment (includes 2,997,290
improvements
2. Building investment 13,330,420
3. Equipment costs (includes 8,831,100
fans, computer, and
security systems)
1. Land acquisition 435,122
2. Facilities planning 1,333,042
3. Program design 100,000
4. Development of data handling 200,000
System structure
5. Personnel training 11,622
6. Personnel salaries and 2,077,437
overhead
7. Initial public information 978,000
program
1. Facility personnel 7,517,500
2. Maintenance 1,668,000
3. Utilities, services, supplies 3,602,909
1. Program administrative salaries 568,776
2. Public information 978,000
3. Training 832
25,158,810
5,135,223
12,788,409
1,547,608
(continued)
-------
TABLE 84a.
fc OPTION III ALTERNATE A
i = 0.03
Cost class
Capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Start up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Total
Feec
i = 0.06
Cost class
Capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Start up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Total
Feec
Cost ($)
$ 2,672,970
12,027,834
7,821,500
4,738,641
11,725,853
1,469,576
Cost ($)
2,672,970
12,027,834
7,821,500
4,738,641
11,725,853
1,469,576
Amortization factor
for i = (0.03)
0.03
0.067
0.2184
0.2184
$16,824,618/5,200,000 = $3.24
Amortization factor
for i = 0.06
0.06
0.087
0.2374
0.2374
$17,384,006/5,200,000 = $3.34
Annual ized Cost
(column) * (column 3)
$ 80,189
805,865
1,708,216
1,034,919
11,725,853
1,469,576
$16,824,618
Annual ized Cost
(column 2) x (column 3)
160,378
1,046,422
1,856,824
1,124,953
11,725,853
1,469,576
$17,384,006
-------
TABLE 84b. f OPTION III ALTERNATE B
c
i = 0.03
Cost class
Capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Start-up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Total
i = 0.06
Cost class
Capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Start-up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Total
Cost ($)
2,997,290
13,330,420
8,831,100
5,135,223
12,788,409
1,547,608
$18,369,319/5
Cost ($)
2,997,290
13,330,420
8,831,100
5,135,223
12,788,409
1,547,608
$18,991,206/5
Amortization factor
for i = (0.03)
0.03
0.067
0.2184
0.2184
,700,000 = $3.22
Amortization factor
for i = (0.06)
0.06
0.087
0.2374
0.2374
,700,000 = $3.33
Annual ized cost
(column) x (column 3)
89,919
893,138
1,928,712
1,121,533
12,788,409
1,547,608
18,369,319
Annual ized cost
(column 2) x (column 3)
179,837
1,159,747
2,096,503
1,219,102
12,788,409
1,547,608
18,991,206
-------
I AMMMI«TIUT(MI I
STATE-
RUN
ASSISTANT AOMtMISTftATO* I
soviet* I
FINANCIAL 9CCTIOH
I
tllSIKHKIIM tICTIM
A_
CONTRACTOR-
RUN
OJ
oo
OMO STATE WLICt,
ottTivicT orriccM,
ANOOM PULLOVCM MOQMM
OMO tTATC POLICE
WXILt
*A«OOM ruLLOVO NMMNCl
Lftffi
Figure 9. Administrative Organization, Option III.
-------
TABLE 85. OPTION III MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
State Administrative Personnel
1 Administrator
1 Assistant Administrator for Supporting Services
1 Legal Counsel
1 Purchasing Officer
1 Accountant
1 Contracts Officer
1 Engineer
1 Systems Analyst
1 Statistician/Programmer
1 Mechanic Training Program Coordinator
Contractor State Personnel
1 Assistant Administrator for Station Operations
1 Inspector Training Coordinator
Contractor Regional Personnel
Number
Alternate A Alternate B
5 5 Regional Managers
5 5 Instrument Repair Technicians
5 5 Public Relations Officials
5 5 Calibration and Maintenance
Coordinators
12 14 Mobile Calibration and Maintenance
Officials
Contractor Local Personnel
35 41 Station Managers
35 41 Station Assistant Managers
498 522 Station Inspectors
12 14 Station Maintenance Personnel
139
-------
SECTION 7
OPTION IV - • URBAN COUNTY COVERAGE
• STATE ADMINISTERS CENTRALIZED LANES
ALTERNATE A - 12 URBAN COUNTIES
ALTERNATE B - 18 URBAN COUNTIES
OPTION DEFINITION
This option involves the Ohio State Government establishing a network of
centralized idle mode test lanes in either 12 Urban Counties (Alternate A) or
18 Urban Counties (Alternate B)0 The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and
the Bureau of Motor Vehicles are the administrative agencies. Ohio EPA would
direct the overall program including purchasing land and equipment, building
the test facilities, designing the program, training personnel, providing
public information, operating the test lanes, data handling and analysis, and
all other program elements except enforcement. The Bureau of Motor Vehicles
would be primarily responsible for enforcement in the option. In Section 16
there is a discussion of the sticker-ticketing method of enforcement. The
basic network requirements for centralized lanes in the urban areas have al-
ready been discussed in detail in Section. IV. Again, the following number of
inspections were derived for 1987, assuming a 30 percent stringency factor:
1987 Total Inspections
• Alternate A (12 county) 7,4-36,000
• Alternate B (18 county) 8,148,300
Next the number of centralized lanes needed for both alternates were der-
rived in Section IV:
1987 Centralized Lane Requirements
• Alternate A (12 county) 166
• Alternate B (18 county) 184
Finally the actual inspection network, both in terms of the approximate
locations and station sizes, was computed. It is, of course, the same as in
the previous options, and is shown in Tables 86 and 87.
140
-------
TABLE 86. INSPECTION NETWORK REQUIREMENTS FOR
OPTION IV - ALTERNATE A, 12 COUNTY
County
Butler
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
_ Number of
Town facilities Configuration
Hamilton
Middletown
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Cincinnati
Norwood
Mentor on the Lake
Painsville
Lorain
Elyria
Toledo
Youngstown
Englewood
Dayton
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Cuyahoga Falls
Warren
Nile s
Total Network
1
1
6
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
35
3 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
166 lanes
141
-------
TABLE 87. INSPECTION NETWORK REQUIREMENTS FOR
OPTION IV - ALTERNATE B, 18 COUNTY
County
Butler
Clermont
Cuyohoga
Franklin
Geauga
Green
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Medina
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Warren
Wood
Number of _ ... . .
Town facilities Configuration
Hamilton
Middletown
Batavia
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Co lumbus
Chardon
Fairborn
Cincinnati
Norwood
Mentor on the Lake
Pains vi lie
Lorain
Elyria
Toledo
Youngstown
Ellsworth
Medina
Dayton
Englewood
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Cuyohoga Falls
Warren
Niles
Lebanon
Bowling Green
Total Network
1
1
1
6
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
41
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
184 lanes
142
-------
OPTION COSTS
In option IV most of the costs are identical to those described in Option
III. This is due to the fact that the program differs only by ownership and
operation. Rather than report each cost in detail, the major cost categories
will be summarized, and where costs differ from Option III, that cost category
will be broken down to illustrate actual cost figures.
Initial Capital Costs
The initial capital costs are exactly the same for Option IV as previously
discussed for option III. A summary of the capital costs is provided in
Table 88.
TABLE 88. CAPITAL COSTS FOR OPTION IV
Item Alternate A Alternate B
Land Investment (includes improvements) $ 2,672,970 $ 2,997,290
Building Investment 12,027,834 13,330,420
Test Equipment 7,365,000 8,340,000
Central Computer 250,000 250,000
Maintenance/Calibration Vans 168,000 196,000
Security Systems 38,500 45,000
Total $22,522,304 $25,158,810
One Time Start-UP Costs—
All the elements in this category except one, personnel salaries and over-
head, are the same as Option III in the preceding Section VI. For this option,
it was assumed that the administrative salaries and overhead would be calculated
for 30 months rather than 18 months. Reasons for the change are the same as
those discussed in Option II, Section V. The total start-up costs for Option
IV, Alternates A and B are summarized in Table 89.
143
-------
TABLE 89. START-UP COSTS FOR OPTION IV
Item
Land Aquisition
Facilities Planning
Data Handling Software
Program Design
Test Personnel Salaries and Overhead
Administrative Salaries and Overhead
Initial Public Relations Program
Personnel Training
Total
Alternate A
$ 377,529
1,202,783
200,000
100,000
1,094,375
1,421,940
900,000
10,790
$5,307,417
Alternate B
$ 435,122
1,333,042
200,000
100,000
1,224,273
1,421,940
978,000
11,622
$5,703,999
Annual Operating Costs
The annual costs for facility personnel salaries and overhead, equipment
repair, replacement and preventive maintenance, utilities, insurance, calibra-
tion, uniforms, and security are identical to option III. In option IV, unlike
option III however, there would be no requirement to pay taxes. This is re-
flected in a different figure for the cost category "Utilities, Supplies, and
Services". The cost for this category is provided in Table 90.
TABLE 90. ANNUAL COST FOR UTILITIES, SUPPLIES, AND
SERVICES - OPTION IV, ALTERNATE A
Item
Utilities
Insurance
Computer Operation and Forms
Uniforms
Security
Calibration
Total
Alternate A
$ 391,188
249,000
1,338,475
72,500
29,750
.105,600
$2,186,513
Alternate B
$ 442,563
276,000
1,466,690
81,000
34,850
123,200
$2,424,303
144
-------
Annual Administrative Costs
Program Administrative Personnel--
Annual Administrative personnel costs are the same as for Option III. These
are found to be $568,776 annually - for both Alternates A and B.
Public Information--
The annual cost for public relations is again assumed to be $0.12 for each
vehicle to be inspected or $900,000 for Alternate A and $978,000 for Alternate
B.
Personnel Training--
Using the same assumptions as for Option I, the annual turnover of 50 in-
spectors for Alternate A, and 52 for Alternate B is anticipated. This relates
to an annual cost of $800 for Alternate A, at $832 for Alternate B based on a
$16.00 per new inspector charge.
SUMMARY
The total costs of Option IV are summarized in Tables 91 and 92.
Initial capital costs and one time start up costs are converted to annual
figures using the amortization factors discussed in Section 3. Those annual-
ized costs are added to annual operating costs and annual administrative costs
to arrive at total annual costs in constant 1978 dollars.
A uniform fee in constant dollars (fc) was calculated by dividing the
annual costs by the average annual motor vehicle registration for 1981 to
1987 (5,200,000 for Alternate A and 5,700,000 for Alternate B). This assumes
a free retest. These calculations are provided in Tables 93 and 94.
145
-------
TABLE 91. COST SUMMARY - OPTION IV, ALTERNATE A
Primary category
Principal element
Element cost Total category
($) cost ($)
Initial capital costs
Total
One-time startup costs
Total
Annual operating costs
Total
1. Land investment
2. Building investment
3. Equipment costs
(includes vans, computer, security systems)
1. Land aquisition
2. Facilities planning
3. Program design
4. Development of data handling
system software
5. Personnel training
6. Personnel salaries and overhead
7. Initial public information program
1. Facility personnel
2. Maintenance
3. Utilities, services, and supplies
Annual administrative costs 1. Program administrative salaries
2. Public Information
3. Training
Total
$ 2,672,970
12,027,834
7,821,500
377,529
1,202,783
100,000
200,000
10,790
2,516,315
900.000
7,007,500
1,473,000
2,186,513
568,776
900,000
800
$22,522,304
5,307,417
10,667,013
1,469,576
-------
TABLE 92. COST SUMMARY - OPTION IV, ALTERNATE B
Primary category
Principal element
Element
cost ($)
Total cat gory
cost ($)
Initial capital costs
Total
One-time startup costs
Total
Annual operating costs
Total
1. Land investment
2. Building investment
3. Equipment costs
(includes vans, computer, security systems)
1. Land aquisition
2. Facilities planning
3. Program design
4. Development of data handling
system software
5. Personnel training
6. Personnel salaries and overhead
7. Initial public information program
1. Facility personnel
2. Maintenance
3. Utilities, services, supplies
Annual administrative costs 1. Program administrative salaries
2. Public information
3. Training
Total
$ 2,997,290
13,330,420
8,831,100
435,122
1,333,042
100,000
200,000
11,622
2,646,213
978,000
7,517,500
1,668,000
2,424,303
568,776
978,000
832
$25,158,810
5,703,999
11,609,803
1,547,608
-------
TABLE 93. f - OPTION IV, ALTERNATE A
I.
II.
III.
IV.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
when i = 0.03
Cost class
Capital Costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Startup Costs
Operating Costs
Adminsitrative
Costs
Total
Feec
when i = 0.06
Cost Class
Capital costs
1. Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Startup costs
Operating costs
Administrative
costs
Total
Feec
Cost ($)
2,672,970
12,027,834
7,821,500
5,307,417
10,667,013
1,469,576
15,889,999
Cost ($)
2,672,970
12,027,834
7,821,500
5,307,417
10,667,013
1,469,576
16,460,194
Amortization factor
for i = 0.03
0.03
0.067
0.2184
0.2184
v 5,200,000
Amortization factor
for i - 0.06
0.06
0.087
0.2374
0.2374
* 5,200,000
Annualized cost ($)
(column 2) x (column 3)
80,189
805,865
1,708,216
1,159,140
10,667,013
1,469,576
15,889,999
3.06
Annualized cost ($)
(column 2)x(column 3)
160,378
1,046,422
1,856,824
1,259,981
10,667,013
1,469,576
16,460,194
3.20
148
-------
TABLE 94. f - OPTION IV, ALTERNATE B
I.
II.
III.
IV.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
when i = 0.03
Cost class
Capital Costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Startup costs
Operating costs
Administrative
costs
Total
Feec
when i = 0.06
Cost class
Capital costs
1. Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Startup costs
Operating costs
Administrative
costs
Total
Feec
Cost ($)
2,997,290
13,330,420
8,831,100
5,703,999
11,609,803
1,547,608
17,314,933
Cost ($)
2,997,290
13,330,420
8,831,100
5,703,999
11,604,803
1,547,608
17,947,627
Amortization factor
for i = 0.03
0.03
0.067
0.2184
0.2184
* 5,700,000
Amortization factor
for i = 0.06
0.06
0.087
0.2374
0.2374
v 5,700,000
Annualized cost ($)
(column 2)x(column 3)
89,919
893,138
1,928,712
1,245,753
11,609,803
1,547,608
17,314,933
3.04
Annualized cost ($)
(column 2)x (column 3)
179,837
1,159,747
2,096,503
1,354,129
11,609,803
1,547,608
17,947,627
3.15
149
-------
MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
Just as in Option II, the state will assume all functions in Option IV
that were performed by the contractor in Option III; otherwise, overall per-
sonnel requirements remain the same for this option as for Option III. The
resulting organizational network is shown in Figure 10. Table 95 lists
total state manpower allocations.
150
-------
|LE«AL counsel]
FINANCIAL SECTIM
PUKHASM6 CONTRACT!
IAL
1
CMMUKIIW tlCTUN
\
9TSTEMt STATISTICAL
ASIISTANT ADHIttlSTIUTOII
ran
MkTtOH OKKATtONS
ST4TC LEVEL
I IKdOMU. KMMCM
INSTRUMENT
MEVAIM
TCCWHCUm
REGIOHHL LEVEL
STATION LEVEL
Figure 10. Administrative organization, Option IV.
-------
TABLE 95. MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS, OPTION IV
State administrative personnel
1 Administrator
1 Assistant Administrator for Supporting Services
1 Legal Counsel
1 Purchasing Officer
1 Contracts Officer
1 Accountant
1 Engineer
1 Systems Analyst
1 Statistician/Computer Programmer
1 Mechanic Training Program Coordination
1 Assistant Administrator for Station Operations
1 Inspection Training Coordinator
State regional personnel
5 Regional Managers
5 Instrument Repair Technicians
5 Public Relations Officials
5 Calibration/Maintenance Coordinators
Number
Alternate A Alternate B
12 14 Mobile Calibration and Maintenance
Officials
State local personnel
Number
Alternate A Alternate B
35 41 Station Managers
35 41 Station Assistant Managers
498 522 Station Inspectors
12 14 Station Maintenance Personnel
152
-------
'SECTION 8
OPTION V - • STATEWIDE COVERAGE
• CONTRACTOR ADMINISTERS CENTRALIZED
LANES IN URBAN AREAS
• RANDOM ROADSIDE PULLOVERS IN RURAL AREAS
ALTERNATE A - 12 URBAN COUNTIES
ALTERNATE B - 18 URBAN COUNTIES
OPTION DEFINITION
This option involves a private contractor establishing a network of
centralized idle mode test lanes in either 12 urban counties (Alternate A) or
in 18 urban counties (Alternate B). In the remaining rural counties, inspec-
tion will be conducted by the Ohio State Highway Patrol (OHP) in a random
pullover program in conjunction with their random safety inspection program.
Currently, the State Highway Patrol has a random pullover program in which 27
teams of safety inspectors go out in vans, two inspectors per van, accompanied
by a State Trooper. It is estimated that over the last five years the State
Highway Patrol has conducted approximately 600,000 inspections per year for
the 27 teams in vans. This is roughly 30 percent of the total safety inspec-
tions conducted. In addition to special inspection teams, the OHP also
performs safety inspections either through normal enforcement activities or by
having a State Trooper individually pulling cars over without the vans. The
total yearly safety inspections equal roughly 1,701,249 or about 25 percent of
the total vehicle population. In Options V and VI the State Patrol would pur-
chase enough additional vans and hire enough men to have sufficient numbers to
achieve a 25 percent level of random pullover for the combined safety and
emissions testing. The actual methodology used to estimate the costs of
setting up such a system is discussed in the second half of this section, after
centralized lane costs are discussed.
NETWORK REQUIREMENTS
The basic network requirements for Option V, Alternates A and B are
essentially the same as for the centralized lanes in urban areas discussed in
the previous four options. Again the following numbers of inspections to be
performed were derived from 1987 registration projections, assuming a 30 per-
cent stringency factor. They are as follows:
153
-------
1987 Total Inspections
• Alternate A (12 counties) 7,436,000
• Alternate B (18 counties) 8,148,300
Next the number of centralized lanes needed for both alternates was
derived. Again, these are the same as for all previously discussed options,
and are as follows:
1987 Centralized Lane Requirements
• Alternate A (12 counties) 166 lanes
• Alternate B (18 counties) 184 lanes
In terms of approximate locations and station size, the actual inspection
networks were computed previously. They are repeated in Tables 96 and 97.
154
-------
TABLE 96. INSPECTION NETWORK REQUIREMENTS FOR
OPTION III - ALTERNATE A, 12 COUNTIES
County
Butler
Cuyohoga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
„ Number of _ ...
Town .. . . . . Configuration
facilities
Hamilton
Middletown
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Cincinnati
Norwood
Mentor on the Lake
Painsville
Lorain
Elyria
Toledo
Youngstown
Ellsworth
Dayton
Englewood
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Cuyohoga Falls
Trumbull Warren
Niles
Total Network
1
1
6
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
35
3 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
166 lanes
155
-------
TABLE 97. INSPECTION NETWORK REQUIREMENTS FOR
OPTION III - ALTERNATE B, 18 COUNTIES
County
Butler
Clermont
Cuyohoga
Franklin
Geauga
Green
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Medina
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Warren
_ Number of „ ...
Town ,. . . . . Configuration
Hamilton
Middletown
Batavia
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Chardon
Fairborn
Cincinnati
Norwood
Mentor on the Lake
Painsville
Lorain
Elyria
Toledo
Youngs town
Ellsworth
Medina
Dayton
Englewood
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Cuyohoga Falls
Warren
Niles
Lebanon
Wood Bowling Green
Total Network
1
1
1
6
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
41
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
184 lanes
156
-------
OPTION COSTS
Option V central facility costs are exactly the same as in Option III,
Section 6. The approach here will be to summarize the major cost categories
for the centralized facilities. The cost of the roadside random inspection
will be discussed at the end of Section 8.
Initial Capital Costs
The initial capital costs for land, land improvements, buildings, test
equipment, central computer, maintenance/calibration vans, and security
systems are the same for Option V as those discussed for Option III in
Section 6. For convenience they are again provided in Table 98.
TABLE 98. CAPITAL COSTS FOR OPTION V
Item Alternate A Alternate B
Land Investment (including improvements) $ 2,672,970 $ 2,997,920
Building Investment 12,027,834 13,330,420
Test Equipment 7,365,000 8,340,000
Central Computer 250,000 250,000
Maintenance/Calibration Vans 168,000 196,000
Security Systems 38,500 45,000
Total $22,522,304 $25,158,810
One Time Start-up Costs
The. initial expenditures for land acquisition, facility planning, data
handling software development, program design, test and administrative person-
nel salaries and overhead, initial public relations program, and personnel
training are the same as those presented for Option III, Section 6. A
summary of total start-up costs for Option V is presented in Table 99.
Annual Operating Costs
Facility Personnel—
The costs for centralized facility personnel (salaries and overhead) are
the same as Option V as were discussed for Option III in Section 6. These are
summarized in Table 100.
Maintenance—
The annual costs for equipment repair, replacement, and preventive main-
tenance for Option V are the same as for Option III. Again, these are
summarized in Table 101.
157
-------
TABLE 99. START-UP COSTS FOR OPTION V
Item
Land Acquisition
Facilities Planning
Data Handling Software
Program Design
Test Personnel Salaries and Overhead
Administrative Salaries and Overhead
Initial Public Relations Program
Personnel Training
Total
Alternate A
$ 377,529
1,202,783
200,000
100,000
1,094,375
853,164
900,000
10,790
$4,738,641
Alternate B
$ 435,122
1,333,042
200,000
100,000
1,224,273
853,164
978,000
11,622
$5,135,223
TABLE 100. ANNUAL COST FOR TEST FACILITY
PERSONNEL IN OPTION V
Item Alternate A Alternate B
Salaries $5,606,000 $6,014,000
Overhead at 25 percent 1,401,500 1,503,500
Total $7,007,500 $7,517,500
TABLE 101. ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR
TEST EQUIPMENT IN OPTION V
Item Alternate A Alternate B
Annual Maintenance Costs $1,473,000 $1,668,000
158
-------
Utilities, Services and Supplies—
The annual cost for utilities, insurance, computer operation and forms,
calibration, taxes, uniforms, and security systems are the same as those dis-
cussed in Section 6 for Option III. Table 102 summarizes these costs.
TABLE 102. ANNUAL COST FOR UTILITIES, SERVICES AND SUPPLIES FOR OPTION V
Item
Utilities
Insurance
Computer Operation and Forms
Taxes
Uniforms
Security
Calibration
Total
Alternate A
$ 391,188
249,000
1,338,475
1,058,028
72,500
29,750
105,600
$3,244,541
Alternate B
$ 442,563
276,000
1,466,690
1,178,606
81,000
34,850
123,200
$3,602,909
Annual Administrative Costs—
Option V annual costs for program administrative personnel salaries and
overhead, public information, and personnel training are the same as those
previously discussed in Option III. The annual administrative costs are
summarized in Table 103.
TABLE 103. ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR OPTION V
Item
Program Administrative Salaries
and Overhead
Public Information
Inspector Training
Total
Alternate A
$ 568,776
900,000
800
$1,469,576
Alternate B
$ 568,776
978,000
832
$1,547,608
SUMMARY
The total costs of Option V are summarized in Tables 104 and 105.
Initial capital costs and one-time start-up costs are converted to
annual figures using the amortization factors discussed in Section 3. These
annualized costs are added to annual operating costs and annual administrative
costs to determine total annual costs in constant 1978 dollars.
159
-------
TABLE 104. COST SUMMARY OPTION V - ALTERNATE A, 12 COUNTIES
Primary cost category
Principal element
Element cost
Total
category cost
Initial capital costs
Total
One-time start-up costs
1. Land investment plus
improvements
2. Building investment
3. Equipment costs
(vans, computer,
security systems)
1. Land acquisition
2. Facilities planning
3. Program design
4. Development of data
handling system software
5. Personnel training
6. Personnel salaries and
overhead
7. Initial public information
program
$ 2,672,970
12,027,834
7,821,500
$ 377,529
1,202,783
100,000
200,000
10,790
1,947,539
900,000
Total
Annual operating costs
Total
Annual administrative costs 1.
1.
2.
3.
Facility personnel
Maintenance
Utilities/supplies/
services
$ 7,007,500
1,473,000
3,244,541
Program administrative
salaries
2. Public information
3. Training
$ 568,776
900,000
800
$22,522,304
$ 4,738,641
$11,725,853
Total
$ 1,469,576
-------
TABLE 105. COST SUMMARY OPTION V - ALTERNATE B
Primary cost category
Principal element
Element cost
Total
category cost
Initial capital costs
Total
One-time start-up costs
Total
Annual operating costs
Total
1. Land investment,
includes improvements
2. Building investment
3. Equipment costs
(vans, computer,
security systems)
1. Land acquisition
2. Facilities planning
3. Program design
4. Development of data
handling system software
5. Personnel training
6. Personnel salaries and
overhead
7. Initial public
information program
1. Facility personnel
2. Maintenance
3. Utilities/supplies/services
Annual administrative costs 1.
Program administrative
salaries
2. Public information
3. Training
$ 2,997,290
13,330,420
8,831,100
435,122
1,333,042
100,000
200,000
11,622
2,077,437
978,000
$ 7,517,500
1,668,000
3,602,909
568,776
978,000
832
$25,158,810
$ 5,135,223
$12,788,409
Total
$ 1,547,608
-------
A uniform fee in constant dollars (fc) was calculated by dividing annual
costs by the number of average annual vehicle registrations for the period
1981 to 1987 (5,200,000 for Alternate A and 5,700,000 for Alternate B). This
assumes a free retest. These calculations are provided in Tables 106 and 107.
TABLE 106. fc - OPTION V, ALTERNATE A
when i = 0.03
Cost class
Cost ($)
Amortization factor
for i = 0.03
Annualized cost ($)
(column 2)x(column 3)
Capital Costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Start-up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Total
Feec
2,672,970
12,027,834
7,821,500
4,738,641
11,725,853
1,469,576
16, 824,618
0.03
0.067
0.2184
0.2184
T 5,200,000
80,189
805,865
1,708,216
1,034,919
11,725,853
1,469,576
16,824,618
3.24
when i = 0.06
Cost class
Cost ($)
Amortization factor
for i = 0.06
Annualized cost ($)
(column 2)x(column 3)
Capital Costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Start-up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Total
Feec
2,672,970
12,027,834
7,821,500
4,738,641
11,725,853
1,469,576
17,384,006
0.06
0.087
0.2374
0.2374
v 5,200,000
160,378
1,046,422
1,856,824
1,124,953
11,725,853
1,469,576
17,384,006
3.34
162
-------
TABLE 107.
f - OPTION V, ALTERNATE B
when i = 0.03
Cost class
Cost ($)
Amortization factor
for i = 0.03
Annualized cost ($)
(column 2)x(column 3)
Capital Costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Start-up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Total
Feec
2,997,290
13,330,420
8,831,100
5,135,223
12,788,409
1,547,608
18,369,319 *
0.03
0.067
0.2184
0.2184
5,700,000
89,919
893,138
1,928,712
1,121,533
12,788,409
1,547,608
18,369,319
3.22
when i = 0.06
Cost class
Cost ($)
Amortization factor
for i = 0.06
Annualized cost ($)
(column 2)x(column 3)
Capital costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Start-up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Total
Feec
2,997,290
13,330,420
8,831,100
5,135,223
12,788,409
1,547,608
18,991,206 *
0.06
0.087
0.2374
0.2374
5,700,000
179,837
1,159,747
2,096,503
1,219,102
12,788,409
1,547,608
18,991,206
3.33
COST CALCULATIONS FOR RANDOM INSPECTION IN RURAL AREAS
Random pullover emission testing would be conducted by the State Patrol
in mobile vans with two inspectors and one patrolman per team. Based on
currently-reported pullover rates from the safety inspection program, a
throughput of eight vehicles per hour per van was arrived at, or 16,640 in-
spections per van per year. Inspection of one-quarter of the rural vehicle
population annually has been decided as the desirable goal. Then,
3,839,700 x 0.25 = 959,900
3,291,800 x 0.25 = 822,900
163
-------
vehicles would have to be inspected annually for the 12- and 18-county urban
area alternatives, respectively. Dividing these figures by the annual through-
put per van yields the number of vans required. Assuming that an additional
15 percent of this total will actually be needed as a result of equipment
breakdowns, repair, and maintenance, Table 108 shows the total number of
vans required for each alternative.
TABLE 108. MOBILE INSPECTION VANS REQUIRED, STATE
PATROL RANDOM PULLOVER PROGRAM
Urban area alternative Number of vans required
12-County 58 + 9 = 67
18-County 49 + 8 = 57
Capital Costs
The cost of a fully equipped inspection van has been estimated at
$11,500. There would be a need for approximately one extra analyzer for
every three vans to account for equipment failure and repair. Given the
basic unit costs for analyzers as $3,000 each, the total capital costs
would be as shown in Table 109.
TABLE 109. CAPITAL COSTS, STATE PATROL RANDOM
PULLOVER PROGRAM
„ . - 12-County urban 18-County urban
Cost element ,_ *.. - 3.
alternative alternative
Inspection vans
Extra analyzers
$770,000
$ 57,000
$655,500
$ 48,000
Total capital
cost $827,500 $703,500
Annual Costs
One state patrolman and two inspectors are required for each van. The
annual salary plus benefits for each van totals $37,300. Estimates made for
annual operating costs for each van are as follows:
Gasoline and oil $1,500
Insurance $ 500
Calibration gases $ 200
$2,200
164
-------
Based on experiences in similar programs, it can be assumed that equipment
repair costs will be 20 percent of the original purchase price annually.
Then Annual Operating Costs will be as shown in Table 110.
TABLE 110. ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS, STATE PATROL
RANDOM PULLOVER PROGRAM
12-County urban 18-County urban
Cost element alternative alternative
Inspection personnel
Van operation
Equipment repair
Total annual cost
$2,499,100
$ 127,600
$ 165,500
$2,792,200
$2,126,100
$ 107,800
$ 140,700
$2,374,600
The potential increases in costs for the Ohio State Highway Patrol to
administer this program were not estimated. It is possible that given that
the safety pullover program already exists, some of the administrative tasks
could be combined with it, lowering the net cost of adding I/M testing to the
safety inspections. However, what is contemplated under this option, and
similarly in Option VI, is an expansion of the already existing program for
random safety inspection. This program expansion would approximately double
the number of inspection teams, although this is a conservative estimate
because it does not include the number of vehicles that would continue in ur-
ban areas performing only safety inspections. A more likely scenario would
be a statewide random emission and safety program in which the urban safety/
emission test would be a quality assurance procedure, while in rural areas the
random inspection would constitute the primary testing procedure. Given the
number of uncertain variables and lack of data, it was then not possible to
estimate any additional administrative costs for the random inspection program
in rural areas.
Random Pullover Program Manpower Requirements
To determine the manpower requirements given the number of actual inspec-
tion teams and vans needed to reach a 25 percent pullover rate, an 85 percent
manpower efficiency factor was utilized to account for sickness and turnover.
This is the standard rate used throughout this report. The following calcula-
tions are made to arrive at the manpower needs:
12-County 2 x 58 x 1.15 = 134 Inspectors
Alternate 1 x 58 x 1.15 = 67 Highway Patrolmen
18-County 2 x 49 x 1.15 = 114 Inspectors
Alternate 1 x 49 x 1.15 = 66 Highway Patrolmen
165
-------
This does not include the need for additional administrative or supervisory per-
sonnel if they should be required. It was not possible within the scope of
this study, to determine these needs.
Manpower Requirements
Manpower requirements for this option will consist of all the requirements
presented previously for Option III plus additional personnel for the random
pullover program in rural areas, to be supervised by the Ohio Highway Patrol.
