APTD-1370
TRANSPORTATION CONTROL
STRATEGIES FOR THE STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
V'/
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-1370
TRANSPORTATION CONTROL
STRATEGIES FOR THE STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
Prepared By
TRW Transportation § Environmental Operations
Environmental Services
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
February 1973
-------
The APTD (Air Pollution Technical Data) series of reports is issued
by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air
and Water Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, to report techni-
cal data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies of APTD
reports are available free of charge to Federal employees, current
contractors and grantees, and non-profit organizations - as supplies
permit - from the Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
277l~or may be obtained, for a nominal cost, from the National Tech-
nicai Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia
22151.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
TRW Transportation and Environmental Operations of McLean, Virginia,
in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-0048. The contents of this
report are reproduced herein as received from the TRW Transportation
and Environmental Operations. The opinions, findings and conclusions
expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. APTD-1370
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 .0 INTRODUCTION>. .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
.....
2..0 SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 .1 Air Qua 1 i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Emission Reduction Required. . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Control Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.1 Control Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.2 Control Strategy Selection. . . . . . . . .
2 4 Data Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5 Control Strategy Implementation. . . . . . . . . .
2.6 Effects on Other Emission Parameters. . . . . . .
3.0 PROGRAM PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1 Regional Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.1 Air Quality Objectives. . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.2 Air Quality ................
3.1 .3 Demography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.4 Vehicle Population. . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.5 Areas of Congestion. . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.6 Limited Access Highways and Delaware River
C ro s sin 9 s .................
3.1.7 Public Transportation. . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.8 The Central Business District. . . . . . .
3.2 Problem Definition and Description. . . . . . . .
3.3 Technical Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Limitations of the Transportation Control
Strategy Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.1 General Concepts. . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.2 Air Quality Monitoring. . . . . ". . . . . .
3.4.3 Emission Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.4 Cold Start Emissions. . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4.5 Traffic Data and Projections. . . . . . . .
3.4.6 Analytic Techniques Used. . . . . . . . . .
3.4.7 Effects of Control Measures. . . . . . . .
3.4.8 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii
Page
1
3
3
3
3
3
5
6
6
7
9
9
9
10
11
11
12
12
14
15
15
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
4.0 CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 Emission Reduction Required. . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Emission Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.1 Method s ...................
4.2.2 Emission Estimates with Present Transportation
System and Emission Controls (1971) .....
4.2.3 Emission Estimates with Programmed Transporta-
tion System and Emission Controls (1977) . . .
4.3 Control Measure Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.1 Technical Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.2 Technical Feasibility. . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.3 Institutional Considerations. . . . . . . . .
4.3.4 Control Measures Considered. . . . . . . . .
4.4 Control Measures and Strategy for Philadelphia
4 .4.1 S tra tegy Goal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.2 General Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.3 Emission Related Measures. . . . . . . . . .
4.4.4 VMT Reduction Measures. . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.5 VMT Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.6 CBD P ri ori ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.7 Control Measure Combinations. . . . . . . . .
4.4.8 Cost Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.9 Obstacles to Implementation. . . . . . . . .
5.0 CONTROL STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION. . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1 Agency Involvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Legal Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.1 Inspection/Maintenance............
5.2.2 Curbside Parking and Loading Regulations. . .
5.2.3 Mass Transit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.4 Restraints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.5 VMT Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Data Base Correction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4 Surveillance Check Points. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iv
Page
23
23
23
23
25
25
28
28
28
31
31
33
33
33
33
36
40
41
43
43
48
59
59
59
59
60
61
61
62
62
63
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
APPENDIX A - AIR QUALITY AND EMISSIONS DATA. . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX B - TRANSPORTATION DATA BASE. . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX C - CONTACT AND DOCUMENTATION LIST. . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX D - AUTO AIR POLLUTION QUESTIONNAIRE. . . . . . . .
