EPA -400/11 -74 -002
Transportation Controls to Reduce
Automobile Use and Improve Air Quality
in Cities
The Need, The Options, and Effects on Urban Activity
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Washington, D.C.
November 1974
-------
EPA -400/11 -74 -002
Transportation Controls to Reduce
Automobile Use and Improve Air Quality
in Cities
The Need, The Options, and Effects on Urban Activity
by
Joel Horowitz
Steven Kuhrtz
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Washington, D.C.
November 1974
-------
preface
This report has been prepared pursuant to Section
4(b)(2)(A) of the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974. This section states:
The Administrator shall conduct a study and
shall submit a report to the Committee on Inter-
state and foreign Commerce of the United States
House of Representatives and the Committee on
Public Works of the United States Senate not lat-
er than three months after date of enactment of
this paragraph on the necessity of parking sur-
charge, management of parking supply, and pref-
erential bus/carpool lane regulations as part of
the applicable implementation plans required
under this section to achieve and maintain na-
tional primary ambient air quality standards.
The study shall include an assessment of the eco-
nomic impact of such regulations, consideration
of alternative means of reducing total vehicle
miles traveled, and an assessment of the impact
of such regulations on other Federal and State
programs dealing with energy or transportation.
In the course of such study, the Administrator
shall consult with other Federal officials includ-
ing, but not limited to, the Secretary of Trans-
portation, the Federal Energy Administrator,
and the Chairman of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality.
acknowledgements
Many people assisted in the preparation of this re-
port, either by preparing draft material or by pro-
viding documents describing Federal policies and
regulations. The authors thank the following indi-
viduals for their invaluable assistance in this respect:
Kent Berry, Barbara Brown, David Hanson, William
Pedersen, Richard Penna, and Cheryl Wasserman,
all of the Environmental Protection Agency; Martin
Convisser and Lee Wallerstein of the Department
of Transportation, and Elizabeth Bennett and Mar-
vin Manheim of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. In addition, the authors thank Marga-
ret Lee of the Environmental Protection Agency
for her patience in typing several drafts of this re-
port.
in
-------
Preface
Acknowledgements
List of Figures
List of Tables
contents
Summary
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
The Need For Transportation Controls
Background
Air Quality Considerations
References
The Need For Automible Use Reductions
Introduction
Transportation Emission Control Options
Automotive Emissions Reductions
Effects on Air Quality
Auto Use Reductions
References
III
iii
vi
vi
1
4
4
5
7
8
8
8
10
11
11
12
Chapter 3 Methods of Reducing Automobile Use 13
Transit 13
Carpools 14
Measures to Encourage Transit and Carpool Usage 15
References 21
Chapter 4 Transportation Control Regulations 22
Legal Background 22
Air Quality Considerations 23
Transportation Control Measures to Reduce Auto Use 26
Transportation Control Plan Development Process 29
Status of Transportation Control Plans 31
Indirect Source Review 32
References 33
Chapter 5 Economic and Social Effects of Reductions in Auto Use 34
Introduction 34
Case Studies 34
Effects of Reducing Auto Use 36
Effects of Parking Restrictions 39
Effects of Indirect Source Review 41
References 43
Chapter 6 The Relationship of Transportation Controls to other aspects
of Transportation Planning and Decision-Making 44
Problems of Present Urban Transportation Systems 44
Effects of Transportation Control Requirements on
Other Transportation Programs 44
Improving the Integration of Air Quality Requirements
into Transportation Planning and Decision-Making 46
References 47
Appendix A Status of Transportation Control Plans 48
Appendix B Preambles to Indirect Source Regulations 54
Appendix C Proposed Clean Air Act Amendment for
Transportation Control Plans 69
-------
figures
1. Automobile HC Emissions 9
2. Automobile CO Emissions 9
3. Dependence of Work Trip Transit Ridership on
Service Quality 14
tables
1. National Primary and Secondary Air Quality
Standards 4
2. Nationwide Federal Emission Control Require-
ments for Light Duty Vehicles 4
3. Federal New Source Performance Standards 5
4. AQCR's Exceeding CO and Oxidant Aii Qual-
ity Standards 6
5. 1971-72 Air Quality Levels in Regions Pro-
jected to Exceed Primary Ambient Aii Qual-
ity Standards in 1975 7
6. Number of Cities Failing to Comply with
National Standard for Oxidant and/or CO in
Indicated Year 7
7. Emissions Sources in Urban Areas — 1971 9
8. Automobile Emissions Reductions Achieved by
In-Use Vehicle Emission Controls 10
9. Number of AQCR's Failing to Comply with
Oxidant and/or CO Standard in Indicated Year 11
10. Number of AQCR's Requiring Auto Use Re-
duction to Achieve Compliance with Arnbient
Air Quality Standards 11
11. Bus Fleet Expansion Needed to Achieve Pro-
jected Reductions in Auto Use 15
12. Percentage use of Transit to Work in the
Washington, D.C. Area 16
13. Air Quality Summary for 39 Metropolitan
Areas 24
14. Air Quality Summary for Metropolitan Areas
Granted Time Extensions 25
15. VMT in 1-66 Corridor by Transportation Op-
tion (1995) 35
16. Effects of Transportation Alternatives on Daily
VMT in San Diego (1977) 36
17. Energy Consumption of Alternative Modes of
Urban Transportation 36
18. Estimated Annual Energy Consumption by
1-66 Transportation Option (1995) 36
19. Total Resident Population and Employees Ex-
posed to Various Noise Levels Due to Major
Highways in the 1-66 Corridor (1995) 36
20. Accident Costs in Cents Per Passenger Mile 37
21. Comparision of 1995 Traffic Accidents, In-
juries, and Deaths in the 1-66 Corridor by
Transportation Option (1995) 37
22. Average Travel Times Associated with Various
Transportation Options 38
23. Annualized Costs of Baltimore Transportation
Options 39
24. Estimated Annualized Costs of Transportation
Options in the 1-66 Corridor 39
25. Effect of Parking Surcharge on Out-of-Pocket
Cost of Work Trip 40
26. Effect of ISR on Total Project Costs for Six
Case Studies 42
27. Cost Elements Associated with ISR 42
28. Effect of Automobile Emissions Controls on
vi Future Design Change Costs 42
-------
summary
The Clean Air Amendments of 1970 (hereafter
referred to as the Act) required the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish
national primary and secondary ambient air quality
standards. The primary standards are and must be
established so that their attainment and maintenance
will protect the public health with an adequate margin
of safety. The secondary standards are to protect the
public welfare from any known 01 anticipated adverse
effects associated with the presence of air pollutants in
the atmosphere.
The pollutants for which ambient air quality stand-
ards have been promulgated include carbon monoxide
and oxidants. For each of these pollutants the primary
and secondaiy standards are the same. The automobile is
the principal source of carbon monoxide and oxidants in
urban aieas. This report focuses on programs developed
by EPA in accordance with the Act to achieve the air
quality standards for these transportation-related air
pollutants.
The Act established three principal approaches to
achieving the air quality standards. First, EPA is author-
ised to promulgate and enforce emissions standards for
new automobiles. In addition, EPA is authorized to
establish emissions standards for trucks and motorcycles.
EPA has used this authority to establish increasingly
stungent emissions standards for cars and initial stand-
ards for trucks. More stringent truck standatds as well as
motorcycle emissions standards are now under develop-
ment.
The Act specifically required automobiles manufac-
tured during or after model year 1975 to achieve carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions reductions of 90
percent relatrve to the 1970 model year. Autornobrles
manufactured during and after model year 1976 were
requited to achieve 90 percent reductions in nitrogen
oxides emissions relative to the 1971 model year.*
Subsequently, the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974 extended both of these
deadlines for two years.
The second emissions control approach established by
the Act authorizes EPA to promulgate emissions stancl-
ar ds for new stationary emissions sources if it is
deicnmned that such sources contribute to the en-
dangerment of public health or welfare. New source
performance standards have been promulgated for 12
stationary source categories
Finally, the Act makes each State initially responsible
for developing and enforcing any emissions control
regulations and other measures which, together with the
automobile emissions standards and new source perform-
ance standards, are needed to achieve the ambient air
quality standards within the State's jurisdiction. These
emissions control regulations are contained in State
implementation plans (SIP's). EPA is required to insure
that each State develops a SIP that adequately provides
for the attainment and maintenance of the ambient air
quality standards. Moreover, EPA is required to promul-
gate SIP's or SIP provisions for Slates (hat fail to
develop adequate SIP's of (hen own The Act requires
SIP's to provide for the attainment of the air quality
standards by 1975. However, EPA is authorized to
extend this deadline to 1977 if: (1) there is a lack of
adequate control technology for one or more emissions
sources, and (2) all reasonably available control measures
have been applied.
The Act specifically envisioned the likelihood that
transportation control measures to reduce automobile
emissions below the levels achieved by the new car
standards would be needed in some SIP's. Although the
new car standards achieve substantial reductions in
automobile emissions, these reductions, together with
reductions of stationary source emissions, are not
sufficient to achieve the air quality standards in all parts
of the country.
The SIP's were submitted to EPA by the States in
February, 1972. It was found that the oxidant air
quality standard was exceeded in 54 air quality control
regions (AQCR's) and that the carbon monoxide stand-
ard was exceeded in 29, In total, 66 AQCR's, represent-
ing roughly 60 percent of the nation's population,
exceeded one or both of these standards. By 1975 the
emissions reductions achieved by the new car standards
and stationary-source controls are expected to reduce to
27 the number of AQCR's exceeding the oxidant or
carbon monoxide air quality standards. These 27
AQCR's require the application of transportation con-
trol measures to achieve the oxidant and carbon monox-
ide standards. Hence, EPA required the affected States
to develop and submit for approval transportation
control plans to reduce automobile emissions in the 27
AQCR's.
There are two basic types of transportation control
measures: (1) measures that reduce emissions from
individual vehicles, and (2) measures that reduce auto-
mobile use (e.g., vehicle miles travelled). The first
approach includes inspection/maintenance and retrofit.
The second includes transit improvements, carpool
programs, and disincentives to the use of low-occupancy
automobiles. The need for reductions in automobile use
is illustrated in Table S-l, which shows the number of
AQCR's that would fail to achieve the oxidant and
carbon monoxide standards in various years through
1985 if only new car controls, stationary source con-
trols, inspection/maintenance, and retrofit were imple-
mented. As many as 17 AQCR's would fail to achieve
the standards in 1977, and as many as 10 would fail in
1985. Clearly, further reductions in automobile emis-
TableS-1
Number of AQCR's Failing to Comply With
Oxidant and/or CO Standard in Indicated Year
Calendar Year
1977 1980 1985
12-17 8-10 5-10
*H\drocarbons and nitiosicn oxides react chemically in
atiMMspherc to form oxidanfs
the
Ranges reflect uncertainty in degree of stationary source control
that will be achieved. Analysis excludes New York City, Denver,
I airbanks. Control strategy consists of stationary source con-
trols, new car controls, inspection/maintenance, and retrofit.
-------
sions are needed in many AQCR's to achieve the air
quality standards in the foreseeable future. Moreover, in
many cases this need will persist indefinetly.
As required by the Act and subsequent court deci-
sions, EPA approved or promulgated transportation
control measures during 1973 for the AQCR's requiring
transportation controls. When promulgation was neces-
sary, EPA based its selection of measures upon the
following factors:
• The emissions and VMT (i.e., vehicle miles of
travel) reduction capabilities of alternative com-
binations of measures.
• The legal defensibility and enforceability of alter-
native measures.
• Experience obtained through the implementation
of measures by State and local authorities.
• The quality of existing or proposed transit service
in the affected areas.
• The potential economic and social disruption
associated with alternative combinations of meas-
ures.
During the development of transportation control
plans, it was found that at least 10 heavily polluted
regions are unlikely to achieve the transportation-related
air quality standards by 1977 without the implementa-
tion of extreme traffic restraint measures that would
create severe economic and social disruption. To avoid
the need for implementing such measures, EPA has
submitted to Congress a proposed amendment to the
Act that would provide additional flexibility in the
deadlines for achieving the transportation-related air
quality standards without sacrificing the need to im-
prove air quality as rapidly as possible.
The VMT-reduction measures most frequently occur-
ring in the transportation control plans approved or
promulgated by EPA are:
• Transit improvements
• Carpooling programs
• Priority treatment for buses and carpools on
streets and freeways (e.g., exclusive bus lanes)
• Parking restrictions
Several of the EPA promulgations also included
parking surcharges designed to increase the costs of
parking and, thereby, to encourage the use of transit and
carpools instead of low-occupancy automobiles. These
surcharges were withdrawn in anticipation of the Con-
gressional directive later enacted in the Energy Supply
and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974.
The VMT reduction measures included in the trans-
portation control plans are designed to reduce auto-
mobile travel and, therefore, emissions by encouraging
the use of transit and carpools and discouraging the use
of low-occupancy automobiles. The measures achieve
these goals by:
• Improving the quality of service provided by
transit and carpools, thereby making them more
attractive relative to the low-occupancy auto-
mobile.
• Restricting or, prior to the withdrawal of parking
surcharges, pricing parking facilities.
The purpose of the latter approach is to mitigate the
cost disadvantage imposed on transit and carpools by the
current substantial underpricing of automobile use in
cities. This underpricing, which is particularly severe for
work trips, can exceed $2.00 per day.
Evidence derived from empirically-based studies of
traveller response to changes in transportation options
indicates that programs that combine transit improve-
ments, carpool incentives, and parking restrictions or
charges can reduce automobile emissions by as much as
30 percent. However, because of the cost disadvantages
created by the underpricing of auto use, programs that
do not incorporate parking restrictions, surcharges, or
other disincentives to low-occupancy automobile travel
are unlikely to achieve emissions reductions greater than
5 to 10 percent. Indeed, the most successful carpooling
programs to date have developed as a result of the
unavailability oi parking facilities.
Reductions in automobile use resulting from the
successful implementation of transportation controls
will alleviate a wide variety of urban transportation
problems in addition to improving air quality. For
example:
• A 20 percent reduction in automobile travel
achieved by diverting commuters to transit could
reduce energy consumption for urban passenger
transportation by 10 percent or more.
• Transit vehicles have lower accident costs and
fewer fatalities per passenger mile travelled than
automobiles. The diversion of travellers from cars
to transit will reduce both traffic fatalities and
accident costs.
• The use of transit and carpools can significantly
reduce both traffic congestion and the need for
further highway construction. For example, 3
additional freeway lanes would be needed to carry
present Shirley Highway bus riders in cars at the
existing automobile service level.
• Reductions in automobile use achieved through
the diversion of automobile drivers to transit and
carpools could reduce the total direct monetary
costs of urban commuter transportation by as
much as $100 per commuter per year.
• Improved transit service associated with trans-
portation controls will increase the mobility of
persons who do not have access to automobiles.
• The revenues derived from parking surcharges can
contribute significantly to defraying the costs of
transit improvements while alleviating the effects
of the underpricing of automobile travel. For
example, a $2.00 daily parking surcharge that
affected only 10 percent of automobile commuter
trips in the Washington, D. C. area would collect
revenues equal to nearly twice the FY 1974
operating deficit of the Washington area transit
system.
Not all of the effects of reductions in automobile use
are likely to be beneficial. For example, increased use of
transit instead of cars is likely to increase travel times,
especially for commuters.
Parking restrictions or surcharges can seriously re-
strict mobility if adequate transit or carpool service is
not provided. However, there is evidence that commer-
cial areas do not necessarily require automobile access to
be successful if alternative means of access are available.
Moreover, there is much evidence indicating that transit
and carpools can provide satisfactory access to work
locations when parking is restricted. For example, in
1972 a strike of parking lot employees in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania caused the closing of 80 percent of the
-------
parking spaces in downtown Pittsburgh. During the
strike a number of improvements and additions to
transit service were made. Most commuters switched to
transit. Absenteeism among employees remained normal.
Moreover, the parking spaces that were available during
the strike were not fully utilized.
Many of the policies and programs of the Department
of Transportation are supportive of certain measures
contained in the transportation control plans. Some
examples of this support include:
• DOT is prepared to provide up to $200 million in
FY 1974-75 for mass transit capital grants to
implement transportation control strategies.
• DOT now requires that transportation plans and
programs developed through the urban transporta-
tion planning process be consistent with approved
State implementation plans to achieve the ambient
air quality standards.
• DOT encourages States to give specific considera-
tion to low cost transportation improvements
(e.g., bus priority treatment, carpool programs,
parking restrictions) prior to a decision to imple-
ment major capital investment projects (e.g., rail
transit, new freeways). Moreover, DOT is now
developing guidelines for the preparation of short
range transportation improvement programs di-
rected toward the achievement of urban areas'
short-range transportation objectives. These short-
range programs are expected to emphasize the
implementation of low cost transportation options
directed toward alleviating current urban transpor-
tation problems.
• The Department has strongly endorsed the prin-
cipal of removing subsidies to the automobile and
has indicated that this could mean parking taxes,
traffic restraints, or other related measures.
The close parallelism between certain aspects of the
urban transportation programs of EPA and DOT will
continue to provide opportunities for mutual assistance
and cooperation between the two agencies. Each agen-
cy's program can benefit in certain respects from that of
the other. Po; ible areas for future cooperation include:
• Increasing the responsibilities of regional trans-
portation agencies for making decisions about
transportation controls.
• Encouraging States and localities to experiment
with transportation control measures and to moni-
tor the results.
For its part, EPA will continue to work toward the
attainment of the health-related (primary) air quality
standards as rapidly as possible without creating serious
economic and social disruption. EPA's responsibility in
this process is to help identify transportation control
options and to assist communities in formulating effec-
tive transportation control strategies. EPA also has a
statutory responsibility to assure that locally formulated
plans will achieve the prescribed improvements in air
quality and, if the localities default in their responsi-
bilities, to promulgate and enforce its own plans. In
fulfilling its responsibilities, EPA will work both with
DOT and the affected communities to enable these
communities to select transportation control approaches
that are consistent with achieving the air quality
standards without sacrificing other important social
objectives.
-------
chapter 1 - the /ieed for
transportation controls
1. Background
The advent of expansive urbanization and industrial
development following World War II has brought about a
rapid deterioration of the nation's urban air quality.
Beginning with the Clean Air Act of 1963 (Ref. 1)
numerous attempts have been made to provide Federal
legislation which would curtail this trend. With the
passage of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, (Ref. 2)
the Congress has provided the means and authority to
achieve an extensive and rapid improvement in urban air
quality.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency is required to establish national primary and
secondary ambient air quality standards, based on air
quality criteria which must "accurately reflect the latest
scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and
extent of all identifiable effects on public health or
welfare which may be expected from the presence of
such pollutant in the ambient air, in varying quantities."
(Ref. 3). As prescribed in the Act, the primary standards
are ambient air quality standards the attainment and
maintenance of which, allowing an adequate margin of
safety, are necessary to protect the public health.
National secondary ambient air quality standards must
specify a level of air quality which is requisite to protect
the public welfare from any known or anticipated
adverse effects associated with the presence of such air
pollutant in the ambient air.
Air quality criteria have been published for sulfur
oxides (SOX), particulate matter, photochemical oxi-
dants, carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) (Ref. 4). In accordance with the
requirements of the Act, the ambient air quality
standards for these pollutants were promulgated April
30, 1971 (Ref. 5) The standards for hydrocarbon
concentrations are intended to be used as a guide for
determining the degree of emission control necessary to
comply with the standard for photochemical oxidants.
Table 1
National Primary and Secondary Ambient
Air Quality Standards
Pollutant
Hydrocarbons
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Dioxide
Photochemical Oxidant
Air
Quality3
Standards
Averaging
Time
0.24 ppm 3 hr. average concen-
tration
9 ppm 8 hr. average concen-
tration
35 ppm 1 hr. average concen-
tration
0.05 ppm Annual average con-
centration
0.08 ppm 1 hr. average concen-
tration
"Primary and Secondary standards for these four pollutants are
identical. Standards are not to be exceeded more than once per
year.
Source: Reference 5
Oxidants are not directly emitted into the atmosphere,
but are a product of atmospheric reactions between
nitrogen oxides and reactive hydrocarbons. Further
discussion in this report will be limited to the four
transportation related (i.e., mobil source) pollutants:
carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and
photochemical oxidants. The national ambient air qual-
ity stu dards for these pollutants are listed in Table 1.
The Congress directed the establishment of three
programs for attaining the ambient air quality standards.
First, the Administrator of the EPA is empowered to
promulgate and enforce emission standaids for new
motor vehicles. This has been done on an increasingly
stringent basis since the 1968 model year. The 1970
Clean Air Amendments specifically mandated regula-
tions requiring that light duty vehicles manufactured
during or after the 1975 model year achieve a reduction
of at least 90 percent from emissions of carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbons allowed for 1970 model
year vehicles. Also light duty vehicles manufactured
during or after the 1976 model year were required to
achieve a 90 percent reduction of nitrogen oxide
emissions as measured from 1971 model year vehicles.
(Ref. 6). During the interim, the Administrator had the
authority to set standards based on the availability of
existing technology. Recent amendments to the 1970
legislation (Ref. 7) have extended the deadline for
compliance with these standards by two years.* Table 2
shows the exhaust emission levels of uncontrolled cars
and the Federal' emission standards for 1968 and later
model years.
Table 2
Nationwide Federal Emission Control Requirements
for Light Duty Vehicles
Exhaust Emissions3
(grams/mile)
HC
CO
NCL
Model Year
Pre-1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
aNumbers shown in parentheses are not Federal emission
standards but emissions as measured by the 1975 Federal Test
Procedure. The numbers are shown to demonstrate relative
emission levels. All standards prior to 1975 have been converted
to reflect emissions as measured by the 1975 Federal Test
Procedure.
NR - no requirement.
(8.8)
6.3
6.3
4.1
4.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.5
1.5
0.41
0.41
(87)
52
52
34
34
28
28
28
15
15
3.4
3.4
(3.6)
NR
NR
NR
(4.0)
NR
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.0
0.4
*Pnor to the enactment of this legislation, the Administrator
had exercised his statutory authority to defer the 1975/76
emissions standards by one year.
-------
The Administrator is also required to develop emis-
sion standards for new stationary sources if it is
determined that such sources contribute significantly to
air pollution which causes or contributes to the endan-
gennent of public health or welfare. (Ref. 8). Table 3
shows the categories and pollutants for which New
Source Performance Standards have been promulgated
to date.
The Congress recognized that the aggregate level of
air pollution is caused by a diversity of source categories;
the relative contribution of these sources may vary
significantly among the States and regions within the
nation. Accordingly, responsibility is placed with the
individual State for planning and enforcing the emissions
limits and other measures which, together with EPA's
new source performance standards and auto emissions
standards, are necessary to achieve air quality levels
consistent with the national ambient air quality stand-
ards. The Environmental Protection Agency is required
to ensure that each State develops a plan which
adequately provides for the implementation, mainte-
nance and enforcement of these standards.
Table 3
Federal New Source Performance
Standards
Source Category
Steam Generators
Municipal Incinerators
Portland Cement Plants
Nitric Acid Plants
Sulfuric Acid Plants
Asphalt Concrete Plants
Petroleum Refineries
Storage Vessels
Secondary Lead Smelters
Brass or Bronze Ingot Plants
Iron and Steel Plants
Sewage Tieatment Plants
Emissions
SOX Part. HC CO NOX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Among other requirements, these State imple-
mentation plans must provide for attainment of the
primary standards no later than June 1975; provide for
"emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for
compliance with such limitations, and such other meas-
uies as may be necessary to insure attainment and
maintenance of [primary or secondary ambient air
quality standards] , including but not limited to, land-
use and transportation controls" (Ref. 9); and provide
"to the extent necessary and practicable, for periodic
inspection and testing of motor vehicles to enforce
compliance with applicable emission standards." (Ref.
10). In the event that a State fails to prepare an
acceptable plan, the EPA is required to promulgate a
plan or portion of a plan which satisfies all the
requirements specified in the Act.
The Act allows the Administrator to extend the
deadline for compliance with the primary standard for
any pollutant if (a) there is a lack of adequate
technology for the necessary control of emissions from
one or more sources of this pollutant, and (b) all
alternative control strategies for reducing emissions of
this pollutant have been considered. The maximum
extension allowable under these conditions is two years.
Ultimately, therefore, all States must comply with the
primary ambient air quality standards by 1977.
The State Implementation Plan provisions allow for
the flexibility necessary to counter the variety of air
pollution problems which must be addressed throughout
the nation. However, within this broad framework, the
Congress set forth specific guidance concerning the types
of control strategies that would require primary con-
sideration. Of particular concern was the necessity of
developing transportation emission control policies to
ensure that the degree of air pollution caused by motor
vehicles would be reduced to levels compatible with the
needs of each region. The Federal emission standards for
light duty vehicles will go a long way towards reducing
the role of the automobile as a major source of urban air
pollution; however, this program by itself is not suffi-
cient to achieve the reduction in automobile emissions
needed to meet the ambient air quality standards in all
regions. Accordingly, provisions were included in the
Clean Air Act for the development of emission control
policies to be implemented at the State and regional
level to reduce emissions from in-use vehicles and, if
necessary, to reduce vehicle use.
The Senate Committee report (Ref. 11) on the 1970
legislation discusses the implications which might be
expected for urban transportation systems. The report
expressed the realization that in some cases the construc-
tion of highways and freeways might have to take
second place to the construction or expansion of public
transportation systems. Furthermore, the central city
use of motor vehicles might have to be restricted.
Indeed, the report states that "as much as 75 percent of
the traffic may have to be restricted in certain large
metropolitan regions if health standards are to be
achieved within the time required by this bill [1970
Clean Air Act]." (Ref. 12).
2. Air Quality Considerations
The initial State Implementation Plans were submit-
ted to the EPA in February 1972, and supplemental
plans outlining specific emissions control strategies for
transportation sources (Transportation Control Plans)
were submitted approximately twelve months thereafter.
The air quality data supplied with these plans confirm
that the standards for transportation related pollutants
have been exceeded in many of the nation's major urban
areas. Currently, among the 247 Air Quality Control
Regions (AQCR's), 54 exceed the photochemical oxi-
dant standard, 29 exceed the carbon monoxide standard,
and 4 exceed the standard for nitrogen dioxide. A total
of 66 AQCR's, which represent approximately 60% of
the nation's population, are exceeding the air quality
standard for one or more of these pollutants. The
regions which are currently exceeding the standards for
CO and oxidant are listed in Table 4.
The implementation of Federal emission standards
for new motor vehicles alone provides substantial
reductions in the aggregate emission levels of HC, CO,
and NOX. Projected reductions achieved through the
Federal motor vehicle emission control program
(FMVECP), in addition to stationary source controls,
-------
currently are expected to reduce to 27 the number of
AQCR's exceeding one or more of the ambient standards
by the statutory deadline in 1975. These 27 regions are
lisied in Table 5 together with the ambient concentra-
tions for carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidants
measured through 1972.
The Federal motor vehicle emission control program
will not become fully effective until sometime after
1985, when virtually all cars in the vehicle population
are expected to comply with the statutory standards set
foith in the Clean Air Act. Table 6 indicates the effect
this program will have on air quality between 1977 and
1985. Stationary source controls are also included in
these projections. By 1985, there remain about ten
urban areas which will fail to comply with the national
air quality standards foi both oxidant and carbon
monoxide.
Clearly, if full compliance with the Clean Air Act is
to be achieved, there is a need for further control of
emissions from transportation sources to supplement the
emissions standards for new motor vehicles. The tech-
niques available for reducing emissions from vehicles in
use can be classified within two general categories:
• Measures that reduce the emission levels of indi-
vidual vehicles, i.e., emissions per vehicle mile of
travel
• Measures that reduce total automobile use (e.g.,
vehicle miles ti avelled).
The first approach includes the application of retrofit
control systems or devices which reduce emissions from
vehicles already in use, and the inspection of in-use
vehicles to ensure that adequate maintenance is being
performed to attain optimum emission control.* The
second approach includes efforts to encourage more
extensive use of public transportation systems and
carpools.
It is important to recognize that the strategies
designed to achieve automobile use reductions are
remarkably consistent with other objectives directed
toward improving the quality of life in contemporary
urban environments. The development of a well planned
roadway and transport system designed for the efficient
movement of people and goods will reduce traffic
congestion, urban noise levels, and the consumption of
* Average carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions per
vehicle mile travelled (VMT) also can be reduced through
traffic flow improvements that smooth the flow of traffic and
increase average speeds. However, traffic flow improvements
may induce increases in traffic volumes and VMT that negate
the beneficial effects of reduced emissions per VMT. Conse-
quently, EPA has not encouraged the use of traffic flow
improvements in transportation control plans.
Table 4
AQCR's Exceeding CO and Oxidant Air Quality Standard
AQCR
Albuquerque
Atlanta
Atlantic City
Austin
Baltimore
Beaumont
Birmingham
Boston
Buffalo
Charleston, W. Va.
Charlotte
Chicago
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus
Corpus Christi
Dallas
Dry ton
Denver
Des Moines
El Paso
Fairbanks
Honolulu
Houston
Indianapolis
Indio
Jacksonville
Kansas City
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Louisville
Memphis
Miami
CO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Oxidant
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
AQCR
CO
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
Mobile
Monterey
Nashville
National Capital
New York
Norfolk
Oklahoma City
Omaha
Paducah
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Pittsburgh
Portland, Oregon
Providence
Richmond, Va.
Rochester, N. Y.
Sacramento
St. Louis
Salt Lake City
San Antonio
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
Seattle
Spokane
Springfield, Mass.
Syracuse
Tampa
Toledo
Tulsa
Witchita
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Oxidant
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Table 5
1971-1972 Air Quality Levels in Regions Projected
to Exceed Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards
in 1975
Carbon Monoxide -
8 Hour Average (ppm)
10-15
Indianapolis
Minneapolis-St. Paul
16-20
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
National Capital
Seattle
Spokane
Chicago
21-24
Sacramento
Baltimore
Boston
Springfield
Portland
Pittsburgh
Salt Lake City
25-35
Fairbanks
Phoenix-Tucson
Denver
Philadelphia
36-42
Los Angeles
New York City
Oxidant -
1 Hour Average (ppm)
.10-.15
Phoenix-Tucson
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Dallas-Ft. Worth
San Antonio
Indianapolis
Rochester
Cincinnati
Portland
Seattle
Springfield
.16-.20
Denver
National Capital
New York City
.21-.30
Sacramento
San Joaquin
Baltimore
Boston
.31-.40
San Diego
San Francisco
Houston-Galveston
Greater than .40
Los Angeles
Table 6
Number of Cities Failing to Comply With National
Standard for Oxidant and/or CO in
Indicated Year3
1977
21-24
Calendar Year
1980
12-14
1985
9-10
aEmission projections assume the implementation of the Federal
motor vehicle emission control program and stationary source
control but no transportation controls.
Ranges reflect uncertainty in the degree of stationary source
control that will be achieved. Analysis excludes New York City,
Denver, Fairbanks.
Air quality projections are based on linear rollback for carbon
monoxide and on Ref. 13 for oxidant.
valuable land resources for urban highway systems, in
addition to improving air quality. Moreover, with normal
load factors, the energy efficiency of passenger buses
and rail transit compared to the automobile is well
recognized. Any reduction of automobile usage by
encouraging more extensive use of public transit systems
is highly consistent with efforts to conserve the nation's
energy sources.
These latter strategies, however, have generated the
most controversy surrounding the State Transportation
Control Plans. Accordingly, this report has been pre-
pared to explain the measures and programs that have
been developed, as required by the Clean Air Amend-
ments, to reduce automobile emissions through the
reduction of automobile use. Chapter 2 discusses the
need for auto use reduction measures and identifies the
magnitude of the reductions for those cities in which
they are needed. Chapter 3 discusses the costs and the
potential effectiveness of these measures. Chapter 4
outlines the regulatory framework which has been
developed to implement the auto use reduction pro-
grams. Chapter 5 presents the social and economic
effects of these programs. Chapter 6 discusses the
relationship between the transportation programs devel-
oped to improve air quality and other aspects of
transportation planning at the Federal and State level.
References
1. Public Law 88-206, Clean Air Act of 1963, (42 U.S.C. et. seq.)
2. Public Law 91-604, "Clean Air Amendments of 1970",
December 31, 1970.
3. Section 108(a)(2), "Clean Air Amendments of 1970", Decem-
ber 31, 1970.
4. Air Quality Criteria Documents; AP-49, AP-50, AP-62, AP-63,
AP-64, AP-84; U. S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
5. "National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Stand-
ards", Federal Register, Vol. 84, Num. 84, Part II, April 30,
1971.
6. Section 202(b)(l), "Clean Air Amendments of 1970", Decem-
ber 31, 1970.
7. Public Law 93-319, "Energy Supply and Environmental Coordi-
nation Act of 1974", (15 U.S.C. 791), June 22, 1974.
8. Section lll(b), "Clean Air Amendments of 1970", December
31,1970.
9. Section 110(a)(2)(B), "Clean Air Amendments of 1970",
December 31, 1970.
10. Section 110(a)(2)(G), "Clean Air Amendments of 1970",
December 31, 1970.
11. Report of the Committee on Public Works, United States
Senate together with individual views to accompany S. 4358,
"National Air Quality Standards Act of 1970", September 17,
1970.
12. Report of the U. S. Senate Committee on Public Works,
"National Air Quality Standards Act of 1970", September 17,
1970, p. 2.
13. E. A. Schuck and R. Papetti, "Examination of the Photochemi-
cal Air Pollution Problem in Southern California," in Technical
Support Document for the Metropolitan Los Angeles Intrastate
Air Quality Control Region Transportation Control Plan,
Appendix D, Environmental Protection Agency, October 30,
1973.
-------
chapter 2 - the need for
automobile use reductions
1. Introduction
Chapter 1 discussed the projected effect of the
Federal new vehicle emission standards and stationary
source controls. Having controlled ttie emissions from
stationary sources and new vehicles to the extent
possible, those States containing Air Quality Control
Regions still projected to exceed the air quality stand-
ards must implement further controls for transportation
sources to meet the requirements of [he Clean Air Act.
Even if the deadline for compliance with the ambient air
quality standards is extended to 1985, approximately
ten regions would still fail to comply with the standards
for both carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidant.
Indeed, some of these regions are so severely polluted
that they will be unable to achieve the standards at any
time in the foreseeable future solely by relying on the
new car emission control program and stationary source
controls.
Growth of both the vehicle population and vehicle
use, deterioration of emission control systems on ve-
hicles in use, and the slow turnover of the vehicle
population greatly reduce the impact of the motor
vehicle standards within the time period mandated for
the attainment of the air quality standards. Figures 1
and 2 display the projected HC and CO emission levels
of the light duty vehicle population as a function of
time. Relative to 1972, automotive emissions will be
reduced only about 25 percent in 1975 and about 45
percent in 1977. Furthermore, the historical growth of
the vehicle population and the increasing trend in annual
mileage per vehicle lead to a projected increase in
automotive emissions sometime after 1985.
The control of emissions from automobiles is essen-
tial to ensure full compliance with the requirements of
the Clean Air Act because these vehicles comprise the
primary source of HC and CO emissions in urban areas.
Table 7 shows the general range of relative contributions
of urban emissions sources. The data clearly indicate the
importance of automotive emission controls.
2. Transportation Emission Control Options
The design of transportation emission control strat-
egies relies upon two general approaches; the reduction
of emission levels of individual vehicles in use, and tlje
reduction of the total vehicle miles of :ravel (VMT). The
remainder of Chapter 2 presents a discussion of the costs
and effectiveness of in-use vehicle emission control
measures, namely, inspection/maintenance (1/M) and
retrofit controls. Also included is a discussion of service
station emission controls designed to reduce hydro-
carbon emissions attributed to gasoline vapor loss during
the marketing process. Finally, the magnitude of the
VMT reductions for those cities in which they are
needed will be considered.
Vehicle miles of travel can be redjced through the
implementation of traffic controls, carpooling incen-
tives, the improvement and expansion of public trans-
portation, and direct disincentives to low occupancy
automobile use, including parking and auto-user charges.
Discussion of the possible costs and potential effective-
ness of these programs is presented in Chapter 3.
a. Inspection/Maintenance
Inspection/maintenance programs aim at reducing
emissions from in-use vehicles by ensuring that the
emission levels of those vehicles are not permitted to
deteriorate due to inadequate or improper maintenance.
Inspection/maintenance programs can accomplish emis-
sion reductions only to the extent that voluntary
maintenance is inadequate in maintaining the vehicles in
good condition.
All inspection/maintenance approaches include
two phases: an inspection phase used to screen the
vehicle population to determine which vehicles should
be required to leceive maintenance; and a maintenance
phase, in which appropriate corrective maintenance is
performed on the selected vehicles.
Recent studies (Ref. 1) have demonstrated that
significant reductions in light duty vehicle emissions can
be achieved through mandatory I/M programs. The
effectiveness of a program depends primarily upon the
fraction of the vehicle population induced to receive
corrective maintenance, and to some extent, upon the
type of inspection test used. A program of inspecting
idle mode exhaust emissions is estimated to result in
reductions of 11 percent for HC and 10 percent for CO
if one-half the vehicle population fails the initial
inspection and receives corrective maintenance. An
initial failure rate of 10 percent would provide reduc-
tions of 6 percent for HC and 3 percent for CO. The
inspection of exhaust emissions while imposing a load on
the engine (a loaded mode test) should provide a 15
percent HC reduction and a 12 percent CO reduction at
a 50 percent initial failure rate; and an 8 percent HC
reduction and a 4 percent CO reduction at a 10 percent
initial failure rate. These figures are representative of an
annual inspection program. More frequent inspection
and maintenance would be expected to provide larger
average emissions reductions. I/M programs are not
expected to have a significant effect on NOX emissions
from automobile:; prior to the 1973 model year.
The estimated investment cost for an annual
emissions inspection program using State operated lanes
is less than S3.50* per vehicle for a loaded mode test
and less than $2.00 per vehicle for an idle mode test.
The annual opeiating cost is approximately $2.50 per
vehicle for eithei test proceduie. Maintenance costs
observed in fleet studies of various I/M programs have
been found to be in the range of $20 to $30 (Ref. 1) for
those vehicles failing the inspection test. Accounting for
the current level of voluntary maintenance and assuming
a 30 percent failure rate, the average net incremental
annual cost of inspection and maintenance is about $4
per vehicle (Ref. 1). The higher frequency of mainte-
nance induced by an inspection program is expected to
reduce fuel consumption by approximately 2 percent
(Ref. 5). At cunent gasoline prices, this represents an
annual savings of $10 per vehicle*.
b. Retrofit Devices
Retrofit approaches go beyond the attempt made
by inspection/maintenance programs to keep in-use
vehicles at minimum emission levels consistent with their
*A11 costs arc in 1974 dollars.