The resulting organizational network is shown in Figure 11. The following
Table 111 lists total state and contractor manpower allocations.
166
-------
STATE-
RUN
*
riMUCIM. «CCTt
i
/ .1 \
CONTRACTOR-
RUN
UMTUIT MHIIIIItTUTOII
ro«
1T1TIOK
OWO STATf fOCICE,
WITKICT OTFICEH.
KIUOOU rw.LOV» MKWIl
OWO STATE POLICE
UOWLI
IN»TfltMC*T
•emm
TCCI
STATION LtVft,
ITATKM WNOMU.I
Figure 11. Administrative organization, Option V.
-------
TABLE 111. MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR OPTION V
State Administrative Personnel
1 Administrator
1 Assistant Administrator for Supporting Services
1 Legal Counsel
1 Purchasing Officer
1 Contracts Officer
1 Accountant
1 Engineer
1 Systems Analyst
1 Statistician/Programmer
1 Mechanic Training Coordinator
Contractor State Personnel
1 Assistant Administrator for Station Operations
1 Inspector Training Coordinator
Contractor Regional Personnel
Number
Alternate A Alternate B
5 5 Regional Managers
5 5 Instrument Repair Technicians
5 5 Public Relations Officials
5 5 Calibration and Maintenance Coordinators
12 14 Mobile Calibration and Maintenance Officials
Contractor Local Personnel
35 41 Station Managers
35 41 Station Assistant Managers
498 522 Station Inspectors
12 14 Station Maintenance Personnel
State Patrol Regional Personnel
1 1 Supervising Officer, Random Pullover Program
State Patrol Regional
10 10 District Officers, Random Pullover Program
67 66 State Troopers \ . , .,
,0/ in/ r > in mobile vans
134 114 Inspectors f
168
-------
SECTION 9
OPTION VI • STATEWIDE COVERAGE
• STATE ADMINISTERS CENTRALIZED LANES IN URBAN AREAS
• RANDOM ROADSIDE PULLOVERS IN RURAL AREAS
ALTERNATE A - 12 URBAN COUNTIES
ALTERNATE B - 18 URBAN COUNTIES
OPTION DEFINITION
This option involves the Ohio State Government establishing a network of
centralized idle mode test lanes in either 12 Urban Counties (Alternate A) or
18 Urban Counties (Alternate B). In the remaining rural counties, inspection
will be conducted by the Ohio State Highway Patrol in a random pullover program,
in conjunction with their random safety inspection program. A description of
this program is in the preceeding Section 8. The Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency and the Bureau of Motor Vehicles are the Administrative Agencies. Ohio
EPA would direct the overall program including purchasing land and equipment,
building and operating the test facilities, designing the program, training
personnel, providing public information, data handling and analysis, and all
other program elements except enforcement. The Bureau of Motor Vehicles would
be primarily responsible for enforcement in this option. In Section 16 there
is a dicsussion of the sticker-ticketing method of enforcement.
Network Requirements
The basic network requirements for centralized lanes in the urban areas
have been derived previously in detail in Section 4. Again, the following
number of inspections were derived for 1987 assuming a 30 percent stringency
factor.
1987 Total Inspections
• Alternate A (12 County) 7,436,000
• Alternate B (18 County) 8,148,300
Next, the number of centralized lanes needed for both alternates were
derived in Section 4 which were:
1987 Centralized Lane Requirements
• Alternate A (12 County) 166 lanes
• Alternate B (18 County) 184 lanes
169
-------
Finally the actual inspection network in terms of the approximate loca-
tions and station size were computed. The networks are, again, the same as in
the previous options, and are shown in Tables 112 and 113.
Option Costs
In Option VI the costs for the centralized facilities are exactly the
same as in Option IV, Section 7. The approach here will be to summarize the
major cost categories for the centralized facilities. The cost of the road-
side random inspection will be discussed at the end of Section 9.
Initial Capital Costs
The initial capital costs for land, land improvements, buildings,; test
equipment, central computer, maintenance/calibration vans, and security systems
are the same for Option VI as those discussed for Option IV in Section 7. For
convenience they are again provided in Table 114.
TABLE 114. CAPITAL COSTS FOR OPTION VI
l_-J--r--r- -— - :—i --.- —i.--i-T--i- - - i—i •••- - ••-— — • --.- - — — ..-._..
Item Alternate A Alternate B
Land investment (includes employments $ 2,672,970 $ 2,997,290
Building investment 12,027,834 13,330,420
Test equipment 7,365,000 8,340,000
Control computer 250,000 250,000
Maintenance/calibration vans 168,000 196,000
Security systems 38,500 45,000
$22,522,304 $25,158,810
One Time Start-Up Costs
The initial expenditures for land acquisition, facilities planning, data
software development, program design, test and administrative personnel salaries
and overhead, initial public relations program, and personnel training are
exactly the same as those presented for Option .IV Section 7. For convenience,
a summary of the total start-up costs for Option VI is presented in Table 115.
Annual Operating Costs
The annual costs for facility personnel salaries and overhead, equipment
repair, replacement and preventive maintenance, utilities, insurance, calibra-
tion, uniforms and security are identical to Option V. In Option VI, unlike
Option V however, there would be no requirement to pay taxes. This reflects
a different figure for the cost category "Utilities, Supplies, and Services."
The cost for the category is provided in Table 116.
170
-------
TABLE 112. INSPECTION NETWORK REQUIREMENTS FOR
OPTION IV - ALTERNATE A, 12 COUNTY
County
Butler
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Town ,
Hamilton
Middletown
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Co lumbus
Cincinnati
Norwood
Mentor on the Lake
Pains vi lie
Lorain
Elyria
Toledo
Youngstown
Englewood
Dayton
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Cuyahoga Falls
Warren
Niles
Total Network
racilitie
1
1
6
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
35
Configuration
3 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
166 lanes
171
-------
TABLE 113. INSPECTION NETWORK REQUIREMENTS FOR
OPTION IV - ALTERNATE B, 18 COUNTY
County
Butler
Clermont
Cuyohoga
Franklin
Geauga
Green
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Medina
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Warren
Wood
„, Number of „ ... ..
Town - ..... Configuration
facilities 6
Hamilton
Middletown
Batavia
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Chardon
Fairborn
Cincinnati
Norwood
Mentor on the Lake
Pains vi lie
Lorain
Elyria
Toledo
Youngstown
Ellsworth
Medina
Dayton
Englewood
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Cuyohoga Falls
Warren
Niles
Lebanon
Bowling Green
Total Network
1
1
1
6
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
41
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
184 lanes
172
-------
TABLE 115. START-UP COSTS FOR OPTION VI
Item Alternate A Alternate B
Land acquisition $ 377,529 $ 435,122
Facilities planning 1,202,783 1,333,042
Data handling software 200,000 200,000
Program design 100,000 100,000
Test personnel salaries + overhead 1,094,375 1,224,273
Administrative salaries + overhead 1,421,940 1,421,940
Initial public relations program 900,000 978,000
Personnel training 10,790 11.622
5,307,417 5,703,999
TABLE 116. ANNUAL COST FOR UTILITIES, SERVICES,
SUPPLIES OPTION IV ALTERNATE A
Alternate A Alternate B
Utilities $ 391,188 $ 442,563
Insurance 249,000 276,000
Computer operation and forms 1,338,475 1,466,690
Calibration 105,600 123,200
Uniforms 72,500 81,000
Security 29,750 34,850
$ 2,186,513 $ 2,424,303
Annual Administrative Costs
Annual costs for program administrative personnel salaries and overhead,
public information, and personnel training are the same for Option VI as were
previously discussed in Option IV.
The Annual Administrative costs are summarized in Table 117.
173
-------
TABLE 117. ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR OPTION VI
Item Alternate A Alternate B
Program administrative salaries and overhead $ 568,776 $ 568,776
Public information 900,000 978,000
Inspector training 800 832
1,469,576 1,547,608
SUMMARY
The total costs of Option VI are summarized in Tables 118 and 119.
Initial capital costs and one-time start-up costs are converted to annual
figures using the amortization factors discussed in Section 3. These annuali-
zed costs are added to annual operating costs and annual administrative costs
to arrive at total annual costs in constant 1978 dollars.
A uniform fee in constant dollars (fc) was calculated by dividing the
annual costs by the average annual vehicle registrations for the period 1981
to 1987 (5,200,000 for Alternate A and 5,700,000 for Alternate B). This
assumes a free retest. These calculations are recorded in Tables 120 and 121.
COST CALCULATIONS FOR RANDOM INSPECTION IN RURAL AREAS
The random pullover emission testing would be conducted by the State
Patrol in mobile vans with two inspectors and one patrolman per team.
Based on currently reported pullover rates from the safety inspection
program, a throughput of 8 vehicles/hr/van can be assumed, or 16,640 inspections/
van/yr. Inspection of one-quarter of the rural vehicle population annually has
been decided as the desirable goal. Then
3,839,700 x 0.25 = 959,900
3,291,800 x 0.25 = 822,900
Vehicles would have to be inspected annually for the 12- and 18-county urban
area alternatives, respectively. Dividing these figures by the annual through-
put per van gives the number of vans required.
Assuming that an additional 15 percent of this total will actually be
needed as a result of equipment breakdowns, repair, and maintenance, Table 122
shows the total number of vans required for each alternate.
174
-------
TABLE 118. COST SUMMARY OPTION VI ALTERNATE A
Ul
Primary category
Initial capital costs
,
One time start-up costs
Annual operating costs
Annual administrative
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
(includes, vans, computer, security system)
Land acquisition
Facilities planning
Program design
Development of data handling
System services
Personnel training
Personnel salaries and overhead
Initial public information program
Facility personnel
Maintenance
Utilities, services, supplies
Program administrative salaries
Public information
Training
Element
cost ($)
2,672,970
12,027,834
$ 7,821,500
377,529
1,202,783
100,000
200,000
10,790
2,516,315
900,000
7,007,500
1,473,000
2,186,513
568,776
900,000
800
Total category
cost ($)
$22,522,304
$ 5,307,417
$10,667,013
$ 1,469,576
-------
TABLE 119. COST SUMMARY OPTION VI ALTERNATE B
Primary category
Initial capital costs
One time start-up costs
Annual operating costs
Annual administrative 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
(includes, vans, computer, security systems)
Land acquisition
Facilities planning
Program design
Development of data handling
System services
Personnel training
Personnel salaries and overhead
Initial public information program
Facility personnel
Maintenance
Utilities, services, supplies
Program administrative salaries
Public information
Training
Element
cost ($)
$ 2,997,290
13,330,420
8,831,100
435,122
1,333,042
100,000
200,000
11,622
2,646,213
978,000
7,517,500
1,668,000
2,424,303
568,766
978,000
832
T6£al category
cost ($)
$25,158,810
$ 5,703,999
$11,609,803
$ 1,547,608
-------
TABLE 120. fc OPTION VI, ALTERNATE A
I.
II.
III.
IV.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
when i = 0.03
Cost class
Capital Costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Startup Costs
Operating Costs
Administrative
Costs
Total
Feec
when i = 0.06
Cost Class
Capital costs
1. Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Startup costs
Operating costs
Administrative
costs
Total
Feec
Cost ($)
2,672,970
12,027,834
7,821,500
5,307,417
10,667,013
1,467,576
15,889,999
Cost ($)
2,672,970
12,027,834
7,821,500
5,307,417
10,667,013
1,469,576
16,460,194
Amortization factor
for i - 0.03
0.03
0.067
0.2184
0.2184
i- 5,200,000
Amortization factor
for i - 0.06
0.06
0.087
0.2374
0.2374
* 5,200,000
Annual ized cost ($)
(column 2)x(column 3)
80,189
805,865
1,708,216
1,159,140
10,667,013
1,469,576
15,889,999
3.06
Annualized cost ($)
(column 2)x (column 3)
160,378
1,046,422
1,856,824
1,259,981
10,667,013
1,469,576
16,460,194
3.20
177
-------
TABLE 121. fc OPTION VI, ALTERNATE B
I.
II.
III.
IV.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
when i = 0.03
Cost class
Capital Costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Startup costs
Operating costs
Admini s t rat i ve
costs
Total
Feec
when i = 0.06
Cost class
Capital costs
1. Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Startup costs
Operating costs
Administrative
costs
Total
Feec
Cost ($)
2,997,290
13,330,420
8,831,100
5,703,999
11,609,803
1,547,608
17,314,933
Cost ($)
2,997,290
13,330,420
8,831,100
5,703,999
11,609,803
1,547,608
17,947,627
Amortization factor
for i - 0.03
0.03
0.067
0.2184
0.2184
T 5,700,000
Amortization factor
for i - 0.06
0.06
0.087
0.2374
0.2374
* 5,700,000
Annualized cost ($)
(column 2)x(column 3)
89,919
893,138
1,928,712
1,245,753
11,609,803
1,547,608
17,314,933
3.04
Annualized cost ($)
(column 2)x(column 3)
179,837
1,159,747
2,096,503
1,354,129
11, .609, 803
1,547,608
17,947,627
3.15
178
-------
TABLE 122. MOBILE INSPECTION VANS REQUIRED, STATE
PATROL RANDOM PULLOVER PROGRAM
Urban area alternative Number of vans required
12-County 58 + 9 = 67
18-County 49 + 8 = 57
Capital Costs
The cost of a fully equipped inspection van has been estimated at $11,500.
There would be a need for approximately one extra analyzer for every three
vans in order to account for equipment failure and repair. Given the basic
unit cost for analyzers as $3,000 apiece, the total capital costs would be as
shown in Table 123.
TABLE 123. CAPITAL COSTS, STATE PATROL RANDOM
PULLOVER PROGRAM
12-County urban 18-County urban
Cost element alternative alternative
Inspection vans
Extra analyzers
Total capital cost
$770,500
$ 57,000
$827,500
$655,500
$ 48,000
$703,500
Annual Costs
One state patrolman and two inspectors are required for each van. The
annual salary plus benefits for each van totals $37,300. Estimates made for
annual operating costs for each van are as follows:
Gasoline and oil $1,500
Insurance $ 500
Calibration gases $ 200
$2,200
Based on experiences in similar programs, it can be assumed that equipment
repair costs will be 20 percent of the original purchase price annually. Then
Annual Operating Costs will be as shown in Table 124.
179
-------
TABLE 124. ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS, STATE PATROL
RANDOM PULLOVER PROGRAM
Cost element 12-County urban 18-County urban
alternative alternative
Inspection personnel
Van operation
Equipment repair
Total Annual Cost
$2,499,100
$ 127,600
$ 165,500
$2,792,200
$2,126,100
$ 107,800
$ 140,700
$2,374,600
The potential increases in costs for the Ohio State Highway Patrol to
administer this program were not estimated. It is possible that given a program
already in existence, some of the administrative tasks would be absorbed into
the system. However, what is contemplated under this option, and similarly in
Optio VI, is an expansion of the already existing program for random safety
inspection. This program expansion would be about a doubling of the number of
inspection teams, although this is a conservative estimate because this does
not include the number of vehicles that would continue during safety inspection
in urban areas. A more likely scenario would be a statewide random emission and
safety program in which the urban safety/emission test would be a quality
assurance procedure, while in rural areas the random inspection would not be a
quality assurance procedure but rather a primary testing procedure. Given the
number of uncertain variables and lack of data, it was, then, not possible to
estimate any additional administrative costs for the random inspection program
in rural areas.
Random Pullover Program Manpower Requirements
To determine the manpower equirements give the number of actual inspection
teams and vans needed to reach a 25 percent pullover rate, a 15 percent manpower
efficiency factor was utilized to account for sickness and turnover. This is
the standard rate used throughout this report. The following calculations are
made to arrive at the manpower needs:
12-County 2 x 58 x 1.15 = 134 Inspectors
Alternative 1 x 58 x 1.15 = 67 Highway Patrolmen
18-County 2 x 49 x 1.15 = 114 Inspectors
Alternative 1 x 49 x 1.15 = 66 Highway Patrolmen
This would not include the need for additional administrative or super-
visory personnel if they would be needed. It was not possible in this study
to determine these needs.
180
-------
Manpower Requirements
The manpower requirements for this option are exactly the same as for
Option V, the only difference being that the state assumes all functions
previously performed by the contractor. Figure 12 shows the resulting ad-
ministrative organization. Table 125 lists total state manpower allocations.
181
-------
AOmilKTIUTM 1
STATE-
RUN
tSSISTANT AOWMtSTRATOII
FOR
SUFPOAT
|LE**L COUttSCL
FINANCIAL 5CCTIOM
PURCHASING CONTRACTS
OFF ICC" OFFICER
EM6MKCK1N« SECTION
/ . 1 \
SYSTEMS STATISTICAL
ANALYST PROQftAMHEII
CONTRACTOR -
RUN
ASSISTANT AD«Mi*TiuToit
FOR
STATION OPERATIONS
00
10
Figure 12. Administrative organization, Option VI.
-------
TABLE 125. MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR OPTION VI
State Administrative Personnel
1 Administrator
1 Assistant Administrator for Supporting Services
1 Legal Counsel
1 Purchasing Officer
1 Contracts Officer
1 Accountant
1 Engineer
1 Systems Analyst
1 Statistician/Programmer
1 Mechanic Training Program Coordinator
1 Assistant Administrator for Station Operation
1 Inspector Training Coordinator
State Regional Personnel
5 Regional Managers
5 Instrument Repair Technicians
5 Public Relations Officials
5 Calibration/Maintenance Coordinators
Number
Alternate A Alternate B
12 14 Mobile Calibration and Maintenance Officials
State Local Personnel
35 41 Station Managers
35 41 Station Assistant Managers
498 522 Station Inspectors
12 14 Station Maintenance Personnel
Ohio State Patrol - State Personnel
1 1 ' Supervising Officer, Random Pullover Program
Ohio State Patrol - Regional Personnel
10 10 District Officers, Random Pullover Program
67 66 State Troopers) . ....
io/ n/ -r } in mobile vans
134 114 Inspectors )
183
-------
OPTION VII -
SECTION 10
STATEWIDE COVERAGE
• PRIVATE GARAGE TESTING IN URBAN
AND RURAL AREAS
• STATE OR CONTRACTOR CONDUCTS SUR-
VEILLANCE/QUALITY CONTROL OF GARAGES
OPTION DEFINITION
In Option VII the state government would establish a decentralized network
of licensed private stations to conduct emissions inspection in participating
private garages, new car dealers, and service stations. The Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency and the Bureau of Motor Vehicles would be the administrative
agencies. Ohio EPA would be responsible for program design, licensing, mechanic/
inspector training, surveillance, quality control, building and running referee
stations, and overall program administration. The issue of having the state
versus a private contractor conduct the surveillance of private garages is dis-
cussed in Section 17. The Bureau of Motor Vehicles is primarily responsible
for enforcement function under the motor vehicle registration enforcement
approach. The issue of sticker/ticketing as an alternative approach is
discussed in Section 16.
Network Requirements
In establishing network requirements for a completely decentralized system
of private inspection stations statewide, the vehicle population to be tested
was estimated using the same assumptions as those used for the previous six
options, as described in Section 4, Option I.
Assuming a steady 3 percent per year growth rate in vehicle registrations,
the 1978 vehicle population will be divided between urban and rural areas as
shown in Table 126.
184
-------
TABLE 126. VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS IN URBAN AND
RURAL AREAS, 1987
Number of registrations
Location
12-county urban
alternative
18-county urban
alternative
Urban
Rural
Statewide
5,720,000
3,839,700
9,559,700
6,267,900
3,291,800
9,559,700
Making the same assumption about test stringency in rural areas as in urban,
30 percent more inspections than actual registrations will be required, as shown
in Table 127.
TABLE 127. VEHICLE INSPECTIONS REQUIRED IN URBAN
AND RURAL AREAS, 1987
Location
Number of inspections required
12-county urban 18-county urban
alternative alternative
Urban
Rural
Statewide
7,436,000
4,991,600
12,427,600
8,148,300
4,279,300
12,427,600
There are thousands of private garages in Ohio that could potentially
serve as motor vehicle emissions inspection stations. Rather than arbitrarily
choose an "optimum" number of these stations to comprise an I/M network, we
have derived minimum and maximum levels of private garage participation in
such a network by making certain assumptions about private garage performance
and profitability. Somewhere in the range of participation between these mini-
mum and maximum levels is the level at which a network of private garages can
reasonably be expected to operate; the average of the minimum and maximum levels,
the "mid" level, has been chosen for analysis as one such participation level.
Minimum Statewide Private Garage Network—
Recalling the formula
r - -L
° " DN
as used in the network derivations for Options I and II, and using the same
assumptions about maximum private garage throughput as in those options (5,250
185
-------
inspections per year, or 21 vehicles per day), the minimum network required to
handle the entire statewide light-duty vehicle population is:
I 12,427,600
G = m = (250X21) =2>367 sarages"
Table 128 shows the number of garages, service area radius, and market
participation rate associated with this minimum network.
TABLE 128. NUMBER OF GARAGES, SERVICE AREA RADIUS AND
MARKET PARTICIPATION RATE, MINIMUM STATEWIDE
PRIVATE GARAGE NETWORK
Number of Service area Market participation
garages radius, miles rate, percent
2,367 2.35 20.6
Table 129 shows the minimum private garage participation required in
each of the 18 urban counties, as well as the corresponding market participa-
tion rate and service area radius for each.
Maximum Statewide Private Garage Network—
Recalling the cost-revenue discussion used in the derivation of the maxi-
mum private garage network for Options I and II, and making the same assumptions
about the cost factors in the equation:
M(C-F) =A+S+L+0
a maximum statewide private garage network can be derived, as shown in Table 130.
A reasonable combination of wages and hours would be a wage rate of $5.50
per hour and a 4-hour inspection work day; a break-even throughput of 1,819
vehicles per station per year results. Table 131 shows the number of garages,
service area radius, and market participation rate associated with this maximum
statewide network.
Table 132 shows the maximum private garage participation feasible in each
of the 18 urban counties, as well as the corresponding market participation
rate and service area radius for each.
Taking the average of the above-derived minimum and maximum participation
levels yields what will be referred to as the "mid" level in the cost analysis
of this option. Information concerning this "mid" level of participation is
summarized in Table 133.
186
-------
TABLE 129. MINIMUM URBAN PRIVATE GARAGE PARTICIPATION,
OPTION VII
County
Butler
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
12-county total
Clermont
Geauga
Greene
Medina
Warren
Wood
18-county total
Inspections
required
270,500
1,775,900
968,100
947,700
248,000
318,400
541,800
343,600
680,700
428,700
619,400
293,200
7,436,000
132,800
84,900
150,600
122,700
106,300
115,000
8,148,300
Number of
garages
52
338
184
181
47
61
103
65
130
82
118
56
1,416
25
16
29
23
20
22
1,552
Market participation
rate, percent
20.6
25.5
23.6
21.8
23.4
23.9
22.9
19.8
22.8
19.8
20.5
22.1
20.7
20.7
26.7
24.2
20.5
22.0
18.6
22.6
Service area
radius, miles
1.70
0.66
0.97
0.85
1.25
1.61
1.03
1.43
1.06
1.50
1.05
1.86
1.10
2.41
2.85
2.13
2.43
2.55
2.99
1.29
187
-------
TABLE 130.. MAXIMUM PRIVATE GARAGE PARTICIPATION
(NUMBER OF GARAGES), STATEWIDE PRIVATE
GARAGE NETWORK
Hours per day spent
on inspections
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Hourly wage of inspectors
$4.50
18,278*
11,168
8,040
6,282
5,154
4,369
3,792
3,349
$5.50
16,014*
9,522
6,771
5,255
4,295
3,629
3,143
2,772
$6.50
14,247*
8,291
5,847
4,515
3,678
3,103
2,683
2,363
V
The number of garages indicated here exceeds the
total number of garages statewide; this combination
of hours and wages is therefore not feasible.
TABLE 131. NUMBER OF GARAGES, SERVICE AREA RADIUS,
AND MARKET PARTICIPATION RATE, MAXIMUM
STATEWIDE PRIVATE GARAGE NETWORK
Number of
garages
Service area
radius, miles
Market participation
rate, percent
5,255
1.58
45.7
188
-------
TABLE 132. MAXIMUM URBAN PRIVATE GARAGE PARTICIPATION,
OPTION VII
Inspections Number of Market participation Service area
County required garages rate, percent radius, miles
Butler
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
12-county
Clermont
Geauga
Greene
Medina
Warren
Wood
18-county
270,500
1,775,900
968,100
947,700
248,000
318,400
514,800
343.600
680,700
428,700
619,400
293,200
total 7,436,000
132,800
84,900
150,600
122,700
106,300
115,000
total 8,148,300
115
751
409
401
103
135
229
145
288
182
262
124
3,144
56
36
64
52
45
48
3,445
45.6
56.7
52.5
48.3
51.2
52.9
49.8
44.2
50.6
43.9
45.6
49.0
50.4
46.3
27.8
53.3
46.4
49.5
40.7
50.2
1.14
0.44
0.65
0.57
0.84
1.08
0.69
0.95
0.71
1.00
0.70
1.25
0.74
1.61
1.90
1.42
1.59
1.73
1.64
0.87
TABLE 133. PRIVATE GARAGES STATEWIDE MID
PARTICIPATION LEVEL
Number of
garages
3,811
Service area
radius, miles
1.85
Market participation
rate, percent
33.1
189
-------
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
Referee Lanes—
Under Option VII, motorists whose vehicles fail inspection twice in private
garages would be given the opportunity to have their vehicles inspected free in
a state-owned and operated facility. These state facilities, or "referee lanes,"
would also investigate allegations of unnecessary or overpriced maintenance,
and grant waivers for those vehicles exempted from inspection for various rea-
sons (age, excessive repair costs, etc.). The inspection performed in a ref-
eree station would be more complete than the simple idle-mode inspection de-
scribed for the other options. It would include a loaded-mode emissions test,
an under-hood inspection of emissions equipment, and a diagnostic engine anal-
ysis. Based on a 30-minute throughput and a 0.67 efficiency factor, each sta-
tion would be able to perform approximately 3,000 inspections per year. When
compared with the throughput for a similar facility in another state, this
throughput is adequate to handle demand from a vehicle population of approxi-
mately 1 million vehicles. Thus, for Option VII, a network of 12 such referee
lanes, one in each of the counties having a population of 200,000 or greater,
would be more than adequate to meet statewide demand for the services of such
facilities; locating referee lanes in rural areas would not prove cost-effective
from a program standpoint.
Capital costs for one referee lane are shown in Table 134. The assump-
tions made in deriving these costs are the same as those for state-owned facil-
ities in the other options.
TABLE 134. CAPITAL COSTS FOR REFEREE LANE FACILITIES,
OPTION VII
Cost element
Building
Land
Purchase price
$102,000
$ 17,066
Equipment:
Diagnostic engine analyzer $ 8,000
Chassis dynamometer $ 14,000
Miscellaneous tools and supplies $ 2,000
Total $143,066
190
-------
The total referee lane investment, then, is:
12 x $143,066 = $1,716,792.
Inspection and Licensing Vans—
Based on discussions with manufacturers of vans and equipment, the purchase
price of a fully-equipped state inspection and licensing van is $14,000. These
vans will be used by inspection and licensing officials to review and evaluate
applications of those private garages wishing to join an I/M program, as well
as to perform monthly calibrations of the analyzers in garages already partici-
pating in an I/M network. They will contain two calibrated analyzers, one to
be used as a spare in case of equipment failure. The total van investment by
the state is dependent on the number of garages participating in an I/M program.
Making the same assumptions as those discussed for Options I and II, one van
will be required for every 70 private garages, plus an additional percentage of
the total (15 percent) to replace those vans which break down or require sched-
uled maintenance. Table 135 shows the number of vans needed to service the
minimum, mid, and maximum private garage networks derived previously, and their
purchase prices.
TABLE 135. STATE INSPECTION AND LICENSING VANS REQUIRED,
OPTION VII
Level of participation,
private garage network
Minimum
Mid
Maximum
Number of
garages
2,367
3,811
5,255
Number of
vans required
39
63
86
Purchase
price
$546,000
$882,000
$1,204,000
Complaints Investigation Vehicles—
Based on discussions with manufacturers, the purchase price of a com-
plaint investigation vehicle is $5,000. These automobiles will be used by
complaints investigation personnel in the performance of their duties.
Table 136 shows the number of such vehicles required, and their purchase
price to service the minimum, mid, and maximum levels of private garage par-
ticipation derived previously, using the assumption of one vehicle required
for every 100 garages in the private network and adding an additional 15 per-
cent to cover replacement for breakdown or scheduled maintenance.
TABLE 136. STATE COMPLAINTS INVESTIGATION VEHICLES
REQUIRED, OPTION VII
Level of participation,
private garage network
Minimum
Mid
Maximum
Number of
garages
2,367
3,811
5,255
Number of
vehicles required
28
44
61
Purchase
price
$140,000
$220,000
$305,000
191
-------
One-Time Start-Up Costs
Land Acquisition—
Using the same assumptions as those used in the previously discussed op-
tions, land 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 title conveyance costs. The acquisition cost for the 12 referee land
sites, then, is
(12 facilities)($6,000/facility) + (0.10)($1,716,792)
= $72,000 + $171,679 = $243,679
Facilities Planning—
Since the construction costs of the 12 referee lanes in this option are
less than $3,000,000, the facilities planning cost is assumed to be 20 percent
of the construction cost, as discussed in the previous options. The facilities
planning cost, then, is
(0.20) x (1,224,000) = $244,800
Program Design—
As discussed in the previous options, a cost of $200,000 will be estimated
for program design.
Data Handling Software—
Based on discussions with State of Ohio officials, the initial costs of
establishing a computerized data handling system for the state will be $25,000
to create the necessary files and $42,000 to reload them onto magnetic tape,
or a total start-up cost of $67,000.
Personnel Training—
As previously indicated, an initial, intensive training effort is required
prior to program start-up. Based on discussions with states and private con-
tractors involved in I/M program operation, the personnel requirements for
referee facilities will be as follows:
• One supervisor per facility;
• One test engineer per facility;
• One inspector per facility;
• One clerk per facility; and
• One station maintenance person per facility.
Applying these rates to facility requirements developed previously, the total
referee station operating personnel requirements will be:
12 supervisors
12 test engineers
14 inspectors
14 clerks
14 station maintenance persons.
192
-------
As discussed previously, Option VII will also require mobile state inspection
and licensing personnel and complaints investigation personnel. Costs of
training all the above-mentioned personnel will be as follows:
$53.00 for referee station managers
$43.00 for complaints investigators
$43.00 for inspection and licensing officials
$16.00 for inspectors
$53.00 for test engineers
Based on the above rates, personnel training costs can be calculated. Since
the numbers of some of these personnel are dependent on the number of garages
in the system, personnel training costs are shown in Table 137 for the mini-
mum, mid, and maximum private garage networks derived previously.
TABLE 137. PERSONNEL TRAINING COSTS,
OPTION VII
Level of participation, _. ., . .
v , Personnel training cost
private garage network
Minimum $4,377
Mid $6,097
Maximum $7,817
Personnel Salaries—
Assuming that (1) all referee station supervisory personnel would be phased
into the program 6 months prior to start-up; (2) inspectors, test engineers, and
other referee station personnel would be phased into the program 1 month prior
to start-up; and (3) the salaries for inspection station personnel mentioned
previously, a total test personnel cost of $210,338 can be derived.
The administrative personnel costs must also be included in the start-up
phase. These positions would be phased in 18 months prior to start-up for this
option. Based on the discussion of administrative personnel requirements in
Section 3, the costs associated with 18 months of start-up can be computed.
Based on salary estimates obtained from the State of Ohio, then costs will be
as shown in Table 138. A factor of 25 percent for administrative overhead
has been included.