v
Page
A-1
B-1
C-1
D-1
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number Titl e Page
4-1 Estimated Emissions (1971 Year End) 26
4-2 Estimated Emissions (1977 Year End) 27
4-3 Emission Reduction Requirements. City & CBD 29
4-4 Estimated Inspection/Maintenance Cost 46
A-l Calculation Sheet - Gasoline Motor Vehicle
Exhaust Emission Factors (1971) A-4
A-2 Calculation Sheet - Gasoline Motor Vehicle
Exhaust Emission Factors (1977) A-5
B-1 Vehicle Miles of Travel Per Day -- 1970 --
By Light Vehicles (Citywide) B-1
B-2 Vehicle Miles of Travel Per Day -- 1970 --
By Heavy Vehicles (Citywide) B-2
B-3 Vehicle Miles of Travel Per Day -- 1970 --
~y Light Vehicles (CBD) B-3
B-4 Vehicles Miles of Travel Per Day -- 1970 --
By Heavy Vehicles (CBD) B-4
B-5 Vehicle Miles of Travel Per Day -- 1977 --
By Light Vehicles (Citywide) B-5
B-6 Vehicle Miles of Travel Per Day -- 1977 --
~y Heavy Vehicles (Citywide) B-6
B-7 Vehicle Miles of Travel Per Day -- 1977 --
By Light Vehicles (CBD) B-7
B-3 Vehicle Miles of Travel Per Day -- 1977 --
~y Heavy Vehicles (CBD) B-8
B-9 VMT - Speed Product Increases Attributable
to Highway and TOPICS Improvements B-13
B-10 Order-of-I~agnitude Transit Ridership -
Auto Travel Relationships (Citywide) B-26
B-ll Order-of-Magnitude Transit Ridership -
Auto Travel Relationships (CBD) B-27
B-12 Order-of~Magnitude Transit Ridershi) -
Auto Travel Relationships (Citywide B-28
vi
-------
Figure Number
4-1
5-1
A-l
0-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Titl e
Allowable VMT Growth Factor for Complying
with the Carbon Monoxide Air Quality Standard
Surveillance Check Points
City of Philadelphia
Auto Air Pollution Questionnaire
vii
Page
42
58
A-8
0-13
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The State of Pennsylvania 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 Philadelphia and Pittsburgh,
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 the strategies for Philadelphia that will
achieve carbon monoxide air quality standards required to be met by the
year 1977.
1
-------
2.0 SUMMARY
2.1
AIR QUALITY
The second highest measurement of carbon monoxide concentration during
1971 was 22.5 milligrams per cubic meter eight-hour average measured at
20th and Race Streets. The national primary standard of 10 milligrams per
cubic meter eight-hour average must be achieved by July 1977.
2.2 EMISSION REDUCTION REQUIRED
A reduction of 56 percent from 1971 emission levels of CO emitted
from mobile sources throughout the City is estimated to be needed to
achieve the required reduction in ambient air concentrations to the level
of the standard. Estimated mobile source emissions of CO in 1971 was
302tOOO tons per year total for the City and 25,500 tons per year for the
Central Business District (CBD). By 1977t it is estimated that emissions
must be reduced to 133,000 tons per year. With no transportation control
strategy implemented, it is estimated that a 47 percent reduction will be
achieved total for the City and 61 percent for the CBD, due largely to the
effect of Federal new car emission controls.
2.3 CONTROL STRATEGY
2.3.1
Control Measures
Control measures which can be used to reduce mobile source emissions
and their estimated effects are as follows:
Inspection/Maintenance - One of several inspection alternatives
needed to maintain engine performance and emission controls at
lower emission levels. Estimated reduction: 4 - 6 percent.
Inspection/Maintenance with Retrofit - One of the several
inspection alternatives with the additional requirement that
a11 pre-1968 vehicles be retrofitted with emission control
devices comparable to new vehicle emission controls. Estimated
additional reduction is less than 1 percent.
Curbside Parking and Loadin~ Regulations -Enforcement of regulations
in order that programmed TO ICS traffic controls are effective.
Estimated reduction: 3 percent for the CBD.
Electrification - Replacement of motor buses with electrified
vehicles results in an estimated reduction of less than 1 percent.
3
-------
Gaseous Fuel Conversion - Emission rates expected from gasoline
fueled 1975 model years and beyond compare favorably with those
rates from gaseous fueled vehicles. Conversion of pre-1975 fleet
vehicles would have short-term, negligible effect.
Increase Mass Transportation Ridership - Control measures which have
the potential for increasing ridership are as follows:
. Center city tunnel connection of suburban rail stations
. Additional park and ride facilities
. Capacity increases
. Shorter headways
. Security force to eliminate crime in
stations and transit cars
. Rider amenities (appearance, lighting,
better seating, station upgrading)
. Unified fare system
. Work staggering in CBD
. Circumferential transit
. Commuter rail and subway extensions
Ridership increases from 1 percent to 20 percent are estimated to
reduce emissions from less than 1 percent to 7 percent
Restraints - Possible restraints are the prohibition of certain
classes of vehicles from congested areas (congestion pass) and
parking space control for inhibiting the movement of vehicles
into areas where limited parking is available. A prohibition of
100,000 vehicle trips per day are estimated to reduce emissions 2
percent.
VMT Controls - The responsible planning agencies should factor
air quality effects into their transportation planning.
CBD Priority - The priority to those control measures which
preferentially control emissions from the CBD or other yet
to be determined areas of high pollutant emission density.
Car Pools - Low density population in the suburban areas
discourages utilization of car pools as an attractive
transit mode.
Vehicle Free Zones - Attractive pedestrian malls have the
potential for helping to revitalize center city commerce.
However, experience in other urban areas has shown that
displaced vehicular traffic tends to be relocated rather
than reduced.
4
-------
2.3.2 Control Strategy Selection
Selection requires the consideration of comparative cost effectiveness
of the alternative control measures and the technical and institutional
obstacles. Jata was available for only a limited analysis of cost effective-
ness. Emission related control measures, such as inspection/maintenance
programs, have technical limitations which need to be overcome and also have
substantial cost effective deterrents. VMT reduction control measures,
such as mass transit improvements and traffic restraints, present funding
problems for the intensive network required in the case of mass transit
and severe institutional obstacles in the case of traffic restraints.