+Assuming 12,000 miles per year, 13 miles per gallon, and $.58
per gallon.
-------
100
75
50
25
CO
-I
UJ
>
UJ
_l
CO
g
CO
CO
111
LLI
UJ
cc
Figure 1
AUTOMOBILE HC EMISSIONS
1975
1980
1985
1990
100
75
50
25
Figure 2
AUTOMOBILE CO EMISSIONS
1975
1980 1985
CALENDAR YEAR
1990
Table 7
Emission Sources in Urban Areas -1971
Emission Source Category HC
Pollutant
Percent of Total3
CO IMOV
Automobiles 50-65 77-87 40-50
Trucks, Buses, Motorcycles 5-10 8-10 8-13
Stationary Sources 25-45 3-15 37-52
aBased on emissions inventories contained in State Implementa-
tion Plans.
age and original design. The objective of a retrofit
approach is to reduce the emission levels of an in-use
vehicle below its "well-maintained" levels through the
addition of a device or system and/or a modification or
adjustment after its initial manufacture. Three retrofit
approaches are currently under consideration for wide-
spread implementation:
Vacuum Spark Advance Disconnect. Two basic
engine modifications employed by motor vehicle manu-
facturers in meeting Federal exhaust emission standards
have been the leaning of air/fuel ratios and the modifica-
tion of ignition (spark) timing. The modification of
these parameters in pre-controlled (pre-1968) vehicles
will reduce CO emissions by 9 percent, HC emissions by
25 percent, and NOX emissions by 23 percent. (Ref. 1).
The installed cost of a vacuum spark advance disconnect
system is approximately $20. The estimated mainte-
-------
10
nance cost is $5 per year (Ref. 5). Fuel consumption can
be expected to increase by about 2 percent.
Because 1968 and later model year vehicles have
utilized these modifications to some extent to meet
Federal emission standards, this retrofit technique is
considered to be applicable only to pre-controlled
vehicles.
Air Bleed to Intake Manifold. Much of the effort
in the design of emission control systems has concen-
trated on various means to introduce excess air in the
fuel mixture prior to combustion. The effect is one of
reducing HC and CO levels with possibly some increase
of NOX emissions. Devices using this approach have
achieved CO reductions of approximately 50 percent
and HC reductions of about 23 percent. (Ref. 1). No
significant effect on NOX emissions has been observed.
The installed cost of typical air bleed devices ranges
from $20 to $60, depending on the complexity of the
vehicle's induction system. The estimated annual mainte-
nance cost is $7. Application of the ,iir bleed system has
been observed to decrease fuel consumption by up to 4
percent.
This technique is applicable to some extent to all
light duty vehicles through the 1971 model year;
however, because of the relatively lean air/fuel ratios on
most controlled vehicles, the technique is primarily
applicable to pre-1968 vehicles.
Catalytic Converter. This approach involves the
installation of an oxidation catalyst in the vehicle's
exhaust system. Catalytic converter systems reduce both
CO emissions and HC emissions by about 50 percent.
(Ref. 1). No significant effect on NOX emissions is
expected. The installed cost of catalyst retrofit systems
ranges from $55 to $200. (Ref. 5, 6). The installed cost
for a specific model automobile will depend on the
engine size and whether or not the vehicle is equipped
with a factory installed air injection system. The
estimated annual maintenance cost is $12.50 per vehicle.
To maintain the full effectiveness of a catalyst
retrofit system, lead-free fuel must be used. However,
not all vehicles can operate on commercially available
lead-free gasoline without excessive engine wear. Cur-
rently, it is estimated that catalyst retrofit systems
would be applicable for use on about 75 percent of
1971-74 model year vehicles and about 20 percent of
1968-70 model year vehicles. However, considerably
more work is needed to identify the specific makes and
models that could accept catalytic retrofits. Moreover, a
number of technological issues, principally associated
with catalyst durability, remain to be resolved. Retrofit
for 1975 and later automobiles is not under considera-
tion because most of these cars will be factory-equipped
with catalyst emission control systems.
c. Service Station Vapor Controls.
Although the hydrocarbon vapors emitted to
the air from service stations cannot be considered
motor vehicle emissions, the relationship between these
vapor losses and vehicle use is so direct that their
control can be legitimately included within the category
of transportation controls.
The average service station sells approximately
25,000 gallons of gasoline per month and in the process
is estimated to emit nearly 400 pounds of hydrocarbon
vapor. By 1975, uncontrolled vapor losses of this
magnitude will make the service station as important a
source of HC emissions as some of the vehicles it serves.
Translated into grams per mile, the HC emissions from
the service station exceed the 1977 new car HC
standards.
Service station vapor losses result primarily from
tank truck unloading and vehicle fueling. Vapors emitted
in these processes account for over 90 percent of the
total vapor loss. Vapor control techniques are presently
being developed and implemented which show the
potential for reducing these emissions by over 90
percent (Ref. 2) (a reduction of over 80 percent in total
service station vapor losses). The annualized cost of
service station vapor controls is estimated to be approxi-
mately $2.60 per car per year.
3. Automotive Emissions Reductions.
The reductions in total automotive emissions that can
be achieved through inspection/maintenance and retrofit
can be illustrated by considering three possible emission
control strategies for in-use vehicles. Strategy 1 consists
of inspection/maintenance using a loaded mode test for
all model year vehicles. Strategy 2 requires inspection/
maintenance for all cars and air bleed retrofit for all
1971 and earlier model years. Strategy 3 requires
inspection/maintenance for all cars, air bleed retrofit for
all 1971 and earlier model years, and catalyst retrofit for
1972 through 1974 model years. It is assumed that the
catalyst retrofit will only be required for 75 percent of
the 1972-1974 model year group.
The impact of I/M programs or retrofit programs on
motor vehicle emissions levels will depend on many
factors which may vary significantly between regions.
Most important among these factors are the age distribu-
tion of the vehicle population, the annual mileage
accumulation of different age groups, and the turnover
rate of the vehicle population. The effectiveness calcula-
tions for the three emission control strategies are based
on a hypothetical vehicle population which represents
average nationwide data.
The emissions reductions achieved by these three
strategies are displayed in Table 8 for the period 1977
through 1990. Initially, Strategy 3, which includes the
catalyst retrofit, is the most effective. The air bleed
retrofit program is more than twice as effective as
inspection/maintenance alone (Strategy 1). However, as
the older cars which are subject to the retrofit require-
ments are retired from the vehicle population, the
effectiveness of both retrofit programs decreases rapidly.
Table 8
Automobile Emissions Reductions Achieved by In-Use
Vehicle Emission Controls
Emissions Reduction (%)
1977 1980 1985 1990
HC CO HC CO HC CO HC CO
Strategy 1 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 12
Strategy 2 20 37 17 26 12 12 11 12
Strategy 3 28' 48 27 41 16 21 11 12
Strategy 1: Inspection/maintenance
Strategy 2: Inspection/maintenance + Air Bleed
Strategy 3: Inspection/maintenance + Air Bleed + Catalyst
The costs of these emissions controls are discussed in the text.
-------
By 1985, Strategy 1 and Strategy 2 are equally effective,
and 75 percent of the reduction achieved by Strategy 3
is attributed to inspection/maintenance. Accordingly,
the time period during which emission reductions are
required must play a key role in determining the
usefulness of a retrofit program. In general, retrofit is a
short term approach to reducing emissions from in-use
vehicles.
4. Effects on Air Quality
The potential air quality benefits of I/M, retrofit, and
vapor recovery can be demonstrated by considering the
number of additional cities which are able to comply
with the ambient standards as a result of implementing
these measures. Table 9 displays the number of cities
failing to comply with the standards through 1985
assuming the I/M, retrofit, and vapor recovery control
strategy is fully implemented by 1977. In comparison,
the number of cities failing to comply without these
controls is also shown. The effectiveness of the controls
is greatest during the first few years when the largest
number of older cars, subject to the retrofit require-
ments, are still on the road. In 1977, the implementation
of the I/M, retrofit, and vapor recovery programs is
expected to enable about ten additional regions to
comply with the air quality standards. By 1985, roughly
two additional regions would be able to comply;
however, at least 5 regions would still be above the
standards.
5. Auto Use Reductions
Both cost and technological constraints limit the
extent to which the emission level of in-use vehicles can
be reduced. The maximum feasible reductions are
assumed to be achieved by the in-use vehicle control
strategy displayed in Table 9. To the extent that further
control of motor vehicle emissions is necessary, reduc-
tions in automobile use are required.
In any particular air quality control region, the
adequacy of transportation emission control strategies
for achieving the national ambient air quality standards
Table 9
will depend on the severity of the air pollution problem
within the region, the relative contribution of mobile
and stationary emission sources, and the relative growth
rates of these sources. Thus, the extent of auto use
reductions will vary substantially among the air quality
control regions in which they are needed. Table 10
displays the distribution of auto use reductions (meas-
ured as vehicle miles of travel) necessary to achieve
nationwide compliance with the ambient air quality
standards in 1977 and 1985. The projected VMT
reductions needed in 1985 and beyond are highly
uncertain. This is due to their extreme sensitivity to a
number of parameters used in the projection calculation:
namely, the relative contributions of different emissions
sources, the growth rates of these sources, and the
extent of stationary source control achievable. Accord-
ingly, a broad range of the number of cities in each of
two categories is shown; one category shows the number
of cities needing between zero and 25 percent VMT
reductions, the other shows the number of cities
requiring VMT reductions larger than 25 percent. The
actual reductions needed by the cities in this latter
category will depend primarily upon the degree of
stationary source control that can be achieved by 1985.
If present growth trends continue (Ref. 3), nation-
wide auto use (VMT) will be about 55 percent greater in
1985 than in 1972. Population growth, the increasing
number of vehicles per person, and increasing annual
mileage per vehicle all contribute about equally to this
growth in vehicle miles of travel. Much of the reduction
of auto use needed in the future is due to anticipated
travel demand. If, for example, the number of vehicles
per person and the annual mileage per vehicle remained
constant through 1985, auto use would be only about
18 percent above current levels. This represents a VMT
reduction of 25 percent from the projected baseline.
Table 10
Number of AQCR's Requiring Auto Use Reductions
to Achieve Compliance with Oxidant and/or
Carbon Monoxide
Number of AQCR's Failing to Comply
With Oxidant and/or CO Standard
in Indicated Year3
Calendar Year
Without-In-Use
Vehicle Controls13
With In-Use
Vehicle Controls0
1977
21-24
12-17
1980 1985
12-14 9-10
MO 5-10
aRanges reflect uncertainty in degree of stationary source
control that will be achieved. Air quality projections are based
on linear rollback for carbon monoxide and Ref. 4 for oxidant.
Analysis excludes New York, Denver, Fairbanks.
"Control strategy consists of stationary source controls and
FMVECP.
cControl strategy consists of stationary source controls,
FMVECP, inspection/maintenance, and retrofit (including
catalyst retrofit).
Auto Use Reduction
Less
Calendar than
Year 10% 10%-30% 30%-50% 50% or more
1977 8544
0-25% 25% or more
1985b 6-8 4-6
aThe VMT reductions estimated for each AQCR are based on the
additional control of motor vehicle emissions required,
assuming the regional I/M and retrofit programs for in-use
vehicles are fully implemented by 1977. Air quality projections
are based on linear rollback for carbon monoxide and Ref. 4 for
oxidant. The number of AQCR's whose current transportation
control plans include auto use reductions exceeds the number
used here because some plans have substituted VMT reduction
for retrofit. Auto use reductions are expressed as percent
reductions in vehicle miles travelled.
Ranges reflect uncertainty in the degree of stationary source
control that will be achieved and the future growth in
automobile use.
11
-------
Accordingly, the achievement of VMT reductions of this
magnitude in the mid 1980's and beyond does not
necessarily require severe restrictions on mobility by
comparison with the present.
The need to curtail the rapid growth and, in some
cases, reduce present levels of automobile use for reasons
of air quality is twofold. First, compliance with the
Clean Air Act requires that the prescribed ambient air
quality standards be attained as rapidly as possible and,
in accordance with the present statutes, no later than
1977. Furthermore, the emission levels of the auto-
mobile population will begin to increase sometime after
1985 if the current growth patterns continue. Thus, the
need for reducing auto use to attain and maintain
healthful air quality is not simply a consequence of the
current statutory deadlines for achieving the ambient air
quality standards. Rather, there will be a continuing
need to develop and encourage the use of more extensive
public transportation systems as an alternative to low
occupancy automobile use.
References
1. Control Strategies for In-use Vehicles, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Mobile Source Pollution Control Program,
Washington, D. C. 20460, November 1972.
2. Burr, R. K. and Boys, P.A.; Systems and Costs to Control
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Stationary Sources, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Strategies and Air Standards Divi-
sion, August 1973.
3. Motor Vehicle Manufacturer's Association of the United States,
1973/74 Automobile Facts and Figures, July 1973.
4. E.A. Schuck and R. Papetti, "Examination of the Photo-
chemical Air Pollution Problem in Southern California," in
Technical Support Document for the Metropolitan Los Angeles
Intrastate Air Quality Control Plan, Appendix D, Environmental
Protection Agency, October 30, 1973.
5. Joel L. Horowitz, "Transportation Controls are Really Needed
in the Air Cleanup Fight," Environmental Science and Tech-
nology, Vol. 8, pp. 800-805, Sept. 1974.
6. State of California Air Resources Board, data submitted in
support of Resolution 74-31, May 8, 1974.
12
-------
chapter 3 - methods of
reducing automobile use
In Chapter 2 it was found that at least 21 AQCR's
need reductions in automobile use to achieve the
ambient air quality standards for the transportation-
related air pollutants by 1977. Automobile use and
emissions can be reduced by diverting automobile driver
trips to other modes of transportation, notably transit
and carpools. Compared to retrofit, this approach to
emissions reduction has the significant advantage that it
also helps to achieve important objectives such as energy
conservation, increased mobility for persons who lack
access to a car, reduced noise and congestion, and
reduced need for further highway construction, in
addition to improving air quality. The first two sections
of this chapter describe the most significant determi-
nants of transit and carpool usage and characterize the
emissions reduction potential of transit and carpools.
Specific measures for achieving diversions of automobile
drivers to transit and carpools are discussed in Section 3.
1. Transit*
To attract significant numbers of automobile drivers
out of their cars, a transit system must satisfy three
conditions:
• It must have enough vehicles to carry the new
riders.
• It must provide service whose quality is com-
parable or superior to that of the automobile. The
most important component of service quality is
travel time.
• Its cost to the rider must be attractive relative to
the cost of operating an automobile.
An example of the relationship between travel time,
cost, and transit ridership for work trips is illustrated in
Figure 3, which is based upon the results of a study of
travel behavior in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Ref. 2). The
variables included in the figure are the time to walk to
and from the transit stop, the difference between
automobile and transit travel times, the difference
between automobile and transit costs, and the percent-
age of work trips taking place by transit. The importance
of the time and cost variables in determining transit
ridership can be illustrated by considering the case where
transit and automobile travel times and costs are equal
(Point A of Figure 3). The figure indicates that 66
percent of work trips would take place by transit. In
contrast, average work trip transit ridership in the U. S.
is currently less than 15 percent.
In practice, it is unlikely that transit can offer
widespread service which is as fast as that of the car. A
more realistic example of high quality transit is illus-
trated by point B of Figure 3. Here, the walk'time is five
minutes, transit travel time exceeds automobile travel
time by 10 minutes, and the transit fare and automobile
cost are equal. Transit ridership is 21 percent. If the
walk and travel times remain unchanged and the
automobile costs $2.00 per work trip more than transit
owing to free transit, parking charges or other reasons,
*Portions of this section and of Section 2 have been adapted,
with permission, from Ref. 1.
transit ridership for work trips increases to about 90 per-
cent (point C).
The reductions in the combined emissions of auto-
mobiles and transit vehicles thus achieved depend on the
kinds of transit vehicles used and the design and
operation of the transit system. If, for example, diesel
buses meeting the California 1975 heavy-duty diesel
emissions standards are used and these buses carry an
average load of 20 passengers, the reductions in com-
bined bus and automobile emissions are roughly 30
percent for CO and HC and 15 percent for NOX in 1977.
In 1985, when automobile emissions will be less than in
1977, the CO and HC reductions are 20 percent and 25
percent respectively. However, NOX emissions increase
by about 20 percent. This NOX increase would be
eliminated if an average bus occupancy of 30 passengers
were achieved.
These quantitative results are approximate owing to
their reliance on a single behavioral study and rather
crude measures of trip characteristics. However, the
conclusion that high quality transit can attract high
levels of ridership is also supported by the experience of
existing high quality transit operations. For example, the
Shirley Highway Express in the Washington, D. C. area,
whose buses operate in specially reserved, congestion-
free lanes, has achieved a peak period ridership of about
40 percent compared with 19 percent for the Washing-
ton area as a whole (Ref. 3, 4). In Los Angeles, charter
buses are being used to carry workers from outlying
residential areas to industrial employment centers. Serv-
ice is provided on a subscription basis at a cost below
that of the car. The bus operator estimates that the bus
service carries over 90 percent of potential users.
Most transit systems in the U. S. do not provide the
high quality service needed to attract high ridership. For
example, nearly 50 percent of urban area residences are
located three or more blocks from the nearest transit
stop. Transit routes are heavily downtown oriented, but
only about 10 percent of trips go downtown. Transit
trips take nearly twice as long as automobile trips.
Moreover, subsidized free or reduced rate parking
confers a cost advantage on the automobile. Transit
service of this quality is illustrated by point D of Figure
3. Ridership is 4 percent.
The direct monetary cost of transit depends on the
detailed characteristics of the design and operation of
the transit system. Average vehicle occupancies are
especially important determinants of whether transit use
will cost more or less than automobile use. For example,
a commuter bus system that achieves average occupan-
cies of 40 to 60 passengers per vehicle round trip is
likely to cost about the same as automobile commuting
(Refs: 1, 5). With lower occupancies, the cost of the bus
system could exceed the cost of automobile operations
by as much as $900 per commuter per year. Higher
occupancy bus systems, however, could save over $100
per commuter per year relative to the cost of continued
automobile operation. Thus, transit offers the possibility
of achieving reductions in automobile emissions at a net
cost saving if transit systems can be designed and
operated so as to achieve both high quality service and
high vehicle occupancies.
The foregoing indicates that the current low levels of
transit usage in the United States are attributable to the
poor quality of transit service relative to the service
provided by the automobile. Substantial and enduring
13
-------
to
QC
LU
Q
tr
Figure 3
DEPENDENCE OF WORK TRIP TRANSIT RIDERSHIP ON SERVICE QUALITY
100
WALK TIME = 5min.
WALK TIME = tOmin.
-10
-5
0 5 10
TRANSIT TIME - AUTO TIME (min.)
15
20
AUTO COST = TRANSIT FARE
AUTO COST = TRANSIT FARE +$2.00
14
reductions in automobile emissions can be achieved
through the diversion of automobile drivers to transit if
transit has adequate vehicular capacity and provides
travel times comparable to the automobile at a cost to
the rider that is attractive relative to Ihe cost of driving a
car. These emissions reductions will be available at a net
cost savings if suitable transit vehicle occupancies can be
attained. Measures that can be implemented to help
achieve these goals are discussed in Section 3.
2. Carpools
Average automobile occupancy in the U. S. is about
two persons per car. Average occupancy for work trips is
about 1.4 persons per car (Ref. 6). Since most cars are
capable of carrying at least four persons, there is
considerable room for reducing automobile use and
emissions through carpooling. The principal obstacle to
carpooling is that carpools are highly restrictive in terms
of the service offered. Carpoolers must have trip origins
and destinations that are close to one another, must
desire to travel at the same times of day, and, to
minimize the problems of locating carpool partners,
must make trips that are repetitive from day to day. As a
result, the greatest potential for increased carpool use is
in connection with peak-period work trips. These trips
are responsible for about 25 percent of urban area
automobile emissions (Ref. 7).
The present low auto occupancy rates for work trips
indicate that substantial carpooling will not take place
unless measures are implemented to encourage it. The
limited experience to date with carpool programs has
provided indications of the effectiveness of two possible
approaches to encouraging carpools:
• Preferential treatment for carpools on streets and
freeways.
• Parking restrictions combined with locator
systems.
Preferential treatment for carpools has been observed
to increase peak period auto occupancies by 10 to 30
percent (Ref. 8). Locator systems combined with park-
------- OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\Region 2\00000BED\tiff\2000ZK1H.tif): Unspecified error
-------
reduction in auto use that can be achieved through the
diversion of additional work trips to transit is about 5
percent. Achieving a 10 to 20 percent reduction in auto
use could require expansions of existing bus fleets of at
least 50 percent and, in some cases, over 500 percent,
depending on the city, the design of the transit system,
and the extent of carpooling. EPA's current estimates of
the bus fleet expansions needed to fulfill the require-
ments of the transportation control plans are displayed
in Table 11 together with estimates prepared
independently by the Department of Transportation.
The EPA estimates are higher than the DOT estimates
for the following reasons:
• In some cities EPA projects that transportation
controls will achieve a greater reduction in auto-
mobile usage than DOT projects.
• EPA has assumed that increased carpooling will
achieve 25 percent of the needed reductions in
auto use, whereas DOT assumes that carpools will
carry 75 percent of the diverted auto travelers.
Using EPA estimates, about 38,000 new vehicles are
needed. At present, bus manufacturers operate with a
single shift and are capable of producing 6000 to 6500
vehicles per year, or roughly 18,000 to 20,000 vehicles
through 1977. With double shifts, roughly 36,000 to
40,000 vehicles could be produced through 1977.
b. Improvement of Transit Route Structures—Over
80 percent of urban area automobile emissions are
caused by trips that originate and/or terminate in the
suburbs. Over half of automobile emissions in urban
areas are caused by intersuburban trips (Ref. 7, 11).
Hence, programs directed toward achieving substantial
reductions in urban area automobile emissions must
include means of reducing emissions associated with
suburban travel. In particular, the achievement of
substantial reductions in automobile emissions through
the diversion of automobile drivers to transit will be
possible only if suburban automobile travellers are
attracted to transit.
Most existing transit systems serve suburban areas
very poorly. Present systems tend to have downtown
oriented, radial routes which connect downtown loca-
tions with the suburbs but have few crosstown, circum-
ferential, or intersuburban links. As a result of this route
structure, route densities tend to be low in the suburbs,
and access times are correspondingly high. In addition,
transit travel between suburbs frequently requires a
detour through downtown and, therefore, is difficult and
time consuming. Table 12, which shows the geographical
distribution of work-trip transit ridership in the Washing-
ton, D. C. area, illustrates the effect of radial route
structure, among other things, on transit usage*. Transit
ridership in the core is 65 percent; ridership to the core
is 37 percent, and ridership in the suburbs is only 2
percent. These ridership differences reflect the long
access and travel times associated with suburban travel
on radial transit systems.
The provision of high quality transit service in
suburban areas is often considered to be difficult or
impossible owing to the problems of collecting and
distributing passengers in low density areas. However,
emerging trends in land use patterns and recent experi-
ence with innovative transit approaches suggest that
many of these difficulties may be surmountable. For
example, high density activity centers, which share many
of the traffic and travel characteristics of the urban core,
are developing in the suburbs of large cities (Ref. 12).
Moreover, the success of the Shirley Highway bus
system, which operates with fixed routes and schedules
and whose principal mode of access is walking, illustrates
the feasibility of attracting suburban residents to con-
ventional transit for trips between subi ban residential
areas and high density employment centers. Finally, a
variety of transit approaches now exist which are
specifically designed for use in low density situations.
These include park-and-ride, reservation and subscription
service, dial-a-ride, and feeder bus systems that operate
in either a demand responsive or conventional fashion.
c. Priority Treatment for High Occupancy Vehicles—
The speed and reliability of bus service can be increased
substantially by allocating highway facilities preferen-
tially to buses through the use of reserved lanes on
existing highways, specially constructed busways, or
other means. In addition, certain forms of priority
treatment can be applied to carpools so as to increase
their speed and, thereby, their attractiveness. Within the
last decade, over 200 bus priority treatments have been
implemented or proposed in the United States and
elsewhere (Ref. 13). Examples of bus priority treatment
on freeways include:
• The San Bernardino Busway in the Los Angeles
area and the Shirley Busway in Washington, D. C.
area;
• Contra-flow bus lanes on the Long Island Express-
way (New York City), 1-495 in New Jersey, the
Southeast Expressway in Boston, and U. S. 101 in
Marin County;
• A special bus ramp for Seattle's Blue Streak
express bus service, and the bus-carpool bypass
lanes at the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge toll
plaza.
Examples of priority teatment on surface streets
include:
• Dedicated bus streets in Chicago and Minneapolis;
• Contra-flow bus lanes in San Juan, Louisville, and
San Antonio;
• Median bus lanes in Chicago and New Orleans, and
curb bus lanes in most major cities.
Priority treatment can increase bus freeway speeds by
a factor of two or more without significantly affecting
auto speeds (Refs. 3, 13). Speed increases of up to 50
Table 12
Percentage Use of Transit to Work
in the Washington, D. C. Area
To:
16
The ridership differences shown in Table 12 are not attribu-
table solely to the radial route structure. There are substantial
differences in income and auto ownership between the core and
the suburbs.
From
Core
Urban
Suburban
Total
Source: Ref. 4
Core
65.2
49.8
19.2
36.9
Urban Suburban Total
62.0
27.2
4.2
17.9
43.5
16.9
1.9
5.1
60.2
35.2
6.7
19.4
-------
percent have resulted from surface street priority treat-
ment (Ref. 14). However, priority treatment does not
always benefit buses relative to cars. For example,
surface street bus lanes in Atlanta, Birmingham, and
Baltimore have increased auto speeds more than bus
speeds (Ref. 13, 15).
The elimination of congestion delays of buses
through priority treatment can substantially improve bus
service reliability. For example, the Shirley Busway has
reduced the fraction of buses arriving more than six
minutes late in Washington from 67 percent to about 10
percent (Ref. 3). The San Francisco - Oakland Bay
Bridge bus/carpool lane has reduced late arrivals by
buses from 84 percent to 45 percent in peak periods
(Ref. 13).
The increased speeds resulting from priority treat-
ment can reduce the number of buses needed to
maintain given headways on a route. Maintaining the
Shirley Busway headways would require approximately
14 additional peak period buses if the busway were not
used (Ref. 3). The Chicago median bus lane has made
possible the elimination of one peak period bus run
(Ref. 13).
Bus priority treatment can also assist in the efficient
utilization of highway facilities. A single freeway lane
can carry about 2000 to 3000 persons per hour in cars
(Ref. 16). This lane can carry at least 40,000 persons per
hour in buses assuming no stops in lane (Ref. 13, 16).
Similarly, a lane on an arterial street can accommodate
at most about 1500 persons per hour by car but can
carry 350C more persons per hour by bus (Ref. 16).
Thus, the substitution of bus use for auto use can
substantially increase roadway person carrying capacities
and, thereby, decrease the need for new highway
facilities. For example, if the riders on the Shirley
Busway had to be carried by automobile at current
Shirley Highway auto speeds, about three additional
lanes of freeway would be needed for each direction
(Ref. 3).
The capital costs of existing and proposed freeway
priority treatments are $1 million to $5 million per mile
for busways (Ref. 13), $4,000 to $310,000 per mile for
reserved lanes (Ref. 13), and $45,000 per mile for ramp
metering (Ref. 17). Maintenance costs are $20,000 to
$150,000 per mile per year for reserved lanes (Ref. 13)
and about $25,000 per mile per year for ramp metering.
Initial costs of surface street bus lanes are $3,500 to
$10,000 per mile (Ref. 13). Maintenance costs appar-
ently are absorbed in highway maintenance budgets and
are not reported.
The experience to date with bus priority treatment
suggests that the following considerations should be
included in the planning of bus priority treatments in
connection with air quality improvement programs:
1. Priority treatment can significantly improve bus
travel times only if it is implemented over a substantial
portion of a bus route. For example, the Second Avenue
curb bus lane in New York has increased bus speeds by
nearly 30 percent but, because it is only two miles in
length, saves only two minutes of travel time (Ref. 13).
An equal speed increase over a 10 mile route could save
10 minutes of travel time and might have an important
influence on mode choice. A corollary to this observa-
tion is that bus priority treatment is likely to be of
significant benefit only to relatively long distance travel-
lers. For example, the Shirley Busway saves over 20
minutes for long distance travellers but only two to
three minutes for travellers from close-in locations (Ref.
3).
2. Bus priority treatment should include both the
freeway and surface street portions of transit routes. For
example, the typical trans-bay transit route in the San
Francisco area is 16 miles long with 10 miles on
freeways and 6 miles on surface streets. The average
speeds are about 35 mph on freeways and 15 mph on
streets (Ref. 13). If priority treatment increased speeds
to 55 mph on freeways and 20 mph on streets, 6
minutes would be saved on each portion of the route.
Thus, the total time savings is double that resulting from
priority treatment on streets only or freeways only.
3. Anticipated bus volumes should not exceed lane
capacities. Priority treatment may reduce bus speeds if
surface street bus lanes are required to carry more than
about 100 buses per hour with in-lane stops (Ref. 16). If
existing or anticipated bus volumes exceed lane capacity,
consideration should be given to alternating bus stops,
constructing bus bays, reserving additional lanes for bus
use or reserving the entire street for buses.
4. Mode shifts from auto to bus concurrent with bus
priority treatments must be large enough to compensate
for increases in per vehicle auto emissions that may
result from any traffic congestion that may be produced
by the priority treatment. Determining whether this
condition is fulfilled for an entire city requires detailed
modeling of the relationships between traffic patterns
before and after implementation of priority treatment.
For an individual street, the EPA speed-emissions rela-
tionships (Ref. 18) suggest auto emissions on the street
will not increase if, following the implementation of bus
priority treatment, the percent reduction in auto trips
along the street exceeds the percent reduction in auto
speeds caused by any increased congestion on the
street.*
5. Bus priority treatments cannot be planned inde-
pendently of other transit improvement or traffic
management measures. The effects of bus priority
treatment on transit ridership, auto usage, and emissions
are, in general, dependent on the state of the existing
transit system and the nature of any other transit
improvement or traffic management measures that may
be taken. This can easily be seen by considering the
extreme example of a freeway on which no buses
currently operate. Reservation of a lane for buses on the
freeway can only aggravate air quality problems if the
transit system remains otherwise unchanged. But the
reserved lane may be justified if its implementation
coincides with the inauguration of express bus service on
the freeway. Conversely, priority treatment for buses on
a certain street may be justified under existing condi-
tions but not if it coincides with bus dedication of an
adjacent street that results in the diversion of large
volumes of traffic to the first street. Thus, bus priority
treatments and other potential transit improvement and
traffic management measures must be evaluated collec-
tively. The planning of priority treatments cannot be
*Bus priority treatment does not necessarily increase congestion
on a street even if automobile traffic volumes remain un-
changed. For example, removing a parking lane and substitut-
ing a bus lane increases roadway capacity. Moreover, a bus lane
replacing a mixed traffic lane also can increase capacity by
removing the friction of lane changes and by channelling buses
into one lane.
17
-------
18
separated from the rest of the transit planning process.
The Use of Bus Lanes by Carpools—In Section 2 it
was observed that auto occupancies csn be increased by
providing preferential treatment for carpools. Assuming
the availability of the necessary lane capacity, there
appear to be no engineering or safety problems associ-
ated with the use of surface street bus lanes by qualified
cars. Indeed, taxis make use of bus lanes in many
European cities. However, enforcement of a qualified car
rule will be difficult if qualified cars are not readily
distinguishable from other cars.
The use of reserved normal-flow freeway lanes by
carpools could pose both enforcement and safety prob-
lems. The enforcement problem is associated with
distinguishing between qualified and unqualified cars.
The principal safety problem is the speed difference
between the reserved lane and the adjacent unreserved
lane. The most extensive experience with bus/carpool
sharing of a reserved lane is from the San Francisco-
Oakland Bay Bridge (Ref. 8). There, no safety problems
have been encountered. However, during the first
months of operation as many as 30 percent of the
vehicles using the bus/carpool lane were found to be in it
illegally, and it was necessary to place plastic stanchions
at 12 foot intervals along the lane line to discourage
violations. In addition, it has been necessary for the
California Highway Patrol to undertake a vigorous
enforcement campaign.
California also is experimenting with bypass lanes for
carpools at metered freeway ramps. So far, enforcement
appears to be less of a problem at the metered ramps
than on the Bay Bridge. Only about i 0 percent of the
cars using the bypass lanes have been found to be in
them illegally, although the use of the bypass can save as
much as 8 minutes of travel time (Ref. 8). However,
active enforcement of the lane-use rules is necessary to
maintain this level of violations.
The use of contra-flow freeway lanes by cars is
generally considered to be unsafe.
d. Automobile User Charges and F:ree or Reduced-
Rate Transit-The use of automobiles in cities, particu-
larly for peak period, downtown and commuter travel, is
greatly underpriced. One source of this underpricing is
free or reduced-rate parking. For example, the com-
mercial price of all day parking in downtown Washing-
ton, D. C. is roughly S2.00 per day. Yet, a survey of
auto commuters in the Shirley Highway corridor found
that 56 percent of the auto users parked free, and over
80 percent paid $1.00 per day or less (Ref. 3). Similarly,
a study for the Department of Transportation by the
Institute for Defense Analysis (Ref. 19) concluded:
Present auto road-user charges, consisting pri-
marily of gasoline taxes, are less than $.015 per
mile. This is far below the real cost of using the
road in both peak ($.29) and base ($.07) peri-
ods .... Clearly peak-hour private auto travel is
heavily subsidized. Charges sufficient to cover the
true costs of auto travel in urban areas would
surely cause a major restructuring of travel behav-
ior and urban form.
Underpricing of automobile use imposes a significant
cost disadvantage on transit from the traveller's point of
view. It encourages the excessive use of automobiles in
cities, particularly for work trips, and has contributed to
the decline of the transit industry in the United States.
As shown in Section 1 of this chapter, if the relative user
costs of transit and automobiles were changed by an
amount that reflected the current underpricing of
automobile use relative to transit use, a substantial
diversion of automobile drivers to transit and reduction
in automobile emissions could be achieved, assuming
that suitable transit facilities were available.
There are two basic ways in which the imbalance
between transit and automobile user costs might be
reduced. One is to reduce transit fares. The other is to
increase the cost of automobile use. Several studies and
experiments with free or reduced-rate transit have been
conducted in the United States in recent years. These
have generally concluded that transit fare reductions
alone are likely to have little effect on automobile use
and that transit service improvements are of much
greater importance in attracting automobile users to
transit. In Atlanta, for example, a reduction in the basic
fare from $0.40 to $0.15 together with only minor
service improvements resulted in the diversion to transit
of only about 20,000 automobile trips per day, roughly
2 percent of daily automobile trips (Ref. 20). A study of
free transit in Boston concluded that free transit would
have a negligible effect on auto shopping trips and would
reduce auto work trips by only about 14 percent. This
corresponds to roughly a 5 percent reduction in daily
automobile emissions.
A likely explanation of the discouraging results of
these and other studies of reduced-rate transit is that the
fare reductions were not accompanied by adequate
improvements in transit service. Several studies of the
relationship between transit usage, travel times, and
travel costs have indicated that the response of auto
drivers to changes in the relative costs of transit and auto
travel increases as the quality of transit service improves
(Ref. 2, 22). Whereas modest reductions in auto use can
be expected from fare reductions associated with high
quality transit service, little change in auto use can be
expected if transit service is poor. As explained in
Section 1 of this chapter, most existing transit systems
offer poor quality service relative to the automobile. The
reduced-fare transit experiments included relatively
minor service improvements. Thus, auto drivers for
whom transit was already prohibitively time consuming
or unavailable could not benefit from the reduced fares
and did not switch to transit. It is, therefore, not
surprising that the studies of reduced-fare transit service
have found that fare changes on an otherwise poor
transit system have little effect on automobile travel. It
remains to be determined whether actual experience
with high quality transit will confirm the afore-
mentioned hypothesis that fare reductions on good
transit systems can produce modest reductions in auto
use.
The second approach to rectifying the imbalance in
the relative user costs of transit and the automobile is to
increase the price of automobile use to reflect the true
costs of automobile use. There are several reasons why
increasing auto user charges in this manner is a more
attractive option than reducing transit fares:
• The existing cost imbalance is caused by the
underpricing of auto use, not the overpricing of
transit use. Thus, reduced transit fares will aggra-
vate the underpricing of urban transportation.
• The underpricing of automobile use can exceed
$2.00 per commuter round trip, whereas the
average transit fare is about $0.60 per round trip
-------
(Ref. 23). Therefore, unless transit fares are
unusually high, fare reductions will not fully
compensate for the current underpricing of the
automobile and cannot be as effective in reducing
auto use as auto user charges.
• Reduced fares will require transit to be subsidized
indefinitely. However, auto user charges could
assist in the attainment of the high vehicle
occupancies needed to make transit efficient and
self-supporting.
The principal disadvantage of increased auto user
charges is that they are burdensome to the public unless
high quality transit is available over widespread areas.
Whereas transit fare reductions and quality improve-
ments can be implemented independently, major transit
service improvement should precede or take place
concurrently with increases in auto user charges.
Methods of charging for the costs of auto use include
increased registration fees, increased fuel costs, road use
charges, parking taxes, and the sale of licenses for access
to selected areas within a city. Apart from their possible
inclusion in emissions reduction programs, many of
these methods of increasing the costs of auto use have
been proposed or implemented in connection with
programs to reduce fuel consumption, ease traffic
congestion, or encourage transit use. For example, in
1967 J. M. Thomson (Ref. 24) found that:
Traffic congestion has become an important social
and economic problem. One possibility of reduc-
ing congestion is to impose special charges on
traffic using congested roads.
Thomson estimated that requiring a 6 shilling daily
license for access to Central London would reduce
automobile traffic there by about 50 percent and that a
9 pence hourly parking tax (which has no effect on
through traffic) would reduce automobile traffic by
about 25 percent in peak periods and 10 percent at
other times. Subsequently, Thomson reported (Ref. 25)
that:
In London the Greater London Council have
obtained licensing powers to control the prices
charged by private parking companies. The objec-
tives are to prevent the prices from being too low
and to control the structure of charges in order to
discourage long-term parkers and other peak hour
traffic.