TABLE 138. PERSONNEL SALARIES, START-UP PHASE,
OPTION VII
Level of participation, „ ., ,
.. , Personnel salaries
private garage network
Minimum $1,878,511
Mid $2,601,091
Maximum $3,323,671
193
-------
Initial Public Information Program—
As in previous options, an estimate of $0.12 per vehicle inspected will
be used for the initial public information program. This translates to a cost
of $1,147,164.
Annual Operating Costs
Facility Personnel—
Based on the above-discussed referee station staffing requirements and
salaries, the annual referee station personnel costs are $665,774.
Maintenance—
Based on the previously-discussed estimate of 20 percent of original equip-
ment cost for maintenance, the yearly cost of equipment repair and replacement
will be:
(12 facilities) x ($24,000) x (0.20) = $57,600
Utilities/Supplies/Services
Utilities—
Based on the utility costs derived previously for electric usage, the
annual cost for utilities is calculated below:
(12 lanes)(166 kWh/day)($0.05)(250 operating days/year)
+ (12 facilities)(325 kWh/day)($0.05)(250 operating days/year)
= $24,900 + $48,750 = $73,650
Insurance—
Based on the $1,500 per lane estimate derived previously, insurance on the
referee lanes will cost $18,000 annually.
Computer Operation—
Central computer operation costs for a totally decentralized system for
vehicle inspections must include key punching, disc storage, and tape drives.
Based on discussions with State of Ohio officials, these costs are the
following:
Keypunching $340,000
Keypunch machine rental $ 52,000
Disc storage $450,000
Tape drives $ 21,600
Total $863,600
Inspection Forms—
In addition to computer operation costs, a cost of $0.03 per test has
been estimated based on experience in other states. This computes to a total
statewide cost of $372,828 per year.
194
-------
Calibration Costs—
The recurring annual cost of equipment calibration is defined as the cost
of the calibration gases plus the operating cost of the inspection and licensing
vans. The total annual calibration costs for Option VII are outlined in
Table 139, for the three participation levels derived previously.
TABLE 139. ANNUAL CALIBRATION COSTS FOR
OPTION VII
Level of participation, Ammal calibration costs
private garage network
Minimum $343,200
Mid $554,400
Maximum $756,800
Taxes—
Taxes will not be paid on the referee lane facilities, as it is assumed
they will be owned by the state.
Uniforms—
Based on the $125.00 per year estimate of uniform costs previously dis-
cussed, Table 140 presents annual uniform costs for the three levels of
private garage participation.
TABLE 140. UNIFORM COSTS, OPTION VII
Level of participation, , n . c
K , Annual uniform costs
private garage network
Minimum $15,125
Mid $20,125
Maximum $25,125
The total annual cost for utilities, supplies, and services is shown in
Table 141 for the three levels of private garage participation derived
previously.
Annual Administrative Costs
Based on the personnel requirements and salaries discussed previously,
annual administrative salaries will represent a cost to the state which is
shown in Table 142 for the three levels of garage participation.
195
-------
TABLE 141. ANNUAL COST FOR UTILITIES, SUPPLIES,
AND SERVICES, OPTION VII
Cost element
Utilities
Insurance
Computer operation
Forms
Taxes
Uniforms
Total
Minimum
network
$
$
$
$
$
$1
73
10
863
372
15
,686
,650
,000
,600
,828
0
,125
,403
Mid
network
$
$
$
$
$
$1
73
18
863
372
20
,902
,650
,000
,600
,828
0
,125
,603
Maximum
network
$
$
$
$
$
$2
73
18
863
372
25
,110
,650
,000
,600
,828
0
,125
,003
TABLE 142. ANNUAL STATE ADMINISTRATIVE SALARY
PAYMENTS, OPTION VII
Personnel level
Level of participation, private garage network
Minimum
Mid
Maximum
State administrative
Regional administrative
Inspection and licensing
personnel
Complaints investigation
personnel
Total
$ 212,936 $ 212,936 $ 212,936
$ 343,888 $ 343,888 $ 343,888
$ 587,096 $ 948,386 $1,294,623
$ 421,505 $ 662,365 $ 918,279
$1,565,425 $2,167,035 $2,769,186
196
-------
Public Information—
The annual cost of an ongoing public relations program has been estimated
to be the same as the program startup cost, $1,147,164 per year.
Personnel Training—
As discussed in the other options, it is assumed that the replacement
rate for employees at the inspector and investigator levels will be 10 percent
per year. Assuming a training cost of $16.00 for inspectors and $43.00 for
investigators, Table 143 shows annual personnel training costs for the three
levels of private garage participation.
TABLE 143. ANNUAL PERSONNEL TRAINING
COSTS, OPTION VII
Level of participation, „ - . .
. Personnel training costs
private garage network
Minimum $349
Mid $521
Maximum $693
Summary
The total cost of Option VII is summarized in Tables 144a, b, and c, for
the three levels of private garage participation.
Motorist Inspection Fees
The total cost to the motorist for an emissions inspection in Option VII
will be made up of two components: (1) a state fee, which will be called the
"state sticker fee," which will be used to defray all state expenses, both for
administration and equipment; and (2) a private garage charge, which will be
called the "private garage fee," which will be used to defray equipment, labor
and other costs incurred by the private garage in performing emissions
inspections.
Sticker Fee Computation—
Initial capital costs and one-time start-up costs are converted to annual
figures using the amortization factors discussed in Section 3. These annual-
ized costs are added to annual operating costs and annual administrative costs
in order to arrive at total annual costs in constant 1978 dollars. Dividing
this total by the number of vehicles to be inspected (approximately 8,700,000
which is the average 1981 to 1987 vehicle population) yields the sticker fee
in constant dollars, F. Tables 145a, b, and c present the calculation of
F for i = 0.03 and i = 0.06 for the three participation levels defined above.
197
-------
TABLE 144a. COST SUMMARY, OPTION VII, MINIMUM PRIVATE GARAGE NETWORK
Primary category
Principal element
Element cost
($)
Total category
cost ($)
I. Initial capital costs
1. Referee lanes
2. Inspection and licensing vans
3. Complaints investigation
vehicles
1,716,792
546,000
140,000
2,402,792
II. One-time start-up costs
oo
1. Land acquisition
2. Facilities planning
3. Program design
4. Development of data handling
system software
5. Personnel training
6. Personnel salaries plus
overhead
7. Initial public information
program
243,679
244,800
200,000
67,000
4,377
1,878,511
1,147,164
3,785,531
III. Annual operating costs
IV. Annual administrative costs
1. Facility personnel 665,774
2. Maintenance 57,600
3. Utilities/services/supplies 1,686,403
1. Program administrative per- 1,565,425
sonnel salaries plus overhead
2. Public information 1,147,164
3. Personnel training 349
2,409,777
2,712,938
-------
TABLE 144b. COST SUMMARY, OPTION VII, MIDLEVEL PRIVATE GARATE NETWORK
Primary category
I. Initial capital costs
II. One-time start-up costs
III. Annual operating costs
IV. Annual administrative costs
„ . . Element cost
Principal element **\
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
Referee lanes
Inspection and licensing vans
Complaints investigation
vehicles
Land acquisition
Facilities planning
Program design
Development of data handling
system software
Personnel training
Personnel salaries plus
overhead
Initial public information
program
Facility personnel
Maintenance
Utilities/services/supplies
Program administrative per-
sonnel salaries plus overhead
Public information
Personnel training
1,716,792
882,000
220,000
243,679
244,800
200,000
67,000
6,097
2,1501,091
1,147,164
665,774
57,600
1,902,603
2,167,035
1,147,164
521
Total category
cost ($)
2,818,792
4,509,831
2,625,977
3,314,720
-------
TABLE 144c. COST SUMMARY, OPTION VII, MAXIMUM PRIVATE GARAGE NETWORK
Primary category
Principal element
Element cost
($)
Total category
cost ($)
I. Initial capital costs
1. Referee lanes
2. Inspection and licensing vans
3. Complaints investigation
vehicles
1,716,792
1,204,000
305,000
3,225,792
o
o
II. One-time start-up costs
1. Land acquisition
2. Facilities planning
3. Program design
4. Development of data handling
system software
5. Personnel training
6. Personnel salaries plus
overhead
7. Initial public information
program
243,679
244,800
200,000
67,000
7,817
3,323,671
1,147,164
5,234,131
III. Annual operating costs
IV. Annual administrative costs
1. Facility personnel 665,774
2. Maintenance 57,600
3. Utilities/services/supplies 2,110,003
1. Program administrative per- 2,769,186
sonnel salaries plus overhead
2. Public information 1,147,164
3. Personnel training 693
2,833,377
3,917,043
-------
TABLE 145a. F = STATE STICKER FEE CALCULATION, OPTION VII, MINIMUM NETWORK
When i = 0.03
S3
o
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Cost class
Capital costs
1. Referee lanes
2. I/L vans
3. Complaints vehicles
Start-up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
0 $8
Cost ($)
1,716,792
546,000
140,000
3,785,531
2,409,777
2,712,938
s068,137 ,n
1,700,000 •""'
Amortization factor
for i = 0.03
0.03
0.067
0.2184
0.2184
Annual! zed cost
(column 2)x(column 3)
51,504
36,582
30,576
826,760
2,409,777
2,712,938 .
6,068,137
When
i = 0.06
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Cost class
Capital costs
1. Referee lanes
2. I/L vans
3. Complaints vehicles
Start-up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Tnl-jl $6.
Total $8
Cost ($)
1,716,792
546,000
140,000
3,785,531
2,409,777
2,712,938
,205,146 A
,700,000 ^"
Amortization factor
for i = 0.06
0.06
0.087
0.2374
0.2374
1 = F
Annual ized cost
(column 2)x(column 3)
103,008
47,502
33,236
898,685
2,409,777
2,712,938
6,205,146
-------
TABLE 145b. F = STATE STICKER FEE CALCULATION, OPTION VII, MIDLEVEL NETWORK
When i = 0.03
NJ
O
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Cost class
Capital costs
1. Referee lanes
2. I/L vans
3. Complaints vehicles
Start-up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Total Vg1
Cost ($)
1,716,792
882,000
220,000
4,509,831
2,625,977
3,314,720
084,290 _ ,
700,000 y°'81
Amortization factor
for i = 0.03
0.03
0.067
0.2184
0.2184
= F
Annualized cost
(column 2)x(column 3)
51,504
59,094
48,048
984,947
2,625,977
3,314,720
7,084,290
When
i = 0.06
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Cost class
Capital costs
1. Referee lanes
2. I/L vans
3. Complaints vehicles
Start-up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
$7j
$8,
Cost ($)
1,716,792
882,000
220,000
4,509,831
2,625,977
3,314,720
243 301
' *- *** f\ Q *3
,700,000 v 'u
Amortization factor
for i = 0.06
0.06
0.087
0.2374
0.2374
= F
Annualized cost
(column 2)x(column 3)
103,008
76,734
52,228
1,070,634
2,625,977
3,314,720
7,243,301
-------
TABLE 145c. F = STATE STICKER FEE CALCULATION, OPTION VII, MAXIMUM NETWORK
When i = 0.03
to
o
I.
II.
III.
IV.
When
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Cost class
Capital costs
1. Referee lanes
2. I/L vans
3. Complaints vehicles
Start-up costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
$8,
Total
-------
Table 146, below, summarizes the results of these calculations.
TABLE 146. F, STATE STICKER FEE,
OPTION VII, CONSTANT DOLLARS
Level of participation,
private garage network
Minimum
Mid
Maximum
i = 0.03
$0.70
$0.81
$0.93
F
i = 0.06
$0.71
$0.83
$0.95
Garage Fee Computation —
The fee charged by private garages for performing an emissions inspection
will be based on those cost factors discussed in the derivation of the three
private garage network participation levels and on annual station throughput.
Recalling the formula used to calculate the maximum private garage network,
M(C-F) =A+S+L+0,
it can easly be shown by manipulating this formula that the total inspection
charge, C, can be calculated by using the following formula:
where: A = annual cost of an emissions analyzer; using the same assumptions
as above, this cost is $751.88 per year.
S = the salary of the emissions inspector. Assuming that he works
4 hours a day, 250 days per year, and earns $5.50 per hour, this
cost is $5,500.00 per year.
L = annual licensing fees for the private garage, assumed not to
exceed $100.00.
0 = overhead, assumed to be one-third of the inspector's salary,
or $1,833.33 per year.
M = the annual station throughput.
F = the state sticker fee in constant dollars.
By dividing the total number of paid inspections (here assumed to be the same
as registration totals, since retests are assumed to be free for failed ve-
hicles) by the total number of garages for the three participation levels de-
fined above, annual throughput rates for each of the three levels can be
204
-------
calculated. Substituting these throughput rates for M in the above formula,
and using all the cost assumptions listed above, the total inspection charge,
C, for each of the three participation levels can be determined. Subtracting
the state sticker fee, F, from the total charge yields the garage fee for each
level of participation.
Table 147 summarizes the calculations of garage fee, sticker fee, and
total inspection charge for each of the three levels of participation defined
previously, assuming i = 0.03.
TABLE 147. STATE STICKER FEE, PRIVATE GARAGE FEE,
AND TOTAL INSPECTION CHARGE, OPTION VII,
ASSUMING i = 0.03
Motorist inspection
Level of participation, private garage network
fee component
State sticker fee
Private garage fee
Total inspection charge
Minimum
$0.70
$2.22
$2.92
Mid
$0.81
$3.58
$4.39
Maximum
$0.93
$4.94
$5.87
Table 148 presents the same information as the previous table, but assumes
a social rate of discount i = 0.06.
TABLE 148. STATE STICKER FEE, PRIVATE GARAGE FEE,
AND TOTAL INSPECTION CHARGE, OPTION VII,
ASSUMING i = 0.06
Motorist inspection Level of participation, private garage network
fee component
State sticker fee
Private garage fee
Total inspection charge
Minimum
$0.71
$2.22
$2.93
Mid
$0.83
$3.58
$4.41
Maximum
$0.95
$4.94
$5.89
Conclusion
Since higher levels of market participation mean smaller annual through-
puts for each garage, private garages must charge more per inspection to break
even as participation levels increase. From the preceding cost analysis, it
is also obvious that state administrative costs increase significantly at
higher market participation levels, due to the higher numbers of complaints
investigators and inspection and licensing officials required. Thus, it is
205
-------
therefore desirable from both the average motorist's and the state's viewpoint
to hold market participation to as low a level as possible and to maximize
private garage efficiency in performing inspections. The minimum network
derived above assumes a very high level of garage efficiency; it might well
be used as a goal in establishing an I/M network. Various controls which the
state might exercise on the participation rate are as follows:
1. Establishment of a fixed number of inspection station licenses
to be granted in a given year;
2. Establishment of a maximum garage charge, to be applied state-
wide, which would render inspections unprofitable at inefficient
garages and profitable only at efficient garages; and
3. Regulation of annual licensing fees to be paid by inspection
stations.
OPTION VII MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
The manpower requirements for this option are quite different from the
other options. Due to the fact that the inspection network is totally de-
centralized, the state will not need to hire station-level personnel except
for the referee lanes. These personnel made up a significant percentage of
the total manpower requirements for the preceding options. On the other hand,
since the number of inspection stations in this option is very much larger
than the number for the previous options, the state will have to hire a large
number of complaints investigation and inspection and licensing personnel.
The resulting administrative organization is shown in Figure 13. Table 149
shows total state manpower allocations for this option, including state
referee lane personnel.
206
-------
I AOmNHTIUTOH |
10
O
^ r
rmnMri 1 T
ILHAL COUNSEL
PUftCHASMB CONTRACTS
orricEM omcEii
Cm.
I
CN6WCCHIIM SECTION
/ X . \
ST9TCHS STAT ItTIC A L
ANALYST
ASSISTANT AOHIMtSTftATOII
POM
STATION OP CHAT tONS
57* 7F LZVCL
Figure 13. Administrative organization, Option VII.
-------
TABLE 149. MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS, OPTION VII
State Administrative
1 Administrator
1 Assistant administrator for supporting services
1 Legal counsel
1 Purchasing officer
1 Contracts officer
1 Accountant
1 Engineer
1 Systems Analyst
1 Statistician/programmer
1 Mechanic/I&L/Inspector Training Program coordinator
1 AA for station operations
State Regional
5 Regional manager
5 Public relations officials
5 Complaints investigation coordinators
5 Inspection and licensing coordinators
Level of participation,
private garage network
Minimum Mid Maximum
Mobile inspection and licensing officials 39 63 86
Mobile complaints investigators 28 44 61
State Referee Lane Personnel
12 Supervisors
12 Test engineers
14 Inspectors
14 Clerks
14 Station maintenance personnel
208
-------
SECTION 11
BENEFITS
This section presents air quality and fuel economy benefits. Although the
primary objective of an inspection and maintenance program is to reduce hydro-
carbon and carbon monoxide emissions from mobile sources, an important second-
ary benefit of increased fuel economy also results from the improved maintenance
to the motor vehicles inspected by the program.
EMISSION REDUCTION BENEFITS
Mobile source emission inventories are presented for each of the 18 most
populous counties in Ohio. The impact of I/M on 1987 emission levels depends
upon the proportion of a county's travel (VMT) driven by vehicles subject to
mandatory emission inspection. All the options evaluated in this report fall
into one of three benefit scenarios. Options I, II, and VII require mandatory
inspection of all vehicles in the state. In this scenario all travel is by
mandatorially inspected vehicles. The second scenario requires mandatory in-
spection of only those vehicles registered in the 18 most populous counties.
Options III, IV, V and VI under Alternate B fall into this situation. Since
each of the 18 counties analyzed are those with mandatory inspection, only a
small proportion of the VMTs in these counties are generated by vehicles regis-
tered in areas without I/M. The third scenario requires mandatory inspection
of only those vehicles registered in the 12 most populous counties. This
situation includes Options III, IV, V and VI under Alternative A. In this
scenario, emissions are analyzed for six counties without mandatory inspection.
In each of these counties there is some emission reduction due to travel by
vehicles coming from the 12 inspection counties. In the counties with inspection,
this third scenario yields slightly increased emissions over the second scenario.
These increases are the result of six additional counties from which uninspected
vehicle trips can be generated. Emission inventories are presented for each
of the three scenarios as follows:
BENEFIT SCENARIOS
Scenario
First scenario:
(Options I, II, VII)
Second Scenario:
(Options III, IV, V,
VI under Alternate B)
Third Scenario:
(Options III, IV, V,
VI, under Alternate A)
12 most populous
counties
Mandatory
inspection
Mandatory
inspection
Mandatory
inspection
6 next populous
counties
Mandatory
inspection
Mandatory
inspection
NO mandatory
inspection
Remainder of
state
Mandatory
inspection
NO mandntory
inspection
NO mandatory
inspection
209
-------
Table 150 presents the benefits (percent reduction in daily vehicle emis-
sions) for 1987 which result from an I/M beginning in 1982. In terms of carbon
monoxide it may be seen that in scenario one the statewide mandatory inspection
options bring about the highest level of emission reduction of 27 percent
throughout the state. Next, the second scenario with mandatory I/M in the
18 urban counties give the second highest reduction 25, 3, and 17 percent in
the 18 urban counties, remaining rural, and statewide average respectively.
Finally, the third scenario, with mandatory inspection in the 12 urban counties
with population greater than 200,000 have the least emission reduction of
23, 3, and 15 percent for the 18 counties, remaining counties, and statewide
average, respectively. As discussed earlier in both the second and third
scenarios in the uninspection counties there is some emission reduction due
to inspected vehicles traveling to these counties. The reductions in hydro-
carbons although a few percent points less than carbon monoxide observe the
same ranking, namely the statewide mandatory inspection having the highest
level of emission reduction followed by the second and third scenarios.
TABLE 150. PERCENT REDUCTION IN DAILY VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTING
FROM I/M IN 1987
First Scenario Second Scenario Third Scenario
(Options I, II (Options III, IV, V (Options III, IV, V,
and VII) VI, under Alternate B) VI, under Alternate A)
CARBON MONOXIDE
18 Counties 27 25 23
Rural areas 27 3 3
Statewide 27 17 15
HYDROCARBONS
18 Counties
Rural areas
Statewide
22
22
22
17
2
14
19
2
12
No reduction in light-duty truck emissions was calculated because the credits
for this particular vehicle category have yet to be established by EPA.
Appropriate adjustments will be made when the credits are made available.
Tables 151 through 153 summarize hydrocarbon emissions, and Tables 154
through 156 present carbon monoxide emissions. All the tables give daily
emissions on a typical July day of 75°F when mobile emissions are at a maximum.
A general description of the methodology and assumptions used in calculating
these inventories is included in Section 3. A detailed description is included
in Appendix E.
Under the first scenario, the I/M program produces hydrocarbon emission re-
ductions ranging from 19.7 to 25.1 percent for the 18 counties analyzed. Under
the second scenario, hydrocarbon emission reductions drop slightly to 18.4 to
210
-------
23.7 percent in the 18 counties analyzed and under the third scenario reductions
drop to 18.0 to 23.7 percent in the 12 counties with inspection. Under the
third scenario, the six counties without inspection will experience reductions
from 1.5 to 3.2 percent.
Also under the first scenario, the I/M program produces carbon monoxide
reductions ranging from 19.5 to 29.2 percent for the 18 counties analyzed.
Under the second scenario, carbon monoxide emission reductions also drop slightly
to 17.4 to 28.0 percent in the 18 counties analyzed, and under the third
scenario reductions range from 17.9 to 27.0 percent in the 12 counties with
inspection. Under the third scenario, the six counties without inspection
will experience reductions from 1.8 to 3.9 percent.
Inventories were not calculated for areas outside the 18 most populous
counties. However, the findings for the analyzed regions yield general con-
clusions and guidelines applicable to the remainder of the state. When rural
counties have mandatory inspections (Options I, II and VII), emission reduc-
tions similar to those under the first scenario can be expected. When rural
counties have no mandatory inspection (Options III, IV, V, and VI), emission
reductions similar to those experienced by the six counties without mandatory
inspection in the third scenario can be expected.
FUEL ECONOMY BENEFITS
One of the important benefits of I/M programs, in addition to the reduc-
tion in vehicular emissions is energy conservation. A properly-tuned motor
operates with greater efficiency and therefore, consumes less fuel. This
improvement in fuel economy varies somewhat from one program to another but
most sources agree that a 5 to 10 percent fuel economy improvement for the
failed and maintained vehicles can be expected. This may understate the over-
all fleet improvement as some motor vehicle owners are likely to schedule
tune-ups just prior to having their cars inspected. One of the purposes of
I/M is to give an incentive to motorists to maintain their cars better than
they normally would in the absence of I/M.
A 7 percent fuel economy improvement was utilized in this study to cal-
culate the fuel savings from the I/M program options. With a stringency (fail-
ure) rate of 30 percent, the amount of fuel saved averaged for the total motor
vehicle population will amount to a 2.1 percent of total fleet fuel consumption.
For a detailed discussion of the methodology used for calculating fuel savings
the reader is referred to Appendix B, "Estimated Fuel Savings Resulting from
I/M in 1987." As shown below, for the 12 county alternate A, 28,898,530 gallons
of fuel would be saved in 1987. At $0.70 per gallon, vehicle owners will save
$20,228,970 which is approximately $11.80 per failed vehicle. If coverage is
extended to 18 counties as in Alternate A, motorists will consume 31,844,630
fewer gallons than without I/M saving a total of $22,291,241 which is approxim-
ately $11.85 per failed vehicle. The statewide program coverage provides the
largest savings of 37,171,280 gallons which would amount to $26,019,896 which
would be approximately $9.10 per failed vehicle.
211
-------
ANNUAL FUEL SAVINGS (GALLONS)
Total Dollar savings Savings per
fuel savings at $0.70 gallon failed vehicle
Alternate A - 12 County 28,898,530 $20,228,970.00 $11.80
Alternate B - 18 County 31,844,630 $22,291,241.00 $11.85
Statewide 37,171,280 $26,019,896.00 $ 9.10
212
-------
TABLE 151. DAILY HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FOR OPTIONS I, II, AND VII (kg/day)
N>
l-«
U)
Sutler Co
C-.ya.hos* Co.
rranml^n Co
Uke Co
L*ic« Co.
Su»lt Co.
TnaBtall Co.
CUmonC Co.
Gesuca Co
Greene Co
»»rr«n Co
Total - 6 counties
Total - 18 count xe*
1977
539
..597
,,2-4
433
718
770
881
503
272
57
145
413
1,563
12,807
i?e7
1,405
1,0*9
365
586
646
734
406
264
43
116
436
1.-36
11,005
HW-*.t
1977
13,997
5,574
2.076
3, 438
3,121
1.374
1,777
1,083
355
478
1.154
4,586
54,099
, ir-jc.s
1967
1 ,104
6,691
2,278
836
978
1,170
1,332
662
me
Ul
186
675
2.420
1977
3.03)
6.811
2.509
3.156
3,891
4,255
2,280
1,355
412
623
1.S67
6,149
m-
1,570
8,296
3,327
1,201
1,564
1,816
2,066
1,068
1,072
184
302
1,111
3,856
1977
106, *32
51.282
19,828
24.125
30,760
32,119
15,634
8,661
3,353
4,277
9,535
38.826
1937
without I'y
a^to
7 233
36,731
18,585
6,531
7,925
10,064
10.681
4,965
3,513
1,083
1,415
4.389
15.035
I'M
- 832
:-,959
...938
-.460
5,436
6,967
7,365
3,426
2,378
744
977
2,977
10,245
. ;*"
j !6i
iC ,,61
3,169
4.432
5,243
5.803
2,858
1,652
565
820
1 ,836
' .284
'.967
without I/I
1,873
9,517
4,565
1,661
2,116
2,654
2,824
1,325
945
264
394
1.219
4,152
;T
1 =73
9 5::
-,565
1.661
2.116
2,654
2.824
1,325
945
264
394
1,219
4,152
1977
:3 -62
126 6"6
61 ,+43
22,997
28,557
36.0Q)
37,922
18,492
10,313
3,918
5.097
11,371
46.110
196;
without Iff
total
9 106
46,248
23,150
8,192
10,041
12,718
13,505
6,290
4,458
1,347
1,809
5,608
19,187
:-M"
6 707
3* -76
16,503
6,121
7,552
9,621
10,189
4,751
3,323
1,008
1,371
4,196
14,397
19
1 —
«a
25
3V
39
42
20
11
4
5
12
52
,270
,261
506
,713
,894
,177
,772
,668
,330
,720
,938
259
1987
.0,676
54.54*
26,47-
9.J93
11,605
14,534
15,571
7,358
3,530
1,531
2,111
6,719
23.043
.96-
19 830
7,322
9,116
11,437
12,255
5,819
4,395
1,192
1,673
5,307
IS, 253
:lei
Ftcceat
"'
71
71 3
71 3
71.3
71
72
62 3
72.5
70.6
59
6; 1
Percent'
22 5
21 6
25 .
11 1
21 5
21 3
21 3
20 9
20 J
22 2
20 8
21
20 e
21 S
Ro reduction la light- doty wlMlons
Approprlitc •dJu>t»cBt« vill bt Mdt
+Ud»ctio« attributable to Federal Hotor Tefalcle Control Frofra»t (fHTCP) end I/K.
KeductioB attributable to I/M.
alculated b*c*u»« the credit! for this particular vehicle category heve jet to be established DT EPA.
the credits are •**• evallablt.
-------
TABLE 152. DAILY HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FOR OPTIONS III, IV, V, AND VI UNDER
ALTERNATIVE B (kg/day)
5>.::«- ce
.-Ul.-Sil CO
'"">•'"• -
Lake Co
Loravn Co
Luc»i Co
Mdhoniog Co
Hont|o«cry Co
Truabull Co
Clermont Co.
Src*n* Co
1*77
535
1.59'
1,2*4
433
718
633
881
503
272
145
193" :»•'
-06 :,•."-
, ,-0? 13 93'
1.04* ,.!--
365 :.076
586 2,438
509 1,648
734 3,374
406 1,777
264 1,063
116 478
.«- .»:- .*• ..-- Vie*;;; ,,,
1UC3
i ic. 3,;3: . y: .* ?•£ 7,233
6, SO! .5 55- : :i- -?S -3: 36 '31
: 275 e.i.s : 3" si 2E2 u.ses
836 2,50° 1 201 19,826 6,531
978 3,156 1,564 24,125 7.925
615 2,28: 1,124 15,282 4,897
1,1 0 3,
1,332 4,255 2,066 32.119 10,681
662 2,280 1,068 15,634 4,965
808 1,355 1,072 8,661 3,513
186 623 302 4,227 1,415
1«~
aucc
-,92*
35 060
i:,301
4,506
5,567
3.444
7,477
3,481
2,447
1,016
•-.g-S-,ut, .ri:
•-17 -;tn"t :,1
3 384 I 5-3
;: :i« a 51-
K 161 i 565
3 169 1,661
-,432 2,116
2,827 1.323
5,803 2,824
2,858 1,325
1,652 945
820 394
-1 ft
:/H
: s;3
9 :1~
-,565
1,661
2.116
1,323
2,824
1,325
945
394
'
19"
I3.-.6:
i:S,676
61 —3
22,997
28,557
18,109
'
37,922
18,492
10,313
5,097
'
1987
eot*l
9 106
46, 248
23,15r
8,192
10,041
6,220
'
13,505
6,290
4,458
1,809
'
ijv"
tor«.
6,800
3fc, 59"1
16,866
6,167
7,683
4,767
10,301
4,806
3,392
1,410
'
197-
26, -95
14i,270
25,506
31, '13
20,390
'
42,177
20,772
11,668
5,720
1987
10.676
54,544
26,4"
9,393
11,605
7,344
'
15,571
7.358
5,530
2,111
S 3'0
-2,593
20,193
7,368
9,247
5.891
'
12,367
5,874
4,464
1,712
Percent
reduetici
68 -
70 3
-o <-
71 0
70 9
71 1
70 7
71 7
61 8
70 0
Peretat-
.9S(-i« .
21 *
21 -
23 '
21 6
20 3
19 8
20 6
20 2
19 3
18 o
2: 9
^Reduction »tcrlbut«ble to F«d«r»l Motor Vehicle Control Progras (FWCP) «nd 1/M.
Deduction ittribuuble to I/H
-------
Ui
TABLE 153. DAILY HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FOR OPTIONS III, IV, V AND VI UNDER
ALTERNATIVE A (kg/day)
s ,-ir •-
-..,1.5,, Cr>
*-•**.** Co
*i«->Uci C3
-..». Cc
Lota in Co
Lucas Co
tahonini Co
Montgoacry Co.
Stark Co
StMlt CO
Total - 12 couatiea
Cleraont Co
Gcaufa Co
Greene Co
Vovd Co
1977
539
1,597
1.244
3,296
433
633
770
410
881
272
57
145
1987
1.66
1,405
1.0-9
2,919
365
509
646
314
734
264
43
116
Keavy-iut
1«-T
2 4«4
13,99"
5.5*4
10,16T
2,0'S
1.648
3,121
2,008
3,374
1.083
355
478
v true it i
1987
1 , IPi
6 8*1
2.C76
5,004
836
615
1,170
757
1,332
808
141
186
1"7-
• 033
:s 594
6,6ie
13 463
2,509
2,281
3,891
2.4U
4,255
1,355
412
623
'
19S7
i 570
5,296
3,3:-
".9:3
1,201
1,124
1,816
1,071
2,066
1,072
184
302
19--
lO.S'S
108,43*
54.2»2
*5 683
19.82*
15.282
30,760
20,145
32,119
8,661
3,353
4,277
'
1"»87
vin«il I,'*
«"c°
-,23J
36. "31
16,565
25,134
6,531
'
4,897
10.064
6,425
10, Ml
3.513
1.0B3
1,415
196'
1 'M
•""
. 11L
:5,r:
i:,30i
17,532
4,5*1
'
3,414
7,288
4.500
7,517
3.426
1,043
1,357
'
-11
1«"
:-.58-
::.:.i
i; :*i
1C.59A
3 169
.-
2.827
5,243
3,586
5,803
*
1,652
565
820
;ht-c-:v vehicle*
19S* 198-
without l/« l/«
t-r truCK L-D truck
1 S'3 1,873
9,5'-- c 517
4,365 4,565
7,C13 7,013
1,661 1.661
'
1,323 1,323
2. 654 2,654
1,662 1.662
2,824 2,824
945 945
264 264
394 394
1977
23,46i
128,676
61, -43
78,27?