Traffic restraints should not be implemented without alternative means
of travel by mass transit.
Control measures are needed to reduce mobile source emissions by
26,000 tons CO per year (9 percent). The recommended control strategy for
Philadelphia is as follows:
Curbside Parking and Loading Regulations - Estimated to achieve
a reduction of 4000 tons/year.
Inspection/Maintenance (Engine Parameter Without Retrofit) -
Estimated to achieve a reduction of 10,000 tons/year
Increase Mass Transportation Ridership - Potential reductions
of 6000 tons/year to 10,000 tons/year are estimated for a
10 percent increase in ridership.
~estraints - Prohibition of certain classes of vehicles from
congested areas are estimated to result in a reduction of
6000 tons/year per 100,000 daily vehicle trips.
VMT Controls - Factor effect of increase of vehicular miles
of travel on air quality into transportation planning.
CSO Priority - Give priority to those control measures which
preferentially control emissions from the CSO or other yet
to be determined congested areas.
With substantial increases (more than 10 percent) in mass transit
ridership, it is estimated that the air quality goal can be achieved by
implementation of the first three control measures listed. However,
considering the time constraints and economic obstacles to implementation
of most of the mass transit control measures, traffic restraints at least
for the short term are likely to be needed.
5
-------
2.4 DATA LIMITATIONS
The technical approach had to be adjusted to minimize the effects of
data limitations. The analytical limitations fall into two categories:
.
Inability to define control requirements or effects within
acceptable confidence limits.
Lack of demand/response models for analyzing public response
to certain control measures.
.
A prime example of the first category is the limited amount of air quality
data available for defining a carbon monoxide base level from which the
required reductions must be made. The required reductions are very
sensitive to the uncertainties in the air quality data base. An example
of the second category is the uncertainty of response of the auto driving
public to the implementation of control measures for increasing ridership
on public transportation.
Where data was unavailable or its validity questionable, the approach
during this study has been to provide for contingencies in the control
strategy to allow for the possible error in the projections and the
predictions of effects caused by possible inaccuracies in the data base
and limitations of the analytic technique. Additionally, it is recommended
that work begin immediately to establish the more reliable data base and
to provide the bases for adjusting the control strategy if necessary to
achieve the required results. Preference ranking has been limited only
to those control measures where clearcut choices seem to be available
to the State.
2.5
CONTROL STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
Two concurrent implementation tasks requiring immediate action are
the studies and surveys required to make the necessary corrections and
additions to the data base, and immediate decision mass transit funding.
Following update of the data base, a better defined mass transit improve-
ment program may require additional funding (deferred decision funding).
Funding delays may prevent the implementation of all of the required mass
transit control measures within the time constraints.
6
-------
2.6 EFFECTS ON OTHER EMISSION PARAMETERS
Control strategy for the reduction of carbon monoxide from mobile
sources has a comparable effect on hydrocarbon emissions and thus
corresponding reductions in photochemical oxidants are projected. Increased
average speeds from the implementation of TOPICS traffic controls or VMT
reductions may result in an increase in nitrogen dioxide emissions per
mile traveled but this emissions/average speed relationship has not been
quantified to date(7) .
(7)D. S. Kircher and D. P. Armstrong, "An Interim Report on Motor Vehicle
Emission Estimation," Environmental Protection Agency, October 1972.
7
-------
3.0 PROGRAM PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION
3.1
REGIONAL DESCRIPTION
3.1 .1
Air Quality Objectives
The region for which this transportation control strategy has been
developed is the County (City) of Philadelphia. Philadelphia is the major city
of the Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate Air Quality Control Region
(AQCR). This AQCR is comprised of the counties of Bucks, Chester, Delaware,
Montgomery and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania; the counties of Burlington,
Camden, Gloucester, Mercer and Salem in New Jersey; and the county of
New Castle in Delaware. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has approved those portions of the Implementation Plan submitted
by the State of Delaware which relate to the attainment of national ambient
air quality standards in the Delaware portion of the Metropolitan Philadelphia
AQCR. Attainment dates are as follows:
. Nitrogen dioxide
. Carbon monoxide
.