J. M. Armour (Ref. 26) has described a similar policy
in Glasgow:
The Highway Plan [for Glasgow], now being
implemented, involves a restraint on entry to the
central area .... Control may be exercised by
setting a limit to the number of [parking] spaces
to be provided, the charges to be made for parking
and the times when certain spaces may be opened
and closed .... It is expected that the number of
spaces for which parking charges must be paid will
increase from 800 (out of 18,000 in 1971) to
18,000 (out of 21,000) by 1980.
Automobile user charges have also been proposed to
remedy transportation problems in the United States.
For example, a report to the Department of Transporta-
tion by the London Transport Executive on methods of
encouraging increased transit usage by commuters in
U. S. cities (Ref. 27) included the following recom-
mendation:
Scales of charges and period structure should be
regulated to insure that at least the full economic
return for the parking facility (including land cost)
is recovered. Where necessary, lates should be
adjusted upwards to assist in achieving the right
economic balance between the peiceiveil cost ol
motoring and the cost of public transit fares Rates
should also be adjusted to insure that provision foi
all-day commuter parking is kept to the minimum
commensurate with overall policy and that com-
muting rates are substantially in excess of shoi t
term rates.
In another icport, on impiovmg transportation in the
Washington, D. C. area (Ref. 28), London Transport
included the following recommendation, winch it con-
sidered "likely to have particular impact and incut .
Obtain Congressional diuhoniy 101, ana im-
plement on a phased basis, a policy of charging
Federal employees at the approprrau- coniinurud]
rate for parking then private cais in Federal
agency parking accommodation ....
A downtown parking plan proposed foi Poiiland,
Oregon includes the recommendation that new parking
facilities be priced to encourage the use ol peripheral
parking by commuters (Ref. 33).
To be effective in reducing automobile use and
emissions, automobile user charges should be assessed on
daily auto use. Moreover, the charges should be suffi-
ciently flexible to distinguish between travellers who can
switch to transit relatively easily (e.g., commuters) and
those who cannot (e.g., ceitain kinds of shoppers), flic
charges should also be capable ol distinguishing between
geographical areas where transrt is available and thuse
where it is not. In areas where transit is poor,aulu user
charges could be phased in gradually as transit is
improved, and the revenues thus raised could be used to
pay the costs of the tiansit improvements. Among the
various possible methods of assessing auto user charges,
daily licenses, parking taxes, and ceitain approaches to
road-user tolls come closest to satisfying these ciitena.
Auto registration fees are neither flexible nor closely
related to daily auto use. Fuel taxes, in addition to being
inflexible, have the disadvantage that they can be
avoided through the purchase of a smaller car, which
uses less fuel — but does not pollute less - than a large
car. Moreover, the fuel cost increases needed to compen-
sate for the underpricing of parking can be quite large.
For example, a commuter who lives 10 miles from work
would have to be assessed a fuel surcharge of roughly
$1.50 per gallon to achieve equivalence with a $2.00 per
day parking fee.
Theie has been little direct experience with auto user
charges in the United States. Indeed, present public
policy tends to work in the opposite direction from the
one desired: registration fees are often lower for old,
heavily polluting cars than for newer and deaner ones,
tolls are imposed to pay for facilities when they are new
and uncrowded but are removed when the facilities are
paid for, which is when tolls are most needed; monthly
auto commuter tickets are available at a discount under
daily tickets; and long-term parking is frequently
cheaper per hour than short-term parking.
The only known place where the "before and after"
effects on traffic of a parking tax have been studied is
San Francisco. There, a 25 percent parking tax was
enacted in 1970 and remained in force until it was
reduced to 10 percent in 1972. The purpose of the tax
19
-------
20
was to generate revenue for the city. A retrospective
study of the effects of the tax (Ref. 29) reported that
the tax reduced traffic in San Francisco by less than 2
percent. This result is not surprising. The tax increased
the average cost of paid parking by only $0.25; it
affected only 20 percent of daily vehicle trips in San
Francisco; and, like the reduced-fare transit experiments,
it was not accompanied by significant transit improve-
ments.
The San Francisco experience and the reduced-fare
transit experiments show that modest changes in the
relative costs of transit and automobile travel are not a
substitute for transit service improvements. However, as
observed in the discussion of reduced fare transit, the
response of auto drivers to changes in the relative costs
of auto and transit travel is likely to increase as transit
service improves. Means of improving transit service
include fleet expansions, route restructuring and bus
priority treatment. The discussion in Section 1 of this
chapter and the work of Thomson indicate that suitably
structured auto user charges, if implemented in conjunc-
tion with the provision of high quality transit service,
can be highly effective in reducing automobile use in
cities.
e. Parking Restrictions-An alternative means of
compensating for the underpricing of automobile use in
cities and of discouraging the excessive use of automo-
biles is to restrict the availability of parking spaces. The
following examples demonstrate that parking restrictions
can be effective in encouraging transit and carpool use,
discouraging automobile use, and improving air quality:
• In Washington, D. C., Federal agencies have
adopted programs to encouiage carpooling. A
highly successful example is the National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration, which allocates
parking permits preferentially to carpools. An
average automobile occupancy of 3.85 persons per
car, nearly triple the normal rate, has been
achieved (Ref. 9).
• In London, England, the moving of employees
from a building with low parking provision to one
with high provision has resulted in a significant
increase in automobile use for commuting pur-
poses (Ref. 27).
• A survey of motorists parking in Central London
found that if parking were not available, 62
percent of the motorists would switch to public
transit in preference to other options such as using
taxis, walking, bicyclying or foregoing their trips.
Only 4 percent of the motorists reported that a car
was essential. (Ref. 25).
• When a strike caused the closing of 80 percent of
the parking spaces in downtown Pittsburgh, Penn-
sylvania, 75 percent of commuters switched to
transit, and peak period traffic in the central
business district declined by 25 percent (Ref. 30).
• A total ban on parking in downtown Marseilles,
France produced a 40% reduction in carbon
monoxide concentrations (Ref. 31).
In England, parking restrictions are a frequently used
means of regulating traffic. Many parking facilities there
remain closed until 9:30 a.m. to exclude commuters
(Ref. 27). In London, zoning regulations place a ceiling
on the maximum number of parking spaces that can be
provided in new office developments (Ref. 27). The
Glasgow Highway Plan provides for 27,000 parking
spaces in the central area in 1990 despite an estimated
potential demand of 65,000 spaces (Ref. 26). In the
Leicester plan, a ceiling of 22,500 parking spaces has
been established, whereas there would be demand for
67,000 spaces if unlimited use of cars were permitted
(Ref. 25).
The London Transport Executive report on parking
policy to encourage greater transit use by U. S.
commuters (Ref. 27) included the following recommen-
dations:
«... Regulation of [parking] capacity should be
used as a 1ool to assist in securing the desired
modal split between public and private transport
in accordance with transport policy for the city
concerned.
• As a ... deterrent to all-day commuter parking,
some parking garages or lots should if necessary
remain closed until after the normal starting times
for commuters.
Parking limitations to control traffic volumes and
improve air quality are not intended to restrict access to
the affected parts of cities. Rather, they are intended to
influence the mode of access. Thus, parking restrictions,
like free transit and automobile user charges, are not a
substitute for transit improvements or other means of
providing alternatives to low occupancy automobile
travel. Moreover, parking restrictions should be designed
so as to have their greatest influence on those auto-
mobile travellers who can most easily switch to other
modes.
The structure of parking restrictions can have a
significant influence on the types of trips affected by the
restrictions. Commuters are among the travellers most
readily attracted to transit. Thus, one of the principal
objectives of parking restrictions should be to influence
commuter mode choice. Restrictions of long term
parking or of parking during the morning peak period
will serve this objective. However, simple reductions in
the total quantity of available parking in an area may
not affect commuters at all. For example, downtown
parking space is frequently allocated on a first-come
first-served basis or through monthly contracts. Since
commuters tend to arrive downtown earlier than other
travellers, are major contract users, and are responsible
for nearly half of the downtown parking demand in
U. S. cities (Ref. 32), simple reductions in available
parking space downtown are likely to result in the
consumption of the remaining space by commuters and
the restriction of non-work travellers.
Parking restrictions that apply only to on-street
parking are likely to have little effect on either traffic
volumes or air quality. For example, in downtown areas,
on-street parking accounts for less than 20 percent of
commuter parking and 15 percent of total parking (Ref.
32). Since about 55 percent of downtown traffic is
through traffic that does not park, a complete prohibi-
tion of on-street parking could affect no more than 6
percent of downtown traffic. If, as is frequently the
case, there exists excess off-street parking capacity, the
effect of the on-street restrictions will be even less. Thus,
to be effective, parking restrictions must include off-
street spaces.
The availability of excess parking capacity can
strongly influence the effectiveness of parking restric-
tions in reducing traffic volumes. For example, total
parking capacity in the downtown areas of large cities
-------
tends to exceed demand by roughly 30 percent. This
does not necessarily imply that all parking facilities have
excess capacity. However, it does mean that parking
restrictions must be designed to take account of the
varying degrees of excess capacity that may exist among
various locations. Failure to do this may cause parking
restrictions that appear extremely stringent to be in-
effective in reducing traffic. For example, in a typical
downtown area a total prohibition of on-street parking
(13 percent reduction in total spaces) and a 25 percent
reduction in public off-street parking (64 percent of
capacity) could have the effect of reducing available
parking by only 29 percent. This might just eliminate
excess parking capacity and, thus, produce no reduction
in downtown traffic.
In summary, parking restrictions can be effective in
reducing automobile traffic and improving air quality.
However, their effectiveness is contingent upon satisfy-
ing the following conditions:
• The restrictions should be accompanied by the
provision of alternative modes to the low occu-
pancy automobile.
• The restrictions should be structured so as to
affect those automobile travellers most likely to
switch to other modes.
• Off-street parking should be included in the
restrictions.
• The restrictions must be sufficiently stringent to
reduce the quantity of occupied parking space as
well as excess capacity.
References
1. Joel L. Horowitz, "Transportation Controls are Really Needed
in the air Cleanup Fight," Environmental Science and Tech-
nology, Vol. 8, pp. 800-805, Sept. 1974.
2 "A Disaggregated Behavioral Model of Urban Travel Demand,"
prepared by Charles River Associates, Inc. for the Federal
Highway Administration under Contract No. FH-11-7566,
March 1972.
3 Gerald K. Miller and Keith M. Goodman, The Shirley Highway
Express-Bus-on-Freeway Demonstration Project - First Year
Results, Interim Report No. 2, prepared for the Urban Mass
Transportation Administration, November 1972.
4. Additions and Revisions to the Implementation Plan for the
Control of Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Hydrocarbons,
and Photochemical Oxidants for the District of Columbia
Portion of the National Capital Interstate Air Quality Control
Region, prepared by the government of the District of
Columbia and the National Capital Interstate Air Quality
Planning Committee, April 1973.
5. Joel L. Horowitz, "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Alternative
Strategies for Reducing Emissions from Motor Vehicles,"
Proceedings of the Third International Clean Air Congress, pp.
F35-F36, VDI Verlag, GmbH, Dusseldorf, Federal Republic of
Germany, 1973.
6. Harry E. Strate, "Automobile Occupancy," Nationwide
Personal Transportation Survey, Report No. 1, Department of
Transportation, April 1972.
7. Joel L. Horowitz and Lloyd M. Pernela, "Comparison of
Automobile Emissions According to Trip Type in Two
Metropolitan Areas," Environmental Protection Agency, May
1974.
8. Freeway Lanes for High Occupancy Vehicles (Third Annual
Progress Report), State of California, Business and Transporta-
tion Agency, December 1973.
9. Lew Pratsch, Carpool and Buspool Matching Guide, Depart-
ment of Transportation, Feb. 1973.
10. Letter to Arthur W. Busch, Regional Administrator, Region V,
Environmental Protection Agency, from Hamilton H. Howze,
Bell Helicopter Company, January 1974.
11. Joel L. Horowitz and Lloyd M. Pernela, "Analysis of Urban
Area Automobile Emissions According to Trip Type," Trans-
portation Research Record, No. 492, 1974.
12 Jerry D. Ward and Norman G. Paulhus, Jr., Suburbanization
and Its Implications for Transportation Systems, Report No.
DOT-TST-74-8, Department of Transportation, April 1974.
13 Bus Use of Highways: State of the Art, Report No. 143,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Highway
Research Board, 1973.
14. Downtown Distribution Plan San Bernardino Freeway Express
Busway, prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates for the
Southern California Rapid Transit District, March 1973.
15. Preliminary Report: A Special Program of Low Capital Cost
Transit Improvements for Los Angeles, prepared by Alan M.
Vorhees and Associates, Inc. for the Southern California Rapid
Transit District, May 1973.
16. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 87, Highway
Research Board, 1965.
17. John F. Kain, "How to Improve Urban Transportation at
Practically No Cost," Public Policy, Vol. XX, pp. 335-358,
Summer 1972.
18. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, (Second
Edition), Report No. AP-42, Environmental Protection
Agency, April 1973.
19. J. Hayden Boyd, Norman J. Asher, and Elliot S. Wetzler,
Evaluation of Rail Rapid Transit and Express Bus Service in
the Urban Commuter Market, Report No. DOT P 6520.1,
October 1973.
20. The Effect of Fare Reduction and Service Changes on Transit
Ridership Patterns in the Atlanta Region, Metropolitan Atlanta
Rapid Transit Authority, August 1973.
21. Thomas A. Domencich and Gerald Kraft, Free Transit, Health
Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1970.
22. Implementation of the N-Dimensional Logit Model, prepared
for the Comprehensive Planning Organization, San Diego
County, California, by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company,
May 1972.
23. '72-'73 Transit Fact Book, American Transit Association,
Washington, D.C.
24. J. M. Thomson, "An Evaluation of Two Proposals for Traffic
Restraint in Central London," Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, pp. 327-367, Sept. 1967.
25. J. M. Thomson, Methods of Traffic Limitation in Urban Areas,
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
1972.
26. J. Armour, "Parking Objectives in Glasgow," British Parking
Association Seminar, May 1971, quoted in Ref. 25.
27. A Generalized Automobile Parking Policy to Encourage In-
creased Use of Public Transit by Commuters, Report No.
DOT-OS-10192, Department of Transportation, July 1972.
28. Action Plan for Early Improvements in Transportation in the
Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area, Report No. DOT-
OS-10192, July 1972.
29. Damian J. Kulash, "Parking Taxes as Roadway Prices: A Case
Study of the San Francisco Experience," Transportation
Research Record No. 494, pp. 25-34, 1974.
30. Lester A. Hoel and Ervin S. Roszner, "The Pittsburgh Parking
Strike," Report No. UMTA-PA-11-0011-72-2, prepared for the
Department of Transportation, December 1972.
31 Kenneth Orski, "Car Free Zones and Traffic Restraints: Tools
of Environmental Management," Highway Research Record,
No. 406, 1972.
32 R. W. Stout, A Report on CBD Parking, Highway Planning
Technical Report No. 23, Department of Transportation, April
1971.
33. Downtown Portland Parking Plan, Deleuw, Gather and Com-
pany, October 1972.
2]
-------
chapter 4 - transportation
control regulations
1. Legal Background
Section 109 ot the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857c-4)
requires the EPA "within thirty days after the date of
enactment of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970" to
publish proposed regulations for setting forth a national
pninaiy ail quality standard "for each air pollutant for
which air quality criteria have been issued prior to such
date of enactment" and to promulgate them within 90
days after proposal.* The Act icquires that the primary
standards protect the public health with an adequate
margin ol siifety and that the secondary standards
piov, t (he |.iu'oHc \veltaie Irom aii\ known or antici-
p-iloij .ulverse ol frets.
''Ciitcnn documents", which are comprehensive sum-
maries, written and reviewed by broadly based and
technically qualified groups, ol the adverse health and
welfare effects of various air pollutants, had been
prepared for carbon monoxide and photochemical oxi-
dants, the two air pollutants caused largely by the
automobile, prior to the enactment of the Clean Air
Amendments on December 31, 1970. Accordingly,
primary standards for these pollutanis were promulgated
on April 30, 1971. 36 Federal Register 8186 (April 30,
1971).
Under Section 110 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1857c-5)
States weie required to prepare and submit to the
Administiator plans for implementing the national am-
bient air quality standards in each air quality control
region in the State within nine months after that
standard had been promulgated. Foar months after the
end of that nine month period, the Administrator was
required to announce whether the plans so submitted
wen; appuwablc under the conditions set forth in
Section 110(a)(2)(A)-(H).
If the Administrator disapproved a State plan or
poitiori thereof, or if a State failed to submit an
implementation plan or portion thereof, he was required
under Section 110(c) of the Act to propose and
subsequently piomulgate regulations setting forth a
substitute implementation plan. If regulatory portions of
a State plan, including contiol plans and related rules
and regulations, weie disapproved or were not sub-
mitted, regulations setting forth subsiitute portions were
to be proposed.
Section 1 l()(a) requires that a valid implementation
plan set forth a contiol stiategy that attains the ambient
standards as expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than three years from the date the Administrator's
approvals and disapprovals were announced. Thus, the
standards must be achieved no later than May 31, 1975.
For those areas that cannot achieve the standards by this
date, an extension under Section 110(e)of the Act may
be granted. To quality for any extension, a plan must
demonstrate that certain elements of the necessary
control strategy will not be available by 1975; that there
are no earlier, unused alternatives to these delayed
elements; and that available emissions controls will be
applied as soon as possible.
22
*Quotations in this section are from the Clean Air Act.
The effect of the requirement that an extension be
granted for a specific control measure only if "the
necessary technology is unavailable," if "reasonably
available alternative means" of emission reduction are
considered and applied, and if "interim measures of
control" that the Administrator determines are
"reasonable under the circumstances" are applied, is to
assure that the standards are attained "as expeditiously
as practicable." In essence, if a control measure is
"technologically feasible", "practicable", "available",
and "reasonable . . . under the circumstances," it should
be part of a plan before any extension is given for other
measures whose implementation in 1975 would not be
technologically feasible, practicable, available or reason-
able under the circumstances. This provision of the Act
applies to plans promulgated by EPA as well as to those
submitted by the States. If EPA believed that such an
extension would be needed for a region, the proposal to
grant such extension was included in the promulgated
plan.
The adopted implementation plan must provide
unconditionally and without regard to cost for achieving
air quality standards by 1977, even if the maximum
possible extension under Section 110(e) is granted.
However, under Section 110(f) a further extension of up
to one year in the applicability of a portion of such a
plan may be granted by the Administrator if the
Governor of the State involved applies for it and if it is
shown in a formal hearing that:
• Good faith efforts have been made to comply with
the portion of the plan involved
• Compliance with the affected portion of the plan
is impossible because "the necessary technology or
other alternative methods of control are not
available or have not been available for a sufficient
period of time"
• [A] ny available alternative operating procedures
and interim control measures have reduced or will
reduce the impact of [the sources that would be
controlled by the deferred plan requirement] on
public health"
• "[T]he continued operation of [the sources in-
volved] is essential to national security or to the
public health or welfare."
The presence in the ambient air of carbon monoxide
and photochemical oxidants is largely attributable to
motor vehicles. Consequently, many States were unable
to formulate and submit adequate control strategies for
these pollutants utilizing only limitations on emissions
from stationary sources. However, as the Administrator
noted in his May 31, 1972 approval/disapproval of
implementation plans, neither the States nor the En-
vironmental Protection Agency had any practical experi-
ence that would permit the development of meaningful
transportation control plans or the prediction of their
effects on air quality. Consequently, States were advised
in August 1971 (36 FR 15486) that adoption of
transportation control plans could be deferred beyond
the statutory deadline for submittal of implementation
plans but that the submitted plans would have to define
the degree of emission reduction to be achieved through
transportation control measures and identify the meas-
ures being considered. Transportation control plans were
to be designed to augment the existing State implemen-
tation plan and the Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program (FMVCP). States were required to submit
-------
adopted transportation control plans no later than
February 15, 1973.
Many States requested 2-year extensions pursuant to
Section 110(e) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1857-5(e)) for the
dttainrnent of the primary standards for the auto-related
pollutants based on the unavailability of transportation
control measures. The Administrator determined that, in
facl, transportation control measures would not be
available soon enough to permit attainment of the
primaiy standards within the three-year time period
prescribed by the Act; therefore, two-year extensions
\veie granted at the request of those States that had
determined that transportation control measures would
be necessary. In some cases, this meant that States were
toijuired to submit on February 15, 1973 transportation
and/or land use control measures that would achieve the
standards by 1977. In other cases, the two-year exten-
sion meant thai ceitain States would not have to submit
tiansportation control measures because the FMVCP
and/ot stationaiy source conttol would be adequate to
achieve the standards by 1977 without the application
of any other transpoitation and/or land use measures.
The Administrator's decision to defer transportation
control plans and to grant two-year extensions to all
States requesting them led to two lawsuits against EPA,
both of which succeeded. The first involved Los Angeles
only arid was brought by the cities of San Bernardino
and Riverside together with certain environmental
groups. City of Riverside v. Ruckelshaus, 4 ERC 1728
(C.D., Calif., 1972). The court there ruled on November
16, 1972, that the Administrator had acted illegally in
deferring the transportation control plan for Los Ange-
les, and ordered him to propose such a plan by January
15, 1973. The court order stated explicitly that "such
proposed regulations shall demonstrate that the national
primary ambient air quality standard for photochemical
oxidants shall be attained within three years of the date
of final adoption [or, if the two-year extension men-
tioned above had been granted, within five years] ".
The second lawsuit was brought by a collection of
national environmental groups in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 475 F.2d
968 (D. C. Cir. 1973), hereafter citied as the NRDC case.
It involved transportation control plans for all cities
other than Los Angeles and maintenance of all national
ambient air quality standards once they are achieved.
With respect to transportation control plans, the
court held that while the Administrator acted "in the
best of faith," the Clean Air Act did not permit the
delay in submission of transportation control portions of
State implementation plans until February 15, 1973, or
permit the granting of extensions to mid-1977 for
attainment of the national primary air standards where
plans had not been submitted. The order required the
Administrator to formally rescind through notice to the
States and publication in the Federal Register the
extension of time granted for submission of transporta-
tion and/or land use control portions of implementation
plans. It also required the Administrator to formally
rescind in the same manner the extension granted to
several States to delay implementation of their plans or
portions thereof until May 31, 1977. The court further
ordered the Administrator to inform the States con-
cerned that all States that had not yet submitted an
implementation plan fully complying with the require-
ments of the Clean Air Act of 1970 were to submit sucli
a plan by April 15, 1973. That plan would have to
satisfy each and every requirement of Section 110(a)(2)-
(A)-(H) if it were to be approved by the Administrator.
In accordance with this order, 22 States including the
District of Columbia were notified by telegram on
February 5, 1973, that any extensions granted because
of the unavailability of transportation and/or land use
controls were canceled and that plans for the attainment
and maintenance of the standards for the three pollut-
ants would be required by April 15, 1973. A Federal
Register notice was issued on March 20, 1973, (38 FR
7323), to complete the requirements of that court order.
This notice provided that every State granted an
extension to achieve the transportation-related air qual-
ity standards and/or permitted to defer submittal of the
transportation and/or land use control strategies until
February 15, 1973, would be required to submit no later
than April 15, 1973, transportation and/or land use
controls showing achievement of the standards by 1975.
In addition to those States that were required to submit
transportation and/or land use control strategies on
February 15, 1973, a number of other States, which had
regions that would not achieve the standard by 1975 but
which had not been required to submit transportation
control strategies because the FMVCP was capable of
achieving the standards by 1977, were required to
submit transportation control strategies on April 15,
1973. States that were not granted an extension but
which had deficient plans were also required to submit
transportation control strategies on April 15, 1973.
Strategies adopted by the States had to provide for
attainment and maintenance of these standards by May
31, 1975. At the time of submission of a plan on April
15, 1973, the Governor of a State could request an
extension up to 2 years for compliance with the
provisions of these plans if the specific requirements of
Section 110(e) were satisfied by the State plan.
2. Air Quality Considerations
After the court order in the NRDC case, EPA advised
the States of the potential need for transportation
control plans in 39 metropolitan areas. Table 13 shows
the air quality levels in each area used to assess the need
for transportation controls. The table also shows the
estimated reductions in hydrocarbon and/or carbon
monoxide emissions required to achieve the air quality
standards, the emission reductions that were expected
by 1975 as a result of the FMVCP and existing
stationary source controls, and the emissions reductions
that had to be achieved through additional stationary
source controls and/or transportation controls.
Seven of the 39 areas listed in Table 13 were found
capable of achieving the air quality standards in 1975
through existing stationary source controls and the
FMVCP. In addition, transportation controls are not
needed in the Indio area in California, as the elevated
oxidant levels in this area are caused by pollutant
transport from Los Angeles. The remaining 31 areas
need additional emissions reductions of 5 to 59 percent.
Seven of these areas could achieve the air quality
standards by 1975 through the implementation of
additional stationary source controls (2 areas) or
through the use of such transportation controls such as
inspection and maintenance or transit improvements (5
areas).
23
-------
TABLE 13 - Air Quality Su
State
City
nmary for 39 Metropolitan Areas3
Oxidant
Concentration
(ppm)
% Hydrocarbon
Reduction
Needed
Carbon Monoxide
Concentration
(pprnf
% Reduction
Needed
% Reduction in 1975
from FMVCP and
Existing Stationary
Source Controls
Hydro-
carbon
Carbon
Monoxide
Additional Reductions
Required (%)
Hydro- Carbon
carbon Monoxide
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
District of
Columbia0
Illinois
Indiana
Missouri
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Washington
Birmingham
Mobile
Fairbanks
Phoenix
Los Angeles
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin V.
Indio
Denver
Washington
Chicago
Indianapolis
Kansas City
Baton Rouge
Baltimore
Boston
Springfield
Minneapolis
Camden-Trenton
Newark
New York
Rochester
Syracuse
Cincinnati
Dayton
Toledo
Portland
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Austin
Dallas
El Paso
Houston
San Antonio
Salt Lake City
Seattle
Spokane
.10
.14
NA
.13
.62
.28
.32
.36
.24
.38
.18
.20
NA
.13
NA
.13
.21
.25
NA
NA
.15
.20
.20
.14
NA
.14
.12
.15
.14
.13
.15
.11
.12
.12
.32
.14
NA
NA
NA
18
41
NA
31
93
72
75
78
67
70
60
67
NA
38
NA
40
70
68
NA
NA
47
67
67
45
NA
43
30
50
43
54
49
27
34
34
75
45
NA
NA
NA
14 H
NAd
27
26
41
22
18
18
15
17
25
20
18
12
14
NA
21
22
21
15
30
17
40
NA
11
NA
NA
NA
23
20
21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22
20
18
37
NA
66
66
78
59
50
48
40
47
64
56
50
25
29
NA
57
59
57
40
70
47
78
NA
25
NA
NA
NA
60
55
57
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
59
55
50
47
52
NA
31
34
17
34
19
20
Dependent
12
31
NA
19
NA
55
25
24
NA
NA
27
34
48
38
NA
38
43
50
30
17
35
19
22
22
36
19
NA
NA
NA
53
NA
14
26
34
21
34
33
19
on Los
14
30
40
25
30
NA
20
34
16
29
20
20
33
NA
29
NA
NA
NA
26
32
28
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11
18
21
0
0
0
0
59
50
41
59
47
Angeles
48
36
0
19
0
0
45
44
0
0
20
33
19
7
0
5
0
0
13
37
14
8
12
12
39
26
0
0
0
0
0
52
40
44
38
16
15
21
Reductions
50
26
10
0
0
0
37
25
41
11
50
27
45
0
0
0
0
0
34
23
29
0
0
0
0
0
48
37
29
Notes: aBased on information in State implementation plans. bEight-hour average. cIncluding Maryland and Virginia Suburbs. dNot applicable.
24
-------
TABLE 14 — Air Quality Summary for Metropolitan Areas Granted Time Extensions3
State
Alaska
Arizona
City
Oxidant
Concentration
(ppm)
Fairbanks NA"
Phoenix . 1 3
% Hydrocarbon
Reduction
Needed
Carbon Monoxide
Concentration
(ppm)b
NA 27
31 26
% Reduction
Needed
Extension
Compliance
Date
% Reduction
from FMVCP
& Existing Stationary
Source Controls0
Hydro-
carbon
66 1977 NA
66 1977 NA
Carbon
Monoxide
Additional Reductior
Needed (%)
Hydro-
carbon
32 NA
37 NA
Carbon
Monoxidt
34
29
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
District of
Columbia6
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Washington
Fairbanks
Phoenix
Los Angeles
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin V.
Denver
Washington
Baltimore
Boston
Springfield
Camden-Trenton
Newark
New York
Portland
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Dallas
Houston
San Antonio
Salt Lake City
Seattle
Spokane
NAd
.13
.62
.28
.32
.36
.24
.18
.20
.21
.25
NA
.15
.20
.20
NA
.13
.15
.12
.32
.14
NA
NA
NA
NA
31
93
72
75
78
67
60
67
70
68
NA
47
67
67
NA
54
49
34
75
45
NA
NA
NA
27
26
41
22
18
18
17
25
20
21
22
21
30
17
40
23
20
21
NA
NA
NA
22
20
18
66
66
78
59
50
48
47
64
56
57
59
57
70
47
78
60
55
57
NA
NA
NA
59
55
50
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1976
1976
1977
1976
1977
1977
1976
1976
1976
NA
NA
47
21
48
25
32
23
47
37
33
NA
30
45
55
NA
34
46
27
65
29
NA
NA
NA
32
37
47
34
47
43
24
31
49
25
50
27
33
29
48
39
44
48
NA
NA
NA
19
25
28
NA
NA
46
51
27
53
35
37
20
33
35
NA
17
24
12
NA
21
4
7
10
16
NA
NA
NA
34
29
31
25
3
5
16
33
7
32
9
30
37
18
30
21
12
9
NA
NA
NA
40
30
22
Notes.
aBased on information in State implementation plans.
Eight-hour average.
cAt end of extension period.
Not applicable.
Including Maryland and Virginia suburbs.
25
-------
EPA determined that the remaining 24 regions would
need additional time beyond 1975 to achieve the air
quality standards. Table 14 shows the time extensions
these areas were granted to achieve the standards, the
additional emission reductions provided by existing
emissions control programs during the extension periods,
and the emissions reductions required through transpor-
tation controls. The granting of time extensions was
based upon implementation of all available measures as
expeditiously as practicable. Even with these extensions,
which in most cases are to 1977, emissions reductions of
7 to 53 percent are required. The emissions reductions at
the high end of this range represent vehicle miles of
travel (VMT) reductions of 50 to over 90 percent.
In total, 29 metropolitan areas now have transporta-
tion control plans.* At present, it appears likely that at
least 10 of these areas will not achieve the air quality
standards by 1977 through the implementation of
reasonably available emissions controls. These areas
include Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Fresno,
Sacramento, Baltimore, Newark, Houston, Denver, and
Fairbanks. The transportation control plans for all of
these areas except Fairbanks include gasoline rationing
that will take effect in 1977 if legally required to achieve
the air quality standards (see Section 3). However, EPA
'does not consider gasoline rationing to be a reasonable
or desirable approach to emissions reduction. Therefore,
in March, 1973 EPA submitted to Congress a proposed
amendment to the Clean Air Act that would avoid the
need for gasoline rationing by providing additional
flexibility in the setting of target dates for achieving the
transportation related air quality standards (see Appen-
dix C).
Recent air quality data indicate that certain areas
which were not required to submit transportation
control plans in 1973 may need to do so in the future.
This is particularly true in areas that have recently begun
to collect reliable air quality data for the first time and
in areas that have unusually high VMT growth rates. In
addition, recent air quality data gathered from many of
ihe areas that have transportation control plans indicate
(hat air quality has not improved since the time of the
development of the plans. In several of these areas
pollutant concentrations higher than those used in
developing the transportation control plans have been
recorded. For example, during 1974, Chicago, Dallas,
and Denver recorded new, high oxidant readings as did
Baltimore and Washington, D. C. during 1973. Air
quality monitoring conducted in Boston from 1971
through 1974 has shown that the number of days per
year the national standards for carbon monoxide are
exceeded has grown in frequency. The recorded concen-
trations have increased as well. Though some of these
recorded readings may be the result of a more extensive
and effective monitoring system rather than deteriorat-
ing air quality, the newly recorded high concentrations
reaffirm the need for transportation plans.
3. Transportation Control Measures to Reduce Auto
Use
The principal approaches to reducing auto use that
are employed in the transportation control plans are
26
*These 29 areas are contained in 27 AQCR's. The New York
City and Philadelphia AQCR's each contain :wo metropolitan
.areas.
discussed in Chapter 3. This section describes the
specific auto use reduction measures considered by the
States, localities, and EPA in developing transportation
control plans. None of the measures described here is
included in all transportation plans. The process through
which the States, localities and, where necessary, EPA
selected measures for the inclusion in specific plans is
described in Section 4.
As indicated in Chapter 3, the auto-use and emissions
reductions achieved by transportation controls derive
from the effects of the entire group of measures
included in a transportation control plan, rather than the
effects of individual measures. Moreover, the effective-
ness of specific auto-use reduction approaches is strongly
dependent on local conditions. Thus, no attempt has
been made here to quantify the auto-use or emissions
reduction effectiveness of individual transportation con-
trol measures.
a. Bus and Carpool Priority Treatment
Priority treatment for buses and carpools consists of
allocating highway facilities preferentially to these ve-
hicles for the purpose of increasing their average speeds.
The usefulness of bus priority treatment in attracting
auto drivers to transit is dependent on the quality of the
transit system or subsystem that uses priority treatment.
Hence, in areas where bus priority treatment is included
in a transportation control plan, the measure is a part of
an integrated transit improvement program. For exam-
ple, in the Washington, D. C. area, priority treatment is
used in combination with bus fleet expansion, the
addition of new transit routes, and improved bus
scheduling.
b. Carpooling Programs
Many transportation control plans include measures
that provide computerized carpool matching pro-
grams and preferential carpool treatment programs. The
matching programs provide for the formation of car-
pools, and the preferential treatment programs provide
incentives such as free parking to encourage carpools.
Computerized carpool locator programs have been
established in cities such as Washington, D. C. in
cooperation with the Council of Governments; Boston,
Massachusetts; Knoxville, Tennessee, and Omaha,
Nebraska. KnoxviQe and Omaha have no existing re-
quirements for transportation controls.
c. Employer Transit Incentive Regulations
Employer transit incentive regulations require em-
ployers who have i'acilities with large parking facilities (a
minimum of 200-700 spaces) to submit a plan which
encourages the use of carpools and mass transit, while at
the same time discouraging the use of single-passenger
automobiles for work related commuting. Under this
approach, the employer has the flexibility to develop his
own plan to minimize the impact of his facility on the
area's vehicle miles traveled. The concept is based on
already existing programs which have been developed by
employers to discourage energy inefficient commuting
habits. In addition, many employers have voluntarily
started such programs to avoid the acquisition of land
for additional parking facilities.
Companies such as Minnesota Mining and Manu-
facturing, and Aerospace Corporation of El Segundo,
California have already illustrated the effectiveness of
this approach in reducing commuter auto usage. Realiz-
ing the high costs of expanding their current parking
facilities and the need to conserve energy, the Minnesota
-------
Mining and Manufacturing Company has initiated a
vanpooling program. The company has already pur-
chased 67 vans and intends to expand the fleet to 200
vans which will serve some 2,400 employees. The
program is currently eliminating the need for 1.5 million
miles of travel a year and annually saves an estimated
120,000 gallons of gasoline. Through vanpooling and the
company's carpooling program, about 40 percent of the
3M employees engage in some form of ride sharing. The
program pays for itself through monthly vanpool passen-
ger fees of $19 to $29. Furthermore, people like the
program. Of the vanpool commuters, 41 percent used to
drive to work alone and 95 percent find the program
more convenient than the private auto.
The Aerospace Corporation in El Segundo, Cali-
fornia has formulated an extensive employee carpool
and charter bus program. This program includes both the
employees of the Aerospace facility and the employees
of a neighboring Air Force facility. The carpool-
ing program alone reduces VMT by 4.55 million miles a
year which is equivalent to 13 percent of the total VMT
generated by employees at the two facilities. This
involves a savings of 300,000 gallons of gasoline annually
and a reduction of 50 tons of pollutants. In addition,
over 250,000 gallons of gasoline are saved annually by
the charter bus program.
d. Parking Programs
Parking regulatory programs are used in several
transportation control plans to complement the im-
provement of mass transportation and carpooling al-
ternatives. The transportation plans include two general
types of parking regulations: on-street parking controls
and parking management programs. The on-street park-
ing controls are similar to common regulations in various
cities to prevent congestion and to discourage commuter
parking on public streets. In most cases, the on-street
parking regulations are part of a locally developed
approved plan as suggested by local officials for promul-
gation in an EPA plan.
Parking management regulations are required both
to assure that new parking facilities, usually having 250
or more spaces, do not cause a localized carbon
monoxide problem around the facility, and to minimize
the effects new parking facilities will have on an area's
vehicle miles traveled. The parking management program
requires the owner or operator of a proposed new
parking facility to obtain an air quality permit prior to
construction of his new facility. The permit can be
obtained by demonstrating that the new facility will not
cause or exacerbate a violation of the national ambient
air quality standard and that either the facility will not
cause an increase in vehicle miles traveled or that efforts
have been made to minimize the facility's effect on
VMT. These efforts would be similar to those made by
existing employers under the employer incentive plan.
Minimization measures would include the commitment
to assure that alternative transit forms such as carpooling
and mass transit will be available at the new facility.
Under the parking management regulations the
States are encouraged to develop their own area-wide
parking facility plans to replace the Federal regulations.
These plans would focus on the inter-relationship of
transportation alternatives and new parking facilities.
The plans would set forth the manner in which the
location, operation and increase in the number of
parking related facilities are to be kept consistent with
air quality needs throughout the area. The plans could
also assure that the new facilities complemented rather
than competed with existing and developing transit
facilities. London already uses parking restrictions as a
traffic control approach (see Chapter 3), and several
areas such as San Diego, Los Angeles, Portland, and
Seattle have begun such plans.
e. Transit Expansion and Improvement
The improvement and expansion of mass transit
facilities is one of the key elements for the success of
transportation plans. Bus fleet expansion will allow
service to be upgraded in several major respects:
• Existing routes can offer more frequent service
• New routes can be established which allow more
people the opportunity of transit
• Older uncomfortable vehicles can be replaced with
smoother riding, air-conditioned vehicles.