22,997
'
18,109
36,003
23,731
37,923
10,313
3,918
5,097
11,3 1
1987
without I'M
totai
9 ice
46,24£
23.15C
32,14'
6,192
'
6,220
12,718
8,087
13 , 505
1
4,458
1,347
1,809
iw;
i M
tec*'.
- «:-
i<- 78"
lt,S66
2-, 545
6,:«
'
«,767
9,942
6,162
10,341
'
4,373
1,307
1,751
'
'
1977
:6,.»
14«,270
66 261
91 7*0
25.506
20.J90
19.894
26.149
42.177
11,668
4,330
5,720
198-
10,676
54,541
26,477
-.0,07:
9,393
7,344
14,534
9,158
15,571
5,530
1,531
2,111
All v«h
,«-
*.*:•
13,085
20 193
32, .55
7,403
5,891
11,758
7,313
12.407
5,445
1.491
2,053
6 562
Percent ?«rc«nc-
68 3 2: 3
70 i :i o
70 i 23 •
64 6 19 C
7i o :i :
71 1 19 8
70.5 18.1
72.3 ZO 2
70.6 20.3
53.3 1.5
65 6 2.0
64 1 27
58 9 1.6
49 1 20
56.9 2 2
68.4 18 6
tuctlon attributable to Fadatal Motor Vahlcla Control Profra* (FWC?) and I/M.
kuctlon attributable tf> I/X.
-------
TABLE 154. DAILY CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS FOR OPTIONS I, II, AND VII (kg/day)
aeavy-dvty truck*
Butler Co
Cuyahoga Co.
Frank lie Co.
HMilton Co
Lake Co
Lorai DC Co.
Lucaa Co.
Maboaint. Co.
Noattoewry Co
Stark Co.
Trueftull Co
Total - 12 coi
Clcrwnt Co.
Green* Co.
NedUa Co
Warren Co.
tfood Co
Total - 6 cow
197-
3,196
10,012
••,381
19,593
2,578
1.259
4,214
3,779
4,559
2,362
5,193
2.949
1.586
323
841
1,908
itiei 9,178
1987
3,496
8,271
7,978
21,986
1,262
4,425
3,903
4,913
2,344
5,565
3,070
1,973
314
865
2.089
10,823
1977
25,556
142,443
67,638
99, -31
9,746
31,376
21,050
39,592
23,764
41,439
21,355
11,510
3,886
5,635
9,278
54,054
1987
23,485
115,577
62,713
85,666
28,772
18,679
36,330
21,332
39,477
19,006
12,151
3,545
6,709
8,875
57,424
1977
28,754
152,455
75,019
119,023
35,590
24,829
44,151
26,126
46,632
24,304
13,096
4,209
6,476
11,186
63,232
1987
26,981
123. 848
70,691
107.652
33,197
22,582
23,676
45,042
22,076
14,124
3,859
7.574
10,964
68,247
1977
1-3,987
814,248
332,196
516,273
152,859
95,979
129,109
204.026
99,823
62.658
22,094
27,271
37,036
257.306
1987
without I/K
61,665
336,663
142,788
2:1,720
40,163
53,312
87,465
41,406
29,740
9.065
11.714
17,067
124,800
1967
32,883
179,583
118,310
21,355
28,341
46,540
21,989
15,843
4,824
6,226
9,080
66,408
Light-duty vehicle*
1977
L-D truck
22,887
123.370
86,575
15,611
20,263
32,546
16.061
10.128
4.860
4.614
6.610
44,786
1987
without I/M
L-D truck*
17,846
9 ,1
68,532
10,245
15.085
25,284
16.799
8,756
2,424
3,561
5.481
37,913
"J7
,-B"L>- ""•>
17,348
'
68.582
15.239
6,166
10,245
15.065
25,284
16,799
8,756
2,424
3.561
5,481
37,913
166,874
'
602,848
151,492
57,278
111.590
149.372
236,572
115.884
26,954
31,885
43,646
302.086
1987
79,513
290,302
69,891
26,852
50,408
68,397
112.749
58,205
1,558,074
11,489
15,275
22,548
162,713
19S'
50, '31
152,892
44,300
17,161
53,639
31,600
43,426
71,824
38,788
996,796
7.248
9,787
14,561
104,321
195,628
721,871
178,360
68,283
210,184
136,419
175,498
283.204
140,188
3,925,9*6
31,163
34,361
54,832
365,318
1987
106,494
397,954
94,447
37,066
107,828
72 , 990
92,073
157,791
80,281
2,109,832
15,348
22,849
230,960
All vehicle*
1967
77,712
397,580
290,544
68,856
27,375
86,836
54,182
67,102
110,866
60,864
1,548,554
11,107
17,361
50.395
172.566
Percent
60 3
63 5
59 8
61 4
59.9
58.7
60 3
59.2
61.8
58.7
56.6
60.6
54.9
64.4
54.7
44.8
53.9
52.8
Percent*
:~ o
28 3
26 2
27 0
2' 1
26 1
19 5
25.8
29 2
27 1
25 9
24.:
26 6
26 4
27.6
24.0
23 8
25 7
24.0
25 3
26 5
i attributable to Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (rWCP) and I/M.
> attributable to I/M.
-------
TABLE 155. DAILY CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS FOR OPTIONS III, IV, V, AND VI UNDER
ALTERNATIVE B (kg/day)
NS
Cuyihoja Cc
Uke Co
Lori in Co
**ltooia« Co.
Start Co.
SiMit Co.
Total - 12 count ice
Clcraont Co.
Green* Co.
Hood Co.
*So reduction in lif!
1977
dieael
10,012
2,578
1,259
3,779
4.559
2,362
5,193
67,07*
1,586
Ml
2,110
1987
diciel
8,:7i
2.776
1,262
3,903
4,913
2,54*
5,565
69,991
1,973
865
2,307
He«vy-du
1977
f airline
:5.55S
U2 i-3
:*,290
9,746
21,050
39,592
23,764
41,439
547,682
11,510
5,635
10,635
,ty truck.
198'
faiol in*
Z3,iS5
115,5"
21.778
8,952
18,679
21,332
39,477
481,767
12,151
6,709
10,282
197T
total
:e.75i
152,455
26,868
11,005
24,829
26,126
46,632
614,756
13,096
6,476
12,745
IW
total
26,981
123,348
24,556
10,214
22,582
23,676
45,042
551,758
14,124
7,574
12,589
1977
143,987
814,248
131,326
49,127
95,979
129,109
204.026
2,860.725
62,658
27,271
43,473
198?
without I/"
•uto
61,665
336,663
54,652
20,686
40,163
53.312
87,465
1,204,867
29,740
11,714
19,882
1987
I/M
34,01-
181,201
29,627
11,278
22,040
2-:, 390
47.923
665,066
16,691
6.711
11,184
'-H
1977
--D truck
;:.8B7
i:3, 370
20,166
8,151
15,611
20,263
32,546
450,464
10,128
4,614
7,631
he-duty
198
withou
L-3 t
17,
94,
15,
6,
10.
15.
25,
353,
6,
3,
6,
vehic
7
t I/I
846
149
239
166
245
085
284
207
756
561
289
1*«
1987
Ifr
L-D truck*
17,848
94,149
15,239
6,166
10,245
15,065
25,284
353,207
8.756
2,424
3,561
6,289
197'
total
166,874
93', 618
602,848
151,492
57,278
111,590
222.248
236,572
3,311.189
72,786
26,954
31,885
51,104
1987
without I/M
total
79,513
433,812
183,873
290.302
69,891
26,852
50,408
112,441
112,749
1,558,074
38,496
11,4*9
15,275
26,171
1967
If*
total
51,865
:'5,350
120,793
194,110
44,866
17,444
54,765
32,285
«*,648
73,207
1,018,267
25,447
7,443
10,273
17,473
i977
195. 62S
1,090,073
459,838
721,871
178,360
68,283
210,184
136,419
266,402
283,204
140,188
3,925.94*
85,882
31.163
38,361
63,849
1987
without l/u
106,494
554.660
254,564
397,954
94.447
37,066
107.828
72.990
153,684
157,791
80,281
2,109,832
52,620
15,348
22,849
33.512
67.871
38.760
1987
I/M
73.J46
399,196
191,484
301,762
69,422
27,658
87,942
54.867
110,891
118,249
61,555
1,570,025
39.571
11,302
17,847
25,996
51,077
30,062
1,745,880
?*rc«nt
reduction
1977-1987 !/!•
59 7
63 4
58 4
58 2
61 1
59.5
58 2
59.6
58.4
58.3
56 1
60.0
53.9
63.7
53.5
52.6
44.0
52.9
51 9
59.3
F.rc«e±
reduce ion
1987-198' I/M
26. C
2« 0
24 B
24 :
2S 5
25.4
11 2
2k S
27 9
n o
2) 0
23 3
25 6
24 8
17.4
21 9
22 4
24.8
17 8
23 •»
25 i
Appropriate *djuit*«l» will be made wh«a the credits arc nad* available
^tadvetion attributable to F«4*r*l Hour Vehicle Control Procrm (VMKP) nd IM.
tkdoctioB cttTlbutabU to I/M.
-------
oo
TABLE 156. DAILY CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS FOR OPTIONS III, IV, V, AND VI UNDER
ALTERNATIVE A (kg/day)
|..«,-*.t, «««. tLfht-a^ vehl = l« «l «,,«!„
1977 If
Sutler Co 3,
Luvahog* Co 12,
Hamlien Co 19,
Lake Co 2,
Lori in Co 1,
Mahoniog Co 3,
Montgomery Co 4,
St«rk Co 2,
Tn— bull Co 2,
Clenont Co 1,
Geau[« Co
Cr««n« Co
Medina Co 1,
Uood Co 2
,196 3
,01: e
,381 7.
,592 21.
,578 2.
,259 1.
,779 3,
,362 2,
,193 5,
,949 3,
,586 1,
323
841
,908 2,
110 2,
W 19"
i" ?5 555
,97& 67,636
,9So 90,431
,778 2-.29C
,262 9,746
,903 21,050
,344 23,764
,070 21,355
,973 11.510
865 5,635
,089 9,278
,307 10,635
1097
8
115,5-7
62,713
85,666
21,778
8,952
'
21,332
19,006
12,151
6,709
8,875
15,862
10,282
197'
28, 7E,
15: -53
75,019
119,033
26,868
11,005
26,126
24,304
'
6,476
11,186
15,520
12,745
1987
16,981
1:6,848
70,691
107,652
34,556
10,214
23,676
22,076
'
7,574
10,964
19,137
12,589
ir
H3
514
332
516
131
49
129
99
27
37
64
43
1987
,987
,248
,196
,273
.326
,127
,109
.823
.094
,271
,768
.473
• ut<
61
336
142
221
54
20
53
41,
9,
11,
37,
19,
i
,665
,663
,788
,720
,652
,686
,312
.406
,065
,714
,332
,882
1987
^,463
183 76]
T9 708
129.478
30,062
11,302
29,390
22,704
8,562
10.983
35,630
18,383
794,849
19"
L-D truck
22,887
12 33'
52,623
86,575
20.166
8,151
21,735
20,263
16,061
4,860
4,614
10,943
7,631
495,250
without I/M
1-D truck
17,848
«-. 1*9
-1,085
68,582
15,239
6,166
19,015
15,085
16,799
2,424
3,561
11,402
391,120
1987
I/M
17,848
94,1-9
4 1 , 03 5
68,582
15,239
6,166
15,085
16,799
2,424
3,561
11.402
391,120
1977
156 874
937, 613
384.819
602,848
151,492
57,278
111,590
149,372
115,884
26,954
31,885
75,711
1981
without I/M
total
7°, 513
i.30 312
290,302
69,891
26,852
50,408
112,441
68,397
58,205
11,489
15,275
48,734
1967
I/M
5:
277
198
45
17
32
72
44
39
14,
47,
311
910
,060
,301
,468
,285
.211
,475
,503
,544
,032
1971
195,628
1,090,073
721,871
178,360
68,283
136,419
266.402
175,498
140,186
'
38,361
91,231
1987
without I/M
106, i 94
554,660
397,954
94,447
37.066
72,990
153,684
92,073
60,281
2,109,832
'
22,849
67,871
230,960
1967
79,292
404, 7 55
191 ,484
305,712
69,857
27,682
54,867
113,454
68,151
61,579
1 , 584 , 099
51,583
22,118
66.169
224,875
red™«B
59 5
62 9
58 4
57 7
60 8
59 5
57 9
59 8
57 4
61 2
58 1
56 1
59 7
39.9
52.4
42.4
40 0
27 5
41 7
38 5
57 9
.987-1987 I/M
2' C
24 8
23 2
26 0
25 3
r 9
24 6
26 2
26 0
24 8
23 3
24 9
1 9
3 3
3 2
1 8
3 9
2 6
22 7
'induction attributable to F*d*r«l Motor Vehicle Control Program (FWCP) and I/M.
-Reduction attributable to I/M.
-------
SECTION 12
POSSIBLE EXTERNALITIES: INDIRECT IMPACTS
INTRODUCTION
The subject of indirect impacts arising from an I/M program is quite com-
plex. To provide a complete picture of the program, indirect as well as direct
impacts should be considered. The issues raised by these potential effects
are extremely difficult to quantify. Many of these costs and benefits are
qualitative and, as such, highly subjective. Also, much of the data that are
available pertaining to these issues are either incomplete or inconclusive.
In light of the problems inherent in these issues, attempts to completely
quantify them would add confusion rather than provide useful information. In
consideration of this, the discussion that follows is fairly general and
primarily qualitative in nature. It is intended to identify some of the per-
tinent issues and the likely directions, 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
section 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 PROGRAM IMPACTS
General Impacts
There are a number of benefits 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 respiratory
related medical problems is likely. This will, in turn, lead to a series of
secondary or indirect effects. The average longevity of the population should
increase slightly and fewer days of production in industry will be lost due to
illness.
219
-------
To date, a substantial investment has been made in pollution control
equipment on automobiles. This investment will continue to grow as new cars
equipped with emissions control devices are produced to replace older vehicles
lacking them. Emissions control systems deteriorate steadily in efficiency
with use, unless they are periodically maintained. If unchecked, this de-
terioration can completely eliminate the benefits of installing the systems to
begin with. As generally there are no visible signs of this equipment de-
terioration and, therefore, no incentive to correct these undetected mal-
functions, the necessary maintenance is not likely to occur. An I/M program
can have a major impact by insuring the integrity of these control devices and
protecting a nationwide investment that (it is estimated) will reach $150
billion by 1980.2 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 setup
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
addition 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 expansion in mind.
Impact on Vehicle Performance and Vehicle Life
The impact of I/M on these considerations is difficulty 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 deter-
ioration curve, influence vehicle performance while the slope of the long run
curve is more likely to be the primary determinant of vehicle longevity.
To the extent that I/M influences the short run curve, it should have a posi-
tive impact on vehicle performance. If an engine stays closer to manufacturer's
specifications, it should perform at a higher level due to I/M.
The influence on performance and longevity resulting from I/M's impact
on the long run deterioration curve is unknown now. It seems sensible that a
properly maintained vehicle will experience less wear than one that is not
-maintained to manufacturers' specifications. Assuming this relationship is
true, I/M should have a positive effect on vehicle life.
At present there are no closely controlled studies which document the
effects of I/M on vehicle performance and vehicle life. However, the City
of Phoenix, Arizona, which has designed specific I/M programs for larger
vehicle fleets, has reported that these fleet operators maintain detailed
records of maintenance and operating costs for their vehicles over the life
cycle of the vehicles. These records apparently document the decreased
220
-------
operating and maintenance costs they have experienced with I/M implementation,
as well as improved vehicle reliability, as seen in towing records.3
Impact on Vehicle Owners
The improvement in fuel economy that results from an I/M program is an
important benefit for vehicle owners. The total improvement in fuel economy
varies according to the geographical coverage and is discussed in each in-
dividual alternative section. The vehicle owners view the fuel savings as
an individual economic issue, whereas the total or aggregate fuel savings is
actually an important energy conservation savings as well.
The cost savings that result from the improvement in fuel economy, the
better engine performance and increased longevity are not readily apparent to
the individual motorists, although the fleet owners who have good long-term
records will be able to perceive these benefits over time. It is important,
therefore, that the motoring public be made aware of these benefits.
On the other hand, the obvious costs of repairs for failed vehicles will
be readily apparent to the vehicle owners. The question arises, however, as
to how much of these repair costs should be directly attributable to the I/M
program. While it is true that a vehicle owner is forced to make a repair if
his vehicle does not 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
incurred regardless. Estimates of the magnitude of this fraction vary from
25 to 75 percent.
This issue of mandated repairs is central to I/M program externalities.
The costs of these repairs are a burden on the vehicle owner. These costs
will not be distributed evenly throughout the population. It is safe to assume
that older vehicles will generally be owned by individuals at the lower end of
the economic spectrum. These vehicles are more likely to require repairs than
newer vehicles. If these vehicles fail to meet I/M. standards more frequently
than newer vehicles, the burden of I/M could fall unevenly on lower income
segments of the population. This uneven impact is partially mitigated by es-
tablishing exemptions to compliance based on vehicle age and ceilings on the
dollar value of mandated repairs.
As the vehicle mix changes over time, this problem will become less
severe than it may be now. As older vehicles, those that are costly to main-
tain to standards, dropout of the vehicle population, they will be replaced
by used vehicles. Vehicles included in a mandatory I/M program are likely to
be well maintained. It is possible that this may lower the overall cost of
maintaining vehicles 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 emissions control devices.
This equipment has been covered by a 50,000-mile guarantee by manufacturers as
a result of federal warranty requirements. The useful life of emission control
devices covered by warranty is not presently known. Of course, if these de-
vices prove to be as durable as the vehicles in which they are installed,
they will not create extra repair costs as these vehicles age. Should they
221
-------
require replacement after 50,000 miles but prior to the end of a vehicle's
life, the cost of doing so will fall on the used car owner who is generally
in a lower income category than the initial purchaser. Replacing control
devices could become costly. Thus, if these devices do require extensive
maintenance to be kept operating correctly near the end of a vehicle's life,
I/M may impose a greater financial burden on the used vehicle owner than it
will on the public at large. If this proves the case, it will add another
reason for exempting vehicles reaching a certain age.
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 Riverside
Trial Program, the average repair cost for a vehicle failing inspection,
including parts, tax and labor was $11.42 when adjusted to remove voluntary
repairs made at the time required repairs were performed.4 This figure applies
repair costs for a 40 percent stringency rate over the entire vehicle popu-
lation tested. Average repair values for California were $27.33 and $32.08
for idle- and loaded-mode testing. In a similar study in Michigan these figures
were $23.29 and $36.56.5
In these studies, the repair costs directly attributable to I/M may not
be accurate. This is for two reasons. One reason, mentioned earlier, is that
some of these repairs would have been made anyway, even if the I/M program
was not in existence. Second, 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 traveling to the inspection
site a second time for retesting.
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 neither difficult nor costly to rectify. Thus, the average
repair cost figures may be somewhat 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 reported figure. If
these 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; that is, the total cost of required repairs (those that do not
exceed cost limit categories) may be less than the total cost of repairs re-
ported by an I/M sequence.
There are other costs to vehicle owners relating to I/M in addition to
repair costs and the vehicle inspection fee. Two major costs to consider are
time and operating costs experienced traveling to and from inspection sites.
Actual operating costs can be calculated fairly accurately. Time costs have
a much more subjective nature.
222
-------
The vehicle miles traveled (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 spent on those
induced VMT. Applying an average emission level to these extra VMT can pro-
vide a rough estimate of emissions induced by the implementation of I/M.
An elusive but probably a more significant figure is the time cost of
travel to and from, and waiting time at insoection facilities. There are
evaluative decisions about the value of time spent traveling, waiting time.
and so on that must be resolved before a dollar figure can be commited. 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 in-
dividual 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 sub-
stantial 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 to correct small problems before they
become serious. By prompting repairs early on I/M can help eliminate substan-
tial costs to the vehicle owner.
This brief overview of the impacts I/M may have for vehicle owners serves
to emphasize the complex nature of program costs and benefits. A qualitative
evaluation of them helps assure that they will be considered when implementing
I/M.
Impact 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 decreased to one mechanic
available for every 146 vehicles. This trend cannot continue if I/M becomes a
reality. As emissions regulations increase, vehicle complexity will extend
repair times for existing components. New subsystems will also be created
that will eventually require repair and the demand for mechanic time will in-
crease for each vehicle.
223
-------
In addition to recruiting and training new mechanics, existing personnel
should undergo at least a limited retraining phase to orient them to the pur-
poses 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 high
engine performance. It is important that the repair industry be aware of the
different criteria demanded by I/M so that it may act accordingly.
No matter how responsive the supply of mechanics is to this increase in
demand, some lag is inevitable. Because of this, windfall profits may accrue
to existing members of the industry for an initial time period. The tight
supply situation could result in some overcharging. This should be brief, as
new mechanics will be trained and in turn enter the labor pool as the public
becomes aware of the implications of I/M. As the supply of repair personnel
expands, the consumer will again be able to choose between many repair shops.
This will make overpricing practices more difficult. Also, a well supervised
maintenance sequence should help deter potentially disruptive behavior by the
repair industry.
224
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Adminis-
tration, Traffic Safety Program. Motor Vehicle Diagnostic Inspection
Demonstration Program. Appendix E. Washington, D.C. October 1977.
2. Weiss, D. A., and J. Meteyka. Future Motor Vehicle Inspections Must
Offer Better Diagnosis, Automotive Engineering. January 1973.
3. Hamilton Test Systems. Program Plan for the Implementation of a Motor
Vehicle Inspection System. July 1978.
4. Vehicle Inspection Program Staff. Bureau of Automotive Repair. California
Vehicle Inspection Program Riverside Trial Program Report. Operations
from 9/2/75 to 2/13/76. Volume 2 - Summary Report.
5. Grad, F. P., et al. The Automobile and the Regulation of Its Impact on
the Environment. University of Oklahoma Press. Norman, Okla. 1975.
225
-------
SECTION 13
LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATIONS IN I/M IMPLEMENTATION
INTRODUCTION
Legislative requirements and potential roadblocks that are not applicable
to all options, but which could adversely affect implementation of one or sever-
al options, were researched for the Ohio inspection/maintenance options. The
reason for looking at these potential problem areas is to determine, at an early
planning/evaluation stage, if there are any legal, legislative or other issues
related to any option under consideration which could potentially hinder its
acceptance by the state legislature.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology used 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, if
any, exist. Also, model legislation for inspection/maintenance programs pro-
vided by U.S. EPA was studied. U.S. EPA was also consulted to determine if they
had uncovered problem areas which should be researched further. The second phase
consisted of studies of inspection/maintenance programs in other states. Direc-
tors and staff members were asked to comment on particular problems they had en-
countered, and enabling legislation for several states was studied.
Because the state of Ohio has not involved the state legislature at this
early stage in the program's planning stage it would not be able to provide
appropriate comments on the options and was 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.
POSSIBLE POLITICAL CONSTRAINTS
While the technical feasibility of I/M has been proven, many jurisdictions
have experienced difficult problems enacting legislation. Program implementa-
tion has often been hindered by substantial secondary program impacts. While
I/M is designed to help realize certain ambient air quality standards it also
produces significant political, social and institutional impacts.
These indirect program impacts are discussed in Section 12. They illus-
trate the wide scope of the impact an I/M program has on the citizenry at
large. Some of these impacts carry political implications that require con-
sideration when I/M enabling legislation is passed. Among others, the following
impacts are pertinent:
226
-------
• Impact on low income citizens
• Impacts on the automotive repair and parts industry
• Potential overcharging for repairs and performance of
unnecessary repair work
• General inconvenience of I/M compliance to the general public
Legislatures are quick to recognize how I/M programs directly affect the
public. They realize that a few complaints about the program can result in
widespread public attention by the press and various interest groups that are
adversely affected by program implementation. These impacts must be carefully
considered during the early phases of selecting an option and planning the
program.
While these indirect program impacts are discussed in Section 12, it is
worth mentioning some of the political aspects of these effects that are likely
to affect the probability of successful implementation here.
A major argument likely to be made by consumer protection groups and legal
aid societies, etc. is that low income citizens will be denied the right to
operate an old vehicle because the cost of maintaining that vehicle's emissions
level to I/M standards is prohibitive. This argument attacks the concept of
imposing a mandatory maintenance scheme and will likely be made regardless of
the option ultimately chosen.
A properly designed I/M program can take this issue into account and estab-
lish certain criteria to exempt just this type of vehicle from the mandatory
maintanance phase, ameliorating the potentially regressive nature of the program.
There are several types of compliance exemptions. A ceiling can be placed on
repair costs that is based on either an absolute dollar figure or a percentage
of vehicle value, whichever is lower. Also, all vehicles over a certain age are
usually granted exemptions.
These exemptions will not have a significant effect on the ability of an I/M
program to achieve a reduction in total vehicle emissions. A majority of the
vehicles that are seriously out of compliance and costly to repair are older
vehicles. They will not remain usable for long periods of time so they will
tend to be quickly eliminated from the total vehicle population. The vehicles
that filter down over time to replace these gross emitters will have been main-
tained as a result of I/M and should not be costly to keep in compliance towards
the end of their usable life.
The automotive repair and parts industry has a great deal of lobbying
strength that must be considered when designing a program. Members of the in-
dustry will want to know how I/M will affect their ability to maintain vehicle
performance to standards their customers are accustomed to. There are likely
to be doubts concerning the accuracy of HC/CO analyzers and the ability of
private garages to profitably finance the program's equipment requirements.
227
-------
Need for Public Information Program
Many of the questions raised by I/M can be properly answered with a well
designed public information program (see Appendix C). It can go far towards
gaining public acceptance for I/M and allaying fears about price gouging, vary-
ing program effectiveness, etc. Legislators are liable to be sensitive to
problems similar to those that have been experienced in safety inspection pro-
grams. The intangible nature of program benefits makes the costs of I/M seem
without reward. Emphasizing the checks and balances built into the program
(i.e., equipment inspection and calibration schedules) and that, while not
readily visible, health benefits from emission reductions are real will help
smooth the implementation procedure.
A public information program can address other benefits to the vehicle
owner. Improvements in fuel economy and the impact I/M has on vehicle perform-
ance and longevity are good points to stress. Control of offensive vehicles that
emit high quantities of visible smoke and assurances that all vehicles will be
tested and certified to comply with clean air requirements are also good points
to stress. If the preconceptions held by the public and the repair industry can
be successfully corrected by a public information program it will have gone a
long way towards easing the legislative problems standing between a proposal
for I/M and its final implementation.
POTENTIAL OPTION SPECIFIC ISSUES
The differences that exist between the various options raise the possibility
that legislative roadblocks could exist that may adversely affect the implemen-
tation of one or more, but not all, options. Identifying such potential areas
of friction at an early stage in the planning process is important. Proper
consideration of these variations when drafting and enacting I/M anabling leg-
islation should greatly reduce option specific legislative problems.
Designated Lead Agency
Not all variations between options affect the likelihood of implementation
problems. A substantial difference in designated lead and administrative agencies
from option to option could have an impact on the viability of certain options.
All seven alternatives designated the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA)
and the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) as administrative agencies. Options V
and VI also designate the Ohio Highway Patrol (OHP) as an enforcement agency.
The OHP can be. included either by amending the EPA supplied I/M sample regula-
tion or designating it's task independently from the I/M program. The latter
approach is probably more straight forward.
Geographic Coverage
Geographic coverage varies across options, from SMSA coverage only to state
wide coverage. The sample I/M regulation specifies program applicability to
all registered light duty vehicles (LDV) in certain Air Quality Control Regions
(AQCR) enumerated in the enabling legislation. The criteria for approval for
228
-------
1979 State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for nonattainment areas provide
more flexibility in establishing the geographic scope of the program by allowing
"a certain degree of flexibility" in defining the specific boundaries of an
urban area. A major urban area is defined as having an urbanized population
of 200,000 or greater. There appear to be no legal constraints at the state
level regarding the establishment of the geographic scope of an I/M program.
Thus, differences in geographic coverage between options are not affected in
an option specific manner by state authority.
Mixed Options
Options I, II, V, and VI are really mixed options in the sense that there
are both centralized and decentralized approaches and also different agencies
having control over the program. In options I and II either a private contrac-
tor or the state would run centralized lanes in urban areas while private
garages would conduct inspections in rural areas with the state maintaining
administrative control. In options V and VI the Ohio Highway Patrol would
operate a random emission testing program, along with the existing safety
program presumably, while in the urban areas a contractor or the state would
run centralized lanes. Dividing the type of approach used in urban versus
rural areas can potentially capitalize on the particular advantage that each
approach may have for that type of area, whether it be rural or urban. Cen-
tralized lanes which utilize high technology are most cost effective in high
density urban areas. In rural areas, the low density of motor vehicles makes
the fixed centralized lanes less cost effective, at least for the counties with
fewer vehicles than the capacity of a one lane station. Consequently, there is
a need for a different approach in rural areas. One possibility worth consider-
ing is the use of mobile vans. Another approach would be to locate centralized
stations in a town which is accessible to one or more counties depending on the
size and travel distances involved.
Whenever there is a totally different approach to inspection in the urban
and rural areas there is the possibility of encountering an equity problem. In
the options discussed above this would be the case. Motorists might perceive a
difference in the quality control or accuracy of test procedures with private
garages or the State Highway Patrol in rural areas. In either case it would be
difficult to obtain the same level of control over the accuracy of the analyzer
or the test procedure itself. Moreover, in the private garage system, there is
a greater likelihood of a conflict of interest situation occurring. This will
be discussed in more detail below.
Private Garages
It should also be recognized in general that any options which utilize
private garages may create problems as discussed earlier. This is for two
reasons. One is that there is more difficulty in keeping the large number of
private garage analyzers in calibration. Hence, there are serious quality
assurance problems in utilizing private garages, although with proper controls
this can be somewhat ameliorated. The second reason has to do with the con-
flict of interest inherent in having the same garage do the testing and then
229
-------
perform the indicated maintenance. Also, the automobile repair industry is
currently under attack from consumer groups and its reputation is at a low
level. The fact that there have been difficulties with emission equipment in
new cars simply adds to this problem as there is a long time interval between
the manufacturing of the cars with more complicated emission controls and the
automobile service industry's retraining to learn all the new procedures needed
for adequate repair of emission controls. Routine maintenance will also become
more complicated as the controls are added on.
Licensing Problems
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 inspector/mechanics must be established by the state
for these two approaches. A private garage must have a licensed inspector/
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 re-
quirements and procedures pending the release of a position paper that will
deal explicitly with these issues. The licensing procedure should consist of
similar requirements for the nongovernment options, contractor and private
garage. These should be no problem from the state viewpoint 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 periodic 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 facil-
ity 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
munic ipalit ies.