Photochemical oxidants
(hydrocarbons)
January 1974
January 1974
Air quality levels presently
below secondary standards
The Administrator has also approved those same portions of the Implementation
Plan submitted by the State of New Jersey or has proposed specific dates
for the attainment of the relevant standards for New Jersey's portion of
the same AQCR. Attainment dates submitted or proposed are:
From plans
approved or
3 years
5 years
5 years
promulgated
. Nitrogen dioxide
. Carbon monoxide
. Photochemical oxidants
(hydrocarbons)
The Administrator has also approved those same portions of the Implementation
Plan submitted by the State of Pennsylvania or has proposed specific dates
for the attainment of the relevant standards but with the additional require-
ment that a transportation control strategy be submitted by February 15,
1973, for attainment of the national ambient air quality standard for
carbon monoxide by July 1977. Attainment dates are as follows:
9
-------
. Nitrogen dioxide
. Carbon monoxide
. Photochemical oxidants
(hydrocarbons)
3 years from plans
or promulgation
July 1977
3 years from plans
or promulgation
approval
approval
It is the objective of this study to develop transportation control
strategies which achieve compliance with the ambient air quality standard
for carbon monoxide by the attainment date. Further, it must be demon-
strated that these transportation control strategies will not result in
higher levels of nitrogen dioxide or photochemical oxidants or in any
way prevent the State from achieving compliance with the ambient air
quality standards for these pollutants.
3.1.2 Air Quality
National air quality standardJ1A) in effect are as follows:
. Carbon Monoxide - 10 milligrams per cubic nleter (9 ppm)
maximum eight-hour concentration not to be exceeded more
than once per year, and 40 milligrams per cubic meter
(35 ppm) maximum one-hour concentration not to be exceeded
more than once per year. Primary and secondary standards.
. Hydrocarbons - 160 micrograms per cubic meter, (0.24 ppm)
corrected for methane, maximum three-hour concentration
( 6 to 9 a.m.) not to be exceeded more than once per
year. Primary and secondary standards.
. Nitrogen Dioxide - 100 micrograms per cubic meter (0.05 ppm)
annual arithmetic mean. Primary and secondary standards.
The second highest CO concentration, eight-hour running average measured
in Philadelphia during 1971 was 22.5 milligrams per cubic metePB) from
5 p.m., October 16 to 1 a.m., October 17. The second highest running
average has been prescribed by EPA as the basis for determining compliance
with standards. The meas urements were made at 20th and Race Streets in
(lA)Federal Register, April 30, 1971.
(lB)Data obtained from EPA.
10
-------
the Central Business District (CBD). No other air quality monitoring
sites with CO measurement capability were operational in 1971. The
City's Air Management Services department is installing a network of
ten CO monitors which should be operational during 1973.
It is recognized that measurements from only one receptor site are
a poor basis for determining the magnitude of compliance or non-compliance
with air quality standards. The site is believed not to be in the area
of maximum CO emissions for either the City or the CBD. Thus, there is
a high probability that measurements at other receptor points will yield
higher levels of concentrations.
3.1.3 Demography
Population ot the nine-county Pennsylvania-New Jersey
of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia in
and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester and Mercer in New Jersey)
1960 and 1970 census data is as follows:
Total nine-county re9ion
Philadelph1a
1960
4,609,289
2,002,512
3.1.4 Vehicle Population
Auto ownership(lC)in the nine-county region and in
as fo 11 ows :
Nine-county region
Phi ladelphia
1960
1,243,656
399,962
region (counties
Pennsylvania
compi led from
1970
5 , 1 21 , 882
1,948,609
Philadelphia was
1970
1 , 587 , 5 79
463,193
(lC) Data provided by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.
11
-------
3.1.5
Areas of Congestion
The most likely major areas of congestion are as follows:
.
Center City (bounded by Spring Garden on the north;
South Street on the south; the Schuylkill and Delaware
Rivers on the west and east). with heaviest congestion
in the core (Race, 7th, Locust, and 18th Streets).
. Schuylkill Expressway south of City Line Avenue.
. Roosevelt Boulevard east of Sch uy1 ki 11 Expressway.
. Penrose Avenue - 26th ~treet intersection.
. City Line Avenue west of Schuy1ki 11 Expressway.
. Walnut-Chestnut Street one-way couplet west of
S ch uy 1 kill E xp re ssw ay .
. Broad Street south of Roosevelt Road.
. Assurre other outlying areas considered for TOPICS
improverrents to a lesser degree.
3.1.6
Limited Access Highways and Delaware River Crossings
1-95 (Delaware Expressway) is completed within the region as
fo 11 ows :
.
.
From southern boundary of region to Chester.
From Gi rard Avenue north to the northern boundary
regi on.
of the
The remaining link, from Chester to Girard Avenue, is expected to be
open to traffic by 1976. Completion of this link will no doubt result
in significant increases in through traffic in Philadelphia as well as
diversion of local and commuter traffic from other streets and highways.
1-95 within Philadelphia generally follows the Delaware River and the
eastern edge of the CBD.
1-476 (Mid-County Expressway) has a short sect"ion complete and
two other short sections under construction in the vicinity of the
Schuylkill Expressway. The remaining portions of this route which will tie
the Pennsylvania Turnpike at its Northeast Extension with 1-95 just north
of Chester is not expected to be opened to traffic until 1976.
12
-------
1-295. Remaining links within the region are expected to be
completed by 1976. This highway will parallel the New Jersey Turnpike
and is expected to reduce turnpike traffic.