Many areas have established within the last 2 years
programs to improve and upgrade existing transit sys-
tems. Therefore, in the near future many areas will begin
to offer the type of alternative transit which is required
to help achieve the required VMT reductions. An
example of the type of improvement which can effect a
reduction in VMT is the Seattle "Magic Carpet" pro-
gram. City wide faie reductions along with free fares
within the CBD were associated with a fleet expansion
and exclusive bus lanes. The increased ridership will help
Seattle achieve the VMT reductions necessary to achieve
the National Ambient Air Quality Standaids.
In the development of the transpoitation control
plans, EPA took into account the local plans foi the
upgrading of mass transit and included these plans in the
projections of VMT into future years. Thus, many areas
were given air quality credit for the programs they have
established. EPA specifically approved transit plans as
part of the transportation control plans in three areas
(Washington, D. C., Baltimore, Seattle) where local
officials had made firm commitments for fleet expan-
sions. In other areas EPA did not approve nor disapprove
the measure but, instead, projected the improvements
into future VMT predictions. If the system expansion
plans do not materialize, appropriate plan modifications
must be made in future years.
Sufficient Federal funding is necessary if these areas
are to expand transit to the level necessary to provide
assistance in achieving the VMT reduction goals con-
tained in the plans. EPA has been working with DOT to
assure the availability of such funding (see Chapter 6). In
addition, States and localities must be willing to increase
their support for mass transit. Ideas such as using sales
tax revenues for capital and operating expenses and
therefore stabilizing fares have been successfully imple-
mented in Atlanta. Other areas must continue to provide
the necessary local commitment if expanded mass transit
is to become a reality.
f. Parking Surcharge and Parking Fees
Several of the EPA promulgated plans called for
the implementation of surcharges or commercial rates on
parking. The use of such fees both discourages non-
carpool automobile commuting and provides a source of
financing for transit improvements (see Chapters 3 and
5). The measure can help bring about a significant
change in urban driving habits with a minimum of social
disruption if the fees are properly formulated and
17
-------
28
integrated with transit improvements. The program
provides a wide latitude of individual choice to the
driver. Those whose needs or preferences are strongly in
favor of using the single passenger automobile may
continue to do so, although at a somewhat higher cost;
those who can easily adopt to other modes of transit or
a carpool will have an incentive to take such action.
The use of parking surcharges was limited to three
parts of the country in the transportation control plans:
Washington, D. C., Boston, Massachusetts, and five
metropolitan areas in California (Los Angeles, San
Diego, San Francisco, Fresno, and Sacramento). In the
Washington area, the surcharge measure was formulated
by the Council of Governments and the local jurisdic-
tions. The measure was incorporated by the Council of
Governments into an area wide transportation plan
which included bus lanes, mass transit improvements,
carpooling programs, bikeways and general parking
regulations. The surcharge portion of the plan was
reasonably formulated to cover areas adequately served
by mass transit and was generally viewed as a sound
strategy. The plan was submitted to EPA for approval
and was partially approved. Though the plan set forth
adequate commitment for the local implementation of
the surcharge in the private sector, it called upon the
Federal Government to place it on the Federal facilities
in the D. C. area. EPA thus promulgated the charge
according to the plan's scheme for Federal facilities.
In Boston, the surcharge proposal was also formu-
lated by the State and local official:;. Since the State
could not submit a plan officially to EPA in the short
time available, the community representatives worked
with EPA on the details of the plan. The surcharge
measure for Boston was limited to areas with adequate
transit service. After being proposed and modified by
public hearings, the surcharge was promulgated as a part
of the Boston plan.
The surcharge measure also was discussed at public
meetings on the plans for the various cities in California.
However, the idea was not fully developed at the local
level. EPA promulgated the surcharge in the five cities
without having adequately analyzed now it should be
applied in California. Consequently, the promulgation
misapplied the surcharge-measure to the California cities.
The fee was applied to both small and large sources over
an area which was not adequately served by mass
transportation. The adverse reaction to the surcharge in
the California cities was thus well-founded. However, a
more judicious application of surcharge strategy in these
West Coast cities could have been beneficial.
EPA had concluded at the time of plan promulgation
that the statute provided the necessary authority to
require a surcharge. However, after Congress expressed
its in+cnt to prohibit EPA from promulgating parking
charges in the Conference Committee's draft report on
the Emergency Energy Act, the Administrator took
action to remove the measures from the affected plans
on January 15, 1974. (39 F.R. 1848, January 13, 1974).
The parking fee prohibition language was included in the
final Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination
Act of 1974. The statute still gives EPA. the auth< rity to
approve a State implementation plan which contains a
surcharge measure.
g. Gasoline Supply Limitations
Gasoline limitations are, at least in theory, one of the
most effective methods of reducing VMT.
At the time the transportation control plans were
first proposed, gasoline supply limitations were proposed
to be included in several plans. Two types of regulations
were proposed:
• A gasoline supply lid that would have become
effective during 1974 or 1975 which would have
limited the quantity of gasoline sold in an area to
fiscal 1973 levels;
• A regulation which would be implemented on May
31, 1977 to reduce an area's gasoline supply and
thus VMT, to the extent necessary to achieve the
ambient air quality standards.
The gasoline supply lid was dropped as a primary
control measure by EPA at the time the plans were
finally promulgated. The determination not to include
gasoline supply lids as "reasonably available" was based
upon the comments received during the public hearings
held on each plan and the Agency's evaluation of the
feasibility of implementing and administering an effec-
tive program. Moreover, possibilities of evasion, the
likelihood of noncompliance, and the difficulty of en-
forcement appeared too great to make this measure
practicable.
The gasoline supply reduction regulation to be
implemented on May 31, 1977, however, has been
retained in plans for several areas. In these areas, this
measure was included as a final resort measure to fulfill
the statutory requirement that a plan must achieve the
ambient air quality standards by 1977. In each of these
areas, even with - the FMVCP, additional stationary
source controls, inspection/maintenance programs,
reasonable VMT control measures, and retrofit strate-
gies, additional VMT reductions were necessary to
demonstrate attainment of the standards. As the Admin-
istrator has stated on several occasions, this measure has
been included in these plans to meet the technical
requirements of the law and the Agency does not intend
to implement this measure unless it is legally required to
do so. EPA has submitted a proposed amendment to the
Clean Air Act which would allow additional flexibility in
these heavily impacted areas (see Appendix C).
h. Additional VMT Reduction Measures
Several othei measures were considered and ac-
cepted or rejected for use in transportation control
plans. Measures used by the States or EPA to a limited
extent include bicycle lane programs and vehicle-free
zones. Some of the approaches which have been con-
sidered and not implemented include selective vehicle
exclusion strategies and gasoline truck delivery bans.
Bicycle Lanes
America is experiencing an unprecedented boom in
bicycle sales and usage. In 1973 15.3 million bicycles
were sold (Ref. 1). Studies submitted as technical
support for transportation plans have indicated that
increased use of bicycles in urban, short-distance com-
muting could assist in reducing VMT (Ref. 2, 3). Public
comments during the course of the plan development
also favored the increased use of bicycles in many areas.
An extensive bicycle lane program now underway in
Denver, Colorado has met with much popular support
and a vast increase in commuting bicycle riders. At
present, the major obstacles to cycling are high accident
rates, high bicycle theft rates, increased exposure to auto
pollutants, and insufficient support facilities. The last
problem tends to cause the previous three, and all of
them could therefore be gieatly alleviated by providing
-------
segregated bikeways and adequate support facilities. The
EPA approved or promulgated bicycle lane programs
generally provide for both physical separation and
adequate storage facilities.
Vehicle Free Zones
Traffic free zones are primarily used to control local
carbon monoxide problems. The zones are necessarily
restricted in size (approximately ten blocks or less) in
order to provide foot access. Vehicle free zones are being
included in plans for Springfield, Massachusetts, the
Camden-Trenton area of New Jersey, and Salt Lake City,
Utah to reduce carbon monoxide concentrations.
Selected Vehicle Use Prohibitions
In several regions, EPA proposed a regulation under
which the vehicle population would have been divided
into five categories. Each category of vehicles would
have been required to display prominently a tag of a
distinctive color: on one day of each working week
vehicles marked with one such color would have been
forbidden to operate.
Testimony at all the public hearings indicated that
measures of this type would be unenforceable because of
their severity and arbitrary nature. The number of
additional enforcement personnel necessary to imple-
ment such a program would have been so great as to
preclude the reasonable availability of this measure. If
the measure were implemented, many methods of
evasion would doubtless be devised. Consequently, use
of the selective vehicle ban was rejected as a strategy.
Gasoline Truck Delivery Bans
The emissions from gasoline-powered trucks are
regulated far less stringently than those from passenger
cars. EPA and certain local governments considered
imposing selective truck delivery bans as a strategy. This
approach would be intended to reduce pollution both by
removing congestion associated with truck deliveries
during peak traffic periods and by reducing emissions
from truck operations.
The degree of restriction on truck travel which is
consistent with the maintenance of a healthy economy
varies greatly from city to city. In most instances, the
potential for economic disruption combined with the
low contribution of trucks to total emissions caused
EPA to reject such measures. However, in New Jersey
the contribution of gasoline-powered trucks to overall
air pollution problems is far more significant than in
most areas. Therefore, EPA originally promulgated a
heavy-duty delivery ban during the morning hours for
the Northern New Jersey area. After receiving many
comments concerning this measure from the public and
affected industry, it was found that equivalent emissions
reductions from gasoline-powered trucks could be
achieved through a relatively inexpensive carburetor
modification or replacement. Accordingly, EPA revoked
the truck delivery ban and proposed the less socially
disruptive truck engine modification measure.
4 Transportation Control Plan Development Process
a. Initial State Submissions
The Clean Air Act assigns to States and the
affected cities primary responsibility for developing
implementation plans to achieve the ambient air quality
standards. By law, EPA promulgates an implementation
plan or portion of a plan only if a State fails to submit
an approvable plan by the legally established deadline. In
the case of the transportation portions of implementa-
tion plans, the deadline was April 15, 1973.
To assist States in the development of transportation
control plans, EPA financed contractors to work with
the affected areas to gather data and help draft the
required plans. The contractors generally completed
their activities in early 1973.
In most cases, the States took few actions beyond the
stage of technical cooperation with the contractors
during the period of contractor activity. Since transpor-
tation control plans had to be proposed, submitted to a
public hearing and comment process, reevaluated, and
approved by various levels of State government prior to
submission to EPA for approval, the majority of affected
States were far from a plan submission stage by early
1973. This situation was further complicated by the
court order in the NRDC case, which required submis-
sion of plans by additional States that had previously
relied solely on the FMVCP for standard attainment.
Consequently, few transportation control plans were
ready for submission to EPA by the court established
April 15 deadline.
By June 15, 1973, only 16 States had submitted
plans to EPA for approval. Most of these plans were
entirely disapproved or found to be partially inadequate.
Most of the approved plans required few transportation
control measures, since they demonstrated that station-
. / source controls combined with the new car emission
control program would provide for standard achieve-
ment by 1975. However, a stringent and approvable
transportation plan was submitted for New York City.
This plan was the first major State developed transporta-
tion control plan approved in its entirety.
EPA was legally required to propose transportation
controls on June 15, 1973 for areas that had submitted
inadequate plans of their own or no plans. Both before
and after the June 15 proposals were made, EPA worked
with State and local officials to encourage them to
formulate transportation control approaches that could
replace or be included among the EPA-proposed meas-
ures. EPA accepted the approvable portions of inade-
quate plans and proposed only additional measures that
complemented the approved portions. In many cases,
the EPA proposals employed the same approaches that
were submitted by the States but not approved due to
technical or legal omissions.
Plan development activity in the Washington, D.C.
area provides an example of this process. The plan for
the metropolitan Washington, D.C. was developed by the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments dur-
ing the 18 months preceeding the April submission date.
During April of 1973, the three affected jurisdictions
(Washington, D.C., Virginia, and Maryland) submitted
complementary plans for the National Capital area
which were partially approved. The EPA proposed
measures for the disapproved portions of the Washington
area plans followed the structure of the submitted plans.
The Agency continued to work with the Council of
Governments and representatives of the various jurisdic-
tions to finish a new plan submission for the disapproved
portions. In late July of 1973, the area governments
submitted plan revisions. These revisions were for the
most part approved and replaced some of the proposed
regulations. Consequently, the regulations which were
promulgated by EPA covered only certain remaining
-------
30
inadequate portions of the existing State plans. Since the
promulgation, the local jurisdictions have developed
additional revisions to replace most of the EPA regula-
tions.
The proposal of total plans for other areas, such as
Portland, Oregon and Minneapolis, Minnesota was fol-
lowed by total approval of plans subsequently submitted
oy the States. These plan approvals negated the need for
Federal promulgation actions. An inadequate plan for
Denver, Colorado was originally submitted and dis-
approved. Following EPA's proposal of measures for
Denver, the State of Colorado submitted approvable
plan revisions which replaced all transportation related
measures in the EPA proposed plan. In many other
cases, local plan development continued past the time of
EPA's proposal actions and completely or partially
lemoved the need for EPA to promulgate measures for
those areas.
As a result of this emphasis on local participation,
plans for 17 of the original 39 areas needing transporta-
tion controls have been totally or partially approved.
b. EPA Promulgations
In the remaining cases, EPA was required to
promulgate entire transportation control plans. The
procedures followed by EPA included solicitation of
public comment and the holding of public hearings in
the affected areas. The proposed plans were modified in
a large number of cases as a result of information
acquired during the comment and hearing process.
EPA used the following priorities in considering
transportation control measures for inclusion in pro-
mulgated plans (although there were certain exceptions
as noted below):
Additional stationary source control
Inspection/maintenance
VMT reduction measures
Retrofit
Gasoline supply limitations
These priorities generally move from tfte most accept-
able to least acceptable control measures. Additional
stationary source regulations on certain industrial proc-
esses such as solvent usage or dry cleaning and on
evaporation of vapors during gasoline marketing proces-
ses are considered traditional pollution control ap-
proaches. Thus EPA included these controls initially in
plans before considering additional transportation meas-
ures.
Inspection/maintenance is the next most acceptable
alternative. Inspection/maintenance assures that emis-
sion control devices placed on new motor vehicles will
continue to be maintained over the vehicles' lifetimes.
The program can provide significant emission reductions;
it can be easily financed by vehicle registration fees, and
it has a precedent in safety inspection programs.
When VMT reductions were required, initial consider-
ation was given to priority treatment for high occupancy
vehicles, transit improvements, carpool programs, and
employer incentive regulations. If more emissions con-
trol was required, additional VMT reduction measures or
retrofits were applied. The other VMT reduction meas-
ures included on-street parking limitations, parking
management plans, and surcharge regulations. The retro-
fit measures called for the placing of additional controls
on in-use vehicles. Although retrofit controls placed an
economic burden directly on the vehicle owner, they
were preferred in areas such as Phoenix, Arizona over
the use of some of the more stringent regulations
designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Catalytic converter retrofits and gasoline supply
limitations were only used as last resort for especially
severe air pollution problems. Despite the potential
effectiveness of catalytic control retrofits on newer
model in-use vehicles, the high cost and technical
problems associated with these devices discouraged their
inclusion in control plans if other options were available.
Gasoline limitations, which are to be applied in mid-
1977, were included only as a last resort. EPA's policy
on gasoline limitations is discussed in Section 3 of this
chapter.
c. Selection Factors for VMT Measures
The factors considered in selecting VMT reduction
measures for EPA promulgated plans included:
• The VMT reduction capabilities of measures and
combinations of measures
• The enforceability and legal defensibility of
measures
• Previous experience with measures
• The pollutants being controlled
• The quality of existing or planned transit service in
communities
• The economic and social disruption associated
with measures
The VMT reductions achieved through trans-
portation controls derive from the effects of the entire
group of measures included in a transportation plan,
rather than the effects of any single measure. Hence,
during plan development emphasis was placed on the
effects that combinations of complementary measures
would have on automobile use in an area. An attempt
was made to assure that a variety of measures, such as
transit improvements, carpool programs, bicycle lane
programs, and employer transit incentive programs
would be implemented. Measures to discourage single
occupancy vehicle use were included in many plans to
complement the transit improvement measures. These
measures included on-street parking limitations, free
parking for carpools, parking management programs, and
parking surcharges.
Another major factor considered in the selection of
control measures was the legal defensibility of the
measures and theii enforceability. Many of the measures
included in the transportation control plans call for
action affecting the operation of streets and roads (e.g.,
exclusive buslanes, bicycle lanes, and restrictions on
on-street parking). When EPA promulgated these meas-
ures, the resulting regulations require State or local
governments to implement the measures. This approach
is based upon two premises:
• That governmental units must abide by valid
implementation plan requirements just as any
other source is required to comply
• That governments are the owners and operators of
pollution sources through their ownership and
operation of the streets and highways.
This position is analogous to holding a local government
responsible for sewage collection and treatment rather
than each individual citizen and has been upheld by the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania v. EPA, 500 F.2d246.
Control strategies such as employer mass transit and
-------
carpool incentive programs, parking management, and
off-street parking space reductions involve limitations of
off-street parking and require actions on the part of
owners or operators of particular facilities. (The relation-
ship of parking supply to automobile use and emissions
is discussed in Chapter 3). EPA does not assert the right
to compel State or local governments to regulate
off-street parking, although they may regulate it if they
wish as part of an implementation plan. In South
Terminal Corporation v. EPA, 6 ERC 2025 (C.A. !,
1974), the court upheld EPA's authority to control
parking facilities and the principles behind the VMT
control measures promulgated in the Boston area by
EPA.
The question of EPA's authority to promulgate
parking surcharges has become moot due to the explicit
Congressional prohibition on such EPA promulgation
contained in the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974, P.L. 93-319, 88 Stat. 246
(June 22, 1974). However, at the time EPA promulgated
this measure, the question had been extensively exam-
ined with the conclusion that such a measure probably
could be upheld.
A third factor EPA considered in selecting VMT
reduction measures was the past experience with a
particular measure. Most of the measures promulgated
have previously been used or proposed to alleviate
transportation problems other than air quality. Bus
lanes, for example, have been widely examined and
utilized as a mass transportation improvement measure
during recent years (see Chapter 3). The employer
transportation incentive program is based on existing
programs set up by private employers to conserve energy
or avoid the costs of additional parking facilities.
The air pollutants requiring control can vary between
areas requiring transportation controls and influenced
the selection of VMT reduction measures for a particular
area. For example, if carbon monoxide is a major
problem in the core area of a city, measures such as
parking restrictions in the affected central city area
might be appropriate. On the other hand, in the case of
region-wide oxidant control, measures such as employer
transit incentive programs, which result in area-wide
VMT reductions, are needed.
Another consideration involved in the selection of
measures was the existing transit programs and plans of
the affected communities. In Dallas, Texas, for example,
local government officials had been considering the use
of bus lanes to aid the local transit system. Realizing
these existing plans, EPA promulgated bus lane related
strategies for the Dallas-Fort Worth region.
The incorporation of an on-street mall in Salt Lake
City was suggested by city officials at hearings held by
EPA, since such a concept was a part of the on-going
program to reduce downtown congestion.
The plan submitted by the State of Washington for
Seattle contained a proposal for a carpool matching
strategy. EPA was forced to disapprove this strategy due
to the lack of an enforceable commitment to the
program and the lack of administrative details. However,
in view of the continued show of support for this
measure at public hearings and in correspondence from
city officials, EPA promulgated the program as part of
the transportation control plan. Whenever possible, EPA
attempted either to use previously developed local plans
which would contribute to VMT reductions or to
promulgate measures for which public support was
evident.
Finally, EPA considered the potential economic and
social disruption associated with control measures. Ef-
forts were made to insure that transit or carpools would
be capable of carrying the automobile trips displaced by
transportation control measures. For example, the park-
ing surcharge regulation originally promulgated and now
withdrawn for the Washington, D.C. area was structured
to affect only peak period work trips to locations
well-served by transit. Moreover, the surcharge was to be
increased gradually over a period of several years as
transit service improved.
5. Status of Transportation Control Plans
Appendix A lists each VMT control measure promul-
gated or approved by EPA, and summarizes status of
each of these measures. This listing includes only aiea;
where VMT control strategies were included in trans-
portation control plans. Therefore, areas such as Indian-
apolis and Cincinnati, whose plans have no VMT
reduction measures, are not included in Appendix A.
Bus priority treatment is included in thirteen plans;
bicycle lanes are included in eight plans; parking
management is included in nineteen plans; carpool
matching programs are included in eighteen plans; and
on-street parking restrictions are included in eight plans.
Parking surcharges and parking fees were included in
plans for five areas. However, after Congress expressed
its intent to prohibit the EPA from promulgating
parking surcharges, the EPA rescinded this measure in
each of the plans where it was promulgated on January
15, 1974 (39 FR 1848). Employer mass transit and
carpool incentive progams were a part of plans in fifteen
areas. In three areas in California, in the Washington,
D.C. area and New Jersey, this measure consisted
primarily of charges for employee parking. These, too,
were rescinded by the Administrator in his January 15,
1974, action. In the areas where the employer mass
transit and carpool incentive program did not contain a
requirement for parking charges, the provision remains
in effect. In New Jersey, a new regulation covering
employer incentive program was proposed and promul-
gated.
In those areas where parking surcharges and fees were
rescinded by the Administrator, substantial gaps have
been created. For example, in Boston the parking
surcharge and other parking fees accounted for approxi-
mately 5 percent of the required carbon monoxide
reductions in the core area and approximately 10
percent of the carbon monoxide reductions in the east
Boston area. This reduction is greater than the reduction
achieved by retrofitting pre-1968 vehicles with VSAD
devices and 1974 vehicles with oxidizing catalyst retro-
fits. In terms of hydrocarbon emissions reductions, the
surcharge and parking fees are roughly equivalent to the
VSAD and catalytic retrofit measures. In the Washing-
ton, D.C. area, the parking surcharge and parking fees
represented emissions reductions greater than the com-
bined total reductions achieved through VSAD retrofit
of pre-1968 vehicles, catalytic retrofit of fleet vehicles,
and retrofit of heavy-duty vehicles.
Although compliance with the transportation control
regulations is spotty and not nearly complete, substan-
31
-------
32
tial progress is being made. Exclusive buslanes are
progressing toward implementation in many areas. For
example, pilot lanes have been established in Seattle, Los
Angeles, Denver, the New Jersey suburbs of New York
City, and the Washington, D.C. area. In Pennsylvania
studies are underway to determine the best route
locations. In general, funding for the construction or
conversion of these exclusive lanes is available under the
current highway legislation.
Transit fleet expansions and system improvements are
being undertaken in many transportation control areas.
However, as was discussed in Section 3 of this chapter,
EPA approved this measure only when it was specifically
proposed by a State and did not promulgate it. In areas
such as Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, the progress
toward fulfilling the goals set out in the plans has been
substantial. However, to fulfill the need for expanded
bus fleets in cities such as New York, Los Angeles,
Seattle, Philadelphia and Denver, additional Federal and
State funding must be made available to finance the
costs of fleet expansions and other system improve-
ments.
On-street parking restrictions have recently been
established in Arlington, Virginia and are under develop-
ment in Washington, D.C. Other areas are beginning to
implement this program on a pilot basis. Carpool
matching programs have been especially successful, often
as a result of the gasoline shortage of early 1974. Most
of these programs are in the pilot phase but are
scheduled to progress in a timely manner toward full
implementation.
The parking management regulations promulgated
during November and December of 1973, which met
initial resistance, have had amendments proposed on
August 22, 1974 (39 FR 30440) which add flexibility
and encourage local participation. Several areas are
actively pursuing the development of comprehensive
parking management plans. These areas include Los
Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco. The State of
Washington has recently adopted an indirect source
regulation which includes parking management review in
Seattle and Spokane. The State of Oregon is currently
reviewing new parking facilities in the Portland area.
The employer mass transit and carpool incentive
piograms also are progressing. Many substantial, effec-
tive plans have been submitted in areas such as Boston,
the New Jersey suburbs of New York, Phoenix, Balti-
more, Houston, and Pittsburgh.
There have been problems encountered in the imple-
mentation of many measures. For example, several
parties have challenged EPA's authority to require an
employer to submit a mass transit and caipool incentive
program. The only court to rule on this issue has decided
this issue in EPA's favor. South Terminal Corporation v.
EPA, 6 ERC 2025 (C.A. 1, 1974). Some employers
subject to employer incentive regulations have submitted
inadequate plans, and some others have not made a
submittal.
In Texas, pursuant to the order of the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals in State of Texas, el al, v. EPA, 499
F.2d 289, all VMT related control strategies have been
deferred pending reconsideration of the reactivity of
hydrocarbon emissions from refineries. In Massachusetts
pursuant to the South Terminal case, implementation of
several parking controls was suspended pending re-
examination of air quality data.
In areas such as Philadelphia and its New Jersey
suburbs, jurisdictional problems have caused difficulties
in implementing exclusive buslanes. Similar problems are
being encountered in several other areas where more
than one political entity is involved.
6. Indirect Source Review
An indirect source is a facility that may attract
automobile traffic sufficient to cause violations of the
ambient air quality standards in the vicinity of the
source. Examples of indirect sources include shopping
centers, office buildings, sports stadia, highways, and
airports.
Regulations foi indirect source review (ISR) will
require the developer of a proposed indirect source to
obtain a permit prior to construction from EPA or, in
many cases, from State or local agencies administering
their own or EPA's indirect source program. A permit
will be issued unless it is found that the construction of
a source will violate the ambient air quality standards.
As is more fully explained in Appendix B, EPA has
determined that State implementation plans must in-
clude indirect source regulations in order to assure
continued maintenance of the ambient air quality
standards. Despite the beneficial effects of new car
emissions controls, stationary source controls, and trans-
portation controls, new indirect sources having sufficient
trip-inducing capacity may attract sufficient traffic to
cause localized violations of the ambient air quality
standards, particularly the carbon monoxide standards.
Since, by law, implementation plans must assure that
this does not happen, there must be a mechanism to
review proposed new indirect sources prior to their
construction and to assure that such sources will be
constructed in a manner that does not lead to violation
of the air quality standards. ISR provides this mecha-
nism.
Although the basic concept of indirect source review
is straight-forward, there are certain technical problems
involved in determining whether a proposed indirect
source actually will cause a violation of the air quality
standards. In the case of nitrogen dioxide and oxidants,
it is difficult to prove that a specific indirect source the
size of most real estate developments will cause (or has
caused) a specific air pollutant concentration. This is
because individual sources emit only the precursors of
these pollutants. It may be several hours and many miles
downwind before the pollutants emitted at an indirect
source react in the atmosphere to form nitrogen dioxide
and oxidants. However, in the case of carbon monoxide,
which is relatively unreactive and is emitted directly
from mobile sources, there is clear evidence that the
traffic in the vicinity of indirect sources can threaten or
violate the air quality standards for carbon monoxide
(Ref. 4, 5, 6). Hence, present ISR regulations focus
mainly on localized carbon monoxide air quality
problems.
EPA strongly encourages States to develop their own
ISR programs and submit them to EPA for approval.
However, EPA will promulgate ISR regulations for
States that do not submit approvable ISR programs of
their own. In developing a Federal ISR regulation, EPA
focused on major facilities that could have a significant
effect on air quality. In the case of new real estate
developments, the criterion for determining whether a
facility is subject to review is based on parking lot size
-------
(i.e., new parking capacity of at least 1000 cars in
SMSA's and 2000 cars elsewhere). This does not mean
that facilities with lots greater than 1000 spaces cannot
be built, but that such facilities must be evaluated for
their effects on local carbon monoxide concentrations.
Moreover, ISR makes no presumptions about which
facilities will cause violations of the carbon monoxide
standard. Rather, it is a review regulation that requires a
specific finding supported by technical evidence that the
standard would be violated by a certain facility before
that facility's permit to construct may be denied.
EPA expects that by using improved traffic flow
design or incorporating certain transit options into
facility operations, most facilities subject to ISR will
satisfy the requirements for issuance of a permit. The
types of design options likely satisfy air quality require-
ments are frequently incorporated in facility design
already and normally are consistent with achieving other
desirable effects such as smooth traffic flow in and
around the proposed facility.
EPA has published and distributed technical guide-
lines that frequently will be used by the Agency for
making its decisions on requests for ISR permits (Ref.
7). These guidelines contain a simplified methodology
for relating key traffic characteristics to localized carbon
monoxide concentrations and should be useful to
developers in designing their facilities. The guidelines
also include a discussion of several approaches to
improving traffic flow characteristics and, thus, minimiz-
ing a facility's potential for causing a violation of the
carbon monoxide standard. Moreover, the guidelines
translate the required air quality determination into
specific performance criteria with which developers are
much more familiar.
EPA strongly encourages State or local governments
to assume the responsibility for making ISR decisions,
operating under either EPA approved State or local
regulations or as EPA's agent. EPA staff have met on
numerous occasions with State and local agencies, the
National Association of Counties, the League of Cities,
the Governors' Conference, the National Association of
Regional Councils and other similar groups to encourage
local participation in ISR, explain EPA's position, and
obtain the various groups' views. In developing its own
regulation, EPA has had meetings and discussions with a
wide variety of industry and public interest groups
including the International Council of Shopping Centers,
National Association of Realtors, the National Realty
Committee, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
EPA has developed an ISR application form (ap-
proved by OMB) and has made this available, together
with the previously discussed technical guidelines, at
each EPA regional office. As of November 12, 1974, five
applications have been received by EPA regional offices.
One application was made available for public comment
on October 30, 1974 after a preliminary determination
of acceptability. The other applications are undergoing
review for their completeness and/or preliminary de-
termination of acceptability at the time of writing.
Although the EPA-promulgated ISR regulations do
not require review of facilities unless construction begins
on or after January 1, 1975, several States already have
begun to implement indirect source regulations of their
own. EPA has the approved ISR regulations submitted
by Alabama, Florida, Guam, Kentucky, and North
Carolina. The approved ISR regulations will operate in
place of EPA's regulations in these jurisdictions. State-
submitted ISR regulations of Maine, New York, and
Virginia have been disapproved. EPA is continuing to
assist these and all other States to develp approvable
regulations. Thirteen additional States have submitted
ISR regulations for EPA approval or plan to submit
regulations soon.
References
1. Preliminary Report on Bicycles as a Highway Safety Problem,
National Highway Safety Advisory Committe's Research and
Program Development Subcommittee, June 1974.
2. Denver Bikeway Report, submitted as part of the Colorado
Transportation Control Plan, June 1974.
3. Facilities and Services Needed to Support Bicycle Commuting
into Center City Philadelphia, prepared for the Environmental
Protection Agency by the Philadelphia Bicycle Coalition, June
1973.
4. Validation Study of an Approach for Evaluating the Impact of a
Shopping Center on Ambient Carbon Monoxide Concentrations,
prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency by the GCA
Corporation, March 1974.
5. Carbon Monoxide Measurements in the Vicinity of Shopping
Centers, prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency by
the Research Triangle Institute, April 1973.
6. W. D. Bach, D. W. Crissman, C. E. Decker, J. W. Minear, P. P.
Raspberry, and J. B. Tommerdahl, Carbon Monoxide Measure-
ments in the Vicinity of Sports Stadiums, prepared for the
Environmental Protection Agency by the Research Triangle
Institute, July 1973.
7. Guidelines for the Review of the Impact of Indirect Sources on
Ambient Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, July 1974.
33
-------
34
chapter 5 - economic and
social effects of reductions
in auto use
1. Introduction
The implementation of measures to reduce auto-
mobile emissions by reducing automobile use will affect
many aspects of urban activity other than air quality.
Many of these non-air quality effects; of transportation
controls are beneficial and would make the implement-
tion of the control measures desirable even if air quality
were not a problem. For example, diversion of auto
drivers to transit and carpools is likely to reduce
congestion, energy consumption, and urban traffic
safety problems. Indeed, the transportation measures
that have been proposed to improve air quality have also
been proposed to alleviate non-air quality related urban
transportation problems. However, some of the effects
of reduced auto use will not be beneficial. For example,
it is unlikely that transit or carpool travel times can
equal auto travel times under uncongested conditions
and over widespread areas. Thus, reductions in auto use
through diversions of auto drivers to other modes can be
expected to increase average travel times. Moreover, the
well-being of certain economic groups (e.g., parking lot
operators) is dependent on high levels of auto use. These
groups are unlikely to benefit from reductions in auto
travel.
This chapter describes the potential effects of reduc-
tions in auto use on the following aspects of urban
activity:
Energy consumption
Noise
Traffic safety
Traffic congestion and the need for additional
highway construction
Travel times
The costs of transportation
In addition, the effects of parking restrictions and
surcharges on individual mobility and business activity
are discussed.
The estimates of economic and social effects
presented in this chapter are tentative and should be
interpreted with caution. There has been little direct
experience with many transportation control measures
or with changes in transportation system attributes of
the magnitudes contemplated in some transportation
control plans. Thus, -the empirical basis for projecting
the economic and social effects of transportation con-
trols is weak. Certain types of effects are particularly
difficult to forecast. Changes in urban land use are in
this category. These empirical difficulties are not unique
to air-quality-related transportation controls. The same
problems are present in attempts to forecast the eco-
nomic and social effects of any substantial changes in
urban transportation systems. Moreover, these problems
will persist until the implementation of the proposed
changes, at least on a trial or demonstration basis,
provides opportunities for direct observation of the
effects of the changes.
Another source of difficulty in generalizing about the
economic and social effects of transportation controls is
that these effects are highly dependent on the specific
control measures implemented, the manner in which
they are implemented, and the area in which they are
implemented. In addition, the effects of any single
transportation measure depend on the characteristics
and timing of all other measures that may be im-
plemented. For example, transit fare reductions
implemented by themselves are likely to have con-
siderably different effects than fare reductions combined
with substantial transit improvements.
The material presented in this chapter is derived from
data on the characteristics of alternative urban trans-
portation modes and from empirically-based studies of
the observed or projected effects of transportation
system changes that reduce (or would reduce) auto use
in several U.S. and European cities. The resulting
quantitative estimates of the potential economic and
social effects of auto use reduction illustrate the likely
directions of these effects. Of course, none of (lie
estimates is quantitatively precise, and none is fully
applicable to every transportation plan in every area. All
of the estimates could be improved greatly through
direct observation of the effects of implemented trans-
portation controls.
2. Case Studies
Much of the material presented in this chapter is
based on five case studies of the effects of transportation
system changes in specific urban areas or portions of
urban areas. This chapter also includes a summary of the
results of a study of the effects of indirect source review.
The objectives of these six studies are summarized in this
section. The results of the studies are presented in the
sections on specific economic and social effects.
a. I-66 Transportation Corridor Alternatives Study
(Ref. 1)
This is the draft environmental impact statement for
a proposed section of interstate highway 1-66 in the
Washington, D.C. area. It describes the projected en-
vironmental, social, and economic effects of five trans-
portation options in the 1-66 corridor. The year for
which projections are made is 1995. In summary, the
transportation options considered are:
• Base Case — Includes the existing highway system,
highway improvements that are currently pro-
grammed, the 98-mile rail transit system (Metro)
now under construction, feeder bus routes for the
rail transit system, and certain express bus routes.
• Transit Option — Emphasizes mass public trans-
portation through the addition of line haul transit
and feeder bus service, improved or supplemental
bus routings, and other transit elements which
complement the Base Case.
• Highway Option - Includes 1-66 and the elements
contained in the Base Case.
• Multi-Mode/New Facility Option — Combines the
elements of the Base Case, the Transit Option, and
the Highway Option.
• Multi-Mode/Improvements to Existing Facilities
Option - Includes the components of the Base
Case and the Transit Option together with major
improvements to certain existing streets and high-
ways. Two suboptions were developed involving
different approaches to improving existing high-
ways. A portion of the proposed 1-66 section
-------
TABLE 15
VMT IN I-66 CORRIDOR BY TRANSPORTATION OPTION (1995)a
Option
Base
Transit
Highway
Multi-Mode/
New Facilities
Multi-Mode/
Existing Facilities
lc
Peak Hour
VMT %Changeb
468,000
425,000
541,000
490,000
474,100
481,000
0
-9
+ 16
+ 5
+ 2
+ 3
Daily Average
VMT %Changeb
4,675,460
4,250,981
5,405,279
4,900,032
4,744,391
4,810,792
0
-9
+ 16
+ 5
+ 2
+ 3
a. Source: Ref. 1
b. Relative to base case
c. Suboption 1
d. Suboption 2
would be constructed under Suboption 2.
Table 15 shows the effects of the various options on
AM peak-hour and daily average VMT in the 1-66
corridor. The Transit Option reduces VMT by 9 percent
relative to the base case and by 22 percent relative to the
Highway Option.
b. Evaluation of a Bus Transit System in a Selected
Urban Area (Ref. 2)
The objective of this study was the investigation and
evaluation of a bus transit system as a reasonably
acceptable and economically competitive alternative to
further highway construction in a metropolitan area.
Using Baltimore, Maryland as an example case, the study
designed a bus-transit oriented and an automobile-
oriented transportation system for the purpose of
alleviating peak-hour overloads on highways. The two
systems were evaluated for the year 1980. Relative to
the automobile-oriented system, the transit oriented
system achieves a 6 percent reduction in peak-hour
automobile person trips and a 1 percent reduction in
off-peak automobile person trips.* Changes in VMT are
not reported.
c. Shirley Highway Express-Bus-on-Freeway Demon-
stration Project—First Year Results (Ref. 3)
This study reports the results of the first 18 months
of the Shirley Highway Project, which involves express
bus service in a corridor connecting residential'com-
munities in Northern Virginia with employment centers
in Washington, D.C. The bus service includes residential
collection routes, park-and-ride facilities, and a busway
along the Shirley Highway. The busway has resulted in
roughly a 10 percent reduction in peak period auto-
mobile vehicle trips in the Shirley Highway corridor.
d. Pittsburgh Parking Strike (Ref. 4)
In August 1972 a three day strike by parking lot
attendants closed roughly 80 percent of the parking
*An automobile person trip is a person trip by automobile.
spaces in downtown Pittsburgh, Pa. A retrospective
study of the strike investigated, among other things, the
effects of the strike on absentee rates, downtown sales,
general effects on business, and opinions of employees
and businessmen. The strike caused a 25 percent
reduction of automobiles entering the central business
district during the morning peak period. Roughly 75
percent of peak-period commuters to the central
business district switched to transit.
e, San Diego Transportation Plan Analysis (Ref. 5)
This is a study of the effects of alternative transporta-
tion control plans to improve air quality in San Diego,
California. The alternatives considered are:
• Base case — Currently programmed transportation
system including 350 vehicle bus transit system.
