APTD-1367
TRANSPORTATION CONTROL
STRATEGY FOR THE DAYTON
METROPOLITAN AREA
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
ffice of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Kesearch Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
APTD-1367
TRANSPORTATION CONTROL
STRATEGY FOR THE DAYTON
METROPOLITAN AREA
Prepared by
TRW Transportation & Environmental Operations
7600 Colshire Drive
McLean, Virginia 22101
Contract No. 68-02-0048
EPA Project Officer: Fred Winkler
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
December 1972
-------
The APTD (Air Pollution Technical Data) series of reports is issued
by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and
Water Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, to report technical
data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies of APTD reports
are available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors
and grantees, and non-profit organizations as supplies permit from
the Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, or may be obtained,
for a nominal cost, from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
TRW Transportation and Environmental Operations of McLean, Virginia,
in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-0048. The contents of this
report are reproduced herein as received from the TRW Transportation
and Environmental Operations. The opinions, findings, and conclusions
expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. APTD-1367
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 .0 SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 1
1.1 AIR QUALITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.2 EMISSION REDUCTION REQUIRED. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.3 CONTROL MEASURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
1 .3.1 Data Base. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
1.3.2 Limitations of the Transportation Control
Strategy Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-4
2.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 2-1
3.0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1 AREA DESCRIPTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.2 PROBLEM DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . 3-2
4.0 CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1 EMISSION ESTIMATES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4. 1 . 1 Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 1
4.1.2 Emission Estimates with Present Transportation
and Controls (1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
4.1.3 Emission Estimates with Programmed Transporta-
tion System and Controls (1977) . . . . . . . . 4-2
4.2 CONTROL MEASURES CONSIDERED. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
4.2.1 Emission Reduction Potential. . . . . . . . . 4-2
4.2.2 Institutional Considerations. . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.3 CONTROL MEASURES AND STRATEGY FOR DAYTON. . . . . . . 4-5
4.3.1 Emission Reduction Measures. . . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.3.2 Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Measures. . . 4-7
4.3.3 Episode Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10
4.3.4 Air Quality Impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12
4.3.5 Cost Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12
4.3.6 Obstacles to Implementation. . . . . . . . . . 4-12
4.4 PROPOSED CONTROL STRATEGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13
5.0 CONTROL STRATEGY IMPLEMENTAIIUN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.1 PROCEDURE AND TIME SCHEDULE. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.2 AGENCY INVOLVEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.3 LEGAL AUTHORITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 5-1
5.4 IMPLEMENTATION. SURVEILLANCE AND CHECKPOINTS. . . . . 5-2
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX 0:
AIR QUALITY AND EMISSIONS DATA. . . . . . . . . . A-l
TRANSPORTATION DATA BASE. . . . . . .. .... B-1
BIBLIOGRAPHIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-l
AUTO AIR POLLUTION STUDY. . . ! . . . . . . . . . 0-1
i i i
-------
Table Number
1-1
4-1
4-2
Figure Number
1
2
LI ST OF TABLES
Ti tl e
Page
1-2
24-Hour Hydrocarbon Emissions For
Montgomery and Greene Counties
1971 Mobile Hydrocarbon Emissions For
Montgomery and Greene Counties
1977 Mobile Hydrocarbon Emissions For
Montgomery and Greene Counties
4-3
4-4
LI ST OF FI GURES
Title
Page
2-3
Daily High - Ozone - Micrograms/Cubic
Meter
Peak Concentration - Ozone - By Month
2-4
iv
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1
AIR QUALITY
The second highest measurement of oxidant concentration during 1971
was 343 micrograms per cubic meter, 1 hour reading(l). It was measured
at the sole monitor operating at that time (just off Dixie Drive, approxi-
mately five miles north of town). The national primary standard of 160
micrograms per cubic meter, 1 hour reading, must be achieved by July. 1977.
Carbon monoxide measurements indicate that no problem should exist with
carbon monoxide ambient air levels by July, 1977.
1.2 EMISSION REDUCTION REQUIRED
A reduction of 58 percent in hydrocarbon emissions is estimated
needed to achieve the oxidant National Ambient Air Quality Standard,
assuming the air quality data to be accurate and representative(2).
to be
Table 1-1 shows the stationary, mobile, and total hydrocarbon emis-
sions for 1971, 1977 with only federal emission controls applied, and 1977
as required to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (58 percent
reduction in total emissions). Comparison of the two 1977 columns indicates
that an additional 27.2 percent reduction in mobile emissions will be re-
quired to achieve the necessary 16.2 percent required reduction in total
em i s s ions.
The above is based on available air quality and emission inventory
data. Of immediate concern should be the review and revision (if necessary)
of stationary source data, associated growth and control factors, and the
requirement for a more comprehensive monitoring network. Should the revised
data confirm the necessity for them, the following control measures will be
effective in reducing mobile source emissions.
(l)Data supplied by Montgomery County Health Department.
(2)Federa1 Register, Vol. 36, No. 228, Thursday, November 25, 1971.
P224l3, Figure 1.
1- 1
-------
TABLE 1-1
24-HOUR HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FOR
MONTGOMERY AND GREENE COUNTIES (kg/day)
1971 1977 (Federa 1) 1978 (Federal) 1977 (Standard)
Stationary 61 ,224 29,902 31 ,009 29,902
Mobi1e* 86,693 44,251 38,655 32,223
Total 147,917 74,153 69,664 62,125
*Based on average speed of 28.0 mph for 1971 and 29.1 mph for 1977, 78.
1-2
-------
1.3 CONTROL MEASURES
Control measures which can be used to reduce mobile source emissions
and their estimated effects are as follows:
. CBD priority - give priority to those control measures which
preferencia11y control emissions from the CBD.
Inspection & maintenance - one of the several inspection alter-
natives are needed to maintain engine performance and emission
controls at lower emission levels. Estimated reduction is 12
percent of the hydrocarbon emissions.
. Curb side parking and loading regulations - promulgate and en-
force regulations to restrict curb side parking and extended
loading times. Estimated reduction 1-3 percent.
.
. Gaseous fuels - conversion of certain fleet vehicles (taxiss
police, etc.) to gaseous fuels would result in an estimated
reduction of less than 1 percent.
.
Increased Mass Transportation Ridership - control measures which
have the potential for increasing ridership are as follows:
. Revised Management/Administration of Transit System
. Route and Schedule Improvements
. Reduced Fares for Frequent Riders, Senior Citizens and Students
. Better Marketing Program
. Replacement of Outdated Equipment
. Provision of Bus Shelters and Benches
. Extension of Routes to Unserved Areas
. Park and Ride Facilities
Ridership increases from 1 to 20 percent are estimated to reduce
emissions less than 1 percent.
. Restraints - restraints with prohibition for certain classes of
vehicles from congested areas ahd parking space control for in-
hibiting the movement of vehicles into areas where limited parking
is available.
-------
Vehicle Miles Traveled Controls - the responsible planning agency
should factor air quality effects into their transportation planning.
. Modified Work Schedules and Four Day Work Weeks - the staggering
of working hours would tend to spread total emissions over a
longer period of time thus reducing the peak concentrations of
pollutants. The estimated reduction would be up to 3 percent.
.
.
Episode Controls - temporary measures instituted on an as-required
basis. Examples would be: restricted use of private automobiles
(by area, number of passengers, etc.), controls on stationary
sources, or other appropriate methods. Emission reductions would
be dependent upon severity of controls.
1 .3. 1
Data Base
The present air quality and transportation data base is inadequate
to accurately project control measure effects on emission reduction and
air quality. Control strategy implementation should include the collection
of adequate data, and the strategy should be flexible enough to respond to
updated projecttions of required emission reduction.
1.3.2 Limitations Of The Transportation Control Strategy Analysis
The basic requirement which any acceptable air pollution control
strategy must meet is that emission levels following implementation of the
strategy are consistent with the attainment and maintenance of National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. Satisfaction of this requirement depends
upon a detailed knowledge of current air quality levels and a quantification
of the pollutant emissions in the region. Additionally, an implementable
transportation control strategy must consider the economic factors associated
with its adoption and also the social and political changes necessary to
accommodate each specific control measure. The a-ir quality benefits of any
action must be thus balanced against the social and economic dislocations
caused by its implementation. Long-term regional transportation goals and
policies must be balanced against the need to achieve specific degrees of
emission reduction by 1977. Limitations in the data available and in the
analytic method used became obvious during the course of this study, and
1-4
-------
care must be taken in the interpretation and evaluation of the control strat-
egy recommendations contained in this report. Several specific areas in
which the present study needs to be confirmed and validated by future study
are listed below.
Air Quality Monitoring
Two basic areas of concern appear in connection with air quality data
available for this project. First and most important, ambient monitoring
at only one point completely fails to give an adequate appreciation of the
regional character of the air pollution problem. It is impossible to de-
termine whether the monitor is being adversely affected by local sources
and thus giving an unrealistically high reading in terms of the regional
problem or conversely, whether there are areas of maximum ambient pollution
that are being completely unmonitored. The only solution to this problem
lies in increasing the number and geographical spread of ambient monitors.
Data from the extended monitoring network should be used to constantly
evaluate and update the control strategy presented in this document. The
second problem concerning the use of air quality monitoring data lies in
the statistical manipulations and projections used to determine the required
level of reduction for the attainment of standards. Basing an extensive
control program on measurements obtained in one or two hours per year may
lead to the imposition of unduly strict control measures. The trend of
ambient measurements during the period before the target year of 1977 must
be carefully watched and used to adjust control measures according to ob-
served ambient conditions. Further, specific high measurements obviously
due to adverse meteorological conditions may be considered as episode
control situations and may not require the imposition of long-term trans-
portation control strategies for their solution.
Emission Factors
The mobile source emission estimates utilized in this study are
based upon the best currently available emission factor estimates. These
emission estimates are in the process of being updated and revised with both
in-use and new vehicle testing programs, conducted by the Environmental
1-5
-------
Protection Agency. The applicability of the standard test driving cycle
to the driving patterns in each metropolitan area is questionable. Further,
there are many trip types making up the total vehicle miles traveled in
each area; and it has not been possible on the basis of currently available
data to distinguish in an air pollution emissions sense between the different
driving modes used. It is highly recommended that new emission factor~ be
utilized as they become available to recompute and redefine the severity of
the mobile source generated emission in the region. Finally, the emission
factors used in the study relate speed to the emission only on the basis
of the integrated driving cycle. This has prevented the accurate asse~sment
of changes in emissions due to improvement in traffic flow characteristics
in core, center city areas.
Cold Start Emissions
Preliminary data have shown that the emissions generated during the
first few minutes of vehicle operations represent a large and increasing
portion of the total emissions during any individual vehicle trip. The
implications of this fact are that to truly reduce mobile source emissions
it may be necessary to address the reduction in total vehicle trips rather
than merely reducing the number of vehicles miles traveled. Unfortunately,
the data relating to this phenomena were not sufficiently developed to be
used in the analysis presented in this study. Another potential effect of
control strategy to reduce high level cold start emissions might be the
control as a stationary source of parking structures. Again, it has not
been possible to quantitatively describe the effect of this type measure
on the regional air pollution problem in this report.
Traffic Data and Projections
Traffic data and traffic projections have not historically been col-
lected with a view to the estimation of motor vehicle air pollution emissions.
In addition, travel forecasts from the most recent transportation study
(1968) are not available. This fact has necessitated the reworking of traffic
data including vehicle flows, speeds and modal mixes into the format necessary
for emission calculations. Certain assumptions and potential inaccuracies
have been introducted by this process. Further, trends and projections in
1-6
-------
vehicle growth have been prepared by various agencies and often little
unanimity has been found concerning appropriate growth rates. These data
in certain cases require that a close watch be maintained both on traffic
changes and ambient air quality during the period between now and full
strategy implementation so that any deviations from the expected vehicle
emission rates can be determined and appropriate adjustments made in the
control strategy. It should be noted that stationary source emission
projections also suffer from inaccuracies in the projection of industrial
growth and in the application of as yet untested control technologies to
control of these stationary sources.
Analytic Techniques Used
The key analytic calculation performed in this study is the relation
between emission levels and ambient air quality. Due to the time restraints
it was not possible to utilize sophisticated mathematical modeling techniques
in the development of this relation between emissions and air quality. Con-
trol strategy reductions were thus based on proportional rollback techniques
relating existing emissions and air quality on a proportional basis. The
use of modeling is highly recommended since it will both include the effects
of local meteorological and topographical features and indicate, in a way
that rollback estimation cannot, the geographical extent of the regional
air pollution problem. Such modeling and simulation exercises using models
currently under development should be carried out during the years between
now and 1977 and should be used to modify. if required, the control strategy
recommended in this document.