Schuylkill ~ressway extends from southeast Philadelphia at the Walt
Whitman Bridge to the northwest where it connects with the Pennsylvania
Turnpike at King of Prussia. This highway is a major artery for local
and commuter traffic. It follows the Schuylkill River along the western
fringe of the CBD.
Roosevelt Boulevard (U.S.l) connects with the Schuylkill Expressway
near Allegheny Avenue and runs northeast, connecting with the Pennsylvania
Turnpike. The western end of this major artery is limited access.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike is an east-west toll facility passing
through Bucks and Montgomery Counties north of Philadelphia.
The New Jersey Turnpike is a toll facility which for many years has
been the major through highway from New York City to the south. It passes
through Gloucester, Camden and Burlington Counties.
The North-South Freeway in New Jersey extends from the Walt Whitman
Bridge to the southeast toward Atlantic City.
The Walt Whitman Bridge is
River Port Authority (DRPA) that
Philadelphia into New Jersey and
a toll facility operated by the Delaware
crosses the Delaware River from soutgeast
connects with the Schuylkill Expressway.
The Ben Franklin Bridge is a toll facility operated by
connects the CBD with Camden, New Jersey. It also serves as
DRPA's Lindenwold Line (commuter rail line).
DRPA that
a crossing for
The Tacony-Palmyra Bridge is
negligible tolls (five cents) that
east Philadelphia with New Jersey.
a toll facility charging virtually
connects Levick Avenue in lower north-
13
-------
The Pennsylvania Turnpike Bridge extends this toll facility into
New Jersey for connection with the New Jersey Turnpike.
The Scudder FallsBridge is the crossing for Interstate 95 north of
Trenton.
The Chester Bridgeport Bridge is under construction south of
Philadelphia which along with a highway link connecting it to 1-95
should be open by 1975. It will be a toll facility operated by DRPA and
will tie 1-95 with 1-295.
The Delair Bridge will tie 1-95 with U.S.130 in
is also expected to be open in 1975 and will also be a
by DRPA.
the northeast. It
toll facility operated
3.1.7 Public Transportation
Philadelphia has an established mass transportation system with a
good modal mix. While much of the equipment and facilities need to be
modernized to attract more riders, some modes of transit have capacity
ridership during peak hours while others operate at well below capacity.
With the establishment of Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority (SEPTA) as a single authority to manage major elements of the
transportation system, integrated planning for transit extensions and
for increasing capacity is possible. In addition to SEPTA's system,
the Delaware River Port Authority through its wholly owned subsidiary,
Port Authority Transit Corporation (PATCO), operates a rapid transit
system (The lindenwold line).
SEPTA's system consists of the following:
. Penn Central Railroad commuter rail lines into the
surrounding Pennsylvania counties and terminating
in the CBD at 16th and John F. Kennedy Boulevard.
. Reading Railroad commuter rail lines into the
surrounding Pennsylvania counties and terminating
in Reading Terminal at 12th and Market Streets.
14
-------
. The Broad Street Subway, a north-south subway line from
a northern terminus at Fern Rock to Snyder Avenue.
. The Market Street-Frdnkford Subway and Elevated is an
east-west line from the western terminus at 69th Street
to the eastern edge of the CBD. The line then turns
north and runs elevated to Frankford in the near northeast.
. An extensive motor bus system throughout the City and
into adjoining Pennsylvania counties.
. Some streetcar and trackless trolley routes.
PATCO's LinGenwold Line is a rapid transit rail line from Lindenwold,
New Jersey, to 16th and Locust Streets in the CBD.
Transport of New Jersey, a privately owned bus company, has been
providing bus transportation from New Jersey into Philadelphia. During
1972, certain transport of New Jersey bus routes will be reoriented as
a feeder system for the Lindenwold Line.
Extensive public transportation improvements are scheduled for
completion between now and 1980. Some of these improvements will be
completed and will have a potential impact on the air quality by the
attainment date for meeting the air quality standards of July 1977. The
public transportation improvements programs are detailed in Appendix B.
3.1.8 The Central Business District (CBD)
The boundaries are Spring Garden Street to the north,
to the south, Schuylkill River to the west, and the Delaware
the east. The approximate area is 2.9 square miles out of a
for the entire City of 127 square miles.
South Street
River to
total area
3.2 PROBLEM DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTION
The national primary ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide
(CO) of 10 milligrams per cubic meter, eight-hour average, is exceeded in
Philadelphia. The second highest concentration observed during the year
1971 was 22.5 milligrams per cubic meter. The measurements were made at
a monitor located at 20th and Race Streets. The State of Pennsylvania
15
-------
must develop and implement a transport~tion control strategy which has
as its goal a reduction of CO concentration from the level measured in
1971 to or to less than the level of the, air quality standard by July 1977.
The major impact on concentrations of CO in the ambient air comes from
mobile source emissions. Stationary sources contributed only 14.6 percent
to total CO emitted during 1971. Controls will be implemented by mid-1973
which will reduce the stationary source emissions by about 75 percent.