• Alternative 1 - Currently programmed transporta-
tion system but with 550 vehicle transit system
and parking surcharge of $0.25 per hour up to a
daily maximum of $2.50.
• Alternative 2 - Same as Alternative 1 but without
the parking surcharge.
• Alternative 3 — Currently programmed transporta-
tion system but with 875 vehicle transit system.
• Alternative 4 - Same as Alternative 1 except
parking surcharge is $1.00 per day and applies
only to work trips.
• Alternative 5 — Same as Alternative 3 but with
$1.00 per day parking surcharge applied only to
work trips.
The projected effects of the various alternatives on
daily VMT in 1977 are shown in Table 16. The
maximum VMT reduction relative to the Base Case
achieved by any of the alternatives is 9 percent.
f. Economic and Land Use Effects of Indirect Source
Review (Ref. 16)
The purpose of this study was to determine the
potential economic and land use effects of EPA's
indirect source review (ISR) regulations applicable to
35
-------
TABLE 16
Effects of Transportation Alternatives on Daily VMT
in San Diego (1977)a
Alternatives
VMT (Thousands)
Percent Reduction
from Base Case
ase Case
18946
0
1
17249
9
2
18739
1
3
18526
2
4
18589
2
5
18318
3
a. Source: Rcf. 5
new or modified real estate developments (see Chapter
4). The principal methodological approach used was
simulation of the application of ISR to six developments
selected as case studies. The case studies included two
regional shopping centers, two office parks, and two
mixed use (commercial and residential) complexes. The
case study analysis was supplemented by interviews with
State and local officials, developers, and representatives
of financial institutions in Oregon, Florida, and Phila-
delphia. These areas were selected because they have had
experience with ISR regulations similar 1o EPA's.
The following three ISR-related costs were analyzed
in the study:
• Costs of data acquisition and preparation of ISR
applications
• Costs of potential time delays associated with ISR
• Costs of design changes (e.g., roadway modifica-
tions or transit improvements) associated with
ISR.
In addition, the study assessed the effects of ISR on
facility location and size.
3. Effects of Reducing Auto Use
a. Energy Consumption —
Table 17 shows the average energy consumption per
passenger mile travelled for alternative modes of urban
transportation. As shown in the table, transit is con-
siderably more energy-efficient than the automobile.
Thus, reductions in automobile use achieved by diverting
automobile travellers to transit will reduce energy
consumption. For example, the diversion of 20 percent
TABLE 17
Energy Consumption of Alternative Modes of
Urban Transportation
(BTU per Passenger Mile)3
Auto
5900b
8000C
Bus
3600
Electric Transit
4400
a. Source: Ref. 6
b. Daily average. Assumes 1.9 persons per automobile,
passengers per bus, and 50-60 passengers per rail car.
c. Work trips. Assumes 1.4 persons per automobile.
TABLE 18
Estimated Annual Energy Consumption by
1-66 Transportation
Option (1995)a
Option
BTU's (106)
Percent change
from Base Case
Base
Transit
Highway
•Multi-Mode/
New Facilities
Multi-Mode/
Existing Facilities
Suboption 1
Suboption 2
212,889,180
200,592,464
213,426,888
201,295,707
201,006,140
201,295,707
0
-6
+0.3
-5
-6
-5
a. Source: Ref. 1
TABLE 19
Total Resident Population and Employees Exposed to Various Noise Levels Due
to Major Highways in the 1-66 Corridor (1995)a
Soundb
Level
60
70
80
Group
Population
Employees
Population
Employees
Population
Employees
Base Case
343,000
632,000
62,000
117,000
3,400
4,500
Transit
Option
306,000
526,000
56,000
99,000
2,800
3,000
Highway
Option
364,000
647,000
67,000
121,000
4,800
6,600
Multi-Mode/
New Facilities
326,000
620,000
59,000
115,000
4,000
4,900
Multi-Mode/Existing Facilities
Suboption 1
319,000
648,000
58,000
121,000
3,500
5,900
Suboption 2
336,000
607,000
61,000
112,000
4,400
5,700
a. Source: Ref. 1
36 b. Peak hour dBA(L10)
-------
of daily automobile travel to transit would reduce daily
energy consumption by passenger vehicles by about 7
percent assuming transit load factors and auto oc-
cupancies do not change significantly. If the 20 percent
reduction in automobile usage were achieved by divert-
ing commuters, the energy savings would be about 10
percent.
The 1-66 study (Ref. 1) estimated the energy con-
sumption associated with the transportation options that
were examined. The results are shown in Table 18. The
Transit Option requires about 6 percent less energy than
the Base Case or Highway Option.
Reductions in automobile use achieved through car-
pooling will achieve energy savings approximately
proportional to VMT reductions assuming that carpool-
ing causes no significant change in the average weight of
the vehicles driven. Thus, a 5 to 10 percent reduction in
automobile VMT achieved through carpooling is likely
to reduce automobile energy consumption by roughly 5
to 10 percent.
b. Transportation Noise
The Federal Highway Administration has established
design criteria for transportation noise in terms of L10,
the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time. Among
the case studies cited here, only the 1-66 study evaluated
the noise effects of the transportation options examined.
The 1-66 results indicate that the diversion of auto-
mobile travellers to transit is capable of reducing
exposure to highway generated noise. Table 19 shows
the 1-66 estimates of population and employees exposed
to elevated levels of highway noise. Relative to the Base
Case the Transit Option decreases exposure to elevated
noise levels by 10 to 20 percent, depending on the noise
level, whereas the Highway Option increases exposure to
noise by as much as 47 percent.
c. Traffic Safety
Transit buses have roughly 1 fatality per 100 million
passenger miles (Ref. 7) compared to about 1.6 fatalities
per 100 million passenger miles for cars in urban areas
(Ref. 8, 9). Table 20 shows the approximate costs of bus
and car accidents in urban areas, including property
damage, injuries, and fatalities. Bus accident costs per
passenger mile are roughly two thirds those of cars.
TABLE 20
Accident Costs in Cents Per Passenger Mile
Roadway Bus3 Car*5
Freeway
Surface Street
.2
.4
.3
.7
a. Source: Ref. 10
h. Sources: Ref. 11 for acc'-'^nt rates and Ref. 12 for accider"
costs. Auto occupancy ol i .•) passci _-er miles per vehu i" :-;i'
assumed.
Buses have significantly lower fatalities and accident
costs per passenger mile than cars. Therefore, the
diversion of travellers from cars to buses will reduce
fatalities and accident costs. Moreover, the diversion of
auto trips to transit will tend to reduce congestion for
the remaining auto trips (Subsection >'\ resulting in a
lower accident rate for auto travellers.
The accident, injury, and death rates projected for
the transportation options considered in the 1-66 study
are displayed in Table 21. The Transit Option has 10
percent fewer accidents, injuries and deaths than the
Base Case and 10 to 12 percent fewer than the Highway
Option.
Carpooling will reduce the average frequency of
automobile accidents due to the reduction in daily VMT
caused by carpooling. However, the severity of individ-
ual accidents may increase owing to the increased
number of persons per car. Thus, the reductions in
injuries, deaths, and accident costs associated with
carpooling are likely to be less than proportional to the
VMT reductions achieved.
d. Traffic Congestion and Highway Construction
Buses require the roadway space of less than two cars
but carry up to 50 times as many passengers per vehicle
as cars. Thus, the diversion of auto drivers to transit as
well as to carpools will reduce traffic volumes and
congestion. Reduced congestion will result in reduced
need for further highway construction.
The 1-66 study found that the Highway Option
produced the most extensive amount of congested
TABLE 21
Comparison of 1995 Traffic Accidents, Injuries, and
Deaths in the I-66 Corridor by Transportation Option (1995)a
Option
Base Case
Transit
Highway
Multi-Mode/
New Facilities
Multi-Mode/
Existing Fac.
Suboption 1
Suhoption 2
Accidents
No. %Changeb
6475 0
5835 -10
6510 +1
5900 -9
5960
5910
No.
2625
2370
2685
2430
Injuries
%Changeb
0
-10
+2
-7
-9
2445
2430
-7
-7
Deaths
No. %Changeb
93
84
95
87
87
86
0
-10
+2
-6
-6
a. Source Ref. 1
b. Relative to base case
37
-------
roadway of any of the options investigated except the
Base Case. The Transit Option was found to have the
most extensive amount of uncongested roadway. More-
over, with the Transit Option, 68 percent of morning
peak VMT in the 1-66 corridor take place under
uncongested conditions compared to 61 percent for the
Base Case and 60 percent for the Highway Option. The
Highway Option produces greater congestion than the
Transit Option despite the substantially increased high-
way construction associated with the former option.
TABLE 22
Average Travel Times Associated With Various
Transportation Options (in Minutes)
Study Base Case Transit Option Highway Option
27 27 27
I-66a
Baltimore'-'
Peak NAd
Off-peak NAd
San Diego c 15
20
16
17
19
15
NAd
38
a. Source: Ref. 1 - Work trips only
b. Source: Ref. 2
c. Source: Ref. 5 - Transit Option is Alternative 1.
d. Not applicable
The Baltimore study (Ref. 2), which was directed at
determining whether bus transit can alleviate peak hour
overloads on urban highways concluded:
Based on the findings of this study, bus transit
systems may be seriously considered as an alterna-
tive to the construction of additional highways in
large urban areas .... Bus transit is capable of
alleviating peak hour overloads on urban freeways.
Radial freeways in the densest part of the city can
be relieved of peak hour demand to the degree
where, in the near future, no additional resources
would be required to provide additional capacity.
The Shirley Highway study (Ref. 3) found that the
express bus service caused a reduction in automobile
volume of roughly 3000 vehicles in the Shirley corridor
during the monring peak. The study concluded that:
Had the large numbers of express bus riders not
been diverted fronr auto travel, the highway
system would have been severely overtaxed and all
auto users would have been subject to considerable
additional delay.
Three additional lanes of roadway in each direction
would be needed to carry present bus riders in auto-
mobiles at the existing automobile service level.
e. Travel Time
Transit requires more time than the automobile for
access, collection, and distribution. Transit also loses
time relative to the automobile if transit vehicles make
stops during the linehaul portions of their routes. These
transit time disadvantages can be offset in congested
corridors and for long trips by the use of express bus
routes and priority treatment for transit vehicles. None-
theless, it is likely that substantial diversions of auto
drivers to transit on a regional scale will increase average
travel times.
Carpools also have a time disadvantage relative to the
single-occupant automobile. This disadvantage is
incurred during collection and distribution and, as in the
case of transit, can be offset to some extent by the
provision of priority treatment. However, the principal
disadvantages of carpools are likely to be associated with
the schedule inflexibility imposed by carpooling and the
difficulties associated with finding suitable partners,
rather than with travel time.
Table 22 shows the average travel times associated
with some of the transportation options examined in the
1-66, Baltimore, and San Diego studies. The average
travel times are equal in the case of 1-66, because the
transportation options affect only trips in the 1-66
corridor whereas the average travel time is evaluated for
the entire Washington area. In Baltimore and San Diego,
the transit options increase average travel times by one
to two minutes. Larger increases in travel time would be
likely to result from transportation options that achieve
greater VMT reductions.
f. Direct Monetary Costs of Transportation
Among the transportation studies cited here, only the
Baltimore study reports the total direct monetary costs
of the transportation options examined.* The Baltimore
costs are displayed in Table 23. The Transit Option costs
about 3 percent less than the highway option. This cost
difference is within the limits of error of the estimation
technique used, so the two options should be considered
to have approximately equal total costs.
The 1-66 study does not report the total costs of the
alternatives it examined. Therefore, the information
provided in the 1-66 study has been used to derive rough
estimates of the costs of the various options. The
estimates were derived as follows:
(1) Capital costs reported in the 1-66 study were
annualized using a 25-year service life and 10 percent
annual interest.
(2) Operating and maintenance costs for the highway
and transit facilities in the 1-66 corridor were obtained
from the 1-66 report.
(3) Auto operating costs in the corridor were
estimated by multiplying the reported corridor VMT by
the average operating cost of an automobile exclusive of
taxes (Ref. 13).
(4) Items 1-3 were summed to obtain estimated
annualized costs.
The 1-66 cost estimates are displayed in Table 24.
These rough estimates suggest that the Base Case and
Transit Options have roughly the same costs and that the
Highway Option costs approximately 23 percent more
than either of the former options.
The Baltimore and 1-66 results indicate that the total
costs of transit approaches to travel can be less than the
costs of automobile approaches. However, the means of
financing transportation improvements do not normally
require all transportation system users to pay their exact
Total direct monetary costs include the costs of construction,
purchase, operation, and maintenance of transportation facilities
and vehicles. Other types of costs, such as the costs of
environmental damage and travel time, are not included.
-------
TABLE 23
Annualized Costs of Baltimore Transportation Options
(MiIIions of Dollars)3
Annual Interest Rate Transit Option Highway Option
6%
599.7
594.5
617.3
612.5
a. Source: Ref. 2
shares of system costs. Therefore, even though transit-
oriented systems may have lower total costs than
automobile oriented systems, it does not necessarily
follow that the costs of transit-oriented systems are
lower for all affected financial units. For example, the
Baltimore study found that the Transit Option would
reduce transportation system user costs by about $8
million annually relative to the Highway Option. How-
ever, the transit system requires a larger subsidy under
the Transit Option than under the Highway Option. The
situation is reversed in the case of 1-66. Net transit
revenues after deducting debt service and operating costs
are about $4 million per year greater with the Transit
Option than with the Highway Option. However, trans-
portation system user costs for home-to-work travel are
about $7 million per year higher with the Transit
Option.
The diversion of auto drivers to carpools will reduce
transportation costs by an amount approximately
proportional to the resulting VMT reduction. Thus, a 5
to 10 percent VMT reduction achieved through car-
pooling is likely to reduce transportation costs by
roughly 5 to 10 percent.
TABLE 24
Estimated Annualized Costs of Transportation Options
in the 1-66 Corridor
Option
Base Case
Transit
Highway
Multi-Mode/
New Facilities
Multi-Mode/
Existing Facilities
Sub option 1
Suboption 2
Cost3
198
200
244
244
232
234
%Change Relative to
Base Case
0
1
23
23
17
18
a. Millions of dollars per year
4. Effects of Parking Restrictions
a. Supply Reductions
Apart from the effects of reduced auto use described
in the foregoing sections, parking supply reductions to
discourage auto use may restrict accessibility to places of
employment and business. Thus, it is necessary to insure
that transit and carpools can substitute for the auto-
mobile to the extent required by parking supply
reductions.
There is now considerable evidence that transit and
carpools can replace the private automobile for travel to
work when parking is restricted at the work location.
For example:
• The Pittsburgh parking strike caused the closing of
80 percent of the parking spaces in downtown
Pittsburgh. During the strike a number of improve-
ments and additions to transit service were made.
Most commuters switched to transit. Absenteeism
among employees remained normal. Moreover, the
parking spaces that were available during the strike
were not fully utilized (Ref. 4).
• The Pentagon in Washington, D.C., has achieved a
ratio of 0.4 parking spaces per employee. About
50 percent of Pentagon employees commute to
work in carpools. Another 35 percent use transit
buses or buspools.
• At the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
tration, where parking space is limited, a carpool
program has achieved an auto occupany rate of
3.85 persons per car. This is equivalent to 0.26
parking spaces per employee.
These examples illustrate the ability of transit and
carpools to substitute for the single-occupant auto-
mobile for travel to work when parking availability is
restricted.
There has been considerably less experience with the
use of parking restrictions in connection with non-work
travel. Accordingly, the ability of transit and carpools to
substitute for the low-occupancy automobile is less clear
in the case of non-work trips than in the case of work
trips.
During the Pittsburgh parking strike, total retail sales
declined by 6 to 8 percent. Some retail establishments
reported sales reductions as large as 15 percent, but
others reported sales increases. Theaters reported a 60 to
70 percent decline in patronage. Other entertaining and
dining establishments reported reductions in patronage
from 10 to 70 percent. However, there were indications
that businessmen might accept restricted auto access to
the central business district if peripheral parking with
downtown shuttle bus service were provided. This
suggests that the decline in downtown business during
the parking strike may have been caused by a lack of
adequate transit service for non-work trips rather than
the inability of transit to serve these trips.
The experience with auto-free zones in Europe and
the United States suggests that traffic reductions can
actually enhance the attractiveness of commercial
districts when adequate alternative access is provided.
(In the case of auto-free zones access is usually on foot).
Indeed, this has been the stated reason for establishing
auto free zones in many cities. A study by the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment of the effects of traffic bans reported the following
(Ref. 14):
Available evidence indicates that traffic bans
do indeed have a positive effect on retail
sales. In Vienna shopowners reported a 25
percent to 50 percent increase in business in
the first week after the traffic ban went into
effect. In Norwich [England] all but two
shops in the exclusion area did more
business, some experiencing an increase in
sales of 10 percent or more. In Essen the
increase in trade has been reported to be
39
-------
40
between 15 percent and 35 percent depend-
ing on the type of shop; in Rouen, between
10 percent and 15 percent. In Tokyo, of 574
shops surveyed, 21 percent showed an in-
crease in sales, 60 percent no change, and 19
percent a decrease; 74 percent of the
merchants interviewed pronounced them-
selves in favor of the scheme.
The OECD study also reported that in Florence some
merchants went on strike to protest their street's
exclusion from a traffic ban zone.
In Atlanta, 40 percent of the people attending
football games at Atlanta Stadium travel to the stadium
by bus.
The foregoing examples indicate that commercial
areas do not necessarily require automobile access to be
successful and that transit may be capable of providing
suitable access to non-work destinations when auto-
mobile access is restricted. However, considerably more
experience with transit use and parking restrictions for
non-work travel is needed before 1hese tentative con-
clusions can be made firm. Initial emphasis should be
given to encouraging transit usage for non-work travel in
place of expanding existing parking facilities, and to
restricting parking in areas where transit service is good
and traffic volumes are already excessive or roadway
capacity is limited.
b. Parking Surcharges
A parking surcharge at a given location prohibits
automobile access to that location by persons unable or
unwilling to pay the surcharge. In addition, the sur-
charge causes a transfer of income to the collection
authority from persons willing to pay the surcharge.
Parking surcharges therefore present two issues that are
distinct from the issues associated with other approaches
to reducing automobile use. These are:
• Whether transit and carpools can provide
satisfactory access to surcharged locations at a cost
that is comparable with the pre-surcharge auto-
mobile cost, thus enabling current automobile
users to avoid the personal financial effects of
charging the automobile an increased proportion
of the true costs of its use.
• What should be done with the revenue raised by
parking surcharges. The ability of transit and
carpools to provide access to locations where
automobile use is restricted was discussed in
Subsection 4a. The cost and revenue effects of
surcharges are considered in this subsection.
Parking surcharges, because they encourage the use of
transit and carpools in place of more costly single-
occupant automobiles, are likely to leduce the total cost
of urban transportation (see Subsection 3f). The effect
of surcharges on the out-of-pocket cost of transportation
to an individual traveller depends on the structure of the
surcharge, the kinds of trips to which it applies, the type
of transportation used by the traveller prior to the
establishment of the surcharge, and the traveller's
response to the surcharge. Table 25 shows some of the
possibilities for the case of an individual who, before the
establishment of a parking surcharge, drives 5 miles to
work in a standard size car with no passengers and free
parking. Depending on the structure of the surcharge
and the response of the individual, his out-of-pocket cost
TABLE 25
Effect of Parking Surcharge On Out-of-Pocket Cost
of Work Trip3
Surcharge
SI.00
Mode after
Surcharge
Daily Increase (+) or
Decrease (-) in Out-of-
Pocket Cost Per Person
$2.00
$2.00 on
Single occupant car
2-person carpool
3-person carpool
Transit with $0.50
one-way fare
Single-occupant car
2-person carpool
3-person carpool
Transit with $0.50
one-way fare
Single-occupant car
Single-occupant 2-person carpool
cars only
3-person carpool
Transit with $0.50
one-way fare
+$1.00
0
-0.33
0
+$2.00
+0.50
0
0
+$2.00
-0.50
-0.67
0
a. Based on commuter who drives 5 miles to work in a standard-
size car with no passengers and free parking.
of travel to work would decrease by as much as $0.67
per day or increase by as much as $2.00 per day.
The revenue-raising potential of parking surcharges is
substantial. For example, there are approximately
600,000 home-to-work auto driver trips daily in the
Washington, D.C. area. If a $2.00 surcharge assessed only
on single-occupant automobile trips to work caused all
but 10 percent of auto drivers to form carpools or
switch to transit, $30 million per year still would be
collected in surcharges. This is nearly double the FY
1974 operating deficit of the Washington transit system.
There has been virtually no experience with parking
surcharges in the United States. The 25 percent San
Francisco parking tax described in Chapter 3, which
affected both work and non-work travel, reduced park-
ing lot revenues by about one third but had no
measurable effect on business activity and an insig-
nificant effect on traffic (Ref. 15). Many automobile
travellers apparently either shortened the durations of
their trips or iound parking spaces that were not taxed.
The parking tax generated about $5.5 million per year
for the city of San Francisco, thus fulfilling the purpose
for which it was enacted. No information is available on
the effects of the tax on out-of-pocket transportation
costs.
The San Diego study estimated that the parking
surcharge considered under Alternative 1 would generate
revenues of nearly $200 million per year. The surcharges
associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 would produce
about $60 million per year. These revenues are con-
siderably larger than the costs to local government of
implementing the alternatives.
The San Diego study did not consider how local
government might use the revenues generated by the
various surcharges. This question is of particular impor-
tance in the case of the San Diego study, because all of
-------
the surcharge approaches evaluated in the study were
found to be regressive. In other words, the surcharge
payments would be a greater percentage of the dis-
posable income of low-income households than of
high-income households. This regressive characteristic
could be compensated if the surcharge payments were
returned to citizens in the form of services or reductions
in non-transportation-related taxes. The San Diego study
did not examine the effects on business activity of
parking surcharges.
The San Diego example shows that it is necessary to
investigate the possible regressive effects of parking
surcharge programs when these programs are being
designed. It is also necessary to develop approaches to
compensating for regressive effects if they are found.
However, it cannot be concluded from the San Diego
study that all parking surcharge approaches are neces-
sarily regressive. For example, the San Diego surcharges
were assessed throughout the San Diego area regardless
of transit service quality. It may be that the regressive
effects of surcharges can be reduced or eliminated by
establishing the surcharges only in places well served by
transit (as EPA had proposed for the Washington, D.C.
area). Moreover, the transit service quality assumed in
the San Diego study was relatively poor compared to
service quality in many other cities. Transit attracted less
than 12 percent of work trips in the San Diego analysis,
even with a $2.50 per day parking surcharge, whereas 20
percent of work trips use transit under existing condi-
tions in cities such as San Francisco and Washington.
With no surcharge only 5 to 8 percent of work trips used
transit in the San Diego study. This is approximately
equal to current transit usage for work trips in Los
Angeles. It may be that the provision of high quality
transit service in connection with parking surcharges will
eliminate the regressive effects of surcharges.
More research is needed to fully understand the
effects of parking surcharges. This research will be most
effective if it includes actual experience with surcharges.
Initial experience might be achieved in connection with
work trips to congested locations that are well served by
transit and that suffer from a shortage of parking space
or have underpriced parking.
4. Effects of Indirect Source Review (ISR)
ISR consists of an air quality review prior to the
construction of a large scale development that attracts
automobile traffic. The purpose of this review is to
determine whether the facility and surrounding road
network can i age the attracted traffic in a manner
that does not k^c to violation of the ambient air quality
standard for a.rhon monoxide. In this review, the
number of parking spaces at a facility is used as an initial
indicator of the quantity of traffic that the facility may
attract and, thereby, of the potential for the develop-
ment or aggravation of an air quality problem. The
principal focus of ISR is on facility design, the charac-
teristics of the transportation system serving the facility,
and, to a lesser extent, facility location. Measures that a
developer can adopt, if necessary, to prevent the
accumulation of excessive carbon monoxide concentra-
tions include facility design changes, improvements in
the capacity of the road network serving the facility,
transit improvements, carpooling incentives, and reduc-
tions in parking supply.
The ISR-related costs estimated for the six cases
analyzed in the ISR study (Ref. 16) are displayed in
Table 26. The costs are 1 to 2 percent of total project
cost in four cases, 7 percent of project cost in one case,
and 23 percent of project cost in one case. In com-
parison, the costs of air pollution control equipment for
new industrial facilities can increase the costs of these
facilities by as much as 35 percent. ISR costs are greatest
relative to total project cost for shopping centers.
The cost elements associated with ISR are displayed
in Table 27. The costs of data acquisition and prepara-
tion of an ISR application were found to be $5,000 to
$45,000, depending on the methodology used project air
quality. These costs are less than 0.1 percent of total
project costs. Further, they represent only 10 to 15
percent of the developer's front-end money used to
initiate the project.
There are two types of costs associated with con-
struction delays that could be caused by ISR. The first is
the cost of inflation during the period a project is
delayed. The second is the opportunity cost incurred
when a developer's money is tied to a project longer
than anticipated, thus causing this money to be un-
available for use in a new investment. In three of the six
projects analyzed in the ISR study, a 90-day delay due
to ISR would reduce developer's return-on-investment
by roughly 0.2 percent. In the other three projects,
90-day delays would cause a 1 percent drop in return on
investment. The 90 day delay costs represent 3.5 to 7.5
percent of the developer's front-end money. Delay costs
are not likely to occur in the future when experience
with ISR is acquired and developers begin to anticipate
ISR needs in the initial stages of project design.* In all
of the projects examined, delay costs could be elimi-
nated entirely through proper planning and administra-
tion of the ISR process by both developers and the
review agency.
Design changes, when they are necessary to prevent
violation of the carbon monoxide air quality standard,
are the principal source of ISR-related costs. However,
the effects of these costs vary depending on the nature
of the development involved. Mixed use and office
developments seem not to be greatly affected by ISR.
Only two of the four office and mixed-use developments
examined in the ISR study would require design
changes. The costs of these changes would be 0.3 to 1.6
percent of total project costs. This constitutes a 0.5
percent reduction of return-on-investment. The effects
of design-change costs on these developers could be
reduced significantly through public assumption of all or
part of these costs. However, even if the developers bore
all of the costs, no rental increases or changes in
investment decisions would be needed in the mixed use
and office projects studied.
Transit approaches to design changes would be
feasible for both of the mixed-use and office develop-
ments that require design changes. In Project E, a savings
of $192 per parking space could be achieved by
replacing on-site parking with park-and-ride. In Project
D, transit has a lower initial cost than highway related
design changes. If the developer had to absorb all
operating and maintenance costs of the proposed transit
*Many of the design features expected to result from ISR
frequently are incorporated into project design even without
ISR.
41
-------
TABLE 26 - Effect of ISR On Total Project Costs For Six Case Studies3
Total Project Cost
a. Without ISR
b. With ISR and No
Delay
c. With ISR and 90-
day Delay
Percent Increase
in Project Cost
a. With ISR and No
Delay
b. With ISR and 90-
day Delay
Return on Investment
a. Without ISR
b. With ISR and No
Delay
c. With ISR and 90-
day Delay
Office Space
Project A Project E
Shopping Center
Project B Project F
Mixed Use
Project C Project I)
31.4
31.4
31.7
24.8
25.0
25.1
37.2
38.9
39.8
13.7
16.6
16.8
27.8
27.8
28.2
114
116d
116d
0.7
1
19.1
19
0.7
1
21
20.2
5
7
14
12
21
23
30
24.7C
0.02
1
12.8
12.8
20.1
11
23.5C
12.1
-3.9b
-4.4b
a. Source: Ref. 16. Assumes developer pays all rests, 12 percent annual inflation, 1975 automobile population. Costs in millions
of dollars.
b. Project D is financed as tax shelter.
c. With 8 percent increase in rents.
d. The lack of a difference between rows b and c is due to round-off.
Cost Element
TABLE 27 - Cost Elements Associated With ISR3
Office Park
Project 4 Project E
Shopping Center
Project B Project F
Mixed Use
Project C Project D
Data and Application
Review Process with
No Delay
Review Process with
90-day Delay
Design Changes with
Interim Financing
45
0
278
0
5
0
48
174
35
0
917
1650
10
0
291
2890
5
0
466
0
40
0
851
1590
a. Source: Ref. 16. Assumes 12 percent annual inflation and 1975 automobile population. Costs in thousands of dollars.
TABLE 28 — Effect of Automobile Emissions Controls
On Future Design Change Costs3
Highway-Related Transit-Related''
1980 1985 1990
1990
Case B
Percent of base
year cost
Case D
Percent of base
year cost
Case E
Percent of base
year cost
Case F
Percent of base
year cost
$1,250,000
92%
$539,000
37%
$354,000
40%
5300,000
32%
$1,250,000
92%
$132,000
9%
$40,000
11%
$200,000
21%
$1,167,000
86%
$000
0%
$40,000
11%
$000
0%
Not applicable
$90,000
82%
$155,250
40%
$20,000
18%
$40,000
26%
Not applicable
$000
0%
$40,000
26%
42
a. Source: Ref. 16. Costs in constant dollars based on original project completion date (base year).
b. Costs exclude annual operating costs.
-------
service, this approach to design-changes would be less
attractive economically than highway modifications. The
transit option would be attractive to the developer if the
community absorbed operation and maintenance costs.
The six cases examined in the ISR study suggest that
the effects of design-change costs are likely to be most
significant for large shopping centers. This is due both to
the nature of the traffic generated by these facilities and
their difficulties in adopting certain low-cost transporta-
tion options (e.g., carpooling). In the two shopping
center developments studied, design changes would
increase project costs by 4 and 21 percent. In the latter
case, which consists of an expansion of existing facilities,
an 8 percent increase in rents or some public funding of
design changes would enable the development to
proceed as planned with anticipated profits. In the
former case, the shopping center is located in a heavily
congested area. Although the immediate area around the
project is well-served by transit, 60 percent of the
shopping center's trade depends on commuter auto-
mobile trips by persons living outside of the project's
vicinity. Unless the public assumed responsibility for
major roadway modifications, ISR would be likely to
prevent the development from being built as planned.
However, the development could be built if it were
reoriented to serve the local population which has good
transit service.
Design changes to prevent excessive carbon monoxide
accumulations indicate the need for ISR. The ISR study
found that the air quality problems necessitating design
changes will persist over time despite the gradual
replacement of old, high-emitting cars with newer and
cleaner ones. However, the costs of design changes will
decrease as the car population becomes cleaner (Table
28).
The ISR study found that ISR and its attendant costs
might provide shopping center developers a marginal
incentive to locate in suburban areas where air quality is
relatively good and ISR-related costs would be
minimized. The effect of ISR on suburbanization of
office buildings was found to be small compared to the
effects of the state of the economy, the availability of
Federal funding, and the availability of labor. Short of
denial of a permit for construction, ISR was found to
have no effect on the location of mixed-use develop-
ments.
In the case of shopping centers, ISR was found likely
to have a much greater effect on facility size than on
facility location. "The economics of [shopping center]
developments above and below the triggering point for
review are not sufficiently different for a developer to
feel a large degree of hesitancy about reducing the size
of a facility to avoid the potential costs and uncertainty
of applying for an ISR permit" (Ref. 16). The sizes of
office buildings and parks probably will not change as a
result of ISR. Rather, office building developers will
reduce the sizes of their parking facilities and rely on
transit, carpooling, staggered work hours, or off-site
parking instead. There was insufficient information to
evaluate the effects of ISR on the sizes of mixed-use
developments.
References
1.1-66 Corridor Transportation Alternatives Study - Draft En-
vironmental/Section 4(f) Statement, prepared for the Virginia
Department of Highways by Howard, Needles, Tammen and
Bergendorff, November 1973.
2. Evaluation of a Bus Transit System in a Selected Urban Area,
prepared for the Federal Highway Administration by Peat,
Marwick, Livingston and Co., June 1969.
3. Gerald K. Miller and Keith M. Goodman, The Shirley Highway
Express-Bus-on-Freeway Demonstration Project - First Year
Results, Interim Report No. 2, prepared for the Urban Mass
Transportation Administration, November 1972.
4. Lester A. Hoel and Ervin S. Roszner, The Pittsburgh Parking
Strike, Report No. UMTA-PA-11-0011-72-2, prepared for the
Department of Transportation, December 1972.
5. Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative Transportation Control
Pans for the San Diego Air Quality Control Region, prepared for
the Environmental Protection Agency by Peat, Marwick,
Mitchell and Co., July 1974.
6. Eric Hirst, Federal Energy Administration, private communica-
tion.
7. John D. Wells, Norman J. Asher, Marilyn R. Flowers, Murry E.
Kamrass, Gary R. Nelson, F. Fred Selover, Sharron A. Thomas,
Economic Characteristics of the Urban Public Transportation
Industry, prepared for the Department of Transportation by the
Institute for Defense Analysis, February 1972.
8. 1973/74 Automobile Facts and Figures, Motor Vehicle Manu-
facturers Association, Detroit, Michigan.
9. Harry E. Strate, "Automobile Occupancy," Nationwide Persona]
Transportation Survey, Report No. 1, Department of Trans-
portation, April 1972.
10. Frederick F. Frye, Alternative Multimodal Passenger Transporta-
tion Systems — Comparative Economic Analysis, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Report No. 146,
Highway Research Board, 1973.
11. Characteristics of Urban Transportation Systems, prepared for
the Department of Transportation by DeLeuw, Gather and
Company, May 1974.
12. David A. Curry and Dudley G. Anderson, Procedures for
Estimating Highway User Costs, Air Pollution, and Noise
Effects, National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Report No. 133, Highway Research Board, 1972.
13. L. L. Liston and R. W. Sherrer, Cost of Operating an
Automobile, Department of Transportation, April 1974.
14. Kenneth Orski, "Car Free Zones and Traffic Restraints. Tools of
Environmental Management," Highway Research Record, No.
406, 1972.
15. Damian Kulash, "Parking Taxes as Roadway Prices: A Case
Study of the San Francisco Experience," Transportation Re-
search Record, No. 494, pp. 25-34, 1974.
16. Report on the Economic and Land Use Impact of Regulations
to Review New Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Prior to
Construction, prepared for the Environmental Protection
Agency by Harbridge House, Inc., October 1974 (Draft).
43
-------
44
chapter 6 - the relationship
of transportation controls
to other aspects of
transportation planning
and decision-making
1. Problems of Present Urban Transportation Systems
The principal orientation of urban transportation
planning in the United States is toward long-range,
capital intensive programs to expand highway capacity.
In the period 1957-1970, Federal expenditures for urban
highway construction exceeded $21 billion, whereas less
than $2 billion was spent to purchase buses or improve
the efficiency with which existing urban roads are used.
Between 1960 and 1970 total street and highway
mileage in cities increased by 30 percent, whereas bus
route-miles increased only 4 percent (Ref. 1).
The predominance of the automobile as the means of
urban transportation has created a wide variety of
transportation problems in addition to deteriorated air
quality. These problems include:
• Traffic congestion
• The decline of public transit
• Excessive noise
• Excessive energy consumption for transportation
purposes
• Excessive property losses, injuries, and deaths due
to traffic accidents
• Disruption and deterioration of residential areas
and business districts as a result of roadway
construction
• Lack of mobility for non-drivers.
These urban transportation problems are complex
and will not be solved easily or quickly. However, they
can be mitigated through the implementation of
measures to discourage the use of low-occupancy auto-
mobiles and encourage the use of transit and carpools
(see Chapter 5). Moreover, there is growing agreement
that the historical orientation of urban transportation
planners and managers toward long-term, capital inten-
sive programs must be modified to provide increased
emphasis on the development and implementation of
shorter range, lower cost options that offer the pos-
sibility of alleviating current problems.
A variety of low cost, short-range improvements in
urban transportation systems have been proposed in
response to the need to alleviate current urban trans-
portation problems. These proposals include:
• Priority treatment for high-occupancy vehicles on
streets and freeways
• Traffic engineering systems improvements
• Higher capacity transit vehicles
• Work scheduling changes (4-day week or staggered
work hours)
• Improved transit service, including linehaul feeder
systems, automation of bus scheduling, paratransit
(e.g., jitneys), and demand activated bus service
• Organized commuter carpooling
• Parking restrictions
• Economic penalties and incentives, including
increased auto-user charges and reduced transit
fares
• Facilitating bicycle travel
• Improving uiban goods movement.
These proposals have been motivated by a complex
cluster of urban transportation problems which include
but are by no means restricted to air quality (Ref. 1, 2,
3, 4). Yet, the proposals are virtually identical to the
ones that have been offered for inclusion in air-quality
related transportation control plans. Thus, air quality
requirements are not causing transportation changes that
are otherwise unnecessary. Rather, the immediacy of the
deadlines for achieving the ambient air quality standards
is accelerating the implementation of transportation
improvements that are needed to alleviate a wide variety
of urban transportation problems.
2. Effects of Transportation Control Requirements on
Other Transportation Programs
In recent years, significant attention has been devoted
to the process through which transportation improve-
ments are planned and implemented. Environmental
considerations, including concern about the air quality
implications of transportation proposals, have been a
significant force in stimulating changes in the transporta-
tion planning process. The following are among the
changes that are occurring (Ref. 5).
• Transportation institutions are reorganizing so that
a wider range of transportation options may be
considered. This shift is evidenced by the forma-
tion of departments of transportation with multi-
modal responsibilities. At the metropolitan level,
the requirement that one agency be designated as
recipient of both highway and transit funds and
proposed requirements for the submission of
multi-modal programs of projects indicate further
consolidation, or at least coordination, of multi-
modal transportation planning.
• Transportation agencies at all levels of government
are devoting increased attention to environmental
effects of proposed actions. This movement is at
least partially attributable to the growth of legal
requirements dealing with the environment,
ranging from the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (and the State equivalents of that
Act), to environmental sections of transportation
laws (e.g., Sections 109(h) - 109(j) of the 1970
Federal Aid Highway Act), to pollution laws such
as the Clean Air Act.
• The allocation of resources is becoming a vital
concern in transportation planning. The concept
of project cost has been expanded to include
consideration of the costs of eliminating or
minimizing adverse effects.
• Transportation agencies are directing more effort
toward the coordination of transportation plans
with the plans and proposals of other Federal,
State, and local agencies.
Transportation controls are likely to accelerate these
trends by necessitating the consideration of a wide range
of transportation options, by encouraging increased
interagency coordination, and by requiring explicit
analysis of the air quality effects of transportation
proposals.