Effects of Control Measures
It was generally not possible to expressly quantify the emission reduc-
tion effect of many of the control measures considered in this document. For
example, the effect of the inspection and maintenance program depends strongly
upon the exact test procedure used, maintenance recommendations, the quality
and availability of trained mechanics and a host of other factors which
were impossible to define exactly during this study. Similarly, mass
transit improvements can be expected to reduce vehicle miles traveled within
the region. The extent of this reduction is unknown until specific data
1-7
-------
concerning the
split of trips
evaluated.
economic elasticity of the various travel demands, the modal
within the region, and many other factors are carefully
It is strongly recommended that programs be instituted to provide
additional data and apply more sophisticated analytic techniques in the
areas listed above. Work must begin on the implementation of the required
regional control measures; however, final implementation and enforcement
should be dependent upon data collected during calendar years 1973, 1974,
and even 1975. Full consideration must be given to the political, juris-
dictional and social impact of all control actions. The control strategy
presented in this document must be considered as an initial attempt to
quantify the relationship between transportation processes and the regional
air pollution problem. The further study indicated should be used to modify
this baseline effort. The air pollution implications of the transportation
process are very complex and a modification of this process can potentially
effect significant changes in the social and economic character of the
metropolitan region.
1-8
-------
2.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The indicated required emission reduction is not necessarily a valid
figure. Serious doubt exists about the validity of the data used to
determine the air quality for the Dayton area. Reasons for this doubt are
based on the erratic nature of peak value (372 micrograms per cubic meter)
obtained on only one day in well over a year of monitoring, and upon the
fact that neither this value nor any value close to it has been repeated
since August 1971. During the equivalent period of 1972 no value of the
same order of magnitude was obtained. Perhaps the most important factor
in questioning the validity of the 1971 summer data is the location of the
monitor in relation to abnormal traffic flow patterns during that time.
At the time when the high readings were obtained a temporary interchange
was located at the interstate highway approximately one mile east of the
monitor. Traffic was diverted to a road upwind of the monitor across to
Dixie highway, located to the west of the monitor approximately 200 to 300
yards. It might be noted that during this time when the high oxidant
readings were obtained, the carbon monoxide monitor in the CBD did not have
a correspondingly high peak. This would indicate that the emissions in the
CSD were not in proportion to the unusually high value measured at the
monitor located 4 to 5 miles north of town. In addition, the monitor is
located in a parking lot used by the school district for parking school
buses. Although these buses should not normally create a problem with
photochemical oxidants due to the lag time in oxidant formation after emis-
sion of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, the buses could have been
involved in the especially high reading that was recorded on August 30 due
to excessive N02 interference which may not have been accounted for by
usual statistical adjustment procedures.
It should be noted that the temporary interchange has since been closed
and the interstate highway opened to traffic. During the summer of 1972 no
value approached the single value measured on August 30, 1971, of 372
micrograms per cubic meter, and in fact no value approached that level again
after August 30,1971. The second highest reading was measured the hour
after the highest reading on August 30, and that value was 343 micrograms
per cubic meter. The next highest value measured was on August 30, 1971
2-1
-------
(314 micrograms per cubic meter). The highest value measured during
the summer months of 1972 and in fact the highest value measured since
September of 1971 was 225 micrograms per cubic meter, on August 31, 1972.
This was the only value to exceed 200 micrograms per cubic meter since
September 1971. This indicates that a significant reduction in oxidant
levels in the vicinity of the monitor has occurred. Graphical presentation
of highest hourly readings by day and by month, 1971 vs. 1972, indicate that
a significant shift has occurred in oxidant levels. The values follow the
same trend, just at significantly different levels of concentration. It
is not felt that meteorological changes alone should cause an overall
shift in values of this magnitude and consistency.
The most obvious reason for this reduction would be the improved
traffic flow patterns around the monitor. It seems that the high values mea-
sured in August 1971 were due to the unusual traffic conditions in this
area, the school bus situation, or some other unexplained localized
phenomena. Based upon the preceding information it is not possible to
unqualifiedly recommend a control strategy for the Dayton area. It, how-
ever, would be in the best interest of the residents of the Dayton area for
efforts to be made to reduce vehicular contributed pollution in order to
further improve air quality. Special effort should be made to increase use
of the mass transit system. Use of the private automobile in the CBD should
be discouraged, and effort to insure proper operation of these vehicles
should be made, such as a periodic inspection and/or maintenance program.
In addition, an adequate air quality monitoring system should be instituted
and maintained in order to measure and provide updated projections of re-
quired emission reductions. As an interim measure to insure compliance,
an episode control strategy could be implemented. It should be noted that
if the air quality data is correct, projections indicate that the National
Air Quality Standards would only be violated twice annually at the worst
(once is permissible).
2-2
-------
395 ,
380
365
350
335
320
305
290
\11
m3 275
260
245
230
';" 215
w
:~: I .
170 ~
155 / ,
140
,
1\
1 \
1 \
~ "'-
1 "
1 \
I \
I \
I
I
l
125
110
95
80
65
50
.
ft
1\
1\
, \
, \
, \
, \
, 1
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2'8 29 30 31
Figure 1.
AUI?!-,ST 1971 - - - - -,
AL,;'_'ST 1972
DAILY HIGH - OZONE - Micrograms/Cubic Meter
3
160 \1g/m
-------
395
380
365
350
335
320
305
290
]J~3 275
260
245
230
";-' 215
..,.
200
185
170
155
140
125
110
195
80
65
50
JUNE*
1971
JULY
AUG.
SEPT. OCT. NOV.
SEPT.*
*Partia1 Month's Data
Figure 2.
DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY
1972
PEAK CONCENTRATION - OZONE - ]Jg/M3
BY MONTH
JUNE JULY AUG.
3
160 ]Jg/m
-------
3.0
INTRODUCTION
The State of Ohio must submit definitive transportation control plans
to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) no later than February 15,
1973, for that area of the State, namely the Dayton Region, where emissions
from transportation sources have contributed to measured concentrations of
pollutants in excess of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. To
assist the State in its preparation of this transportation plan, EPA has
awarded a contract to TRW Inc., and its subsidiary De Leuw, Cather and
Company for developing strategies for the Dayton Region that will achieve
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for oxidants by the year 1977.
3.1
AREA DESCRIPTIONS
The Metropolitan Dayton Intrastate Air Quality Control Region is
comprised of the following six counties:
. Clark
. Darke
. Greene
. Miami
. Montgomery
. Preple
These counties have a combined area of 2,715 square miles. Population
(estimated) in 1969 was 1,039,000. Approximately 60 percent of the popu-
lation is located in Montgomery County, and about half of that within the
City of Dayton. The majority of the City of Dayton is located in Montgomery
County. with the remainder in Greene County. Montgomery County has an area
of 459 square miles and Greene County an area of 415 square miles.
The region has a diversified manufacturing base, and includes business
machines, home appliances, rubber products and automobile components. Also
located in the region, just northeast of the city is Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base, a major military installation.
3-1
-------
The Dayton metropolitan area lies within the Miami River Valley, ap-
proximately 50-200 feet below the elevation of the surrounding countryside.
The Miami River drains southward to the Ohio River.
The wind for this region is generally from the south-southwest (except
during Febraury-March when it is from the west-northwest). Wind speed av-
erages about 8 miles per hour in the summer and 12 miles per hour during
the winter. These winds tend to minimize local climatological conditions,
and the region is more effected by stagnate air masses extending over large
areas of the midwestern United States.
Precipitation is relatively evenly distributed throughout the year.
The temperature for this area is rel~tive1y moderate with occasional
extremes of short duration(l).
3.2 PROBLEM DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTION
Based upon available data the Dayton Metropolitan Region's area of
primary concern is photochemical oxidants; the products of hydrocarbons,
nitrogen, oxides, and sunlight. A major source of these pollutants is
mobile source emissions. During the monitoring program covering the past
year and a half only one period of exceptionally high oxidant levels was
recorded; during the month of August, 1971 levels generally exceeded per-
missible 1977 levels. One day in particular (August 30,1971) had exception-
ally high readings of 372 and 343 micrograms per cubic meter. These levels
have not been repeated during any time since that date. During the Summer
of 1972 only one day in excess of 200 micrograms per cubic meter was recorded
(this level was 225 micrograms per cubic meter). Several factors are believed
to have been involved in the reduction of the reported levels but no clear-
cut absolute reason can be given.
(l)DemOgraphic and meteorological data extracted from the Ohio State Imple-
mentation Plan.
3-2
-------
It should be emphasized that the existing data base for air quality is
inadequate for accurate and reliable evaluation of control measure effects
and emission reduction. In addition, stationary source data presented in
the Ohio Implementation Plan is not as detailed or complete as is necessary
for estimating future stationary source contributions to the problem.
3-3
-------
4.0 CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
4. 1
EMISSION ESTIMATES
To determine the magnitude of the emissions reduction required, it
is necessary that the quantitative effect of emissions reductions on the
level of concentration in the ambient air be determined. Methods for
determining this effect vary in complexity. The more complex and, with
sufficient data base, the more representative of actual conditions are
diffusion models which use for inputs the emission rates of all sources
(e.g., all streets plus all stationary sources). the concentration at the
receptors, and source-receptor interaction. The latter is determined from
and caries with meteorological conditions. The least complex is the simple
proportional model which assumes that the reduction in air quality con-
centration levels is directly proportional to emission reductions. A
proportional model was used to determine the required emission reductions
needed in Dayton. The proportional model is described and the rationale
for its use is detailed in Appendix A.
4. 1 . 1
Methods
An emission estimate is the product of two factors; vehicle miles
of travel (VMT) times an emission rate (emission factor) in grams pollutant
per mile traveled. Emission factors were based on known or expected emis-
sion rates for each vehicle class considering age of vehicle, effectiveness
of emission controls, average speed, and age distribution of the population
of vehicles traveling within the Dayton study area(l). The impact of
Federal new motor vehicle exhaust system controls required on present and
future vehicles were considered. Emission factor calculations are detailed
in Appendix A.
VMT and speed were determined as shown in Appendix S. Estimates of
VMT and speed within Dayton and its CSD were based principally on historical
projections. Citywide travel was based on known 1972 traffic projected by
(1)D.S. Kircher and D.P. Armstrong, "An Interim Report on Motor Vehicle
Emission Estimation," Environmental Protection Agency, October 1972.
4-1
-------
trends in auto ownership and screen1ine crossings. Travel within the caD
was based on trends reflected by cordon counts taken on its perimeter as
well as a traffic flow map. Average speed on the major street system in
Dayton was estimated at 28.0 miles per hour.
VMT and speed projections to 1977 were based on actual growth
reflected by census, interim traffic counts, available real life data and
judgement based on national trends. The projections also reflect the
expected effects of major highway projects programmed for completion by
1977. Details on these projections are shown in Appendix B.
4.1.2
Emission Estimates with Present Transportation System and
Controls (1971)
Estimated mobile source hydrocarbon emissions for 1971 were 86,693
kg/day overall for the Montgomery-Greene County area. Emission factors
and VMT by vehicles class used for these estimates are given in Table 4-1.
4.1.3
Emission Estimates with Programmed Transportation System and
Control s (1977)
Estimated mobile source hydrocarbon emissions for 1977 are 44,251
kg/day overall for the area. Emission factors and VMT by vehicle class
used for these estimates are given in Table 4-2.
4.2 CONTROL MEASURES CONSIDERED
4.2.1
Emission Reduction Potential
Control measures are those actions taken that are expected to result
in a reduction in total emissions. Control measures will fall into one of
two groups; emission related, and reductions in vehicle miles traveled.
Emission related control measures achieve reductions in emissions per
vehicle mile by the use of emission control devices, by the use of alter-
native energy sources such as gaseous fuels and electric power, and speed
control. The other group of control measures achieve reduction by reducing
the vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
4-2
-------
Table 4-1
1971
MOBILE HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
FOR
MONTGOMERY AND GREEN COUNTIES
(Includes City of Dayton)
(1)
(2)
(3 )
(4)
.j:>.
I
W
ROAD AVERAGE SPEED LIGHT DUTY EMISSION FACTOR1 H EA VY DUTY EMISSION FACTOR1 TOTAL EMISSIONS
CATEGORY (m.p.h.) (VMT/day) (grams/mile) ( Vt'1T / day) (grams/mile) (kg/day)
Freeways &
Expressways 46 2,165,306 7.191 143,123 16.463 17,927
AI'teri a 1 s 27 2,808,811 9.137 185,657 22.088 29,765
Collectors 20 2,834,890 10.222 187,381 24.810 33,627
Ramps 25 95,656 9.388 6,232 22.814 1 ,040
Local 15 271,337 10.775 52,306 26.961 4,334
TOTALS 8,696,009 574,790 86,693
(5) = 10-3 L [(1) + (2)] + [(3) + (4)]
1D.S. Kircher and D.P. Armstrong, "An Interim Report on Motor Vehicle Emission Estimation,"
Environmental Protection Agency, October 1972.