3.3 TECHNICAL APPROACH
Transportation control measures must be defined that will reduce mobile
source emissions to a level which achieves compliance with the air quality
standard by July 1977. The technical approach is to select candidate control
measures and quantify where possible the emissions reductions expected.
Comparisons of the candidate control measures are then made in relation
to cost effectiveness and in relation to the technical and institutional
obstacles to the implementation of the control measure. From these
comparisons, a preference ranking is generated to aid in the selection of
the most effective control strategy. However, limitations in the data
available and in the analytic method used became obvious during the course
of this study, (see subsection 3.4) following.
The technical approach had to be adjusted accordingly to minimize
the effects of these limitations. The analytical limitations fall into
two categories.
. Inability to define control requirements or effects within
acceptable confidence limits.
. Lack of demand/response models for ,analyzing public response
to certain control measures.
A prime example of the first category is the limited amount of air quality
data available for defining a carbon monoxide base level from which the
requi red reductions must be made. The requi red reductions are very
sensitive to the uncertainties in the air quality data base. For
Philadelphia, a t 10% error in the air quality base results in a ~ 36%
16
-------
variation in the required reductions needed from the implementation of
control measures. An example of the second category is the uncertainty
of response of the auto driving public to the implementation of control
measures for increasing ridership on public transportation. Not only
does this prevent an accurate estimate of the effect of the control
measure on air quality, it also thwarts any a~tempt at analyzing its
cost effectiveness.
Where data was unavailable or its validity questionable, the approach
during this study has been to provide for contingencies in the control
strategy to allow for the possible error in the ~rojections and the
predictions of effects caused by possible inaccuracies in the data base
and limitations of the analytic technique. Additionally, it is recommended
that work begln immediately to establish the more reliable data base and
to provide the bases for adjusting the control strategy if necessary to
achieve the required results. Preference ranking has been limited only
to those control measures where clearcut choices seem to be available
to the State.
3.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION CONTROL STRATEGY ANALYSIS
3.4. 1
General Concepts
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. LQng-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
17
-------
during the cour~e of this study, and care mu~t be t~ken in tne interpretation
and evaluation of the control strategy recommendations contained in this
report. Several specific areas in which the present study needs to be
confirmed and validated by future study are listed below.
3.4.2 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-determine 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 geogr.aphical 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 concern-ing the use of ai r quality monitoring
data lies in the statistical manipulations and projections used to determine
the required level of reduction for the attainment of standards. Basing
an extensive control program on measurements obtained in one or two hours
per year may lead to the imposition of unduly strict control measures.
The trend of ambient measurements during the period before the target
year of 1977 must be carefully watched and used to adjust control measures
according to observed ambient conditions. Further, specific high
measurements obviously due to adverse meteorological conditions may be
considered as episode control situations and may not require ~he imposition
of long-term transportation control strategies for their solution.
3.4.3 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 Environmental
18
-------
Protection Agency. The applicability of the standard test driving cycle
to the driving patterns in each metropolitan area is questionable.
Further, there are many trip types making up the total vehicle miles traveled
in each area; and it has not been possible on the basis of current 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 emission in the region.
finally, the emission factors used in the study relates speed to the
emission only on the basis of the integrated driving cycle. This has
prevented the accurate assessment of changes in emissions due to improved
traffic flow characteristics in core, center city areas.
3.4.4
Cold Start Emissions
Preliminary data have shown that the emissions generated during
the first few minutes of vehicle operations represe~t 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. Un-
fortunately, the data relating to this phenomena were not sufficiently
developed to be used in the analysis presented in this study. Another
potential effect of high level cold start emissions from the control
strategy might be in the control as a stationary source of parking
structures. Again, it has not been possible to quanititatively describe
the effect of this type measure on the regional air pollution problem
i n th is re po rt .
3.4.5
Traffi c Data and Projecti ons
Traffic data and traffic projections have not historically been
collected 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 calculations. Certain assumptions and potential inaccuracies
have been introduced by this process. Further, the use of trends and
19
-------
projections 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.
3.4.6 Analytic Techniques Used
The key analytic calculation performed in this study is the
relation between emission levels and ambient air quality. Sufficient
mobile source data were not available to utilize sophisticated mathematical
modeling techniques in the development of this relation between emissions
and air quality. Control strategy reductions were thus based on proportional
rollback techniques relating existing emissions and air quality on a pro-
portional basis. The use of modeling is highly recommended since it will
both include the effects of local meteorological and topographical
features and indicate, in a way that rollback estimation cannot, the
geographical extent of the regional air pollution problem. Such mode1ing
and simulation exercises using models currently under development should
be carried out during the years between now and 1977 and should be used
to modify, if required, the control strategy recommended in this document.
3.4.7 Effects of Control Measures
It was generally not possible to expressly quantify the emission
reduction effect of many of the control measures considered in this document.