-------
Apart from the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Department of Transportation is the Federal agency
most affected by transportation-related air quality
requirements. Changes in DOT policies, programs, and
procedures that are attributable wholly or in part to air
quality requirements include the following.
a. EPA participation in Intermodal Planning Groups
Intermodal planning groups (IPG's) are established in
the standard Federal regions by the Department of
Transportation to provide Federal review of State and
local planning of transportation projects that receive
Federal funds. The voting members of the IPG's are the
Urban Mass Transit Administration, the Federal High-
way Administration, and the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration. IPG responsibilities include assuring that State
and local transportation planning processes provide for:
• Adequate integration of highway, transit, and
airport-transit planning activities.
• Adequate participation in the planning process by
all affected local jurisdictions.
• Adequate consideration of social, economic, and
environmental factors.
Since 1973, EPA has participated in IPG's as a
non-voting member. This participation provides a means
of improving the integration of air quality requirements
into transportation planning and decision-making. EPA
participation in die Federal Region IX IPG has fa-
cilitated the provision of grants to Los Angeles, San
Francisco, and San Diego for the purpose of developing
parking management plans. The activities of the same
IPG together with the efforts of State and local agencies
resulted in the development of a short-term transporta-
tion plan for Los Angeles that addresses a variety of
local transportation problems including air quality. The
plan includes priority treatment for buses on streets and
freeways and the acquisition of 1600 new buses.
b. Implementation of Section 109(h) of the Federal
Aid Highway Act
Section 109(h) requires the Secretary of Transporta-
tion to promulgate guidelines designed to assure that
possible adverse economic, social, and environmental
effects relating to proposed projects on Federal-aid
systems are fully considered in developing the projects.
The guidelines must also assure that final decisions on
Federal-aid pi.'jects are made in the public interest,
taking into consideration a wide variety of factors
including the costs of minimizing adverse effects on air
quality.
In response to this requirement, DOT has issued
Process Guidelines for the development of action plans
to assure that adequate consideration is given to possible
social, economic, and environmental effects of proposed
highway projects and that the decisions on such projects
are made in die besi overall public interest (Ref. 6). The
guidelines identify issues to be considered in reviewing
and developing desirable improvements in the present
organizations and processes of State highway and trans-
portation agencies as they relate to social, economic, and
envirom ital considerations. The guidelines recognize
the unique situation of each State and do not prescribe
specific organizations or procedures.
c. Implementation of Section 109(j) of thp Frn
Aid Highway Act
Section 109(j) requires the Secretary of Transporta-
tion, after consultation with the EPA Ac' 'initiator, to
promulgate guidelines to assure thai highways con-
structed in the Federal-aid system 11- ••-.insistent with
approved plans for the implementation of ambient air
quality standards pursuant to the ' lean Air Act.
Further, the National Environmental i'oiicy Act of 1969
requires that adverse envi- ''mental Affects, including air
pollution, be considered in the development of hi;-'
proposals.
In response to these requirements, and after extensive
consultation with EPA, DOT has issued air quality
guidelines for use in planning, location, and construction
of Federally aided highway improvements (Ref. 7). The
guidelines require that transportation plans and pro-
grams developed through the urban transportation plan-
ning process be consistent with approved State im-
plementation plans to achieve the ambient air quality
standards. The procedure for assuring consistency
include consultation by the responsible transportation
planning agencies and the Regional Federal Highway
Administrator with the appropriate air pollution control
agency and the Regional Administrator of EPA.
The guidelines issued by DOT further require that the
proposed final environmental impact statement for a
highway section shall not be submitted to the Federal
Highway Administration for adoption if the responsible
indirect source review agency has found that the
highway section will result in a violation of applicable
portions of an approved emissions control strategy or
will interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the
ambient air quality standards. The final environmental
impact statement may be adopted by the Federal
Highway Administration only after the Regional Federal
Highway Administrator has determined that the
proposed highway section is consistent with the ap-
proved State implementation plan. The Regional Ad-
ministrator of EPA must be consulted on any con-
sistency issues that have not been resolved prior to the
submission of the proposed final environmental impact
statement.
d. Allocation of Funds to Support the Implementa-
tion of Transportation Control Strategies
The transportation control plans of many cities
anticipate substantial expansions of existing bus fleets
(see Chapter 3). At the request of EPA, DOT has agreed
to give priority to funding applications for mass transit
capital grants to implement transportation control
strategies and to meet the transit demand generated by
those strategies. Moreover, DOT has agreed to provide
up to $200 million for that purpose in FY 1974-75.
Depending on legislative developments regarding the
support of transit improvements, DOT is prepared to
consider higher funding levels in FY 1976 and FY 1977
if warranted by the demand for buses.
e. Short-range Transportation Plans and Improve-
ments
Section 1 of this Chapter explained the need for
increased emphasis on short-range, low cost transporta-
tion improvements. As an initial response to this need,
the Federal Highway Administration encourages specific
45
-------
46
consideration to be given to low cost transportation
improvements prior to a decision to implement major
capital investment projects (Ref. 8). DOT is now
developing guidelines for the preparation of short-range
transportation improvement programs. These will
require urbanized areas to prepare staged 3-5 year,
multimodal programs of capital and operational projects
consistent with the long-range transportation plan and
leading to the achievement of the short-range transporta-
tion objectives of the areas. This program will also
contain a listing of capital and operational improvement
projects proposed for implementation using Federal
funds during the first program year.
DOT also is developing requirements for the prepara-
tion of unified planning work programs;. These programs
will be prepared at the local level and will include,
among other things, descriptions of the specific technical
activities necessary to carry on the transportation
planning process for a one to two-year period. Planning
work programs also will include assurance that adequate
consideration is given to minimizing or eliminating
possible adverse social, economic, and environmental
effects of proposed projects.
f. Other DOT Actions
At the request of EPA, DOT has agreed to require
consistency with applicable transportation control plans
in reviewing mass transit capital grant applications. DOT
also has agreed to require that the transportation
planning efforts supported by DOT in urban areas with
transportation control plans address and spell out a
strategy for implementing approved transportation con-
trol plans or appropriate alternatives thereto.
DOT has given strong support to the principal of
removing subsidies to auto use in cities. Secretary
Brinegar has stated (Ref. 8):
We will develop ~- and encourage local areas to
implement — various incentive systems to force
more efficient vehicular usage of our existing
streets and highways. A necessary part of such an
approach is to see that the automobile does, in
fact, pay its share of all the costs that it imposes
on the cities. This could mean stiff parking taxes
and possibly even some form of special "rush
hour" license plates. For some cities it might even
mean banning or severely limiting automobile
access to the central core (Ref. 9).
In response to the Emergency Highway Energy
Conservation Act, DOT has initiated a program to
support carpool demonstration projects (Ref. 10).
Typical projects include locator systems, priority treat-
ment for carpools on streets and freeways, and priority
parking for carpools. Projects that encourage substantial
numbers of transit riders to switch to carpools are
excluded from the program. As of June 30,1974, a total
of 71 carpool demonstration projects in 26 States had
been approved.
3. Improving the Integration of Air Quality Require-
ments into Transportation Planning and Decision-
Making
The significance of the foregoing developments is that
they promote the development of an integrated trans-
portation planning and decision-making framework in
which decisions about air quality and decisions about
interacting social objectives can be made together,
trade-offs can be made among conflicting objectives
where necessary, and full advantage can be taken of the
many coincidences between air quality objectives and
other transportation objectives. The developing frame-
work places the principal responsibility for developing
and implementing transportation controls with State and
local authorities, subject to guidance and review by EPA
and DOT. Within this framework, transportation plan-
ning is understood to be a multi-objective process. Air
quality requirements enter the process in the form of
constraints. Thus, a community's transportation plan
remains oriented toward achieving a variety of objectives
mat the community has set for itself. However, the
means of achieving these objectives must be consistent
with air quality requirements.
Future action to increase the integration of air
quality planning and transportation planning should
address three problem areas:
• Development of adequate institutional structures.
• Acquisition of additional information on the
feasibility, benefits, and costs of innovative trans-
portation control approaches including parking
restraints, auto user charges, and transit improve-
ments.
• Development of more flexible deadlines for
achieving the transportation-related ambient air
quality standards.
The solution of these problems is likely to require both
administrative action and new legislation. Proposals now
under consideration include the following:
a. Increase the Responsibilities of Regional Trans-
portation Planning Agencies for Making Decisions
about Transportation Controls
The successful integration of air quality requirements
into transportation planning and decision-making will
require a much higher degree of coordination among
governmental agencies and jurisdictions than now exists.
The problems of institutional and jurisdictional frag-
mentation that inhibit this coordination may be
mitigated by increasing the transportation control
responsibilities of those agencies in metropolitan areas
that are already responsible for adopting a regional
transportation plan. Funds for developing and monitor-
ing transportation control strategies could be provided
to the agency designated in each metropolitan area as
the single recipient of Federal Highway Administration
and Urban Mass Transit Administration planning funds.
The short range program requirements currently under
development by DOT could be expanded to explicitly
include transportation control measures.
b. Encourage States and Localities to Experiment
with Transportation Control Measures and to
Monitor the Results
There are substantial uncertainties associated with the
feasibility, costs and benefits of certain transportation
control measures. Many of these uncertainties must be
resolved through actual experience with the measures.
Experiments are needed on various types of parking
limitations, pricing policies, transit improvements, and
carpooling. The objectives of the experiments should
include assessing the effects on mobility of alternative
approaches to reducing auto use; demonstrating
-------
workable options to the public and to officials; and
acquiring improved information about the costs and
market responses of various transportation options.
c. Require that Transportation Control Plans Be
Reivewed Periodically and Revised as Necessary in
an Open Forum
Piescut regujalions require a transportation control
plan to be revised if the air quality standards are revised,
tetter methods for achieving the standards are found, or
the existing plan is found to be inadequate to meet the
standaids. However, there is no requirement for a
periodic, public review of progress made under a plan,
problems that may have arisen, and new information
that may have become available since the plan was
adopted. Requiring the periodic reassessment of trans-
portation control plans may help officials and the public
to understand that they need not be bound to a plan if it
proves unworkable or if it is found to be achieving a
greater or lesser degree of emissions control than
necessary. This, in turn, may create an increased
willingness to experiment with transportation control
appi caches.
d. Provide Increased Flexibility in the Deadlines for
Achieving the Transportation-Related Air Quality
Standards
In some heavily polluted regions, the reductions ii.
automobile use needed to achieve the transportation-
related air quality standards will create considerable
uisjuption. Legislation is needed mat will permit greater
flexibility in the deadlines for achieving these air quality
standards in certain areas while maintaining the require-
ment mat air quality be improved and the standards be
achieved as rapidly as possible. A proposal to amend the
Clean Air Act to provide this flexibility was transmitted
to the Congress in March 1974 (sec Appendix C).
References
I. Charles A. Hedges, "Lei's Attack the Real Urban Transportatiozi
Problem," Transportation Research Record, forthcoming.
2. Low Cost Urban Transportation Alternatives: A Study of Ways
to Increase the Effectiveness of Existing Transportation Facil-
ities, prepared for the Department of Transportation by R. H.
Pratt Associates, January ] 973.
3. Action Plan for Early Improvements in Transportation in the
Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area, Report No. DOT-
OS-10192, prepared for the Department of Transportation by
the London Transport Executive, July 1972.
4. A Generalized Automobile Parking Policy to Encourage In-
creased Use of Public Transit by Commuters, Report No.
DOT-OS-] OJ 92, prepared for the Department of Transportation
by the London Transport Executive, July 1 972.
5. Marvin L. Manheim, John H. Suhrbier, Elizabeth D. Bennett,
Lance A. Neumann, Franck C. Colcord, and Arlee T. Reno,
Transportation Decision-Making: A Guide to Social and
Environmental Considerations, Massachusetts Institute o~
Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, July 1974.
6. Process Guidelines (Economic, Social and Environmental Effect •
on Highway Projects), Federal Highway Administration, Policy
and Procedure Memorandum 90-4, September 21, 1972.
7. Federal Register, forthcoming.
8. Low Capital Transportation Improvements, Federal Highwa
Administration Notice N 5160.7, October 4, 1974.
9. Claude S. Brinegar, address to the Society of Automotive
Engineers, Anaheim, California, August 14, 1974.
10. "Carpool Demonstration Projects," Federal-Aid Highway Pro-
gram Manual, Vol. 4, Chapter 8, Section 3, February 26, 197^. 47
-------
Appendix A
Status of Transportation Control Plans
Measure
City
Approved State (State)
or
EPA Promulgated (EPA)
Status
Parking management
(review of new
facilities)
Fairbanks
STATE OF ALASKA
EPA
EPA has deferred the effective data of the parking
management regulations to June 30, 1974. It
appears that North Star Borough will submit a
local parking management plan.
Bus Carpool Matching
Program
Employer Carpool
Incentives
(200 employee spaces
per facility)
Phoenix and
Tucson
Phoenix and
Tucson
Parking Management Phoenix and
(review of new facilities) Tucson
STATE OF ARIZONA
EPA
EPA
EPA
The Cities have notified EPA's regional
office of their intent to implement this
strategy.
40 Employers have submitted plans to EPA's
regional office. These plans are currently
being reviewed by EPA.
EPA has deferred the effective date of
parking management until June 30, 1975.
Prefeiential Bus/
Carpool Treatment
48
Parking Management
(Review of New
Facilities)
Computer Carpool
Matching
Mass Transit
Priority — Exclusive
Bus Lanes
Freeway Ramp
Metering
Priority Treatment
for Buses and
Carpools
Parking Surcharge
for public and
employee parking
San Francisco
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EPA
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Sacramento
San Joaquin
San Diego
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Sacramento
San Joaquin
San Diego
San Diego
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
San Francisco
San Diego
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
The city and state are working on a
feasibility study for improving mass
transit. EPA's regional office has sent a
letter to the State Air Resources Board
asking for a positive commitment to
implement improved mass transit strategies.
EPA has deferred the effective date for
this strategy until June 30,1975. Los
Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco,
however, are planning to develop and
implement their own comprehensive parking
management programs with EPA assistance.
State officials have indicated to EPA
that they will implement this program.
The City of San Diego has indicated to
EPA that it will implement these programs.
The City of Los Angeles has indicated to
EPA that it will implement this strategy.
Several exclusive lanes have already
been established.
EPA rescinded all measures relating to
surcharges or fees for parking on
January 15, 1974.
-------
STATE OF COLORADO
Mass Transit Denver
Improvements
Bus/Carpool Denver
Lanes
On-Street Parking Denver
Limitations
Parking Management Denver
(review of new
facilities)
Bikeway Denver
State
State
State
State
State
The City has implemented the improvements
and purchased the buses.
Experimental lanes are in operation, and
the program is progressing smoothly.
The State plans to drop this measure from
its plan because there already is little
on-street parking in Denver. It will be
replaced by other measures.
The State has made gradual progress in
adopting the regulations to implement this
program. However, compliance is likely.
A major portion of the 164 mile project
has been implemented.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
On-Street Parking Chicago
Traffic Flow Chicago
Improvements
EPA
State
The full program has been delayed, but
a pilot program is in operation
The TOPICS program has begun according
to the required schedule.
STATE OF MARYLAND
Buslanes Baltimore
Bus Fleet Increase Baltimore
Carpool Matching Baltimore
Employer Incentives Baltimore
for Mass Transit
(700 employee spaces
per facility)
Traffic Flow Baltimore
Improvements
Bikeways Baltimore
Management of Baltimore
Parking Supply
(review of new
facilities)
EPA
State
State
EPA
State
EPA
EPA
The City has submitted preliminary study
results and has a test route in operation.
Documentation of progress has not been
submitted but communications from the
Governor indicate good progress on fleet
expansion.
The pilot program is 75% implemented and
funding for fiscal year 1975 has been
secured.
Requests for information have been sent
to about 60 employers. Of the 12 plans
submitted, only a few were approvable.
EPA is working with the employers to
improve the submissions.
A letter from the Governor indicates
that the required study is completed
and that compliance is likely.
The required study has been initiated
according to schedule.
EPA has deferred the effective date until
June 30, 1975.
49
-------
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
On-Street
Parking
Limitation
Parking
Management
a) CBD freeze
b) New facility
review
c) Employer mass
transit incentives
(50 employees per
facility)
Preferential Bus/
Carpool Treatment
Regulation for off-
street parking
facilities, 254
per hour surcharge
40% vacancy rate
in CBD
Computer Carpool
Matching Program
Regulation for
Logan egress toll
Boston
and
Springfield
Boston
EPA
State
EPA
EPA
Boston
Boston
and
Springfield
Boston
Boston
and
Springfield
Boston
EPA
EPA
EPA
State
and
EPA
EPA
Neither city has submitted required legal and
administrative procedures nor implemented the
first phase of the program. Both the State
and cities, however, indicate a willingness
to implement this strategy.
The first circuit court decision South
Terminal Corp., et al, v. EPA, 6 ERC
2025, (September 27, 1974) suspended imple-
mentation of the parking management regula-
tion, except for the provision on employer
incentives, until the air quality data base
has been revised. On August 19, 1974, EPA
sent out 390 Section 113 notices of violation
for employer action plans. Prior to this
activity 700 action plans had been submitted.
Subsequent to this activity over 200 addi-
tional action plans have been received by EPA.
Boston failed to submit a compliance schedule
which was due on August 1, 1974. The city also
failed 1o implement preferential bus/carpool
treatment for Route 1-93.
EPA rescinded the surcharge for Boston and
Springfield on January 15, 1974.
This measure was also suspended by the above
cited court decision.
Radio station WBZ/ALA just completed area-
wide program. Massachusetts is planning to
start a state-operated program of its own.
EPA also rescinded all surcharges and tolls
for Logan Airport on January 15, 1974.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Traffic Management
System
Fringe Parking
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
State
State
The City has implemented the program
according to schedule.
The fringe lots are being constructed in
compliance with the required schedule.
Bus Fleet
Increase
Exclusive
Busways
Bike ways
NATIONAL CAPITAL
(Including D.C., Maryland, and Virginia Suburbs)
50
D.C., Maryland
and Virginia
Suburbs
D.C., Maryland
and Virginia
Suburbs
District of
Columbia
State
State
EPA
Buses have been purchased according to
schedule.
All jurisdictions are actively studying,
and some lanes are operational or under
construction. Other lanes will probably be
substituted for less effective proposed lanes
after thorough study. Substantial, though
tardy compliance is likely.
Compliance dates have been missed, but the
City has submitted an alternative proposal
to EPA.
-------
Bikeways
On-street
Parking
Restrictions
Parking
Management
(review of new
facilities)
Parking Surcharge,
Commercial Rates
for Federal
Employee Parking
Maryland and
Virginia Suburbs
B.C., Maryland
and Virginia
Suburbs
D.C., Maryland
D.C., Maryland
and Virginia
Suburbs
EPA
State
EPA
EPA/State
There have been substantial efforts by local
jurisdictions to comply.
The jurisdictions were given a delay until the
Council of Governments defined "adequately
served by mass transit". D.C., Arlington and
Montgomery County have enacted regulations.
EPA has deferred the effective date until
June 30, 1975.
EPA rescinded all measures relating to sur-
charges or fees for parking on January 15,
1974.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Preferential Bus/
Carpool Treatment
On-street Parking
Limitation
Parking Management
(review of new
facilities)
Employer Mass
Transit Priority
Incentives
(400 employee
spaces per
facility)
Vehicle Free
Zones
Carpool Matching
Program
New Jersey
Suburbs of New
York and
Philadelphia
EPA
Camden, Newark,
and Trenton
CBD's
New Jersey
Suburbs of New
York and
Philadelphia
New Jersey
Suburbs of New
York and
Philadelphia
EPA
EPA
EPA
Trenton
New Jersey
Suburbs of New
York and
Philadelphia
EPA
EPA
New Jersey has a contra-flow bus lane in
operation on route 1-495 between the New
Jersey Turnpike and the Lincoln Tunnel. The
State has received a $376,000 grant for con-
ducting a feasibility study and demonstration
projects for other routes. New Jersey officials
are also considering an exclusive bus lane
to the Ben Franklin Bridge.
An EPA provided contract is supplying a
comprehensive parking management analysis
for the three CBD's. Camden and Trenton have
made submittals indicating their intent to
implement these strategies.
EPA has deferred the effective date of this
regulation to June 30,1975. The EPA con-
tractor's report will also be used to
develop a comprehensive parking management
program for these areas.
The original promulgated regulation required
parking fees. This regulation was rescinded
on January 15, 1974. A new regulation was
proposed and promulgated June 4, 1974. 115
Employers have submitted plans under the new
regulation. This represents approximately 95%
of the employees covered. EPA's regional office
is proposing to contact employers who failed
to submit plans.
The city has put into effect a partial
vehicle free zone.
Camden and Trenton are using the New Jersey/
DOT Carpool program. Newark has not made
substantial progress on this program.
51
-------
STATE OF NEW YORK1
Improved enforce-
ment of traffic
regulations
Exclusive bus
lanes and improved
express service
Staggered work
hours and days
New York
New York
New York
State
State
State
The City has hired an additional 1,000 "Meter
Maids" to enforce the on-street parking
restrictions.
The City has had this strategy in effect but
has not yet improved or expanded the service.
Many of the express service buses do not have
exclusive lanes or priority treatment.
City and State agencies are implementing
staggered work hours. No one has implemented
staggered work days.
STATE OF OREGON
Buslanes and
other transit
improvements
Parking
Management
(review of new
facilities)
Portland
Portland
State
State
All measures except the installation of park
and ride shelters are being implemented on
schedule.
The State is currently reviewing the construc-
tion of new parking lots, and the City is
considering adoption of a local parking
management plan.
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Buslanes
Carpool Matching
Pi ogram
Employer Incen-
tives for Mass
Transit
(700 employee
spaces per
facility)
Hkeways
On-street Parking
Restrictions
Pittsburgh and
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh and
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh and
Philadelphia
EPA
State
EPA
EPA
EPA
The State has completed several studies and
is now selecting the best routes. Compliance
is likely.
A contracted matching program is ongoing,
although no documentation has been submitted
to EPA.
With the cooperation of the local planning
commission, the program is proceeding. EPA
is working to improve the quality of the 10
programs submitted. Information has been
requested from about 30 non-submitting
employers.
The program for development and supporting
documentation have been submitted.
This measure is closely associated with the
buslanes provisions. No action is expected
until after final selection of the buslane
routes.
Parking Manage-
ment
(review of new
facilities)
Pittsburgh and
Philadelphia
EPA
EPA has deferred the effective date of this
regulation to June 30, 1975. In Philadelphia,
the regulation only affects construction of
facilities in the central business district.
'EPA approved New York's TCP on June 22, 1973, Since then New York has submitted a plan revision. The State just completed public
" hearings on its revised plan. EPA and New York are attempting to work out an acceptable plan.
-------
STATE OF TEXAS
Bus/Carpool
lanes
Parking
Management
Bus/Carpool
matching and
promotional system
Employer Incentive
(700 employee spo.
per facility)
Houston
Dallas-Ft.
Worth
San Antonio
Houston
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Houston
Dallas-Ft. Worth
San Antonio
Houston
Dallas-Ft. Worth
San Antonio
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
There had been little progress made toward
implementation prior to the decision in State
of Texas v. EPA, 499 F.2d 289) 5th Circuit,
August 7, 1974). The decision in that case
deferred implementation of this measure in
Houston and San Antonio and required recon-
sideration of the measure in Dallas-Ft.
Worth.1
The measure was also deferred by the 5th Circuit
in State of Texas v. EPA.1 Since that
case was decided, EPA has deferred the effective
date of parking management regulations to
June 30, 1975.
Some compliance dates were missed during the
progress of Texas' suit against EPA. The
outcome of that suit deferred this measure in
Houston and San Antonio and required recon-
sideration in Dallas-Ft. Worth.1
Several employers submitted programs early
in 1974. This measure was deferred in Houston
and San Antonio and reconsideration was re-
quired in Dallas-Ft. Worth.1
Pedestrian Mall
On-Street Parking
Restrictions
Bike way
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Provo
STATE OF UTAH
EPA
EPA
EPA
The City committed itself to the project,
and construction is now underway.
The City has committed itself to carrying
out the program
A meeting was held with the Mayor after
compliance dates were missed. The Mayor
has promised completion by March, 1975.
STATE OF WASHINGTON
Seattle EPA/State Seattle has submitted the required compliance
and schedule for buslanes, and other cities have
Spokane submitted reports required by the park and
ride regulations. A request for an extension
for other transit improvements in Seattle is
currently being considered.
Seattle and EPA EPA has approved the Washington indirect source
Spokane regulations which will replace all parking
management regulations except the central
business district freeze. Permits are currently
being given under the freeze provisions.
Seattle and EPA None of the required information or regulations
Spokane have been submitted. Commitments have been
made, however, in each city for certain
organizations to take the lead in implement-
ing this strategy.
Spokane EPA All of the dates for implementation have been
missed, but replacement of this measure is
being considered upon completion of an evalua-
tion of alternate measures by a contractor.
Measures were deferred by the 5th Circuit pending EPA re consideration of the refinery reactivity factor, used in Texas, Other measures were
required to be reconsidered to determine whether they were reasonable in view of the fact that the reductions obtained from these measures are
needed only for a short time. 53
Buslanes, park
and ride lots and
other transit
improvements
Parking
management
Computerized
carpooling
Bicycle lanes
-------
Appendix B
Preambles to Indirect Source Regulations
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1974
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Volume 39 • Number 38
PART III
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
AIR PROGRAMS;
APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Review of Indirect Sources
MO. 8«—pt m—i
54
-------
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGA-
TION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Review of Indirect Sources
O.n May 31, 1972 (37 FB 10842), the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency published his initial
approvals and disapprovals of state, im-
plementation plans submitted pursuant
to section 110 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended in 1970. Shortly thereafter,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
(NRDC) and various other petitioners
challenged the Administrator's ap-
provals in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir-
cuit on several grounds, including the
contention that the plans approved were
not adequate to insure maintenance of
the ambient air quality standards once
such standards were attained.
As to this issue, the Court ruled in
NRDC v. EPA, 475 F.2d 968 (D.C. Cir.
1973)", that the record before the court
was insufficient to ascertain whether the
Administrator had made a state-by-
state determination as to plans' ade-
quacy regarding maintenance. Accord-
ingly, the Court ordered the Adminis-
trator to review the maintenance
provisions of all approved state imple-
mentation plans and to disapprove those
plans which (1) did not contain meas-
ures necessary to assure maintenance of
the primary standards after the statu-
tory attainment date, and (2) did not
analyze maintenance in a manner
consistent with the Administrator's
regulations.
Upon further review, the Administra-
tor determined that no state plan con-
tained all of the measures necessary to
assure maintenance of the standards
and that no plan had adequately an-
alyzed the Impact of growth on air qual-
ity maintenance for any significant pe-
riod of time into the future. Accordingly,
on March 8, 1973 (38 FR 6279), the Ad-
ministrator disapproved all state plans
with respect to maintenance of
standards.
In the notice of disapproval, the Ad-
ministrator noted that several mecha-
nisms already available under the Act
and in regulations would serve to miti-
gate the impact of overall community
growth on air quality maintenance. For
instance, maintenance was partially in-
sured by the then-existing provisions of
40 CFR 51.18, which required each state
plan to have adequate procedures to re-
view, and where necessary prevent, the
construction or modification of any sta-
tionary source of air pollution at a loca-
tion where emissions from that source
would result in interference with the at-
tainment or maintenance of a national
standard. Emission performance stand-
ards for new major stationary sources
promulgated under section 111 of the Act
and emission standards for motor vehi-
cles promulgated under section 202 of the
Act will also serve to mitigate the impact
RULES AND REGULATIONS
of growth. Moreover, a valuable tool to
ensure maintenance exists in the require-
ments in section 110 of the Act that pol-
lutants in the ambient air be continually
monitored and that the Administrator
shall call for the revision of inadequate
state implementation plans whenever
monitoring or other information in-
dicates this to be necessary.
The Administrator determined, how-
ever, that such measures alone would not
be adequate to ensure maintenance, par-
ticularly Jor pollutants emitted largely
by motor vehicles in the context of in-
creased use resulting from general urban
and commercial development. Accord-
ingly, the Administrator determined that
the new source review procedures noted
in the preceding paragraph should be
expanded to cover not only stationary
sources but also "complex" or "indirect"
sources of air pollution—facilities which
do not themselves emit pollutants, but
which attract increased motor vehicJe
activity and thereby may cause viola-
tions of an implementation plan's trans-
portation control strategy or may prevent
or interfere with the attainment or
maintenance of an ambient air quality
standard.
Thus, all state implementation plans
were disapproved on March 8, 1973, be-
cause of their failure to sufficiently assess
and provide for maintenance of stand-
ards, and specifically for their failure to
provide for the above-mentioned "com-
plex" or "indirect" source review. In a
separate action on March 8 (38 FR 6290),
the Administrator issued an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking stating his
intention to modify his regulations for
preparation of state implementation
plans contained in 40 CFR Part 51 in
order to give further guidance to the
states in the preparation of approvable
indirect source review measures. In a
timetable approved by the D.C. Circuit
Court, the Administrator then proposed
such new guidelines on April 18, 1973 (38
FR 9599), and promulgated final guide-
lines on June 18, 1973 (38 FR 15834).
Specifically, these "guidelines" in-
volved amendments to 40 CFR 51.11 and
51.18. Section 51.11 was amended so that
a state Implementation-plan could not
be fully approvable unless the state had
legal authority to conduct "indirect"
source review as well as "direct" (sta-
tionary) source review. Section 51.18
was amended to specify in detail the sub-
stantive and procedural matters which
must be dealt with by states in develop-
ing approvable indirect source measures.
The Administrator noted in the
April 18 preamble that even such a
source-by-source review might not be
adequate to assure area-wide main-
tenance: "The purpose of the review and
determination procedures required under
40 CFR 51.18 Enew stationary and in-
direct source review] is primarily to in-
sure that the national standards will not
be violated in the vicinity of a major new
facility." The Administrator recognized
that hi the long run, greater attention
to the overall Impact of growth on re-
gional ah- quality would be needed to fill
in gaps left by a source-by-source review
scheme.
In the June 18, 1973, final promulga-
tion of the guidance regulations amend-
ing 40 CFR Part 51, the Administrator
determined, in response to public com-
ments, that a comprehensive growth
analysis should be specifically required
of the states in order to make the main-
tenance provisions of implementation
plans fully acceptable. It was the Ad-
ministrator's conclusion that indirect
source review, while "a necessary addi-
tion" to an overall strategy for assuring
maintenance, could be considered only an
additional tactic in such strategy, "be-
cause source-by-source analysis is not
an adequate means of evaluating, on a
regional scale, the air quality impact of
growth and development * * *" Further-
more, for pollutants such as hydrocar-
bons and nitric oxide, which affect air
quality through complex atmospheric re-
actions resulting in the formation of
photochemical oxidants and nitrogen di-
oxide, analytical tools that can be used
with confidence to predict the air quality
impact of a single source are not now
available.
Accordingly, the Administrator pro-
mulgated additional regulations amend-
ing 40 CFR 51.12. States must comply
with these regulations before their im-
plementation plans can be regarded as
fully approved with respect to air quality
maintenance. Generally such regulations
require states to identify by March 18,
1974, those areas that may exceed any
national standards within the next ten
years; to develop and submit to the Ad-
ministrator by June 18, 1975, an analysis
of the impact of projected growth on air
quality in such regions; and to adopt
such measures as may be necessary to
assure that growth and development will
be compatible with maintenance of the
national standards. Only when such plans
are finally approved can the Administra-
tor consider the maintenance portions of
state plans complete. Thus, indirect
source review procedures are a necessary
but insufficient element in a comprehen-
sive strategy for air quality maintenance.
Further, in accordance with the order
of the D.C. Circuit Court, the Adminis-
trator allowed States until August 15,
1973, to submit indirect source review
procedures for approval. For those states
which submitted nothing or whose plans
could not be approved, the Administrator
proposed on October 30, 1973 (38 FR
29893), Federal regulations for review of
indirect sources. Since the public did not
have adequate opportunity to comment
on the seven plans that had been re-
ceived by that date, no state indirect
source procedures could be approved.
The Administrator is further required
by the .Court's order, as most recently
modified on February 13,1974, to promul-
gate final regulations no later than
February 15, 1974. This rulemaking is,
therefore, being carried out pursuant to
the schedule approved by the D.C. Cir-
cuit Court in order to provide Indirect
source review procedures as one element
In an overall strategy for maintenance
which all state implementation plans are
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 38—MONDAY, FEBRUARY »5, 1974
55
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
required to contain. State plans shall re-
main disapproved as to maintenance
pending final submission and approval of
the growth analyses and other necessary
measures noted above.
Based on a preliminary review of the
seven plans which had been submitted by
October 30, 1973, three (Alabama, Flori-
da, and Guam) appeared approvable and,
thus, no proposal was made for those
three States on October 30. The Alabama
and Florida plans were proposed for pub-
lic comment hi the October 26,1973, FED-
ERAL REGISTER (38 FR 24607-08) and the
Guam plan as proposed on January 9,
1974 (39 FR 1454). In each case, the Ad-
ministrator has reviewed the plan sub-
missions to ascertain whether adequate
legal authority exists, as required by 40
CFR 51.11, whether a public hearing was
held, as required by 40 CFR 51.4, and
whether the plan meets the detailed re-
quirements for indirect source review
contained hi 40 CFR 51.18. The Admin-
istrator has also reviewed the written
comments submitted in response to the
proposals. Criticism of the submissions
focused upon the size criteria for deter-
mining which indirect sources would be
subject to review, the effective dates, and
the failure to specifically address the Is-
sue of nondeterioratlon. Similiar com-
ments were submitted with respect to
the Administrator's October 30 proposal
and are discussed in subsequent para-
graphs of this preamble.
The Florida and Guam plans for in-
direct source review are fully approved
below. The Alabama plan for indirect
source review has been determined to be
approvable hi all respects except that the
necessary public comment procedures
were not Included in regulatory form.
The Administrator is, therefore, promul-
gating a corrective regulation for Ala-
bama relating solely to public comment
procedures. Since these procedures are
clearly required by 40 CFR 51.18 and
the regulation merely gives legally en-
forceable form to the procedures spelled
out by the State in Its submission, the
Administrator finds good cause for pro-
mulgating such a correction without hav-
ing proposed it.
To date, EPA has received 14 officially
submitted state plans for review of in-
direct sources. Five (Connecticut, Ken-
tucky, New Hampshire, Vermont and
Virginia) have been or will shortly be
proposed for public comment on their
approvablllty and remain disapproved
until the Administrator completes his
evaluation. Seven of the state plans
(Alabama, Idaho, Maine, New York,
North Carolina, Oregon, and Washing-
ton) contain deficiencies which are spe-
cifically Identified below. The Adminis-
trator is aware that several of these
states are working to correct the defi-
ciencies; if changes are submitted and
found approvable, the regulations pro-
mulgated for these states will be revoked.
Only the Florida and Guam indirect
source review procedures can be fully
approved at this time.
Modification to the Proposed Regula-
tions Made in Response to Public Com-
ments. Many individual citizens, environ-
mental groups, corporations, commercial
associations, and governmental agencies
participated In the rulemaMng process
by submitting written comments or testi-
fying at public hearings held on the
October 30, 1973, proposed regulations.
While it would be impossible to respond
to every point, a number of the major
comments are discussed below. Many of
the alleged deficiencies in the basic ap-
proach of the proposed regulations as
reflected In public comments were based
upon an inadequate understanding of
the purpose of these regulations. They
are Intended to provide one element hi an
overall strategy of air quality mainte-
nance, including new stationary source
review, new source performance stand-
ards, the Federal motor vehicle control
program, and the comprehensive growth
plans which the states must develop. As
explained earlier, the Administrator has
determined that a source-by-source
review approach, while necessary to as-
sure maintenance,- must be accompanied
by more Inclusive long term growth
analyses.
Many of the comments focused cri-
tically upon the size criteria for deter-
mining which Indirect sources would be
subject to the review process. One com-
ment frequently made was that the sizes
set forth (1,000 parking spaces, 20,000
vehicles per day for highways, etc.) were
too large and that much smaller sources
should be reviewed in order to assure
maintenance. The Administrator has de-
termined that the facilities to be re-
viewed should be limited to those most
likely to cause air quality problems. In
administering the Act, the Administrator
must choose workable tactics considering
sound and rational allocation of re-
sources. In the Administrator's judg-
ment, the relatively minimal benefits to
be gained by reviewing smaller sources
would be greatly outweighed by the re-
sulting detrimental diversion of man-
power and resources needed to implement
other important aspects of the Act. Ac-
cordingly, It has been determined that
air quality problems associated with an
aggregation of smaller sources can be
dealt with more-effectively and efficiently
through the comprehensive growth plans
to be submitted by June 1975 than
through source-by-source reviews under
these indirect source regulations.
Several comments were also received
from State agencies generally urging
consideration of smaller size categories.
As emphasized In the October 30 pro-
posal, the size of an indirect source sub-
ject to these regulations has been
determined hi a nationwide context and
cannot reflect special local conditions,
such as a desire to include other environ-
mental or social considerations hi the
review. The Administrator supports and
encourages the enactment of more re-
strictive indirect source provisions and
regulations by states where the needs,
conditions, and/or public desire so
indicate.
Other comments criticized the basic
approach of reviewing facilities based
upon, strict size criteria such as size of
associated parking areas. These com-
ments made the point that size alone is
not the determinative factor as to
whether a particular facility wffl cause
ah- quality problems; and that much
more relevant factors concern trip in-
ducement, the design of parking areas,
the "tenant-mix" of shopping complexes,
and others. Several of those who com-
mented also construed the proposed
regulations to mean that the principal
purpose Is to regulate the size of the
associated parking lot. It should be em-
phasized that parking lot size Is used only
as a convenient, easily defined parameter
which serves as a "triggering mechanism"
for determining whether a source is sub-
ject to review. When a source is being
reviewed under the regulations, factors
relating directly to air quality impact
will be utilized hi making the final
determination.
Several comments were received criti-
cizing the use of a trip inducement test
as being too indefinite a standard to use
for determining whether a facility is
subject to review. These commen,ts
pointed out that in many cases, a de-
veloper could not determine with con-
fidence whether his facility is subject to
review, since the trip inducement cri-
terion requires that he estimate, several
years Into the future, how many vehicle
trips his facility would induce during
peak traffic conditions. Although many
developers assess trip inducement as an
integral part of their market analysis, a
developer should not be placed hi legal
jeopardy should the actual trips induced
upon completion exceed his initial calcu-
lations. The Administrator has concluded
that a "trip Inducement" review test
would cause much uncertainty as well
as substantial enforcement problems.