-------
Table 4-2
1977
MOBILE HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
FOR
MONTGOMERY AND GREENE COUNTIES
(Includes City of Dayton)
(1)
( 2)
(3)
(4 )
+:>
I
+:>
ROAD AVERAGE SPEED LIGHT DUTY EMISSION FACTOR1 HEAVY DUTY EMISSION FACTOR1 TOTAL EMISSIONS
CATEGORY (m.p.h.) (VMT/day) (grams/mile) (VMT/day) (grams/mile) (kg/day)
Freeways &
Expressways 46 3,234,000 2.355 213,835 10.892 9,945
Arterial 27 3,009,000 3.042 198,561 15.283 12, 188
Co 11 ectors 21 3,287,000 3.498 217,472 16.979 1 5,1 90
Ramps 26 121,000 3.092 8,001 15.566 499
Local 16 1,001,000 3.813 66,187 18.678 5,053
Addition 32 252,000 - 2.906 16,729 1 3 .862 964
Addition 26 100,000 3.092 6,546 15.566 411
TOTALS 11,004,000 727,330 44,251(5)
(5) = 10-3 E [(1) + (2)] + [(3) + (4)]
1D.S. Kircher and D.P. Armstrong, "An Interim Report on Motor Vehicle Emission Estimation,"
Environmental Protection Agency, October 1972.
-------
EPA regulations require that light duty vehicles be equipped with
emission controls that reduce emissions to specified limits. Hydrocarbon
emission estimates indicate reductions by 1977 of 50 percent overall for
the area through utilization of emission controls (see Table 1-1). The
estimated reductions from emission controls are based on minimal low
mileage test data (4000 mile) and for only pre-1972 models(2). Reductions
for later year models are estimated. A deterioration factor is applied to
account for the aging or deterioration of the control devices beyond the
low mileage test period estimates. The estimated reductions should not
be relied on unequivocally until confirmed by additional test data.
Area wide total hydrocarbon emissions of 147~9l7 kg/day must be
reduced 58 percent to 62~125 kg/day by 1977. It was estimated (Table 1-1)
that new-vehicle emission controls will reduce emissions to 74~153 kg/day.
Thus~ control measures are needed to reduce emissions another 12~028 kg/day.
This is equivalent to a 27.2 percent reduction of the 1977 mobile source
emissions (an overall reduction of 16.2 percent).
4.2.2
Institutional Considerations
Any candidate control measure should be considered in relation to
the economic~ political~ and social problems likely to be encountered upon
its implementation. The various obstacles to the control measures considered
for Dayton have been documented in the following section.
4.3 CONTROL MEASURES AND STRATEGY FOR DAYTON
4.3.1
Emission Reduction Measures
Inspection/Maintenance (Loaded Emission Test Without Retrofit)
An estimated 12 percent reduction in non-evaporative hydrocarbon
emissions from 1ight duty vehicles will result if this program ;s imple-
mented. EPA considers this approach to be the most generally applicable
(2)Ibid.
4-5
-------
of the several inspection/maintenance alternatives for in-use vehicle
emissions control. Therefore, their guidelines require that data and
analyses supporting the emissions reductions claimed for alternative ap-
proaches must be submitted with the transportation control plan. This
control measure has thus been included although other inspection/maintenance
approaches may be chosen. It should be noted that if this strategy is ap-
plied to an area smaller than the region, the percent reduction achieved will
be reduced by an amount dependent on the VMT traveled in the control area by
uncontrolled vehicles.
The specific emission test considered is the Key Mode test which
requires measurement of emissions during cruise, deceleration and idle
modes of an acceleration - cruise - deceleration - idle cycle.*
Traffic Operations Improvements
This category of control measures includes improvements, other than
construction of major new facilities, which will facilitate traffic flow,
increase speed (within acceptable limits). and reduce the number of stops
and starts occasioned by traffic congestion. Applicable traffic operations
improvements include, among others, channelization of busy intersections;
widening congested segments of heavily traveled thoroughfares; parking
and/or loading restrictions or prohibitions; and traffic signal improve-
ments to achieve better efficiency. It has been estimated that programmed
improvements will result in a five-mile-per-hour increase in average operating
speed on arterial streets and highways with a combined total of approximately
352,000 VMT per day, (Appendix B). The net effect will be an increase in
average operating speed from 28.3 mph to 29.9 mph for the two-county region.
While an increase of this magnitude may appear to be nominal, the effect
would be significant in specific areas where congestion now exists and where
pollutants concentrate.
*"Control Strategies for In-Use Vehicles,lI Preliminary Draft, Environmental
Protection Agency, August 9, 1972.
4-6
-------
Gaseous Fuels
There is no single fleet of vehicles (such as taxicabs) in the Dayton
Metropolitan Area which is large enough to warrant further consideration of
this control measure. Estimated emission reduction which could be achieved
through conversion to gaseous fuels is nominal.
Electrification
Of approximately 12,500 daily service miles operated by the City
Transit Company (CTC)(l) in 1971, 90 percent were accounted for by elec-
trically driven trolley buses and ten percent by diesel buses. Estimated
emission reductions resulting from electrification of present diesel buses
operated by RTC (formerly CTC) and other transit properties is nominal.
Consideration has been given by others to the advisability of converting
the present trolley bus fleet to diesel buses. Before such a conversion is
made, the consequences in terms of increased air pollution--particularly in
the Dayton central business district--should be carefully analyzed.
4.3.2
Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Measures
Control measures described above are all directed toward producing
a decrease in the quantity of pollutants emitted per mile of vehicle travel.
Alternative control measures ~ould reduce emission by decreasing the amount
of vehicle travel.
Improvements in Public Transportation
Transit patronage in Dayton has declined from 43.800,000 revenue
passengers per year in 1950 to 9,390,000 in 1971, or by 79 percent(2).
Daily ridership in 1971 would have been 31,300 one-way trips per day
assuming 300 equivalent weekdays per year. In 1971, travel by public tran-
sit accounted for less than two percent of all person trips made in the
Davton Metropolitan Area.
(l)CTC was acquired by the Miami Valley Regional Transit Authority
on November 5, 1972.
(2)source: The City Transit Company, February 24, 1972.
(MVRTA)
4-7
-------
The electorates of Dayton and Oakwood voted on a Miami Valley Regional
Transit Authority (MVRTA) special tax election on October 1, 1971. The cit-
izens approved a tax levy for the MVRTA by a margin of nearly four-to-one.
On November 5, 1972, following a year of negotiations and the filing of a
condemnation suit, MVRTA took over operation of the City Transit Company.
MVRTA has developed a short-range transit improvement program
including the following measures aimed at increasing patronage and ser-
vi ce (1 ) :
. Management/Administration of the Transit System - the first steps
have already been taken by public acquisition and retention of an
experienced transit operator to manage the system.
. Transit Operations - route and schedule improvements to provide
more attractive service levels. In addition, fares would be
stabilized and slightly reduced through sale of 40-ride tickets
as well as Senior Citizens' and Students' 20-ride tickets. All
zone charges would be eliminated.
.
Marketing Program - including improvements in public information,
public relations, advertising and community relations.
. Capital Improvements - replacement of rolling stock and accesso-
ries as well as office and garage facilities. Purchase of new
communications equipment, bus shelters and benches.
. Special Transit Planning Programs - other programs considered
important to the system including the Dayton Urban Corridor
Demonstration Program and Model Cities Transit Program.
. Additional Service - extension of transit service to presently
unserved areas both within and outside of the District.
. Traffic Control Plan - measures recommended to alleviate specific
traffic problems which impede bus travel.
(l)Short-Range Transit Plan, Miami Valley Regional Transit Authority,
Montgomery and Greene County Transportation and Development Planning
Program (Consultant: ATE Management & Service Company), August 1972.
4-8
-------
The short-range transit plan envisions a ridership increase of 35
percent over the next ten years, or an average rate of 3.5 percent per
year. On the basis of this forecast, a transit patronage increase of 17.5
percent may be expected to occur during the period 1972 to 1977. This
would result in an increase in daily trips from 31,300 in 1972 to 36,800
in 1977, or by 5,500 daily trips. If all of these increased transit trips
were diverted from autos, the reduction in daily VMT would amount to
25,000(1), or about 0.2 percent of the estimated total by light vehicles.
While it appears that the short-range transit improvement program
will have a nominal effect on regionwide emissions by 1975, this program
is deemed to have far-reaching implications in later years. While con-
sideration is being given to developing a rapid transit system; bus service
improvements are a prerequisite to further transit development. In addi-
tion, the effect of VMT reduction would be greater in and around the Dayton
central business district than in the entire two-county region and would
be greater during congested peak hours than in the off-peak.
Vehicle Restraints
This category of VMT control measures includes restraints such as
gasoline rationing, congestion passes, increased vehicle registration fees,
traffic prohibition in the central area, and other means of decreasing the
amount of vehicular travel and/or the number of vehicles owned by the pop-
ulace. Most such measures would affect the life style of residents of the
area and would be difficult to implement. They are considered a last
resort to be used only if air quality standards cannot be met through use
of other control measures.
The air quality problem in the Dayton Metropolitan Area is not
serious enough at this time to warrant further consideration of vehicle
restraints. Should air quality deteriorate to the point where other con-
(1 )Assuming 1.2 persons per car and 5.0 miles average trip length.
4-9
-------
trol measures do not afford reductions necessary to meet ambient air
quality standards, further consideration may be given to vehicle restraints.
Staggered Work Hours
This control measure will achieve a reduction of VMT in the peak
hour by diverting some present peak hour trips to either an earlier or
later time. Morning peak hour traffic is slightly less than in the evening.
Work related travel is the greatest during the period from 4:00 p.m. to
5:00 p.m. (47.1 percent of total hourly auto trips). The p.m. peak hour,
however, occurs between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. when 8.9 percent of total
daily auto trips are made.
Ten percent of work trips made during the peak morning and evening
hours, could be diverted to either or both of the preceding or succeeding
hours without increasing hourly VMT above that in the peak hour. It is
estimated that this would require slight alteration of working hours for
about 6,000 employees at the 1977 level of activity.
Estimated emissions reduction in the peak hour in the two-county
area will be three percent if ten percent af peak hour work trips are
shifted. A larger percentage reduction could probably not be attained
without degrading air quality in the preceding or succeeding hours beyond
the level expected to occur in the peak hour.
4.3.3 Episode Controls
An episode control plan is recommended for control of photochemical
oxidant pollution in the Dayton region. While this type of strategy is
not generally useful in providing for the attainment of National Ambient
Air Quality Standards certain specific features of the Dayton problem
appear to indicate the usefulness of this strategy.
1.
Based on monitoring data extending from August, 1971 through
September, 1972, the air quality standards appear to be ex-
ceeded on less than 10 days per year.
4-10
-------
2.
The highest photochemical oxidant measurements occur during
period of gen~ral atmospheric stagnation. These stagnation
periods are currently being forecasted and implementation of
episode controls would not have to wait until air quality
standards were actually exceeded.
3.
The region is small enough, in
ulation, to permit significant
on a short-term basis.
terms of physical site and pop-
diversion to non polluting transit
It is therefore recommended that an episode control plan be adopted
for the Dayton region which incorporates the following features. Detailed
elaboration of this plan should be conducted by State and Local officials
and reported to EPA as a part of the second semi-annual report. The plan
should:
1.
Provide for plan activation based on a forecast of adverse
meterological conditions and deteriorating air quality (i.e.
120 wg/m3 oxidant).
2.
Closing of all non essential
which generate large numbers
centers, theaters, etc.
operations, especially those
of auto trips such as shopping
3.
Mobilization of available bus fleets (school buses, national
guard vehicles) to provide essential transportation.
4.
Strictly enforced limitation of private auto use on major
arteries in the two county area surrounding Dayton.
The episode control strategy should provide the degree of reduction in
hydrocarbon emissions required to prevent formation of levels of photo-
chemical oxidants in quantities exceeding air quality standards. It is
estimated that an episode along the lines described above will reduce
mobile source hydrocarbon emissions by 30 to 40 percent. This is equivalent
to a 20 percent overall reduction in hydrocarbon emissions and should allow
attainment of air quality standards by 1977.
4-11
-------
4.3.4 Air Quality Impact
The impact on air quality of the two-county study area will be a
net reduction of 50 percent in hydrocarbon emissions by 1977 without any
additional controls.
4.3.5 Cost Effectiveness
Due to the unusually large reductions required, only those few
measures which either individually or in combination can be considered as
usable strategies. Cost effectiveness cannot be determined for these
alternatives, except that on a relative basis, episode control strategies
could be slightly more cost effective.
4.3.6 Obstacles to Implementation
Since legal authority exists for inspection/maintenance in counties
and for episode strategy, the major remaining obstacle to the definition
of transportation control strategy is the justification for the need to
implement any controls based on the currently available data.
Socio-economic and legal obstacles to the preceding control measures
are considered below.
4.3.6.1
Emission Reduction Measures
Since some legal authority exists for Inspection/Maintenance in
the counties the primary obstacle to implementation of such a program would
be the initial costs for the loaded emission test. Traffic operations
improvements are already planned for Dayton and implementation potential is
dependent only on the enforceability of parking and loading restrictions.
