APTD-1368
RANSPORTATION CONTROL
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
FOR THE DENVER
METROPOLITAN AREA
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
APTD-1368
TRANSPORTATION CONTROL
STRA TEG Y DEVELOPMENT
FOR THE DENVER
METROPOLITAN AREA
Prepared by
TRW Transportation and 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
-------
Tne APID (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 tech-
nical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies of
APID 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 Tech-
nical 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 ~1cLean, Virgina,
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. APID-1368
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 .0 SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 Conclusions and Recommendations
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
2.0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1 Program Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Problem Definition and Description. . . . . . . . .
3.0 LIMITATIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION CONTROL STRATEGY
ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1 Air Quality Monitoring ...............
3.2 Emission Factors. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
3.3 Cold-Start Emissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Traffic, Data and Projections. . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5 Analytic Techniques Used. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.6 Effects of Control Measures. . . . . . . . . . . .
4.0 CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 Emission Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Control Measures Considered. . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.1 Exhaust Emission Controls. . . . . . . .. .
4.2.2 VMT Reducti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Proposed Control Strategy(s) . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.1 Exhaust Emission Control Measures. . . . . .
4.3.2 Recommended VMT Reduction Strategies. . . .
4.4 Obstacles to Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.1 New Car Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.2 Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance. . . . .
4.4.3 Retrofit of Pre-1968 Cars, High Altitude
Modifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.4
4.4.5
4.4.6
4.4.7
4.4.8
Vehicle Use Reduction. . . . . . . . . . . .
Ca r Pool i ng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Peripheral Parking, Exclusive Bus Lanes. . .
Improved Bus Transportation. . . . . . . . .
Long-Term Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . .
i i i
Page
1 -1
1 -1
2-1
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-3
3-3
3-4
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-5
4-8
4-12
4-17
4-18
4-29
4-29
4-30
4-30
4-30
4-32
4-32
4-32
4-33
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
5.0 CONTROL STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION AND SURVEILLANCE. . . .
5.1 Air Quality Checkpoints. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Transportation Checkpoints. . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Legislative Checkpoints. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4 Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX A - AIR QUALITY AND EMISSIONS DATA. . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX B - TRANSPORTATION DATA BASE. . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX C - TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE -
RECOMMENDED PHASED STRATEGY ELEMENTS. . . . . .
APPENDIX D - DATA AND DOCUMENT LIST. . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX E - AUTOMOBILE AIR POLLUTION QUESTIONNAIRE. . . . .
APPENDIX F - VEHICLE EMISSION INSPECTION AND CONTROL PROGRAM.
APPENDIX G - TITLE 40, APPENDIX N . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iv
Page
5-1
5-1
5-4
5-4
5-5
A-1
B-1
C-1
D-1
E-1
F-1
G-1
-------
Table Number
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
B-1
B-2
B-3
Figure Number
4-1
5-1
5-2
A-l
A-2
A-3
B-1
C-l
C-2
C-3
E-l
LIST OF TABLES
Ti tl e
Denver Emi ss ions (Uncontro 11 ed)
Percent Reductions Achievable (CO)
Percent Reductions Achievable (CO)
Percent Reductions Achievable (HC)
Percent Reductions Achievable (HC)
Vehicle Miles of Travel for the Central Area
Vehicle Miles of Travel for the Core Area
Vehicle Miles of Travel for the Five Zones
in the Denver Metropolitan Area
LI ST 0 F FI GURES
Ti tl e
Analysis Areas
Surveillance Checkpoints - Phase I
Surveillance Checkpoints - Phase II
Sample Isopleth
CO (Maximum) Eight-Hour Monthly Average
Total Oxidants Peak-Hour Monthly Maximum
Denver Grid
Rough Draft of Phase I of Transportation
Planning Advisory Committee Recommendations
Rough Draft of Phase II
Rought D~aft of Phase I, Section III
Automobile Air Pollution Questionnaire
v
Page
4-3
4-13
4-14
4-15
4-16
B-5
B-6
B-7
Page
4-4
5-2
5-3
A-2
A-6
A-6
B-2
C-l'
C-2
C-3
E-14
-------
1. 0 SUMMARY
Subsequent to the provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1970, the State
of Colorado must submit a definitive transportation control plan to the
Environmental Protection Agency by February 15, 1973. As support for this
plan, TRW and its subsidiary DeLeuw, Cather and Company have compiled an
analysis of the impact of transportation sources on existing and projected
air quality and recommendations for elements of control plan sufficient
to meet the Federal requirements for carbon monoxide and oxidant air quality.
1.1
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
From the qualitative and quantitative analyses of existing data and
recommendations for the control of transportation related carbon monoxide
and hydrocarbon emissions the following conclusions can be stated:
2.
1. The Federal standard for eight-hour carbon monoxide will require
a 64% reduction in carbon monoxide emissions by 1977. The peak-
hour oxidant data indicate a 32% reduction is required in the
6-9 AM hydrocarbon emissions.
Federal new car standards will not be sufficient to meet the
required reduction by 1977.
3.
No one control meaSure will be sufficient to meet the required
carbon monoxide reduction.
4. A region-wide plan is required to
a.
Prevent the deterioration of air quality in areas not current-
ly exceeding the standards and
To reduce the region-wide contribution to the accumulation of
pollutants in maximum concentration areas.
b.
5.
The region-wide plan would consist of
a. Those control measures which will effectively reduce the region-
wide contribution to the formation of critical concentrations
of which some combination of the following is considered most
feasible and effective:
. Inspection/Maintenance
. Hi-Altitude Retrofit
. Pre-1968 Retrofit
1-1
-------
made:
b. Those control measures which will reduce the emissions in
critical concentration areas resulting from high density ve-
hicle miles of travel (VMT) at low average vehicle speeds.
c. Those long-term measures which in addition to those me~tio~ed
above will insure that existing air quality in the reglon 1S
not degraded. These measures should include:
. land use planning with attention to transportation related
environmental factors
. tax reforms to reverse the existing encouragement for addi-
tional cars and/or VMT tax.
. planned development of a regional public transportation system
in conjunction with land~use planning.
On the basis of these conclusions the following recommendations are
1.
Establish immediately a testing facility to adequately measure
the uncontrolled and controlled emissions at high altitudes. This
facility should also test the proposed retrofit devices especially
the high altitude modifications. Use this facility to test the
findings of the Northrop Study (see Appendix F).
2.
Expand the regional monitoring network for carbon monoxide and
oxidants.
3.
On the basis of test results and the findings of the Northrop Study.
select an Inspection and Maintenance and retrofit program most
effective at high altitudes and phase implementation of this program
to achieve total impact by June 1976 at the latest.
On the basis of test results and the findings of the Northrop Study,
determine the retrofit packages most effective for the Denver area
(with special attention to high altitude retrofits) and phase im-
plementation of this program to achieve full impact by June 1976
at the latest.
4.
1-2
-------
5.
Implementation of those VMT reduction measures directed at the
central area (until extended monitoring indicates extens~on to
other areas) and consisting primarily of:
. Regional bus network improvements
. Peripheral parking
. Car pooling
and those restraints necessary to insure the effectiveness of
these measures, namely
. curb parking removal
Although further restraints such as taxation may be required to
support a large modal shift, they require careful consideration
of socio-economic impact and demand elasticity modeling before
implementation.
6.
Utilize the modal split, trip distribution, and economic analyses
being carried out by the Council of Governments and the Regional
transportation District and long range planning program to
postulate alternative restraints and transportation impacts on
the total transportation network. This effort will focus on
long-term measures to assure the maintenance of ambient standards.
7.
Update the emissions and air quality
monitoring and test results at least
period January 1973 to July 1976.
data base on the basis of
semi-annually during the
8.
Re-define if necessary the air quality problem on the basis of
the updated inventory and any modeling performed and
9.
Re-evaluate and re-define the elements of the control strategy
where necessary, at least semi-annually between January, 1973 and
July, 1976.
1-3
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROGRAM PURPOSE
The State of Colorado must submit definitive transportation control
plans to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) no later than February
15, 1973, for those areas of the State, namely Denver, where emissions from
transportation sources have resulted in 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 Denver metropolitan area that will achieve carbon mon-
oxide and oxidant air quality standards required to be met by the year 1977.
In the performance of this program the following tasks were performed:
1.
Implementation Plan Review to verify and assess the severity of
the carbon monoxide and oxidant pollutant problem.
Identification of Transportation Controls. These strategies
considered the impact of the required 1975 systems controls
as well as the assessment of the feasibility of achieving
control as established by the Six Cities Study.
2.
3.
Estimate of Air Quality Impact. Estimate of the likely impact
anticipated from each of the control techniques using established
rollback or modeling methods. The method of estimation and
rationale are given in Appendix A.
4.
Documentation of Implementation Obstacles. The contractor met
with local air pollution and transportation agencies respon-
sible for implementing the recommended controls for the purpose of
identifying obstacles that can be expected in the implementation
process.
Formulation of Surveillance Review Process. The formulation of a
timetable of key checkpoints to be used by EPA in monitoring im-
plementation progress in achieving transportation control. The
timetable includes the period January, 1973 through December.
5.
1976.
2-1
-------
2.2
PROBLEM DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTION
The physical and climatic characteristics of the Denver metropolitan
area impose a finite limitation on the allowable emission density for the
area if ambient air quality standards are to be met. Mobile source emis-
sions are responsible for 97% of the total carbon monoxide emissions
and 70% of the hydrocarbon emissions in the metropolitan Denver area.
Superimposed on this physical environment is a high vehicle population
growth rate (5.2%/year) and the highest per capita automobile ownership
in the nation. The combined impact of these physical and social charac-
teristics is to partially offset the expected benefits from the incursion
of controlled automobiles into the vehicle population.
The 1971 CAMP station air quality data show a 64% reduction in carbon
monoxide emissions required to meet the Federal eight-hour standard. The
hydrocarbon emissions must be reduced by 32% in order to bring the peak
hour oxidant values within Federal requirements. Air quality and emissions
data are given in Appendix A to this report.
The emissions estimates given in Section 4.1 and the transportation
data in Appendix B indicate the source of the pollutants is strongest in
the center of the city. However, the outer parts of the metropolitan area
contribute substantially, therefore any program designed to reduce extreme
pollution levels should not be limited to the reduction of miximum emissions
area, but should include some plan for area-wide reductions. It should also
be noted that although the CAMP station data support the conclusion that
areas of high vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and therefore high emissions are
areas of high pOllutant concentration, the meteorological and physical
factors documented by Riehl and Herkhof(l) strongly suggest that other high
concentration areas may well exist which are not currently monitored.
(1)Riehl, Herbert and Herkhof, Dirk, "Weather Factors in Denver Air Pollution,"
August 1970.
2-2
-------
3.0 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 air 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
care must be taken in the interpretation and evaluation of the control strat-
egy recommendations contained in t~is report. Several specific areas in
which the present study needs to be confirmed and validated by future study
are listed below.
3.1 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 unrealistically high readings 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
3-1
-------
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
observed 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.
3.2 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 updating and revision with both in-use and
new vehicle testing programs, conducted by the Envircnmental Protection
Agency. The applicability of the standard testing 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 factors be utilized
as they become available to recompute and redefine the severity of the
mobile source generated emissions in the region. Finally, the emission
factors used in the study relate speed to emissions only on the basis of
the integrated driving cycle. This has prevented the accurate assessment
of changes in emissions due to improvement in traffir. flow characteristics
in core, center city areas.
3-2
-------
3.3 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. A potential control strategy
to reduce the high level of cold start emissions might be the direct
control of emissions from parking structures which act as stationary sources.
Again, it has not been possible to quantitatively describe the effect of this
type measure on the regional air pollution problem in this report.
3.4 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.
This fact has necessitated the reworking of traffic data including vehicle
flows, speeds and modal mixes into the format necessary for emission cal-
culations. Certain assumptions and potential inaccuracies have been
introduced by this process. Further the use of trends and proje~tions in
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.
3.5 ANALYTIC TECHNIQUES USED
The key analytic calculation performed in this study is the relation
between emission levels and ambient air quality. Diffusion modeling
3-3
-------
techniques were used to a limited degree in the "Six Cities Transportation
Project" to predict air quality for the Denver area, however, the analysis
indicated that the technique was inadequate to describe the ph~ica1 and
meteorological characteristics of the Denver Basin. Due to time restraints,
it was not possible to develop more sophisticated mathematical modeling
techniques to describe these characteristics. Control strategy reductions
were therefore based on proportional roll-back techniques relating emissions
and air quality on a proportional basis. The use of modeling is highly
recommended since in addition to consideration of local meteorological and
topographical effects, it can indicate the georgraphica1 distribution
of the pollution problem. Such modeling and simulation exercises, using
models currently under development or the models to be developed through
the grant request submitted to EPA by the Colorado Air Pollution Control
Commission, should be carried out during the period between January 1973,
and 1977. The results of these efforts shoul d be used to modify, if
necessarv. the control strateqy recommended in this document.
3.6 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 prograw. 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. However, the extent of this reduction is unknown and specific
data concerning the economic elasticity of the various travel demands, the
modal split of trips within the region, and many other factors need to be
carefully evaluated before a quantitative estimate can be prepared.
It is strongly recommended that programs be instituted to provide
additional data and to apply more sophisticated analytic techniques in the
areas listed above. Work must begin upon 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,
3-4
-------
jurisdictional 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.
3-5
-------
4.0 CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
Transportation control measures must be defined which will reduce
mobile source emissions to a level which will achieve compliance with the
Federal air quality standards. The technical approach is to select candidate
control measures and quantify where possible the emiss'ions reductions ex-
pected. Control strategy development includes the following tasks:
. Development of a transportation data base - The details of this
development are giv,n in Appendix B.
. Development of an air quality and emissions data base - Air quality
data are summarized in Appendix A. Baseline emissions estimates are
given in Section 4.1.
. Definition of Control Measures Transportation control measures
fall into two categories; exhaust emission reductions and reduction
of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). These control measures may be
both long and short term and region-wide or area specific in extent.
Exhaust emission control measures are discussed in Section 4.2.1
and VMT reductions are discussed in Section 4.2.2 to this report.
. Development of strategy application data - These data are described
in Sections 4.3 and the Appendices.
. Analysis of the impact of strategies on air quality. The procedures
and rationale for emissions estimates are given in Appendix A. The
percent reductions achievable for each strategy are summarized in
Section 4.3.
. Development of control strategy - A control strategy consists of
one or several compatible control measures. The control strategy
elements considered most feasible for the Denver metropolitan ,area
are described in Section 4.3.
4.1
EMISSION ESTIMATES
An emission estimate is the product of two factors; vehicle miles trav.
eled (VMT) and an emission factor or rate. The emission factors used in this
study are based on measured and projected emission rates for each vehicle
4-1
-------
class considering age of vehicle, effectiveness of emission controls,
average speed, and vehicle age distribution. The impact of Federal new
car standards is considered in both the present and projected vehicles.
The emission factor development followed the procedure developed by Kircher
and Armstrong(l) of the EPA. The details of the procedure are given in
Appendix A. Vehicle miles ~raveled and speed were determined as shown in
Appendix B.
Table 4.1 shows the emission estimates for CO, hydrocarbons, and NOx
respectively for current and projected conditions considering only cur-
rently planned transportation systems and assuming the 1975 new car standards
will be met. Figures 4.1 shows the analysis areas in Table 4.1. These
analysis areas are defined in detail in Ap'pendix B.
A 64% reduction in carbon monoxide emissions would not be met until at
least 1980. If stationary source emissions are allowed to increase at the
2% per year rate suggested in the implementation plan, they may become a
significant factor.
The 32% reduction in hydrocarbon emissions will be achieved by 1977
throughout the Denver city-county area.
4.2 CONTROL MEASURES CONSIDERED
The control measures described in the "Report and Recommendations from
the Transportation Planning Advisory Committee to the Colorado Air Pollution
Control Commission" adequately cover the spectrum of possible types of control
measures. These measures are grouped into two categories, emission reductions
through emissions control devices and their maintenance and VMT reductions.
Acknowledging the efforts and merit of this committee's work TRW has elected
to expand and quantify where possible the impact of these types of control
measures. These measures are discussed below.
(l)D.S. Kircher and D.P. Armstrong, "An Interim Report on lv1otor Vehicle
Emission Estimation," Environmental Protection Agency. October 1972.
4-2
-------
DENVER EMISSIONS (Uncontrolled)*
T jDay
1971
CO 1977
1978
1980
1971
"""
I 1977
w HC
1978
1980
1971
NOx 1977
1978
1980
LDV HDV i DIESEL STATIONARY
Core CA Denver Core CA I Denver Core CA Denver Denver
72.7 148.9 483.2 6.4 13.0 i 42.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 13.0
37.6 90.5 304.9 5.3 11.2 37.6 0.0 0.1 0.4 14.7
31.7 68.5 234.1 5.0 10.7 36.4 0.0 0.1 0.4 15.0
21.0 47.0 162.1 4.6 10.2 34.8 0.0 0.1 0.4 15.6
7.7 18.2 62.3 1.0 2.2 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 35.9
3.7 8.9 31.2 0.7 1.7 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 40.4
3.1 7.6 26.8 0.7 1.6 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 41.2
2.1 5.3 18.8 0.6 1.5 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 42.9
I I
i
1.5 4.3 15.6 i 0.2 0.5 t 1.7 0.0 0.1 0.6 54.2
~ '
1.0 3.1 11.7 : ! 0.2 0.5 r 2.0 0.1 0.2 0.7 61.1
1.0 3. 0 ~ 11.6 i! 0.2 0.5 I 2.0 0.1 0.2 0.7 62.3
" I; I
0.9 2.7 ~ 10.5 ' 0.2 0.5 i 2.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 64.8
I' ,
CA - central area
LDV - light duty vehicles
HDV - heavy duty gasoline vehicles
*Federal new car standards are assumed to be met by 1975.
TABLE 4.1
-------
BOULDER COUNTY I
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GOLDEN
(' ROCKY MOUNTAIN
ARSENAL
ADAMS COUNTY
-»...„
_
ADAMS COUNTY
ARAPAHOE COUNTY
ill
OiO
u.o
S8
25
u.i a
Sjl<
c. I
Central Area
- Core
Fig. 4.1 Analysis Areas
4-4
-------
4.2.1
Exhaust Emission Controls
Four major types of exhaust emission control programs have been
considered as follows:
. Federal emissions control requirements
. Inspection/Maintenance (I/M)
. Retrofit of Light Duty Vehicles (LDV)
. Gaseous fuels conversion
for new cars
The major advantage of this group of controls is that their impact
is region-wide in extent rather than area specific. The necessity for a
region-wide plan has been considered in Section 3.2 above. However it
should be reiterated that a plan based solely on a "chronic" approach, that
is the reduction of emissions in the maximum concentration and emissions
areas only, fails to recognize the prevelent meteorological and physical
characteristics of the Denver area which cause all emission areas to con-
tribute to the formation of critical concentration areas. It also fails to
recognize that critical concentration areas may exist which are not currently
monitored or may exist in the near future due to inadequately planned growth
which does not consider transportation requirements or resultant air quality
deterioration.
Each of the four types of exhaust emission control programs are
discussed briefly below. They are each discussed in detail in the EPA doc-
ument "Control Strategies for In-Use Vehicles". The specific elements of
these programs currently planned or being considered as most effective for
the Denver region are described in more detail in Section 4.3.and Appendix F
and G
.
Federal emissions control requirements for new cars.
The Federal 1975 standards for new cars are assumed to be met.
o
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M)
The many vari eti es of Inspecti on and Ma.i ntenance programs and
their benefits are described in detail in the EPA document
"Control Strategies for In-Use Vehicles," and the IPA/TRW report
"Evaluating Transportation Controls To Reduce Motor Vehicle
Emissions in Major Metropolitan Areas." The revised Title 40 of
4-5
-------
the Federal Register in Appendix N defines the requir~lents for
an acceptable program and the expected reductions achievable.
An "Inspection/Maintenance" program is defined as a means to
reduce emissions from in-use vehicles through identifying vehicles
that need emissions control related maintenance and requiring that
maintenance be performed. The reason that such a program can
achieve additional reductions is that current in-use emission
control devices deteriorate or their effectiveness deteriorates
due to other automotive parameters such as a poorly tuned engine.
Therefore, the purpose of an Inspection/Maintenance program is to
maintain exhaust emissions from in-use vehicles as close to the
standards of the new vehicle as possible (whether controlled or
uncontrolled) and thereby gain the maximum benefit from emissions
control technology. An Inspection/Maintenance program is also
a requirement (see Title 40) of any retrofit program.
A particular advantage of such a program for the Denver metro-
politan area is that it requires (see Title 40) "provisions for
the establishment of inspection failure criteria consistent with
claimed reductions." Some limited tests by EPA in the region
and the State APeD indicate new cars do not meet their claimed
reductions due to the effects of high altitude. However, there
is no provision exempting high altitude areas from the Federal
standards for air quality and no provision for exemption of new
vehicles from emission standards at high altitudes, therefore
an inspection/maintenance program can show a deficiency which is
the responsibility of the manufacturer as well as the owner.
The requirements for an acceptable I/M program as found in the
revised Title 40 of the Federal Register are attached to this
report as Appendix G. Appendix F to thi s report is the final
report summary volume from the Northrop/Olson Laboratories
evaluation of "Vehicle Emission Inspection and Control Program"
conducted for the Colorado Department of Health to determine the
technical and economic feasibility and public acceptability of a
vehicle emission inspection and control program. The conclusions
4-6
-------
and recommendations from the Northrop study are summarized in
Section 4.3 and it is suggested that with some documentation by
testing, this study could form the basis for an Inspection/Main-
tenance program for Denver.
Retrofit of Light Duty Vehicles (LDV)
Again the details of the major types of retrofit deveices for in-
use vehicles are described in "Control Strategies for In-Use
Vehicl es" and two retrofit packages for pre-controll ed vehi cl es
are studied and described in the Northrop report (see Appendices
F and G).