Thus, the trip Inducement standard is
not included hi the regulations promul-
gated below, with parking facility size
being the only Indicator of the need for
review of sources other than highways
and airports.
Some commentors criticized the regu-
lations for not specifically addressing the
problems of "non-deterioration." The
agency proposed separate regulations for
non-deterioration on July 16, 1973 (38
FR 18986). Due to the large number of
comments received and the importance
of this Issue in relation to air quality,
land use policies, and the country's econ-
omy, the Agency has not yet completed
Its rulemaking on non-deterioration. Be-
cause several basic approaches are still
being considered, an attempt to reflect
non-deterioration considerations in the
indirect source regulations would be pre-
mature. However, it is EPA's Intent that
indirect source and significant deteriora-
tion regulations will be consistent with
one another. Specific relationships will
be addressed In regulation to be promul-
gated on significant deterioration.
Public comments also criticized the use
of the distinction between "designated"
and "non-designated" areas for deter-
mining the size of facilities which would
be subject to review, on grounds that
such distinction would violate the Act's
intent that no significant deterioration
of air quality be permitted In any area
56
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 38—MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1974
-------
RULES AND RfcGUIATIONS
of the country, in that the division would
purport to treat clean areas more len-
iently than dirty areas. As already stated,
attempts to design these regulations to
coincide with a "non-deterioration"
policy would be premature. Moreover,
the criterion for review in these regula-
tions is whether the f acility .would inter-
fere with attainment or maintenance of
the national standards. Because of gen-
erally lower "background" levels in non-
urban areas and in keeping with the
purpose of these regulations, which is to
review sources most likely to cause sig-
nificant air quality problems, it is the
Administrator's judgment that it is not
necessary to review the same size source
in non-urban areas as in urban areas.
In the regulations promulgated below,
the use of "designated areas" for deter-
mining which areas of the country shall
be subject to more restrictive source
exemption provisions has been dropped
and the Standard Metropolitan Statisti-
cal Area boundaries have been retained
for this purpose. This is done to eliminate
the confusion that could result if an
area were designated as an air quality
maintenance area (AQMA) for one pol-
lutant but not for another. This should
result in more areas of the country being
subject to the lower cut-off limits than
under the AQMA approach. In appro-
priate circumstances, the Administrator
will consider requests by the States to
use area designations other than SMSA's
for determining the geographic appli-
cability of the more restrictive exemption
provisions.
With respect to highways, it is the
Administrator's judgment that air quality
problems would rarely be caused outside
of urbanized areas. Highways generally
connect one or more urbanized areas
somewhere along their length and the
regulation is written so as to focus the
review on the most critical points along
the highway, where the traffic volume
and "background" concentrations are the
greatest.
Many comments which criticized the
size cutoffs for review as being too large
argued that the regulations would en-
courage the development of many small
facilities to escape indirect source re-
view, thereby encouraging "urban
sprawl" with resulting environmentally
detrimental efff-cts. It was urged by some
that the Adni;i.i*trator should encourage
rather than iscourage some large de-
velopment s as regional shopping
centers wl. >eeause they offer a con-
sumer "oiif ." slopping for a large
variety of is nd services, might
actually re, .- < -"t decrease in area-
wide vehicle miles i» : ravel.
The Administrate! 111 tainly does not
Intend and does not believe that the en-
couragement of small, strip-type devel-
opments will be ttu -. (fect of these regu-
lations. First, it should be stressed that
the primary purpose of the regulations
is to ensure that proposed projects are
designed and located hi a manner con-
sistent with air quality requirements. If
the proposed project would interfere with
a national standard, changes in the de-
sign, or extension of mass transit, should
be considered. Only if a project cannot
be made compatible with air quality re-
quirements would it be necessary to pre-
vent its construction. Furthermore, as
long as there are economic incentives
favoring development of large projects,
the Administrator does not believe that
developers of larger projects will change
their scope of operations solely for fear
of indirect source review. As is discussed
below, developers will be encouraged to
submit their plans for indirect source
review at the earliest stage in the de-
velopment process that the required in-
formation becomes available. Thus, ap-
plicants should be able to obtain guid-
ance and a final determination from the
reviewing agency at a point where total
projected investment and expenditures
for the source will be quite low, and will
usually be able to make necessary design
modifications so that a large indirect
source can receive formal approval.
Some comments criticized the regu-
lations for requiring analysis of only car-
bon monoxide effects for most sources
and requiring photochemical oxidant,
hydrocarbon, and nitrogen dioxide anal-
ysis only for highways and airports.
Others stated that the highway cutoff
numbers were too low to conduct ade-
quate area-wide oxidant analysis for all
highways subject to review. As stated in
the preamble to the October 30, 1973,
proposed indirect souice regulations, it
is the Administrator's judgment that
adequate analytical techniques do not
exist at this time to predict with confi-
dence the effects of a single source on
area-wide oxidant levels, except for ex-
tremely large sources which have an
obvious area-wide impact on emission
levels such as airports and large
highways.
In the Administrators judgment,
using presently available analytical
techniques, the impact on area-wide
emission levels of hydrocarbon and
nitrogen oxides resulting from all high-
way projects subject to review may not
be sufficient to provide the basis for de-
nial of an application Therefore, the
analysis with respect to photochemical
oxidants arid nitrogen dioxide for high-
ways has been modified in regulations
promulgated below. Only highways with
an anticipated average annual daily
^raffle (AADT) volume of 50,000 or more
.chicles per day, or modifications result-
rig in an increase of 25,000 vehicles per
ay, would be reviewed for their impact
i \ photochemical oxidants or nitrogen
cuoxide. The regulation also provides
that where a specific highway section is
part of a roadway network which has
been analyzed and found fully accept-
able by EPA with respect to maintenance
of the national standards for photo-
chemical oxidants and nitrogen dioxide,
then an oxidant or nitrogen dioxide
analysis is not required for individual
segments of such EPA-approved road-
way network. The mechanism for EPA
air quality analysis of proposed area-
wide urban transportation plans find
programs is established by the Fede .U
Highway Admhiistiation (23 Ufr'H Part
770), which provides that area-wide
transportation plans be reviewed annu-
ally by the appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator to determine their con-
sistency with the approved implementa-
tion plan. - his process is scheduled to be
implemented by April 1,1974.
Many comments criticized the June 13.
1974, effective date contemplated by the
October 30, 1973, proposal as being an
unjustified deferral. Others, however,
argued that a longer time would be more
appropriate. As explained in the pre-
amble to the proposal, the deferral was
considered necessary to allow state and
local reviewing agencies adequate op-
portunity to make preparations for im-
plementing the procedures prescribed by
the regulations. (As will be explained be-
low, while the regulation being promul-
gated today is written in terms of the
"Administrator" performing the review,
it is hoped that before the effective date,
the Administrator will have delegated
his reviewing authority to many state
and/or local agencies or that the states
will have submitted approvable proce
dures of their own.)
In light of recent firm Congressional
guidance contained in amendments to
the Clean Air Act included in the con-
ference committee's version of the
Energy Emergency Act (S. 2589), and in
the report prepared by the Committee to
accompany such amendments,1 the Ad-
ministrator has concluded that it is the
intent of Congress that these regulations,
with respect to parking facilities, not be
applicable to indirect sources which have
started construction prior to January 1
1975. While the Congressional guidance
does not apply to airports and highways,
it is the Administrator's judgment that,
for compelling administrative reasons
and because of the need to improve the
Agency's data base, reviews of airports
and highways should also apply only to
facilities which have started construc-
tion on or after January 1, 1975. The
Administrator believes that such across-
the-board deferred applicability is con
sistent with the analysis of growth pres
ently contained in the implementation
plans. Most implementation plans gen
erally analyzed and allowed for growth
at leabt until 1975, thereby making the
implementation of these maintenance
regulations mot,t appropriate for the
period after 1975.
The Administrator recognizes that
iimny projects may presently be in the
planning stages, but will not start actual
construction until after January 1, 1975
If the Agency does not begin to iuiple-
the review »rocedures oiior to
"For further details as to the development
of the&e amendments and the Administra-
tor's response thereto, see 39 PR 1848, Janu-
ary 15, 1974. It should be noted that the
January 16 notice announcing the deferral
of the effective date of the indirect source
review procedures does not affect the sched-
ule established on June 18, 1973 (38 FB
15834), for designation of air quality main-
tenance areas and the analysis and develop-
ment ot control strategies for such areas.
FEDtKAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 38- MONDAY, «ftRUAKY 25, 1974
y/
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
January 1, 1975, developers of such proj-
ects would be in the difficult position of
either continuing to commit money and
effort to a project which might later re-
quire redesign or relocation, or suspend-
ing further work pending approval in
1975. To avoid such problems, the Ad-
ministrator will begin to implement the
review procedures on July 1, 1974, for
any project which will commence con-
struction after January 1,1975, on a vol-
untary basis for those developers wish-
ing to seek review. This approach is con-
sistent with the recent Congressional
guidance without producing inequitable
delays or uncertainties for developers.
The deferral of the date for imple-
mentation of the review procedures un-
til July 1, 1974, will allow the agency
time within which to develop and pub-
lish general technical and design guide-
lines for distribution to applicants who
will be seeking review under the regula-
tions. Such guidelines will provide
needed assistance to applicants in pre-
paring the material required to be sub-
mitted by the regulation and in design-
ing the traffic-related aspects of their
sources so as to have the least possible
adverse effect on air quality and the
greatest possible chance for approval.
The deferral will also allow greater op-
portunity for states to develop their
own indirect source review procedures.
Especially because these regulations in-
herently involve issues of land use, the
Administrator feels that review should
be carried out whenever possible at the
state and local levels where land use de-
cisions have traditionally been made.
Many comments were received regard-
ing the approach to exempting projects
at some stage in the development short
of the commencement of actual con-
struction. The proposed regulation pro-
vided that an applicant who had entered
Into a "general construction contract"
prior to the effective date would not be
subject to review.
Some comments criticized this ap-
proach as being open to loopholes in that
applicants who had spent very little time
or money on development and who did
not plan to do so until well after the ef-
fective date could escape review by enter-
ing into a contract. The proposal was
also criticized on the grounds that much
costly physical work could have already
begun on a site in preparation for a
specific project design, and yet because
the "general construction contract" for
the actual superstructure had not yet
been executed on the effective date, the
project would be subjected to the uncer-
tainties of review.
In reevaluating this issue based upon
the public comments, the Administra-
tor has determined that the "general
construction contract" concept should be
dropped as being too susceptible to abuse
by those seeking to avoid review. At the
same time, the Administrator has
decided to define the phrase "commence
construction" in the regulation to clarify
the stage a project would have to reach
on the effective date in order to be ex-
empt from review. Under the clarifying
language, where actual physical on-site
construction or other physical site prep-
aration work as part of a continuous
program for the completion of a specific
indirect source has commenced before
January 1, 1975, an indirect source will
not be subject to review.
The Administrator considers this to
be the most rational and equitable ap-
proach. To draw the line at a later stage
in construction could be quite economi-
cally disruptive, while to draw the line
at an earlier stage could exempt many
projects from review which could still
relatively easily and inexpensively be
modified in concept and design in order
to comply with this regulation.
Public comments were received urgmg
that any indirect source otherwise sub-
ject to review under the regulation,
which is constructed pursuant to an ur-
ban renewal or redevelopment plan, be
exempted from review so long as a re-
development agency had begun to carry
out the project. Under this approach, a
major indirect source for which con-
struction will not commence for several
years would escape review even though
such source could adversely impact air
quality if it is not designed properly.
The Administrator recognizes that ur-
ban renewal and redevelopment projects
can, if properly planned, have a very
positive effect on area-wide air quality
and on the overall quality of the environ-
ment. However, it would not be consist-
ent 'with the purpose of the Act or these
regulations to allow any major indirect
source subject to these regulations and
which commences construction on or
after January 1, 1975, to be exempt from
review. As has been noted, the basic focus
of the review process in these regulations
is to ensure that localized violations of
the carbon monoxide standards will not
be created in the vicinity of a specific
indirect source. It is the Administrator's
desire to protect the health of individuals
living and working in urban renewal
areas to the same degree as all other in-
dividuals.
Moreover, the Administrator feels that
any disruptive effect on urban renewal
projects caused by these regulations
should be minimal. Indirect sources for
which on-site grading or construction
work is begun before January 1,1975, will
not be subject to review. For those
sources that will be reviewed, it should
again be stressed that the primary em-
phasis of these regulations is to ensure
that facilities will be designed properly
in accordance with air quality considera-
tions. It should be necessary to deny an
approval only in unusual situations
where it is impossible to construct a
facility with design or other traffic-re-
lated conditions imposed so as to meet
the tests for review.
One iA/mment questioned whether
EPA has legal authority to promulgate
requirements for review of indirect
sources. The Administrator feels strongly
that such authority is conferred by sec-
tion 110(a) (2) (B) of the Act, which re-
quires that implementation plans in-
clude "such other measures as may be
necessary to ensure attainment and
maintenance of such primary and sec-
ondary standards, including, but not
limited to, land use and transportation
controls". Moreover, section 301 (a) of
the Act'provides that "The Administra-
tor is authorized to prescribe such regu-
lations as are necessary to carry out his
functions under this Act." As has been
explained earlier in this preamble, the
Administrator has determined that re-
view of the air quality impact of indirect
sources and the prevention of their con-
struction or modification at such loca-
tions where air quality violations could
be created and perpetuated is a neces-
sary element in an overall strategy to
assure maintenance of national am'bient
standards as mandated by the Act.
Another issue which has been raised
Is that while these regulations purport to
limit the parking lot size of many facili-
ties, local ordinances may require a cer-
tain ratio of parking spaces to square
feet of commercial space before certain
types of facilities may receive local build-
ing permits. The Administrator feels
that problems arising from this situation
will be minimal. First, the regulations
should not in most cases operate to limit
the sizes of parking facilities, but merely
assure that traffic-related aspects of an
indirect source are properly designed in
accordance with air quality considera-
tions. Second, to the extent that accom-
modations must be made under the regu-
lations, such as arranging for the exten-
sion of mass transit to a facility and
diminishing the number of planned
parking spaces, developers may be able
to obtain variances from local require-
ments on the basis that Federal regula-
tions would otherwise prevent the con-
struction and that the purpose of the
local parking requirements will be served
by the provision for additional mass
transit.
It should be understood that the fact
that these regulations impose one more
step in the approval process and may
further restrict an owner's freedom of
action relating to parking facilities does
not make the regulations improper in
view of their necessity under the Act to
help assure maintenance of health
standards.
Another issue which has created some
confusion and has been raised in public
comments revolves around previous
statements made in earlier preambles
that these regulations relate to the at-
tainment, as well as the maintenance, of
the national standards. The primary
purpose of the regulations is to serve
as an element In an overall strategy for
maintenance. The regulations are not
technically part of any control strategy
to attain the standards in those areas
in which the ambient air standards are
now being exceeded. Nevertheless, they
will serve a useful corollary purpose of
assisting in the attainment of the stand-
ards in such areas.
Several questions were raised con-
cerning the applicability of the proposed
regulation in relation to housing develop-
ments., and airport roadways and park-
ing lots. The regulation is not Intended
to apply to single family housing de-
velopments; however, apartment house
58
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 38—MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1974
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
developments meeting' the "associated
parking area" criterion would be subject
to review. In the Administrator's judg-
ment, a single family tract development
does not produce sufficient emission
density to yield meaningful results toi
an air quality impact analysis of an indi-
vidual development. This is not to say
that low density development is more
desirable than high density develop-
ment; however, it is the Administrator's
judgment that such low density develop-
ment is more appropriately and effec-
tively analyzed and dealt with in the
comprehensive growth plans related to
air quality maintenance.
With respect to airport roadways and
parking facilities, the Administrator feels
that it is appropriate to review such
facilities for their localized impact on
carbon monoxide concentrations as well
as to review their impact when conduct-
ing general airport review for area-wide
impact on carbon monoxide, photo-
chemical oxidants, and nitrogen dioxide
concentrations.
There was some concern expressed over
the possible misinterpretation of the
wording "or combination thereof," in-
cluded in the definition of indirect
source, since it might be construed that
several different developments would be
considered a single indirect source. This
wording has been omitted from the regu-
lation promulgated below, since it is
unnecessary and has caused needless
confusion. This deletion will not in any
way change the intended scope of these
regulations.
Several comments criticized the basic
approach of the regulations as requiring
approval decisions to be based solely on
air quality considerations, ignoring so-
cial and economic considerations. Eco-
nomic and social considerations have not
been ignored in developing these regu-
lations. As has already been explained,
the Administrator has taken the question
of economic disruption into consideration
in determining the stage of development
a project must reach in order to be
exempt from review on the effective date.
Also, it should be stressed that the pur-
pose of the regulations is not to preclude
development except in those rare cases in
which no accommodation with air qual-
ity maintenance can be reached. Fur-
thermore, these regulations are one of
the measures necessary to assure main-
tenance of the primary standards for
autb-related pollutants. These primary
standards are set to protect the public
health, certainly an overriding social
concern.
It is true that a final determination
as to a specific source's approvability
under the regulation must be based solely
on air quality factors. To do otherwise
would exceed the scope and purpose of
these regulations promulgated pursuant
to the Clean Air Act. It should be empha-
sized, however, that the determination
made pursuant to these regulations is
only one necessary step among many
other land-use measures already gen-
erally established (i.e., zoning approval,
site plan approval, demolition and build-
ing permit approval, sewer tap-in ap-
pro vi-'1 '_-tc.) in order to assure that a
specific facility will be designed and lo-
cated in a manner not inconsistent with
the public health, safety, and welfare.
It is hoped that indirect source review
will eventually be incorporated into com-
prehensive State and local land use plan-
ning processes so that social, economic,
and air quality factors can be considered
in an integrated manner.
Many comments were received regard-
ing the procedural aspects of informa-
tion submitted with application, public
comments, and agency determinations.
In response to comments, the regulation
has made clear that the reviewing agency
may require for submission only that in-
formation reasonably related to an air
quality analysis, and that the time for
public comment will not begin to run
until all information has been submit-
ted. Also, in response to comments, the
regulations now provide that the period
within which decisions must be made
may be lengthened to allow for more
time to make often complex and difficult
technical decisions based upon possible
voluminous material and public com-
ments.
Several other comments relating to the
procedures are inappropriate for con-
sideration at this time since the proce-
dures basically follow the requirements
of the Administrator's own regulations
appearing in 40 CPR 51.18 which wert
finally promulgated after proposal and
a public comment period on June 18,
1973.
Developers are encouraged to apply
for review under these regulations as
early in the development process as the
information required to be submitted can
be^ prepared. Thus, applicants will be
able to ascertain whether their plans
will be acceptable under the regulations
well before substantial sums are ex-
pended in relation to total project cost.
The Administrator also encourages de-
velopers to seek review of entire large
scale projects, such as redevelopment
projects, industrial parks, or planned
communities, even though only certain
elements of such projects might be sub-
ject to review under this regulation. Ap-
proval of the project as a whole will
allow the developer to proceed with cer-
tainty that the entire project can be
completed as planned.
The language concerning modifica-
tions to design and conditions for ap-
proval has been modified in response to
public comments to make clear that the
reviewing agency is under no affirmative
duty to devise alternatives which will
make an otherwise disapprovable proj-
ect approvable, but is merely given the
discretion to do so or to consider altera-
tions suggested by applicants. The condi-
tions which might be imposed on a per-
mit have been clarified to ensure that
they must relate to air quality, and
that they may be imposed only if the
facility could not meet approval in the
form proposed by the application.
Several comments suggested that the
relationships of the indirect source regu-
lations to "management of parking sup-
ply" regulations promulgated by the
agency as part of several regional trans-
portation control plans be explained so
as to avoid confusion among applicants
and reviewing agencies as to which regu-
lation would be applicable to a particu-
lar facility. In this regard, it should be
pointed out that in the preamble to the
proposed indirect source regulations, it
was stated that in areas where trans-
portation control plans are required, re-
view of smaller indirect sources would
be justified.
In regard to the "management of
parking supply regulations" the Admin
istrator has recently deferred the effec-
tive date for review until January 1,
1975, in all areas where such regulation
was promulgated for the reasons set
forth in the preamble to such action
printed at 39 PR 1848, January 15, 1974.
As explained in that preamble, the
agency' will be reexamining such regu-
lations in the next few months and will
be making other studies relating to
transportation control plans in general.
In view of the fact that the indirect
source regulations will be applicable only
to facilities commencing construction on
or after January 1, 1975, and that several
aspects of transportation controls are
actively under consideration, the Admin-
istrator has determined that it would be
inappropriate to tailor the indirect
source regulations in regard to transpor-
tation plan considerations at this time.
The Administrator will clear up any con-
fusion relating to "parking management"
regulations well before January 1, 1975.
At this time, it should be assumed that
the review for smaller sources in the
transportation control plans will remain
unchanged.
Delegation of Review Responsibility to
State and Local Agencies. The proposed
regulation has been changed to specify
that the "Administrator" or an agency
designated by him, is designated as the
reviewing authority. In the preamble to
the proposed regulations, it was noted
that a state or local agency could be des-
ignated to carry out the review under
EPA's promulgated regulations on the
basis of an EPA regulation [40 CPR
52.02(d) 3 which provides that provisions
of an approved or promulgated imple-
mentation plan may be enforceable by
states and local agencies in accordance
with their assigned responsibilities under
the plan. It was also stated that where
states were unwilling to carry out the
review under EPA regulations, the EPA
would assume this responsibility.
Several states have thus far indicated
their willingness to carry out such re-
view, others have indicated that they
would not, and many have not indicated
their position with certainty on this issue.
In view of the deferred effective date for
these regulations, the Administrator con-
siders it most appropriate at this time to
delay designating state or local agencies
to carry out review until a more complete
nationwide consultation with state and
local agencies can be made to ascertain
precisely which agencies should be dele-
gated the authority to conduct review.
The Administrator continues to encour-
age state and local agencies to seek such
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 38—MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1974
-------
KULES AND REGULATIONS
delegation through the appropriate EPA
regional offices.
In this regard, the Administrator em-
phasizes that the Clean Air Act places
primary responsibility for the prevention
and control of air pollution on the states
and local governments. Accordingly, two
broad options are available to states in
designating an agency to exercise the re-
view authority required under these reg-
ulations. One option is to place responsi-
bility for review of indirect sources in a
state-level agency; the other option is to
assign responsibility to appropriate units
of local government.
Because of the impact which projects
to be reviewed under these regulations
may have on land use and urban growth
and development, the Administrator en-
courages the states to delegate substan-
tial authority under these regulations to
appropriate local' governmental units.
Such delegation ought to be subject to
appropriate conditions (such as effective
and coordinated review on the appropri-
ate regional scale, citizen involvement,
ultimate control by general purpose lo-
cal government, etc.) Alternatively, the
Administrator encourages the states to
allow local general purpose governments,
subject to similar conditions, to request
designation of a local governmental
agency as the reviewing authority. If a
state chooses to exercise review author-
ity at the state level, the Administrator
encourages states to provide for consul-
tation with affected local governmental
units in conducting such reviews. Al-
though the Administrator feels that dele-
gation of review powers to State author-
ities, with their subsequent subdelegation
to local authorities, is the most rational
means of delegating responsibility in ac-
cordance with the framework of the Act,
the Administrator reserves the light to
delegate such review powers directly to
local governmental units in appropriate
cases, where localities are willing to ac-
cept such responsibility and States are
not. It is also possible to delegate review
under this regulation directly to State
or local administrative agencies. How-
ever, such delegation will not be done
without tiie consent of the elected offi-
cials having jurisdiction over such agen-
cies. Whenever a state or local agency
requests delegation of these review pro-
cedures, the Admisintrator will consider
appropriate administrative or procedural
modifications to the regulation, consist-
ent with the Act and 40 CFR Part 51, to
facilitate such assumption of respon-
sibility.
The Administrator also is aware of the
concern some have voiced that the re-
view authority may be assigned to an
agency whose authority is restricted to
air pollution control. Accordingly, the
regulations require that, where the des-
ignated agency does not have continuing
responsibilities for land use planning and
decision making, the reviewing agency
shall consult with the appropriate state
and local agency or agencies prior to
making certain determinations. In turn,
if the designated review agency is not
an air pollution control agency, the reg-
ulations require that the review agency
shall consult with the appropriate state
and Ideal air pollution control agencies
prior M making its determination.
Wliile the Administrator urges States
and/o: localities to accept the responsi-
bility ;o conduct review under these reg-
ulations as the Administrator's agent, it
should be stressed that the Administra-
tor even more strongly encourages States
to develop their own indirect source re-
view procedures in accordance with the
requirement of 40 CFR 51.18. Through
this process the States can more fully
tailor regulations to their own special
needs, and the Act's emphasis on State
and local control of air pollution will be
more fully served.
Additional Changes to Proposed Reg-
ulation. The final regulations clarify the
information which must be submitted by
the applicant. Generally, the applicant
is not required to analyze the air quality
impact of his facility; this function will
be pei-formed by the reviewing Agency
based on data submitted by the applicant
Since developers normally do not have
the expertise to perform such an analy-
sis, this change will ensure that such
calculations are properly made, and that
the air quality estimates will be made at
receptor locations considered important
by the reviewing agency.
It should be emphasized at this point
that much of the data required of the
applicant may be available in an Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement (EIS) pre-
pared pursuant to the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321)
or similar state legislation. It is not the
intent of this regulation to duplicate the
information- gather ing requirements of
NEPA Where an EIS has been prepared,
it shoald be submitted as part of the
application and only the required infor-
mation not contained in the EIS need
be submitted separately.
The final regulation has been modi-
fied to clarify the findings the reviewing
agency must make before an application
can be approved. For facilities other
than eii ports and highways, the review-
ing agency is authorized in appropriate
cases to make the judgment concerning
interference with attainment or main-
tenance of the national standards on the
basis of whether the construction or
modification will result hi traffic flow
characteristics which have been deter-
mined by the Administrator not to cause
violatians of the- national standards for
carbor monoxide. This provision does not
modifj- the reviewing agency's responsi-
bility to make the determination that the
ambient air quality standards will be
attained and maintained; it simply pro-
vides another tool to be used in appro-
priate situations for making such a de-
termination. In cases where the Adminis-
trator finds that the use of the traffic
flow characteristics would not be com-
patible1 with the tests for review under
the regulation, he is, requiied to consider
a diffusion moael is making his final
determination In cases where the devel-
oper does not believe that the traffic flow
characteristics prescribed by the Admin-
istrator's guidelines are necessary in
order to ensure attainment and mainte-
nance of the national standards for car-
bon monoxide, the developer may submit
with his application the results of a dif-
fusion model to support his contention.
Prior to the effective date of these
regulations, the. Administrator will pub-
lish guidelines 'setting forth the traffic
flow characteristics which must be at-
tained for various types of facilities in
order to prevent localized violations of
the carbon monoxide standards. These
guidelines will be used by the Adminis-
trator (and designated agencies) in
carrying out the review under the regu-
lations and should be used by developers
in planning their facilities so as to max-
imize their chances for approval. This
guidance will also Include information
on sound design practices (e.g., parking
lot design, means for ensuring adequate
gate capacity, methods for reducing the
levels of service on roadways and inter-
sections significantly affected by the
indirect source) and other measures,
such as mass transit options, which may
be used to attain the appropriate traffic
flow characteristics.
The above approach is intended In
appropriate cases to translate the re-
quired air quality determination into
specific performance criteria with which
developers are much more familiar. This
approach minimizes the controversial
land use implications of these regulations
by emphasizing the control of adverse,
traffic conditions which cause highly
localized earbon monoxide concentra-
tions. Thus, even though the national
standards for carbon monoxide may pres-
ently be exceeded at some locations in a
region, most facilities subject to this reg-
ulation which are designed to produce
the requisite traffic flow characteristics
should still be allowed to construct. This
is due to a combination of three factors:
:i. Generally, present air quality data re-
fleet the most highly polluted downtown
areas. Much new construction occurs on the
outskirts of the urban area where carbon
monoxide concentrations are relatively low.
Construction that does occur in downtown
areas is usually served or can be served by
mass transit so that the Induced traffic will
be minimal.
a. The Federal Motor Vehicle Control pro-
gram will continue to reduce automobile
emissions. By the date a facility that com-
mences construction on or after January 1,
19Y6, Is completed, ambient air quality levels
of carbon monoxide should be significantly
lower than they are presently.
3. To the extent that air quality levels at
thr site of a proposed indirect source are
expected to continue to threaten the national
standards, this condition may be due to exist-
ing adverse local traffic conditions which may
be corrected. If such a situation is corrected,
a facility may be allowed to construct if the
owner can demonstrate that the additional
induced traffic will not cause the local traffic
flow to return to its initial condition.
The final regulations do not require an
aii1 quality impact analysis for indirect
sources with associated parking areas
beyond the first year after the source is
fully operational. It is the Administra-
tor's judgment that increased carbon
monoxide emissions due to growth of
mobile source activity associated with a
specific indirect source (other than a
60
FEDERAL Rt_
NO 38 MONDAY FEBRUARY 25, 1974
-------
AND RFGUIATION*
highway or airport) would be more than
offset by the Federal motor vehicle con-
trol program. Moreover, to be consistent.
with the basic approach of these regula •
tions, the Administrator feels that po-
tential problems from increased traffic
in the vicinity of a parking-related
source which may be caused by overall
community growth should be dealt with
in the maintenance plans to be developed
by the States. The ten-year analysis of
airports and highways is still required,
since the growth of mobile source ac-
tivity associated with these sources may
be sufficient to offset the effect of the
Federal motor vehicle and aircraft con-
trol programs. For example, the analysis
for airports must include not only the
growth associated directly with the aii-
port, but other commercial atid indus-
trial development occurring within three
miles of the airport.
The final regulation clarifies the cir-
cumstances under which the reviewing
agency may condition permits and elim-
inates the responsibility for the post-
construction air quality monitoring by
the applicant. If needed, such monitoring
should be conducted by the reviewing
agency. The conditions placed on a per-
mit are limited to those measures which
are necessary to ensure that air quality
standards are attained and maintained
A. new paragraph (10) has been added
to encourage the reviewing agency to
specify the extent to which a facility
could be further modified without being
subject to review. This provision was
added to deal with a situation in which
the reviewing agency determines that
even a fairly minor modification, which
would not otherwise be subject to review
under the regulation, could cause a vio
lation of the national standards.
A new paragraph <12> has been added
Invalidating an approval to construct if
the construction is not commenced with-
in 18 months (subject to extension where
justified) after receipt of approval. This
is to ensure that changed conditions in
the vicinity of the proposed facility would
not invalidate the air quality impact cal-
culations on which thp original approval
was based.
New provisions have been added to
clarify responsibilities for review of Fed
eral facilities in cas»s where the Ad-
ministrator delegates the authority to
State or local agencies to implement the
Indirect source review proceduies Recent
court decisions atid Presidential Execu-
tive Order 11752 >,38 PR 34793, December
19, 1973) cast doubt on the authority oi
States to subject Fpdej al facilities to per
mit controls. It is, therefore necessary
for the Administrator to retain responsi-
bility for review of all Federa.i facilities
subject to this regulation in order to
carry out the provisions of Section 118
of the Act, which maVes clear that Fed-
eral facilities must be subject to air pol-
lution controls to the same extent as
fon-Federal facilities. flt should be
noted, however, that the court decisions
and Executive Order 11T52 do not limit
the application of State and local srt'>
"tantive standaid? and emission limHq
Since these regulations will trot be im
plemented until July 1, 1974, fo> sources
commencing construction on or after
January 1, 1975, the Administrator feels
that it would be appropriate to i-ilov, ad-
ditional wntten comments to be sub-
mitted in response to the P'or-rulgated
regulations. All comments postmarked
not later than April 1, 1974, win be con
sidered, and where appropriate, revisions
maj* be made to the regulation* Com-
ments should be submitted in triplicate
to the appropriate EPA Regional Office
and labeled as "indirect source Com-
ments" on the envelope Those ---'im ,snh
mitted written comments in response to
the October 30 proposed regulations are
encouraged to incorporate relevant, por-
tions of such previously submitted corn
merits by reference into their ""w com
merits whetrvr tl>«» ^nrne r«>'n* >r hfii--
made.
The Administrator agairi strongH pn
courages States to utilize the time nl
lowed by the deferred effective date to
develop arid submit their own Indirect
source review procedures, since the Clean
Air Act emphasizes that States and local
governments are to have the primni> IT
sponsibility for the control of air pollu-
tion and because decisions involving local
land use are traditionally more apptopt I
ate for State and loi>?il considr'titinn
As discussed above, the efl><. Mvf dato
of these regulations will bo ,ru'v I, 1P74,
and they w'll be applicable to 1nt3;;»r>
sources commencing conMrn'-ti-'n <-.:• ,«
after Januatj 1. J975.
(Sections 1 10(a) (?) (*t) , 110(c), p.mi 3ul(»)
of the Clean Air A't. as nnipnrt»n 1*3 U R r
1857c TI(».I !"-x -B). it--- •- S(r) »
61
-------
TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1974
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Volume 39 • Number 132
PART II
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
AIR PROGRAMS;
APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Review of lndi>
-------
RU1ES AND REGULATIONS
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGA-
TION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Review of Indirect Sources
On February 25, 1974 (39 PR 7270),
the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated
an indirect source review regulation (40
CPR 52.22(b)) to be incorporated into
the Clean Air Act implementation plans
for 52 states and territories. As a follow-
up to that regulation, the Administrator
is today taking the following actions:
(1) In the preamble to the February 25
promulgation, the Administrator noted
that additional written comments would
be accepted until April 1, 1974, and that
where appropriate, revisions may be
made to the regulation (39 PR 7276).
Many interested persons submitted writ-
ten comments. The Administrator has
considered the comments and has deter-
mined that several amendments of a
clarifying, procedural nature are war-
ranted. These amendments are being
published today.
(2) The Administrator will respond In
this preamble to significant new general
comments which were not dealt with in
the February 25 preamble.
(3) The Administrator has noted that
some confusion exists as to the intended
scope and application of the regulation
and as to other matters relating to inter-
pretation of the regulation. An explana-
tion responding to frequently-raised
questions of interpretation is provided in
this preamble and in a new Appendix A
to Part 52.
(4) Further information is provided
regarding procedures to be followed in
conducting review under the regulation
and regarding delegation of review re-
sponsibilities to state and/or local agen-
cies.
NEW GENERAL COMMENTS
Because many general comments di-
rected to the wisdom of the basic scheme
of the regulation have already been ad-
dressed in the February 25 preamble, the
Administrator does not feel it is neces-
sary or helpful to respond to them again.
Nevertheless, there are three points the
Administrator would like to make in re-
sponse to the new comments.
1. The need for the regulation. One
major retailer submitted lengthy com-
ments challenging the entire concept of
indirect source review for shopping cen-
ters because the Administrator allegedly
has not adequately established that such
a regulatory scheme is necessary to as-
sure maintenance of the ambient stand-
ards for carbon monoxide. In an attempt
to show that such a regulation is not
necessary with regard to shopping cen-
ters, the retailer submitted two studies.
One was an empirical study showing
that after several days of monitoring at
one shopping center, no violation of an
ambient carbon monoxide standard
could be found. This .study involved
"grab bag" sampling at various loca-
tions over the entire shopping center
parking lot, and emphasized averaging
the sample values over all locations for
each hour and over all hours for each
location. Such an averaging procedure is
inconsistent .with the method in which
the air quality standards are prescribed.
Air quality values should be averaged for
discrete one and eight hour periods at
each location, not over all locations. Al-
though the study includes some continu-
ous monitoring, carbon monoxide con-
centrations were not monitored in close
proximity to the most frequently used
exit/entrance, the site where the high-
est concentration would be likely to
occur. Moreover, the study confined itself
to analysis of air quality on the site of
the shopping center, whereas more sig-
nificant impacts can be created at
nearby intersections.
While it is true that a shopping cen-
ter may be constructed such that there
would be no reasonable receptor sites in
the close proximity to the areas where
the highest concentrations would be
likely to occur, it is not appropriate to
generalize that a source category does
not have a significant impact on air
quality without studying its impact at
the points of highest concentration, in-
cluding nearby intersections, and under
the worst conditions.
The other study dealt largely with the
impact of various types of shopping cen-
ter developments on area-wide emission
rates. Such analysis is irrelevant to the
questibn of whether localized carbon
monoxide problems can be caused by ve-
hicles attracted to a shopping center.
This study also indicates, through the
use of predictive models, that by 1980
various types of shopping center devel-
opments would not cause carbon monox-
ide violations due to the effects of the
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program.
A prediction of the impact of an indirect
source on ambient air in 1980 is unre-
sponsive to the problem at hand since
ambient carbon monoxide standards are
to be met under the Clean Air Act as
expeditiously as practicable but not later
than the statutory attainment date,
which is in most cases 1975 and in no
event later than 1977.
The Administrator has conducted a
number of studies to determine the im-
pact of various types of indirect sources
on ambient air quality, including shop-
ping centers v and sports stadia.3 Even
1GCA Corporation, "Validation Study of
an Approach for Evaluating the Impact of
a Shopping Center on Ambient Carbon Mon-
oxide Concentrations", Contract No. 68-02-
1376, Task Order No. 2 for EPA (March 1974).
a Quality Assurance and Environmental
Monitoring Laboratory, Field Monitoring and
Instrument Branch, "Carbon Monoxide
Measurements in Vicinity of Shopping Cen-
ters," BTI Report, Contract No. 68-02-0294,
Task Order No. 3 for EPA, (April 1973).
3 Bach, W. D., Crissman, B. W., Decker, C.
K., Mlnear, J. W., Raspberry, P. P., and Tom-
merdahl, J. B.: "Carbon Monoxide Measure-
ments In the Vicinity Of Sports Stadiums."
BTT Report, Prepared fo- EPA Under Con-
tract 68-02-1096, Task No. 1 (July 1973).
though the studies were conducted over
a limited time period, the facilities were
found to have a definite adverse impact
on ambient carbon monoxide levels, and
even to cause violations of the national
standards. These results substantiate the
need for procedures to review such
sources prior to construction in order to
protect the public health.
The Administrator has never con-
tended that every indirect source sub-
ject to review will necessarily cause air
quality violations. If such were the case,
then the proper course of action would
be to promulgate an absolute ban on fur-
ther construction of such sources.