Personnel Requirements
Options that call for state-run facilities will demand a large state
personnel commitment. This could prove unpopular, resulting in implementation
difficulties. Adding a significant number of employees to the state payroll
will incur a large expense that will be difficult to reduce in the future.
Future pension requirements may not be covered by inspection fees, possibly
leading to an ongoing deficit problem, depending on how the state deals with
this problem.
230
-------
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.
Funding
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. Leeway on
quality controls, cut points, etc. should improve program effectiveness consid-
erably. Building such discretion into regulatory authority should shorten lead
times and prove cost effective as well as flexible.
231
-------
SECTION 14
COMPARISON OF OPTIONS
COMPARISON OF EMISSION REDUCTION BENEFITS
The levels of emission reduction that result from the implementation of
I/M programs depend on the number of vehicles inspected in the program and
also on the travel characteristics in the county where the vehicles are regis-
tered. This is because emission reduction credits are calculated as grams per
mile multiplied by the VMT (vehicle miles traveled) per unit of time. The emis-
sion reductions ("tailpipe reductions") refer to the decrease in carbon monoxide
(CO) and hydrocarbons (HC) from the I/M vehicles. The resulting change in the
concentrations of these substances in the ambient atmosphere is not being con-
sidered here.
The emission reductions vary according to the geographical coverage. As
the geographical coverage is increased, more vehicles are included in the pro-
gram. However, the actual emission reductions are modified to a degree by the
fact that, due to commuting patterns, there is overlap in travel among the
counties. Vehicles traveling outside their county of registration, in other
words, may either increase or decrease the emission reductions in the counties
traveled to, depending on whether the counties traveled to or from have I/M
programs. If vehicles registered in a county with I/M regularly travel to
counties without I/M, then the county traveled to will experience a benefit in
emission reduction. Conversely, if vehicles registered in counties without
I/M travel to a county with I/M, then the county traveled to would experience
less benefits. In the calculations made in this study (described in detail
in Section 2 - Benefits, and Appendix A) all the above factors have been
considered.
To estimate the emission reductions, the options have been grouped into
three benefit scenarios as shown below:
BENEFIT SCENARIOS
First scenario:
(Options I, II, VIIO
Second Scenario:
(Options III, IV, V,
VI under Alternate B)
Third Scenario:
(Options III, IV, V,
12 Most populous
count ies
Mandatory
inspection
Mandatory
inspection
Mandatory
inspection
6 Next populous
counties
Mandatory
inspection
Mandatory
inspection
NO mandatory
inspection
Remainder of
state
Mandatory
inspection
NO mandatory
Inspection
NO mandatory
inspection
VI, under Alternate A)
232
-------
Within each benefit scenario the geographic areas having mandatory inspection
are identical. In benefit scenario 1, all I/M programs are statewide and
mandatory. In the second and third scenarios there is mandatory inspection
only in the urban; i.e., most populous areas, whereas in the remainder of
the state there is no mandatory inspection. In Options V and VI the random
pullover inspection program for the rural areas does not constitute mandatory
inspection.
Table 157 presents the benefits (percent reduction in daily vehicle emis-
sions) for 1987 that result from an I/M program beginning in 1982. In terms
of carbon monoxide it may be seen that in scenario 1 the statewide mandatory
inspection options bring about the highest level of emission reduction of
27 percent throughout the state. Next, the second scenario with mandatory
I/M in the 18 urban counties gives the second highest reduction 25, 3, and
17 percent in the 18 urban counties, remaining rural, and statewide average,
respectively. Finally, the third scenario, with mandatory inspection in the 12
urban counties with populations greater than 200,000 have the least emission
reduction of 23, 3, and 15 percent for the 18 counties, remaining counties,
and statewide average, respectively. As discussed earlier in both the second
and third scenarios in the counties without I/M there is some emission reduc-
tion due to inspected vehicles traveling to these counties. The reductions in
hydrocarbons follows the same pattern as the carbon monoxide reductions, dis-
cussed above.
TABLE 157. PERCENT REDUCTION IN DAILY VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTING
FROM I/M in 1987
First Scenario Second Scenario Third Scenario
(Options I, II (Options III, IV, V, (Options III, IV, V,
and VII) VI, under Alternate B) VI, under Alternate A)
CARBON MONOXIDE
18 Counties 27 25 23
Rural areas 27 3 3
Statewide 27 17 15
HYDROCARBONS
18 Counties
Rural areas
Statewide
22
22
22
21
2
14
19
2
12
*
No reductions in light-duty truck emissions was calculated because the credits
for this particular vehicle category have yet to be established by EPA.
Appropriate adjustments will be made when the credits are made available.
233
-------
Tables 158 through 160 present much more detailed emissions and emission reduc-
tion figures by county both in actual emission levels by volume and in percent
reduction levels with and without I/M programs. In the first three columns
for HC and CO actual emissions are given. The first column for HC and CO
shows total emissions in 1977, the base year. Next, the emissions expected
in 1987 without an 1/M program are given. The lower figures for 1987 as
compared to 1977 are attributable to the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control
Program (FMVCP) and changes in VMT. The third column, 1987 I/M, indicates the
level of emissions that would occur with I/M in addition to the FMVCP. The
fourth columns (HC and CO) percent reduction between 1977 and 1987 I/M give the
percent reduction for the total vehicle population (not just the inspected
vehicles) that would occur as a result of FMVCP. Finally, the fifth columns,
1987 reduction due to I/M, present the percent reduction in emissions for all
vehicles that is attributable to I/M in addition to the FMVC.
FUEL ECONOMY BENEFITS
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.
This improvement in fuel economy varies somewhat from one program to another
but most sources agree that a 5 to 10 percent fuel economy improvement for the
failed and maintained vehicles can be expected.1 This may understate the over-
all fleet improvement as some motor vehicle owners are likely to schedule
tune-ups just prior to having their cars inspected. One of the purposes of
I/M is to give an incentive to motorists to maintain their cars better than
they normally would in the absence of I/M.
A 7 percent fuel economy improvement was utilized in this study to
calculate the fuel savings from the I/M program options. With a stringency
(failure) rate of 30 percent, the amount of fuel saved averaged for the total
motor vehicle population will amount to a 2.1 percent of total fleet fuel
consumption. For a detailed discussion of the methodology used for calculating
fuel savings the reader is referred to Appendix B. Estimated Fuel Savings
Resulting from I/M in 1987. As shown below, for the 12 county Alternate A,
28,898,530 gallons of fuel would be saved in 1987. At $0.70 per gallon,
vehicle owners will save $20,228,970 which is approximately $11.80 per failed
vehicle. If coverage is extended to 18 counties as in Alternate A, motorists
will consume 31,844,630 fewer gallons than without I/M saving a total of
$22,291,241, which is approximately $11.85 per failed vehicle. The statewide
program coverage provides the largest savings of 37,171,280 gallons which
would amount to $26,019,896, which would be approximately $9.10 per failed
vehicle.
234
-------
TABLE 158. EMISSIONS AND PERCENT REDUCTIONS IN SCENARIO 1, OPTIONS I, II, AND VII (kg/day)'
N5
CO
Hvdrocarbons
County
1977
Butler
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Lor a ins
Lucas
Mahoning
Montgomery
Stark
Sunn it
Trumbull
Total - 12
Clermont
Geauga
Greene
Medina
Warren
Wood
Total - 6
Total - 18
26
144
68
91
25
10
31
20
* 39
26
42
20
counties 547
11
4
5
8
12
9
counties 52
counties 599
,495
,270
,261
,740
,506
,132
,713
,390
,894
,149
,177
,772
,499
,668
,330
,720
,040
,938
,563
,259
,758
Percent 1987
1987 1987 reduction between reduction 1977
without 1/M I/M 1977 and 1987, due to
I/>! plus FMVPC I/M
10,676
54,544
26,477
40,072
9,393
3,659
11,605
7,344
14,534
9,158
15,571
7,358
210,391
5,530
1,531
2,111
3,360
6,719
3,792
23,043
233,434
8,277
42,772
19,830
31,547
7,322
2,884
9,116
5,836
11,437
7,149
12,255
5,819
164,244
4,395
1,192
1,673
2,642
5,307
3,044
18,253
182,497
68.8
70.4
71
65.6
71.3
71.5
71.3
71.4
71.3
72.7
71
72
70
62.3
72.5
70.6
67.1
59
68.2
65.1
69.6
22.5
21.6
25.1
21.3
22.1
21.2
21.5
20.5
21.3
21.9
21.3
20.9
21.9
20.5
22.2
20.8
21.4
21
19.7
20.8
21.8
195,628
1,090,073
459,838
721,871
178,360
68,283
210,184
136,419
266,402
175,498
283,204
140,188
3,925,948
85,822
31,163
38,361
54,832
91,231
63,849
365,318
4,291,266
1987
without I/M
106,494
554,660
254,564
397,954
94,447
37,066
107,828
72,990
153,684
92,073
157,791
80,281
2,109,832
52,620
15,34j8
22,849
33,512
67,871
38,760
230,960
2,340,792
Carbon aonoxide
Percent1" 1987
1987 reduction between reduction
1/M 1977 and 1987, due to
1/M I/M
77,712
397,580
187,834
290,544
68,856
27,375
86,836
54,182
108,809
67,102
116,866
60,864
1,548,554
38,723
11,107
17,361
25,525
50,395
29,457
172,568
1,721,122
60.3
63.5
59.2
59.8
61.4
59.9
58.7
60.3
59.2
61.8
58.7
56.6
60.6
54.9
64.4
54.7
53.4
44.8
53.9
52.8
59.9
27.0
28.3
26.2
27.0
27.1
26.1
19.5
25.8
29.2
27.1
25.9
24.2
26.6
26.4
27.6
24.0
23.8
25.7
24.0
25.3
26.5
No reduction in light-duty truck emissions was included because the credits for this particular vehicle category have yet to be established by
EPA. Appropriate adjustments will be made when the credits are made available.
Reduction attributable to Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) and I/M.
-------
U5
TABLE 159. EMISSIONS AND PERCENT REDUCTIONS IN SCENARIO 2, OPTIONS III, IV, V, AND VI UNDER
ALTERNATE B (kg/day)*
Hydrocarbons
County
Butler Co.
Cuyahoga Co.
Franklin Co.
Hamilton Co.
Lake Co.
Lorain Co.
Lucas Co.
Mahoning Co.
Montgomery Co.
Stark Co.
Summit Co.
Trumbull Co.
Total - 12 counties
Clermont Co.
Geauga Co.
Green Co.
Medina Co.
Warren Co.
Wood Co.
Total - 6 counties
Total - 18 counties
1977
26,495
144,270
68,261
91,740
25,506
10,132
31,713
20,390
39,894
26,149
42,177
20.772
547,499
11,668
4,330
5,720
8,040
12,938
4,563
52,259
599,758
1987
vitnout I/M
10,676
54 , 544
26,477
40,072
9,393
3,659
11,605
7,344
14,534
9,158
15,571
7,358
210,391
5,530
1,531
2,111
3,360
6,719
3,792
23,643
233,434
No reduction in light-duty truck emissions
EPA. Appropriate adjustments will be made
Percent 1987
1987 reduction between reduction
I/M 1977 and 1987, Jue to
I/M plus FMVPC I/M
8,370
42,893
20,193
32,157
7,368
2,907
9,247
5,891
11,581
7,313
12,367
5,874
166,161
4,464
1,208
1,712
2,684
5,362
3,093
18,523
184,684
68.4
70.3
70.4
65.0
71.0
71.3
70.9
71.1
71.0
72.0
70.7
71.7
69.7
61.8
72.1
70.0
66.6
58.6
67.7
64.6
69.2
was included because
when the credits are
Reduction attributable to Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program
21.6
21.4
23.7
19.6
21.6
20.6
20.3
19.8
20.3
20.2
20.6
20.2
21.0
19.3
21.1
18.9
10.8
20.2
18.4
21.7
20.9
the credits for
made available.
(FMVCP) and I/M.
Carbon monoxide
1987
1977 without I/M
195
1,090
459
721
178
68
210
136
266
175
283
140
3,925
85
31
38
54
91
63
365
4,291
,628
,073
,838
,871
,360
,283
,184
,419
,402
,498
,204
,188
,948 2,
,882
,163
,361
,832
,231
,849
,318
,266 2,
this particular
106,494
554,660
254,564
397,954
94,447
37,066
107,828
72,990
153,684
92,073
157,791
80,281
109,832
52,620
15,348
22,849
33,512
67,871
38,760
230,960
340,792
vehicle
Percent" 1987
1987 reduction between reduction
I/M 1977 and 1987, due to
I/M I/M
78,846
399,198
191,484
301,762
69,422
27,658
87,942
54,867
110,891
68,151
118,249
61,555
1,570,025
39,571
11,302
17,847
25,996
51,077
30,062
175,844
1,745,880
category have
59.7
63.*.
58.4
58.2
61.1
59.5
58.2
59.8
58.4
61.2
58.3
56.1
60.0
53.9
63.7
53.5
52.6
44.0
52.9
51.9
59.3
yet to be
17.4
26.0
24.8
24.2
26.5
25.4
18.2
24.8
27.9
26.0
25.0
23.3
25.6
24.8
17.4
21.9
22.4
24.8
17.8
23.9
25.4
established by
-------
TABLE 160. EMISSIONS AND PERCENT REDUCTIONS IN SCENARIO 3, OPTIONS III, IV, V, AND VI UNDER
ALTERNATE A (kg/day)*
Si
to
County
Butler Co.
Cuyahoga Co.
Franklin Co.
Hamilton Co.
Lake Co.
Lorain Co.
Lucas Co.
Mahoning Co.
Montgomery Co.
Stark Co.
Summit Co.
Trumbull Co.
Total - 12 counties
Clermont Co.
Geauga Co.
Greene Co.
Medina Co.
Warren Co.
Wood Co.
Total - 6 counties
Total - 18 counties
1977 198?
without I/M
26,495
144,270
68,261
91,740
25,506
10,132
31,713
20,390
39,894
26,149
42,177
20,772
547,499
11,668
4,330
5,720
8,040
12,938
9,563
52,259
599,758
10,676
54,544
26,477
40,072
9,393
3,659
11,605
7,344
14,534
9,158
15,571
7,358
210,391
5,530
1,531
2,111
3,360
6,719
3,792
23,643
233,434
Hydrocarbons
Carbon monoxide
Percent 1987
1987 reduction between reduction 1917
I/M 1977 and 1987, due to
I
8,407
43,085
20,193
32,458
7,403
2,909
9,315
5,891
11,758
7,233
12,407
5,876
166,945
5,445
1,491
2,053
3.305
6,582
3,672
22,548
189,493
'M plus FMVPC
68.3
70.1
70.4
64.6
71.0
71.3
70.6
71.1
70.5
72.3
70.6
71.7
69.6
53.3
65.6
64.1
58.9
49.1
61.6
56.9
68.4
I/M
21.3
21.0
23.7
19.0
21.2
20.5
19.7
19.8
18.1
21.0
20.3
18.0
20.9
1.5
2.0
2.7
1.6
2.0
3.2
2.0
18.8
195,628
1,090,073
459,838
721,871
178,360
68,283
210,184
136,419
266,402
175,498
283,204
140,188
3,925,598
85,882
31,116
38,361
54,832
91,231
63,849
365,318
4,291,266
1987
without I/M
106,494
554,660
254,564
397,954
94,447
37,066
107,828
72,990
153,684
92,073
157,791
80,281
2,109,832
52,620
15,348
22,849
33,512
67,871
38,760
230,960
2,340,792
Percent" 1987
1987 reduction between reduction
I/M 1977 and 1987, due to
79,292
404,758
191,484
305,712
69,857
27,682
88,518
54,867
113,454
68,151
118,745
61,579
1,584,099
51,583
14,845
22,118
32,899
66,169
37,261
224,875
1,808,974
I/M
59.5
62.9
58.4
57.7
60.8
59.5
57.9
59.8
57.4
61.2
58.1
56.1
59.7
39.9
52.4
42.4
40.0
27.5
41.7
38.5
57.9
I/M
25.6
27.0
24.8
23.2
26.0
25.3
17.9
24.8
26.2
26.0
24.8
23.3
24.9
1.9
3.3
3.2
' 1.8
2.5
3.9
2.6
22.7
*No reduction in light-duty truck emissions was included because credits for this particular vehicle category have yet to be established by EPA.
Appropriate adjustments will be made when the credits are made available.
Reduction attributable to Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) and I/M.
-------
ANNUAL FUEL SAVINGS (GALLONS)
Total Dollar savings Savings per
fuel savings at $0.70 gallon failed vehicle
Alternate A
Alternate B
Statewide
- 12 County
- 18 County
28,898,530
31,844,630
37,171,280
$20,228,970.00
$22,291,241.00
$26,019,896.00
$11.80
$11.85
$ 9.10
-
COMPARISON OF COSTS
The mdjor cost components are summarized for all options in Table 161. In
the first four columns are shown the cost components for the urban areas only,
alternates A and B for Options I through VI. In Options I, III, and V the
higher contractor costs result from taxes, which increase annual operating costs
by over $1 million. However, when choosing between state and contractor run
facilities, fee differences due to taxes should not be considered since taxes are
just transfers. The $1 million dollars that motorists pay the contractor for
taxes will reduce the government's revenue requirements by $1 million dollars,
and thus reduce taxes by $1 million. A second impact of taxes, redistribution
of revenue between governmental bodies, should be considered. In particular, the
loss of property tax revenue in communities with state-run I/M facilities may
be politically important.
In terms of the start-up costs there is a cost saving of approximately
$600,000 for a contractor approach in comparison to a state-run option. The
reason for this is that the implementation period for a contractor is about
1-1/2 years in comparison to 2-1/2 years for the state.
In the fourth and fifth columns the state costs to administer and conduct
surveillance of the private garage program in the rural areas are shown. The
totals in columns six through nine reflect the urban and rural areas costs.
Finally the last three columns show the costs to the state for administration
and surveillance of a statewide private garage program. These costs are shown
for three levels of participation. The first column is the minimum level of
participation, when approximately 18 percent of the total service stations,
garages, and car dealers participate. In the other two columns are shown a
midlevel, 33 percent and maximum level of 45 percent. As explained in detail
in Sections 4 and 10, these levels were derived on the basis of certain assumptions.
The minimum participation level represents the minimum number of garages needed
to actually conduct all the inspections working a full 8-hour day. As par-
ticipation increases there would be fewer cars inspected per station. At the
maximum participation level a participating station would just break even in
terms of the total revenues being equal to the total expenses including salaries,
overhead, analyzer costs, etc. The midlevel is a midpoint between the minimum
and maximum levels.
238
-------
TABLE 161. ANNUAL COSTS*
Aonuelixed coats
I. Annualilid Capital Coats
1. Lead
2. Building
3. Equipment
11. Anauslited Stare-Dp Costs
IZI. Annual Operating Coats
I, III, V (Contractor)
urban areas*
A B
160,378 179,837
1,046,442 1,159.747
1,856,124 2,096.503
1. 124,153 1,219,102
11. 725,453 12,788.409
IV. Annual Administrative Costs 1,469,576 1,547,608
Total Annual Costs
Interest rate assumed to be 6
17,384,006 18,991.206
ii. rv, vi
urban
A
160,378
1,046.422
1.856,824
1.259.981
10,667,013
1.469,576
16.460,194
(State- run)
areas*
B
179,837
1.159,747
2,096.503
1.354,129
11.609,803
1,547,608
17.947.627
I, II*.'
Rural areas
state costs
A
0
0
103.269
176.323
577,856
1,123,920
1, Ml, 368
B
0
0
87,601
157.745
496.788
970.920
1.713,054
Options
I
Total
A
160,378
1,046,422
1,960,093
1,301,276
12.303.709
2.593.496
19.365,374
B
179.837
1,159,747
2,184,104
1.376,847
13.285.197
2.518.528
20,704,260
II
Total
A
160,378
1,046,422
1,960.093
1,436,304
11,245,681
2,593,496
18,442,215
B
179,837
1,159,74-
2,184,104
1.511,874
12,106,591
2,712,918
1»,735,649
Kin
103,008
47.502
33,236
898,685
2.409.777
2.712,938
6,205,146
vn!
Total
state coats
Mid
103.008
76.734
52,228
1,070.634
2,623,977
3,314,720
7,243,301
MB*
103,008
104,748
72,407
1,242,583
2.833,377
3.917,043
8,273,166
percent in abaance of inflation.
18 most populous counties under Alternative B.
lural areas - counties not Included in urben areas.
tlmral costs are the additional costs for providing stste support of rural privets gsrsgs InspectiOD-
(_O 'toes not Include costs to the private garages.
mlolevel and mezlmua levels of participation of private sersfes in the inspection process.
-------
In Table 162 are shown the comparison of possible fees. These are derived
by dividing total costs in 1978 dollars by average 1981 through 1987 vehicle
populations. The fees are to be used only to compare the options and do not
represent what a motorist would actually pay when the program is operational
in 1981.
In comparing the urbanized areas' fees, it can be seen first that the fees
for Alternates A or B (12 and 18 counties) are very similar, only differing by
2 to 10 cents. The difference between the urban fees for the contractor or
state options is also small, 18 to 26 cents and this results primarily from
the taxes paid by the contractor, as discussed earlier.
TABLE 162. COMPARISON OF FEES*
Centralized lanes in urban areas
Options I, III, V Options II, IV, VI
Contractor State-run
Alternate A Alternate B Alternate A Alternate B
12-County 18-County 12-County 18-County
$3.43 $3.33 $3.17 $3.15
Private garages
Option Options I, II Options I, II Option VII
Alternate A Alternate B *. . ,
, , , statewide
rural areas only rural areas only
Participation
Level
Minimum
18%
Midlevel
33%
Max imum
45%
$2.88
$4.13
$5.88
$2.94 $2.92
$4.20 $4.41
$6.04 $5.87
Fees represent constant 1978 dollars in the absence of in-
flation. These figures are for comparison of options only and
do not reflect what the motorists would have to pay. An
annual interest rate of 0.06 is assumed.
240
-------
Options I and II differ from Options III and IV or Options V and VI in the
service provided in rural areas (the part of the state outside the urban areas
discussed above). Rural areas Options I and II require mandatory emission
inspection by private garages. In these two options, state incurs a cost of
about $0.64 to $0.86 per paid private garage inspection depending on the num-
ber of garages participating in the system. This cost covers the administrative
and monitoring network required to oversee the private garage operations. In
addition, the motorist incurs the cost of the actual inspection.
Option VII is a statewide private garage approach. As is the case in the
rural areas of Option I and II there are the state costs as well as the private
garage charge which together equal the private garage fee. As the level of
participation increases, the charge per vehicle increases to offset the fewer
number of vehicles being inspected. If there were a mechanism to insure that
the number of stations participating in inspections remained at a low level,
somewhere between the minimum and midlevels, then, the fees charged in rural
areas would equal the urban motorist fees for centralized state or contractor
stations. Alternatively, the urban fees could be raised to equal the expected
breakeven participation level. Limiting station participation levels through
high license fees or other means would be difficult to implement and potentially
unpopular. In reality some stations that would not breakeven on the inspection
fee would nevertheless be willing to participate in order to increase business
especially for the repairs needed for failed vehicles.
Except for the potentially higher fees for private garages in rural areas
of Option I, and II or in statewide garage Option VII, the costs and fees are
very similar among all options. Not shown are the state costs for the random
emission inspection program conducted in rural areas by the Ohio State Highway
Patrol in Options V and VI. The capital costs of these programs are estimated
to be approximately $827,500 in Alternate A and $703,500 for Alternate B while
the operating costs were estimated at $2,792,200 and $2,374,600 for Alternates A
and B, respectively. These costs would probably be paid for through state re-
venues as is the cost of the present random safety program.
The costs were also estimated for a loaded mode option which was like
Option III except for the test type. The fee calculations for the loaded test
indicates that it would cost approximately $0.20 more per inspection than the
comparable idle mode test looked at in Option III. This cost is due to the
addition of a dynamometer for each test lane. The test time is about the same
and consequently, the actual number of inspection lanes would be the same.
Also, the manpower requirements would be equal for either test type due to the
use of automated equipment. There is no need for additional personnel to per-
form the loaded mode test.
Comparison of Manpower Requirements
Alternate A—
Table 163 summarizes manpower requirements for all the options. Options
III and IV, with smaller geographic coverage, require the fewest employees of
any of the centralized system options. Because of the rural private garage
networks incorporated in Options I and II, 52 more employees than for Options
III and IV are required to perform complaints investigation and inspection
241
-------
and licensing functions. In Options V and VI, 212 state patrol employees are
required to carry out the random roadside pullover inspection program in rural
areas. Option VII requires by far the fewest state employees of all the
options, but it must be remembered that thousands of private garage employees
will also be required. Option VI has by far the greater number of state
employees.
Alternate B—
Table 164 summarizes manpower requirements for all the options. Manpower
requirements for Alternate B are all somewhat larger for all the centralized
options due to the larger geographic area covered. Option VI with 846 people
would have more state employees than any other option, although Options II and
IV with 710 and 664 would rank close behind.
COMPARISON OF POLITICAL ISSUES
Impacts on Low Income Groups and Impacts of Repair Costs
Impacts on low income people and impacts of repair costs were discussed
earlier. These may have political ramifications. As to what degree the dif-
ferent geographical coverage in the options affect the political significance
of these issues is not clear. It might be presumed that the perceived impacts
would increase as the geographical coverage increases as in Options I, II, and
VII being statewide. However, there may be other factors in a statewide pro-
gram which includes a well-run public information program which would nullify
these possible effects.
Private Garages Options
Options I, II, and VII may have political repercussions regardless of the
geographical coverage or the exact nature of the impacts. This is because
many people perceive that private garages might overcharge them for repairs,
make unnecessary repairs, or that some people might not receive accurate or
honest testing. Although the criticism of the repair industry may not, in
many cases, be justified, the decrease in supply of mechanics and the increased
difference of emission-related repairs may further reduce the acceptability of
the private garage approach. These potential criticisms may be balanced by the
increase in consumer convenience presumed by the decentralized nature of the
private garage options.
Manpower Requirements
Those options in which the state administers the program with state-run
lanes"in urban areas, namely, Options II, IV, and VI, would have the largest
number of permanent state employees. In addition to the state employees re-
quired in the centralized lanes Option VI would necessitate state patrol offi-
cials (inspectors and patrolmen) for the rural areas. In view of the long-
term financial commitment which the state must bear under these options they
may have legislative problems.
242
-------
TABLE 163. MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS, ALL OPTIONS (NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES), ALTERNATE A
Level of employment
State Administrative
State Regional
State Local
Contractor State
Contractor Regional
Contractor Local
State Patrol
I II III
10 12 10
52 84
- 580
2 2
32 - 32
580 - 580
_ _ _
IV V
12 10
32
580
3
32
580
212
VI
12
32
580
-
-
-
212
VII
(mid)
11
127
66
-
-
-
-
Random Pullover Program 676
Total - All 676 676 624 624 836 836 204
Total - State 62 676 10 624 222 836 204
(includes State Patrol)
TABLE 164. MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS. ALL OPTIONS (NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES), ALTERNATE B
Level of employment
State Administrative
State Regional
State Local
Contractor State
Contractor Regional
Contractor Local
State Patrol
I II III IV V
10 12 10 12 10
46 80 - 34 -
618 - 618
2 2-2
34 - 34 - 34
618 - 618 - 618
- 182
VI VI1
Vi (mid)
12 11
34 127
618 66
-
-
-
182
Random Pullover Progrem
Total - All 710 710 664 664 846 846 207
Total - State 56 710 10 664 192 846 207
(includes State Patrol)
243
-------
Funding
The capital costs for land, building, and equipment under Options II, IV,
and VI which all have state financed and operated lanes in urban areas may
encounter difficulties depending on the budget situation and other political
considerations in the state. The money to finance these capital costs would
have to come from state revenues or state borrowing.
Unequal Geographical Coverage
Options III, IV, V, and VI may also present political roadblocks. With
these options, rural residents are not subject to out-of-pocket expenditures
for improving vehicular emissions. The burden of cleaner air is born only
by the urban driver. Since 63 counties in Ohio fail to meet federal carbon
monoxide or hydrocarbon standards, requiring active I/M participation by 12
or 18 counties may appear to be inequitable and unjust.
Local Tax Issue
As previously noted, a tax redistribution issue arises when choosing
between a contractor and a state-run approach. With Options II, IV, and VI,
the land used for inspection lanes is no longer in the local tax base. Com-
munities with these facilities will be expected to provide municipal services,
yet receive no compensation for their expenses. On the other hand, under
Options I, III, and IV communities with inspection lanes have an indirect
revenue source. Any motorist using an inspection lane contributes to the taxes
the contractor pays the local community. Since taxes on commercial and in-
dustrial property exceed the cost of municipal services to such property,
motorists from surrounding communities are contributing tax benefits to loca-
lities with contractor-run test facilities.
244
-------
REFERENCES
1. Personal communication with Bruce Everlane, U.S. EPA, Washington, B.C.
May 1978.
245
-------
SECTION 15
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 thoughtout program can help eliminate potentially adverse
reactions that other states with inadequate public information programs ex-
perienced (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. This includes
states with currently operational programs and those just beginning the early
planning stages. The U.S. EPA was consulted to determine basic program ele-
ments and a literature search was conducted. From contacts and research, a
full range of possible activities was established and basic cost figures de-
rived. It is important to note, as will be explained later in this report,
that the range of possible activities and comprehensiveness of public infor-
mation programs varies considerably. Therefore, broad assumptions concern-
ing the range of public information activities which Ohio will conduct must be
made to present potential cost figures. These assumptions will be made clear
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 particular needs of each state.
The initial program serves to introduce the public to the basic needs
and benefits of inspection/maintenance. It should clarify misconceptions
regarding emissions controls and explain clearly why I/M is needed to ensure
that in-use vehicles meet the emission standards for which they were designed.
A well-conceived, initial public relations program can go a long way towards
gaining public acceptance and minimizing resistance to the program.
246
-------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recently made grants avail-
able for I/M public relations work through their regional offices. These
grants have generally been $15,000, although this is subject to the total
amounts made available by Congress in appropriating the funds. U.S. EPA cannot
commit itself now to the exact amount which will be available in the future
due to the uncertainties in appropriations. As examples of the types of pro-
grams 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 maintenance
program. It is the first state to implement a private, decentralized garage
approach. Massachusetts, as yet undecided as to which type of program to select,
is also utilizing these funds. In both states the local lung association, a
voluntary nonprofit citizens group presenting clean air programs and disseminat-
ing 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 informational display is being taken to
major shopping centers and other key activity centers around the state. Auto-
mobile 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 ana-
lyzers. 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 go-
vernor 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, each new car dealer and garage which purchased an emission
analyzer from a list of approved companies, was contacted by the state. A
form was then sent out with questions for them to answer, and, upon its return
to the state, the station would receive a poster to display, as well as being
placed on an approved list of garages made up by the state. These lists were
then made available to owners of failed vehicles, such that they might
patronize those stations. This was an important element in their public
information program.
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 which 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 prepara-
tion and distribution costs (to each motorist) and mass media announcements.
247
-------
In Ohio, the cost would vary according to the geographic coverage chosen
(Alternatives A, B, or statewide), as this would affect the vehicle population.
Using the $0.12 per-vehicle tested figure, an average cost would be $481,400
for Alternative A (12-county), $527,500 for Alternative B (18-county), and
$804,000 for a statewide program. This is considered to cover initial as well
as ongoing costs, so would vary only as the vehicle population changed (these
figures are for 1975 vehicle populations) or as the program itself is varied.
It should be noted that these are only average costs. The program Costs could
change according to the details of the specific campaign Ohio chooses. At a
later stage in implementation, Ohio may design a public information program
with elements specified to a degree that will allow costs to be more closely
estimated.