The majority of retrofit devices are designed for installation in
pre-controlled or pre-1968 light duty vehicles though some can be
effective on other vehicles. There are two prime considerations
for retrofit devices; which pollutant do they most effectively
reduce and what segment of the automotive population is effected.
Vehicle age-distribution projections for Denver indicate that by
1977 only 8% of the LDV population will be pre-1968 or uncontrolled.
Although the retrofit devices are very effective in reducing emis-
sions from these vehicles the added reduction in total emissions
for all light duty vehicles is very small by 1977 (about 1 to 6%
of total LDV emissions). There are, however, two advantages to
thls control measure; its impact is region-wide, and it is directed
at the worst polluters.
Two retrofit packages for pre-1968 LDV are considered most feasible
and effective for the reduction of carbon monoxide emissions by the
Northrop Study. These are summarized in Section 4.3 and Appendix F.
A retrofit package considered highly effective for hydrocarbon emis-
sions was considered in addition in Section 4.3 and is described in
more detail in Appendix G and the EPA guide.
A high-altitude modification package designed by Pontiac Motor
Division in Denver appears to be highly effective in reducing emis-
sions for 1972 GM vehicles. Preliminary results indicate this
4-7
-------
package or a similar design is applicable to all domestic LDVs
for possibly 1968 to 1974 model years. 8ecause of the possibility
of a large segment of the vehicle population being affected, this
package could be highly effective in reducing total emissions. ~ur-
ther testing is certainly required and highly recommended.
Gaseous Fuel Conversion
Recommendation for the use of gaseous fuel conversion is limited
to metropolitan areas where large, centrally located fleets rep-
resent significant portions of the total vehicle miles of travel
(VMT). It is further restricted by the limited supply of such
fuels in many areas. Since such significantly large central fleets
do not exist in Denver and any gaseous conversion would detract
from the supply of available low polluting gases, this form of
exhaust emission control measure is not recommended.
4.2.2 VMT Reduction
The alternative to exhaust emission control measures are those measures
which reduce the vehicle miles of travel (VMT). These measures are most
effective in areas of very high VMT concentration. The area of current
maximum VMT concentration is in the immediate vicinity of the CAMP station
and indicates the necessity for severe emission reductions. This is not to
imply that other high concentration areas do not exist, however it is ap-
parent that the most feasible exhaust emission control programs may be in-
sufficient to meet the required reductions in this area and that some form
of VMT reduction program may be required.
The following short-term and long-term approaches to VMT and emis-
sion reductions are a summary of the measures considered by the Transportation
Planning Advisory Committee. Those measures considered most effective and
most feasible are discussed in detail in Section 4.3. Although only the
short-term measures are considered for detailed analyses, the regional
transportation program and other long-term measures are noted as having the
potential for effects beyond 1980. The advantage to long-term regional
planning is the prevention of the formation of critical concentration areas
resulting from high density VMT at low average speeds.
4-8
-------
In October 1972. the Transportation Planning Advisory Committee to
the Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission issued a report setting forth
alternative proposals for exhaust emission controls and vehicle use reduc-
tion aimed toward meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in
the Denver Metropolitan Region. The Committee also recommended transporta-
tion control strategies which they believed could be achieved by July 1977.
Strategies for actual control of exhaust emissions are discussed elsewhere
in this report and this section will deal specifically with recommendations
of the Committee pertaining to vehicle use reduction.
une of the principal recommendations of the Committee from a standpoint
of short-term public transportation improvements dealt with the establish-
ment of a regional bus network which would serve the people of the entire
Denver Metropolitan Air Quality Control Region. Other recommendations for
public transportation improvements included elimination of curb parking
and establishment of exclusive bus lanes and express bus routes. Peripheral
parking in bus stations was considered which would provide major loading
points from which express buses could operate into the Central Area.
It was clear to the Committee that short-term public transportation
improvements followed by a long-term plan were absolutely essential if
the Federal primary and secondary standards are to be achieved.
The second category of vehicle restraints considered by the Committee
recognized that public transportation improvements alone would not attract
riders from private automobiles and reduce carbon monoxide levels sufficiently
unless vehicle restraint methods were employed. Restraints considered
included some form of wheel taxation which would discourage ownership of
second and third family automobiles. and a parking tax which could perhaps
be applied to the peak hours or in specific critical areas.
4-9
-------
In additidn, the COlJllnittee discussed possibilities of bypass techniques
and traffic control improvements which might have an impact on total traffic
flow and enission rates in critical areas. It was not believed that these
t'ecoJl1l11endations \'lOuld have a major impact since it is generally recognized
that such techniques are already widely being used throughout the Denver
region, and on an average traffic flow within the region is now and
will in the future be much more efficient than eastern cities of comparable
character and size.
The Committee recognized that increasing package delivery senice on
d voluntary basis by the business community could be a significant step
toward reduction in the daily number of shopper trips to the Central Area.
Road use regulations, including techniques such as metering of freeways,
special peak-hour restrictions, freeway exit penalties, and car-free zones
within critical areas were also considered.
Income tax reform which would allow the public transportation commuter
deduction on his personal State Income Tax was suggested as an incentive
for the use of public transit. Finally, the concept of work schedule changes
was considered. It was recognized that this concept would not necessarily
reduce the total number of vehicle miles of travel during a 24-hour period
and might discourage car pooling techniques.
Strategies of a more long-range nature included consideration of
the environmental restraints in planning the future relationships between
transportati on and 1 and use. In additi on. the Committee wholeheartedly
endorses the legislation passed by the State of Colorado in 1969 creating
the Regional Transportation District. Charged to the RTD is the creation
of a public transportation system for the seven-county region which will
significantly change the modal split between automobile and public transit
travel.
4-10
-------
From the various alternatives considered, the Committee recommended
strategies consisting of short-range public transportation improvements
including establishment of a regional bus network, express routes, and
exclusive bus lanes. A program of peripheral parking supported by express
routes into the Central Area was recommended. The Committee further
recommended short-range strategy of vehicle restraints which included
removal of key street parking, parking taxes in critical areas during
critical times, and a wheel taxation aimed toward the discouragement of
second and third vehicles in a family.
The Committee further recommended possible road use regulations and
peak-hour license plate restrictions which would have required operators
of motor vehicles during the peak hours to have special license plates
which would be at a premium for controlling the number of vehicles that
would be moving during critical pollution periods. The Committee further
recommended voluntary establishment of commercial delivery services for
businesses in the Central Area so as to discourage the necessity of
travel to the Central Area.
In addition, the Committee believes that some form of income tax
reform which would provide a deduction on the State Personal Income Tax
for the cost of public transportation to work by commuters to be a logical
form of incentive for use of public transportation.
4-11
-------
4.3 PROPOSED CONTROL STRATEGY(S)
The analyses of the control measures considered most feasible for
implementation by 1977 show that no one control measure will be sufficient
to meet the required reduction for carbon monoxide. The reductions
achievable by several combinations of control measures are shown in Tables
4.2-4.5. The strategies considered are as follows:
.
STRATEGY 1 - I&M LIA/VSAD - Inspection/Maintenance, Lean Idle Air Fuel
, Ratio/vacuum spark advance disconnect
This strategy is totally exhaust control oriented. It consists of
either key mode or idle inspection and maintenance with twice yearly
inspection, LIA/VSAD retrofit for pre-1968 light duty vehicles.
. STRATEGY 2 - I&M, LIA/ITM Inspection/Maintenance, Lean Idle Air Fuel
Ratio/Ignition timing Modification
Inspection/Maintenance as above with LIA/ITM -retrofit for pre-1968
vehicles. The primary difference between strategy 1 & 2 is the greater
imnact on CO of the Ianition Timina Modifications.
.
STRATEGY 3 - VMT Reductions -
This strategy does not include any exhaust controls with the ex-
ception of Federal new car controls. The maximum reduction is
achieved in the core area. The suaaested measures are 1) reaional
bus network improvements, 2) peripheral parking, 3) car pooling,
and those restraints necessary to ensure the effectiveness of
these measures, namely curb parking removal. These are described
in detail in Section 4.3.2.
. STRATEGY 4 - Combined STRATEGY 1 and STRATEGY 3 -
VMT reductions are combined with the exhaust control measures in
STRATEGY 1 above.
. STRATEGY 5 - Combined STRATEGY 2 and STRATEGY 3
VMT reductions are combined with exhaust control measures of
STRATEGY 2 above.
4-12
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS ACHIEVABLE*
CO (LDV only)
LDV Denver CA Core
(not incl sta. source) Emissions Reduct Emissions Reduct Emissions lReduct
T/day % T/day % T/day %
1971 483.2 - 148.9 - 72.9 -
Fed. New Car 304.9 36.9 90.5 39.2 37.6 48.3
STRAT I I&M. LIA/VSAD 227.2 53.0 67.0 55.0 31.4 56.8
STRAT II I&M. LIA/ITM 210.8 56.4 62.2 58.2 29.1 60.0
STRAT III VMT Reduct. 295.4 38.9 84.6 43.2 34.5 52.5
STRAT IV I + III 220.2 54.4 62.7 57.9 28.8 60.4
STRAT V II + III 204.3 57.7 58.1 61.0 26.7 63.3
CA - Central Area
*
Reductions from 1971 all include 1975 standards
Table 4.2
4-13
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS ACHIEVABLE*
CO (TOTAL EMISSIONS)
I .
(% Reduction Denver CA II Core I
Tota 1 --<
Requ1 red 64) iEmissions I Reduct :
Emissions Reduct Emissions Reduct
liT/day % T/day % T / day %
1971 I! 538.8 - 162.0 - 79.1 -
"
: Fed. New Car 357.6 33.6 101. 8 37.2 42.9 45.8
I STRAT I ;
I 279.9 48.1 78.3 51. 7 36.7 53.6
, 54.6 I
'
STRAT II 'I 263.5 51.1 73.5 34.4 56.5
STRAT II I I 348.1 35.4 95.9 40.8 39.8 49.7
STRAT IV ~ 49.4 74.0 54.3 34.1 56.9
i STRAT V 257.0 52.3 69.4 57.2 32.0 59.5
I
CA - Central Area
*Reductions from 1971 all include 1975 standards
Table 4.3
4-14
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS ACHIEVABLE*
HC (LDV only)
----
LDV Denver CA Core
.,.
(not i tlcl sta. sources Emissions Reduct Emissions Reduct Emissions Reduct
-.-
T/day % T/day % T/day %
---
1971 62.3 - 18.2 - 7.7 -
Fed New Car 31. 2 49.9 8.9 51.1 3.7 51.9
STRAT I 26.0 58.3 7.3 59.9 3.0 61.0
STRAT II 26.1 58.1 7.4 59.3 3.1 59.7
STRAT II I 30.2 51.5 8.3 54.4 3.4 55.8
STRAT IV 25.2 59.6 6.9 62.1 2.8 63.6
STRAT V 25.3 59.4 6.9 62.1 2.8 63.6
(\,-
CA - Central Area
*
Reductions from 1971 all include 1975 standards
Table 4.4
4-15
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS ACHIEVABLE*
HC (TOTAL EMISSIONS)
(% Reducti on Denver CA Core
Total Required 32) -
Emissions Reduct Emissions Reduct missions Reduct
I T/day % T/day % T/day %
I
i 1971 105.8 - 20.4 - 8.7 -
i Fed. New Car 77.6 26.7 10.6 48.0 4.4 49.4
I
I STRAT I I 72.4 31. 6 9.0 55.9 3.7 57.5
I STRAT II 72.5 31. 5 9.1 55.4 3.8 56.3
STRAT III 76.6 27.6 10.0 51.0 4.1 52.9
STRAT Iv 71. 6 32.3 8.6 57.8 3.5 59.8
STRAT V 71. 7 32.2 8.6 57.8 3.5 59.8
CA - Central Area
*Reductions from 1971 all include 1975 standards
Table 4.5
4-16
-------
The above strategies are considered conservative in their estimates
of emission reduction possible; however, no ~trategy will precisely achieve
the 64% reduction required even in the core area where VMT reduction impact
is greatest. No consideration has been given to any high-altitude retrofit
package due to lack of data. The reduction achievable by implementation
of this exhaust control measure will definitely be sufficient in combina-
tion with STRATEGY 4 or STRATEGY 5 above to meet the required reduction
for the core and central areas.
Based on the figures in Table 4.3 it is recommended that STRATEGY 5
(with the additional high-altitude retrofit package) be adopted as the
transportation control plan for Denver. Although this strategy results
in essentially the same hydrocarbon reduction as STRATEGY 4, it was
selected because of its higher carbon monoxide reduction. STRATEGY 5 is
made up of exhaust emission controls described in detail in Appendices
F and G. and VMT reduction measures discussed in Section 4.3.2.
4.3.1
Exhaust Emission Control Measures
. Inspection/Maintenance and Retrofit
The Northrop/Olson Laboratory study sUmmary is attached as
Appendix G to this report and is considered the most detailed
analysis of these control measures specific to the Denver area
available. It is recommended that the conclusions of this study
be tested in a hi-altitude testing facility as soon as possible.
The most likely impact on CO emissions reductions for light duty
vehicles for several combinations of exhaust controls is shown
in Table 4..2 Tah 1e 4.,.3 shGIWS.. the i lJI!la.ct. of these strategies
on total CO emissions. Tables 4.4 and 4.5 show the impact
of these strategies on light duty vehicle (LDV) hydrocarbon
emissions and total hydrocarbon emissions respectively.
4-17
-------
4.3.2 Recommended VMT Reduction Strategies
The impact of many of the control strategies described in Section
4.2.2 cannot be assessed in quantitative terms by themselves. In many
instances they constitute segments of more comprehensive programs which
can, based on experience in other communities and upon extensive mathe-
matical modeling of economic and transportation patterns, serve as a basis
for quantifying reductions in vehicle travel and resulting economic
consequences.
For example, the impact of the removal of curb parking for the
purpose of establishing exclusive bus lanes cannot in itself be quantified.
Most certainly, however, this among other innovations tends to improve the
overall quality of bus service that can be measured in total in terms of
experience in other cities. From the combination of strategies considered
by the Committee and by the consultants, three major strategies on which
the consultant believes that a quantitative assessment of reduction in
vehicle travel can be placed are derived.
The first of these is establishment of a regional bus network and
provision of a greatly improved transit service. The second strategy
hinges around provision of peripheral parking served by adequate access
to the central Area, and encouragement of the use of this peripheral
parking service. The third strategy hinges around encouragement of car
pooling for travel to the Central Area and the restraints necessary to
bring about increased car pooling.
Regional Bus Network and Improved Service
In 1969 the State of Colorado created legislation establishing the
Regional Transportation ~istrict. This District was given responsibility
for development of long-range plans for transportation--both highway and
transit--to serve the seven-countY Denver region. But such planning takes
time to develop and to implement. The City and County of Denver, therefore,
in 1969 retained the services of W. C. Gilman & Co., Inc., to develop a
short-range public transportation plan for Denver and to determine the
feasibility of public acquisition of the Denver Tramway Corporation. The
4-18
-------
Gilman study postulated three alternative levels of transit service for
the City of Denver. The first of these assumed that the present level of
service would be maintained under public ownership. Capital funds
sufficient to maintain a modern bus fleet and provide substantial improve-
ments to bus stop amenities were included. A modest marketing program was
also included in the plan.
Under the second alternative, it was assumed that the vehicle miles
and vehicle hours of transit service would be expanded by approximately
ten percent in the first year of public ownership and four percent each
year thereafter. Specific service increases would be developed by the
Schedule Department in cooperation with the Director of Marketing to
ensure that maximum system efficiency is obtained.
The third alternative system assumed a greatly improved service in
addition to increases in off-peak services in a new route. This alternative
provided for significant increases in suburban services, thereby making the
bus system more truly regional in scope. This third alternative is closely
aligned to the concept of a regional system recommended by a Transportation
Planning Advisory Committee to the Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission
In their report, Gilman pointed out the effect of a combination of transit
improvements coupled with proper marketing and customer relations was
difficult to predict. On the basis of experience in San Diego, however,
where public acquisition of the transit service was followed by a broad
program of improvements, the consultants (W. C. Gilman) estimated that a
target ridership increase of 25 percent over the first two years of public
ownership was a realizable goal. They further estimated that annual
increases of two percent per year would be postulated for succeeding years.
To accomplish. this, W. C. Gilman recommended that service be increased by
15 percent in the first y~ar, 10 percent the following year, and four
percent thereafter.
Transit patronage in Denver had declined from approximately 40
million passengers per year in 1960 to less than 13.5 million per year in
1971.
4-19
-------
On April 18, 1971, the City and County of Denver acquired the
transit system. Significant extensions of service into suburban areas,
new routes, and other service improvements were made and over the first
12 months of public ownership, ridership of the Denver Metro Transit
Service has increased to levels approximately 20 percent higher than
ridership during the previous 12 months. This represented an increase
from approximately 13.4 million riders in 1971 to approximately 16.2
million in 1972. Thus, it becomes apparent that the W. C. Gilman & Co.,
Inc. 's, forecasts of the potential increases in transit patronage which
might result with a significantly improved service will be more than realiz
able. Because these forecasts are based on far more extensive. study than
could be carried out as a part of this program, they are accepted for
purposes of this analysis.
On the basis of the W. C. Gilman & Co. forecasts and the accuracy
of these forecasts to date, it is estimated that bus patronage on an average
day in 1977 will be approximately 50 percent greater than in 1971, or 20
million passengers per year or a minimum of approximately 24,000 passengers
per day in 1971. Since the 1971 base year estimates of the vehicle miles
of automobile travel and the screen line analyses from which forecasts of
annual rates of increase in vehicle travel for the central area were
developed did not assume significant improvements in bus service, the
increased transit patronage resulting from the improved service is assumed
to have a direct effect on the reduction in vehicle miles of travel by
automobile.
Of the anticipated increase of 24,000 passengers per day between the
1971 base year and the 1977 projection year, it is estimated that approxi-
mately 90 percent will have destinations in the Core. Thus, the 24,000 bus
passengers per day increase will result in a reduction of approximately
21,500 auto passenger trips to and from the CBD core. It is assumed that
the entire 24,000 trips would result in reduction of automobile travel to
the 12 square mile central area. The resulting reductions in vehicle miles
of travel within various analyses districts would be as follows:
4-20
-------
. Within the Core three square miles -- 21,500 passengers at 1.1
persons per vehicle and 1.2 vehicle miles of travel would result
in a reduction of approximately 23,500 vehicle miles of travel,
or a 3.8 percent reduction in total vehicle miles of travel on
an average weekday in 1977.
. Within the Central Area 12 square miles -- 24,00 passengers diverted
to buses at 1.1 persons per vehicle times 2.5 vehicle miles of
travel results in a reduction of approximately 55,000 .vehicle
miles, or a 3.0 percent reduction in total travel on an average
weekday in 1977.
. Within the City of Denver, including the central area and the CBD
core, the 24,000 passengers diverted to buses at an average of
1.1 persons per passenger vehicle and an average trip length of
4.5 miles equals a reduction of approximately 100,000 vehicle
miles of travel, or 1.4 percent for the entire City of Denver
on an average weekday in 1977.
The above increase in transit patronage is brought about entirely by
improvements in service. The increase is not contingent on restraints, such
as increased parking fees in the Central Business District or other restrictions,
in order to become a reality. The total cost to the community of the improved
bus service is discussed in the W. D. Gilman & Company report of October 1970
and has been elaborated on by later studies by the Regional Transportation
District.
Economic justification of the improved service has been based on the
need to provide a more balanced regional transportation service and it will
be difficult to assess the proportion of the total subsidy being paid by
~,,- . ,
the City of Denver and the suburban communities that should be assignable
to resulting reduction in emissions and improvement in air quality which
would result.
Peripheral Parking
In their report entitled, "Parking in Downtown Denver" submitted to
the Department of Public Works of the City and County of Denver on April 1,
1971, Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc., estimated that the total demand
for travel to the Denver central business district core would increase
from approximately 270,000 person trips per day in 1970 to 320,000 person
trips per day in 1980. Assuming the transit patronage between these years
4-21
-------
could conceivably double, Voorhees estimates that the resulting impact on
auto driver trips to the central business district core will be an increase
from 138,000 one way in 1970 to 180,000 in 1980. This represents a 30 percent
increase over ten years, or approximately an 18 percent increase between the
base year of 1971 and the forecast year of 1977 considered in this study.
This would result in approximately 165,000 vehicle trips in 1977.
The Voorhees study recommended four new parking garages which would
provide downtown Denver with approximately 5,650 additional off-street
parking spaces. These were intended to meet the 1980 demand only in part
for additional parking required to meet the increased vehicle travel.
The estimated 138,000 vehicle trips to and from the central business
district core on an average day in 1970 represented approximately 30 percent
of the total vehicle miles of travel within the three square mile core and
20 percent of the total vehicle miles of travel within the 12 square mile
central area. Total travel through the core area will not increase at the
same rate as travel to and from the area. Based on the ~1980 Voorhees
projections of total vehicle trips to and from the core, it is estimated
that in 1977 these trips will represent 33 percent of the total vehicle
miles of travel within the three square mile central business district
core and 22 percent of the total vehicle miles of travel within the 12
square mile central area.
As a rebuttal to the Voorhees plan, the Plan Metro Denver Committee
in March 1972 presented an Interim Transportation Plan for the City and
County of Denver and other selected portion of the Denver Metropolitan area.
This plan recommenped es~ablishment of an extensive system of peripheral
parking facilities could have impact on reduction in future travel to the
critical areas.
4-22
-------
The City and County of Denver now encourages use of parking facilities
at Mile High Stadium -- bus service int~ the downtown area now operates from
the stadium at approximately five-minute headways during the peak period and
at greater headways during the off-peak. The buses enter the downtown area
from the west across 23rd Street. Usage of the stadium parking areas has
been disappointing, however. Until recently the parking rates were high
,
and buses between the stadium and the central area competed with crowded
city streets during rush hours.