For example, the effect of an inspection and maintenance program depends
strongly upon the exact test procedure used, maintenance recommendations,
the quality and availability of trained mechanics and a host of ather
factors which were impossible to define exactly during this studY.
Similarly, mass transit improvements can be expected to reduce vehicle
miles traveled within the region. The extent of this reduction is
20
-------
unknown until specific data concerning the economic elasticity of the
various travel demands, the modal split of trips within the region, and
lilany other factors are determined. These parameters need to be carefully
evaluated before the quantitative estimates become reliable.
3.4.8
Conclusions
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, 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.
21
-------
4.0 CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
4.1 EMISSION REDUCTION REQUIRED
A 56 percent reduction in the CO emitted from mobile sources was
determined to be the reduction required to meet the national ambient air
quality standards. A proportional model was used to determine the required
emission reductions needed. The proportional model is described and the
rationale for its use is detailed in Appendix A.
To determine the magnitude of the emissions reduction required, it is
necessary that the quantitative effect of emissions reductions on the level
of concentration in the ambient air be determined. Methods for determining
this effect vary in complexity. The more complex and, with sufficient
data base, the more representative of actual conditions are diffusion models
which use for inputs the emission rates of all sources (e.g., all streets
plus all stationary sources), the concentration at the receptors, and
source-receptor interaction. The latter is determined from and varies
with meteorological conditions. The least complex is the simple proportional
model used in this study which assumes that the reduction in air quality
concentration levels is directly proportional to emission reductions.
4.2 EMISSION ESTIMATES
4.2.1
Methods
An emission estimate is the product of two factors; vehicle miles
of travel (VMT) times an emission rate (emission factor) in grams pollutant
per mile traveled, yielding the mass rate of pollutant per unit of time.
Emission factors were based on known or expected emission rates for each
vehicle class considering age of vehicle, effectiveness of emission controls,
average speed, and age distribution of the population of vehicles traveling
within Philade1phia(7). The impact of Federal new motor vehicle exhaust
system controls required on present and future vehicles were considered.
Emission factor calculations are detailed in Appendix A.
(7)D.S. Kircher and D.P. Armstrong, "An Interim Report on Motor Vehicle
Emission Estimation," Environmental Protection Agency. October 1972.
23
-------
The various elements which make up the emission factor, except for
age distribution, are found in the above referenced report. (7) The
emission rates in gram/mile are the results of tests for determining exhaust
emission rates of light duty vehicles in Chicago and applied to the geographic
area encompassing Philadelphia. The tests were by Federal test procedures
on low mileage (4000 mile) nondeteriorated vehicles. Heavy duty emission
rates were based on studies in a single geographic area.
The emission rates were adjusted for deterioration of the emission
control devices with mileage. Limited data on deterioration for in-service
light duty vehicles only was available for estimating deterioration factors.
The deterioration rate of future emission control devices is not known
and projections are largely dependent on the differences between new vehicle
and in-use vehicle emission standards.
The emission rate is then adjusted to account for the expected annual
travel as of December 31 of each model year of vehicle traveling in
Philadelphia. The average annual mileage of each model year is weighted
with the age distribution of vehicles traveling in the region, based on
1970 registration figures. The same age distribution was projected to
1976 and 1977 for predicting the emission factors for those years.
A weighted speed adjustment factor adjusts the emission rate for
variation in speed. Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions vary inversely
with vehicle speed. Unfortunately, the speed adjustment factor relates
speed to the emission only on the basis of the integrated driving cycle.
The speed effect of this driving cycle may not correlate too well with
driving cycles imposed by congested city street driving conditions.
VMT and speed were determined as shown in Appendix B. Estimates
of VMT and speed within Philadelphia and its CBD were based principally
on historical projections. Citywide travel was based on known 1960 traffic
projected by trends in auto ownership and screen line crossings. Travel
within the CBD was based on trends reflected by cordon counts taken on
its perimeter as well as a 1963 traffic flow map. Average speed on the
major street system in 1960 was 20.5 miles per hour. An average speed of
24
-------
12 miles per hour was assumed on the local streets. A 1971 travel time
survey made by the DVRPC over selected routes within the region indicates
a slight overall decrease in speeds between 1960 and 1971. Speed during
1971 within the City was thus assumed to be 20 miles per hour on the major
street system with the same 12 miles per hour applicable on local streets.
Overall average speed weighted by VMT was then calculated from these values.
Average speed within the CBD was based on 1970 speed studies made by the
City's Traffic Engineering Division.
VMT and speed projections to 1977 were based on actual growth
reflected by census, interim traffic counts, available real life data and
judgement based on national trends. The projections also reflect the
expected effects of major highway projects programmed for completion by
1977. Details on these projections are shown in Appendix B.
4.2.2
Present Trans ortation S stem and Emission
Estimated mobile source carbon monoxide emissions for 1971 were
302,240 tons per year overall for the City and 25,550 tons per year for
the CBD. Emission factors and VMT by vehicle class used for these
estimates are given in Table 4-1. The second highest eight-hour CO measure-
ment that is used for baseline air quality data occurred October 16-17,1971.