Gaseous fuel conversions are considered ineffective for Dayton as
described above and would also limit the availability of these low-pollution
fuels to other sources.
4-12
-------
4.3.6.2
VMT Reduction Measures
Improvements in public transportation is highly desireable for
Dayton as shown by the questionnaire response in Appendix D. The citizens
have already shown their commitment to the attainment of such improvemtns
by a special tax to defray costs of this program. No obstacles to this
group of control measures is foreseen.
Vehicle restraints require alterations in lifestyles which seem
totally unacceptable to the general public (see questionnaire responses
Appendix D). Special taxes or licenses would require legal authority which
may be difficult to obtain in view of strong public opposition.
Staggered work hours can be implemented on a voluntary basis with
very little difficulty however, such staggering over limited time periods
may actually increase the total VMT due to work trips by discouraging car
pooling. The impact of limited staggering on oxidant air quality may be
negligible because the total morning hydrocarbon emissions can effect the
afternoon oxidant values.
4.4 PROPOSED CONTROL STRATEGY
In consideration of the emission reduction potential and obstacles to
implementation of the control measures described in the preceding sections
the following control strategy is proposed.
. Phase 1 - Problem Evaluation and Planning
In view of the limited air quality and emissions data a comprehen-
sive program for the expansion and review of air quality monitoring
network and stationary source emissions data should be completed no
later than October 1974. During this period the Episode plan
described in Section 4.3.3 should be fully developed and ready for
implementation by Summer 1975 if necessary. Also during this
period the requirements and regional extent of an Inspection/Main-
tenance Program most effective for the Dayton region must be defined
and any preliminary testing performed.
4-13
-------
Phase 2 - Control Measure Implementation
By June, 1975 the following control measures should be fully
implemented in order to achieve maximum emission reduction potential
by July, 1977.
Inspection/Maintenance - a loaded emission test of the Key
Mode type with manditory annual inspection.
2. Transit and Traffic Improvements as described above and as
currently planned.
1.
3. An Episode Control Plan as described in Section 4.3.3 and
detailed in Phase 1.
4-14
-------
5.0 CONTROL STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
5. 1
PROCEDURE AND TIME SCHEDULE
The primary concern for strategy implementation is to extend the
data base for the Dayton area. Within one year an extended monitoring
network should be established to insure adequate data on which to base any
required control strategy. An updated and complete emission inventory is
needed. This should be completed within six months.
Without the information provided by an extended data base and accurate
emission inventory, control strategies cannot be developed effectively and
long-term planning cannot effectively be carried out. An episode control
plan could be implemented over a two year period if revised data and
information show the necessity for a control strategy.
5.2 AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
In addition to the existing Montgomery County Health Department
involvement in the Regional Air Pollution Control Agency, other groups and
agencies should be involved in the overall program; the traffic engineering
division for the City of Dayton and the corresponding group for the counties
surrounding Dayton as well as the Miami Valley Regional Transit Authority.
5.3 LEGAL AUTHORITY
The Implementation Plan for the State of Ohio documents that broad powers
have been made available by the legislature of the State of Ohio. Certain spe.
cific interpretation or legislative action are required for implementation.
Due to the lack of a defined control strategy, it is not possible to
determine what legal requirements would have to be met for a control program.
However, if vehicle inspection and maintenance is chosen or implemented as a
control measure, data should be sought from the Ohio Air Pollution Control
Board and State Attorney General IS office. If an episode strategy is
adopted, the legal authority for a broad range of powers exists and may be
delegated to the local Air Pollution Control Board from_the State Air
Pollution Control Board. Measures which would probably affect the population
of the region would have to be considered by the State Air Pollution Control
Board. Those measures which specifically involve only the residents of the
5...1
-------
City of Dayton should be investigated by the local city attorney.
5.4 IMPLEMENTATION, SURVEILLANCE AND CHECKPOINTS
Checkpoints outlined in the chart below should be closely followed
with the semi-annual reviews being decision making points for the necessary
changes in strategy
LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORITY
IUllltIlIll.'"
REVIEW & REVISE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
COMPARE & REVIEW
A.Q. DATA 1971-1973
EXTENDED A.Q.
MONITORING
SEMI-ANNUAL REVIEW
ALL A~ENCIES
!
A A
A A A
A A A
JAN JUN
1973
JAN JUN
1974
JAN JUN
1975
Implementation, Surveillance and Checkpoints
5-2
-------
APPENDIX A
AIR QUALITY AND EMISSIONS DATA
-------
THE PROPORTIONAL AIR QUALITY MODEL
Hydrocarbon emission reduction was determined by use of Figure 1,
Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 228, Thursday, November 25, 1971, P 22413.
This is a roll-back technique. More sophisticated mathematical models
relating emissions to oxidant air quality require detailed emissions and
meteorological data not available at this time.
A-l
-------
The equation for calculating emission factors is shown below:(l)
n+l
e = ~
np 1=n-12
where,
EMISSION FACTOR CALCULATIONS
ci
di mi
si
ci
emission factor in grams per vehicle mile for
calendar year n and pollutant p,
= the 1975 Federal test procedure emission rate for
pollutant p (grams/mile) for the ith model year,
at low mi leage
e =
np
di
= the controlled vehicle pollutant p emission deteriora-
tion factor for the ith model year at calendar year n,
= the weighted annual travel of the ith model year during
calendar year n (The determination of this variable
involves the use of the vehicle model year distribution),
= the weighted speed adjustment factor for the ith model
year vehicles.
mi
si
ci is based on a recent study of vehicle exhaust emission rates
in six cities. di' deterioration factor accounts for the aging or
deterioration of emission control devices. mi, weighted annual mileage
is determined as follows,
(1)o.S. Kircher and D.P. Armstrong, "An Interim Report on Motor Vehicle
Emission Estimation." Environmental Protection Agency, October 1972.
A-2
-------
mi = v x D
£V x D
v = fraction of each model
on December 31 of year
D = average miles driven of
year vehicle in use
each model year vehicle
si, speed adjustment factor, varies inversely with average route speed.
1975 and later model years are assumed to have a factor of one. For other
model years, si is greater than one below about 20 m.p.h. and less than
one above 20 m.p.h.
A-3
-------
DAYTON
(Montgomery-Greene Counties)
NON-MOBILE EMISSION INVENTORY ANALYSIS
HYDROCARBONS
):>
I
.f::o
GROWTH FACTORlaJ MONTGOMERY CO.lbJ GREENE CO. lbJ TOTAL EMISSIONS
SOURC E CONTROL PROJECTED
CATEGORY FACTOR 1971 1977 (kg/day) (1971) (kg/day)(1971) (kg/day) (1971) (kg/day) (1977)
COl1lllercial,
Institutional.
Industrial .90 1.03 1.18 9266 1365 10631 11290
Util i ty Fuel .95 1.06 1.36 1792 0 1792 2315
Process Losses .20 1.03 1.21 19617 480 20097 4863
Solid Waste
Disposal .20 1.02 1.15 3264 290 3554 817
Gasoline Handling .50(c)
Storage 1.06 1.34 7998 1777 9775 6549
Solvent Use .15(c) 1.03 1.21 12836 980 13816 2508
Miscellaneous &
Residential 1.0 1.00 1.00 1220 339 1559 1559
TOTALS 55993 4231 61224 29902
(a)Ohio Implementation Plan, Part I. pages 5-15. January 1972.
(b)Ohio Implementation Plan. Part II. Appendix C. January 1972.
expressed in tons/year.
(c)Private COl1lllunication - J. Chicca, Region V, EPA - November 22, 1972, McLean, Va.
Table A-l
-------
APPENDIX B
TRANSPORTATION DATA BASE
-------
Table B-1
DAYTON - CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
VEIIICLE MILES OF TRAVEL PER DAY -- 1971
BY LIGHT VEHICLES
(1) (2) (3) Vehicle Miles
Percent of Percent of Weighted of Travel by
Age Total Light Miles Driven Percent of Light Vehicles
(Years) Vehicles in Use on Annual Basis Da ily Trave 1 (Thousands)
o'~ 3.5 3.8*'" 1.65 3.5
1 7.5 7.5** 6.97 14.9
2 11.7 11.4 16.53 35.4
3 11. 6 10.4 14.95 32.0
4 11.4 9.5 13 .42 28.6
5 10.7 8.5 11.27 24.1
6 9.7 7.8 9.38 20.0
7 8.5 7.1 7.48 16.0
8 7.7 6.4 6.11 13.1
9 5.4 5.9 3.95 8.4
10 3.9 5.5 2.66 5.7
11 2.6 5.4 1. 74 3.7
12 1.4 5.4 0.94 2.0
13+ 4.4 5.4 ---1.:.2.2 6.3
To ta 1 100.0 100.0 100.00 213.7
(3 )
(1) x (2)
~(l x 2)
*-Refers to next years model introduced in the Fall.
,',,"-This percent reflects the fact that some vehicles in this age category have
not been driven for a full year.
Light Vehicles
Vehicle
Miles of Travel
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Miles of Travel
Autos and Taxis
Light Trucks
198, 271
15,497
To ta 1
213,769
87.0
~
93.8
B-1
-------
Table B-2
DAYTON - CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL PER DAY--1971
BY BEAVY VEHICLES
(1) (2) (3) Vehicle Miles
Percent of Percent of Weighted of Travel by
Age Total Heavy Miles Driven Percent of Heavy Vehicles
(Years) Vehicles in Use on Annual Basis Daily Travel (Thousands)
0* 3.4 3.6** 1.65 0.2
1 7.1 7.6*''< 7.30 1.0
2 10.0 11.6 15.71 2.2
3 9.5 10.9 13.64 1.9
4 8.8 10.2 12.15 1.8
5 8.0 9.4 10.19 1.5
6 7.0 8.5 8.06 1.1
7 6.2 7.7 6.46 0.9
8 5.3 6.9 4.94 0.7
9 3.8 6.2 3.18 0.4
10 3.7 5.3 2.66 0.4
11 3.3 4.6 2.05 0.3
12 3.2 3.8 1.64 0.2
13+ ...1:!2.:.2 ----L2 10.37 1.5
Tota 1 100.0 100.0 100.00 14.]
(3) = (1) x (2)
~(l x 2)
*-Refers to next years model introduced in the Fall.
**-This percent reflects the fact that some vehicles in this age category have
not been driven for a full year.
Heavy Vehicles
Vehicle
Miles of Travel
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Miles of Trave 1
Medium and Heavy Trucks
and Buses
14,129
6.2
B-2
-------
Table ))-3
DAYTON MONTGOMERY-GREENE COUNTIES
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL PER DAY--1971
BY LIGHT VEHICLES
(1) (2) (3) Vehicle Miles
Percent of Percent of Weighted of Travel by
Age Total Light Miles Driven Pe rcen t of Light Vehicles
(Yea rs) Vehicles in Use on Annual Basis Da ily Trave 1 (Thousands)
o'~ 3.5 3.8** 1.65 143.5
1 7.5 7 .5'~* 6.97 606.1
2 11.7 11.4 16.53 1437.5
3 11. 6 10.4 14.95 1300 . 1
4 11.4 9.5 13 .42 1167 .1
5 10.7 8.5 11.27 980.1
6 9.7 7.8 9.38 815.8
7 8.5 7.1 7.48 650.5
8 7.7 6.4 6.11 531. 3
9 5.4 5.9 3.95 343.5
10 3.9 5.5 2.66 231. 3
11 2.6 5.4 1. 74 151. 3
12 1.4 5.4 0.94 81. 7
13+ 4.4 5.4 2.95 256.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.00 8696.4
(3) = (1) x (2)
L(l x 2)
*-Refers to next years model introduced in the Fall.
**-This percent reflects the fact that some vehicles in this age category have
not been driven for a full year.
Light Vehicles
Veh icle
Miles of Travel
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Miles of Travel
Autos and Taxis
Light Trucks
8,061,040
635,440
87.0
6.8
Tota 1
8,696,480
B-3
93.8
-------
Table B-4
DAYTON - MONTGOMERY-GREENE COUNTIES
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL PER DAY - -19 71
BY HEAVY VEHICLES
(1) (2) (3) Veh ic Ie Miles
Percent of Percent of Weighted of Travel by
Age Total Heavy Miles Driven Percent of Heavy Vehicles
(Years) Vehicles in Use on Annual Basis Da ily Trave 1 (Thousands)
0", 3.4 3 . 6''n~ 1.65 9.5
1 7.1 7 .6"<>" 7.30 41.9
2 10.0 11.6 15.71 90.3
3 9.5 10.9 13 .64 78.4
4 8.8 10.2 12.15 69.9
5 8.0 9.4 10.19 58.6
6 7.0 8.5 8.06 46.4
7 6.2 7.7 6.46 37.1
8 5.3 6.9 4.94 28.4
9 3.8 6.2 3.18 13.8
10 3.7 5.3 2.66 15.3
11 3.3 4.6 2.05 11.8
12 3.2 3.8 1.64 9.5
13+ 20.7 3.7 10.37 59.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.00 575.0
(3) = (1) x (2)
L(l x 2)
*-Refers to next years model introd\~ed in the Fall.