Studies of a personal rapid transit (PRT) system now under way which
would provide some type of facility connecting the Mile High Stadium with
the Medical Center, and proposed parking facilities along Colorado Boulevard
could provide a spine along which other peripheral parking facilities and
bus interchange points could be located. Parkers and transit patrons would
then be able to gain access directly to the central business district core
without competing with surface traffic.
The proposed PRT system is still in the study stage and it is not
likely that it will be implemented in time for consideration as a part
of the control strategy aimed toward attainment of the 1977 air quality
standards.
The most likely means of connecting peripheral parking facilities
with the central area over the next six years will be buses operating on
surface streets. If a system of peripheral parking spaces could be
located three mile or more than the central business district core and
adequate bus service to the core provided, the resulting impact of each
5,000 spaces on total travel demands would be as follows:
,
Within the Core -- a reduction of 5,000 parking spaces times
a 1.2 times turnover in space usage times both an inbound
and outbound trip at 1.2 vehicle miles per trip would result
in a reduction of approximately 14,000 vehicle miles of travel,
or 2 percent in the total vehicle miles of travel taking place
within the three square mile core on an average day.
4-23
-------
. Within the Central Area --~5,OOO fringe parking spaces at 1.2
time turnover and one trip in each direction times 2.5 vehicle
miles of travel for each direction would result in a reduction
of approximately 30,000 vehicle miles of travel, or 1.5 percent
reduction in total vehicle miles of travel in the 12 square
mile central area on an average day in 1977.
. Within the entire City of Denver -- the impact of each 5,000 peri-
pheral parking spaces on total travel demand would be a reduct~on
of 30,000 vehicle miles of travel or 0.43 percent of total vehlcle
miles of travel demand within the City of Denver on an average
day in 1977.
Establishment of an attractive system of peripheral parking facilities
will not in itself attract vehicles to these facilities or result in reduc-
tions in the vehicle miles of travel within the central area or core.
Attractive service between the peripheral facilities and the core area must
be provided and restraints to discourage continued parking within the core
must also be established. These restraints could include such things as
a tax on core area parking, the income from which could be applied toward'
subsidy of the peripheral parking facilities. In addition, licensing
restrictions within the core area might also be established. Abolishment
of the 3,000 curb parking spaces remaining in the core could serve as
incentive to utilization of peripheral fa~ilities without creating an
economic hardship on operators of existing private facilities.
The exact extent to which utilization of peripheral parking facilities
could be stimulated by restrictions imposed within the core area cannot be
determined without more sophisticated economic analyses than are possible
under th~s study. The modal split, trip distribution, and economic analyses
being carried out by the Joint Regional Plannjng Program of which the
Council of Governments, the Regional Transportation District, and Colorado
Department of Transportation in' connection with their current development
of a long-range transportation plan for the Denv~r region should serve as
an excellent means of postulating the alternative restraints and the transit
feeder service necessary to encourage use of peripheral facilities.
4-24
-------
Car Pooling
The average vehicle occupancy rate in 1970 for all trips into downtown
Denver was 1.3 persons per vehicle according to the Voorhees parking study.
The average vehicle occupancy rate of work trips was 1.1 persons per vehicle.
80th occupancy rates are lower than nationwide averages and can be attributed
in part to the high vehicle ownership per capita arid the ease of automobile
travel in the Denver region.
The Transportation Planning Advisory Committee has suggested encouragement
of car pooling as a realistic means of reducing travel to and from the
central area.
If, for example, one out of every ten of the approximately 165,000
vehicle trips to or from the central business district parking study area
in 1977 (according to the Voorhees growth rates) were to carry one additional
passenger, the resulting impact on 1977 travel to the central area would be
a transfer of 16,500 persons representing 12,500 automobile trips assuming
an occupancy rate of 1.3 persons per vehicle. The impact of the reduction
of this number of auto trips would be as follows:
. Within the Core -- 12,500 automobile trips either inbound or
outbound at 1.2 miles of travel, a reduction of 15,000 vehicle
miles of travel, or 2.5 percent of the 1977 average daily vehicle
miles of travel within the core.
. Within the Central Area -- these same vehicles generating trip
lengths of 2.5 miles of travel each represent a reduction of
37,500 vehicle miles or 2.0 percent of the total vehicle miles
of travel into the central area on an average weekday in 1977.
. Within the City -- these same vehicles would 'have an average
trip length of approximately four miles in each direction and
would represent a reduction of 50,000 vehicle miles of travel,
or 0.7 percent of the 1977 average daily total for the city.
4-25
-------
It would not be realistic to assume that extensive car pooling could be
encouraged in the Denver metropolitan area entirely on a voluntary basis.
Certain control measures will be necessary for stimulation. The Committee
suggests the possibility of special licensing which would permit only
emergency or essential vehicles and other vehicles with, say, an average
occupancy of two or three persons to park within restricted areas of the
Central Business District.
A wheel tax or other form of taxation aimed towat'd discouragement
of second and third family automobile making such vehicles unavailable for
travel to work should also stimulate car pooling.
In conclusion, there appear to be three major strategies for which
reductions in travel by automobile can be quantified.
Establishment of the regional bus system which has taken place following
public acquisition last year and continued expansion in routes, headways,
and other services will have a directly measurable effect on usage of the
private automobile which will require no restrictions in order to be realized.
Establishment of the regional bus sytem and the improvements discussed
above coupled with restrictions such as:
. Parking taxes in the central area
. Wheel taxes discouraging second and
third family automobiles
will have a further impact on private automobile travel that can only be
measured in realistic terms through the types of modal split and sensitivity
analyses presently being undertaken by the Joint Regional Planning Program
under the sponsorship of the Denver Regional Council of Governments.
4-26
-------
Establishment of a series of peripheral parking fa~ilities at distances
one and one-half miles or greater from the central business area could have
an impact on reduction of travel within the core and the central area if
coupled with the following restrictions:
. Taxation on parking within the central area
. Removal of remaining curb parking within the
central area
The above strategy must be coupled with adequate transit services from
peripheral facilities and a favorable rate differential between the core
and peripheral parking facilities. The tax on core area parking could be
used to subsidize the peripheral facilities. The exact extent to which use
of peripheral parking facilities could be effective can only be determined
by actual demonstration and detailed trip distribution and sensitivity analyses
which are beyond the scope of this study.
Car pooling could have a significant effect on travel to the central
area if stimulated by:
. Special licenses restricted in the core area
. Parking taxes in the core area
. Removal of remaining curb parking and wheel
tax discoura9ing second and third family vehicles
Again, while numbers can be quantified for this strategy, they can only be
substantiated through more sophisticated modal split and sensitivity
analyses.
Other long-range strategies including development of an extensive transit
system in the Denver region, development of a PRT system in the central
business dis~rict and coordinated planning of land use and transportation
systems will also have long-range impacts which will extend beyond 1977 and
will not contribute significantly to automobile travel reductions in that
year.
4-27
-------
Other more severe strategies restricting use of the private automobile
could be recommended. These could be costly and subject to attack if
considered on the basis of the travel forecasts and air monitoring data
made available for use in this study. It is the consultant's opinion that
costly and potentially controversial strategies which would have a major
impact on the economic and social character of the Denver region should not
be recommended and would not be defensible until a more comprehensive network
of continuous monitoring stations can be established to determine the impact
of the more palatable strategies.
The percent reduction achievable for each area considered for VMT
reduction above is shown by Strategy 3 in Tables 4.2 - 4.5. In combination
with exhaust controls these measures approach the required CO reduction
shown by Strategy 4 and Strategy 5.
4-28
-------
4.4
OBSTACLES TO IMPLEMENTATION
Each of the major categories of air pollution control mea-
sures has a varying potential for effective implementation in the
Denver study area. The mail panel survey (l)of Denver area
residents indicated a greater awareness of a nationwide air
pollution problem than a Colorado air pollution problem. Accepta-
bility responses of various control measures were conditioned
by the financial cost to them, the degree to which they might Qe
limited in the use of their automobiles. and the inconvenience of
the control measures. Long-term measures. such as public trans-
portation improvements. generally are acceptable and desirable even
though reducing air pollution may not be the primary reason for
implementing this measure.
On other specific actions which would be required as
segments of other measures, the panel survey was inconclusive.
For example. a tax on all day parking, and any restriction on
non-essential auto travel had approximately as many respondents
for as against these measures.
The primary control measures reducing air pollution--
that of fitting control devices to cars and mandatory inspections
to assure the continued "effecti veness--seem to be the most acceptable
both to Denver citizens as represented by the Mail Panel and to
public officials contacted.
4.4.1 iiew Car Standards
The Federal new car polluti~n standards seem to have been
accepted and anticipated with little concern for increased costs
for new cars so equipped.
l-See Appendix E for complete discussion of the mail panel
survey.
4-29
-------
4.4.2. Vehi cle Inspection and Maintenance
With Colorado's experience in state agency inspections, two
factors must be designed into the inspection process and specifically
included in expanded enabling legislation. The inspection charges
must be reasonable--about 85% of the mail panel survey favored
a fee of less than $5 annually--and it must be convenient. Over
52% of the survey respondents favored inspections by the franchised
service stations and garages. About 36% favored state operated
inspection stations. During various discussions in Denver, some
opposition was encountered to having an inspection program imposed
on a statewide basis to solve a Denver metropolitan problem.
4.4.3 Retrofit of Pre-1968 Cars, High Altitude Modifications
The ease of adopting legislation to. r~qui re the installation of
retrofit devices on cars built before 1968 and adding high altitude
modifications to new cars will be directly related to the cost of
installing their devices. While 73% of the panel respondents favored
this action if it cost under $50, only 30% felt that it would be
justified at a cost of $200 per car.
Costs for retrofitting pre-1968 ~otor vehicles in the $200
range could be equal to or in excess of the actual market value of
the car. To the extent that this level of cost might eliminate the
2nd car in a family, it would be beneficial to reducing air pollutlon
from light duty vehicles. Although the ownership of older cars by
level of income is not known, this requirement could impose a serious
financial burden on lower income families.
With a $10 to $15 installation cost, the high altitude modi-
fication equipment presently available for installation on late
model Pontiacs does not have either the financ~al or social implications
of the pre-1968 retrofit devices. It is assumed that similar equipment
will become available for all late model light duty vehicles. '
4-30
-------
4.4.4 Vehicle Use Reduction
The predominant opposition (75% or better) to vehicle restraints
suggested by the mail survey indicates restraints are not measures readily
acceptable by the public. Suggested measures included such constraints
as a very hi gh ($500) regi st rati on fee, gaso 1 i ne rati oni ng, or tolls on
exit ramps of freeways.
Inherent to constraining the use of the automobile is the mandatory
provision of making available some alternative mode of transportation.
,
Therefore, the air pollution control strategies group envisioned improved
bus transportation with the motor vehicle use restrictions. The plan
suggests two traffic restricting measures in the study area of Denver:
(1) creating effective CBD peripheral parking; and (2) encouraging car
pooling.
More severe restrictions on the use of motor vehicles could be
recommended. However, on the basis of travel forecasts made available
for this study and limited air monitoring data, these measures could
become controversial. They will have a major impact on the economic and
social character of the Denver region. It is recommended that several
actions be undertaken to increase the ability to quantify the effective-
ness of these control measures before actually implementing them.
A network of air monitoring stations must be established through-
out th,,! re~io!'l to (1) obtain comprehensive air data for evaluation;
(2) determine the actual impact of the more' palatable inspection and
retrofit controls; and (3) to support the need for the more severe traffi c
restrictive controls. Traffic forecasts measuring effects of alternative
approaches to emission factors, and refinement of modal use and sensitivity
analysis also should be undertaken.
Based on these continuing studies, a greater refinement in the air
pollution analysis can be undertaken, pollution criteria reevaluated, and
more accurate quantification of solutions undertaken to support a greater
reliance on the appropriateness of the required control measures.
4-31
-------
Pending adequate basic data for imposing control measures requiring
massive outlays of public funds, economically impacting major areas of the
city, or requiring the resident to substantially modify his travel habits,
the less severe measures which can be initiated include the following.
4.4.5 Car Pooling
Encouraging car pooling can result in some reduction of air pollution
without major social or economic impacts. Respondents to the survey
indicated that 5-6% now participate in car pools, another 50% indicated
an interest in them, but only about 10% indicated that, if necessary, it
would be easy to get into one.
4.4.6 Peripheral Parking, Exclusive Bus Lanes
The two most acceptable motor vehicle restraints (60-65%) indicated
by survey respondents where creating exlusive bus lanes, and prohibiting
traffic or parking in the CBD. Any prohibition of traffic or parking in
the CBD, however, will require an effective program of peripheral parking
and transit within the CBD. Increased effectiveness of the present "park-
and-ride" program at Mile High Stadium, and the proposed "PRT"--Personnel
Rapid Transit--demonstration will be necessary. Both of these control
measures assumes an improved bus transportation.
4.4.7 Improved Bus Transportation
The improvement of the municipal owned bus service is currently
underway. The air pollution control measures have assumed that these
improvements will continue as planned and include such such service
improvements as: express bus service, exclusive bus lanes, peripheral
parking, IIPRT" personnel rapid transit, regional bus network, and greater
improved transit service.
Refinement of presently used mechanisms for furnishing bus service
outside the City of Denver, or additional legislation will be necessary.
Although major economic investments will be required, they have
already been justified as a cost of a balanced transportation system.
4-32
-------
.
4.4.8 Long-Term Measures
Planning programs have already been established and work is presently
underway to achieve the coordination of land use planning and transportation-
related environmental factors. and for a mass transportation network
throughout the region.
These acceptable long-term approaches to solving urban problems
are generally accepted by both the citi zens surveyed and the pub 1 i c
officials contacted. Although not initially justified for the reduction
of air pollution, they furnish one of the more acceptable long-term
measures to accomplish this goal;
4-33
-------
5.0 CONTROL STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION AND SURVEILLANCE
A definftive time and procedure schedule for an implementation plan
will require resolution of the questions pertaining to problem definition
and control measure effectiveness. Since many of these areas require
frequent evaluation to include the findings of on-going studies and
monitoring. it is recommended that the implementation plan be phased and
flexible in order to incorporate these refinements.
Such a phased plan is envisioned by the Colorado Air Pollustion Control
Commission Transportation Planning Advisory Committee; a rDugh draft of
this phased plan is shown in Appendix C. Th e plan consists of two major
elements; Regional Transportation (RTD) and Vehicle Use Reduction. A third
major element - a program for motor vehicle emission reductions through
inspection/maintenance and retrofit devices is now in a draft form and
is presented in Appendix C.
Surveillance checkpoints for this plan could be grouped into four
categories as follows:
Air Quality Checkpoints
Transportation Checkpoints
Legislative Checkpoints
Administrative Checkpoints
Possible checkpoints for the two phases of this plan and for each of
the three elements of the control strategy are discussed in the fOllowing
sections. and are summarized in Figures 5.1 and 5.2
5.1 AIR QUALITY CHECKPOINTS
Data concerning the completion of each Air Quality Checkpoint should
be obtained from the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado
Department of Health.
5-1
-------
I I
Air Quality ! !
I I
I I
I I
Transportation ! !
I ')" I
-
I I
I I
A A I I
Legislative I I
I I
c.n I I
I I I
N
Admi ni s tra ti ve A ~ A ~
I I
JF
1973 1974
Figure 5-1. SURVEILLANCE CHECKPOINTS
Phase I
-------
Air Quality
Transportation
Legislative
U1
.
W
Administrative
I I
A A A A: A A I
I
I I
I I
I I
A ! AA I
I
I I
I I
I I
I A I
I I
I I
I I
I ,
! ~ ! "
,
\, \
I I I I I I I I I I , I
JF
MA
MJ
JA
so
1975
ND . JF
MA
MJ
JA
so
ND
1976
Figure 5-2; SURVEILLANCE CHECKPOINTS
Phase II
-------
Phase 1 - The completion of Phase 1 scheduled for the end of 1974
would require the following:
1. Monitoring network complete by. December 1973
2. One full year of data from this network available
by December 1974
3. Evaluation of regional extent and severity of the air
quality problem on the basis of one full year of data
from the completed monitoring network.
Phase 2 - During the remainder of the interim program, air quality
data should be reported seasonally as a minimum to note any
seasonal trends.
5.2 TRANSPORTATION CHECKPOINTS
Phase 1 - The following checkpoints related to the transportation
data base and control strategy elements initiated during 1973 and
1974 should be considered:
1. Annual evaluation of VMT growth and origin-destination
data available from Department of Highways
2. Annual evaluation of projected regional transportation
growth to include modal split analysis and demand
elasticity modeling; data available from DRCOG.
3. Completion by December 1974 of high altitude testing and
evaluation.of inspection/maintenance and retrofit
alternatives; data available from Colorado Air Pollution
Control Commission
Phase 2
1. Completion of strategy element implementation by July
1976; data available from the Colorado Air Pollution
Control Commission and the Air Pollution Control
Division of the Colorado Department of Health.
2. Semi-annual evaluation of transportation related emissions
by the Testing Laboratory of the Air Pollution Control
Division of the Department of Health.
5.3 LEGISLATIVE CHECKPOINTS
Phase 1
1. February 1973 - enabling legislation drafted by the
Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission.
5-4
-------
2. July 1973 - enabling legislation adopted by the State
Legislature
Phase 2
1. July 1976 - enabling legislation implemented by the Air
Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department
of Health
5.4 ADMINISTRATION
The degree of implementation of the control measures should be
summarized and evaluated every six months to ensure compliance with
overall control strategy. This could best be done by requiring the
implementing agencies to make status reports to the state and regional
control agencies.
5-5
-------
APPENDIX A
AIR QUALITY AND EMISSIONS DATA
-------
THE PROPORTIONAL AIR QU ~ITY MODEL
The emission reduction required for carbon monoxide was determined
by use of the roll-back technique.
Calculations are as follows:
R = ~ X 100
A ---B
where:
A = Cmax = 24.6 ppm (8 hr. ave)
B = background concentration = 0
C = national standard = 9 ppm
R = 24.6 - 9.0 = 64
24.6 - 0 .
The emission reduction required for hydrocarbons was determined by
utilizing the relationship given in Appendix J of the Federal Register
(vol. 36, no. 228, Nov. 25, 1971, p. 22413).
The maximum peak hour oxidant reading for 1971 was considered to be
0.12 ppm. This requires a 32% hydrocarbon reduction.
The Gifford-Hanna diffusion model was applied to Denver in the "Six
Cities Study" (1). The analysis showed the model is inadequate to describe
the maximum concentration conditions caused by a combination of stagnation
accumulation and channeling effects. However, the diffusion pattern for
max concentration conditions could be useful in land use planning. A
sample isopleth of the eight-hour maximum concentration dispersion
pattern predicted by the model is shown in figure A-l. Numerical concen-
tration values are not adequate for comparison with ambient data and
should not be used for planning purposes.
(1) TRW, Prediction of the Effects of Transportation Controls on Air
Quality in Major Metropolitan Areas, Nov. 1972
A-l
-------
I
BOULDER COUNTY --J
JEFFERSON COUNTY I
I
I
I
r-------,
" I
, I
, I
,
I
OCKY MOUNTAIN I
ARSENAL :
I
I
I
r------.J
Fig. A-l Sample Isopleth
Isopleth No. Den. 1
City Denver Year 1970 Strategy Uncontrolled
Pollutant ~ Case ~ Time Period 8 hour Total
Units mg/m~ Federal Standard 10 mg/m3
A-2
-------
EMISSION FACTOR CALCULATIONS
The equation for calculating emission factors is shown be10w:(1)
where.
n+1
e = ~
np 1=n-12
ci di mi si
enp = emission factor in grams per vehicle mile for
calendar year n and pollutant P.
C.
1
= the 1975 Federal test procedure emission rate for
po11ut nt p (grams/mile) for the ith model year.
at low mileage
= 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 ~f the vehicle model year distribution).
= the weighted speed adjustment factor for the ith model
year vehicles.
d'
1
m.
1
s.
1
ci is based on a recent study:of light duty 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.
(l)D.S. Kircher and D.P. Armstrong. "An Interim Report on Motor Vehicle
Emission Estimation." Environmental Protection Agency. October 1972.
A-3
-------
mi
- v x D
- LV X D
V = fraction of each model year vehicle in USF on December
31 of year
D = average miles driven of 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.
A-4
-------
CALCULATION OF TOTAL EMISSIONS
Total Emissions (tons CO/day) = E = [.0011 (eL VM\ + eH VMT H +
eD VMTD)]+ Es
e = emission factor. gm/mile
VMT = daily vehicles miles traveled x 10-3
Subscrips:
L = light duty vehicle
H = heavy duty vehicle
D = diesel
Es Stationary source emissions
listed above)
(all sources not
A-5
-------
PPM
30
20
10
PPM
0.20
0.10
"
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
I \
\
\
\
\
\ -'\ "
\ // \ / \
~ / \
\\ / \
'- / '--
- -
-------------------------------
Federal Standard
J F M A M J J A S 0 N 0
Fig. A-2
CO (t.1ax) eight-nr. monthly ave. (1971)
- -- Federal
" ././ -- --"'"' Standard
--~---~--~~--------------~---- I
, ~ -_./ \
......./
\
\
J
M
A
J
J
A
o
F
M
S
N
o
Fi g. A- 3
Total Oxidants Peak Hr. Monthly Max. (1971)
A-6
-------
APPENDIX B
TRANSPORTATION DATA BASE
-------
TRAVEL FORECASTS
In 1970, the Colorado Department of Highways prepared summaries of the
total vehicle miles of travel per day for the Denver Region. These data
were coded for use in the Six Cities Studies being carried out for Denver
and five other metropolitan areas for the Environmental Protection Agency.
These summaries were prepared by analysis zone for an average day in 1969.
The 1969 summaries were prepared from the program of volume counts made by
the Highway Department in that year. At that same time, forecasts of 1990
vehicle miles of travel on an average day were made utilizing travel assign-
ment 1990 origin and other forecasts techniques.