ONGOING PUBLIC RELATIONS
Ongoing public relations is a continuation of the initial program in that
it seeks to reinforce the needs and benefits of the I/M program. However, the
ongoing program is much more specific. It should give detailed information on
the location of stations and inspection times. It should inform the public of
all the necessary procedures for both the inspection and maintenance phases of
the program. The ongoing program should include information on test times,
repair price ceilings, consumer protection, and enforcement.
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 $0.12. These costs are shown below in
Table 165.
TABLE 165. ESTIMATED COST OF INITIAL/ONGOING
PUBLIC RELATIONS PROGRAM FOR OHIO
ALTERNATIVES*
Geographic coverage
.,. . Urban Rural
Alternative ($) ($)
A 624,000 420,000
B 684,000 360,000
Statewide 1,044,000
_
The estimated cost per vehicle is
0.12
-------
SECTION 16
COMPARISON OF MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION VERSUS
STICKER/TICKETING AS ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
Motor vehicle registration as an enforcement procedure means that the
motorist in order to register his motor vehicle must present to the motor
vehicle registry proof that his vehicle passed the emission inspection program.
Without proof of having passed the inspection, the motorist is simply denied
the right to register and, hence, to operate his vehicle. This sytem assumes
that the frequency of motor vehicle emission inspection correspond with the
frequency of registration. In Ohio by 1982 this will be the case. In contrast,
the sticker/ticketing approach means that upon passing the emission inspection,
the motor receives a sticker which is prominently displayed, usually on the
windshield of the vehicle. The actual enforcement is through levying fines to
motorists who have not complied. Noncomplying vehicles are identified by a
special police force or by local or state police - if so designated. Those
vehicles without the appropriate sticker are given tickets much as vehicles
illegally parked vehicles or police officers can pull cars over that do not
have appropriate stickers. The violators then can have their cars inspected
either avoiding all or part of the fine and if they do not comply can be subject
to appropriate civil penalties accordingly. The stickers are issued during
each inspection period which can be on a staggered basis to suit the needs
of the inspection period.
Effectiveness
The primary issues in comparing these two approaches are effectiveness
and cost. In terms of effectiveness, the motor vehicle registration procedure
has generally been found to be a superior approach. Because motor vehicle re-
gistration is a legal prerequisite to vehicle operation, a high level of com-
pliance can be expected. Other than avoiding the registration procedure
altogether and operating the vehicle illegally, the only way to circumvent the
procedure would be to forge or tamper with the forms used to demonstrate proof
of having passed the emission test. It is unlikely, given sufficient checks
and a well designed form, that motorists would do this. There does exist some
possibility that in a private decentralized garage approach there would be
falsified tests or illegal reporting but even in this system adequate quality
assurance procedures would minimize this possibility. Any station passing or
failing an unduly large number of vehicles would be investigated and if fraud
were discovered the station could lose its license. In the centralized approach
there would, in addition to these chekcs, be much closer supervision of the in-
dividual lanes.
249
-------
Nearly all the states currently having operational I/M programs and those
with pilot programs have new or will be using the motor vehicle registration
procedure. This includes Arizona, New Jersey, Portland, Oregon, and Nevada.
The only programs using sticker/ticketing for emission inspection are Cincinnati,
Ohio, Chicago, Illinois, and Rhode Island. These programs will be discussed
below.
The sticker/ticketing approach is inherently more difficult to administer
and less effective in terms of compliance levels. In the Hamilton County, Ohio
•program, compliance is 25 to 30 percent. One difficulty in the sticker/ticketing
unethodology derives from the very controversial nature of the program itself.
With an effective public information program, wider geographical coverage and
better public acceptance of I/M presumably higher levels than those currently
experienced in Cincinnati would be experienced. However, there is much
evidence from tampering studies and just from the public reactions to pro-
grams to cast serious doubt on the ability of this approach to reach an
acceptable level of compliance.
In an I/M program in the urban areas only, sticker/ticketing approach would
encounter more difficulties in enforcement. One problem would derive from the
problem in identifying the vehicles. Presumably only vehicles actually regis-
tered in those urban counties with an I/M program would be subject to enforce-
ment. There would consequently be a need to identify vehicles from the I/M
counties. It is possible that under these circumstances, motorists would at-
tempt to register their cars in counties without I/M in order to avoid inspection.
From these considerations it may be seen that there are potential enforcement
problems regardless of the enforcement procedure selected when there is I/M in
urban areas only, but in the sticker/ticketing approach the identification of
vehicles makes enforcement considerably more difficult than when registration
enforcement is used.
The only major state program which is using sticker/ticketing is Rhode
Island, the smallest state in the U.S. One major incentive for Rhode Island
was that it already had safety inspection enforced with stickers and the public
was used to this system. Also, the motor vehicle registration procedure is
not on a staggered basis so that without charging this system, it would not be
feasible to use annual registration. In addition, the state has used a random
pullover for many years both as a direct enforcement tool and as a quality
assurance technique. Any cars which had recently passed safety inspection and
which had blatant problems had to be reinspected. In addition, the garage
which performed the inspection would be visited by appropriate state personnel
to check into the quality of their inspection procedures, recordkeeping, etc.
Rhode Island is purchasing two vans to be equipped with emission analyzers and
these vans will conduct random pullover emission tests similar to safety tests
again both as enforcement.
In the soon-to-be released Appendix N, the U.S. EPA may either require or
or encourage random roadside testing as a quality assurance/enforcement/
surveillance technique as a part of the decentralized private garage approach.
In this stage of evaluation, given that the enforcement issue will be looked
into in the final Task Y, the use of random pullover will be not be included
in the private garage approach. The random pullover is being considered
separately in Options V and VI.
250
-------
Rhode Island considers the sticker/ticketing method to be quite suitable
for their particular needs as it is already well established. State officials
estimate compliance levels for safety inspection to be very high but there is
yet no data for the added emission test. It should be remembered that for
Ohio the efficiency of sticker/ticketing probably would be different than in
a state such as Rhode Island which has already had an established sticker
system in place for many years.
Program Costs
In terms of program costs the motor vehicle registration procedure is
generally less costly than sticker/ticketing. Costs for the motor vehicle
registration are very minimal assuming that the motor brings the proof of
having passed the emission test to the motor vehicle registry prior to the
annual registration. There may be some minor additional clerical personnel
needed for recordkeeping depending on the manner in which the data handling
system is set up, whether it be a manual or an automated system.
Sticker/ticketing costs may be very substantial, however, due to the need
for enforcement personnel and other less obvious costs such as administrative
and count costs involved in collecting fines. Some rough estimates may be
made by looking at the Cincinnati program. The Cincinnati Air Pollution Con-
trol Board employs four special enforcement officers "Green Hornets" whose
primary job is issuing tickets to vehicles without stickers or without of
date ones. The costs of salaries plus the vehicles and other operating costs
are estimated to be $100,000 per year, most of which is compensated for by
the fines collected.1 In addition, the Cincinnati City Policemen also issue
tickets as a part of their normal routine daily activity. The city had esti-
mated very roughly the cost to be 1/2 million dollars per year. Such costs
are considered opportunity costs and are extremely difficult to measure because
they basically represent the costs of forgone activities, or the costs of ac-
tivities that the police force would have accomplished were it not busy issuing
tickets.
Other additional costs would stem from the court costs, and other clerical
personnel costs need to levy and collect for fines.
From the above discussion it may readily seen that not all the costs can
be estimated in this methodology. However, these rough estimates from Cincinnati
would indicate that for a statewide program in Ohio they could amount to several
million dollars in direct costs and much more in indirect or opportunity costs.
In the metropolitan areas the costs would presumably be less but enforcement
might become more difficult because of the problem of commuters crossing over
from areas not included into the urban counties. Much of the costs of the
enforcement could be reimbursed through the fines, but it might require addi-
tional manpower nonetheless.
251
-------
REFERENCES
1. Personal Communications with Marion Smith, Cincinnati Division of Air
Pollution Control. Cincinnati, Ohio. May 1978.
252
-------
SECTION 17
STATE VERSUS CONTRACTOR SURVEILLANCE OF PRIVATE GARAGES
GENERAL COMMENTS
Who would best administer, supervise, or conduct surveillance over the
private garages under the various options? The state or a private contractor?
To answer this question it is first necessary to more clearly define the super-
visory or administrative function in the private garage approach. Later in
this analysis the individual options will be considered. There are in fact at
least the following functions that involve private garages:
• Licensing
• Mechanic Training
• Quality Assurance
• Special Studies
• Public Relations
In considering these functions, the licensing is all that would require
state supervision because otherwise there would be legal problems since a con-
tractor would not have the legal authority presumably to set standards and make
policy decisions as well as to do the actual licensing itself. The other func-
tions including quality assurance, special studies, mechanic training, and public
relations could be administered or supervised by a designated private firm under
contract to the state. For purposes of this discussion the quality assurance
and special study function will be considered. A quality assurance program
would probably include periodic regular visits and unannounced visits to each
station, the regular visits being at least once a month. During the visit the
quality assurance inspector or investigator would calibrate the emission analyzer,
check the station records, and if necessary investigate any complaints or irreg-
ularities reported to the state (or contractor) concerning emission testing or
repairs. If a contractor were hired for this function he would not be about to
revoke a stations license but would have the authority to make recommendations
to the state which in turn could revoke the license or do what is needed. In
addition to calibrating analyzers or investigating complaints concerning various
problems, the investigator would gather the emission test record forms unless
they are sent directly to the state. Also, the contractor would conduct special
studies of pass/fail levels, individual station performance, fleet studies,
and other special studies as needed.
253
-------
The question as to who would be better at these functions may be inter-
preted to refer to both cost and effectiveness.
At this time there is no data nor experience in other states' programs to
indicate whether a contractor or state approach would cost less to perform the
simultaneous function. As for the overall program, it appears that the con-
tractor can conduct the inspection function at less cost than the state. In
both Arizona and California, the contractor had under-bid the state. The reason
for the presumed efficiencies in the contractor approach derive chiefly from
the use of high technology which increases efficiency of operation. The sophis-
ticated combined data gathering, emission analyzer, and control system allows
for an easy to operate rapid inspection lane system. The rapid throughput rate
allows for fewer lanes and lower capital costs. An additional and related ad-
vantage is the flexibility a private contractor has in hiring its employees and
making use of part-time employees to cover peak operating hours. Given the lower
training costs and the added personnel flexibility, the contractor seems to be
able to operate at a lower cost.
In principle, can a private contractor accomplish the same efficiencies in
supervising a private garage approach? There is no way at present that high
technology can be used in the private garage approach. The supervision function
as mentioned above does not lend itself to the same type of approach with its
attendant cost savings. However, it may be possible for a private contractor
to incur lower personnel costs due to this flexibility factor. It is generally
considered a truism, though certainly not true for all areas and in all cir-
cumstances, that industry can achieve somewhat greater efficiencies than govern-
ment. The civil service system conversely is considered less flexible and is
designed to protect its employees from abuses inherent in the private system.
Contractors have stated that the efficiencies which they achieve in the I/M
programs are due to their ability to utilize part-time employees during demand
periods. This is not an issue for the supervision function.
Another important question to look at in conjunction with costs is effective-
ness. There is no reason that the state or a contractor would necessarily be
more effective in performing the quality assurance or special studies. There
is no necessary technological advantage a contractor offers in this function as
it is largely a personnel or service function. These issues will be addressed
below in regards to the various options.
Option I: In this option there is probably the greatest likelihood of
obtaining a contractor to perform the supervision function. The contractor
would already have a sizeable investment of capital aid personnel in the
centralized lanes in the urban counties. Some of the quality assurance functions
run parallel to functions in centralized lanes. Although the contractor might
not be able to obtain much of a return on this type of supervisory work, at least
he would already have established a base of operations in the nearby areas
and would exercise control more easily than if he were not involved in the urban
areas.
Option II: In this option the state would operate the centralized lanes
and consequently, the contractor would only supervise garages in the rural area.
This would involve disadvantages to contractor operations because of the spread
254
-------
nature of the supervision which is a less cost/effective operation and because
the contractor would not have an already existing base of operations.
Option VII: In the statewide decentralized private garage approach, the
contractor would realize some efficiencies in supervising urban areas because
the stations are very close together and this reduces travel time considerably.
The rural areas would be more problematical. However, without having centralized
urban test lanes as both a base of operations and for providing an adequate re-
turn on investment a contractor may not view this job as potentially very
attractive. In other words, given other more lucrative situations, a contractor
would necessarily seek the situation where he is more likely to make use of his
knowledge and technology.
This leads to a final consideration of interest to the potential con-
tractors. From discussions with Hamilton Test Systems and an analysis of the
situation, there is some doubt if the state could find a contractor who would
be interested in performing the supervisory function if the contractor were not
able to also conduct a larger centralized operation in the urban areas.
255
-------
SECTION 18
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
256
-------
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.
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.
257
-------
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.
258
-------
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.
259
-------
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).
260
-------
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 1951 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 Ibs gross) LDT-1, light-duty truck 2 (between 6,000 Ibs and
8,500 Ibs 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 Ohio.
Since the basic emission factors are FTP specific, factors must be adjusted
to reflect driving patterns in local areas. Mobile I contains correction
factors for temperature, speed, hot/cold/stabilized travel, air conditioning,
vehicle load, trailer towing, and humidity. Due to lack of reliable data for
Ohio, default values (FTP-specific conditions) are used for air conditioning,
vehicle load, and trailer towing. Humidity affects nitrogen oxide only, and
thus, is irrelevant for our applications. Hot/cold/stabilized VMT is assumed
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 dif-
ferentiated. 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 emis-
sions for 1987, the emission factors for the various aged vehicles are weighted
by their travel proportion (e.g., see the last column of Table A-l). The data
used in calculating travel proportions, the distribution of vehicle ages and
the travel of vehicles by age, are national averages contained in Mobile I.
An Ohio vehicle age distribution for a particular year is inappropriate since
it would reflect low sales in periods of recession and these cyclic fluctua-
tions would be projected into the future periods.
To get aggregate emissions per mile for a particular county or region,
values must be combined across the various speed classes (freeways, arterials,
local roads). This is achieved by taking weighted averages using vehicle
261
-------
TABLE A-l. 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
A i ., / \a./, \ ((a)*(b)/sum)
Annual mileage (a)*(b) _ , .
, . . .. 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
262
-------
miles traveled (VMT, for the weighting fractions. To calculate total daily
emission levels (Table 11-1 through Table 11-6), emissions per mile are
multiplied by VMT. The raw VMT and speed data used in this study are given
in Table A-2 through Table A-4. These data are transformed to the analysis
years of 1977 and 1987 by the procedures indicated in Table A-5. The data
for 1977 and 1978 are reported in Tables A-6 and A-7.
To calculate the effort 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 technol-
ogies of vehicles (technology 1 vehicles built prior to 1975, technology 2
vehicles built from 1976 to 1979, technology 3 vehicles built in 1980 and
technology 4 vehicles built after 1981) with and without mandatory mainte-
nance, with stringency 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 manda-
tory maintenance, was at a stringency level of 30 percent, and will be in
effect for 5 years (from 1982 to 1987). These I/M credits are also specific
to vehicle type. Table A-8 and Table A-9 contain the credits for light-duty
vehicles found in the present version of Mobile I and are those anticipated
for the final rulemaking of Appendix N. 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.
For any of the 18 counties analyzed, not all VMT will be by vehicles
inspected under either alternative A or alternative B. Vehicles registered
outside counties with I/M will travel in counties with I/M. To adjust in-
ventories for travel by uninspected vehicles, an estimate of the proportion
of VMT by uninspected vehicles is derived from U.S. Census journey to work
data. Then the I/M credits mentioned above are applied to only the propor-
tion of VMT by inspected vehicles.
Journey to work data are used to calculate the percent of VMT by
uninspected vehicles. It is assumed that work trips constitute all VMT and
each work trip is the same length. When the work trip is between counties
with and without I/M, trip length is divided equally between the counties.
Then the proportion of VMT by uninspected vehicles in a county with I/M is:
(workers in county and living in counties without I/M)
2 (workers in county)
and in a county without I/M is:
(workers in county) - (workers in county and living in counties without I/M)
2 (workers in county)
For both alternative A and B, Table A-10 summarizes these percentages for
the 18 counties.
263
-------
TABLE A-2. 1977 O.D.O.T. DATA
County
Lorain
Geauga
Greene
Medina
Wood
Interstate
175.3
-
185.7
831.3
902.4
Daily VMT*(000)
Major arterial
1136.8
204.1
613.3
491.9
528.6
for 1977
Minor arterial
488.8
530.7
293.8
298.9
465.3
Local
155.2
74.5
24.9
51.1
36.5
Source: Ohio Department of Transportation
Vehicle miles traveled.
264
-------
TABLE A-3. 1975 O.D.O.T. DATA
Yearly growth rates of VMT by highway type:
Interstates 4.7%
Arterials 2
Locals 1
.0%
.4%
County
Franklin
Interstate
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
Cuyahoga
Interstate
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
Lake
Interstate
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
Lucas
Interstate
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
Mahoning
Interstate
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
Montgomery
Interstate
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
Daily VMT
(000)
4,082
2,012
960
5,108
4,603
3,810
1,619
9,260
771
1,108
793
1,935
1,431
1,693
220
2,627
758
1,114
393
1,640
1,962
1,582
603
3,532
Averaf LDV
speed
58
41
36
36
55
30
25
20
58
50
35
35
58
47
40
40
60
52
46
40
58
45
45
45
76.8
80.5
85.0
86.0
79.2
81.0
83.0
86.0
70.0
82.5
86.0
86.0
74
79
85
86
67.0
77
84
86
74
81.5
85.0
86.0
LOT
12.0
12.0
10.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
10.0
12
12
10
10
12
12
10
10
12
12
10
10
12
12
10
10
HDG
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
HDD
7.7
4.0
1.5
1.0
5.3
3.5
1.5
1.0
14.5
2.0
1.0
1.0
10.5
5.5
1.5
1.0
17.5
7.5
2.5
1.0
10.5
2.5
2.0
1.0
(continued)
265
-------
TABLE A-3 (continued).
Daily VMT
County (ooo)
Stark
Interstate
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
Summit
Interstate
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
Trumbull
Interstate
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
527
1,166
633
2,511
2,292
1,474
713
3,359
383
1,503
411
1,605
Average LDV
speed
58
48
45
40
58
41
37
41
58
49
45
40
76.5
78
84.0
86.0
75.5
79.5
85
86
58.0
79.5
84.0
86.0
LDT
12.0
12
12.0
10.0
12
12
10
10
12.0
12.0
10.0
10.0
HDG
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
40.
3.5
3.5
3.5
HDD
8.0
6.5
2.0
1.0
9.0
5.0
2.0
1.0
26.0
5.0
2.5
0.5
Source: Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, Ohio
(compiled from local planning data)
266
-------
TABLE A-4. DATA FROM O.K.I.
Freeway
1975
Hamilton
Butler
Clermont
Warren
1980
Hamilton
Butler
Clermont
Warren
1985
Hamilton
Butler
Clermont
Warren
VMT (000)
5,923
400
280
824
8,406
492
381
1,064
9,981
660
563
1,485
Average
speed
40.5
53.5
53.5
54.0
41.5
54.0
54.5
54.5
43.0
54.5
56.0
55.0
Arterial
VMT (000)
5,707
3,555
1,607
1,241
6,587
4,081
1,925
1,610
7,409
4,591
2,261
2,084
Average
speed
19.0
32.0
34.5
34.5
20.5
31.0
34.5
31.5
21.0
32.5
35.0
33.0
Locals
VMT (000)
560
168
45
54
627
177
52
60
696
196
58
67
Average
speed
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.5
15.0
14.5
15.0
16.0
15.0
Source: Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana Council of Governments,
Cincinnati, Ohio
267
-------
TABLE A-5. SOURCE OF VMT, AVERAGE SPEED, AND VEHICLE DATA FOR 1977 AND 1987
O\
00
County
Butler
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Clermont
Geauga
Greene
Medina
Warren
Wood
VMT
OKI
ODOT
oDOT
CKI
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
OKI
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
OKI
ODOT
75-80
75P
75?
75-80
75P
77
75P
75P
75P
75P
75P
75P
75-80
77
77
77
75-80
77
1977
Average speed
OKI
ODOT
ODOT
OKI
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
OKI
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
OKI
ODOT
75
75
75
75
75
75A
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75A
75A
75A
75
75A
VMT distribution
by vehicle type
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOI
ODor
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
75A
75
75
75A
75
75A
75
75
75
75
75
75
75A
75A
75A
75A
75A
75A
OKI 80-35
ODOT 75P
ODOT 75P
OKI 80-85
ODOT 75P
ODOT 77P
ODOT 75P
ODOT 75P
ODOT 75P
ODOT 75P
ODOT 75P
ODOT 75P
OKI 80-85
ODOT 77P
ODOT 77P
ODOT 77P
OKI 80-85
ODOT 77P
1987
Average speed
OKI
ODOT
ODOT
OKI
ODOT
ODOT
35
75
75
85
75
75A
ODOT 75
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
OKI
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
OKI
ODOT
75
75
75
75
75
85
75A
75A
75A
85
75A
VMT di-tnaution
by vehicle tvpe
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOI
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
ODOT
75A
-5
-5
75A
"5
~5A
75
75
75
75
75
75
75A
75A
75A
75A
75A
75A
Notes: ODOT 77
Ohio Department of Transportation - Actual county specific data for 1977
(from Table A-2)
ODOT 75P Ohio Department of Transportation - Projected county specific data using ODOT
growth rates on 1975 ODOT data (from Table A-3)
OKI 75-80 Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana Council of Government - Interpolated county specific
data from 1975 and 1980 OKI data (from Table A-4)
OKI 80-85 Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana Council of Government - Projected county specific data
using 1980 - 1985 OKI growth rates on 1985 OKI data (from Table A-4)
ODOT 75
Ohio Department of Transportation - Actual county specific data for 1975
(from Table A-3)
ODOT 75A Ohio Department of Transportation - 9 county averages from 1975 ODOT data
(average from Table A-3)
OKI 75 Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana Council of Government - Actual county specific data
for 1975 (from Table A-4)
OKI 85 Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana Council of Government - Actual county specific data
for 1985 (from Table A-4)
-------
TABLE A-6. DERIVED DAILY VMT (000) FOR 1977 AND 1987
County
Butler
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
N>
Total - 12 counties
VO
Clertnont
Geauga
Greene
Medina
Warren
Wood
Freeway
1977
436.
5,045.
4,474.
6,916.
845.
175.
1,568.
830.
2,150.
577.
2,512.
419.
25,954.
320.
-
185.
831.
920
902.
8
8
69
2
17
288
66
92
745
7
49
85
31
4
70
35
404
1987
727.2
7,987.13
7,083.09
10,611
1,337.84
277.46
2,483.07
1,315.28
3,404.63
914.45
3,977.08
664.58
40,782.81
635.8
-
293.95
1,315.94
1,653.4
1,428.42
Major arterial
1977
3,765
3,963
2,093
6,059
1,152
1,136
1,761
1,159
1,645
1,213
1,533
1,563
27,047
1,734
204
613
491
1,388
528
.4
.93
.29
.76
.8
.40
.91
.11
.55
.72
.87
.2
.09
.29
.94
.6
.62
1987
4,795
4,831.
2,551.
7,737.
1,405.
1,385.
2,147.
1,412.
2,006.
1,478.
1,869.
1,906.
33,527.
2,395.
248.
747.
599.
2,273.
644.
84
62
8
17
76
06
78
29
72
33
11
48
4
79
6
68
6
39
Minor arterial
1977
NA
1,684.
998.
NA
825.
488.
228.
408.
627.
689.
741.
427.
7,121.
NA
530.
293.
298.
NA
465.
41
79
04
8
89
88
36
79
81
61
38
,8
77
9
28
1987
NA
2,053.22
1,217.47
NA
1,005.68
595.85
279.0
498.4
764.73
840.82
904.23
521.23
8,680.63
NA
646.9
358.11
364.36
NA
567.18
1977
171.
9,521.
5,252.
586.
1,989.
155.
2,701.
1,686.
3,631.
2,581.
3,453.
1,650.
33,381.
47.
74.
24.
51.
56.
36.
Locals
6
13
05
8
57
17
08
25
6
81
72
26
04
8
47
94
13
4
54
1987
203
10,941
6,035
723
2,286
178
3,104
1,937
4,173
2,967
3,969
1,896
38,416
60
85
28
58
69
41
.6
.62
.61
.6
.4
.31
.06
.83
.41
.0
.01
.47
.91
.4
.57
.66
.75
.8
.99
1977
4,373.
20,215.
12,818.
13,562
4,812.
1,956.
6,260.
4,085.
8,055.
5,062.
8,241.
4,061.
93,504.
2,102.
809.
1,117.
1,673.
2,365
1,932.
Totals
8
27
82
54
058
03
05
62
41
57
44
6
4
24
7
32
84
1987
5,725.8
25,813.81
16,887.79
19,072.4
6,035.09
2,437 33
8,013.19
5,164.29
10,349.06
6,200.99
10,719.64
4,988.39
121,407.83
3,091.6
981.26
1,428.32
2,338.73
3,996.8
2,681.98
10,000.51
14,518.69
Total - 6 counties 3,159.86 5,327.51 4,960.74 6,909.46 1,588.63 1,936.55 291.28 345.17
Total - 18 counties 29,114.17 46,110.32 32,008.61 40,436.94 8,710.01 10,617.18 33,672.32 38,762.08 103,505.11 135,926.52
Note: See Table A-5 for data sources
-------
TABLE A-7. DERIVED AVERAGE SPEED AND VMT DISTRIBUTIONS FOR 1977 AND 1987
I') II
County . .
Average speed
Hull or
Interstate
Arterial
Local
Cuyahoga
Interstate
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
Franklin
Interstate
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
Ilamil ton
Interstate
Arterial
Local
Lake
Interstate
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
Loraine
Interstate
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
Lucas
Interstate
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
Mahoning
Ln ters ta te
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
53.
32.
15.
55.
30.
25.
20.
58.
41.
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36.0
36.
40.
19.
15.
58.
50.
35.
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
35.0
58.
44.
39.
37.
0
8
0
4
58.0
47.
40.
40.
60.
52.
46.
40.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A "Jb/ H W
Average speed
54
32
15
55
30
25
20
58
41
36
36
43
21
14
58
50
35
35
58
44
39
J7
58
47
40
40
60
52
46
40
.5
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.8
.0
.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0.
0,
0.
0.
.723
.822
.860
.792
.81
.83
.86
. 768
.805
.85
.86
.723
.822
.860
.7
.825
.86
.86
.723
.798
.846
.860
.74
. 7<)
.85
.86
.67
.77
.84
,86
LDT1
0.072
0.066
0.060
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.06
0.072
0.072
0.06
0.06
0.072
0.066
0.060
0.072
0.072
0.06
0.06
0.072
0.072
0.060
0.060
0.072
0.072
0.06
0.06
0.072
0.072
0.06
0.06
LDT2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.048
.044
.040
.048
.048
.048
.04
.048
.048
.04
.04
.048
0.044
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,
0
.040
.048
.048
.04
.04
.048
.048
.04
.04
.048
.048
.04
.04
.048
.048
.04
.04
I1DG
O.OJ5
0.034
0.030
0.035
0.035
0.035
0.03
0.035
0.035
0.035
0.03
0.035
0.034
0.030
0.035
0.035
0.03
0.03
0.035
0.035
0.033
0.030
0.035
O.OTj
0.035
0.03
0.035
0.035
0.035
0.03
1IDU
0.122
0.034
0.010
0.053
0.035
0.015
0.01
0.077
0.04
0.015
0.01
0.122
0.034
0.010
0.145
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.122
0.047
0.021
0.010
0.105
0 . 0 r> r>
0.015
0.01
0.175
0.075
0.025
0.01
— — , . — . — . — ~^__ — _ — . — _
(continued)
270
-------
TABLE A-7 (continued).
1977
Counly Average speed
Montgomery
Interstate
Major jrti-ri;il
Minor arterial
Local
Stark
Interstate
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
Summit
Interstate
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
Trumbull
Interstate
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
Clermont
Interstate
Arterial
Local
Ceauga
Interstate
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
Greene
Interstate
Major arterial
Minor arterial
Local
Medina
Interstate
M,-| ji>r ar t
-------
TABLE A-8. HYDROCARBON I/M CREDITS
Wi thout Maintenance
technology Stringency
Years of I/M
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
I ft. I *,*f.»•.>•.»*•••.«*.•*,«•* ".M.tl.S*.*•.%*.«?.
**.t*.l4.«l.«4.«**W.*«.*4.S*.S*.*l.4?,*1.4*,t«.4t.
l).ll.lT,«;,«4.*«'4l.kS.Sr,S*.4«.»l,4/.M.4«,»%.4*P
41,4l.**.4T.*•.*•.
4S.4T.»•.»«,;•,71,
**.»•.*«.f**Ti*ri.
IV
With Maintenance
I
,!•« H**l «»«.*»» f f» f «.?*.?•«••. BO. •!,•*,•!.•«.••,»*,•»*•»
t l.U.$).»<>*•*fl*T*.T*.»•••).•<*«}.*!.•*.«%.•%.•«»•*.tT
. ..,.
••••I.•».»».*•.•*»•*••».•*••'••*•
•%•»«••*•'••'»••••••»/
IV
272
-------
TABLE A-9. CARBON MONOXIDE I/M CREDITS
Without Ma
Technology
I
II
III
IV
intcnanc*
Stringency 1
ft 10 —
0.20 — _
0.30 ____
0.40—-
0.50—.
0.30-
0.10 — • — "
0.20
0.30—
0.40
0.50 — —
0.10 ~~~~^-
0.20 — ~^^'
0.40 ~~^^^
0.50
With Maintenance
I 0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40 "
11
III
IV
0.50
0.10 -~^1-
0.20 •"""^__--
0.30 -""^,-
0.40 ~~~~\^~
0.50 -""""^
0.10 "^^^
0.20 ~*\^'
0.30 "^-^
0.40 ^
0.50
o.io •^^^-
0.20 _^^^
0.30 ^^".^
0.40 ^^
0.50
Years of I/M
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
~ *»C7, 1 3, 17, 22, 26, 30,32,«f 17. HO, U 1.42. 44,45, 4b, 47,48,50 4
~S*~* 12, 2 1, 2 7, 32, 36, 40, 44, 47, 49, 52, 53, 55, 5b, 58, 59, 60, bl, 62, 62,
"*?" »• 14, 2 3, 29, 35. 39,43,47,50,52.55,56,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,
^5v» 10, 15, 20, 23, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34. 35, 37, 37, 3», 40, 41, 41, 42, 43, "4,
f I 7» 25 i 29, 32, 36, 38, 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 52, 53, 54 »
-------
TABLE A-10. JOURNEY TO WORK DATA
to
~4
-P-
County
Butler
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Loraine
Lucas
Mahoning
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Clermont
Geauga
Greene
Medina
Warren
Wood
Workers
Workers Uyi outside
in county 12 counties*
-
529,660
272,804
326,777
43,116
68,440
164,357
86,883
218,182_
111,324
162,616
72,110
9,577
10,447
33,655
13,008
11,030
25,576
28,138
29,827
70,595
3,373
4,333
26,345
6,333
45,173
9,346
14,933
5,304
8,149
7,966
24,687
11,008
8,882
17,337
Workers
living outside
18 counties*
10,893
29,827
45,651
1,909
3,991
17,323
6,333
20,236
9,346
10,983
5,138
1,168
962
5,967
1,535
860
3,323
VMT
not inspected...
alternative A"
0.0549'
0.0266
0.0547
0.1080
0.0391
0.0317
0.0801
0.0364
0.1035
0.0420
0.0459
0.0368
0.9254
0.8813
0.8668
0.9232
0.9026
0.8389
VMT
not inspected.
alternative 3
0.0394
0.0103
0.0547
0.0698
0.0221
0.0292
0.0527
0.0364
0.0464
0.0420
0.0338
0.0356
0.0610
0.0460
0.0886
0.0590
0.0390
0.0650
Source: U.S. Census of Population, Subject Report, Journey to Work PC(2)-6D,
Department of Commerce 1970
Data is not available for Butler County, averages for the other 11 counties in
alternative A are used.