**-This percent reflects the fact that some vehicles in this age category have
not been driven for a full year.
Heavy Vehicles
Vehicle
Miles of Trave 1
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Miles of Trave 1
Nedium and Heavy Trucks
and Buses
574,789
6.2
6-4
-------
Table B-5
DAYTON - CENTRAL nUSINESS DISTRICT
VEIlICLE MILES OF TRAVEL PER DAY--1977
BY LIGHT VEHICLES
(1) (2) (3) Vehicle Hiles
Percent of Percent of Weighted of Travel by
Age Total Light Miles Driven Percent of Light Vehicles
(Years) Vehicles in Use on Annual Basis Da ily Trave 1 (Thousands)
0", 3.5 3.8** 1.65 4.4
1 7.5 7 .5*'~ 6.97 18.6
2 11. 7 11.4 16.53 44.1
3 11.6 10.4 14.95 39.9
4 11.4 9.5 13 .42 35.8
5 10.7 8.5 11.27 30.0
6 9.7 7.8 9.38 25.0
7 8.5 7.1 7.48 19.9
8 7.7 6.4 6.11 16.3
9 5.4 5.9 3.95 10.5
10 3.9 5.5 2.66 7.1
11 2.6 5.4 1. 74 4.6
12 1.4 5.4 0.94 2.5
13+ 4.4 ~ 2.95 7.9
Tota 1 100.0 100.0 100.00 266.6
(3) = (1) x (2)
~(1 x 2)
,"-Refers to next year's model introduced in the Fall.
,"-;'-This percent reflects the fact that some vehicles in this age category have
not been driven for a full year.
Light Vehicles
Vehicle
Miles of Trave 1
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Miles of Travel
Autos and Taxis
Light Trucks
247,289
19.328
87.0
~
Tota 1
266,617
B-5
93.8
-------
Table B-6
DAYTON - CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL PER DAY--1977
BY HEAVY VEHICLES
(1) (2) (3) Vehic Ie Hiles
Percent of Percent of We ighted of Travel by
Age Total Heavy Miles Driven Percent of Heavy Vehicles
(Years) Vehicles in Use on Annual Basis Da ily Trave 1 (Thousands)
o ~( 3.4 3. 6,h~ 1.65 0.3
1 7.1 7.6** 7.30 1.3
2 10.0 11.6 15.71 2.7
3 9.5 10.9 13.64 2.4
4 8.8 10.2 12.15 2.1
5 8.0 9.4 10.19 1.8
6 7.0 8.5 8.06 1.4
7 6.2 7.7 6.46 1.1
8 5.3 6.9 4.94 0.9
9 3.8 6.2 3.18 0.6
10 3.7 5.3 2.66 0.5
11 3.3 4.6 2.05 0.4
12 3.2 3.8 1.64 0.3
13+ 20.7 -1.:l 10.37 ~
Tota 1 100.0 100.0 100.00 17.6
(3) = (1) x (2)
~(l x 2)
*-Refers to next years model introduced in the Fall.
**-This percent reflects the fact that some vehicles in this age category have
not been driven for a full year.
Heavy Vehicles
Vehicle
Miles of Travel
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Miles of Travel
Medium and Heavy Trucks
and Buses
17 .623
6.2
8-6
-------
Table B-7
DAYTON - MONTGOMERY-GREENE COUNTIES
VEHICLe: MILES OF TRAVEL PER DAY--1977
BY LIGHT VEHICLES
(1) (2) (3) Vehicle Miles
Percent of Percent of Heighted of Travel by
Age Total Light Miles Driven Percent of Light Vehicles
(Years) Vehicles in Use on Annual Basis Da ily Trave 1 (Thousands)
0* 3.5 3.8")'(")'( 1.65 181.6
1 7.5 7.5",* 6.97 767.0
2 11.7 11.4 16.53 1,818.9
3 11. 6 10.4 14.95 1,645.1
4 11.4 9.5 13 .42 1,476.7
5 10.7 8.5 11.27 1,240.1
6 9.7 7.8 9.38 1,032.2
7 8.5 7.1 7.48 823.1
8 7.7 6.4 6.11 672.3
9 5.4 5.9 3.95 434.6
10 3.9 5.5 2.66 292.7
11 2.6 5.4 1. 74 191.5
12 1.4 5.4 0.94 103.4
13+ 4.4 ~ -2..:22 324.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.00 11,003.8
(3) = Jl) x (2)
£(1 x 2)
-:'--Refers to next years model introduced in the Fall.
,"-:'--This percent reflects the fact that some vehicles in this age category have
not been driven for a full year.
Light Vl'hicles
Vehicle
Miles of Travel
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Mi 1es of Trave 1
Autos and Taxis
Light Trucks
10,206,081
797,717
87.0
6.8
Total
11 ,003,798
B-7
93.8
-------
Table B-8
DAYTON MONTGOMERY-GREENE COUNTIES
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL PER DAY--1977
BY HEAVY VEHICLES
(1) (2) (3) Vehicle Miles
Percent of Percent of Weighted of Travel by
Age Total Heavy Miles Driven Percent of Heavy Vehicles
(Y car s) Vehicles in Use on Annual Basis Da ily Trave 1 (Thousands)
0* 3.4 3 .6~'* 1.65 12.0
1 7.1 7.6** 7.30 53.1
2 10.0 11.6 15.71 114.3
3 9.5 10.9 13 .64 99.2
4 8.8 10.2 12.15 88.4
5 8.0 9.4 10.19 74.1
6 7.0 8.5 8.06 58.6
7 6.2 7.7 6.46 47.0
8 5.3 6.9 4.94 35.9
9 3.8 6.2 3.18 23.1
10 3.7 5.3 2.66 19.4
11 3.3 4.6 2.05 14.9
12 3.2 3.8 1.64 11. 9
13+ 20.7 ~ 10.37 ~
Tota 1 100.0 100.0 100.00 727.3
(3)
0) x (2)
::E..(l x 2)
*-Refers to next yeais model introduced in the Fall.
**-This percent reflects the fact that some vehicles in this age category have
not been driven for a full year.
Heavy Vehicles
Vehicle
Mile s of Trave 1
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Miles of Travel
Hedium and Heavy Trucks
and Buses
727,330
6.2
B-8
-------
TABLE B-9
1971
Vehicle Miles of Travel per Day
for Central Business District, Dayton, Ohio
For 1968* to 1970** @ 2% per year compounded
211 ,130 x 1. 0404
219,660
For 1970* to 1971***@ 4% per year compounded
219,000 x 1.04
228,446
Trucks:
5.7% x 228,446
13,021
Buses:
0.5% x 228,446
1,142
VMT/day by Heavy Vehicles
14,163
Passenger Cars:
86.9 x 228,446
198,520
Taxis:
0.1 x 228,446
228
Panels and Pickups:
6.8 x 228,446
15,534
VMT/day by Light Vehicles
214,282
*-1968 counts for vehicle miles of travel for Central Business
District were taken from Dayton - 1968 survey adjusted trip
table, second assignment.
**-Use 2% per year compounded for 1970 VMT.
***-Use 4% per year compounded for 1971 VMT.
8-9
-------
TABLE B-10
1971
Vehicle Miles of Travel per Day
for Montgomery-Greene Counties, Ohio
For 1968* to 1970** @ 2% per year compounded
8,568,081 x 104.04
=
8,914,230
For 1970 to 1971*** @ 4% per year compounded
8,914,230 x 1.04
=
9,270,799
Trucks: 5.7% x 9,270,799 = 528,436
Buses: 0.5% x 9,270,799 = 46,354
VMT/day by Heavy Vehicles = 574,790
Passenger Cars and Taxis:
87.0 x 9,270,799
=
8,065,595
Panels and Pickups:
6.8 x 9,270,799
=
630,414
VMT/day by Light Vehicles
=
8,696,069
*-1968 counts for vehicle miles of travel for Montgomery-Greene
Counties were taken from Dayton - 1968 survey adjusted trip
tables, second assignment. (The data was actually collected in
late 1968 and early 1969 and therefore the projection to 1970
required only a 4% increase over recorded values.)
**-Use 2% per year compounded for 1970 VMT.
***-Use 4% per year compounded for 1971 VMT.
8-10
-------
TABLE B-ll
1977
Vehicle Miles of Travel per Day
for Central Business District, Dayton, Ohio
For 1970-1977*
7 years @ 3.75% per year compounded
219,660 x 129.4
=
284,240
Trucks and Buses:
6.2% x 284,240
17,623
VMT/day by Heavy Vehicles
17,623
Passenger Cars and Taxis:
87.0% x 284,240
247,289
Panels and Pickups:
6.8% x 284,240
19,328
VMT/day by Light Vehicles
266,617
*-Reference for projections, using the Origin and Destination Report,
Part Two, for Predicting the Future Volume of Vehicle Trips, April
1962, pages 21 and 22 by the Regional Transportation Committee,
Dayton, Ohio.
B-11
-------
TABLE B-12
1977
Vehicle Miles of Travel per Day
for Montgomery-Greene Counties, Ohio
For 1970-1977*
7 years @ 4.00% per year compounded
8,914,231 x 131.6
=
11,731,128
Trucks and Buses:
6.2% x 11,731,128
=
727.330
VMT/day by Heavy Vehicles
=
727,330
Panels and Pickups:
6.8% x 11,731,128
= 10,206,081
= 797,717
= 11,003,798
Passenger Cars and Taxis:
87.0% x 11,731,128
VMT/day by Light Vehicles
*-Ref.erence for projections, using the Origin and Destination Report,
Part Two for Predicting the Future Volume of Vehicle Trips, April,
1962. Figure between page 2 and 3. For the Motor Vehicle Regis-
tration, Montgomery County by the Regional Transportation Committee,
Dayton, Ohio.
8-12
-------
TABLE B-13
1978
Vehicle Miles of Travel per Day
for Central Business District, Dayton, Ohio
For 1970-1978*
8 years @ 3.75% per year compounded
219,660 x 1. 342
294,887
Trucks and Buses:
6.2% x 294,887
18,283
VMT/day by Heavy Vehicles
18,283
Passenger Cars and Taxis:
87.0% x 294,887
256,552
Panels and Pickups:
6.8% x 294,887
20,052
VMT/day by Light Vehicles
276,604
*-Reference for projections, using the Origin and ~estination Report,
Part Two for Predicting the Future Volume of Vehicle Trips, April,
1962. Figure between page 2 and 3. For the Motor Vehicle Regis-
tration, Montgomery County by the Regional Transportation Committee,
Dayton, Ohio.
8-13
-------
Table B-14
1978
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL PER DAY
FOR MONTGOMERY-GREENE COUNTIES, OHIO
For 1970-1978*, 8 years @ 4.0% per
year compounded:
8,914,231 x 1.369
= 12,199,716
Trucks and Buses:
6.2% x 12,199,716
756,382
VMT/day by Heavy-Duty Vehicles:
756,382
Passenger Cars and Taxis:
87.0% x 12,199,716
= 10,715,753
Panel and Pickup:
6.8% x 12,199,716
VMT/day by Light-Duty Vehicles:
=
829,581
= 11,443,334
*Reference for projections, using the Origin and Destination Report,
Part Two for Predicting the Future Volume of Vehicle Trips, April 1962.
Figure between page 2 and 3. For the Motor Vehicle Registration,
Montgomery County by the Regional Transportation Committee, Dayton, Ohio,
B-14
-------
CALCU LA TING OVERALL AVERAGE SPEED
FOR THE YEARS 1971 AND 1977
Reference: Travel Time Inventory
Dayton Metropolitan Area, July 1972
Prepared by:
Montgomery and Greene County Transportation and
Developrnent Planning Program
From Table 3, pages 20 and 21
Average Speed in M. P. H. on Classified Routes
Routes
Morn; ng
1971
Afternoon
1971
Freeways and Expressways
Radial Arterials
Circumferential Arterials
47.8
24.2
30.6
45.0
24.4
32.8
Using the following breakdown for our purposes of roadway classifi.
cations for speeds.
Class
M.P.H.*
1) Freeways and expressways
2) Arterials
3) Collectors
4) Ramps
5) Local streets
46.0 (A)
27 . 0 .( B )
20.0
25.0
15.0
*-Averaged
(A) Average of 1970 =
47.£ + 45.0
2
= 46.4
(Say 46.0 1m. p. h. )
(B) Assume (1) 2/3 Travel on Radial Arterials
(2) l/3 Travel on Circumferential Arterials
From Average Speeds
24.3 x 2
31.7 x 1
=
48.6
31. 7
=
80. 3 7 3 = 26. 7
Say 27 m. p. h.