The 1969 and 1990 travel forecasts were distributed by the Consultants
to a square-mile grid system which encompassed 625 square miles of the
Denver region (See Figure B-1). The area of the grid corresponds approxi-
mately to earlier areas defined for transportation and urban planning
studies. The area included all of the City and County of Denver and
parts of Adams, Arapaho, and Jefferson Counties. The travel distributions
were used in air pollution modeling in connection with the Six Cities
Studies. For the current studies, it was necessary to update the 1969
data to 1971 travel volumes and then expand them to 1977, the target year.
The 625 square mile area ~as subdivided into control areas to obtain
separate totals of travel rules for Denver, and the segments of Adams,
Arapaho, and Jefferson Counties included.
In addition a 12 square mile analysis area within the City of Denver
was defi ned as the "Central Area". Thi s 12 square mi 1 e a rea is four mil es
in height and three miles in width. It lies to the south of 52nd Avenue,
one-half mile north of FAI 70 and to the east of FAI 25 as far as Colorado
Boulevard.
A three square mile critical analysis area within the Central Area
was defined as the "Core". The three square miles encompass the district
bounded by Laramir Street on the northwest, 20th Street and 20th Avenue
on the north, Logan Street on the east, 13th Avenue on the south, and
Speed Boulevard on the west, traditionally defined as the Central Business
District in earlier studies.
B"71
-------
126
101
76
51
26
I
-- BO LJLD RC .~ V ~ --
JEF FER ON OUI TV
!
I r- - - -,
,
, I
, ,
: "
,. ROI KV \.tau TAl'" I
! ' AR! ENA I
I
I ,
1 I
I I - - - r--
~ I?~ Sf~ ~' tvJ ..r- I' I
,/ ,,- ": - L.
",.,
IV GC DE~ ~ L...-
1\
\.~ ., I r-
(' I
I ~ I I' .- ,- r-- --
~ I I AR !'PAI OE our TV
.., ! I!
:
~, -, ~..., j-J -
I I.
,
r "'1 ...., !
I I I
"'lr r:
, II
>:1>
~ ~
g~?
z
0
11:.
III
::;
.,
601
576
551
526
501
476
451
426
401
376
351
326
301
276
251
226
201
176
151
Fi gure B- 1
Denver Gri d
B-2
-------
In 1971 another comprehensive volume count program was undertaken in
the Denver region. Data from this program served as the basis for updating
the vehicles miles of travel in the 12 square mile Central Area and the
three square mile Core Area.
For the remainder of the City of Denver and the other three counties,
1971 vehicle miles of travel were determined by expansion of the 1969 travel
summaries. Volumes in 1965, 1969, and 1971 from the counting program were
compared across various screen lines. On the basis of these comparisons,
it was determined that the growth rate over the two years had been approxi-
mately three percent per year compounded for the City of Denver, five percent
per year for Arapaho and Adams Counties and approximately six percent per
year for Jefferson County.
The resulting total increase in the vehicle miles of travel within
the 625 square mile area was from 10.0 million vehicle miles of travel
on an average day in 1969 to 11.4 million vehicle miles of travel on an
average day in 1971.
The same screen line analyses were used as a basis for determining
future growth rates to 1977. It is estimated that there will be approxi-
mately 14,700,000 vehicle miles of travel on an average day in 1977 in
the 625 square mile area..
A summary of the 1971 and estimated 1977 vehicle miles of travel for
the five major analysis zones in the Denver Metropolitan Area are shownn
in the table below.
B-3
-------
City and County of Denver
Adams County (within grid)
Arapaho County (within grid)
Jefferson County (within grid)
1971
Average Day
VMT
6,000,000
1,750,000
2,600,000
1 ,050,000
TOTAL
Central Area (12 square miles)
Core Area (3 square miles)
11 ,400,000
1,650,000
560,000
1977
Average Day
VMT
7,000,000
2,700,000
3,600,000
1,400,000
14,700,000
1,850,000
610,000
For the 12 square mile Central Area, historical volume count data
indicated that vehicular travel was growing at a rate of approximately
1.5 percent per year compounded in the lower part of the Central Area
which included the Central Business District to approximately three
percent per year compounded in the northern part of the area.
App1ic~tion of these growth rates to individual square miles indicated
that total travel within the 12 square mile Central Area would increase
from approximately 1,650,000 vehicle miles of travel on an average day in
1971 to 1,850,000 on an average day in 1977. Total travel within the
Core Area three square miles would increase from approximately 560,000
vehicle miles of travel on an average day in 1971 to 610,000 in 1977.
While the three square mile area designated as the Core represents
only one-fourth of the land in the Central Area, the Core'generates
approximately one-third of the total vehicle miles of travel in the 12
square miles.
B-4
-------
Tab 1 e B- 1
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL (VMT)
FOR THE CENTRAL AREA
DENVER, COLORADO
1971 1977
Grid by Computer 1971 by Computer 1977
Number by Others by DCCo(l) by O,the rs by DCCo(2)
287 135,800 200,000 151,700 220.000
288 330,200 240,000 263,800 260,000
289 213 ,900 180,000 263,900 196 ,000
312 227,400 210,000 55,100 230,000
313 163,500 140,000 53,300 154,000
314 126,200 70,000 158,100 84,000
338 116,600 200,000 136,100 220,000
339 87,300 50,000 112, 8aO 60,000
340 56,600 35,000 37,600 42,000
364 108,800 100 , 000 138,600 120,000
365 81,600 100,000 100,700 120,000
366 75,300 100,000 53,800 120,000
Tota 1s 1,723,200 1,625,000 1,525,500 1,826,000
Say 1,650,000 Say 1,850,000
(1)
The twelve (12) square miles calculated from Denver Metropolitan
Area Traffic Map for the year 1971.
(2)
Projected by 1.5 percent and 3.0 percent per year compounded as
appropriate for each square mile.
8-5
-------
Table 8-2
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL (VMT)
FOR CORE AREA
DENVER, COLORADO
1971 1977
Grid by Computer 1971 by C.ompu te r 1977
Number by Others by DCCO(l) by Others by DCCO (
288 330,200 240,000 263,800 260,000
289 213,900 180,000 263,900 196,000
313 163,500 140,000 53,300 154,000
Tota 1 707,600 560,000 581,000 610,000
(1)
The three square miles calculated from Denver Metropolitan
Area Traffic Volume Map for the year 1971.
(2)
Projected by 1.5 percent per year compounded.
8-6
-------
Table B-3
FOR THE
CATHER & COMPANY CALCULATIONS AND FORECAST
OF VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL (VMT)
FIVE ZONES IN THE DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA
FOR THE YEARS 1971 AND 1977
DE LEUW,
1971 1977
Zone Vehicle Miles Vehicle Miles
Number of Travel of Trave 1
1 1,050,000 1,400,000
2 2,600,000 3,600,000
3 4,350,000 5,150,000
4 1,650,000 1,850,000
5 1,750,000 2,700,000
Tota 1 11 ,400,000 14,700,000
8-7
-------
APPENDIX C
COLORADO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - RECOMMENDED
PHASED STRATEGY ELEMENTS
(ROUGH DRAFT 11-30-72)
-------
~"~!t
Ii" t~c: se
~a
:3':;~;AL T':'~iS?O?,~t,'lo"'-RTCL -i---- ----!-----i~ --J~~T=-:-C~CC:~--I'
t I : ; . ; i ! I '_'n -1 :
;,. ;;oG:~;~~h5~~T/Pc:RAT:NG ~~lIS~;;:Tl9N:::t~ ~'''~ '
~ ~:_-"'.'::::'~'~I~-~-~'-"'~
1.£":-"':",'.2EO S:ci\VIC[ I I ; i ! i : !
2.~G\';"~:T.O~ OF EX:S,ING I ! m ~- !-q~~--~~~l-+-
?L;SUC L:O:ES i,-- '+-+-'OOI--'-+--[---"! .1:"
:;.P~;:::,:->~~~L ?;"ni'RY
'. EX~"NC~ DEL.IVERY
S~h\/::E
2. F~SL!C ::"Jv;:::;;;!C~
;::,
'-'
D:R,,:T
L L .:.~iT ED t':SE UCENS'E
PL.ATES
~. V::-.::'£L i;.X - 2r.'d Car
3. ~:";TO F ~E~ ZO~~S
n
I
--'
'i I
._-t-----I
:-]
I I
l-- _-l~~_L~J~L~_J=~;:...j~~lJ~_j----' L~[j'I---
I !. j ! I ; : , I I I J
,. j--u_-!..; ...! i ..-. i u..-I-..--: ..- 1- - 1-'1"" ..---
i---i-c:-i---:----;----i----; -j--t.--.+-+-- ----
I : -. j" , , . . '''j- ---I . - l.. ..' ---l--- n J
1-- '"1--," ; I ! ' : 'I----!-'-~-'I-I --j
i +':+==:,; .:i~i.i, ~~!li.j:j+J.: ;:-1
~ j 'i I' I, 1=1=
I-~~L_. !-==l=C~!~-=-[=-I="I"-_c +~---~= '.....- --
~--~-~L1--1 ! I .
~... i '''''''': '"'' I -'"' I ... j~l1 :;..~ ...,,, ! ",,,,',.. I ""'" ........~ ',<1'''' I
Fig. C-l.
f- l--I----- '-- '--1, .-- , ..~ ~' ---1-- II~- i -
L --1-----1--. ---
----1--- !--_.,I__- _m _On' --, 1...:..- , _! - - ! :.__:
L-1 " I I ! i ' ,
r:=-I---' .. ___I'_n_.--- : -~:- -. : -- -r=-I--: "--1=:- "',
~-r ----r---i-- --:-1--i--,---," , un.
I~_....' ''':=1-=1-- ---.j ~-I- _L=-L~l. n- i :..J~..:: .
I -t-T" 1 ;. : '
1-:_..-:i:WT~C: : :... !==IJ:~:-:"
,---.'- I .'--
Ior.D;11 I ,..~.t1 I . ".I:-r-;::;,~ r
,
jU~d' nW,IU\ 1oUI~~'
..,
J' 14 n.. ._,
Rough Draft of Phase 1 of Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission TransportatiQ'n
Planning Advisory Committee Recommendations
-------
T P"~.0'2t: ~ 2
.L at iI~ w!J";'~
R<:G,):';'~ TR":-;SP0RTAT'ON-mJCT.-~~~-~--::-~:-=---;-- I. -.-1.. i__--~__- ~-~-I -I. -I
f---+-i i. :~._i m. - i ! -~;:f1
A. "'<;'o'1"~T"oeE"''''.! - i=r=]! ul i~L_;-:-+-+-r-I' E
,-- L--'+-r-l_L-r-- - I r
~'.:::~:~~~,~~ o~:v;~S~rNG I---I..n !--~ l~--I---i -.- i'---+--1-~ ,-- -I~I--- - --I ;F
?"S'n L'~ES Ir-~~--: -r---j--r---r--T-'-----'--'j-'-- ;:
3.P<:R!?~E~~ ?;~KING :.n '-:I --:---_.,- :.--, ---I--'--I'--!-- ---!--:-'-'i----I~
FEEDE~ PLAZAS . J~- r~-~i~~ ~-~!-~--T--: -~-r~r-~I-~--~~'I-T-~: ~
4. R"GiONAL EXPRESS L_j--_l__..L--I- -'~'I' __L-I---!~J_-- r- !_- - _1 (j)
SCiNiCE-PLt.ZAS r-. i-I-.oj..-.!---. -- ! -- ,- --! -~:..L_.._L_.._i .--1 8
5 EXCLUSiVE 6LS LA'~ES 1_--L___-2--L_L- :___L._J._J--=_:.._L --i~L_- ~
6.f(C:TAILE"s '.,CEN1IVC: I'. ! _I .;...: _.: - ! . .1 - ! -hi - 1-.--. ~ - I.. ~
. I J I L ~: :,:! I : -c
("')
I
N
B.
TR..\'~SPORT;:"T ON PlM?;!NG
Ai" RESCURCS MGT.
]I.
\/EH~CLE USE
Ri:: eUCT I ON
A.
VOU,;:l:TARY
I. EXPANO::D OELIVE RY
s" ;/'1 ;CE
2. r ..:5:..:C C:vUC~ T iO.\J
'"
D.
DIRC:CT
I L HI.'TE:D US<: LICENSE
PLATES
2. V!HE:::~ T~,X -- 2nd CQr
3. AUTO FRES ZO;o.;<:5
.' .'.. ~~~.~.". >'" .','..~.','5;,;-,,'i"~2:;{.1;{\ '. '....',1~".'i";';;'; ,. ,.;,' ";})~r/ ,\. ,,~' ;;>." '
J"
"
r-
I ! i Ii' : ! ; ! ' , : I'~
1 -- !; - . ,-' -, -- I:! : -- ! -- ; 1-----: --'1 - ~
I=~i-~~~~-:~ ~t--:-~-! -:-~-~ - :--_:~~--j' ~~~: t--~~t=-:r~--1~(~r~=1 ~
r-1--I----i--r--i.--t-'--+---I-,----t==- ;u'---1--1 !;
I" I Hi -. -j- ---- ;", ' i -- --I' :-':' 1-- '-:---- !.- '- j 0
L_:-,_l------+__l___-:---I---J---+---1, - _I I ..j ~
J : ! I ! : . i , .,' - ,---'r-----IC:
'"
.' . "-,,', ,
, ,
" .', ': -' '-" - - - '" -, _:__:,./~-,~ -'-"': :.".", ' '.'/","'_c:~ - " "!~,:'::,X:~ : --(",~:~ ~;~~{<:7::1~"~:,...::~-- -'t.:~"'~~.~-}}>',.,. .,.\.;-~.~
, .. !... .,;' I
:.--.---1.----: ..---1...- :-:'~i--- I
~~~~~~!~~~G:~" ~, : :. I ~
I I . .
~:.~~~:~~J --- : I ~
~I ';~'~'oHl .I&.~' ! m, i "~1 ! '''~ I ...' I ".'" i" m'~~:. ~ ~": ~-r:;:;::;.-! ~'-..m --
--- ,"--75'---,--,' ,--
I
... t -
I
! _u- I
_I
,
.1
i
~:. .: '~;:"-i'--:-' -'-::., <',~ ;-;-'- ~~~':':'...-:,~_:~:-~~:y.-,<' ,':>:.: "':~~-';.
SJW 11-3(,-72
Fig. C-2
Rough Draft of Phase 2
-------
VEHICLE INSPECTION PROGRAM
EXPAND VISUAL INSPECTION
REQUIRE RETRO-FIT
REQUIRE EMISSION TESTING
REQU I RE ALTITUDE ADJUSTMENTS
DEVELGP PROGRAMS FOR:
PUBLIC EDUCATION
STATE TESTING FACILITY
MeCHANIC & INSPECTOR TRAINING
REGULATING TUNE-UP PROCEDURES
(""')
I
W
POll CE ENF ORC~ENT
~.. '-. lIT
-. -~ ~n - l~- - 1--' .__n -_. .-- . L- .' -- _u- -- I
---_u. ----.'-u.- -.--- ,-. -. __-un nn - _1._. .' 'u'-- -- -.-.[---.1- ---.-
L- ,i["G ' , ,,""! "
~jil7~/P~~J!- I ' h- . ., ,
I..-.lm- __Ji. i--- I -1.--.1__- i . -I . I J'
~ I - .- _n~&1L~Q.N- '/-1
1-+=-- . l=i-j....j .1 ,+ 'm~"-
FfJl--+----L-- -- -'-~f-'$<;lTS-1!---\;;
~- ---:-i- -. lu.J --j----. '---J _I ,-
-. I . ,.-i-- --~._._-! .
--==Jll_1T1= i _J J I'. il
I , +-. , . " ~
I
I":'
I
.r-r~
":~:ft':~:/,~~r.f~r::'~:'~'-f'~~:/.~~~{~~~:j~~--:,;-~,-,~---;!-%';-;t:1:~~:~:;~~:~~~:f~'~~7_,':}:_~::Jr-,', _..Y,' ,:; ~/:.-;,:" : - -' .': ~::, ,., ""-"':--'-:-. .:. ~.,:_:-~. -\~~-
5D)~: ..,,~:-'~.:~:~,;).;~->;:-\,,:':::~;jJ~-':>:!,:'~;~f'X\i: ",.: -:::.:-._}':~l~:i:.~~~~:,;K:-: :"~~:",-:':~f;'_';-. ~~'_. --;;:-::'-:.:.':'''--:::~~S-:-.~' ' -': '. .-':,-- -~ ~;,... ,,::'.-',.;:
'-:.5X";<{;'<.,':" ,;\ '::; ;", \';. o.IIII.'I-/,;:'H'!;;:.' \~ .':"rfi;/ .. ...:,/ ,;". . -f',. .' ','
-I
I
_n! .-
I [
I I
1-- n i
n. -- --r--
-~-L.~ ; .--=-~ . L ..
i -
!----
l
+-
l-. _u- ..- - . ...... -.-
, .
-.-- J
'. ,,' !
I
1- -..
l-.---j_n-In..~-; : -- 1.- i - .!
- ----I .. B"~Jc:i)1 CAJj .J)EIVt.=Lcr'PI..;/I."J
. ---j-.--l--~~~'/\' ':JyJ;C,--- ~~~/'_~/~~::~_- ~
-- i
-:',:' /-:: :'- ....':; ". 0 ,',', .--' :':':' ,I,:,,:: ;~- ,~~.J.:; :_'j}J;~/~:":J-~::.t~;i~.'f:~J/~;:'i:_::.~t:~,;~f~~~~*~f:tl'¥~'~';~~~~tti~:.i€~_:'.¥43{\~:b~?:~-;~if~'m~~:;!f\'
-------
APPENDIX D
DATA AND DOCUMENT LIST
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF TRAFFIC DATA REFERENCES
DENVER, COLORADO
Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc. Parking in Downtown Denver.
A Study of the Off-Street Parking Needs of the Central
Business District Core. Prepared for the City and
County of Denver. Denver, Colorado. April 1971.
W. C. Gilman & Co., Inc. Denver Transit Study. Prepared for
the City and County of Denver. Denver, Colorado. October
1970.
Nelson. Haley, Patterson, andQQuirk Ecodesign. Advanced Urban
Transit Technology Study. Prepared for the Regional
fransportation District. Denver, Colorado. October 1972.
Morris, John. An Interim Transportation Plan.
Denver. Denver, Colorado. March 1972.
For Plan Metro
American Trasit Association. ~onthly Transit Traffic. Denver,
Colorado. Various months.
State Department of Highways, Division of Highways, State of
Colorado. Colorado Traffic Volume Study. Colorado. 1968.
-----' Traffic Volume on Urban Freeways in Colorado. Three
Volumes. Colorado. 1966, 1968, and 1971.
Transportation Planning Advisory Committee. Report and
Recommendations. Prepared for the Colorado Air Pollution
Control Commission. Colorado. October 4, 1.972.
Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc. Vehicle Age Distribution
Data. June 1972.
INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, TEKNEKON, INC. & TRW lNC.:
Evaluating Transportation Controls to Reduce Motor Vehicle Emissions
in Major Metropolitan Areas - An Interim Report. Environmental
Protection Agency, March 1972.
STATE OF COLORADO:
Colorado Air Quality Implementation Plan.
January 1972.
NORTHROP CORPORATION:
Department of Health,
Analysis of Vehicie Emission Inspection Programs. California Air
Resources Board
Vehicle Emission Inspection and Control Program - Summary, Vol. It
November 1972.
0-1
-------
REGION VIII AIR QUALITY BRANCH STAFF:
A Report to the Transportation Planning Advisory Committee, E.P.A.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH:
"Air Pollution Model for Metro Denver" - Grant Proposal, November 1972.
"Objective of Northrop Study in Colorado" August 1972.
"Discussion Before Chamber of Commerce" September 1972.
"Report to Transportation Planning Advisory Committee" August, 1972
"Proposed Colorado Program for Motor Vehicle Emissions" November 1972.
COLORADO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
"Recommendations Summary Outline" November 1972.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
Title 40 - Protection of Environment, 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
TRW:
Prediction of the Effects of Transportation Controls on Air Quality
in Major Metropolitan Areas, November 1972
NATIONAL AEROMETRIC DATA BANK:
1971 Monthly Peak Hour Oxidant and Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide
Air Quality
ARMSTRONG, D. AND D. KIRSCHER:
An Interim Report on Motor Vehicle Emission Estimation - Draft,
October 1972.
D-2
-------
APPENDIX E
AUTOMOBILE AIR POLLUTION QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
AUTO AIR POLLUTION QUESTIONNAIRE
DENVER METROPOLITAN AREA
The questionnaire shown in Figure E.l was sent ot a panel of resi-
dents of the Denver Metropolitan Area to obtain their views on factors
affecting auto air pollution and potential control measures. A total of
204 usable questionnaires were returned. The sample was selected by
Consumer Mail Panels to be representative of the population of the area
in terms of income level and age. Annual family income (1971) of re-
spondents was:
Less than $8.000
$8,000-$15,000
More than $15, 000
35%
46%
19%
Their home locations were distributed as follows throughout the
Denver Metropolitan Area:
Location
Number
of Respondents
Percent
of Total
Denver
Lakewood
Arvada
Longmont
Boulder
Evergreen
Littleton
Aurora
Wheatridge
Englwood
Other Communities
98
21
11
9
8
7
7
6
6
6
35
48
9
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
17
204
100
Each respondent was asked to indicate the number of autos owned
in his household. Answers were as follows:
No car
One car
Two car s
Three or more cars
2%
30%
50%
18%
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. .
E-l
-------
I.
All autos made in 1975 and thereafter will be equipped' with emmision control devices to reduce air
pollution. If in 1975 you owned a car built before that year, >ow would you feel about a law.!:!:.
quirinr. you to put emission control equipment which might cost $200 on your car? ("X" BELOW)
How would you feel about this law if the cost was reduced by government subsidy to about $50?
("X" BELOW)
z.
Feeling Toward Law:
Very much in favor of law. .
Somewhat in favor of law. . .
Somewhat against law. . . . . .
Very much against law. . . . .
1.
(165R)':'
Cost $200
10.3%
20.6
15.2
53.9
2.