See text for formulas used
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mobile Source Emission Factors.
For Low-altitude areas. Final Document. EPA-400/9-78-006. March 1978.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Appendix N - Emission Reduction
Achievable Through Inspection and Maintenance of Light-Duty Vehicles,
Motorcycles and Light- and Heavy-duty trucks. Proposed Rule. Federal
Register 24(84)-.22177-22183. May 2, 1977.
3. U.S. Census of Population, Subject Report. Journey to Work PC(2)-6D.
Department of Commerce, 1970.
275
-------
APPENDIX B
ESTIMATED FUEL SAVINGS RESULTING
FROM I/M FOR 1987
INTRODUCTION
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 forcing vehicle 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)1 to a 10 percent savings for
the first 6 months that Hamilton Test Systems operated a program for Arizona.2
These figures are for light-duty vehicles that failed the emissions test and
have thus been forced to be repaired for compliance. Noting such studies as
these, EPA has suggested a range of 5 to 10 percent3 for expected fuel savings
on repaired vehicles. A 7 percent figure is used here as an average for
calculations. This figure may be revised if the results from an ongoing study
in Oregon prove more conclusive.
It should be noted that these fuel economy figures may be misleading.
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, characteristics
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.
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 of $1.1 billion saved by con-
sumers.1* 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
276
-------
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 farthest out of compliance. This
segment of the population has the greatest potential for improvement since it
is the least adequately maintained vehicle group.
A rough estimate of fuel savings for failed vehicles resulting from I/M
implementation statewide in Ohio can be calculated for 1987. Assumptions
include using a 30 percent stringency rate, an average improvement in fuel
economy for failed vehicles of 7 percent, a predicted 1987 statewide vehicle
population of 9,599,700 and VMT of 50,284,524,000 per year, an average fleet
mileage figure of 24.49 miles per gallon and a cost of $0.70 per gallon for
gasoline. The fuel savings for 1987 will be 37,171,280 gallons or $26,019,896.
These savings would accrue to all vehicle owners particpating in the I/M
program, providing they maintain their vehicles before (of after) inspection.
The estimated statewide fuel savings in 1987 in gallons can be compared
with the 12 and 18 county alternatives as shown below in Table B-l.
TABLE B-l. ANNUAL FUEL SAVINGS (GALLONS)
Total Dollar -savings Savings per
fuel savings at $0.70 gallon failed vehicle
Alternative A -
Alternative B -
Statewide
12 County
18 County
28,898,530
31,844,630
37,171,280
$20,228,970.00
$22,291,241.00
$26,019,896.00
$11.80
$11.85
$ 9.10
DETAILED CALCULATIONS
The total number of gallons of gasoline saved by implementation of I/M
on a statewide basis in Ohio can be calculated for 1987. Four factors must
be known to derive this estimate. First, the stringency rate established
for the program is a prime determinant. Fuel savings will be calculated twice,
once assuming a 30 percent stringency rate and again with a 20 percent
stringency rate. The total VMT generated in 1987 by vehicles covered by
Appendix N credits that are covered by an I/M sequence is also pertinent.
Light-duty vehicle (LDV) appendix N credits have already been promulgated.
Light-duty truck (LOT) credits are not yet availble. Thus, to be consistant
with emission reduction benefits reported here, fuel savings will be calculated
for LDVs only. The VMT by the LDV fleet in 1987 must be adjusted to eliminate
VMT generated by LDVs that are exempt from I/M. Thus, VMT for LDV less than
1 year old and greater than 13 years old must be removed.
Table B-2 reports estimated LDV VMT figures for 1987 for 12 and 18
counties and statewide. Based on data in the Environmental Protection Agency's
Mobile 1 computer program and EPA mileage standards, an average fleet mileage
for vehicles covered by I/M in 1987 of 24.49 miles per gallon results. This
data indicates that 86.2 percent of the 1987 LDV VMT are generated by vehicles
covered by I/M (Tables B-3 and B-4).
277
-------
TABLE B-2. ESTIMATED DAILY VMT FIGURES FOR SELECTED COUNTIES
FOR 1987
County
Daily vehicle miles travelled
(thousands)
Total
Butler
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Loraine
Lucas
Mahoning
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
5,725.8
25,813.81
16,887.79
19,072.4
6,035.09
2,437.38
8,013.19
5,164.29
10,349.06
6,200.99
10,719.64
4,988.39
12-County total VMTs
Clermont
Geauga
Greene
Medina
Warren
Wood
18-County total VMTs
Statewide VMTs
3,091.6
981.26
1,428.32
2,338.73
3,996.8
2,681.91
156,163,120
121,407.83
135,926.52
156,163,120
278
-------
TABLE B-3. TRAVEL WEIGHTING FACTOR CALCULATION FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES
Year
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
Pre-
1976
Vehicle
age
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
(b)
Annual mileage
accumulation rate
15900
15000
14000
13100
12200
11300
10300
9400
8500
7600
6700
6600
5491
(a) * (b)
1192.5
1605.0
1498.0
1388.6
1220.0
1039.6
875.5
723.8
561.0
395.2
261.3
178.2
362.4
{(a) * (b)/sum}
travel fraction
0.106
0.142
0.133
0.123
0.108
0.092
0.077
0.064
0.050
0.035
0.023
0.015
0.032
FROM: Mobile I, EPA; January 1978.
279
-------
TABLE B-4. EPA MPG SPECIFICATIONS AND AVERAGE FLEET MILEAGE
FOR LDVs COVERED BY I/M IN 1987
Year EPA milea8e
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
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 B-2.
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 B-l.
280
-------
The final factor that determines the quantity of fuel saved is the level
of fuel economy realized by vehicles undergoing required maintenance. Since
this- figure is not known precisely, estimates are derived for 2 to 10 percent
improvements.
The formula used to calculate fuel savings is:
Gallons saved per year = (VMT)*ff:862) * S * F * 322
(YM.)
where: VMT = daily vehicle miles travelled by LDVs in 1987.
0.862 = portion of 1987 LDV VMTs generated by vehicles covered by I/M.
FM = average fleet mileage of LDVs covered by I/M.
S = stringency rate.
F = improvement in fuel economy realized by failed vehicles
undergoing required maintenance.
322 = factor to adjust from daily to yearly savings.
The results of these calculations are reported in Table B-5.
281
-------
TABLE B-5. POTENTIAL YEARLY FUEL SAVINGS FROM I/M FOR SELECTED
COUNTIES IN 1987* (1000 GALLONS)
Increase in „ .. c A
f , Geographic coverage of program
fuel economy & f a v e> ^
for failed 10 ^^
i-j T /
-------
REFERENCES
1. Rubestein, G. R. Ingels, R. Weis, and A. Wong. Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance. California Program. California Air Resources Board.
SAE Paper No. 760557.
2. Automotive Fleet. Benefits of a Vehicle Inspection Program. Reprinted
for Hamilton Test Systems, Inc.' July 1975.
3. Telephone Conversation(s) - Bruce Everlane, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, B.C. May 17, 1978.
4. U.S. Department of Transportation. Motor Vehicle Diagnostic Inspection
Demonstration Program. October 1977.
283
-------
APPENDIX C
SENSITIVITY OF BREAKEVEN FEES
The breakeven fees are dominated by the annual operating-costs in all of
the centralized approaches. The annual operating cost is highly dependent on
the test personnel cost. By changing the test 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 resulting change in f (fee in constant
1978 dollars) would be a 10 to 13 percent increase. The curreni and increased
breakeven fees are shown in Table C-l.
TABLE C-l. INCREASE IN BREAKEVEN FEES WITH A 25 PERCENT INCREASE
IN PERSONNEL WAGES (i = 0.03)
f c with
Option Alternate Current f 25 percent Increase
higher wages
I, III, or V
II, IV, or VI
I or II (rural)
A
B
A
B
A
B
3.43
3.33
3.17
3.15
0.56
0.56
3.57
3.55
3.39
3.37
0.60
0.61
4.15%
6.68%
7.02%
6.90%
7.32%
8.19%
A policy of providing paid retests to consumers whose vehicles have failed
the initial test will cause a decrease in the breakeven fee equal to the strin-
gency factor, since the total annualized cost of the program would be split by
that many more tests. In this example, using 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 C-2.
284
-------
TABLE C-2. DECREASE IN f (BREAKEVEN FEE IN CONSTANT 1978
DOLLARS) WITH PAID RETEST POLICY, i = 0.03
n *.* »n. ^ fp with paid fr with free
Option Alternate c F$) ^^^ ($)
I, III or V A 2.64 3.43
B 2.56 3.33
II, IV or VI A 2.61 3.39
B 2.59 3.37
I or II A 0.43 0.56
B 0.43 0.56
285
-------
APPENDIX D
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:
n ,
NPV = Y] r = 1 -
Thus, an investment of 1 dollar yields annual benefits: 7=5= = - for
each of n years. Thus r=^: 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
and = 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:
286
-------
for each dollar of initial investment). This assumption enables use of the
above amortization factor, ™JT» 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 . , ..
NPV = X d°llars
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
rrr
NPV
of each dollar of start-up cost is: trrrr = - , 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
287
-------
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 TT with r substituted for i. The factors for amortization
are shown in Table D-l below:
TABLE D-l. FEE, f , AMORTIZATION FACTORS
3.
Cost category -i- i=0.03 i=0.06
Land r 0.10 0.13
Buildings and structures — 0.117 0.143
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.
288
-------
n /, . K n
k
k=l \ UrV k=l
(l+ ig-1
r(l+p) /l-(l+i/l+p)"n
1 \ l-(Ur)-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
289
-------
APPENDIX E
UNIFORM FEE IN ACTUAL DOLLARS FOR OPTIONS
Fees that will remain constant over the first 5 years of I/M program
operation have been calculated for the various options. These figures have
been derived in 1978 dollars and are reported in Tables E-l and E-2. A com-
plete description of the methodology used and the assumptions that these
figures are based on appear in Appendix D.
Since these figures are reported in 1978 dollars, they must be adjusted
for inflation to arrive at the actual dollar amounts for the year in which the
program is initiated. Once that figure is determined it will remain constant
for 5 years. This rests on the assumption that the average rate of inflation
over that 5-year period will be 7 percent.
The actual fees (fa) reported in this appendix apply separately to the
urban and rural components of program coverage for Options I and II. Des-
aggregating the options in this fashion provides information on the incre-
mental cost of including rural inspection along with the 12-county (Alter-
nate A) and 18-county (Alternate B) urban area program coverages.
As would be expected, the cost of rural inspections is lower than the
cost of urban inspections. For Option I (contractor run facilities in urban
areas and private garage testing in rural areas) the urban fa for Alternate A
is $4.04 while rural inspections run lower at $0.68 each (assuming an interest
rate of 3 percent). For the 18-county alternate of Option I the urban fa is
$4.03 and the rural fa is $0.69.
Option II varies from I because urban area facilities are state-run.
This change results in slightly different fa figures. For Alternate A the
urban fa is $3.82 and the rural fa is $0.68. These figures for Alternate B
are $3.80 and $0.72 respectively Cassuming a 3 percent interest rate).
Options III and V consist of contractor-run and state-run urban area
coverage only. Their fa figures are similar. For 12-county coverage average
test costs are $4.04. This figure is similar for 18-county coverage at $4.03.
For Options I through VI fa is calculated to cover either the state or
the contractor costs, whichever is appropriate. It also assumes that rein-
spections totalling 30 percent of the vehicle population are conducted on a
paid basis and that no vehicle fails reinspection.
290
-------
Private garage inspections statewide have also been examined (Option VII)
fa varies with this option by the level of private garage participation. As
the proportion of garages providing I/M testing increases, the throughput per
facility declines. Because of the high fixed costs associated with testing,
the cost per inspection increases as facility throughput increases. Assuming
a 3 percent interest rate, fa varies with the level of participation from
$0.91 to $1.15.
291
-------
TABLE E-l. fa AND COST COMPONENTS WITH i = 0.03 (ALL FIGURES ARE 1978 DOLLARS)
OPTIONS
Cost components for f
I II
Rural Rural
ABABA
I, III, V
Urban
B
A
II, IV, VI
Urban
B
VII
min mid max
I. Capital Costs
1.
2.
3.
Land
Buildings
Equipment
II. Start-Up Coats
III. Operating Costs
NJ
VO
to
IV. Administrative Costs
Total Component Costs
(fa
>
0 0 0 0 267
0000 1,407
114,840 97,416 114,708 97,416 2,064
196,080 175,419 191,080 175,419 1,251
702,095 603,597 703,081 603,597 14,246
1,365,563 1,179,668 1,365,563 1,270,754 1,785
2,378,579 2,056,100 2,379,431 2,147,186 21,022
0.68f 0.69f 0.68f 0.72f 4.04
,297
,256
,876
,001
,911
,535
,876
299
1,559
2,331
1,355
15,537
1,880
22,964
4.03
,729
,659
,410
,699
,917
,344
,758
267
1,407
2,064
1,401
12,960
1,785
19,886
3.82
,297
,257
,876
,158
,421
,535
,544
299
1,559
2,331
1,505
14,105
1,880
21,682
3.80
.729
,659
,410
,856
,911
,344
,909
171,679 171,679 171,679
(referee lanes)
63,882 103,194 140,867
(inspection & licensing vans)
36,960 58,080 80,520
(complaints/inveatigation
vehicles)
999,380 1,190,595 1,381,784
2,927,874 3,190,562 3,442,553
3,296,220 4,027,385 4,759,207
7,496,000 8,741,495 9,976,611
0.913f 1.01+ 1.15*
These figures are not to be construed as annual costs.
Rural areas in Options I and II and all areas in Option VII have been reteated. All other cases have free retests.
Note: fg « Uniform fee in actual dollars.
-------
TABLE E-2. fa AND COST COMPONENTS WITH i = 0.06 (ALL FIGURES ARE 1978 DOLLARS)
10
vo
*
Cost components for f
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Capital Costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Start-Up Costs
Operating Costs
Administrative
Total Component Costs
(fa)
I
Rural
A
0
0
123,540
210,934
699,206
1,359,943
2,393,623
0.68f
B
0
0
104,796
188,709
601.113
1,174,813
2,069,431
0.69f
II
Rural
A
0
0
123,398
210,934
700,188
1,359,943
2,394,459
0.64t
B
0
0
104,796
188,709
601,113
1,265,524
2,160,142
0.72f
OPTIONS
III and V
Urban
A
347,486
1,707,952
2,221,306
1,345,774
14,188,282
1,778,187
21,588,987
4.15
B
389,648
1,892,920
2,508,032
1,458,403
15,473,975
1,872,606
23,595,584
4.14
IV and VI
Urban
A
347,486
1,707,952
2,221,306
1,507,306
12,907,086
1,778,187
20,469,326
3.94
B
389,648
1,892,920
2,508,032
1,619,936
14,047,862
1,872,606
22,331,004
3,92
min
VII
mid max
223,183 223,183 223,183
(referee lanes)
77,532
( inspection
39 , 760
(complaints/
1,075,091 1
2,915,830 3
3,282,655 4
7,614,051 8
0.88f '
125,244 170,968
and licensing vans)
62,480 86,620
investigation vehicles)
,280,792 1,486,493
,177,432 3,428,386
,010,811 4, 739, 622
,879,942 10,135,272
1.02* 1.17t
These figures are not to be construed as annual costs.
Rural areas in Options I and II and all areas in Option VII have free retests; all other cases have paid retegts.
Note: f - Uniform fee in actual dollars.
-------
APPENDIX F
TAX RATES AND ANNUAL TAXES
A private contractor in Options I, III, and V would be required to pay
taxes on centralized facilities. Specifically the land, buildings and equip-
ment are subject to taxation. Tax rates for each municipality were obtained
from 1976 Actual Tax Rates to All Property and Effective Tax Rates on Real
Property for Current Expenses and Debt in Ohio Cities, Table PR-5 No. 2 (1978),
published by Ohio Department of Taxation, Research and Statistics Section.
Rates used in calculation were effective rates computed by the Research and
Statistics Section. Taxable property consists of land, buildings including
all facility furnishings, and equipment (assumed assessed at full value).
Tax rates, taxable property, and annual taxes itemized by county and munici-
pality are shown in Table F-l.
294
-------
TABLE F-l. TAX RATES AND ANNUAL TAXES FOR OPTIONS I, III AND V
to
vO
Oi
Alternate A
12 county option
Butler County
Metropolitan
Metropolitan
Cuyahoga County
Core
Metropolitan
Metropolitan
Franklin County
Core
Metropolitan
Metropolitan
Hamilton County
Core
Metropolitan
Metropolitan
Lake County
Metropolitan
Metropolitan
Loraine County
Metropolitan
Metropolitan
Lucas County
Metropolitan
Mahoning County
Metropolitan
Metropolitan
Montgomery County
Metropolitan
Metropolitan
Stark County
Metropolitan
Metropolitan
. Taxable property Annual taxes
Clty (facilities/ca. lanes) Tax rate ($)
Hamilton
Middletown
Cleveland
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Columbus
Cincinnati
Cincinnati
Norwood
Mentor on the Lake
Painsville
Loraine
Elyria
Toledo
Youngs town
Ellsworth
Dayton
Englewood
Canton
Alliance
(1/3)
(1/3)
(3/6)
(3/6)
(1/3)
(1/6)
(2/6)
(1/3)
(2/6)
(1/6)
(1/3)
(1/3)
(1/3)
(1/4)
(1/3)
(2/6)
(1/6)
(1/2)
(2/6)
(1/3)
(1/6)
(1/4)
414,345
414,345
2,121,213
2,257,716
414,345
707,071
1,505,144
414,345
1,414,142
752,572
414,345
414,345
414,345
519,485
414,345
1,505,144
752,572
316,645
1,505,144
414,345
752,572
519,845
0.03837
0.03416
0.06493
0.06493
0.06493
0.04040
0.04040
0.04040
0.05044
0.05044
0.05022
0.05043
0.04778
0.04215
0.04113
0.03609
0.04820
0.04796*
0.05744
0.05676
0.03840
0.04160
15,898
14,154
137,730
146,594
26,903
28,566
60,808
16,740
71,329
37,960
20,808
20,895
19,797
21,896
17,042
54,321
36,274
15,186
86,455
23,518
28,899
21,626
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-l (continued).
ro
Alternate A
12 county option
Summit County
Metropolitan
Metropolitan
Trumbull County
Metropolitan
Metropolitan
Total - 12 counties
Alternate A
Alternate B - 6 counties
Clermont County
Geauga County
Greene County
Medina County
Warren County
Wood County
Total - 6 counties
Alternate B
Total - 18 counties
City
Akron
Cuyahoga Falls
Warren
Niles
Batavia
Chard on
Fairborn
Medina
Lebanon
Bowling Green
Taxable property Tax rate
(facilities/ca. lanes)
(2/6)
(1/2)
(1/4)
(1/3)
(1/3)
(1/2)
(1/4)
(1/3)
(1/3)
(1/3)
1,505,144
316,645
519,845
414,345
414,345
316,645
519,845
414,345
414,345
414,345
0.04985
0.06180
0.04520
0.03990
0.04796*
0.04796*
0.05500
0.05720
0.03435
0.03619
Annual taxes
($)
75,031
19,569
23,497
16,532
1,058,028
19,872
15,186
28,591
27,701
14,233
14,995
120,578
1,178,606
Where no actual figures were available, averages for all cities were used.
-------
APPENDIX G
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND COSTS OF A
LOADED-MODE OPTION
INTRODUCTION
This appendix discusses the technical considerations and costs of a loaded-
mode test option essentially similar to Option III, in which a contractor con-
ducts emission inspection in urban areas only. Although the Ohio Advisory
Group did not initially choose to evaluate a loaded mode option, as the study
progressed, new information derived from the Advisory Group visits and from
the Arizona program, and other sources indicated that the loaded mode test
procedure could offer some advantages and not cost much more than a comparable
idle mode test. Although the loaded mode has several variations two of which
are discussed below, the one chosen for evaluation in this Appendix, namely
the "key" loaded mode (called simply loaded mode) has the same thruput rate
and same manpower requirements as the idle mode evaluated in all the centralized
lane options in the main text of this report.
TEST MODE DESCRIPTIONS
Idle Mode
The idle mode test consists of sampling exhaust gases while the vehicle
is idling; no attempt is made to determine the actual idle speed while the
exhaust sample is being taken; heretofore, there is no requirement to open the
vehicle's hood. The actual test time based on some programs being conducted
today (New Jersey, for example), can be as short as 30 seconds (not including
the movement of the vehicle into and out of the bay).
There has been some discussion presented concerning the reliability of
the basic idle mode test when engine preconditioning* is not performed prior
to analyzing the exhaust sample. For this reason, EPA has specified (in the
draft Appendix N, at least) that: "At a minimum, the idle test should consist
*
Preconditioning is simply allowing the engine to run at a speed of approximately
2,500 rpm for 60 to 90 seconds immediately before the exhaust is sampled. This
purges the exhaust system and also reduces some of the heat build-up that occurs
under the hood during long idle periods (these could be encountered while wait-
ing for an inspection), which could affect the air-to-fuel ratio and hence, the
CO and HC exhaust levels.
297
-------
of the following procedure carried out on a fully warmed-up engine; a measure-
ment ot the exhaust emission concentrations for a period of time of at least
15 seconds, shortly after the engine was run at 2,000 to 2,500 rpm with no
load for approximately 60 seconds." This results in the actual test time
being closer to 90 seconds, assuming that preconditioning will in fact be
required when Appendix N is finalized.
High Idle Mode
This test mode is very similar to the basic idle test mode with respect
to equipment required and the fact that exhaust pollutants are measured with
the engine idling rather than under a load. The difference, however, is that
rather than conducting the test at the normal (for the particular vehicle)
idle speed, the engine is adjusted to a speed of 2,250 to 2,500 rpm and allowed
to run at that speed for 60 to 90 seconds prior to testing. Since the engine
speed is specified for this test mode, a tachometer must be attached to the
engine prior to testing. After attaching the tachometer, the inspector would
insert the probe into the exhaust pipe and then speed the engine up to 2,250
to 2,500 rpm. The engine speed would be held constant until the exhaust
analyzer stabilizes. At that point, the engine is returned to normal idle
and sampling continues until the analyzer again stabilizes. CO and HC
readings are recorded when the analyzer stabilizes both during the high-idle
and normal-idle phase of the test. The complete test time for the high-idle
mode test (again, excluding moving the vehicle into and out of the test bay)
is 2-1/2 to 3 minutes.
Loaded Mode
Loaded-mode testing involves analyzing exhaust pollutants while the
vehicle is being operated under load (through the use of a dynamometer). For
the purposes of I/M, exhaust pollutants are measured only at specific steady
state conditions; these typically are at 50 mph, 30 mph, and at idle. This
is referred to as the Key Mode Test. Some test programs are designed to
perform engine diagnostics only at 50 and 30 mph, and the pass-fail test is
based on the idle emissions characteristics.
A very high degree of automation has been built into a complete loaded-
mode test system by at least one manufacturer. This enables a complete
loaded mode test to be conducted in 2 minutes or less.
Modified Loaded Mode
This test mode is identifical to the basic loaded mode test described
above, except that the 30 mph phase is eliminated. The primary reason for
eliminating this phase is that the total test time is reduced to approximately
100 seconds with very little sacrifice in either test reliability or diagnostic
information produced. Modified loaded-mode testing can generally be performed
in less than 90 seconds.
298
-------
DISCUSSION
Table G-l below summarizes the test times discussed for each test mode.
TABLE G-l. ESTIMATED TEST TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR FOUR I/M TEST MODES
Mode Test time (seconds)
Idle 30 - 90*
High idle 150 - 180
Loaded 120
Modified loaded 90
*
30 seconds without engine preconditioning,
90 seconds with preconditioning.
The test times shown in Table 1 indicate that there actually may be very
little differnece in total throughput time between the modified loaded mode
and the idle mode tests. This tends to substantiate Hamilton Test System's
conclusion that the actual cost differential between the two types of tests
can be minimal, essentially reflecting only differences of a few thousand
dollars in equipment costs, since the basic requirement for facilities would
be identical.*
It is noted here that the very short loaded mode tests do not provide
detailed diagnostic information regarding engine performance. Inferences can
be made, however, concerning which system is most likely to be causing the
emission problem based on the readings at various points in the test. As an
example, an excessively high HC level at 50 mph with a normal level at idle
indicates that there may be a problem in the ignition system; normal HC levels
at 50 mph and abnormally high levels during idle, on the other hand, would
indicate that the carburetor is not adjusted properly. If more detailed
diagnostic information is desired, an engine analyzer must be integrated
into the system. Since this would involve attaching leads to the engine,
additional time would be required for each test. The additional time required
would be about 90 seconds resulting in a total time of about 3 minutes.
A LOADED MODE ALTERNATIVE
• Urban County Coverage
• Loaded Mode Emission Testing
• Contractor Administers Centralized Lanes
\
It is noted, too, that Hamilton Test Systems generally assumes that the actual
inspection bay sizes for both idle and loaded are equal; this would allow a
switch-over from idle loaded-mode testing to be made easily if the need arose.
299
-------
Alternate A - 12 Urban Counties
Alternate B - 18 Urban Counties
OPTION DEFINITION
This option involves a private contractor establishing a network of
centralized loaded key mode test lanes in either 12 urban counties (Alternate A),
or 18 urban counties (Alternate B). A private contractor, under the direction
of Ohio EPA, would assume responsibility for the overall program including
purchasing land and equipment, building the test facilities, designing the
program, training personnel, providing public information, operating the test
lanes, handling and analyzing data, and administering all other program
elements with the exception of enforcement. The Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles
would be primarily responsible for enforcement of this option. Appendix G
has provided a discussion of the comparison of two methods of enforcement,
registration and sticker-ticketing.
NETWORK REQUIREMENTS
The basic network requirements for this option are the same as for the
centralized idle mode lanes in urban counties discussed in Sections 4 through
6 for Options I, II, and III respectively. Again, the following numbers of
inspections to be performed were derived from 1987 registration projections,
assuming a 30 percent stringency rate. They are as follows:
1987 TOTAL INSPECTIONS
Alternate A - 12 counties 7,436,000
Alternate B - 18 counties 8,148,300
Next, the number of centralized lanes needed for both alternates were
derived. Since the idle mode test defined earlier has a throughput time of
2 minutes, and the time requirements of the loaded (key) mode test is also
2 minutes, the centralized lane requirements for this option are the same
as those derived in Section 4, which were:
1987 CENTRALIZED LANE REQUIREMENTS
Alternate A - 12 counties 166 lanes
Alternate B - 18 counties 184 lanes
Again, the actual inspection network in terms of approximate locations
and station size was determined. It is shown in Tables G-2 and G-3 for
Alternates A and B, respectively.
300
-------
TABLE G-2. INSPECTION NETWORK REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATE A
(12 COUNTY)
County
Butler
Cuyahuga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Total network
Town
Hamilton
Middletown
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Cincinnati
Norwood
Merton on the Lake
Painsville
Lorain
Elyria
Toledo
Youngstown
Ellsworth
Dayton
Englewood
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Cuyahoga Falls
Warren
Niles
Number of facilities
1
1
6
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
35 facilities
Configuration
3 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
166 lanes
301
-------
TABLE G-3. INSPECTION NETWORK REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATE B
(18 COUNTY)
County
Butler
Clermont
Cuyahuga
Franklin
Geauga
Greene
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Ma honing
Medina
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Warren
Wood
Town
Hamilton
Middletown
Batavia
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Chardon
Fairborn
Cincinnati
Norwood
Merton on the Lake
Painsville
Lorain
Elyria
Toledo
Youngstown
Ellsworth
Medina
Dayton
Englewood
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Cuyahoga Falls
Warren
Niles
Lebanon
Bowling Green
Total network
Number of facilities
1
1
1
6
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
41 facilities
Conf igurat ion
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
184 lanes
302
-------
OPTION COSTS
The costs associated with the implementation of this option are presented
below. Reference should be made to Section 3, Methodologies, concerning
analytical techniques used.
Capital Costs
Buildings—
As discussed in Section 3, a building cost of $27.75 per square foot was
assumed for this option. An analysis of specific inspection tasks to be per-
formed, including dimensions of equipment required, was made to define the
general features that would be included in an inspection facility. A con-
ceptual floor plan for a basic one-lane facility for loaded mode emissions
inspection is shown in Figure G-l. Table G-4 shows building area requirements
for facilities ranging from one to six lanes. The actual cost estimates for
network facilities, based on $27.75 as a unit building cost per square foot,
are shown in Tables G-5 and G-6 for Alternates A and B, respectively.
Land Investment—
The primary determinants of land cost for either alternate are the unit
cost per square foot and the total size (in square feet) of the land to be
acquired. A per-square foot cost of $0.92 for major metropolitan areas and
$0.34 for core city areas has been derived in Section 3, as well as has a
5:1 lot building ratio. Total land investment costs, including improvements
are provided in Table G-7 and G-8 for Alternates A and B, respectively.
Equipment Costs—
The major equipment items required to operate a loaded mode emission test
facility were identified based on an analysis of the test requirements and
conversations with individuals currently involved in this type of testing.
Costs were obtained through manufacturers' representatives. Outlined in
Table G-9 are the equipment requirements and associated costs for a loaded
mode emi-sion test.
Equipment costs for any facility configuration, then, can be derived from
Table G-8. A summary of equipment cost as a function of the facility con-
figuration is provided in Table G-10.
TABLE G-10. EQUIPMENT COSTS AS A FUNCTION OF FACILITY
CONFIGURATION FOR LOADED-MODE EMISSION
TESTING
Number of lanes Equipment cost
1
2
3
A
5
6
$126,500
173,000
219,500
266,000
312,500
359,000
303
-------
_ ^
8
ADMINISTRATION
I.OOO ft2
STATION 1
CHECK IN PAPER WORK
~ 2 MiMltM
1 INSPECTOR
M
EMPLOYEE
REST AREA
300ft2
STORAGE
328 ft2
WAlT/COUNaL
570 ft2
REST
ROOM!
85ft2
STATION 2 STATION 3
LOADED MODE EMISSIONS CHECK 3UT/COONCH.LINS
1 INSPECTOR 1 INSPECTOR
DYNAMOMETER
(ANALYZERS 1
<^^H
M
S
t!
i
H-
i
»
>
1
r
§
II
i
TOTAL'3 INSPECTORS. 7 •!••*•• RESIDENCE TIMK, SalMfM TNROUSH PUT TIME
Figure G-l. Conceptual floor plan for a one lane loaded mode inspection facility.
-------
TABLE G-4. BUILDING FLOOR AREA FOR VARIOUS FACILITY CONFIGURATIONS
Floor Area Required (ft2)
Configuration Test Employee
Area Administration Res*
1 lane
2 lane
3 lane
4 lane
5 lane
6 lane
1,800
3,600
5,400
7,200
9,000
10,800
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
300
350
400
440
485
525
Storage
325
350
380
410
435
465
Wait
570
930
1,530
2,370
3,450
4,770
Rest
Rooms
85
85
85
85
85
85
Total
4,080
6,315
8,795
11,505
14,555
17,645
-------
TABLE G-5. BUILDING COSTS FOR ALTERNATE A
OJ
o
0.