-------
From Vehicle Miles of Travel by Functional Classification - 1968 Survey,
Second Assignment
Classification
VMT
Freeways and Expressways
Arterials
Collectors
Ramps
2,137,383
2,748,073
2,807,351
97,094
778,180
Local Streets
To figure overall average of speed for the year 1971, we used the 1971
VMT with the same proportions for each roadway classification as shown
in 1968.
1970 1971 Speed
VMT M.P.H
Freeways and
Expressways 2,308,429 x 46.0 = 106,187,734
Arterials 2,994,468 x 27.0 80,850,636
Collectors 3,022,281 x 20.0 = 60,447,620
Ramps 101,979 x 25.0 = 2,549,475
Local 843,643 x 15.0 12,654,645
9,270,799 262,690,110
Overall Average Speed in 1971: 28.3 m.p.h.
8-16
-------
TCC Annual Report for the Regional Transportation Plan
New Roads and Freeways to be added between the years 1971-1975.
Additional freeways in Montgomery County (Beltway)
16 mil e s @
2.3 miles @
7.6 miles @
20, 000 A. D. T.
15, 000 A. D. T.
10, 000 A. D. T.
=
320,000
35,000
76,000
=
=
North-South additional freeways in Montgomery County
3.8 miles @ 10,000 A. D. T. = 38,000
1 . 6 mile s @ 15,000 A. D. T. = 24,000
Total 493,000 VMT
Additional freeway - Greene County
14.4 miles @
3,000 A. D. T.
Additional roads in Montgomery County @ 5 m.p.h. increase speed
3.4 miles x 10,000 = 34,000
3.4 miles x 10, 000 = 34,000
2.3 miles x 4,000 = 9,000
1. 7 miles x 14,000 = 24,000
O. 9 miles x 11, 000 = 10,000
0.8 miles x 9,000 = 7,000
1. 0 miles x 17,000 = 17,000
1. 5 miles x 10,000 = 15,000
2.3 miles x 15,000 = 34,000
1 . 7 miles x 4,000 = 7,000
3.8 miles x 10,000 = 38,000
1.4 miles x 5,000 = 7.000
1.4 miles x 4,000 = 6,000
1. 0 miles x 8,000 = 8,000
8.0 miles x 10,000 = 80.000
4. 5 miles x 5,000 = 22,000
Total 352,000 VMT
8-17
-------
ADJUSTMENTS FOR PROJECTED 1977 VMT
(1) Freeways and
Expr es sways 2, 741, 000 VMT 19~ 7 projected
Add 493, 000 VMT Additional freeway improvements
Total 3,234, 000 VMT 1977 adjusted
(2) Arterials 3,554,000 VMT 1977 projected
Subtract 293,000 VMT A portion added to fr eewa y
3,261,000
Subtract 252, 000 VMT To be 5 mph higher
Total 3,009,000 VMT 1977 adjusted
(3 ) Collector s 3, 587,000 VMT 1977 projected
Subtract 200,000 VMT A portion added to freeway
3, 387, 000 VMT
Subtract 100, 000 VMT To be 5 mph higher
Total 3,287, 000 VMT 1977 adjusted
(4) Ramps 121,000 VMT Projected
(5) Local 1,001,000 VMT Projected
Addition 252,000 VMT @ 32 mph
Addi tion 100, 000 VMT @ 26 mph
8-18
-------
1977 1977
VMT Speed MPH
Freeways and
Expressways 3,234,000 x 46.0 148,764,000
Arterials 3,009,000 x 27.0 81,243,000
Collectors 3,287,000 x 21.0 69,027,000
Ramps 121,000 x 26.0 3,146,000
Local 1,001,000 x 16.0 16,016,000
Addition 252,000 x 32.0 8,064,000
Addition 100,000 x 26.0 2,600,000
1l,004,000 328,860,000
Overall average speed in 1977: 29.9 m.p.h.
From the above, it should be noted that with the additional freeways,
expressways, arterials and streets proposed by the TCe Report for the
Regional Transportation Plan of Montgomery and Greene Counties, the
overall average speed increases about (1.6) m.p.h. on the network of
roads for those two counties in a period of six (6) years.
B-19
-------
APPENDIX C
BIBLIOGRAPHIES
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF TRAFFIC DATA REFERENCES
DAYTON, OHIO
Regional Transportation Committee. Predicting the Future Pattern
of Vehicle Trips. O&D Report: Part 1. Prepared for the
Bureau of Planning Survey, Ohio State Highway Department.
Dayton, Ohio. March 1962.
Predicting the Future Pattern of Vehicle Trips. O&D
Report: Part II. Prepared for the Bureau of Planning Survey,
Ohio State Highway Department. Dayton, Ohio. April 1962.
A Regional Transportation Plan. Volume 1. Inventory,
Forecast and Analysis. For Counties of Montgomery and
Greene and Cities of Dayton, Kettering, Oakwood and Xenia.
Dayton, Ohio. August 1963.
A Regional Transportation Plan. Volume II. Prepared for
Counties of Montgomery and Greene and Cities of Dayton,
Kettering, Oakwood and Xenia. Dayton, Ohio. September 1,
1965.
Montgomery and Greene County Transportation and Development
Planning Program. Short Range Transit Plan. DOT-UT-488
Final Report. Prepared for the Miami Valley Regional Tran-
sit Authority. Dayton, Ohio. August 1972.
Travel Time Inventory. For Dayton Metropolitan Area.
Interim Updated Report. Dayton, Ohio. July 1972.
Parking Facilities Inventory Update.
Greene Counties, Ohio. March 1972.
For Montgomery and
Terminal Facilities Inventory.
Counties, Ohio. January 2, 1971.
For Montgomery and Greene
1971 Update of Traffic Volume Inventories.
and Greene Counties, Ohio. May 1972.
For Montgomery
Wilbur Smith & Associates.
for City Plan Board.
Center City Parking Study. Prepared
Dayton, Ohio. March 17, 1970.
C-l
-------
Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Demographic and Economic
Projections for the Miami Valley Region. Prepared for The
Montgomery-Greene County Transportation and Development
Planning Program. Dayton, Ohio. October 1971.
Engineering Technology Division of the School of Engineering,
University of Dayton. "A Public Transportation System for
Xenia, Ohio and Other Small Cities." Design of Systems
T 11-401. Dayton, Ohio. April 1972.
Polk Statistics. National Vehicle Registration Service. Pas senger
Cars, Registration Counts by Make and Year of Model. For
the State of Ohio as of July 1971.
Citizens Committss to Support DAR T. Dayton Area Rail Transit.
Prepared for The Montgomery-Greene County Transportation
and Development Planning Program. Dayton, Ohio. August
1971.
Institute of Public Administration, Teknekon, Inc. & TRWlnc.
Evaluating Transportation Controls to Reduce Motor Vehicle Emissions
in Major Metropolitan Areas - An Interim Report. Environmental
Protection Agency, March, 1972.
Northrop Corporation.
Vehicle Age Distribution Data, June 1972.
Environmental Protection Agency.
ment, October 1972.
AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
February 1972.
Riehl, Herbert and Dirk Herkhof. Weather Factors in Denver
Air Pollution, August, 1970.
Title 40 - Protection of Environ-
Armstrong, D. and D. Kirscher. An Interim Report on Motor Vehicle
Emission Estimation - DRAFT, October 1972.
C-2
-------
APPENDIX D
AUTO AIR POLLUTION STUDY
-------
MARKET FACTS
v.
QUESTIONNAIRE
D-1
-------
AUTO AIR POLLUTION QUESTIONNAIRE
DAYTON METROPOLITAN AREA
The questionnaire shown in Figure was sent to a panel of
residents of the Dayton Metropolitan Area to obtain their views on
factors affecting auto air pollution and potential control measures.
A total of 99 usable questionnaires were returned. The sample was
selected by Consumer Mail Panels to be representative of the popu-
lation of the area in terms of income level and age. Annual family
income (1971) of respondents was:
Less than $8,000
$8,000-$15,000
More than $15,000
27%
56%
1 7%
Their home locations were distributed as follows throughout
the metropolitan area:
Location
Number
of Respondents
Per cent
of Total
Dayton
Fairborn
Kettering
Piqua
Troy
Miami s bur g
West Carrollton
Xenia
Other
48
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
19
48.7
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
19.3
99
100.0
Each respondent was asked to indicate the number of autos
owned in his household. Answers were as follows:
No car
One car
Two cars
Three or more
cars
3%
34%
49%
14%
Questionnaire responses were tabulated by income level and
car ownership status of each panel member's family. Results of
the survey follow with appropriate explanatory notes.
D-2
-------
1.
All aulos made in 1'175 and thereafter will be equipped with emmision control devir.e~ to reduce air
pollulion. If in 1975 you owned a car built before that year, how would you feel about a law rl'-
quirjn'~ you to put emission control equipment which migllt cost $200 on your car? ("X" BELOW)
lIow would you feel about this law if tile cost was reduced by government subsidy to about $50?
("X" BELOW)
2.
Feeling Toward Law:
Very rnuch in favor of law. .
Somewhat in favor of law. . .
SOlnewhat agains t law. . . . . .
Very rnuch against law. . . . .
1.
Cost $200
11.1%
23.5
24. 7
40.7
2.
Cost $50
45.7%
21. 7
12.0
20.6
30..
Even cars properly equipped with emmision control equipmer~ migilt stil1 pollute tile air if the equip-
ment was not properly maintained. HoVl would you feel about il law requiring periodic inspection of
the emission control system to assure that it was working properly? ("X" ONE ONLY)
Very much in
favor of law
Somewhat in
fa VOl' of law
42.4%
35.4%
Somewhat
agains t law
11.1%
Very much
against law
11.1%
3b.
Assuming you ~ to have your car inspected at least once a year, \\hat would you consider a
reasonable cost for the inspection? (WRITE IN AMOUNT)
$
8.90
(Avg. )
One-eighth of the respondents answered "nothing" to this question. The most
frequent response (30.2%) was "five dollars" followed by 20.8 percent of the
panel who answered "ten dollars". The mean value given by all respondents
who owned one or more cars was approximately $8.50. The following is a
tabulation of the mean value by car ownership status of the panel member I s
family.
No car
One car
Two cars
Three or more
cars
$21. 42
7. 13
9.23
7.69
0-3
-------
3c.
Assun1in~ you had to have your car inspected at least once d. year, where do you think the inspection
should be mad;? ("X" ONE ONLY)
At state-operated inspection centers. . . . .
At city-operated inspection centers......
At local service stations or garages. . . . .
At some other place (Specify):
42. 7%
16.7
32.3
8. 3
The "other" responses to this question were varied, but several panel members
suggested that inspection should be accomplished by the auto dealers.
0-4
-------
4a.
Even if ;\11 autos were c("Juippcc1 with properly maintained
{',rdssion control systen1S, some cities tnight st11l have auto
"i,. pollution problems due to the large number of cars
cili,,,r on tho streets at the same time or concentrated in
particular areas. Listed below are Beveral possible ways
to reduce pollution under one or both of these conditIons.
Please tell me how you feel about ~ of these proposals.
("X" ONE ON EACH LINE)
Proposal
a.
b.
Gasonline rationing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Very high ($500) registration fee per auto.
Very high ($500) registration fee per auto
but only for the second, third, etc.,
auto. . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prohibit traffic and parking in central
busines s districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A tax on all day parking in central busi-
ness districts....... ............. ...,
A tax on parking in central business dis-
tricts regardless of whether a person
parked only one hO\lr or all day. . . . . . . .
Tolls on exit ramps of major freeways
and expres sways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
Tolls on exit ramps of major freeways
and expressways but only when traffic
was heavy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Restrictions on non-essential auto travel
during times of high pollution by
issuance of special license plates or
vehicle stickers. .. .. ....., .. . .... .. ..
Turn some existing lanes into "bus only"
and "car pool only" lanes on major
expressways and streets. .............
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
J.
A- Indicates the weighted mean for each answer.
0-5
To Me This Plan Is:
I I Q)
0--1
Q) ,., ...0
0--1 0 V Q) ~
...0 Z:D "",0--1 0.
oj v oj ...0
..... ..... ,., Q) ~ ..<:: oj v
0. oj 0--1 U
v ..<::..0 Q) 0--1 0. ~ A. u
u ~:l -E~Q) Q) V oj
U Q) 0. .""" -4-.' (J a u s::
. 0 u u I:: U) I:: >.
,., U) :>
2 tl 0 ( -I -2
+
5. 3
1.1
20. 8
17. 2
6.3
3.2
12.6
29.6
8.4
1.1
5.3
9. 5
A
33.3
21. 5
18.8
6.3
1.0
11. 5
18.9
A
31.6
12. 5
11. 8
17.7
12. 5
11. 2
3.2
2. 1
12.6
5. 3
5. 3
17.9
13. 5
A
18. 3
A
17.7
9. 5
21. 1
17.7
8.4
A
8.4
14.3
A
70.5 A
90.4
A
62. 1
19.8
31. 2
39.6
A
60.0
A
57.3
51. 6
13. 3
-------
4b.
Which of the proposals listed above would be the most acceptable?