(201R)
Cost $50
49.8%
23.4
11. 4
15.4
3a.
Even cars properly equipped with emmision control equipmer.t might still pollute the air if the equip-
ment was not properly maintained. How would you feel about a 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
59.1%
Somewhat in
favor of law
26.1%
Somewhat
against.law
8. 4%
Very much
against law
6. 4%
3b.
Assuming you ~ to have your car inspected at least once a year, what would you consider a
reasonable cost for the inspection? (WRITE IN AMOUNT)
$
4.58
(mean)
Five percent of the respondents answered "nothing" to this question. The
most frequent response (29. 1 %) was $2.00, followed by 21. 4 percent of the
panel who answered $5.00 and 18.9 percent felt that $1. 00 was an appro-
priate charge. The following is a tabulation of the mean value by car owner-
ship status of the panel member's family.
No car
One car
Two cars
Three or more
cars
$32.83
4.46
3.36
5.28
*-lndicates number of respondents.
(165R) = 165 respondents.
E-2
-------
3c.
Assuming you ~ to have your car inspected at least once a year. where do you think the inspection
should be made.? ("X" ONE ONLY)
At state-operated inspection centers.. . ..
At city-operated inspection centers. . ....
At local service stations or garages. . . . .
At some other place (Specify):
35.8%
7.8
52.5
3. 9
The "other" responses to this question were varied. A few members of the
panel suggested that inspection should be accomplished and supervised by the
State at various locations.
E-3
-------
4a.
To Me This. Plan Is:
CJ
-
QI I-< ..0
- 0 QI QI (tj
..0 Z:D ~- ~
III QI 111..0 0.,
~ ~ I-< QI.f1 ~.f1 QI
0., 111- u
QI ~..o QI-o. ~ 0., u
u ~.f1 -E~QI (!) (!) (tj
U QI 0. ...., +J (J e Z; r:: j
- 0 u u ~ U) r:: >.
,.. CJ)« ub b I.;
QI « QI
> >
-,-
Even if all autos were equipped with properly maintained
"mission control systems, some cities might still have auto
air pollution problelTIS due to the large number of cars
eilhe r on the streets at the same time or concentrated in
particular areas. Listed below are several 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.
Gasoline 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-
ne s s dis tricts. . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . .
A tax on parking in central business dis-
tricts regardless of whether a person
parked only one hO\H or all day. . . . . . . .
Tolls on exit ramps of major freeways
and expressways.. .... . . . . . . . . . . '.' . . .
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
is suance 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 means for each answer.
E-4
+2
tl
o
o
2.9
O. 0
6. 9
1.0
6.4
5.5
12.7
7.0
4.0
10.0
,
30.4
7.0
19.9
8.8
16.7
33.3
,
18.2
27.1
12.3
12.3
10.0
..
18.5
15.0
14. 5
2. 5
13. 9
18.8
5.4
3.5
8. 9
9.4
17.8
13. 3
'-27.6
,
12.3
9.4
3,4.8
,
26.5
9.3
10.8
-I
-2
,
71. 1
86.'6
,
59.2
10.8
30.0
42.0
,
59.4
,
60.4
37.4
18.6
-------
4b.
Which of the proposals listed above would be the most acceptable?
(Give Letter:) d - 35.0%
j - 34. 0%
4c.
Which would be most unacceptable?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(Give Letter:) b - 53.8%
a - 32.7%
QUESTIONS 5-8 ASK FOR INFORMATION RELATT"'!G TO OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.
CONSULT THEM. IF NECESSARY. FOR THE AN8WERS.
Sa.
How often do the various members of your household tra.vel 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. 6%
1.6
3..8
2,.7
86.8
3.3
2. 0%
3.0
5. 0
13.4
76.6
O. 0
5. 4%
1.8
2.7
1.8
49.0
39.3
E-5
-------
Please rate e"d\ household member's reason for using public transportation. (Rate the most
in1port:\l\lrc-;;-;';;' "1", the next most important "2", the next "3", etc. If a household member
neveI' uses public tran5porlation, "X" tIle "never use" box at the bottom of the list.)
Please rale each household member's rC<1.sons for traveling by auto. Follow the same procedure
as in Question Sb. (WRITE IN BELOW UNDER 2.s,)
CON CENSUS RATING
5b. Public Transportatiof' : 5c. Auto
Children:
(Over 16 :
Years Old) : Husband
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
5b.
5c.
Reasons
Husband
Wife
a.
Cheaper. . . . . . . . . . .
b.
Faster. . . . . . . . . . . .
c.
More comfortable. .
d.
Safer for pas s eng er.
e.
Less congested.. . . .
f.
More availc..ble. . . . .
g.
!V1U L t:
.LICA~01,: {I ~~1'l
sr::s
CO~y1~.fE!'rTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: ----NOT APPLICABLE-----
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ----NOT APPLICABLE-----
I
I
I
I
I
I ----NOT APPLICABLE-----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
------------------------------------------------j---------------------------
I
I
I
come and go as
I please). . . . . . . . .
h.
More relaxing (able
to read while
traveling). . . . . . . .
i.
Need car during the
day.. .-...........
j.
I do not have a
driver's license..
k.
Car is not available
when I need it . . . .
1.
Other (Specify):
m. Never use ("X" Box)
160/1;78
155/202
E-6
55/68
7
3
5
8
6
1
2
4
3/178
Transportation
Children
(Over 16
Years Ole
Wife
6 7
3 3
5 6
8 8
6 4
1 2
2
1
4
5
SEE COMMENTS
9/202
13/68
-------
Comment on Question 5b
There were too few responses to draw meaningful conclusions
from this question.
Comment on Question 5c
Respondents indicated that one of the main reasons for driving
was lack of mass transit near their residence.
E-7
-------
Sd.
Again, consHlting other members of your household, please rate in order of effectiveness which items
below you fecI would be most effectivc in encouraging the use of public transporation. (Rate the most
effective it<'tn a "1", the next most effcctive "2"" the next "3", etc.)
Items:
Husband
Cleaner and newer vehicles. .
7
Faster travel. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Air- conditioned vehicles
9
More frequent service. ; . . . .
1
Lower fares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Parking facilities at stops or
stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Shelters against bad weather
at stops or stations. . . . . . .
6
Better security to assure
personal safety. . . . . . . . . . .
7
More conveniently located
stops and stations. . . . . . . .
2
. Other (Specify):
E-8
CONCENSUS RATING
:hildr en
Wi::~ (OVE 16 Years Old)
8 8
3 2
9 9
1 1
4 3
5 5
6 6
7 7
2 4
-------
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. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19.4%
31. 1
32.7
6. 1
10.7
IT it became necessary to restrict the number of cars on expressways and street. 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. . . . . . . . .
E-9
31.3%
11.-3
28.1
14.4
7.2
2. 1
5.6
-------
7.
One of the major causes of areas of high pollution is traffic
congestion. Pollution could be reduced if traffic cOngeslion
and slop-and-~o traffic was rcduced. Listed below arc
Bcvcral idcas for reducing traffic congestion. Please tell
me how cffcctive you think each of these ideas would bc in
rcducing congestion and pollution. ("X" ONE BOX FOR
EACH IDEA)
Idea:
a.
Prohibit parking, loading and unloading
on busy streets. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .
Increas c the number of one-way streets. . . .
Establish reversible lanes on busy streets
to be used during rush hours. . . . . . . . . . . .
Prohibit turns at busy intersections during
rush hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widen rnajar streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.Widen H'.ajor streets at intersections only. .
Providl~ pedestrian underpasses and/or
o ve r pa sse 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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
A
49.0
28. 1 A
19.8
38.5
40.2.
6.8
A
42{ 6
67.7
13.0
34.4
+1
42.9
53.9
A
43.1
A
34.4
37.6
43~ 7
38. 1
27.7
A
59.6
A
43.1
o
6. 1
17.3
17. 3
18.5
17. 5
35.3
18.3
4.6
25.9
12.8
o
-I
2.0
1.0
19.8
8.7
4. 8
14.2
1.0
0.0
1.6
9.7
Several comments and ideas were expressed with regard to the above question.
Some panel members feel that mass transit will solve much of the pollution
problem.. Others thought that if the core area, or downtown, was made a
vehicle-free zone, it would help decrease pollution and improve pedestrian
cir cula tion.
A- Indicates the weighted mean for each answer.
E-10
-------
8.
Since traffic congestio' t .
one It t. f dn l~ mos severe at hme s when people are going to or coITling from work,
a erna lve or re uClng congestion Id b
times of the d . wou e to have people start and stop work at different
ld k fay. That lB, Borne people would start work at 5:00 AM and quit at Z'OO PM others
wou wor rom 7:00 AM to 4 :00 PM others from 1 . . ,
this idea? ("X" ONE ONLY)' 0.00 AM to 7:00 PM, etc. How do you feel about
Very much in favor. . . . . . . . .
Somewhat in favor. . . . . . . . . :
Indifferent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Somewhat opposed. . . . . . . . . .
Very much opposed. . . .... . .
33.3%
31. 3
15.7
12. 1
7.6
9a.
Please record the model year of each car owned in your household. (WRITE IN BELOW
UNDER .2!.)
9c.
Please estimate the number of miles each car was driven in the last year.
(WRITE IN NUMBER OF MILES UNDER .2!:!. BELOW)
For each car, please estimate what percentage of last year's mileage w~s accounted for by
driving outside your local metropolitan area. (For example, vacation, business trips,
short w"ekend trips, etc.) (WRITE IN BELOW UNDER .2£)
9b.
9b. 9c.
9a. Last Year's Percentage of Mileage
Model Year Mileage Outside Local Area
Car # 1 1969 10,935 29
Car # 2 1967 9,056 27
Car #3 1966 7,279 26
Car #4 1966 4, 500 21
E-11
-------
lOb.
9d.
How many licensed drivers are there in your household?
(WRITE IN)
Number of Licensed Drivers:
2. 1
(Avg.)
ge.
If better public transportation were available, would you consider disposing of any of the
cars you own?
Yes
Maybe
No
11. 2%
22.4
66.4
9f.
1.1
How many? (WRITE IN)
cars
lOa.
Overall, how serious a problem do you think auto air pollution is in your city? (tlX" ONE BOX
UNDER ~ BELOW)
Overall, how serious a problem do you think auto air pollution is nationwide?
UNDER l.Q!:. BELOW)
("X" ONE BOX
lOa.
City
lOb.
Nationwide
Very serious problem. . . . .
Serious problem. . . . . . . . . .
Slightly serious problem. . .
No problem at all . . . . . . . . .
39.3%
29.9
24.4
6.4
55.1%
39.4
4. 5
1.0
E-12
-------
11.
If you have any views or comments regarding any question or idea, please record them:
Fourty-seven respondents (23 percent of the panel) added comments
at the end of the questionnaire. Fifty percent Qf the comments were in
favor of a better mas s transit system for the area to help reduce the need
for private cars. Twenty percent felt that older cars, buses and trucks
contribute more to the pollution problem than cars. The remainder
thought that if laws were enforced to reduce industrial pollution, the prob-
lem would be solved.
E-13
-------
~
~E
CONSUMER MAIL PANELS
323 SOUTH FRANKLIN STREET. CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60606
(2-C796)
Dear Panel Member,
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 problem of air pollution caused by automobiles.
As you know, autos a~e a major source of air pollution-especiq.l1y 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 car s manufactured in 1975 and thereafter.
Many pollution experts believe, however, that despite these new federal regu-
lations on auto air pollution, othe l' ways will have to be fottnd to further reduce
pollution caused by cars. The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain your
reaction to the se new auto pollution control ideas being sugge sted by the
experts. In answering some questions, you will probably have to consult
other n1embers of your family to get their ideas and reactions. I an1 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,
/~--. -K-----
£-14
-------
FIGURE
(CONT'O.J
~~~~~.~I!!~~_. - [;]
(Z-C796)
AUTO AIR POLLUTION QUESTIONNAIRE
13
1.
All autos made in 1975 and thereafter will be equipped with. ernm.ision control devic-es to reduce air
pollution. II in 1975 you DWI1ed a car built bdore that year. how would you feel about a law re-
quiT"in~ you to put emission control equipment which might coat $200 en your car? ("XU BELOW)
How would you feel about this law it the coat wa.s reduced by government subsidy to about $50?
("X" BELOW)
14-16
Open
Z.
FerHng TowaY'd Law:
Very much in favor o! law. .
Somewhat in favor of law. I .
Somewhat against law. . . . .
Very o)uch again!>t law. . . .
1.
Cost $200
01
02 (J 7)
03
04
01
02(18)
03
04
2.
Cost $50
3a.
Even cars properly equipped with emmision control equipment might still pollute the air if the equip-
ment was not properly maintained. How would you {eel a.bout a law requirin):: periodic inspection of
the emission control system to assure th~t it 'V.o.s working properly? ("X" ONE ONLY)
V;::o~:~~a~ 01
S~:::h:ft lianw Dz
Somewhat 03
against Jaw
Very much 04
aga.inst law
19
3b.
Assuming you had to have your car inspected at least once a year, what would you consider a
reasonable co::>~r the inspection? (WRITE IN AMOUNT)
$
20D:J21
3c.
.Assuming you had to have your car inspected at least once a year,
should be mad;?'" ("X'I ONE ONLY)
At statc...operated inspection centers .01
At city-operated inspection centerl. .02-
At local service stations or garages .03
where do you think the inspection
.At lome other place (Specify):
04
Z2
4a.
Even if all autos were equipped with properly maintained
em.ission contTol systems, some cities might still have auto
air pollution problems due to the large number of cars
either on lht" streets at the same time or concentrated in
particu1ar areas. Listed below are several possible way.
to reduc.: pollution under one or both of the5~ conditions.
Please tell me how you fee! about ~ of these proposals.
("X" ONE ON EACH LINE)
Propos...}:
a. Gasoline rationing ......................... 01 02 03 04 Os 23
b. Very high 1$500) registration fee pel' auto. . . . . . . . . . 01 02 03 04 OS Z4
c. Very high ($500) registration fee per auto but only 01 OZ 03 04 05 zs
for the second, third, etc., auto. . . . . . . . . . .'..
d. Prohibit traffic and parking in central business districts 01 02 03 04 05 Z6
e. A tax on ~ parking in central bUlinc8s districts.. 01 OZ 03 04 Os 27
f. A tax on parking in central businel!ls districts regardlc,. 01 [JZ 03 04 OS Z8
of whether a person parked only one hour or all day
8. Tolls on exit ramps of major freeways a.nd expres,way. 01 02 03 04 OS Z9
h. Tolls on exit ramps of major freeway. aDd expreslway. 01 Oz 03 04 Os 30
but only when traffic was heavy. . . . . . . . . . . . ..
I. R~striction5 on non-essential auto travel during time. 04
01 high pollution by hsuance oC special license 01 02 03 05 31
plates or vehicle sticker. .. ............ ...
j. Turn .ome existing lane. into "bu. only" and "car pool OJ OZ 03 04 05 32
only" lane8 on major expre8.sway. and .treeh. . ..
4b. Which oC the proposals lilted above ....ould be the malt ac("eptable? (Give Letter:)- 13
4c. Which would be most unacceptable? ,.. ,...... ,... ,..... (Give Letter:)- 34
E-15
-------
FIGURE
(CONT'O.,
Poge 2
IZ-C196)
I
QUESTIONS 5-8 ASK FOR INFORMATION RELAT""G TO OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMDERS.
CONSUI.T "fHEM, IF NECESSARY, FOR TIlE A!'<"WERS.
I
So.
flow often do the various member. of your household travel by public tranaportation?
ample, by bue, 8ubway. or COlnmuter train.)
(For ex..
Three or more Urnes a week.
One ,or two time. a week. . . .
~
...01
. ..OZ
.. .03 (35)
.. .04
.. .05
.. .06
Wife
Children
(Over 16 Vear. Old)
...01
. ..02
.. .03 (37)
.. .04
.. .05
,. .06
Onc'e a month. . . . . . . . . . . .
...01
. ..02
.. .03 (36)
.. .04
\.. .05
.. .06
Once every three month. . . . .
Neye-t.. . . . .. . . . .. .... .
No ~ftoul!lchold member. . . . . .
5b.
Please 1'at(" ~ hbusehold member's realon for usinB public transportation. (Rate the most
important 1",won "I", the next most important 112'1, the next "3", etc. If a household member
never u8eB':\~lic trantSportation. "X" the "never use 11 box at the bottom of the list.)
Please rat~!aCh household member'. rc..on. lor tnveling by auto. Follow the oam. proeedun
as in Quee n Sb. (WRITE IN DELOW UNDER ~) :
Sb. PubHc Transportation I
Children i
(Over 16 :
~ Yf'ars Old) : ~
_(40) :..._(41)
_(46) :... _(47)
_(52) :... (53)
,-
_(58) :... _(59)
_(64) :.. ._(65)
_(70) !... _(71)
g. More llexible (1 can come :
and go as I ple..e)... _(15) _(16) _(17) i" ._(18) _(19)
I
I
: - - - -- (Not Applicable) - - - --
:. . . _(24) _(25) _(26)
,
,
licen.e. . . . . . . . . .. _(27) _(Z8) _(29):
I
k. Car is not available when - :
I need It.......... _(30) _(31) _(32)!
I
I
_(33) _(34) _(35)!. . . _(36) _(37) _(38)
--_.__._--------.------..-..._-...._-_._..~._-_._----------.-----..
m. Never u.e ("X" Box) . .. 01 02 03 (39) :... 01 02 03 (40)
~
~
Sew Auto Tr'ansportatic;>n
Children
(Over 16
~ Years Old)
5c.
<5.. Cheaper............
_(38)
_(44)
-(SO)
_(56)
_(62)
_(68)
_(39)
_(45)
_(51)
_(57)
_(63)
_(69)
_(42)
_(48)
_(54)
_(60)
_(66)
_(72)
_(43)
_(49)
_(55)
_(61) (74-78
_(67) open)
_(73)~
Cd. ~
_(20) Dup.
1-14
b. Faster.....,........
c. More corniortable . . . . .
d. Safer {or passenger. . . .
e. Lees congest~d ~ ',',0 .. . .
f. More available ~ .~~: . . . .
h.. More relaxing (able to
read while traveling). .
i. Need car during the day.
j. 1 do not have a driver'e
_(21) _(22) _(231
- - - - - (Not Applicable) . - - ..
- - - - - (Not Applicable) . - - --
- - . - - (Not Applicable) -.. --
I. Other (Speclly):
5d.
Again, consulting other member. of your household. plea8e rate ill. order of .a.cdv.... which item.
below you reel would be most effective in encouraging the ule of pubUc tranaporadoa: -(Rate the mOlt
effective item a lilli, the next mOlt effective "2", the next 11311, etc.)
CIIIld".
~ ~ ~ (Over 16 Vena Old)
Cleaner and newer vehicles. . . . . .. _(41) _(42) _(43)
Faster travel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _(44) _(45) _(46)
Air-conditioned vehicle.. . . . . . . . ., _(47) _(48) _(49)
More Irequent .ervice. . . . . . . . . .. -(SO) _'51) _(52!
Lower fare. """""" ..... _(53) _(54) _(55)
Parking facilitle. at stop. or .t_tion. _(56) _(5.7) _(581
Shelter. agalnet bad weather at .top.
or ItaUonl ........ ""'00 _(59) _(60) _(61)
Better security to assure personal
..fety. . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _(62) _(63) _(64)
More convenh:ntly located .tope
or .taUon. ............... _(65) _(66) _(67)
Other (Spcclly): .171-78 open)
_(68) _(69) _(70) 79~80
E-16
-------
(2-C796)
6&.
Pa,. 3
now would you or other houlehold member. leel about travel1nl to and horn work In a car pool?
("X" ONE ONLY)
Very Interested. . . . . . ,01
Somewhat intere.ted... .OZ
Not at allinteruted . . . .03
Already In car pool. . . . .04
Do not travel to and from 05
work by car. . . . . . . .
6b.
U it became nece..ary to restrict the number of car. on exprel.way. and streets in order to
reduce pollution and car pools became necel.ary. how difficult do you think it would be to get
1nto one an existing onc or organize one amongst your friends, neighbor. and/or work a..odete..
("X" ONE ONLY)
Extremely dillicult. . . . .01
Very difficult. . . . . . . .02
Somewha.t difficult. . . .. .03
Somewhat ea.y .. ~ . . . .04
Very ...y. . . . . . . . . . .05
Extremely ealY . . . . . . '06
Already in car pool. . . .07
7.
One of the major causes of areas of high pollution 11 traffic
congestion. Pollution could be reduced il trdlic conge.tion
and stop..a.nd...go traffic was reduced. ListE:d below are
several ideas lor reducing traffic conge.tion. Please tell
me how effective you think each of thcse ideas would be in
reducing congestion and pollution. ("X" ONE BOX FOR
EACH IDEA)
~
a.
Prohibit parking, loading and unloadIng on bU6Y street.
Increase th~ number of one.way streets. . . . . . . . . . .
Establish reversible lanes on busy ..treeh to be 'Used
during rush hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prohibit turns at busy inter.ectlons during ru.h hour. .
Widen JT\ajoZ' street s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widen major streets at intersections only. . . . . . . . . .
Provide pedestrian underpasses and/or overpa..e. . . .
bnprove tindng of traffic eignals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b.
c.
d.
o.
l.
I.
h.
I.
Increase the number and lrequency of radio traffic re...
port. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
Turn lome exiating laDel into "bu. only" and IIcar pool
only" lanel on exprea8ways and bu.y .tr'eeh ....
Your idea. (Ple.le Lilt):
J.
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02 03 04
02 03 04
02 03 04
02 03 04
02 U3 04
02 03 04
02 03 04
02 03 04
02 03 04
02 03 04
02 03 04
01
01
01
Since traffic congestion is mOlt severe at times when people are going to or coming Irom work,
one alternative lor reducing conge.tion would be to have people start and atop work at dl.llerent
times 01 the day. That is. some people would .tart work.t 5:00 AM and quit at 2:~O-PM. other.
would work from 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM, other. from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM, etc. How do you leel about
thlo Idea? (''X'' ONE ONLY)
8.