Rather, the Administrator has deter-
mined that in certain circumstances in-
direct sources can create ambient viola-
tions or exacerbate existing violations.
Even in circumstances where the con-
struction of one source in an area might
not create violations, the subsequent
construction of one or more additional
sources in the near vicinity could do so.
Since implementation plans under the
Clean Air Act must contain measures to
"insure" that the ambient standards will
be attained and maintained, and since
the Administrator has determined that
indirect sources, singly or in combina-
tion, can cause violations of the stand-
ards, it is necessary for implementation
plans to contain procedures for precon-
struction review of such sources. The
Administrator has confidence that the
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
being implemented pursuant to Title II
of the Clean Air Act will continue to
dimmish the levels of ambient carbon
monoxide. However, such reductions wiH
not in the Administrator's judgment
suffice to prevent ambient violations in
the vicinity of indirect sources subject
to the regulation for at least the next
few years.
Some have questioned whether it is
proper to promulgate this review regula-
tion even in areas which,now have no
carbon monoxide problem. The relative
cleanliness of a particula r°a's air is
irrelevant to the question 01 whether
indirect source review is necessary for
that area, since a new indirect source (or
several new sources) coc.d easily convert
almost pure air into air violating the
public health standards. The primary
purpose of the regulation is to assure
maintenance of the ai^bient standards—
to assure that no violations will occur
where none now exist.
2. Approval based solely on air quality
factors. A widespread misunderstanding
of the purpose and effect of indirect
source review is reflected in the following
comment made by a national associa-
tion:
According to the Indirect source regula-
tions, design characteristics, location and
timing of future development Is being based
solely on air quality factors. We feel that no
single factor should be the sole determinant
of land use planning decisions.
The Indirect source regulation does
not make^iir quality the "sole determi-
nant" of land use planning decisions ex-
cept in an area which is now totally free
rEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 132—TUESDAY, JULY 9. 1974
63
-------
AND REGULATIONS
of any /.onim* ;n other land use regula-
tions. As the Administiatot explained
v\ the Fehumiy 2? pietvnble:
It should b^ ^rnphasizad " * '" that the
determination n'artf" pursuant to the<:e reg-
ulation:) is only one necessary S';op among
many other lnnd-'i"e measures already fren-
erally establi£>>e-l (!e, zoning approval, site
plan appiovai, dt ••! -litlon and building per-
iit approval, pe-^r tap-in approval, etc.) in
- 'fr tii as-i'i<> 'iat a specific facility will
'" -.'-signed and located in a manner not
*>'Cnnsistent with the public health, safety,
arid welfare Tt is hoped that indirect source
review will eventually be incorporated into
compre "tens've rtate and local land use
planning piocc~nef, so that, social, economic,
and air quality factors can be considered in
an integrated manner. 99 FR 7274 (Febru-
ary 25, 1974),
The fact that one of many permits
and approveIs a facility must obtain be-
fore construction relates solely to air
quality certainly does not make air
quality "the sole determinant" ot land
use planning.
3. Analysis Beyond One-Fourth Mile.
Additional comnients indicated that the
air quality impact of an indirect source
should be examined at distaness further
than one-fourth rrn!e from the source.
It should be noted that the tests spec-
ified in subparagraphs <4> and (6) in
no way restrict the Administrator as to
the location of the an" quality impact
analysis. However, it, is the Administra-
tor's judgment that the major impact of
most facilities with respect to carbon
monoxide will be within one-fourth mile
of the facility; accordingly, the detailed
traffic data that must be submitted as
part of each application is limited to the
immediate vicinity of the "idtiect source.
It is the Administrators intent to re-
quest more eomr'elwipive Oat a pursuant
to snbpwpfran'" smnirj) on a case-by-
case basts, and to nin'.>?:» the air qual-
ity impact at distances beyond one-
fourth mile in cases where the facility
might pose p thi?,)v to the Hr «iii'i'ity
standards at, n.'<''i '"^ nti-jin,
Sxplannli't" <>f / mgvnfly-Raised
Questions of f*adei *o claiify con-
fusion refi°ctM >n pu'ii'c comments and
questions, fn :u1 -littou. a new Appendix
A to Part 53 '"- h°>'>p |:ublisl eri simul-
taneously vpt'i thi-- Tilrc.ipfeing setting
forth the si'hstance t n,f- following ''is
cussion iri n-r<--' j'rf»<-,i,M-p js'inig form. As
is true with cu-v ,st'\',>)t- -T i emulation, it
is inipopsibl" t" nnv^er OefmiMvely even
conceivable qu^-trm 'if ii'teunotp.tion 01
application whirh n.ieht ai't^p in imple-
menting tl>o i °t*M1'iti'«ii. Jn=f as co'irts
frequently 'iTiiii'- tik OP'id? 'ifitnin is-
sues until an ?i/-(nal ';i|ii'i! presents a
specific rsiso 01 •••.>"' ir>v-?irj before them,
the Administ'atoT believes thnt it would
be unwise to answer evpi f t'p 'CFolvv' on n, csjqe
Tie *• p"?'rition offeree below relates
to points so basic that if they were not
clea"ly understood by the public and
as;enci<;? implement ing the legulat.ion,
seiiou^ mistakes in Implementation
mis it omn- ' >ne caveat should precede
the discii' !'•"• The following is the Ad-
muiistrato''s inteipretation of his own
regi.lptici,, 40 CPR 5M.22(b>. States
which develop their own regulations
wJiii-1' PIOV ^^ appioved under 40 CFR
51.1? n"j '\i t bound to interpret their
regilf;ti'. »is in the same manner, so long
as -,heir iemulations operate to insure
tha* !vubi»:nt an u'i»lily stnndirds will
not be viola t', 0. as a result of the con-
struction of a new indirect source.
Most questions relate to the basic
scope of the regulation, the type of in-
direct some? which is subject to review,
and the lu'.tme of the "pswopiated park-
ing ai--n," ""-I -ept. Since almost no com-
mei't.q 01 questions of interpretation
wei} leccivcd regarding highways and
airforts, the following discussion, unless
otherwise noted, deal« with all other
tyi)cs of indirect sources.
The basic f'xuis of the regulation is to
review a new facility which will have an
associated parking area of the requisite
number of parking spaces The list con-
taired, in 1D CFR 5222(b>(l)(i) is
met ply a set of examples and should not
b« ovr-ernphasized. Tin* key to deter-
miring whirl) facilities must be reviewed
is ii paragraph (b)C2>. which requires
review of "a new parking facility, or
oth>:r new iTuiirect soiu'ce with an asso-
ciated packing area" of the requisite
siJM. Thus in every case, the most impor-
tant factor wctjon with" a facility.
An "i>"of-1".1pfl parking area" Is de-
fined in p-wsigrnph (b)n>(iii) as a
"parking fsrjiitv or facilities owned and/
operated in "onJunction with an indirect
sou 'ce." To be PII "f'-.pociatcd parking
are:'' within 'he intent of the regulation,
the ai ea >n"-1 be a separate and discrete
lor;,li-f»cl faci'ity :";si>Hat°d with a par-
tici Ipr indhei-t -onrce 'T)>n,s. to rlear up
)nui;b confir-H-n reflectod in the written
comments p,r urban ren^^-al are-a is not
i<«elf "': jndiKV't FOHTCP subject to review
i'i)r e> s,)\e < egiilPti'ni ner^ly because
••'.it iint.hr oiilir^ rn"s> Hiprp rnay be more
thin l,noo |.'>iVin(r spiic'" >'fither, it is
npc^Pi'i j to i»r>h r>! d'sti-c'p parking fa-
c1!' '(":. vJfl'i" the nibau '^riewnl area
]<> i]p|^-»';;^i!in '^^^t, if '\7iyr coi>st,ruption
Tvit, lin tl'f nea w'll b» rubip^t t'> ipview
,in(!er HI*I T f»f'nlriHrtv)
F .1 <.-M a '• edi*. eloprrient plan. Within the
twfKe bl'ic1'" th^'ip is to be a municipal
aurHoi'nri wi*ii ).r>00 parkin? spaces
un(|pii)ff>th t, 011 apartment building
witi 30i pptfeing spaces adjacent to it
to (t"ve Uie lesiO^nts, a t.^OO-space mu~
jiicipp.l pn.ilri'iR gptsvjf. manj1 town-
bon^os r.Ti!|i s>~»'it* or tloubk' private
Kar"i>f-s f'«i *! °! si"" o* th"tr (^ivners, and
500 '^pn' ' *V' r^iiff ci'to , ,v1 qfre^t
i-vik'i'g
tr s,;i,'!, t ,5),-ivi> h]'t"l'-, weie within ait
".MCIA II.->i ml-ljtf.1 o'l'Hforhnvi nt)(^ th(»
municipal parking garage will each be
subject to the regulation as a separate
indirect source since each will have a
separate and discrete associated parking
iRrea of 1,000 spaces or more. The rede-
velopment project itself is not an "in-
direct source" subject to review under
the regulation, however, merely because
it includes in the aggregate more than
1,000 spaces.
Thus, to answer another point which
has caused confusion, the construction,
5 years later, of a new apartment build-
ing with an associated parking area of
600 cars within the urban renewal area
will not by itself trigger review under the
regulation. First, this is not a "modifica-
tion" within the contemplation of para-
graph (b) (2) (i) (b) since it is not a mod-
ification of an associated parking area
bat rather a new separate and discrete
parking area. Second, this is not an in-
crement under paragraph (b) (2) (iv)
since it is not an increment to an exist-
ing "indirect source" within the con-
templation of the regulation.
If 500 spaces are later added to the
apartment's parking facility, then this
is a modification to a particular facility
which triggers review. Similarly, addi-
tional spaces added to such facility from
time to time will be considered as incre-
ments to that facility within the contem-
plation of paragraph (b) (2) (iv>.
The foregoing also applies to other
large-scale developments such as indus-
trial parks, new towns, and large sub-
division developments. These types of de-
velopments are not in and of themselves
indirect sources subject to review under
the regulation, although in each case
they may contain many indirect sources
subject to review.
An understanding of this concept helps
answer other questions raised in public
comments. For instance, a question fre-
quently posed is whether commencing
construction of one facility within an
urban renewal area before 1975 will ex-
empt all future construction in the area
from review. The answer is "no". The ur-
ban renewal area is not itself an indirect
source; facilities within the area which
have associated parking areas of the
requisite size are. Thus construction of
a second facility within the area after
December 31, 1974, which is otherwise
subject to review under the regulation
will not be exempt merely because other
facilities commenced pursuant to a com-
mon plan were exempt.
The reason the phrase "or facilities" is
included in paragraph (b) (1) (iii) is to
assure that mere physical barriers be-
tween parking areas serving a single in-
direct source will not operate to exclude
from review what is in essence a discrete
associated parking area for a single
source. For instance, a shopping maH
which is to be constructed with 500 park-
ing spaces on the north side of the maH
and 500 spaces on the south, even though
the two parking "facilities" are physically
separate and do not have connecting
roads between them, will be considered
to have an "associated parking area" of
1.000 spaces.
Several questions have been raised re-
garding the phrase "owned and/or o?)er
1" 1U5SPA1!, JUiY 9, 1974
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
ated in conjunction with an Indirect
source" contained In paragraph (b) <1)
(ill). The use of the word "owned" does
not mean, as some who commented ap-
parently feared, that a parking lot a par-
ticular developer owns In Tallahassee will
be counted In determining the size of an
associated parking area In Peoria. The
key phrase is "in conjunction with,"
which is intended to convey an opera-
tional test looking to whether a particu-
lar parking area serves a particular fa-
cility under a common scheme of owner-
ship and/or operation.
Parking facilities which are fortui-
tously constructed near an Indirect source
but ever which the owner or operator of
the source has no control, and which are
not constructed pursuant to an under-
standing by which the facility will serve
the indirect sourae, will not be consid-
ered an "associated parking area" of the
source. For instance. If a developer con-
structs a shopping center with 600 park-
ing spaces and a municipality erects a
500-space parking garage adjacent to the
center completely independent of the
shopping center development, there is not
a single, 1100-space associated parking
area within the contemplation of the reg-
ulation. However, if such parking garage
were constructed pursuant to an explicit
or even implied agreement with the shop-
ping center developer to serve the shop-
ping center, it would be considered part
of the center's "associated parking area."
It Is not necessary for an "associated
parking area" to be directly contiguous to
an indirect source to cause that source
to be subject to review. For Instance, a
developer could not avoid review by con-
structing a large retail facility on one side
of the street with forty parking spaces
immediately adjacent to It, and con-
structing a 960-space parking facility
across the street. All 1,000 spaces will be
treated as an "associated parking area"
within the contemplation of paragraph
(b) (1) (Hi) since they are owned and/or
operated in conjunction with a particular
Indirect source. On the other hand, park-
ing facilities located across the street
from each other within an industrial park
which serve two separate indirect sources
will not constitute a single "associated
parking area."
Many questions have arisen concern-
ing "phased" development. As noted
above, a major area-wide development
such as an urban renewal project, an in-
dustrial park, or a "new town" will not be
an indirect source itself but may instead
contain several indirect sources sep-
arately reviewable under the regulation.
In response to many comments, two
points about phased development should
be made clear at this time:
<1) Applicants win be able, and in fact
are encouraged, to apply for approval of
all indirect sources within their phased
developments at the same time, so long
as all the information required for the re-
viewing agency to perform an air quality
impact analysis for each source can be
provided. This win aQow developers to
proceed with major developments with a
greater degree of certainty.
(2) Since a major area development Is
not in itself a discrete indirect source sub-
ject to review under the regulation, com-
mencement of one phase of such develop-
ment prior to 1975 will not operate to
exempt subsequent indirect sources
within such overall development plan
which commence construction after De-
cember 31, 1974, from Indirect source
review.
One tangential issue which has been
raised frequently relates to phased con-
struction within a single indirect source
subject to review under the regulation.
For example, assume that a shopping
center with a 3,000-space parking area Is
to have four major "anchor" department
stores in addition to dozens of smaller
retail and service establishments. The
plan is to build the bulk of the shopping
center Initially, including all of the park-
ing area, but for business reasons to with-
hold construction of two of the "anchor"
stores for two or three years after the
center first opens. The two questions
which arise are: (1) If construction
commences on the intial part of the cen-
ter prior to 1975 will the subsequent con-
struction of the two anchors trigger-
review for such two new stores? (2) Al-
ternatively, will such subsequent con-
struction mean that construction of the
entire center is' covered under the regu-
lation under the theory that the con-
struction which was commenced prior to
1975 was not "continuous"?
<1) The mere fact that two new stores
are being added to the shopping center
will not trigger indirect source review.
The new construction Is a modification
to an existing indirect source (the shop-
ping center with two "anchors" and 3,000
parking spaces), but modifications are
not reviewed unless parking capacity Is
increased by 500 cars or more (1,000 cars
or more in non-SMSA's). (2) The fact
that the shopping center is not modified
for two or three years after initial open-
ing for business does not make the con-
struction which commenced prior to
1975 non-"continuous" and therefore
subject the entire project to Indirect
source review, because, in essence a single
indirect source (the shopping center
with 3,000 parking spaces minus two
anchors) was constructed in a con-
tinuous process which commenced prior
to 1975.
Several persons questioned whether
demolition is to be considered as "site
clearance" as that term is used in the
definitions of the phrases "to commence
construction" and "to commence modifi-
cation" in paragraph (b) (1) (v) and
(vi). The Administrator considers demo-
lition to be a form of site clearance. It is
important to mote, however, that the
term "continuous" is crucial in the defini-
tion of these phrases. Demolition prior to
1975 will serve to exempt a project only
where it is part of a continuous program
of construction specifically designed" for
a particular indirect source. For exam-
ple, where a .developer demolished a
structure on a particular site in 1973, then
does no further physical site work until
1975, a source constructed on that s"e
will not be exempt from review merely
because the site clearance began in 1973.
Two points should be made regarding
the "force majeure" (acts of God, strikes,
etc.) language in paragraph .
(1) The fact that construction failed to
commence at all prior to 1975 because of
"force majeure" reasons is irrelevant.
Actual physical site work must com-
mence in a continuous course before 1975
for the exemption to be valid. (2) Only
breaks in construction attributable solely
to the enumerated "force majeure" rea-
sons will be considered in determining
whether a project is exempt. For in-
stance, if a site were demolished in 1973,
then for business or other reasons, actual
physical construction ceased, and a de-
veloper planned to commence continuous
construction on the site in mid-1974 but
was prevented from doing so until 1975
because of litigation, the source would not
be exempted from review since factors
other than the "force majeure" reasons
played a role in rendering the construc-
tion noncontinuolis.
Some comments urged that the basic
coverage requirement set forth In para-
graphs (b) (2) (i) and (ii) be amended
to require that only those indirect
sources for which a new associated
parking area is constructed be subject to
review. As the regulation is now written,
an indirect source constructed on a pres-
ently existing associated parking area is
subject to review as well.
Such an amendment would create un-
warranted exemptions. One case would
be that of a developer who has operated
a large surface parking lot for several
years, and then decides to construct an
office building on part of the lot while
retaining the remainder to serve as the
parking lot for the building. Although
the associated parking area 'would not
be new, the office building should clearly
be required to undergo pre-construction
review as a new indirect source. Another
example is the demolition of a large
shopping center structure followed by
the construction of a new shopping cen-
ter on the same parcel of land using
the same parking lot. In each case, it is
reasonable to expect the developer to
take ah- quality considerations into ac-
count in planning his basic design, and
the construction will not be exempt from
indirect source review.
A closely related matter which has
drawn several questions is the status
under the regulation of accidental de-
struction of an indirect source followed
by new construction on the same parcel.
Consistent with the foregoing line of
reasoning, such construction would not
be exempt from review. Again, the de-
veloper can fairly be expected to consider
air quality in designing and planning
for his new construction. New construc-
tion following destruction on a parcel
would certainly be subject to more rigid
building code requirements or zoning
ordinances which had been enacted since
the construction of the original improve-
ments, and there is no reason to depart
from this principle where a public health
regulation is concerned.
Some have questioned whether a re-
viewing agency could use paragraph (b)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 132—TUESDAY, JULY 9, J974
65
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(10) to specify that an approved indirect
source may be further modified without
review by adding more parking spaces
than the number which triggers review
under paragraphs (b) (2) (i) (b) and (b)
(2) (ii) (b). As discussed on February 25
(39 FR 7276), the intent of this provi-
sion is to allow a reviewing agency to re-
duce the number of new parking spaces
that would trigger review for a particular
indirect source if it is determined that
such a minor modification could cause a
violation of the national standards. Since
it is difficult to accurately predict the
extent which the area surrounding a
proposed facility will grow between the
approval of its initial application and any
possible modification, the Administrator
does not consider it/ appropriate to allow
paragraph (b) (10) to be used to liberalize
the requirements of paragraphs (b) (2)
(1) (b) and (b) (2) (ij) (b>. Paragraph (b)
(10) has been modified to clarify this
point.
Several persons have questioned
whether an indirect source approval is
transferable. The Administrator con-
siders such approvals to be fully trans-
ferable between successive owners of the
property for which an approval is
granted so long as the indirect source is
constructed and/or modified fully in ac-
cordance with the approved application
and all conditions thereto.
As alluded to before, it is not possible
to issue an interpretative ruling which
will answer precisely every question that
will arise in administering this regula-
tion. Many questions concerning wh§ther
or not a facility is subject to review under
the regulation will necessarily have to be
answered on a case-by-case basis, with
those administering the regulation using
their sound discretion. In general, de-
velopers should assume that devices used
in an attempt to evade review will bo
scrutinized carefully to determine
whether a source actually subject to the
regulation is commencing construction
without the required approval. Those
conducting review under the regulation
should resolve doubts and close cases in
favor of coverage since the purpose of
the regulation is to review all new and
modified indirect sources except those
clearly and specifically exempted. This
approach best serves the dictates of the
Clean Air Act, which requires measures
to "insure" the attainment and main-
tenance of the ambient standards.
The Administrator does not expect
many evasion problems to arise in view of
the significant risks developers and
lenders would be taking. In commencing
construction of a facility subject to the
regulation without securing the neces-
sary approval, the developer would be
subject to the heavy criminal penalties of
section 113 of the Clean Air Act. More-
over, further construction of the-facility
could be enjoined and a facility for which
construction had been completed could
be shut down. Thus it is doubtful whether
prudent lenders will fund projects unless
they are sure that a facility has either
received indirect source approval or that
none is needed.
In this regard, developers who plan to
construct projects which they feel are
exempt but which may be arguably sub-
ject to the regulation may apply for a
determination of applicability ruling
from EPA to achieve a greater degree of
certainty in proceeding with their
pro;ects.
Such rulings should be requested in
writing from the appropriate regional
offices. Requests should fully recite the
facts upon which the developer believes
an exemption is based. In appropriate
oases a ruling will be issued which will
be carefully and strictly limited to the
facts as understood by the agency. If
construction commences in circum-
stances under which any material fact
is at variance with those represented in
the ruling request, or if a material fact
were omitted from the request, then the
ruling would be rendered inoperative.
Applicants should be aware of section
113ic)(2) of the Clean Air Act, which
provides that any person who knowingly
falsifies information in any application
required pursuant to the Act is subject
to fine and/or imprisonment.
SPECIFIC CHANGES TO THE REGULATION
The following changes have been made
as a result of public comment on the
February 25,1974, regulations.
1. Phased development. Paragrapn
(b) (2) (iv), which is intended to prevent
circumvention of the regulation through
numerous minor modifications, is
amended below to allow each phase of a
project to be constructed without the
issuance of a separate permit as long as
the entire project had received approval
at the outset. In addition, the informa-
tion to be submitted in support of an
application [Paragraph (b) (3) ] has
been clarified with respect to phased de-
velopment projects. The traffic condi-
tions at the time each phase becomes
operational must be submitted so that
the Administrator can determine the
project's air quality impact at any time
during the development process. This
determination is necessary since a facil-
ity might be acceptable upon completion
at some extended future date (due to the
effects of the Federal Motor Vehicle Con-
trol Program), yet could cause a viola-
tion, of air quality standards at some
intermediate stage of development.
2. Basis for disapproval for violations
of the carbon monoxide standard. The
Federal indirect source regulation has
been promulgated to conform to the re-
quirements of 40 CFR 51.18, which re-
quires all state implementation plans to
have indirect source review procedures
to prevent construction which "will
interfere with attainment or mainte-
nance" of ambient standards. The Fed-
eral regulations proposed on October 30,
1973, provided that construction must be
prevented where the indirect source
would "prevent or interfere with the at-
tainment or maintenance" of ambient
standards. (Proposed 40 CFR 52.22 (b)
(4)(i)(b), 38 FR 29896.) Because some
comments in response to the October 30
proposal reflected concern as to the pre-
cise meaning of the quoted phrase, the
Administrator endeavored to state the
test with more specificity in the final
regulation (40 CFR 52.22
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
4. Use of traffic flow characteristics
for highway decisions. As promulgated
on February 25, the regulations specified
the use of a diffusion model for analyz-
ing the impact of highways on carbon
monoxide air quality. In developing the
traffic flow characteristics discussed be-
low, it became apparent that such cri-
teria would be equally applicable for
analyzing localized carbon monoxide
concentrations in the vicinity of roads
and highway. Thus, the regulations are
modified below to permit the use of such
characteristics, with the option of using
a diffusion model if either the applicant
or the Administrator deems appropriate.
5. Applicant's opportunity to respond
to public comment. The regulations are
amended to permit the applicant to re-
rpond in writing, within 10 days after
the close of the public comment period,
on the comments submitted by the pub-
lic. The Administrator is required to con-
sider such response in making his final
decision.
6. Permit conditions and penalties.
One comment indicated that the require-
ment to "operate in accordance with the
application" in paragraph (b)(ll) was
unreasonable, since it could be construed
to require the applicant to obtairi per-
mission before changing store hours or
other minor operating practices which
may have been indicated in the applica-
tion. It was not the Administrator's in-
tent to provide that any minor opera-
tional factor which could have no rea-
sonable impact upon air quality be an
enforceable permit condition. Accord-
ingly, the above-quoted phase has been
omitted from paragraph (b) (11). On the
other hand, in most cases there will be
certain operational factors which will be
crucial to the air quality impact of an
Indirect source. Accordingly, paragraph
(b) (9) is amended to permit the review-
ing agency to specify that such operating
provisions will be enforceable permit
conditions.
It is crucial to the effective operation
of the indirect source program that the
reviewing agency utilize the provisions of
paragraph (b) (9) to specify any such op-
erating factor which could affect air
quality as a permit condition. Conditions
which must be considered on a routine
basis will be:
a. A requirement that the facility, or
any incremental development phase, not
be opened for business prior to the date
specified by the reviewing agency. Be-
cause of the continuing emission reduc-
tion effected by the Federal Motor Ve-
hicle Control Program, the vehicle mix
on the date of expected opening (and
resulting average vehicle emission rate)
could be an important factor in deter-
mining whether air quality standards
would be violated.
b. Specification of the type and degree
of modification to the approved facility
that must be subject to review. Since the
regulation only requires review of modi-
fications that result in addition of a spec-
ified number of parking spaces, the re-
viewing agency may also specify that
certain structural or use changes which
would adversely impact air quality shall
also be subject to review.
7. Invalidation of approval. Numerous
comments were received indicating that
in many cases, on-site construction
wiuld not commence within 18 months
after receipt of approval as required
under subparagraph (12). Accordingly,
this period has been extended from 18 to
24 months. Subparagraph (12) still con-
tains a provision allowing the Adminis-
trator to extend this time period upon
a satisfactory showing that- an exten-
sion is justified. Since the regulation has
been modified to permit the applicant to
request an extension at the time of ini-
tial application, this subparagraph
should not introduce uncertainty for de-
velopers acting in good faith.
8. Data to be submitted by the appli-
cant. Paragraph (b) (3) is amended to
eliminate the requirement that an appli-
cant submit the intermediate informa-
tion, such as trip inducement and exist-
ing volumes, that are used to estimate
future traffic volumes. As amended, para-
graph (b) (10) requires submission of
only that data needed to determine the
traffic flow characteristics on which the
Administrator will base his decision with
respect to localized carbon monoxide
concentrations. An additional parameter;
vehicle capacity of major roads and in-
tersection in the vicinity of the indirect
source, is included since it is needed for
determinations based upon traffic flow
characteristic guidelines. Pursuant to
paragraph (b) (3) (i) (i), the Adminis-
trator may request any additional infor-
mation needed to check the accuracy of
the estimates submitted by the appli-
cant.
9. Examples of traffic flow character-
istics. As indicated below, the Adminis-
trator is issuing guidelines setting forth
traffic flow characteristics which may be
used in determining localized carbon
monoxide concentration. Consequently,
the examples of traffic flow characteris-
tics previously listed in paragraph (b)
(4) (ii) are no longer necessary and have
been deleted.
10. Necessity for "on-site construc-
tion". In order to clear up confusion, the
phrase "on-site" has been added to the
definitions of "to commence construc-
tion" and "to commence modification."
This is entirely consistent with the Ad-
ministrator's intent as reflected in the
February 25 preamble at 39 FR 7273.
11. Sources Subject to "Management
of Parking Supply" Regulations. "Man-
agement of parking supply" regula-
tions have been promulgated by EPA
as part of the transportation 'control
plans in 19 regions. In order to eliminate
confusion as to whether the indirect
source regulation is applicable to a par-
ticular facility in areas where both regu-
lations appear to be in effect, the indirect
source regulation has been amended to
state that in such areas, sources which
would otherwise be required to undergo
review under both regulations will be
subject to review only under the man-
agement of parking supply regulation.
Thus, applicants will not be required to
apply for permits from EPA through two
separate procedures. The parking man-
agement regulations will require facili-
ties of the size subject-to indirect source
review to undergo carbon monoxide im-
pact analysis similar to that required by
the indirect source regulation in addi-
tion to other parking management re-
view requirements.
It should be noted, however, that the
parking management regulations will
not exempt from review sources of the
size covered by the indirect source regu-
lation merely because a general construc-
tion contract had been executed for such
a source. Such sources shall be exempt
only if they have commenced on-site con-
struction or modification on or before
January 1, 1975. The management of
parking supply regulations will soon be
refined by EPA in the respects noted
above.
12. Basis for Decisions on Carbon
Monoxide Impact. Paragraph (b) (4) (ii)
has been clarified to emphasize that
there are a number of analytical tech-
niques which may be acceptable for
evaluating the concentration of carbon
monoxide in the vicinity of indirect
sources. As discussed below, the Adminis-
trator has developed and published traffic
flow characteristic guidelines which will
be one method which may be used. The
use of such guidelines, however, is not
a requirement of the regulation.
As explained in the preamble to the
February promulgation at 39 FR 7275,
these guidelines will have the beneficial
effect of allowing developers to plan thejr
facilities so as to maximize their chances
for approval. Such guidelines will fre-
quently be used by EPA in conducting
review since they provide a rather simple
and expeditious method in analyzing
carbon monoxide impact. Nevertheless,
it is expected that in many cases other
methods, such as diffusion modeling, will
have to be relied on in making the de-
termination. For instance, where basic
technical assumptions used in develop-
ing the guidelines are not appropriate in
a certain area, the guidelines would not
be used as the basis for deciding whether
a permit may be granted. Instead, a dif-
fusion model or other technique which
more accurately takes account of the
actual conditions at a particular site
would have to be used.
13. Minor clarification changes. There
have been several other minor drafting
changes made for clarification purposes
which do not change the scope or intent
of the regulation.
ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES FOR DETERMINING
CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
In the preamble to the February 25
promulgation, the Administrator indi-
cated that he would publish guidelines
setting forth traffic flow characteristics
which may be used in analyzing the car-
bon monoxide impact of indirect sources.
Accordingly, the Agency is publishing
Guidelines for the Review of the Impact
of Indirect Sources on Ambient Air Qual-
ity which specify the analytical tech-
niques the Agency will frequently use in
determining the air quality impact of an
indirect source on localized carbon mon-
oxide concentrations. (See discussion
under #12 above.)
These guidelines will be available for
inspection and distribution at each Re-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 132—TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1974
67
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
gional Office as well as the EPA Freedom
of Information Center, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. As is true
of any guidelines setting forth the
Agency's procedures or practices, EPA
welcomes any relevant written comments
relating to these guidelines at any time.
Interested persons may submit written
comments to the Monitoring and Data
Analysis Division, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N.C. 27711.
The main body of the Guidelines con-
tains a simplified methodology which
relates certain key traffic flow charac-
teristics to local carbon monoxide
concentrations. Nine appendices are also
included for conducting a more complete
analysis, if necessary, of the impact of
an indirect source on ambient air qual-
ity. Seven of the appendices discuss
methods for estimating emissions from
the different types of indirect sources,
the eighth discusses the use of dispersion
models which may be used in such an
analysis as well as methods for estimat-
ing background concentrations, and the
ninth appendix provides a compilation of
indirect source monitoring studies. The
Guidelines also include a discussion of
several considerations for improving
traffic flow characteristics, thus minimiz-
ing a facility's potential to contribute to
a violation of the national standards for
carbon monoxide.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES an
DELEGATION
Where the Administrator has not dele-
gated the responsibility for implement-
ing § 52.22 (b) for indirect source review
to a State or local agency, the implemen-
tation of the regulation will be the re-
sponsibility of the appropriate EPA Re-
gional Administrator. A list of the States
covered by each Regional Office and the
Regional Office addresses are set forth
in § 52.16 of Part 52. Questions concern-
ing the applicability of the regulation
and any other inquiries should be di-
rected to the appropriate Regional Of-
fice. Application forms should be re-
quested from the Regional Office and
returned there for review. Since forms
will not be available immediately, early
applicants should contact the appro-
priate Regional Office for interim advice
concerning the format for application.
Those applicants wishing to submit the
results of diffusion modeling or other
analytical technique in support of thei^
application are urged to contact the Re-
gional Office first to discuss the appro-
priate input parameters and receptor
sites which are of critical interest.
With respect to highways and airports,
it is expected that all necessary techni-
cal data will be available in an Environ-
mental Impact Statement (EIS) pre-
pared pursuant to the National Environ-
mental Policy Act (42 TJ.S.C. 4321). In
such cases, all that is necessary to make
application is a letter to the appropriate
Regional Administrator from the initiat-
ing agency, accompanied by the EIS if
not previously submitted, requesting per-
mission to construct. If additional data
are required, the Regional Office will
notify the applicant within 20 days after
receipt of the request.
Normally, the draft EIS for highway
projects is prepared after the general
corridor has been defined but before a
specific location has been selected. A
draft EIS is circulated on the various
location alternatives and a public hear-
ing is held on the EIS, Depending on the
comments received, the State highway
agency may. decide to abandon the proj-
ect due td its adverse environmental
consequences, re-draft the 'EIS to con-
tain additional alternatives, or issue the
final EIS on the alternatives considered
in the draft. Following the issuance of
the final EIS, the State highway agency
generally proceeds with the following
steps leading to the eventual construc-
tion of the highway: selects preferred
alternative; performs detailed highway
design and development of specifica-
tions; holds design hearing; obtains ap-
proval and funding commitment from
the Federal Highway Administration;
acquires right-of-way land and appro-
priate easements; advertises for and
analyzes bids; and awards construction
contracts.
The application for approval under the
indirect source regulations would nor-
mally be made as early in the above proc-
ess as the necessary data are available,
which would not be earlier than the loca-
tion study phase. The highway agency
may, of course, make application at any
later phase prior to actual commence-
ment of construction. Although the Ad-
ministrator would prefer to consider
only the selected alternative based on
the final EIS, he will provide the high-
way agency with a decision on each of
the alternatives specifically analyzed in
the draft EIS. In addition, review based
on the draft EIS coincides with EPA's
present procedures for review and
rating of EIS's. Although not required,
the Administrator urges States or local
agencies accepting delegation of these
regulations to utilize administrative pro-
cedures similar to those outlined above.
The Administrator reiterates his de-
sire to delegate the indirect source re-
view procedures to States and/or local
governments. States will soon be receiv-
ing communications from EPA's regional
offices containing more details regard-
ing delegation.
If a State agency has not officially re-
quested delegation, the Administrator
will entertain requests from local agen-
cies. Local agencies may inquire about
delegation procedures at the appropriate
EPA Regional Offices. However, no dele-
gation will be made directly to a local
agency if a State agency has already
received delegation. In addition to the
guidance provided on February 25, 1974,
as to what type of agency should receive
delegation, the Administrator feels there
are certain agencies which should not be
delegated review responsibility where a
conflict of interest could be created. For
example, the Administrator will not
delegate the indirect source review to
agencies, such as State highway agencies,
which are substantially responsible for
originating projects subject to review
under these regulations.
Since the amendments being published
today are in response to public comments
based upon the regulation published
in February and review is to begin under
the regulation immediately, the Admin-
istrator finds good cause, not to subject
the amendments to further public com-
ment before fmalization as such proce-
dure would be unnecessary and impracti-
cable. Appendix A is being promulgated
in final form because interpretative rul-
ings are exempt from the notice and
public comment requirements of the Ad-
ministrative Procedure Act. For the con-
venience of applicants, reviewing officials,
and all other interested persons, the
regulation is being reprinted in its en-
tirety in its amended form. (Sections
110(a)(2)(B), 110(c), and 301 (a) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
1857c-5(a)(2)(B), 1857c-5(c), and
1857g(a)).)
Dated: June 28, 1974.
JOHN QTJARLES,
Acting Administrator.
68
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 99. NO. 133—TUESDAY, JULY 9. 1974
-------
Appendix C — Proposed Clean Air Act
Amendment for Transportation Control Plans
Sec. 3. Section 110 of the Clean Air Act is amended by
adding subsection (g) as follows:
"(g) (0 Upon application by the Governor of a State on
or after June 1, 1976, the Administrator may extend for
not more than five years the deadline for attainment of
national primary ambient air quality standards where
transportation control measures are necessary for the
attainment of such standards, and where the
implementation of such control measures would have
serious adverse social or economic effects.
(1) The Administrator may consider extension
applications for only those air quality control regions in
which the State has:
(A) implemented or will have begun implementing by
June 1, 1977, the requirements of the applicable plan with
respect to stationary source emissions of transportation-
related pollutants and all reasonably available measures of
the applicable transportation control plan.
(B) completed a detailed planning study that evidences
public and local governmental involvement and includes
examination of alternative measures and combinations of
measures which could be used to attain and maintain the
standards after June 1, 1977, a description of projects to be
undertaken together with timetables and resource require-
ments, and identification and analysis of social, economic,
and environmental effects including public health effects of
such measures and projects.
(3) Each extension application shall be accompanied by
adequate documentation of compliance with the require-
ments of paragraph (2) above, and shall include an
implementation plan for the extension period requested.
The plan ^dil:
(A) identify the remaining emission reductions neces-
sary for attainment of the national primary ambient air
quality standards and the reasonably available measures to
be implemented to accomplish these reductions;
(B) provide for the implementation of all reasonably
available control measures as expeditiously as practicable;
(C) identify the financial and manpower resources to be
committed to carrying out the plan;
(D) demonstrate (i) attainment of the national primary
ambient air quality standards as expeditiously as practicable
but no later than May 31, 1982, or (ii) that such attainment
is not possible within die extension period despite
implementation of all reasonable available and achievable
control measures."
"(4)(A) Within 120 days following the submission of an
application and all supporting materials, and after providing
an opportunity for public comment, the Administrator
shall grant an extension, if he determines that the require-
ments of this subsection have been met.
(B) If the Administrator determines that the require-
ments of this subsection have not been met, including
findings relating to the impacts of the transportation
control measures upon the social, economic and environ-
mental welfare of the air quality control region, he shall
notify the governor of deficiencies in the application,
including his judgment as to acceptable dates for im-
plementing measures included in the plan and as to the
appropriate duration of an extension. The notification shall
also specify a date for the submission of a revised
application,
"(5) Where the Administrator grants an extension based
on an application meeting the requirements of sub-
paragraph (g)(3)(D)(ii), the Governor of the State may, on
or after June 1, 1981, apply for a further extension in
accordance with and subject to the requirements of this
subsection. No extension under this paragraph may extend
beyond May 31,1987."
"(6) Where the Administrator denies an extension ap-
plication or where the Governor of a State in which the
national primary ambient air quality standards are not
being met does not submit an application under this
subsection, the Administrator may, after consultation with
appropriate State and local elected officials, propose and
promulgate an implementation plan (or portion thereof)
meeting the requirements of this subsection."
"(7) No transportation control measures which would
have serious adverse social or economic effects shall be
considered "reasonably available."
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975-626-955/274 3-I
69
------- |