(Give Letter:) J - 36.3%
D - 33.0%
4c.
Which would be most unacceptable?
. . . . . tt . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(Give Letter:) B - 59. 10/0
A- 26.9%
QUESTIONS S-8 ASK FOR INFORMATION RELATT"TG TO OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.
CONSULT THEM, IF NECESSARY, FOR THE ANSWERS.
Sa.
How often do the various members of your household travel by public transportation?
ample, by bus, subway, or commuter train.)
(For ex-
Husband
Wife
Childr en
(Over 16 Years Old)
Three or more times a week.
One or two times a week. . . . .
Once a month. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Once every three months. . . .
Never. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
No hous ehold member. . . . . . .
1.1%
1.1
1.1
5.6
84.4
6.7
4. 2%
0.0
2.1
12.5
81. 2
0.0
7. 4%
0.0
3.7
3.7
50.0
35.2
D-6
-------
Ple"se rate ".~ch household member's reason for using public tranflportation. (Rate the most
iTnpo:rtilnt rC~1 Ill", the next most jnlportant 11211, the l1~xt 113", etc. If a household member
ncvC'r usps public transport<1lion, OX" the "never usetl box at the bottom of the list.)
Please rate each household member's reasons for traveling by auto. Follow the same procedure
as in Question 5b. (WRITE IN BELOW UNDER 2;;.)
CONCENSUS RA TING
5b. Public Transportation: 5c. Auto
Children:
(Over 16 :
Years Old) : Husband
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
1
,
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
: ----NOT APPLICABLE-----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: ----NOT APPLICABLE-----
I
1
1
,
: ----NOT APPLICABLE-----
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
,
I
I
I
51>.
5c.
R eas ons
Husband
Wife
a.
Cheaper
6
..... ..... .
b.
Faster.
.......... .
J
c.
More comfortable. .
4
d.
Safer for passenger.
8
e.
Less congested. .
6
f.
More available.
SEE
COMMENTS
a
o'
Mol' e flexible (I can
come and go as
I please). . . . . . . . .
2
h.
More relaxing (able
to read while
traveling). . . .
i.
Need car during the
day. ........
4
] .
I do not have a
driver's license..
k.
Car is not available
when I need it. . . .
Transportation
Children
(Over 16
Years Old)
Wife
6 6
3 2
4 4
8 7
7 8
2
3
5
5
1.
Other (Specify):
SEE COMMENTS
m. Never use ("X" Box)
76/84
78/96
27/35
3/84
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - T - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- --
I
I
I
5/35
0-7
7/96
-------
Comment on Question 5b
So few respondents indicated transit usage that answers to this
question are not meaningful. Of 215 family members answering
the questionnaire, 181, or 85 percent, said they never used
transit. Of the few respondents who used public transit, their
main reasons were "less congested", "more relaxing" and
"more flexible", in that order.
Comment on Question 5c
Respondents indicated that the main reason for driving was the
lack of mas s transit near their residence. Some indicated that
a car was needed because of the nature of their work.
D-8
-------
5d.
Again, consltlting other member9 of your hougehold, please rate in order of effeetivenes9 which items
below you fee! would be most effective in encouraging the Uge of public tran9poration. (Rate the most
effcctive it..onl. a II] ", the next most effective 11211, the next 11311,. etc.)
Items:
Cleaner and newer vehicles. .
Faster travel. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Air- conditioned vehicles
More frequent service
Lower fares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Parking facilities at stops or
stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Shelter s against bad weather
at stops or stations. . . . . . .
Better security to assure
personal safety. . . . . . . . . . .
More conveniently located
stops and stations. . . . . . . .
Other (Specify):
CON CENSUS RA TING
Childr en
Husband Wife (Over 16 Years Old)
6 5 5
2 4 3
9 9 6
3 2 2
5 6 8
7 8 7
8 7 9
4 3 4
0-9
-------
6a.
How would you or other household members feel about traveling to and from work in a car pool?
("X" ONE ONLY)
Very interested. . . . . . . . . . . .
Somewhat interested. . . . . . . .
Not at all interested. . . . . . . .
Already in car pool. . . . . . . . .
Do not travel to and from
work by car. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12.0%
34.8
34.8
7.6
10.8
IT it became necessary to restrict the number of cars on expressways and streets in order to
reduce pollution and car pools became necessary, how difficult do you think it would be to get
into one an existing one or organize one amongst your friends, neighbors and/or work associates.
("X" ONE ONLY)
6b.
Extremely difficult. . . . . . . . .
Very difficult. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Somewhat difficult. . . . . . . . . .
Somewhat easy. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Very easy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Extremely easy. . . . . . . . . . . .
AIr eady in car pool. . . . . . . . .
D-10
19.6%
16.3
38.0
6.5
8.7
4.3
6.5
-------
7.
One of ti,e major causes of areas of high pollution is traffic
congestion. Pollution cOllld be reduccd if traffic congestion
and slop-and-go traffic was reduced. Listed below arc
'.everal ideas for reducing traffic congestion. Pleasc tell
me how effective you think each of these idea8 would be in
reducing conge8tion and pollution. ("X" ONE BOX FOR
EACH IDEA)
Idea:
a.
Pr ohi bi t parking. loading and unloading
on bus y s tr e ets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Increase the number of one-way streets. . . .
Esiablish reversible lanes on busy streets
to be used during rush hours. . . . . . . . . . . .
Pr ohibi t turns at bus y inte r sections during
rush hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widen major s tre ets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widen major streets at intersections only..
Provide pedestrian underpasses and/or
ove rpas s e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Improve timing of traffic signals. . . . . . . . . .
Increase the number and frequency of
radio traffic reports....................
Turn some existing lanes into "bus only"
and "car pool only" lanes on express-
ways and busy streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
1.
j.
Your ideas (Please List):
+2 +1 0 0
.
53.8 44. 2 2.2
17.4 ~8..9 27.2
.
15. 1 50. 5 21. 5
.
37.6. 47.3 4. 3
44.1 36.6 17.2
13.3 \7.8 32.2
.
4?: 5 45. 1 5.5
5 .8 34.8 5.4
. 26.4
15.4 56. a
.
21. 3 55.3 13.8
-I
O. a
6.5
12.9
10.8
2.2
6.7
o. a
0.0
2.2
9.6
Various answers were given-by respondents when they were asked to give
their ideas regarding this question. Some indicated that they would like
to see diesel trucks and buses as well as all old cars off the roads. Some
would like to see a better mass transportation system. Others indicated
they would like to see more parking lots outside of the "bad areas of pol-
lution", as well as provision of bypas s es for through traffic.
.
Indicates the weighted mean for each answer.
0-11
-------
8.
Since traffic. congestion is most severe at thnes when people are going to or corning from work,
one alternatIve for reducing congcstion would be to have people start and stop work at different
timcs of the day. That is, some people would start work at 5:00 AM and quit at 2:00 PM, others
would work from 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM. others from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM. etc. How do you feel about
this idea? ("X" ONE ONLY)
Very much in favor. . . . . . . . .
Somewhat in favor.. . ... ., .,
Indifferent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Somewhat opposed. . . . . . . . . .
Very much opposed. . . . . . . . .
21. 5%
37.6
16. 1
15. 1
9. 7
9a.
Please record the model year of each car owned in your household.
UNDER ~)
Please estimate the number of miles each car was driven in the last year.
(WRITE IN NUMBER OF MILES UNDER ~ BELOW)
(WRITE IN BELOW
9b.
9c.
For each car, please estimate what percental(e of last year's mileage w~ s accounted for by
driving outside your local metropolitan area. (For example, vacation, business trips,
short woekend trips, etc.) (WRITE IN BELOW UNDER 2,;,)
9b. 9c.
9a. Last Year's Perceptage of Mileage
Model Year Mileage Outside Local Area
Car #1 1969 11,604 30
Car #2 1967 8,622 15
Car #3 1966 6,708 4
Car #4 1965 5, 500 3
D-12
-------
lOa.
lOb.
90.
How many licensed drivers are there in your household?
(WRITE IN)
Number of Licensed Drivers:
2. 1
(Avg. )
ge.
If bettcr public transportation were available, would you consider disposing of any of the
cars you own?
Yes
Maybe
No
8. 6%
17.2
74.2
9f.
How many? (WRITE IN)
1.0
cars
Overall, how serious a problem do you think auto air pollution is in your city? ('IX'! ONE BOX
UNDER lOa BELOW)
Overall, how serious a problem do you think auto air pollution is nationwide?
UNDER lOb BELOW)
(It X" ONE BOX
lOa.
lOb.
City
Nationwide
Very serious problem. . . . .
Serious problern . . . . . . . . . .
Slightly serious problem. . .
No problem at all . . . . . . . . .
12.9%
32.3
39.7
15. 1
40. 9%
44.3
14.8
O. 0
0-13
-------
11.
If you have any views or comments regarding any questions or idea,
please record them.
Thirty- seven respondents added comment at the end of the question-
naire. Some felt that a good public transit system would help to re-
duce pollution if the fares were not too high. Other s felt that indus-
try around the metropolitan area is contributing more air pollution
than cars. Some added that present laws (or any future ones) should
be strict and should be enforced. In general, most recognized the
need for pollution control.
D-14
-------
~
FIGURE
CONSUMER MAIL PANELS
323 SOUTH FRANKLIN STREET. CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60606
(2- C796)
Dear Panel :tvlember,
Today, I am sending you a questionnaire which I consider both exciting and
interesting. Hopefully, you will too. This questionnaire deals with the impor.
tant problelTI of air pollution caused by automobiles.
As you know, autos are a major source of air pollution-especially in metro-
politan areas. You probably have read in newspapers or magazines that auto
manufacturers are being required to make changes in their cars that will
reduce the amount of pollutants coming out of cars. This will be particularly
true for cars manufactured in 1975 and thereafter.
Many pollution experts believe, however, that despite these new federal regu-
lations on auto air pollution, other ways will have to be fonnd to further reduce
pollution caused by cars. The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain your
reaction to these new auto pollution control ideas being suggested by the
experts. In answering some questions, you will probably have to consult
other members of your family to get their ideas and reactions. I arn sorry
if this is inconvenient, but I am sure you will agree that the importance of
solving pollution problems is worth making every reasonable effort.
As always, please check each of your answers after you have completed the
questionnaire. Then return it to me in the enclosed postage-paid envelope.
If you have any additional comments, please write them on the lines pro-
vided in Question 11.
Cordially,
'/-~",~j
0-15
-------
FIGURE
~~~~~~!~~_._~
(Z-C796)
AUTO AIR POLLUTION QUESTIONNAIRE
I.
All autos m"dc in 1975 and thereafter will be equipped with enunhion control devk~s to reduce air
pollulion. If in 1975 you owned a car built belore that year. how would you feel about a law ~
quiring you to put emission control equipment which might coat $2.00 on your car? ("X" BELOW)
How wuuld you [eel about this )ao,p 1l the coat was reduced by government subsidy to about $50?
("X" BELOW)
14-16
Open
Z.
FeeJinJ'!: Toward Law:
Very much in favor of law. .
Somewhat in {avor or Ia.w. . .
Somewhat against law. . . . .
Very much against law. . . .
I.
Cost $ZOO
Z.
Cost $50
01
OZ(l7)
03
04
01
Oz (18)
03
04
30.
Even cars properly equipped with emmision control equipment might still pollute the air U the equip-
ffil!:nl was not properly mainta.ined. How would you (eel about a law re-quirinl'! periodic inspection o(
the emission control system to auure that it was working properly? (UX" ONE ONLY)
V;::o:n~~~a~ 01
S~:::~It li.nw Dz
S::;::~&I~W 03
V:;~i:~CI~W04
3b.
Assuming you ~ to have your car inspected at least once a year. what would you consider.
reasonable ":05t (or the inspection? (WRITE IN AMOUNT)
ZOCDZI
3<.
Assuming you ~ lo have your car inspected at lea.t once a year. where do you think the In.pection
should be made? ("X" ONE ONLY)
At state-operated inspection centers .01
At city-operated inspection centers. .02
At local service stations or garages .03
At aome other place (SpeciIy):
04
40.
Even i( all autos were cquipped with properly maintained
emission control systems, some.dUe. might still have auto
air pollution prublems due to the large number of car.
either on lht> slreeh at the same time or concentrated in
particular areas. Lhted below are several postible way.
to redue'f pollution under one or both of the.e conditions.
Pleasc tell me how you feel about ~ of the.e propo.ah.