Very much in favor. . . . .01
Somewhat in favor. . . . . O~
Indlf£eunl. . . . . . . . . . .03
Somewhat opposed: . . . . ()4
Very much oppo.ed. . . . . Os
(PLEASE CONTINUE ON THE NEXT PAGE)
E-17
FIGURE
(CONT'O.)
Cd. 3
Dup.
1.\4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Z3
24
25
Z6
27
u
-------
, --=-.-
FIGURE
Page 4.
(Z-P96)
9b.
Please record the modol year at each car owncd in your household.
UNDER ~)
Plp;,\8c t!stimate the number ol miles each car was driven in th.e laat yeara
(WRITE IN NUMlIER OF MIl,ES UNDER ~ BELOW)
(WRITE IN BELOW
90.
9c.
For each car, plcasC' estimate what pCTc("nti1~c of last Yf'ar's mileage war; accouht~d for: by
driving ouhide your local metropolitan area. (For exalnple. vacation, business trip8.
short weekend trips, etc.) (WRITE IN BELOW UNDER ~)
9b.
1~8t Vear'..
Milea ~e
90.
Model Yea r
9c.
Perci!:ntage or Mileage
Outside Local Area
Car HZ
-'"
z9crD31
3zcrD 34
3scrD37
38crD40
Car HI
_'!.
Ca r "3
_%
-'"
Cor 14
9d.
How many liccnslod drivers are there in your household?
Number of Licenl5cd Drivers:
(WRITE IN)
041
9..
Ii bcttt"r public transportation were ava.ilable. would you consider disposing of any of the
cars you own?
Ye, oil - ,
Maybe []~ 9f. How many? (\\RITE IN) _caT67
No 037
4Z [I] 43
lOa.
Overall, how serious a prohlem do you think auto air pollution is in your city?
UNDER ~ BELOW)
Overall, how serious a problem do you lhink auto air pol1utiOD is nationwide? ("X" ONE BOX
UND~;R ~ BELOW)
("X" ONE BOX
lOb.
Very serious problem. . . . a a
SC'rious problem. a a . . . . . .
Slightly !Ie dOlls problem. . . .
No problem at aHa. . . . a w . a
103. City
01
Oz (44)
03
04
lOb. Nationwide
oJ
Oz
03 (45)
04
11.
1£ you have a.ny views or (..omments regarding any question or idea, pleaee record them:
(46-78 open)
79I:]DJO
Th~nk you lor your help. Please check your answers and then return the questionnaire to me in the
enclosed postage-paid envelopca
E-18
-------
APPENDIX F
VEHICLE EMISSION INSPECTION AND CONTROL PROGRAM
-------
~~\)~~:;:~R.~'2 ~~f]~J
(" '=-~~~=-~~:-'~
II i 1""'1 r',! j
j i ; I...J j 'I
j! -, "..i ,
, i". 6.. R-~.....J t
l' " ','''--'','''' ..
- "J
tj'i',i: C:YrY'~
t:. -V :..$'i..-;,~'; ':-::....~' ~ \: ~
V~~~1-'~.J!"i"""'II'I'"" 'f'~ 7:'1~' '\''''C:~~YI!'''~,
\ h~!~ { !~ \~ ; ~ i'''~ ~ ~ ~ ,: ;\;',~ ~ .~, ~~~"" ~.; . I \ ~!
.,W..",L.o.I."'~; -'....1...-" -_...\_..-i>..J~)'_.\.}.~~
J"1' ~I 0'"'Y''' ,'-"'1">':'1"[ (" -;:..,. "" 1'<; '\
i -,~,~.... \-,'<' ,-1)', L: ~ h ,';,! "'..'.I-""~'~' :1-1;1
~ . , U J~ -... V ~ .I'" ...11 J... ..I: .:~.... .~ ..';..J'
",,",,: Jf"\', 1,:\'.n...~ 0 ~
i' Ie !, \, ".,''1'.' .' ~
V~ '.;.h AIJ Ad
D 1<';,\ ~, ,0 T'~ !~ 'R fJ
~'" ~-j),\.: i;" "IT,ft :-" ,'i"
.a... .a....,.~ 'q,J'I....... (,/.- .u....."...\
FIN ~~ ;-, T{ 'i;\Dor 'P
j"" ,.,.i..- 1.\. J..:.JJ.. . \, .-
VOLUM~ I
S l! p/ t r-v; J\, ;~ ..~'
;!(:f!~-~E;~:~\
~.., ',,' : ' ," ":",,,::>:,,,':',,:\\
1ft ,? /.. :' , , , ," ~'J;.:\, ." '~
Ii r:~/(.;,.: , ) ,'.. ";;<:'\'~:':"\\
" ", I" " ':' ... ,,', .,: '\' }\\
~';,~ji;":i" "j',:, :,:f,';i~~'; J'
'\ ' " - '.. ", I
. I .' I';' " ...: \~ . i" ',;J '
\ .;.' \: , ,.,' , /:~',1
\ !I,\.. .:\\ '~;'t~ I.'
\\'I~ "" ,:' ",/ .,':/
\' "', .", ,..',' ,..,\/.;
'~,c.:" "~.:.:.~:' ."',,;,
~, ..,"""'-'l
~"";~"4~::;;i:J ~.:..~~~
c~!:)r~~.~ l~ ..;:}~:~ 'Lt~::~~~?~~~.::~j~ n~EC.
t... SlJb~idia~ V (:f :,;o~ i'~p)~' (.v;p::r,Hion
F-l
-------
VEHICLE EMISSION INSPECTION
AND CONTROL PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
VOLmfE I - SUMMARY
Prepared under Contract Agreement
dated 25 May 1972
with the
State of Colorado
Department of Health
Approved by
15 November 1972
OLSON LABORATORIES, INCORPORATED
A Subsidiary of Northrop Corporation
500 East Orangethorpe Avenue
Anaheim, California 92801
F-2
-------
FOREWORD
The State of Colorado recognizes that the air pollution problem is brought
about and influenced by the grm,ing number of citizens and their greater de-
pendence on motorized transportation, increased affluence, more industrial
developments, and changing social values. Accordingly, the Colorado legisla-
ture, through the Air Pollution Control Act (1970), created the Air Pollution
Control Commission and charged it with the responsibility to use all available
practical methods to reduce, prevent, and control air pollution throughout the
entire state.
The Commission has determined that. one of the major contributors to Colorado
air pollution is the motor vehicle of which the majority are light-duty pass-
enger automobiles. The Air Quality Implementation Plan for the state of
Colorado, developed in accordance with the-requirements of the Federal Clean
Air Act (1970), identifies several alternative strategies directed at auto-
mobile emissions reduction which, in combinations, could assist the State in
meeting established Federal air quality criteria.
These strategies include mass transit systems, car pools, limited vehicular
traffic patterns, restricted commercial business district parking and/or
cruising and staggered work schedules. Each of these is intended to effect
a reduction in the daily use of passenger vehicles~ Other strategies involve
the periodic inspection and maintenance of light duty vehicles and the installa-
tion of emission c~ntrol devices on a retrofit basis. All of these strategies
have advantages and disadvantages.
To determine the technical and economic feasibility and the public acceptability
of a vehicle emission inspection and control progra~, the Co~~ission selected
the Northrop Corporation to conduct the study after a review of four responses
to a request-for-proposal. This investigation .las conducted in accordance ..dth
the terms specified in the Contract Agreement, dated 25 May 1972, between the
State of Colorado, Department of Health, and the Northrop Corporation. The
final report is documented in three volumes. Volume I, Su.rn::;.ary, briefly des-
cribes the study objectives, methodology, findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions. Volume II, Technical Analysis and Results, describes in detail the
anal~~ical tasks and results of the investigation. Vol~~e III, Appendices,
contains pertinent data and information used in the investigation.
F"-3
-------
ACKNOWLEJ.X;MENTS
This f'inal report was prepared f'or the State of Colorado Department of' Health,
Division of' Air Pollution Control, and for the .Commission on Air Pollution
Control. The total investigation required 24 weeks of' concentrated ef'fort and
support Involving many organizations, without whose cooperation this contracted
study could not have been completed within the established economic and time
constraints.
The coordination of' various activities, reviews, meetings, and discussions
relative to the study was managed by Mr. Lane Kirkpatrick, Technical Secretary
of' the Air Pollution Control Commission, and his staf'f.
The Air Pollution Control Division, under the directorship of Dr. Gerald Wood,.
compiled and analyzed data on Colorado vehicles, estimated future vehicle
population growth trends, determined cost elements unique to Colorado, developed
computer programs to analyze. the Arizona vehicle emissions data, performed
emission testing at Alarnosa and Denver, and completed many other tasks essential
to the conduct of this study.
The Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles, through Mr. Richard Love,
Supervisor of Motor Vehicle Dealers Administration, discussed and provided
information concerning the existirg vehicle safety inspection program.
The Advisory Cowmittee on Motor Vehicle Emissions, under the chairmanship of
Hrs. Laboyt.a Garnand, League of ~lomen Voters, and comprised of members from
the Colorado legislature, environmental and ecologlcal groups, petroleum
retailers, motor vehicle dealers, Legal Aid Society, EPA, Colorado State
University, and other interested groups, provided guidance and recommendations
on various socio-economic factors. As related to statewide emission control
programs, some of the topics discussed were inspection and maintenance financing,
lml'-income vehicle owners, certification of inspectors and service technicians,
and consumer protection plans.
The Colorado Automobile Dealers Association assisted in the survey of its
members to determine the types of problems current vehicles are experiencing,
average costs for typical types of emission-oriented maintenance, in-house
availability of emission measurement equipment, and' general training and
qualification profiles of representative dealer facilities.
The state of Arizona, Department of Health, Division of Air Pollution Control,
Vehicular Emissions Control Section, through special arrangements with the
Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission, provided the mobile emission test
unit ana tcc~nieians for some emission testing in Colorado. Additionally,
through the cooperation of I'IT. Arthur Aymar, 11mI' Ass.istant Director of Air
Pollution Control, emission test data on several xhousand vehicles tested at
various ei~tudes in Ari7.ona were provided.
F-4
-------
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, through the courtesy of
Mr. Dale Wells, provided a preliminary copy of the study report describing a
contracted vehicle test project conducted by Automotive Testing Laboratories,
Inc. of Aurora, Colorado. The test and service data on a fleet of 75 1968-1972
vehicles were immeasurably helpful in calculating emission p~ofiles and program
effectiveness.
Opinion Research of California, under subcontract to Northrop, developed the
public opinion questionnaire, selected the samples, performed the survey,
compiled the data, and interpreted the results.
F~5
-------
SUMMARY
STUDY BACKGRO:UND
The Colorado legislature, under House Joint Resolution No. 1012, directed the
Department of Health to conduct a study for the Air Pollution Control Commission
concerning the feasibility and problems of controlling motor vehicle emission
through a statewide implementation of an inspection and control program. ~~ny
issues were cited in the resolution that need to be investigated and evaluated
prior to making any policy decision.
This report documents the study conducted for the Health Department by the
Northrop Corporation, in association with its subsidiary Olson La.boratories,
Incorporated. It describes the overall,methodology, findings, conclusions,
and recommendations such that the Department of Health may have, sufficient
information from which it can derive its recommendations to the Governor and
the General Assembly.
GENERAL STUDY OBJECTIVES
The overall study was designed to evaluate the technical and economic feasibi-
lity, and public acceptability of a vehicle emission inspection and control
progrfu~. To facilitate the investigation, the study tasks were 'defined in
such a manner that their ~ompletion would provide answers to the following
types of questions:
Is a statewide implementation of.~ehicle emission inspection and
maintenance a viable and practicable program?
What emission reductions can be achieved through such an imple-
mentation?
vfuat problems would be encountered with urban and rural applica-
tions of such a program?
Would the safety and economical performance of motor vehicles
be affected?
~~at degree of participation should the State and private sector
have in vehicle inspection and maintenance?
vfuat are the program implementation and "operating costs to the
State?
F-6
-------
What are the social and economic impacts on the vehicle owner?
How would the public react to a periodic vehicle emission inspec-
tion program?
GEli8RAL STUDY CONCLUSIONS
Investigation of the technical, economic, an~ social aspects of a vehicle
emission inspection and control program indicate that:
.
Mobile sources are responsible, in general, for about 92 percent
of the carbon monoxide (CO), 87 percent of the hydrocarbons (HC),
and 62 percent of the oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emitted to the
Colorado atmosphere.
Mobile sources' contribution to Colorado air
the same for each AQCR except Region 8 where
ficantly less CO and NOx'
pollution is relatively
it contributes signi-
Vehicle emissions of HC and CO at Colorado altitudes are signifi-
cantly higher than at low-altitude cities.
C>
Periodic vehicle emission inspection coupled with emissions-oriented
maintenance is one feasible approach to achieving reductions in
emitted HC and CO.
Key Mode inspection, which involves testing the vehicle under
dYnamic, s"imulated road-load conditions using a chassis dynamo-
meter, is more effective than Idle inspection.
For emissions inspection unly, State operated facilities are more
cost effective than privately operated facilities.
Q
For combined vehicle safety and 7missions inspection, modifying
and updating the current safety inspection program employing
private facilities would be more cost effective than establish-
ing new state facilities.
"
The private sector should perform emission-oriented maintenance
regardless of which sector performs the inspection.
Ii)
Installation of emission control systems on pre-l968 vehicles
on a retrofit basis appears to be another technically and
economically feasible approach to emission reductions. Further
testing of selected systems is recommended at various Colorado
altitudes.
The high-altitude modification packages des"igned by Pontiac
Motor Division in Denver appear to be effective in reducing
emissions of 1972 GM vehicles. Further testing is recommended
on other vchicles at various Colorado altitudes to validate
this approach.
F-7
-------
.
The opinion slurvey of urban and l~ral Colorado residents determined that
the majority of the residents (72 percent) identify the auto-
mobile as the greatest contributor to air pollution.
Majority of the residents (81 percent) yrould approve of a vehicle
inspection and control program.
Majority of the residents (83 percent) believe that the programs
should be equally applicable to rural and urban residents.
Majority of the residents (65 percent) feel that all vehicles,
regardless of age, should have emission control systems installed.
Residents were divided on who should conduct emission inspections,
\-lith 49 percent favoring private stations, 44 percent favoring
state operation, and 7 percent undecided.
Residents expressed a definite lack of knowledge with respect
to the cost of emission-oriented vehicle maintenance. Seventy
eight (78) percent did not know what a realistic amount should be.
Majority of the residents (94 percent) definitely favor the
current vehicle safety inspection program.
TECHNICAL FF~IBILITY AlTALYSIS
A requirement analysis was cond~cted that considered current trends in Federal
regulations affecting vel1icle emissions standards and measurement, the past
and current efforts to reduce and control emissions, the effects of vehicle
maintenance on emissions, the altitude effects 0:'1 vehicle emissions and per-
fonnancc, and other related backg:'ound informati.:m needed to formulate the
investigation. ~vo alternati~e inspection concepts, Idle and Key Mode, were
analyzed functionally and operationally to define the requirements in terms
of total facility instrumentation and personnel staffing. The requirements
for overall program management and administration were also defined. ~fO
facility ownership and operation arrangements were evaluated, state operation
and licensed private stations. The general conclusions from this task are
that:
C'J
Equipment and technology are presently available to perform
vehicle emission inspection and maintenance.
A statewide network of facilities will require modification
to existing equipments to be used for large-scale commercial-
grade, hi~l volume inspection.
F-8
-------
.
The Air Pollution Control Commission and the Air Pollution Control
Division have analyzed the GM high altitude compensation concept.
Emission tes't data on several vehicles indicate that significant
reductions in HC and CO may be achieved, with NOy,: increasing.
The concept, which involves carburetor modifications and idle
parameter ad,;ustments, would be implemented on a retrofit basis.
This study did not investigate the applicability of this concept
due to the lack of documentation relative to the experimental
design and project. However, further effort is recommended and
discussed in subsequent paragraphs on this matter.
EFFECTIVl.2,mSS ANALYSIS
To evalunte and compare the alternative inspection and control programs, an
effectiveness measure was developed that considered the effects of maintenance
on exhaust pollutants, vehicle population and grmrth, model-year age distri-
bution, average miles driven per age group, anticipated inspection failure
rates, and the degradation effects of vehicle usage on em~ssions. Due to
economic and other considerations, Northrop Corporation did not perform any
ernission testing during this study. Because of extensive testin~ conducted by
other investigators (discussed in Volume II), it was determined that sufficient
data existed to calculate the effectiveness measures. ~fO emission testing
projects were completed during the course of this study, one by the Colorado
APCD and the other by the EPA, Region 8. Results of these two studies were
incorpor&ted with the other investigations to arrive at the following conclusions:
(It
Both Idle testing ,and Key Mode testing followed by emi~sion-
oriented maintenance of failed vehicles will result in reductions
of HC aJJd CO as shmm be 1m.,.
Calendar HC (fa Reduction)* CO (% Reduction)*
Year Idle Key I.lode Idle Key Mode
1973 5.2 9;.1 6.7 7.2
1976 4.7 8.4 7.0 7.0
1979 4.2 7.6 6.8 6. r(
1982 3.5 6.7 6.0 '5.7
* Based on 30 pe'rcent inspection failure rate and 50 percent emission
degradation of serviced vehicles. Vehicle population, distribution,
annual mileage, and annual growth varied to reflect historical
Federal and State data.
Emission testing at 30 percent inspection failure rate is nearly
as effective as at ~O percent failure rate in terms of emission
reductions of HC and CO.
Key l'10de emission tesing at 30 percent inspection failure rate
is nearly as effective as 50 percent failure rat€ in terms of
CO but significantly less effective for HC reductions.
At a 30 percent inspection failure rate, Idle and Key !.jode are
re1ativc1y equal in effectiveness of CO reductions but Key Mode
is better for IIC reductions.
F-9
-------
Reductions in HC and CO will tend to result in slight increase
of emitted NOx for vehicles without NOx controls using either
test procedure.
o
The installation of retrofit devices and systems on uncontrolled
vehicles (pre-1968) will result in the following estimated per-
centage reductions (based on low-altitude testing) for those
vehicles only.
HC CO NOx
Ignition Timing Modification -1% -4&f, -37%
with lean idle adjustment (Alt. #1)
Exhaust gas recirculation -12 -31 -48
with vacuum advance disconnect (Alt. #2)
For a statewide implementation of retrofit device installation
on pre-l968 vehicles only, the annual reductions for the total
state is estimated below;
Calendar HC ('to Reduction)** CO (% Reduction)**
Year Alt. 1 2 Alt. 1 2"
1973 3.9 2.5 .9.4 6.3
1976 2.4 1.5 5.6 3.8
1979 1.5 0.9 3.5 2.4
1982 0.9 0.5 2.2 1.5
** Estimates aSSlliTIe that the retrofitted vehicles emission levels
deteriorate with age and mileage thereby requiring muintenance.
A degradation factor of 50 percent is assumed. Vehicle popu-
lation grmrth and attrition factors are included.
Q
Implementation of an emission inspec~ion and control program would
achieve proportionately similar effectiveness in each AQCR.
Figures S-l and S-2 i;>hmT the program effectiveness in achieving
reductions of HC and CO, respectively, in AQCn #2, t,1etro-Denver.
COST ANALYSIS
A detailed cor:3t analysis model vTaS developed to provide a framework for eval-
uating the total. program costs associated vTith each of the alternatives. '1"11is
life-cycle cost model cateGorized the contributj.ng cost elements into the major
submodels of reGearch and development, initial acquisition and investment, and
annual operations and maintenance. Results of exercising the model indicate
that:
..
Research und uevelopment costs to implement either Idle or Key
~1ode are ne[';ligiblc.
F-10
-------
,...... 50-
VI
Z
o
I-
a
a
a
~
- 40-
Z
o
VI
VI
as
Z 30
o
a::!
0,;:
~
U
o
0,;:
o
~ 20
70
~
,~ WIO PVI
~:~. 30% I
50% I
30% I<
50%K
10
o I 1 I I f I I
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
PROGRAM YEAR
I
1982
14?7
Figure 3-1. FYI EFFECTlVEI'illSS (He) - ME~RO DEi'iVER
F-ll
)
-------
70
60 -
-
VI
Z
o
I-
g 50
o
..
o
-
-
z
o
Vi
~ 40
~
w
o
x
o
z
o 30
~
Z
o
a:I
IX
l5 20
10 -
o
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982
PROGRAM YEAR
Figure 8-2.
PVI EFFECTIVENESS (CO) - !-ISTRO DENVER
F-12
W/O PVI
30%K
30% I
50%.1
SO%K
1497
-------
.
Initial investment and ncquisition costs include site acquisition,
building construction or modification, inspector-training, equip-
ment purchase and installation, and facility certification. The
investment costs for emission inspection are estimated to be as
follows:
Alternative State Costs Private Industry Total
Idle - State Operated $2,172,000 None S 2,172,000
Privately Operated 298,000 $ 7,513,000 7,811,000
Key Mode - State Operated 3,333,000 None 3,333,000
Privately Operated 351,000 15,876,000 16,227,000
o
Annual operating and maintenance costs for a vehicle emission
inspection program include personnel wages and benefits, equip-
ment and building maintenance, inspection facility periodic
certification, and program administration and management. The
estimated annual cost for each alternative is shown.
Alternative State Costs Private Industry Total
Idle - State Operated $2,226,000 None $ 2,226,000
Priva~e1y Operated 739,000 $6,190,000 6,929,000
"Key Mode - State Operated 2,770,000 None 2,770,000
Privately Operated 909,000 9,536,000 10,445,000
. Emission inspection fee per affected vehicle for each program
alternative is based on each program being. self-sustaining and
assumes an annual inspection
State Operated
Privately Operated
Idle Test
J
$2.10
$5.45
Key Mode Test
$2.67
$8.91
o Retrofit devices previously 'discussed for pre-196B vehicles would
cost between $40-90 installed.