County
Butler
Cuyahuga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Total Network
Municipality
Hamilton
Middletown
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Cincinnati
Norwood
Mentor on the Lake
Painsville
Lorain
Elyria
Toledo
Youngs town
Ellsworth
Dayton
Englewood
Canton
Alliance
Akror
Cuyahoga Falls
Warren
Niles
Facility
Configuration
3 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
166 lanes
Per Facility
Cost ($)
244,061
244,061
489,649
244,061
489,649
244,061
489,649
244,061
244,061
244,061
319,264
244,061
489,649
489,649
175,241
489,649
244,061
489,649
319,264
489,649
175,241
319,264
244,061
Number of Total
Facilities Cost ($)
1
1
6
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
. 1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
35
244,061
244,061
2,937,893
244,061
1,468,947
244,061
1,468,947
244,061
244,061
244,061
319,264
244,061
979,298
489,649
175,241
979,298
244,061
489,649
319,264
979,298
175,241
319,264
244,061
13,541,863
-------
TABLE G-6. BUILDING COSTS FOR ALTERNATE B
County
Butler
Clermont
Cuyahuga
Franklin
Geauga
Green
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Medina
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Warren
Wood
Total Network
Municipality
Hamilton
Middle town
Batavla
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Chardon
Fairborn
Cincinnati
Norwood
Mentor on the Lake
Painsville
Lorain
Elyria
Toledo
Youngs town
Ellsworth
Medina
Dayton
Englewood
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Cuyahoga
Warren
Niles
Lebanon
Bowling Green
Facility
Conf igur at ion
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
3 lanes
6 lanes
4 lanes
6 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
3 lanes
184 lanes
Per Facility
Cost ($)
244,061
244,061
244,061
489,649
244,061
489,649
244,061
175,241
319,264
489,649
244,061
244,061
244,061
319,264
244,061
489,649
489,649
175,241
244,061
489,649
244,061
489,649
319,264
489,649
175,241
319,264
244,061
244,061
244,061
Number of Total
Facilities Cost ($)
1
1
1
6
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
41
244,061
244,061
244,061
2,937,893
244,061
1,468,947
244,061
175,241
319,264
1,468,947
244,061
244,061
244,061
319,264
244,061
979,298
489,649
175,241
244,061
979,298
244,061
489,649
319,264
979,298
175,241
319,264
244,061
244,061
244,061
15,012,612
307
-------
8
C>4
5
B
5*
S3
05
g
CO
CO
t^
O
s
H
3"
-ii
215
* -
lti
:•?.
s -.r
r"
•31
H rl
ss s5s sis SSi ss Ss i s£ 3s IS sis Ss
RR |RR SSR KSR RR" ffS S S3 SR SS SS3" RR
55 3i5 s*5 325 55 35 3 53 35 S3 SsS 35
ss sss SK'S" ffas" s's" ss' s s's" RS" ss" sss" s's"
Ssi !S2 SiS is si S Is Bs !§ ?§s si
ss s ss ss ss sss ss
o o o o o o o o d e do o'e do odd
lisslSSSISI 2131 1 SSS? SI SSS U
22 SK2 SJ2 3S2 22 32 1 S3 32 SS 883 82
ss sss sss sss ss ss s 34 55 ss ssa ss
2"2 s's'a" s's"2" s's"2" 2*2" a"2" s" s's" s's" ss s's's" s'a"
88 888 888 888 88 88 8 88 88 88 888 88
SS SSS SSS SSS 88 S3 S SS S3 S3 SSS 38
<-i »n ^ i-> r-1 M .» n •«• mn ion •* N^ •* i*> N« M isi ^ «m
O o «i in o mpo 9QO p O O O p mm o O irt O mmm OO
M r* OOM « K P* K«M KM ww S P> o •* CM n «-i r> M o NN
il §i§ III III II II I II II II III II.
22 g"S2 SS2 S'S"2" 22 S2 S S'S S2 s'a S'SS 82
33 IS5 S^S Ss2 33 S3 2 S3 55 SS SSg S3 K
SS S3S 333 RS3 S3 K3 3 SS 33 S" SSS RS $
mm e<«m v>0m «•-< 0><«« >«m
-» -t *> r- •* 9>r4« «-4<« «•* ff> -* *- r^O r^<4 vie- O>r*O *• -#
S? »S? SSS SSS S3 S3 S SS SS Sm SSS 23
SS SSS *SK SSS SS SS S SS SS SS ASS SS
SS SSS SSS SSS SS 8S S SS SS S3 SSS 8S
33 SSS SSS SSS S3 RS S SS SS SS SSS S3
» ! i 1 § »! ^* i
i 1 1 1 3 1 1! i I 1
308
-------
TABLE G-8. LAND INVESTMENTS FOR EACH FACILITY IN ALTERNATE B, 12-COUNTY
o
VO
Butler
Clamont
Cuhahota
Freak 1 in
Geaaca
Green
bed Icon
Late
Lorain
Luce*
Hthoaias
Medina
*** ~ requ,
Hariitan
Mi .idle town
B*z«vi«
Cleveland
Cleveland
Cleveland
ColuMbui
Coltadius
ColuMbus
Cbardoa
Fairborn
CincumaEi
Cincinnati
Honood
Mentor on the Lake
Painaville
Lorain
Elyria
Toledo 1
Younptom
Elinor*
Medina
3 .,3.975
3 43,975
3 43.975
6 88,225
6 88,223
3 43,975
6 88,225
6 88.225
3 43,975
2 31,575
4 57,520
6 88,225
* 88,225
3 43,975
3 43,975
3 43,973
4 57,520
3 43,975
6 88,225
6 86,225
2 31,575
3 43,975
Land co»t
per ft3
0 92
o 9:
0.92
0.34
0.92
0 92
0,34
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.34
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Coat per
facility
(S)
40 i57
40,457
40.457
29,997
81,167
40,457
29,997
01,167
40,457
29,049
52,918
29,997
81,167
40,457
40,457
40,457
52,918
40,457
81,167
81,167
29,049
40,457
Total coat
40,457
4C.457
40,457
89,990
243,501
40,457
29,997
162,334
40,457
29,049
52,918
59,994
81,167
40,457
40,457
40,457
52,910
40,457
162,334
81,167
29,049
40,457
Total queue
area
(ft:)
15,000
15,000
15,000
90,000
90,000
15,000
30,000
60,000
15.000
10,000
20,000
60,000
30,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
20,000
15,000
60,000
30,000
10,000
15,000
area
(ft2)
-.320
-,320
4,320
24,705
24,705
4,320
8,233
16,470
4,320
3,105
5,620
16,470
8,235
4,320
4,320
4,320
5,620
4,320
16,470
8,235
3,105
4.320
paved area
(«*>
19.32C
19,320
19,320
114,705
114,705
19,320
38,235
76,470
19,320
13,105
25,120
76,470
38,235
19,320
19,320
19,320
25,620
19,320
76,470
38.235
13,105
19,320
0.80
J.80
0 80
0 80
0 80
0.80
0.80
o.ao
o.ao
0.80
0.80
o.ao
0.80
0.80
0.80
o.ao
0.80
o.ao
o.ao
o.ao
0.80
0.80
local
paving CMC
iSj
15, .56
15,456
91,764
91,764
15,456
30,588
61,176
15,456
10,484
20,536
61,176
30,58«
15,456
15,456
15,456
20,536
15,456
61,176
30,588
10,4(4
15,456
Total
coat. (S)
3,965
3.965
3,965
24,259
24,259
3,965
8,086
16,172
3,965
3,039
5,087
16,172
8,086
3,965
3,965
3,965
5,087
3,965
16,172
8,086
3,039
3,965
Totil
(SI
19,421
19. .2!
19,421
116,023
116,023
19,421
38,674
77,348
19,421
13,523
25,623
77,348
38,674
19.421
19,421
19,421
25,623
19,421
77,348
38,674
13,523
19,421
local
land invvacaaat
(S)
59,87!
59,876
59,878
206,013
359,524
59,878
68,671
239,6(2
53,878
42,572
78,541
13 ,342
It ,841
5 ,878
5 ,878
5 ,878
7 ,541
5 ,878
239,682
119,841
42,572
59,878
-------
TABLE G-8 (continued).
:,..
loBtgoBerv
=t*rk
Simut
Truntoill
Warren
UOOd
funi = ip.Utr
Dayton
Englevood
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Akron
Curahofa Foil!
Uerren
aiUi
Lebanon
Bovlina Gnen
Taciliticf Kuober of
required lanai
2 6
1 3
1 t
I 4
1 6
1 6
1 2
1 4
1 3
1 3
1 3
(ft2)
88,225
.3,975
88,2:5
57,520
88,225
88,225
31,575
57.520
43,975
43,975
43,975
r land cost
per ft-
0 92
0.92
0.92
0 92
0 34
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
ei,i67
40,451
11,1(7
52,91$
29,997
81, 147
29,049
52,918
40,457
40,457
40,457
2
162,334
.0,457
31,167
5:,9ia
29,997
81,167
29,049
52,911
40,457
40,457
40,457
130,366
60,000
15,000
30,000
20,000
30,000
30,000
10,000
20,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
art*
(ft1)
i6.i7C
-,320
8,235
5,620
8,235
8,235
3,105
5,620
4,320
4,320
4,320
t Total
paved area
(ft!)
T5.470
1?,320
38, 35
25, 20
38, 35
38. 35
13, 05
25,620
19,320
19,320
19,320
'p^t'rt;"
(S)
0 80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
O.M
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
(5)"
(1,176
15,456
30,588
30,5(8
30,588
10.484
20,536
14,456
15,456
15,456
13
land
area
64
15
32
20
32
32
12
20
15
15
15
•taped C";:
(ft!) "
,690 0.2
.890 C 2
,345 0.2
,346 0.2
,345 0.2
,345 0.2
,155 0.2
,346 0.2
,890 0.2
,890 0.2
,890 0.2
Mr landacaping
16,172
3,965
8,086
5,087
8,086
8,086
3,039
5,087
3,965
3,965
3,965
laproveaenc* 1
77,348
19.421
38,674
25,623
38,674
38,674
13.523
25,623
19,421
19,421
19,421
1,188,437
and invejcaent
CS>
239.682
59.871
11 .841
7 ,541
6 .671
11 ,941
4 .572
78,541
59,878
59.878
59,878
3,318,803
-------
TABLE G-9. MAJOR EQUIPMENT ITEMS REQUIRED FOR LOADED-MODE EMISSIONS TESTING
Program element
Item
Remarks
Unit cost
($)
I.
Emissions
1. Chassis dynamometer
2. Emission analyzer
u>
II. Data System
III. Miscellaneous 1.
CRT Terminals
Needed for loaded-mode emission test.
One unit per test lane required. Cost
based on conversations with manufacturers
(Clayton, Maxwell).
Since loaded-mode is used, analyzer should
be capable of measuring CO, HC, and NOX.
Extremely wide range in analyzer costs;
cheaper analyzers found to be inadequate.
Analyzers should be capable of being tied
into computer data handling system. Costs
based on discussions with manufacturers
(Olson-Horiba, Hamilton Test Systems). One
unit per test lane required.
Two required per lane. Costs based on liter-
ature and discussions with manufacturer's
representatives (Honeywell, Digital, Olivetti,
Sperry Univac), and experiences of other
states.
2. Minicomputer
One required per facility (equivalent to
Digital PDP-11-05). Generally assumed to be
included in the cost of facility furnishings.
Miscellaneous tools As required.
14,000
26,500
2,500
80,000
1,000
-------
TABLE G-ll. EQUIPMENT COSTS FOR ALTERNATE A, 12-COUNTY
County
Butler
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
M ah on ing
Facility
Municipality configuration
(lanes)
Hamilton
Middletown
Cleveland
Cleveland
Co lumbus
Columbus
Cincinnati
Norwood
Mentor on the Lake
Painsville
Lorain
Elyria
Toledo
Youngs town
Ellsworth
Montgomery Dayton
Englewood
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Total
Central
Canton
Alliance
Akron
Cuyahoga Falls
Warren
Niles
network
computer
3
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
3
3
4
3
6
6
2
6
3
6
4
6
2
4
3
166
Number of
facilities
required
1
1
6
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
35
Equipment cost
per facility
(?)
219,500
219,500
359,000
219,500
359,000
219,500
359,000
219,500
219,500
219,500
266,000
219,500
359,000
359,000
173,000
359,000
219,500
359,000
266,000
359,000
173,000
266,000
219,500
Maintenance/calibration vans (12)
Security
systems
Total equipment
cost
($)
219,500
219,500
2,154,000
219,500
1,077,000
219,500
1,077,000
219,500
219,500
219,500
266,000
219,500
718,000
359,000
173,000
718,000
219,500
359,000
266,000
718,000
173,000
266,000
219,500
10,519,000
250,000
168,000
38.50JD
10,975,500
312
-------
TABLE G-12. EQUIPMENT COSTS FOR ALTERNATE B, 18-COUNTY
County
Butler
Clermont
Cuyahoga
Franklin
Geauga
Greene
Hamilton
Lake
Lorain
Lucas
Mahoning
Medina
Montgomery
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Warren
Wood
Facility
Municipality configuration
(lanes)
Hamilton
Middletown
Batavia
Cleveland
Cleveland
Columbus
Columbus
Chardon
Fairborr.
Cincinnati
Norwood
Mentor on the Lake
Painsville
Lorain
Elyria
Toledo
Youngs town
Ellsworth
Medina
Dayton
Englewood
Canton
Alliance
Akron
C-jyahoga Falls
Warren
Niles
Lebanon
Bowling Green
3
3
3
6
3
6
3
2
4
6
3
3
3
i'.
3
6
6
2
3
6
3
6
4
6
2
4
3
3
3
Number of
facilities
required
1
1
1
6
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Equipment coat
per facility
($)
219,500
219,500
219,500
359,000
219,500
359,000
219,500
173,000
266,000
359,000
219,500
219,500
219,500
266,000
219,500
159,000
359,000
173,000
219,500
359,000
219,500
359,000
266.000
359,000
173,000
? 66, 000
219,500
219,500
219,500
Central computer
Maintenance/calibration vans (14)
SecuH ty
systems
Total equipment
cost
($)
219,500
219,500
219,500
2,154,000
219,500
1,077,000
215,500
173,000
266,000
1,077,000
219,500
219,500
219,500
766,000
219,500
718,000
359,000
173,000
219,500
718,000
219,500
359,000
266,000
718,000
173,000
266,000
219,500
219,500
219,500
11,836,000
250,000
196,000
45,100
12,327,100
313
-------
Total costs for equipment can now be computed based on the number of fa-
cilities by configuration, developed previously. These costs are shown in
Tables G-ll and G-12 for Alternates A and B, respectively.
The cost for a central computer, maintenance/calibration vans, and security
systems are the same as for Option III, and are also reported in Table G-ll
and G-12 for Alternates A and B, respectively.
A summary of the capital costs is provided in Table G-13.
TABLE G-13. CAPITAL COSTS FOR LOADED-MODE ALTERNATIVE
T. Alternate A Alternate B
Item ($) ($)
Land investment
( includes improvements )
Building investment
Test equipment
Central computer
Maintenance/calibration
vans
Security systems
Total
2,958,178
13,541,863
10,519,000
250,000
168,000
38,500
27,475,541
3,318,803
15,012,612
11,836,000
250,000
196,000
45,100
30,658,515
One-Time Startup Coats
Land Acquisition—
As explained previously, the costs of the site location and evaluation,
surveying, price negotiation and title conveyance are assumed to be $6,000
per site plus 10 percent of the purchase price of the land. For Alternates A
and B this is:
Alternate A = (35 sites x $6,000) + (0.10) (1,886,571) = $398,657
Alternate B = (41 sites x $6,000) + (0.10) (2,130,366) = $459,037
Facilities Planning—
This element is computed in the same manner as for the other options.
For Alternates A and B the planning cost is 10 percent of the buildings cost
or $1,354,186 for Alternate A and $1,501,261 for Alternate B.
Program Design—
As explained in Section 3, a cost of $100,000 was used for the program
design estimate.
314
-------
Data Handling Software—
Based on discussions with computer systems analysts, an estimate of
$200,000 was arrived at for development of data handling software.
Personnel Training—
As indicated in Section 3, an initial, intensive training effort is re-
quired prior to program startup. Facility personnel allocation rates are
assumed to be the same as those presented in the discussion of Option I.
Applying these rates to the facility requirements derived previously, the
basic operating personnel requirements for this option are:
Alternate A:
Thus:
35 Managers
• 35 Assistant Managers
• 12 Maintenance/Calibration people
• 5 Investigators
• 498 Inspectors
(35) ($53) = $ 1,855
+ (5) ($43) = 215
+ (545)($16) = 8,720
Alternate B:
$10,790
9 41 Managers
• 41 Assistant Managers
• 14 Maintenance/Calibration people
• 5 Investigators
• 522 Inspectors
Thus:
(41) ($53)
+ (5) ($43)
+ (577)($16)
$ 2,175
215
9,232
$11,622
Personnel Salaries—
The same assumptions for personnel requirements for Option I were used.
The costs of test personnel for the startup period are calculated for Alter-
nates A and B in Table G-14.
315
-------
TABLE G-14. FACILITY PERSONNEL STARTUP SALARIES
Alternate A
(35 manager) ($1,250/month) (6 mo) = $ 262,500
+ (35 asst. managers) ($l,083/month) (6 mo) = 227,500
+ (12 maintenance/calibration people) (1,000/mo) (1 mo) = 12,000
+ (498 inspectors) ($750/mo) (1 mo) = 373,500
$ 875,500
+ Overhead @ 25 percent 218,875
Total $1,094,375
Alternate B
(41 managers) ($l,250/mo) (6 mo) = $ 307,500
+ (4 asst. managers) ($l,083/mo) (6 mo) = 266,418
+ (14 maintenance/calibration people) (1,000/mo) (1 mo) = 14,000
+ (522 inspectors) ($750/month) (1 mo) = 391,500
$ 979,418
+ Overhead @ 25 percent 244,855
Total $1,224,273
316
-------
The cost of administrative personnel will be the administrative salaries
and overhead for 1-1/2 years or $853,164 for both Alternates A and B, as
described in Option I.
Initial Public Relations Program—
As explained for Option I, the cost for initial startup public relations
would be approximately $0.12/vehicle to be tested, or $900,000 for Alter-
nate A, and $978,000 for Alternate B.
The total startup costs for Alternates A and B are summarized in
Table G-15.
TABLE G-15. STARTUP COSTS FOR LOADED-MODE EMISSION TESTING
Land acquisition
Facilities planning
Data handling software
Program design
Test personnel salaries + overhead
Administrative salaries + overhead
Initial public relations program
Personnel training
Total
Alternate A
($)
398,657
1,354,186
200,000
100,000
1,094,375
853,164
900,000
10,790
4,911,172
Alternate B
($)
459,037
1,501,261
200,000
100,000
1,224,273
853,164
978,000
11,622
5,327,357
Annual Operating Costs
Facility Personnel—
The annual cost for centralized facility personnel salaries and overhead
is the same as for Options I, II, and III; these are summarized in Table G-16.
TABLE G-16. ANNUAL COST FOR TEST FACILITY PERSONNEL
Alternate A Alternate B
($) ($)
Salaries 5,606,000 6,014,000
Overhead at 25 percent 1,401,500 1,503,500
Total
7,007,500 7,517,500
317
-------
Maintenance—
The annual cost of equipment repair, replacement and-preventive maintenance
is the same for Options I and II, since this cost is estimated at 20 percent of
the initial equipment expenditures for the centralized lanes, which is also the
same for Options I to III. These costs are summarized in Table G-17.
TABLE G-17. MAINTENANCE COSTS ANNUALLY FOR TEST
EQUIPMENT
Alternate A Alternate B
($) ($)
Annual maintenance costs 2,103,800 2,367,200
Utilities/Supplies/Services
Utilities—
Annual cost for utilities was derived from electric usage rates experienced
by other states. For this option these were found to be 120 kWh/day/lane, plus
325 kWh/day/facility. This per-kilowatt costs were obtained from several utility
companies and were found to be $0.05/kWh. The annual costs, then, for utilities
are calculated below:
Alternate A - 12 Counties
(166 lanes) (120 kWh?day) ($0.05) (250 operating days/year) = $249,000
+ (35 facilities) (325 kWh/day) ($0.05) (250 operating days/year = 142,188
Total utilities cost annually $391,188
Alternate B - 18 Counties
(184 lanes) (120 kWh/day) ($0.05) (250 operating days/year) = $276,000
+ (41 facilities) (325 kWh/day) ($0.05) (250 operating days/year) = 166,563
Total utilities cost annually $442,563
Insurance—
Based on the $l,500/lane insurance costs assumed for Option I, total
annual insurance costs for this option are computed below for both alternates:
Alternate A - 12 Counties
(166 lanes) ($1,500) - $249,000
Alternate B - 18 Counties
(184 lanes) ($1,500) = $276,000
318
-------
Computer Operation and Test Forms—
Central computer operation costs for automated inspection systems have
been estimated at $0.15/test, and forms at $0.03/test as in Options I to III.
The annual cost for these categories can then be easily computed:
Alternate A - 12-County = $1,338,475
Alternate B - 18-County = $1,466,690
Taxes—
The annual cost of real estate and personal property taxes were calculated
based on full valuation rates for each municipality in which stations are to
be located. Total annual taxes were found to be:
Alternate A - (12 counties) = $1,290,716
Alternate B - (18 counties) = $1,436,249.
Uniforms—
Based on the assumption of $125 annual uniform cost/employee, as used in
Options I to III, the total annual uniform costs for Alternates A and B are
shown below:
Alternate A: (590 uniformed employees) ($125) = $72,500
Alternate B: $648 uniformed employees) ($125) = $81,000
Security—
The annual cost of maintaining security systems, as in Options I to III,
is assumed to be $850/facility. The annual cost of this item for Alternates A
and B are thus:
Alternate A: (35 facilities) ($850) = $29,750
Alternate B: (41 facilities) ($850) = $34,850
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 annual cost/van derived in Options I to III, as $8,800, the calibra-
tion costs for both alternates are shown below:
Alternate A: ($8,800) (12 vans) - $105,600
Alternate B: ($8,800) (14 vans) = $123,200
The total annual cost for utilities, services, and supplies is summarized
in Table G-18.
319
-------
TABLE G-18. ANNUAL COST FOR UTILITIES, SERVICES AND
SUPPLIES
Utilities
Insurance
Computer operation and forms
Taxes
Uniforms
Security
Calibration
Total
Alternate A
($)
391,188
249,000
1,338,475
1,290,716
72,500
29,750
105,600
3,477,299
Alternate B
($)
442,563
276,000
1,466,690
1,436,249
81,000
34,850
123,200
3,860,552
Annual Administrative Costs
Program Administrative Personnel—
Annual administrative personnel costs are essentially the same as for
Option I less the costs of complaints investigators and inspection/licensing
officials. These are found to be $568,776 annually - for both Alternates A
and B.
Public Information—
The annual cost for public relations is again assumed to be $0.12 for
each vehicle to be inspected or $900,000 for Alternate A and $978,000 for
Alternate B.
Personnel Training—
Using the same assumptions as for Options I to III, the annual turnover
of 50 inspectors for Alternate A, and 52 for Alternate B, is anticipated.
This relates to an annual cost of $800 for Alternate A and $832 for Alternate B
based on a $16 training cost per inspector.
COST SUMMARY
The total cost of this option is summarized in Table G-19.
Initial capital costs and one-time startup costs are converted to annual
figures using the amortization factors discussed 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.
A uniform fee in constant dollars (fc) was calculated by dividing the
annual costs by the average motor vehicle population, 1981 through 1987
($5,200,000 for Alternate A and $5,200,000 for Alternate B). These calculations
are provided in Table G-20 and G-21.
320
-------
TABLE G-19. COST SUMMARY ALTERNATE A (12 COUNTIES)
u>
NJ
Primary category
Initial capital costs
One-time startup costs
Annual operating costs
Annual administrative costs
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
Principal element
Land investment
plus improvements
Building investment
Equipment costs
(includes vans, computer, security systems)
Land acquisition
Facilities planning
Program design
Development of data handling
System structure
Personnel training
Personnel salaries and oberhead
Initial public information program
Facility personnel
Maintenance
Utilities, services, supplies
Program administrative salaries
Public information
Training
Element
cost ($)
2,958,178
13,541,863
10,975,500
398,657
1,354,186
100,000
200,000
10,790
1,947,539
900,000
7,007,500
1,473,000
3,477,299
568,776
900,000
800
Total category
cost ($)
27,475,541
•*•'
4,911,172
11,957,799
1,469,576
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-19 (continued).
Primary category
Principal element
Element
cost ($)
Total category
cost ($)
Initial capital costs
One-time startup costs
u>
N>
NJ
Annual operating costs
1. Land investment (includes improvements)
2. Building investment
3. Equipment costs (includes vans, computer,
and security systems)
1. Land acquisition
2. Facilities planning
3. Program design
4. Development of data handling
system structure
5. Personnel training
6. Personnel salaries and
overhead
7. Initial public information program
1. Facility personnel
2. Maintenance
3. Utilities, service, supplies
Annual administrative costs 1. Program administrative salaries
2. Public information
3. Training
3,318,803
15,012,612
12,327,100
459,037
1,501,261
100,000
200,000
11,622
2,077,437
978,000
7,517,500
1,668,000
3,860,552
568,776
978,000
832
30,658,515
5,327.357
13,046,052
1,547,608
-------
TABLE G-20.
f ALTERNATE A (12 COUNTIES)
c
i=0.03
Cost class
Cost ($)
Amortization factor
(for i=0.03)
Annualized cost
($)
Capital Costs
1 . Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Startup costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Total
fc
i=0 . 06
Cost class
Capital Costs
1. Land
2. Buildings
3 . Equipment
Startup costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
2,958,178
13,541,863
10,975,500
4,911,172
11,957,799
1,469,576
17,893,074/5
Cost ($)
2,958,178
13,541,863
10,975,500
4,911,172
11,957,798
1,469,576
0.03
0.067
0.2184
0.2184
1.0
1.0
,200,000 = $3.44
Amortization factor
(for i=0.06)
0.06
0.087
0.2374
0.2374
1.0
1.0
88,745
907,305
2,397,049
1,072,600
11,957,799
1,469,576
17,893,074
Annualized cost
($)
177,491
1,178,142
2,605,584
1,165,912
11,957,799
1,469,576
Total
18,554,504
18,554,504/5,200,000 = $3.57
323
-------
TABLE G-21.
fc ALTERNATE B (18 COUNTIES)
i=0.03
Cost class
Cost ($)
Amortization factor Annualized cost
(for i=0.03) ($)
Capital Costs
1. Land
2. Buildings
3. Equipment
Startup costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Total
f
c
3,318,803
15,012,612
12,327,100
5,327,357
13,046,052
1,547,608
19,554,803/5
0.03
0.067
0.2184
0.2184
1.0
1.0
,700,000 = $3.43
99,564
1,005,845
2,692,239
1,163,495
13,046,052
1,547,608
19,554.803
— * * - * *
i=0.06
Cost class
Capital Costs
1. Land
2. "Buildings
3 . Equipment
Startup costs
Operating costs
Administrative costs
Cost ($)
3,318,803
15,012,612
12,327,100
5,327,357
13,046,052
1,547,608
Amortization factor
(for i=0.06)
0.06
0.087
0.2374
0.2374
1.0
1.0
Annualized cost
($)
199,128
1,306,097
2,926,454
1,264,715
13,046,052
1,547,608
Total
f
20,290,054
20,290,054/5,700,000 = $3.56
324
-------
MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
The manpower requirements for this option are the same as for Option III.
Since there are no private garages participating in the I/M network under
this option, the inspection and licensing, as well as organizational network,
is shown in Figure G-2. Table G-22 lists total state and contractor manpower
allocations.
SUMMARY
The option analyzed here is identical to Option III, Section 6, with the
exception of the test mode. Since this option involves loaded-mode testing,
the following changes result:
1. The test lanes are slightly larger in order to accommodate chassis
dynamometers.
2. Additional equipment expenditures are required to cover the dyna-
mometers and emission analyzers capable of NOX measurement.
Despite these additional costs, the breakdown fees, fc, for a loaded-mode
alternate are only 6 to 7 percent higher than for idle mode. This is demon-
strated in Table G-23,
TABLE G-23. INCREASE IN BREAK-EVEN FEES (fc) WITH A CHANGE
IN TEST MODE (IDLE TO LOADED)
Alternate
A
B
A
B
i
value
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.06
fc for idle mode
(Option III)
($)
3.24
3.22
3.34
3.33
f* for loaded mode
($)
3.44
3.43
3.57
3.56
Increase
(%)
6.2
6.5
6.9
6.9
While costing the consumer only a few cents more, the loaded-mode alter-
native will provide more comprehensive diagnostic information than the idle
mode. This information could enable the required maintenance to be performed
more efficiently. This potential cost savings could make up for all or part of
the additional cost for the test, assuming that the industry is trained to make
use of the additional diagnostic data.
The loaded-mode alternative might have some additional benefits. In the
draft Appendix N, EPA has specified a preconditioning requirement of idling
the engine at 2,000 to 2,500 rpm for approximately 60 seconds. It is not clear
at this point if this means that tachometer leads will have to be attached
325
-------
Figure G-2. Administrative organization.
-------
TABLE G-22. MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
State Administrative Personnel
1 Administrator
1 Assistant Administrator for Supporting Services
1 Legal Counsel
1 Purchasing Officer
1 Accountant
1 Contracts Officer
1 Engineer
1 Systems Analyst
1 Statistician/Programmer
1 Mechanic Training Program Coordinator
Contractor State Personnel
1 Assistant Administrator for Station Operations
1 Inspector Training Coordinator
Contractor Regional Personnel
Number
Alternate A Alternate B
5 5 Regional Managers
5 5 Instrument Repair Technicians
5 5 Public Relations Officials
5 5 Calibration and Maintenance
Coordinators
12 14 Mobile Calibration and Maintenance
Officials
Contractor Local Personnel
35 41 Station Managers
35 41 Station Assistant Managers
498 522 Station Inspectors
12 14 Station Maintenance Personnel
327
-------
under the hood. If such a procedure is required, the throughput time will
probably be increased enough to require that more facilities be constructed
for an idle-mode program than for a comparable loaded-mode alternative. In
addition to raising consumer costs, this procedure of opening the hood pre-
sents potential problems. One problem concerns the additional training
needed to correctly attach the tachometer lead and to avoid possible person-
nel injuries. In Arizona, after a number of hood latches were broken and
there were many complaints, this procedures was terminated.
328
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA .
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
Rt PORT NO.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOI*NO.
.. TITLL AND SUBTITLE
EVALUATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION INSPECTION AND
MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS FOR OHIO - PHASE II
5. REPORT DATE
AUGUST 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
GCA-TR-78-38-G(l)
' AUTHOR(S)
David Ramsay, Lee Coda, Robert Phillips, Nancy Roy,
Frederick Sellars and Thomas Snyder
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIOf
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
GCA CORPORATION
GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
Burlington Road
Bedford, MasaarhusPl-1-s 01730
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 Ohio 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 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 inspection and mainte-
nance (I/M) program in the highly urbanized nonattainment areas. In this connection,
the State of Ohio is currently in the initial stages of planning for the implementation
of an I/M program. As part of this initial effort, several candidate program configu-
rations have been analyzed from the standpoint of costs, benefits, and other require-
ments. These analyses, which are reported herein, will provide the basis for the
state to select one specific option that will eventually be implemented.
17.
(I.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Automobile engines
Exhaust detection
Exhaust emissions
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Automobile emissions
Lntenance
control
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
351
Unlimited distribution
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
329
------- |