(IIX" ONE ON EACH LINE)
Proposal:
a. Gasoline ralioning . ......... ............... 01 Oz 03 04 05 Z3
b. Very high ($5001 registration (ee per auto. . . . . . . . . . 01 Oz 03 04 05 Z4
Very high ($500) reKhtnUon lee per auto but only 01 Oz 03 04 05 Z5
for the second, third, etc , auto........ .. ...
d. Prohibit traffic and parkineln central bu.ineu dbtriCh 01 Oz 03 04 05 Z6
e. A tax on ~ parking in central bu.ineu district. .. 01 Oz 03 04 05 Z7
I. A tax on parking in central bUlincu dhtrictll regardleu 01 Dz 03 04 05 Z8
of whether a person parked only one hour or aU day
g. ToUs on exit ramps of major lreeway. a.nd expl'euway. 01 Oz 03 04 05 Z9
h. Tolls on exit rampil ol m&Jor lnewaYI and expl'cuwaYI 01 Oz 03 04 05 30
but only: when traffic wal heavy. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I. Restrictions on non"881cnU.lauto travco! duribK time.
ol high pollution by luuanee at spectal Ucerale 01 Oz 03 04 05 31
pl"tes or vehicle stickers .................
J. Turn .ome existing lanel into "bul only'. aad "car pool 01 O~ 03 04 05 3Z
only" lane. on major 8JCpre"lway. and .treah. . . .
4b. Which of the propouh lilted above ....ovld be the mo.t acceptabltt? (Give Llttlr:t- ])
4<. Which would be mOllt unacceptable? ....... ............. (Give Lettlrr)- 34
D-16
(CONT'D.)
13
19
ZZ
-------
FIGURE
(CONT'D.)
Page: l
12.C196)
I
QUESTIONS 5.8 ASK FOn. INFORt..-L\TION RELAT1"-JG TO OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.
C-ONSULT TIIEM, IF NEC';SSARY, FOR THE AId. . . .. ..
1. Other (Specify):
5d.
Again, conl'1ulting other members oC your household, please rate in order of ellectiveneu which itemu
below you feel would be most effective in encouraging the use of public tranllporation: (Rate the most
effective item a 111". the next most effective "2". the next "3". etc.)
Children
~ ~ ~ (Over 16 Years Old)
Cleaner and newer vehicles. . . . . .. _(41) _(42) _(43)
Faster travel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _(44) _(45) _(46)
Air-conditioned vehicles. . . . . . . .. _(47) _(48) _(491
More frequent service. . . . . . . . . .. _(50) _(51) _(5Z)
Lower Carell '.' ."."". ..... _(53) _(54) _(55)
Parking fadlitie II at stoPEi or utaUonll _(56) _(51) _(58)
Shelterll againllt bad weather at stops
or stations .... .... ....... _(59) _(60) _(61)
Better security to all5ure personal
.aCety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _(62) _(63) _(64)
More conveniently located atops
or stations ..... ....... ... _(65) _(66) _(67)
Other (Specify): (71-78 opeo)
_(68) _(69) _(70) 79~80
D-17
-------
(Z-C7961
How would you or other houu:hold membeu leel about travellne to and from work in a car pool?
(UXII ONE ONLY)
6..
Very intere.led . . . . . . .01
Somewhat intere.ted.. . .02
Not at allinteU8ted . " .03
Already in c.a.r pool. . . . .04
Do not travel to a.nd Irom 05
work by car. . . . . . . .
6b.
It it became nece..a.ry to Tc.trict the J1UJnber of carlon expreuway. and street. ~n ordcr to
reduce: pollution and cur pooh became ncccuary. how difficult do you think it woulrt be to £et
into one an ('xi.ting onc: or organize one arnonp:st your friends. neighbor. and/or work ...aeiatel.
("X" ONE ONLY)
Extremely diUlcult. . . . .01
Very difCicult ....... .OZ
Somewhat difficult. . . . .03
Somewhat cuy ...... .04
Very easy.......... .Ds
Extremely cuy . . . . . . '06
Already In car pool. . . .07
7.
One nf th~ major causes of area.s of high pollution 11 traffic
congestlon. Pollution could be reduced if traffie congelltion
..nd stop-and.go traHie wa. reduced. Listed below are
several ideas for reducing traf{ic congestion. Please tell
me how effective you think each of these idea II would be in
reducing congestion and pollution. ("X" ONE BOX FOR
EACH IDEA)
=.:
Prohibit parking, loading and unloading on busy streets
b. Increilse the number oC one-way streets. . . . . . . . . . .
c. Establish reversible la.nes on busy streets to be used
during rush Roure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
d.
Prohibit turns at busy inteneclione during rush hour. .
e. Widen major street a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
f. Widen major street. at intersections only. . . . . . . . . .
g. Provide pedestrian undcrpalucs and/or overpas.ell . . .
h. Improve tin1.ing of tralftc 8ignals. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .
i.
Increase the number and frequen<:y of radio traffic re...
port. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Turn lome erist1ng lane. into "bus only" and "car pool
only" lanes on expressway. and bu.y .treetl ....
j.
Your idea. (Please Lilt):
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Oz 03 04
Oz 03 04
Oz 03 04
Oz 03 04
Oz 03 04
Oz 03 04
Oz 03 04
Oz 03 04
Oz 03 04
Oz 03 04
Oz 03 04
01
01
01
Since traefic congestion h moat !levere a.t timeD when people are going to OJ' coming from work,
one alternative Cor reducing congelltion would be to have people IIlart and atop work at dlfecrcnt
times oC the day. That 18, !lome people would start work at 5:00 AM and quit at 2:00 PM. others
would work from 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM, others from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM, etc. How do you (eel about
thia idea? ("X" ONE ONLY)
8.
Very much in Cavor. . . . .01
Somewhat in Cavor .....02-
Indifferent. ~ . . . . . . . . .03
Somewhat oppo.ed ..... [)4
Very much oppoaed. . . . .05
(PLEASE CONTINUE ON THE NEXT PAGE)
0-18
FIGURE
Pal. 3
Cd. )
!>up.
).I~
15
16
17
18
19
zo
ZI
ZZ
Z3
Z~
Z5
Z6
Z7
Z8
(CONT'O.J
-------
FIGURE
l'.lge 01
(~.C796)
9..
Ph'arH" rccorclthc model year of each car owned in YOUT hOUBChold.
UNDER ~)
P}f'aBl' C'stimatc the number of milee cach car was driven In the la8t year.
(WIUTI:: IN NUMI1EIt OF MJLES UNDER ~ BELOW)
(WRITE IN BELOW
9b.
9c.
For cach car, plc:!.!.(' t'Atim<'lte what ~ of !allt ¥('<\r'8 milt!a~c WlllI accounled fOT by
driving outside your local metropolitan Area. (For example, vacation, busincss trips,
short wt:ekend trips, ('te.) (WRITE IN DELOW UNDER 2.=.)
9..
Model Yeilr
9b.
Last Year's
~
9c.
Percentage of Mileage
Outside Local Area
/"
134
137
/40
Car #1
_1.
~91
32/
35 1
381
Car HZ.
_1.
Car 113
_%
_%
Ca r ~4
9d.
How many licensed drivers arc there in your houschold?
Number of Licensed Drivers:
(WRITE IN)
041
9..
If bettcr public transportatIOn were available, would you consider disposing of any of the
cars you own'
v., 0 il -
!\.Jaybe LJ~ 9f. How ma.ny? (WRITE IN) _cars7
No 1J37
4Z[TI43
IDa.
Over-a1l, how serious a problem do you think au~o air pollution is In your city?
UNDEH l£2.. BEU;Wj
Ovcrall, how SCTiOU9 a problem do you think auto air pollution is nationwide? ("X" ONE BOX
UNDER .!..Q2. RELOW)
("X" ONE BOX
lOb.
Very serious problem. . . . . .
SCriOliS probJem . . . . . . . . .
SliRhtly seriotls problem. . . .
No problem a~ aJl. . . . . . . . .
lOa. City
01
0> 144)
03
04
J Db. Nationwide
01
0> (45)
03
04
11.
If you have any views or ,"omments rega.rding a.ny quelltion or idea. please record them;
(46.78 open)
79~0
Thank you for your help. Please check your a.nswers and then return the questionnaire to me in the
enclosed postage-paid envelope.
0-19
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 11. Report No. APTD-1367 12. 3. Recipient's Accession No.
SHEET
4. T ,tie and Subwle 5. Report Date
Transportation Control Strategy for the Dayton Metropolitan December 1972
Area. 6.
7. Author(s} Land Use Planning Branch 8. Performing Organization Repto
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. ProjeCt/Task/Work Unit No.
TRW Transportation and Environmental Operati ons DU-72-B895
11. Contract/Grant No.
7600 Colshire Drive 68-02-0041
McLean, Virginia 22101
12 Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period
Environmental Protection Agency F,lf,°a:1'ed 8/14/72
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Report 12/f~/72
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711 14.
15. Supplementary Notes Prepared to assist in the development of transportation control plans
by those State Governments demonstrating that National Ambient Air Quality Standards
cannot be at.t.ninf'd bv imnlf'mf'nt.ina f'missinn st"Mb~rI,. fnr st.nt.innnrv snllrr:f'S only.
16. Abstracts
The document demonstrates the nature of the Air Quality problem attributed to motor
vehicle operation, the magnitude of the problem and a strategy developed to neutralize
these effects in order that National Ambient air quality standard may be attained and
maintained.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 170. Descriptors
Motor Vehicle emitted pollutants ai r po 11 utants originating within a motor vehicle
and released to the atmosphere.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards Air Quality Standards promulgated by the
Envi ronmenta 1 Protection Agency and published
as a Federal Regulation in the Federal
Register.
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled
Vehi cle Mi x - distribution of motor vehicle population by age group.
LDV - light duty vehicle less than 6500 lbs.
HDV - heavy duty vehicle greater than 6500 lbs.
17c. COSATI Field/Group Envi ronmenta 1 Quality Control of Motor Vehicle Pollutants
18. Availability Statement 19. Security Class (This 21. No. of Pages
For release to public Re~~~~), all
2u. Secunty Class (This 22. Price
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
FORM NTIS 35 (REV. 3 721
USCOMM-DC 149S2-P72
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM NTIS-35 (10.70) (Biblio,I!Caphic Data Sheet based on COSATI
Guidelines to Format Standards for Scientific and Technical Reports Prepared by or for the Federal Government,
PB-180 600).
1.
Report Number. Each individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation selected by the performing
organization or provided by the sponsoring organization. Use uppercase letters and Arabic numerals only. Examples
F ASEB-NS-87 and F AA-RD-68-09.
2. Leave blank.
J. Recipient' 5 Accession Number.
Reserved for use by each repon cedpient.
4. Title and Subtitle. Tide should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed promi-
nently. See subtitle, if used, in smaller type or otherwise subordinate it [0 main title. When a repon is prepared in more
chan onc volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and include subtitle for the specific volume.
50 Report Dote. J':ach report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected
(e.g., date of issue, date of approval, date of preparation.
6. Performing Orgoni zation Code. Leave blank.
7. Author{s). Give name(s) in conventional order (e.g., John R. Doe, or J.Robcrt Doe). List author's affiliation if it differs
from the performin~ or~anization.
8. Performing Organization Report Number.
Insert if pcrformin~ o~~anj:t'.ation wishes to assign this number.
9. Performing Organization Nome and Address. Give name, succt, city, statc, and zip code. List no more than two levels of
an or,gani7.ational hierarchy. Display the name of the organizat ion (.xactly as it should appear in Government indexes such
os USGRDR-I.
10. Project/Task/Work Unit Number. Use the projf'ct, task and work unit numbers unJer which the report was prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Number. Ins('ct contract or ,grant number under which report was prepared.
12 Sponsoring Agency Name and Address. Include zip code.
13. Type of Report and Period Covered. Indicate interim, final, etc., and, if applicable, dates covered.
14- Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank.
15. Supplementary Notes. Enter information not included elscwht:rc but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with...
Translarion oC . .. Presented at conference of . .. To be published in. .. SuperseJes... Supplements. . .
16. Abstract. Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report.
If the report contains a significant bibliography or literature swvey, mention it here.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. (a). Descriptors. Select from the Thesawus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the
proper authorized terms that idemify the major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used
as index entries for cataloging.
(b). Identifiers and Open~Ended Terms. Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use
open-ended terms written in descriptor form for those sub jects for which no descriptor exists.
(c). COSATI Field/Group. Field ond Group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSA TI Subject Category List.
Since the majority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be the specific
discipline, area of human endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary
Field/Group assignments that will follow the primary posting(s).
18. Distribution Statement. Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example uRe-
lease unlimited", Cite any availability to the public, v.ith address and price.
19 & 20. Security Classification. Do not submit classified reports to the National Technical
21. Number 01 Pages.
list, if any.
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but excluding distribution
22.
Price. Insert tbe price set by the Nattonal Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
FORM NTIS.35 tREY. 3-72J
USCOMM.CC 14SHS2-P72
'* U. tt. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1973-7.46768/4146
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC
Technical Publications Branc
Office of Administration
Research Triangle Park N C 27
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
\ND FEES PAID
PROTECTION AGENCY
k 335
THIRD CLASS BULK RATE
If you do not desire to continue receiving this technical report
series, please CHECK HERE D . 'ear off this label, and return
it to the above address Your name will then be promptly removed
from the appropriate mailing list
PUBLICATION NO. APTD-1367
------- |