The following comparisons of servi~e and repair costs, business volume, 'and
fuel savings are relatively independent of who operates the inspection facility.
.
Vehicle owner typical emission-oriente~ service and repair aver-
age costs for failed vehicles would be as follows:
Exhaust Controlled Vehic1es* Uncontrolled Vehic1es*
1968 to 1972 1967 and Older
Idle Test
Key Bode Test
$17-36
13-30
$25-34
17-36
*This study did not involve extensive vehicle emission testing
and servicing to determine cost differences betvTeen Idle and Key
Mode. The range of costs reflects the results of studies conducted
by EPA, ,A'.rL, OLI, and Northrop.
F-13
-------
A survey of Colorado Automobile Dearlers on the estimated costs
for various emission-oriented maintenance activities revealed
some differences in expected costs to the vehicle owner. However,
no single AQCR was clearly lower (or higher) in all five cate-
gories ranging from minor idle adjustments ($6) to major carbure-
tion work ($40).
.
The automotive replacement parts after-market and service indus-
try annual business volume is expected to reflect increased
vehicle maintenance by the following amount:
Controlled Uncontrolled 1973
Vehicles Vehicles Total**
Idle Test $6,000,000 $ 4,850,000 $10,850,000
Key Mode Test 4,900,000 4,530,000 9,430,000
** Based on 1.3 million vehicles of which 43 percent would be
uncontrolled (pre-1968) as of 1973 registrations. Total
'reflects a 30 percent inspection failure rate during first
year.
e
Vehicle owner fuel economy is affected by emission-oriented main-
tenance. Two methods were used to estimate the cost impact.
Method #1 as used in.the Northrop/California ARB study was based
on an empirical relationship between measured changes in vehicle
emissions (HC and CO) and fuel consumption. Method #2 as used
in the EPA/ATL Study was based on measured carbon content of
bagged vehicle exhaus , before and after service. The following
estimates are based on 10,000 miles driven annually.
Inspection and
Maintenance Concept
Estimated Annual Fuel Savings
Method #1 Method #2
Idle
Key ~-1ode
$13-r6
$16-22
Not Calculated
Insignificant**
** The ATL/EPA study of 75 1968-1972 vehicles shm-led the
average chRnge for the entire fleet to ~e insignificant
(about $1.45 per vehicle annual fuel savings). Analysis
of the test data revealed that if the entire fleet were
divided into two groups, increase and decrease in fuel
econo y, different results are achieved. The ATL data
indicate that 45 percent of the vehicles experienced an
increase in fuel economy with an average savings of
$17 annually, based on 10,000 miles. On the other hand,
55 percent experienced a loss in fuel economy estimated
to be $13 almually.
Q Majority of the o,vners of serviced vehicles will note either
an improvement in performance or 'no detectable change, according
to results of Denver testing and servicing performed by the
Colorado APCD. This is in agreement with results of emission
testing and servicing at lOiv-altitude cities ,yhere it was noted
that 65'percent of those receiving Idle test and maintenance noted
improved :performance, and 71 percent of those recehing Key Mode
test and maintenance noted improved perfoTInance.
F-14
-------
PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
To determine the sentiments of both the urban and rural residents of Colorado
regarding the institution of a periodic vehicle emission inspection and. control
program, 717 o¥Ders of private passenger automobiles registered in The State
of Colorado were interviewed. There were 267 rural residents and 450 urban resid-
ents in the selected sample to establish whether there were any differences
in attitudes as a function of residency.
Opinion Research of California designed a questionnaire in conjunction with
members of the -Northrop Croporation and OLI. The preliminary questionnaire
,ffiS reviewed and critiqued by the APC Commission, the APC Division staff, and
members of the Colorado Advisory Committee on l~otor Vehicles Emissions. Opinion
Research selected the interviewees based on a modified probability sample
design to provide a 95 percent degree of certainty, conducted the interviews
by telephone and in person, and tabulated, analyzed, and interpreted the results.
The general findings of this survey were that:
(I
The majority (72 percent) believe that automobiles are the greatest
contributors to air pollution, a problem which 61 percent of the
respondents consider to be very serious.
The people feel that the federal and state gover~~ents are expending
efforts to control air pollution.
61
The residents have a definite lack of knowledge relative to the
existence of emission controls on their vehicles, the approximate
cost to have vehicles inspected and serviced for lower emissions,
and the existing requirement that emission control systems are
inspected as part of the current vehicle safety inspection program.
c
The majority of the people (80 percent total) who would support
a vehicle emission inspection program believe it will reduce air
pollution, detect defective cars, and eliminate older cars from
the highways.
People who oppose such a program do so because they believe the
cost would be too high, it would place a burden on the low in-
come people, and it would be too difficult to enforce.
o
Majority of the residents (65 percent) think that all vehicles,
regardless of age, should have emission controls, and 83 percent
believe that any control program instituted should apply equally
to urban and rural residents.
o
If an emission inspection program is instituted, 60 percent of the
residents would prefer twice-a-year inspection, 27 percent would
prefer annual inspection.
The residents were divided on who shoulu perform the inspection,
with 49 'percent in favor of private garages and 43 percent 1n favor
of state facilities.
F-15
-------
Urban residents would prefer that driving distances tc -;"iLe inspec-
tion :facilities be less than 5 miles, rural residents prefe:c the
distance be kept to less than 10 miles.
The residents were undecided on a reasonable inspection fee with
the largest response (34 percent) favoring $1.50-$2.00.
Residents considered the follOHing alternatives to be reasonable
penalties for non-compliance of inspection requirements: monetary
fines, -Harning coupled with fines, penalties in the form of license
and/or car removal.
For people that connot afford to pay for required emission control
and/or maintenance, the majority feel that one of the following
should be considered: Keep vehicle off highway twtil requirements
are satisfied, federal or state governmental assistance should be
provided in some form.
o
Relative to the existing vehicle safety inspection program, the
ove~ihelming majority (93 percent) are in favor of the concept.
Eighty four (84) percent favor the tHice-a-year inspection aver
any other option. The residents are fairly equally divided as to
whether they would pay an additional $2 - $4 per year to improve
the program. Rural residents tend to drive greater distances to
the inspeetion stations than the urban resideJ~s. The large
majority (71 percent) definitely favor the private garages doing
the safety inspection rather than the state.
COST EFFECTIVENESS ~TALYSIS
A cost effectiveness index was developed that combined the results of the
effectiveness and cost analyses to facilitate the total program evaluation
and comparison of the program alternatives. Based on the yearly effectivenesl'
estlinates and the corresponding costs incprred, a ratio of tons emission
reduction ~er Qollar spent was calculated for the program duration of 10 years;
beginning 1973. The resul~s of this analyses were that:
e
For privately operated inspection stations, Idle emission testing
is more cost effective than Key Mode testillg.
C)
For state-operated inspection stations, Idle emission testing
is slightly more cost effective than Key t.lode testing.
e
The most cost effective emission inspection program would be
Idle testing at State operated inspection facilities.
E>
Retrofit system installation on pre-1968 model vehicles would
be cost effective for a short-term (next 5 'years) and immediate
solution vhen coupled with privately mrned inspection facilities.
However, many problems remain to be resolved such as device
accreditation, durability, proven maintenance procedures, accept-
able inspection techniques, cost and availability of maSs produced
units.
F-16
-------
SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS
To ascertain the socia-economic impacts of a vehicle emission inspection and
control program, two major efforts were involved. The first was the survey of
urban and rural residents, the other was general meetings and discussions with
the members of the Advisory Committee. Subject matters for these meetings were
primed with Northrop-generated questions relative to financing of inspection
arid vehicle maintenance and also those affecting consumer protection. Listed
belmT are the social and economic effects of instituting an emission control
program. They do not necess~rily reflect the majority opinion of the Committee.
8
Each registered light-duty vehicle would be subject to the
emission inspection and control program.
The vehicle owner may expect to drive 5 to 10 miles to an
inspection station and wait 15-30 minutes while his vehicle
is inspected.
For those vehicles that require emission-oriented servicing,
the, mmer may expect to spend $13-36, on the average, to
satisfy established limits. The estimated service-repail'
time would be 30 minutes, typically.
o
To assure uniformity and repeatability of inspection proce-
dures and test results, all vehicle emission inspectors
should be qualified ~nd'trained, with certification by a
state agency; all automotive technicians that perform emis-
sion-oriented sertice and repair should be qualified and
trained, with certification by a State' agency; all emissions
inspection facilities should be state certified initially
and periodically; and copies of inspection results and
service-repair records should be provided to the vehicle
owner.
o
To protect the vehicle owner from'undue hardship or unfair
practices as a result of the emission inspection and con-
trol program, vehicle ovmers should be advised of their rights
to appeal an inspection requirement and informed of the re-
lated procedures, and they should be advised of the procedures
available for filing cOMplaints on unfair practices relative
to inspection or maintenance with the appropriate State agency.
( F-l7!
-------
L',j,\;-rA'l'IONS MID IDICERTAINTIES OF THE STUDY RESULTS
The study attempted to quantify all analytical results whenever possible to
facilitate the evaluation and comparison of the p!"ogram alternatives. As
such, any conclusions and recommendations resulting from this investigation
must consider the limitations and uncertainties related to the data and
information used. These factors are listed below.
e
Baseline emission inventories were based on several independent
studies, involving different test sites, instrumentation, person-
nel, procedures, and objectives. The emission-altitude relation-
ships derived from the linear regression equations represent the
~o11ective test data, within a 95 percent confidence interval
(+ 5 percent error). However, this may not be representative of
the true emissions since the confidence of the total test data
is unknmm. The EPA data used is expected to be within the
95 percent confidence band, the Colorado and Arizona test data
should be within a 90 percent band, or better. Consequently,
the baseline emissions for the total State may be within the
true value with an error band of about + 10 percent.
Emission reductions were calculated based on test results from
Denver, Los Angeles, and Detroit. The same limitation on the cal-
culated reductions of HC and CO'would apply as in the calculation
of baseline emissions', with a confidence level of about 90 percent.
The Arizona vehicle emission test data did not provide sufficient
information on NOx to develop a data base from which further analysis
could be performed. Due to numerous irregularities, inconsistencies,
and errors in the recorded test data, the computer-processed:infor-
mation on several thousand vehicles did not provide adeq~te data
to determine emission levels of NOx at the various altitudes in
Arizpna. While the Arizona emissions van was deployed in Colorado,
the NOx measurement capability wa9 lost due to equipment malfunction.
Therefore, no NOx information is available from ~hese Colorado tests.
The EPA programs referenced elsewhere in this report included NOx
measurements of 1968-1971 vehicles at Denver. These studies provided
data only on controlled (post 1968) vehicles. Considering these
shortcomings, no attempt was made to estimate and project NOx baseline
emissions or the effects of maintenance service and repair.
()
The cost estimates for the program alternatives were based on data
from equipment manufacturers, previous studies, and from the Colorado
APCD staff. As such they represent the best available data. However,
it must be recognized that some cost 'estimates were based on unit costs
(such as value per square foot, value per 100 units) which may'be
oversimplifying and under-estimating the true cost of small lot pur-
chasing. In addition, escalation factors and depreciation costs of
building and instrumentation may not be representative of actual
implementation. \'lith these limitations considered, the confidence
placed on the initial investment costs and the annual operating Gosts
would be about 85 percent.
Qualitative factors such as future technology in emission control, pri-
vate sector willingness to tnvest and participate in statewide programs,
and effects of 1975 federal emission warranty requirements were eval-
uated on a subjective basis.
o
F-18
-------
Recommendations
The study results and conclusions summarized in the preceding paragraphs are
the basis for the recommendations discussed below. These reco~mendations have
been categorized relative to emission inspection, retrofit systems, and future
acti vi tes . A task schedule is shown in figure s- 3. '
Emission Inspectio~
It is recommended that beginning in 1973 the private sector facilities perform-
ing the current safety inspection be upgraded to perform Idle ,emission testing.
The following tasks should be completed during the initial months of the program.
The Air Pollution Control Division (APeD), in conjunction with the Motor Vehicle
Division (MVD), should accomplish the following:
Announce to the private secto~ facilities the requirements for perform-
ing Idle emission inspection (see paragraph 3.2, volume II).
Select candidate facilities for a pilot program involving at least
three AQCR, Metro Denver being one of these. The other two should be,
selected with respect to the mean altitude of principal cities, one
lower and the other higher than Me~ro Denver (see paragraph 2.7, volume II).
Establish the training ~urriculum, identify training facilities, schedule
the necessary classes, notify the affected automotive centers, and cer-
tify the inspectors (see paragraph 3.2, volume II).
Develop and implement a plan to review and distribute the test procedures,
insure that selected facilities have the necessary instrumentation and
trained inspectors, and provide a program timetable.
Develop a plan to select test vehicles for the pilot program. It is
recommended that fleet vehicles from governmental agencies, large businesses,
and rental agencies be used, alont; with voluntary light-duty vehicles.
Establish the inspection failure limits for HC and CO. For a 30 percent,
failure rate, it is recommended that the following limits be considered
during the pilot program.
MODEL YEAR HC CO
1968 and newer 500 ppm 6'f>
1967-1963 1000 ppm 10'fo
1962 and older 1000 ppm 10,/>
Compile and evaluate inspection data and servicing information to evaluate
pilot progr~ effectiveness, to confirm or revise failure limits, and
to generate data for the Public Relations Office.
F-19
-------
The APCD, in .conjunction with the MVD and the Air Pollution Control Commission,
should analyze the effectiveness of the pilot progranl, identify areas .requiring
Inodification, and assess the effects and impact of the modified program. .Based
on this analysis, the joint committee may then institute the necessary changes
and develop a plan for statewide implementation.
The Public Relations Office, Department of Health, in conjunction with its count~r.
part in the Department of Revenue, should develop a public indoctrination pro-
gram to inform the residents of the implementation plan, the ~ .efits of emission
inspection and maintenance, the approximate costs to the vehi( -~ owners, and the
sinlilarities and differences between vehicle safety and emission inspection,
(see section 6, volume II).
The APCD, in conjunction with the Office of Consumer Affairs within the Depart-
ment of Law, the MVD, and other responGible state agencies, should review exist-
ing and proposed consumer protection plans relative to unfair practices in
vehicle inspection and vehicle service and repair, with respect to penalties for
non-compliance, and relative to procedures for requests for waivers and filing
of complaints. Additional plans should be provided for as required. These plans
should be summarized and made available to the general public at the initiation
of the statewide program (see paragraphs 6.6 and 7.4"volume II).
Retrofit System Installation
It is reco~~ended that study. projects be conducted to fully evaluate the effect-
iveness and associated costs of installing feasible retrofit" systems for emission
control and reduction. This study has defined the effectiveness of two types
known to be technically and economically feasible at low-altitude cities. These
are (1) ignition timing modifications coupled with lean air-fuel mixture adjust-
ment and (2) exhaust gas recirculation with vacuum advance disconnect. These
systems were tested on pre-1968 vehicles only during an EPA stucy. The effects
of altitude on the system performance and exhaust emissions have not been
investigated. Additionally, periodic maintenance requirements need to be better
defined if these systems are to become mandatory.
The high altitude modification packages designed by Pontaic Motor Division in
Denver appear to effect lower emissions on 1972 General Motors vehicles. It is
recowncnded that a study project be conducted to fully evaluate this concept.
'The following tasks should be completed during the early months of the pilot
program for vehicle inspection. Study projects should be designed for comple-
tion within a year after the Idle emissions inspection pilot program is initiated
such that recommended systems may be installed beginning in 1974. Figure 8-3
shows the task schedule. It is recommended that the APCD accomplish the following
a.
Design a study project to evaluate the effectiveness of (1) ignition
timing modification coupled 1-lith lean air-fuel mixture adjustment and
(2) exhauGt gas recirculation \dth vacuum advance disconnect on pre-
1968 Vehicles relative to their effcct~ ')n performance and emission
reduction at various operating altitudes. Results of this project
should be correlated with the EPA stvdy(reference 5, volume II) on
these same devices.
F-20.
-------
b.
Design a study project to evaluate the effectiveness of the retrofit
devices described above on 1968-1972 vehicles.
c.
Design a study project to evaluate the technical and economic feasibility
of the GM.high-altitude modification packages. Tbe experiment design
should consider factors such as applicability to all light-duty 1968-
1972 vehicles, applicability to 1963-1967 vehicles, mass productibility
and manufacturing/licensing. constraints, emission reductions, effects
on vehicle performance, effects on fuel economy, maintenance require-
ments, installation requirements, and acquisition and installation
costs.
d.
Conduct these study projects, or cause them to be conducted by independent
contractor(s), within calendar year 1973.
Contingent on the study projects results, it is recommended that private garages
install the selected retrofit systems following the manufacturer's or the study
project. procedures. The systems should then be periodically inspected, if re-
quired, as part of the idle emissions-vehicle safety inspection program. Based
on the analysiB of study project results, the Colorado APCD in conjunction with
the M1~ should establish the installation schedule, inspection procedures, failure
crit€ria, and recommended servicing. .
Future Activities and Studies
It is rec~rumended that the Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission and the
Department of Health investigate the possibility of the Federal EPA recalling
all 1972 model-year vehicles ~hich fail to comply with the Federal emission
standards. A contracted study for the EPA is currently in progress in five
cities of the U. S. to establish whether the 1972 vehicles are meeting the
standards.
The EPA surveillance programs on 1970 and 1971 vehicles (references 24 and 25)
indicated that emissions from Denver vehicles were significantly higher than
those in Los Angeles, Houston, and Detroi~. The recently completed EPA-ATL
study in Denver included ten 1972 model-year vehicles. ~wo df the vehicles had
HC emissions less than the 1972 CVS standards, none had CO levels less than
the standards. These 1972 vehicles mean HC value was 4.72 grams per mile and
the CO value was 74.9 erams per mile compared with the Federal 1972 CVS standards
of 3.4 and 39 grams per mile, respectively.
APCD Capabilities
It is recommended that the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division develop or
strengthen its capabilitie5:
a.
To evaluate existing and future vehicular emission control concepts
and systems, to assess manufacturer's claims for add-on after-market
devices and techniques in reducing vehicle emissions, and to qualify
and certify proven emission-reducing systems ana techniques for public
use.
b.
To review emission test procedures, test results, and surveillance data
to ascertain proGram effectiveness, revise inspection failure limits,
and modify air quality improvement strategies.
F-21
-------
c.
To evaluate vehicle emission meusurement instrumentation requirements,
current and future.
d.
To keep abreast of the latest developments in vehicle emissions con-
trol strategies and ou Federal requirements &nd" standards for newer
vehicles.
e.
To conduct on-Going investigations on research and development projects
related to vehicle emission reductions.
Emission Inspection Limits
The 1973 vehicles are required to meet Federal NO standards of 3.0 grams per
mile based on the 1972 CVS Federal Test Procedureg. Due to lack of sufficient
data, no recommendations are made herein relative -to establishing any NO in-
spection limits. Instrumentation for NO measurements was listed as an 3ptional
equipment for stations conducting Idle t~st. Limits for HC and CO were based on
the emissions-altitude relationships developed in this study. It is recommended
that the APCD compile and analyze the pilot program inspection data to verify
these relationships, modify as necessary, and arrive at a better definition
of inspection failure criteria for statewide implementation.
The APCD should also initiate plans to monitor NO levels of 1973 model year
vehicles. This could be accomplished by licensedxnew car dealers who elect to
participate in the pilot program. Analysis of the NO data would result in
the establishment of NO limits for 1973 and newer vefiicles equipped with NO
x - x
controls.
F-22
-------
."
I
N
'"
ACTIVITIES 1973 -1974 1975
IDLE E~~SSIO~S INSPECTION
Sel'2ct affected AQCR cities -
Select interested stations -
Train emissions inspectors
Qualify facilities, inspectors
Revie~", develop consumer plans
Conduct public indoctrination - .- - - - - - - - -
Perform pilot progr&~
Review, revise program
Institute statewide program
RETROFIT DEVICE CERTIFICATION
Design study projects -
Select independent contractors
Monitor study projects
Evaluate project results
Develop implementation plan
Iastitute -retrofit program
CONTIrruING ACTIVIT1ES
Evaluate 1972 EPA surveillance
Deveiop APCD capabilities
Refine 'emission-altitude
relationships, limits
Figure 8-3.
RECOMMENDED PROGRAM SCHEDULE
-------
APPENDIX G
TITLE 40 - APPENDIX N
-------
Appendix N - Emissions Reductions Achievable Through Inspection, Maintenance
and Retrofit of Light Duty Vehicles
1.
General
This Appendix presents estimates of emissions reductions that,
in the judgment of the Administrator, are likely to be achievable
through application of inspection, maintenance. and retrofit measures
to in-use motor vehicles.
To" the extent possible. these estimates are
based on empirical data.
However, lack of data in some areas has
necessitated some extrapolation of empirical data using engineering
judgment. The sources of empirical data and the bases for judgments
are discussed in paragraph 6 of this Appendix.
The emissions reductions estimates presented herein are subject
to considerable uncertainty. The emissions reductions actually
realized in a transportation control program may be greater or less
than the estimated reductions. The e~timates should therefore be
regarded as useful primarily for current planning purposes. Any
transportation control plan incorporating in~use vehicle emission
control approaches, \'Jhether those specifically cited in this Appendix
or alternatives proposed by a State. must provide, as required by
40 CFR Section 5l.l9d, for field verification of the emissions
actually achieved in the implemented programs and, as required by
Section 110(a)(2)(H) of the Act, for any revisions of the transportation
control plan ~hat may be indicated thereby.
6-1
-------
The approache~ to in-use vehicle emissions
are those judged to be most generally appl icable by the Administrator
considering the information currently available to him. States are
encouraged to consider other approaches that may be applicable to
their particular situations. Data and analyses supporting the
emissions reductions claimed for alternative approaches must be
submitted with the Transportation Control Plan. Several alt9rnative
approaches are discussed in the Environmental Protection Agency report
entitled "Control Strategies for In-Use Vehicles," available from
EPA, Mobile Sources Pollution Control Program, 401 M. Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
The States are also encouraged to give consideration to trans-
portation control measures based on reductions in vehicle use and
traffic flow measures.
Nothing in this Appendix is intended to
suggest that transportation control approaches based on inspection,
maintenance, and retrofit should necessarily be considered pref-
erable to approaches based on reductions in vehicle use or traffic
flow measures.
2.
Definitions
a.
IIPrecontrolled vehicles" means light duty vehicles sold
nationally (except in California) prior to 1968 model year;Light
duty vehicles sold in California prior to the 1966 mod91 year.
b.
.'Controlled vehicles" means light duty vehicles sold
nationally (except in California) in the 1968 model year and
later;light duty vehicles sold in California in the 1966 model
year and later.
G-2
-------
,
c.
"Loaded emissions test" means a sampling procedure for ex-
haust emissions which requires exercising the engine under stress
(i.e.. IIloading") by use of a dynamometer to simulate actual
driving conditions. These include the key-mode test. Acceleration.
Cruise. Idle and Deceleration (ACID) test. 7 mode test. and others.
d.
IIIdle emission test" means a sampling procedure for exhaust
emissions which requires operation of the engine in the idle
mode only.
e.
"Retrofit" means the addition or removal of an item of
equipment. or a required adjustment. connection. or disconnection
of an existing item of equipment. for the purpose of reducing
emissions.
f.
"Inspection/maintenancell means a program to reduce emissions
from in-use vehicles through identifying vehicles that need
emissions control related maintenance and requiring that main-
tenance be performed.
g.
IIIdle.adjustments" means a series of adjustments which
include idle RPM. idle air/fuel ratio and basic timing.
3.
Inspection/Maintenance of Light Duty Vehicles
a}
Reductions
The following average annual reductions in exhaust emissio.ns
per ve!:licle are estimated to be achievable through implementation
of an inspection/maintenance program using a loaded emission test:
6-3
-------
Hydrocarbons
Carbon Monoxide
12%
10%
Nitrogen Oxides
0%
To obtain th~se reductions an inspection/maintenance
progranl must provide for inspection of each vehicle at least
once per year. More frequent inspection and maintenance is
expected to provide larger average emissions reductions, although
at greater cost. During the first inspection cycle of an
inspection/maintenance program, emissions reductions may be
assumed only to the estent consistent with the portion of the
vehicle population that has been inspected by that time.
b.
The average reductions cited above are applicable for all
gasoline-powered light duty motor vehicles (except motorcycles)
which are included in the inspection/maintenance program.
c.
Requirements
An acceptable inspection/maintenance program must include:
i) Provisions for regul~r periodic inspection of all
vehicles for which emissions reductions are claimed.
ii) Provisions for the establishment of inspection
failure criteria consistent with the claimed reductions.
iii) Provisions to insure that failed vehicles receive
the maintenance .necessary to achieve compli~nce with
the inspection standards.
This might include sanctions
against individual owners, retest of failed vehicles
following maintenance, a certification program to
G-4'
-------
'~$ure that repair agencies performing the required
maintenance have the necessary equipment and knowledge
to perform the tasks satisfactorily, and/or other measures.
iv) A program of enforcement to insure that vehicles arc
not intentionally readjusted or modified subsequent to
the inspection and/or maintenance in such a way as
would ~ause them to no longer comply with the inspection
standards. This might include spot checks of idle
adjustments and/or a suitable type of physical tagging.
d.
Alternative Approaches
Inspection/maintenance programs employing approaches other
than emissions testing using a loaded emissions test may be
capable of achieving emissions reductions for vehicles of certain
model years.
Idle emissions inspection, extensive engine
parameter inspection, and mandatory maintenance procedures are
discussed in the Environmental Protection Agency report "Control
Strategies for In-Use Vehicles." Inspection/maintenance approaches
other than those using a loaded emissions test. or emissions
reductions greater than those cited in paragraph 3.a while using
a loaded emissions test. will be acceptable only if sufficient data
and analyses are provided to justify the emissions reductions claimed.
4.
Retrofit of Light Duty Vehicles
a)
Reductions
The following reductions in exhaust emissions per vehicle
G-5
-------
are estimated to be achievable through installation of specific
classes of retrofit devices on the specific model year classes
of vehicles noted.
Since retrofitted vehicles are expected to be
subject to periodic inspection and maintenance (see Paragraph
4.c). the reductions cited are to be applied to a maintained
vehicle emissions baseline. For example. if a 12% reduction in
hydrocarbon emissions is claimed for inspection/maintenance.
the reduction in hydrocarbon emissions due to a retrofit ~pproach
should be calculated after the vehicle's original emission rate
for hydrocarbons has been reduced by 12%.
i) Pre-~ontro11ed vehicles
Retrofit Option
Lean idle 'Air/Fuel Ratio
Adjustm~nt and Vacuum Spark
Advance Disconnect
Oxidizing Catalytic Converter
and Vacuum Spark Advance
Disconnect
Air Bleed to Intake Manifold
Exhaust Gas Recirculation and
Vacuum Spark Advance Disconnect
ii) Controlled vehicles
Retrofit Option
Oxidizing Catalytic Converter
Exhaust Gas Recirculation
Average Reduction per Vehicle
HC CO NOx
25%
23%
9%
68%
63%
48%
21%
12%
58%
31%
0%
48%
Average Reduction per Vehicle
HC CO NOx
50%
0%
50%
0%
0%
40%
During the installation phase of a retrofit program. emi~sions
reductions may be assumed only. to the extent consistent with the portion
G-6
-------
of the vehicle popu1~tion on which retrofit devices have been in-
stalled by that time.
b)
Applicability
The emissions reductions cited above for pre-controlled vehicles
are applicable to all gasoline-powered light duty motor vehicles
(except motorcycles) sold nationally (except in California) prior
to the 1968 model year or in California prior to the 1966 model
year.
The emissions reductions cited above for installation of
oxidizing cata1ytic converters on controlled vehicles are applicable
to all gasoline-powered light duty motor vehicles (except motorcycles
sold nationally (except in California) in the 1968 through 1974 model
years or in California in the 1966 through 1974 model years.
The emissions reductions cited above for installation of
exhaust gas recirculation on co~tro11ed vehicles are applicable to
all gasoline-powered light duty motor vehicles (except motorcycles)
sq1d nationally (except California) in the 1968 through 1972 model
years or in California in the 1966 through 1971 model years.
c)
Requirements
An acceptable retrofit program must include:
i) A method of insuring that there will be. available an
ade~uate supply of retrofit components and that these-
components will be capable of achieving the claimed re-
ductions. This may r~quir~ a c~refu1ly designed retrofit
certification procedure.
G-7
-------
ii) Provisions for emissions testing at the time of retrofit
installati~n or some other positive assurance that the
retrofit device is installed and operating correctly.
iii) Provisions for inspection and maintenance of each retrofitted
vehicle at least once per year.
iv) Provisions for the establishment of inspection standards for
retrofitted vehicles consistent with the emissions reductions
claimed. Particular attention must be paid in this regard to
catalytic converter retrofits as the reductions cited in
paragraph 4.a do not include possible irreversible catalyst
deterioration over time.
v) Provisions to insure that vehicles failing inspection receive
the maintenance necessary to achieve compliance with the
inspection standards.
vi) In the case of retrofit programs that include the use of
catalytic converters requiring unleaded fuel, provisions to
insure that vehicles ut11izin"g this type of retrofit 1'1111 not
use leaded gasoline and that adequate supplies of lead-free
gasoline will be available if Federal regulations will not
insure availability, and provided that such provisions are
not in violation of Section 2ll(e}(4} of the Act.
d)
Alternative Approaches
Retrofit programs employing approaches other than those cited
above may be capable of achieving emissions reductions for vehicles
of certain model years.
G-8
-------
For example, addition of vacuum spark advance disconnect
to the air bleed tb intake manifold approach may be feasible for
pl'e"controllcd vehicles. Alternative retrofit approaches or retrofit
e"'1issions reductions greater than those cited in paragl'aph 4.a will
be acceptable only if sufficient data and analyses art
.justify the emissions reductions claimed.
.uvided to
5.
Inspection/Maintenance or Retrofit of Vehicles Other than Light
Duty Vehicles
The inspection/maintenance and retrofit approaches discussed above
may be applicable to certain classes of motor vehicles other than those
cited.
In particular, the States are encouraged to consider the
application of such approaches to motor vehicles in the 6,000 to 10,000 lb.
GVW class.
In many cases, these vehicles are constructed and operated
in a manner similar to light duty vehicles. However, the present lack
of empirical test data for application of inspection/maintenance or
retrofit approaches to vehicles of this type prevents the inclusion of
data on achievable emissions reductions for such vehicles in this Appendix.
Transportation control strategies employing inspection/maintenance or
retrofit of vehicles other than light duty vehicles will be acceptable
only if sufficient data and analyses are provided to justify the emissions
reductions claimed.
6.
Bases for Emissions Reductions Cited in Paragraphs 3 and 4
a)
Inspection/Maintenance
The reductions cited in paragraph 3.a for inspection/maintenance
using a loaded emissions test were drived from empirical test data
obtained by EPA in evaluating the initial emissions reductions
G-9
-------
achi eved when a fl eet of pre-contro 11 ed and contro II eel 11 gilt duty
vehicles was subjected to an emissions inspection test and the
the vehicles failing that test were serviced in private maintenance
garages.
The results of that study are presented in the EPA report
IIControl Strategies for In-Use Vehicles." The observed initial
reductions were 25 percent (HC), 19 percent (CO), and 0 percent (NOx).
It is expected that in an actual inspection/maintenance program
the average emissions reductions achieved will be substantially less
than the initial reductions observed in the study, since there will
be deterioration of emissions-related components and adjustments
between peri odi c' i nspecti on and ma i ntenance events. Whil e the
currently available empirical data on such deterioration are inade-
quate to accurately predict the consequences of this effect, some
cOi'rection for deterioration is necessary. Therefore, giving con-
sideration to the current frequency of voluntary maintenance and the
emissions reductions typically achieved by existing maintenance
procedures, it has been assumed that linear deterioration to before-
maintenance emissions levels will occur over the twelve month period
following maintenance. As a. result, the average effectiveness for
annual inspection is estimated to be one-half of the initial effective-
ness following maintenance.
Empirical data on the effectiveness of inspection/maintenance
programs in reducing emissions are available only for light duty
vehicles through the 1971 model year. The effectiveness of inspection/
maintenance programs in reducing emissions from future model year
vehicles will depend primarily on the extent to which emissions from
G-10
-------
those vehicles increase in use as a result of repairable malfunctions
and on the ability of the inspection test to accurately identify
vehicles having such malfunctions. These factors can be empirically
evaluated only after substantial numbers of such vehicles have
been in use for some time. However. for implementation planning
.purposes. it has been assumed that emissions reductions estimated
to be achievable for current light duty vehicles will be applicable
for future model years as well.
Available empirical data indicate that initial emission~ reductions
attainable through inspection/maintenance programs using an idle
mode emissions.test. are comparable to those attainable when a
loaded emission test is used. However. it is antic1pdted that, in
practice, programs based on an idle mode test only will be sub-
stantially less ~ffective than these data suggest. This is because
only limited maintenance (in contrast to the extensive maintenance
performed in the empirical studies) is generally required to achieve
compliance with an idle emissions test. Such maintenance may not
achieve improvements in true mass emissions under typical driving
conditions. Furthermore. an idle mode test alone can often be
satisfied with combinations of engine adjustments that accomplish
little or no true emissions reductions in terms of emissions measured
over a driving cycle representative of typical urban driving conditions
(the Federal Certification Test Procedure). Quantitative estimates
of the loss in emissions reduction effectiveness due to these effects
are not pr~sently available.
G-ll.
-------
lnspection and maintenance programs usi
inspection or mandatory maintenance approaches may also 'be
effective for vehicles of certain model years.
Howevert such
approaches must be tailored to relate to the specific engine and
emissions control systems of the vehicles to be inspected and/or
maintained.
Depending upon inspection and maintenance procedures
and the number and choice of engine parameters included in the
programt substantial variations in emissions reductions are to be
expected.
Because of the above considerationst it has been concluded
that generally-applicable estimates of achievable emissions reductions
can be derived from currently available empiric~l data only for
programs which use a loaded-emissions test.
States considering
inspection and/or maintenance programs based on alternative
approaches should take the factors mentioned above into account
where estimating and justifying emissions reductions expected from
such programs. More detailed discussion of these matters may be
found in the EPA report "Control Strategies for In-Use Vehicles."
b)
Retrofit
i) Pre-controlled vehicles
The reductions cited in paragraph 4.a for pre-controlled
vehicles are based upon empirical test data obtained in
evaluating the initial emissions reductions o~tained when
various types of retrofit emission controls systems were
fitted to fleets of tuned pre-controlled light duty vehicles.
G-12
-------
The results of these studies are presented in the EPA
"Control Strategles for In-Use Vehicles."
In each case. the
mean emissions reductions observed have been adopted as being
most representative of the initial emissions reductions which
may be achieved in an actual retrofit program.
Only very limited empirical data are currently available
on the deterioration of emissions performance of retrofit
vehicles. These data; which are discussed in the EPA report
"Control Strategies for In-Use Vehicles." indicate the need for
periodic inspection and maintenance of retrofitted vehicles if
the attainment and maintenance of the retrofit emissions
reductions cited in paragraph 4.a is to be assured. Based upon
the available empirical data and the requirements for inspection
and maintenance of retrofitted vehicles at least once per year.
and considering the nature of the emissions control techniques
employed in each retrofit approac~. it appears that the average
annual emissions reductions per retrofitted vehicle can approach
the observed mean initial reductions if suitable inspection and
maintenance criteria are adopted. Accordingly. it has been
assumed that observed initial emissions reductions will not be
affect~d by deterioration.
ii) Controlled vehicles
Empirical-data which could serve as a basis for estimating
emissions reductions achievable through retrofitting contrelled
light duty vehicles are quite limited. As a result. the emissions
reductions cited for this class of vehicles in paragraph 4.a
6-13
-------
were developed by extrapolating the empir,ical data for retro..
fitting pre-controlled light duty vehicles.
The techniques of lean idle air/fuel ratio adjustment,
vacuum spark advance disconnect, and air bleed to intake
manifold are not considered to be generally applicable to
controlled vehicles. This is because these emissions control
approaches are either ~ncorporated into or may be inconsistent
with emissions control techniques already applied to many
controlled vehicles.
Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) is considered generally
applicable only to those vehicles not substantially controlled
for nitrogen oxides emlssions. Therefore, EGR as a retrofit
approach is 2pplicable in 1968 through 1972 models sold nation-
wide (outside of California), except for an insignific~nt
number of 1972 vehicles already equipped with EGR.
Incorporation
of EGR into a significant number of 1972 models sold in California
limits the general applicability of this retrofit approach to
1966 through 1971 controlled vehicles sold in California.
Oxidizing catalytic converters are considered to be potentially
applicable as retrofits through the 1974 model year.
Beyond
the 1974 model year, the presently anticipated design of emissions
control systems required to meet Federal new car emissions
standards is considered to preclude retrofi~ting using currently
avail~ble retrofit technology.
The follO\~ing paragraphs describe the bases for the emissions
reductions cited for retrofit of controlled vehicles.
G-14
-------
Oxidizing Catalytic Converters
Efllpirical data indicate that catalytic converter retrofits to
pre-controlled vehicles can achieve emissions reductions of
68 percent (hydrocarbons), 63 percent (carbon monoxide), and
48 percent (nitrogen oxides) when combined with vacuum spark
advance'disconnect. Presently available data suggest that
deterioration may not be significant with retrofit-type catalysts.
Experience to date with prototype 1973 emissions control
systems suggests that retrofit catalytic converters are capable
of achieving substantial reductions of hydrocarbon and carbon
monoxide emissions from controlled light duty vehicles. While
studies of pre-controlled vehicles have provided evidence that
retrofit catalysts may also achieve some reduction of nitrogen
oxides emissions, the extent of this reduction is tQo highly
dependent on the air/fuel ratio in the catalyst to be extra-
polated to controlled vehicles with reasonable certainty.
In experiments conduct~d to' date, installation of retrofit
catalysts on pre-controlled vehicles has been accompanied by
vacuum spark advance disconnect.
In addition, a lean idle
air/fuel ratio adjustment has normally been included in the
installation procedures. As neither of the latter two modifi-
cations is generally applicable to controlled vehicles, it is
prudent to anticipate that reductions of hydrocarbon and carbon
monoxide emissions achieved by retrofit catalysts on controlled
vehicles may be less than those observed with pre-controlled
vehicles.
G-15
-------
The cited emissions reductions of 0 percent (hydrocarbons
and Carbon monoxide) and 40 percent (nitrogen oxides) are
estimates consistent with the foregoing considerations and the
results obtained with pre-controlled vehicles.
Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR)
Emissions reductions of 12 percent (hydrocarbons), 31
percent (carbon monoxide),-and 48 percent (nitrogen oxides)
have been observed as a result of retrofitting pre-controlled
•
light duty vehicles with EGR accompanied be vacuum spark
advance disconnect. Experience with 1973 emissions control
systems for new cars suggests that EGR retrofits can achieve
substantial reductions of nitrogen oxides emissions from
controlled vehicles not already equipped with EGR or equiva-
lent nitrogen oxides emissions control systems.
Much of the hydrocarbon control and some of the nitrogen
oxides control observed with EGR retrofits to pre-controlled.
vehicles is attributable to the vacuum spark advance dis-
connect. This is not generally applicable to controlled
vehicles. In addition, the design features responsible for
much of the carbon monoxide reduction observed with pre-con-
trolled vehicles are likely to be already incorporated into
many controlled vehicles. It is therefore prudent to expect
that EGR retrofits to controlled vehicles may achieve somewhat
smaller reductions of nitrogen oxides emissions than have been
observed with pre-controlled vehicles and no reductions of
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions.
G-16
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 11. Report N°APTD- 1368 12. 3. Recipientls Accession No.
SHEET
4. T .tle and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Transportation Control Strategy Development for the Denver December 1972
~etropolitan Area. 6.
7. Aurhorls) 8. Performing Organization Rept.
NO'
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unir No.
TRW Transportation and Environmental Operations DU-72-B895
7600 Colshire Drive 11. Contract /Grant No.
McLean, Virginia 22101 68-02-0041
12. Sponsoring OrJl:anizati,?!, Name a!,d Address 13. Type of Report & Period
Envi ronmenta 1 Protection Agency F .c°vred 8/14/72
lna
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Report 12/t95/72
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711 14.
15. Supplementary Notes Prepared to assist in the development of transportation control plans
ev those St£ta.G2~eb9mr~~~ d~w£q~~ratin~.that Naaio~al Ambitnf.Air .~uality Stan~~rds
anno~ o~ .a ln em n emlS lon stan ar s for s a lonar sources on .
[f&:-"Absrracts
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 - air pollutants originating within a motor vehicle
and released to the atmosphere.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards - Air Quality Standards promulgated ~y the
t:nvironmental Protection Agency and published
as 'a Federa 1 Regulation in the Federal
Register.
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled
V~hicle Mix - distribution of motor vehicle population by age group.
LDV - light duty vehicle - less than 6500 lbs.
HDV - heavy duty vehicle - greater than 6500 lbs.
17e. COSATI Field/Group Environmental Quality Control of Motor Vehicle Pollutants
18. Availability Statement 19.. Security Class (This 21. No. of Pages
Re~~~T')' all
For release to public 20. Secumy Class (This 22. Pr ice
Pa'lj
NCLASSIFIED
USCOMM-OC 140S2.P72
FORM NTIS.SI5 tREV. 3-72)
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM NTIS-35 (10-70) (Bibliographic ........" "IICC' U"",CU UII ~VM 11
Guidelines to Format Standards for Scientific and Technical Reports Prepared by or for the Federal Government,
PB-ISO 600). .
1.
Report "umber. 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.
3. Recipient's Accession Number. . Reserved for use by each report recipient,
4. Title and Subtitle. Title should indicate cIeatly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed promi-
nently. Set subtitle, if used, in smallet type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a repott is prepared in more
than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and include subtitle for rhe specific volume.
So Report Date. Each 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 Organization Code. Leave blank.
7. Author(s). Give name(s) in conventional order (e.g., John R. Doe, or J.Robert Doe).
from the performing organizat ion.
List author's affiliation if it differs
8. Performing Orgoni zotion Report Number.
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address. Give name, street, city, state, and zip code. List no more than two levels of
an or,l:anizational hierarchy. Display the name of the organization exactly a" it should appear in Government indexes such
as USGRDR-I.
10. Project/Task/Work Unit Number. Use the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report was prepared.
,
11. Contract/Grant Number. In"err 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 elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with...
Translation of .. Prese,l)ted at conference of .. To be published in . .. Supersedes... Supplements. . .
16. Abstract. Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant informat;on contained in the report.
If the report contains" significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. (a).
proper authorized terms that identify the
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 and Group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List.
Since the majority of documents are multid isciplinary in nature, the primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be the spec ific
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).
Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Sc ientific Terms the
major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific anl precise to be used
18. Di stribution Statement. Denote re leas ability to the public or limitat ion for reasons other rhan security for example "Re-
lease unlimited". Cite any availability to the public, ",ith address and price.
19 & 20. Security Classification. Do not submit classified reports to the National Technical
21. Numbor of Pages.
list, if any.
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but excluding distribution
22.
Price.
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or ihe Government Printing Office, if known.
FORM NTIS-3S (REV. 3-72)
U..SCOMM-DC 14D!52-P72
it U.S. Government Printing Office:
1973--746-768/4159 Region No.4
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE
Technical Publications Branch
Office of Administration
Research Triangle Park. N C 277^
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. »300
ID FEES PAID
ROTECTION AGENCY
EPA 335
THIRD CLASS BULK RATE
If you do not desire to continue receiving this technical report
series, please CHECK HERE O , tear 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-1368
------- |