This level of concentration must be reduced to the level of the air quality
standard by July 1977. The CO emission rates in tons/year for 1971 is
adjusted upward slightly from the year end values shown in the table to
reflect VMT and emission factor projections back to October.
4.2.3
Emission
Emission
.
ortation S stem and
Estimated mobile source carbon monoxide emissions for 1977 were
158,630 tOAS per year overall for the City and 10,040 tons per year for the
CBD. Emission factors and VMT by vehicle class used for these estimates
are given in Table 4-2.
25
-------
Table 4-1. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS (1971 YEAR END)
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES
Emissioll Factor VMT CO Emissions
(gm CO/mi .) (103 mi ./day) ( tons/year)
City Total 65.7 10122 267340
CBD 85.7 636 21910
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES
Emission Factor VMT CO Emissions
(gm CO/mi.) (103 mi ./day) ( tons/year)
Ci ty Total 129.6 569 29640
CBD 169.2 48 3270
DIESEL
Emission Factor VMT CO Emissions
(gm CO /mi .) (103 mi ./day) ( tons/year)
City Total 20.4 77 630
CBD 20.4 7 60
26
-------
Table 4-2. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS (1977 YEAR END)
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES
Emission Factor VMT CO Emissions
(gm CO/mi .) (l 03 mi . / day) ( tons/year)
Ci ty Total 26.8 11094 119570
CBD 27.3 697 7650
HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES
Emission Factor VMT CO Emissions
(gm CO/m;,) (l03mi./day) (tons/year)
City Total 94.7 618 23530
CBD 96.1 31 1200
DIESEL
Emission Factor VMT CO Emissions
(gm CO/m;,) (103 mi ./day) ( tons/year)
Ci ty Total 20.4 84 690
CBD 20.4 28 230
27
-------
The estimates reflect major highway projects due to be under traffic
by 1977. These are:
. 1-95 (Delaware Expressway). Remaining link throughout City
and southerly to Chester.
. 1-76 (Vine Street Expressway).
. 1-476 (Mid-County Expressway).
. Industrial Expressway-26th Street connector interchange.
. Chester and Delair Bridges.
. 1-295. Remaining links throughout region in New Jersey.
. 1-76 connection to Ben Franklin Bridge.
The estimates also reflect the reductions expected from the emission
controls required to be installed on new vehicles beginning with the 1972
and 1975 model years, adjusted for deterioration as described in 4.2.1.
Since there must be compliance with the air quality standard by July 1977,
the CO emission rate was adjusted from the year end values shown in the
table to mid-year values of tons CO per year total for the City and the CSD.
Calculations are shown in Appendix A.
4.3 CONTROL MEASURE SELECTION
4.~. 1
Technical Requirements
Table 4-3 summarizes the 1971 and 1977 carbon monoxide emission
levels compared with the levels estimated to be needed to achieve compliance
with the ambient air quality standard. Mobile source emissions must be
reducP0 ~bout56% from 1971 levels to achieve the carbon monoxide air
quality standard. About 9% of the reduction needs to be achieved with
transportation controls. The other 47% is expected to be achieved mainly
with Federally mandated new car emission controls plus the benefits of
higher average speeds due to programmed highway changes.
4.3.2 Technical Feasibility
Control measures are those actions taken that are expected to result
in a reduction in total emissions. Control measures will fall into one of
two groups; emission related and VMT reduction. Emission related control measures
28
-------
Table 4-3.
EMISSION REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS, CITY & CBD
October, 1971
July, 1977
Estimated Actual
Estimated Actual
Without TransRortation
Controls(l)
Estimated
Actual Required
Citywi de
Ambient air quality
22.5 mg/m3 CO,
8-hour average
22.5
10
N
\0
Mobile source emission
ton/yr. CO
302000
159000
133000
% Reduction
47
56
CBD
Mobile source emission,
ton/yr. CO
25500
1 0000
11200
% Reduction
61
56
(l)Reductions reflect new car emission controls scheduled to be in service and major highway
changes programmed for completion.
-------
achieve reductions in emissions per vehicle mile by the use of emission
control devices, inspection/maintenance requirements, alternative energy
sources such as gaseous fuels and electric power, and speed control. The
other group of control measures achieve reduction by reducing the vehicle
miles traveled (VMT).
EPA regulations require that vehicles be equipped with emission
controls that maintain emissions below specified limits. Table 4-3 shows
emission estimates that indicate reductions by 1977 of 47 percent overall
for the City and 61 percent for the CBD through utilization of emission
controls and through the effects of programmed highway and bridge construction.
Emission controls are the major component of this estimated reduction. The
estimated reduction from emission controls are based on minimal low mileage
test data (4000 mile) and for only pre-1972 models(?). Reductions for
later year models are estimated. A deterioration factor is applied to
account for the aging or deterioration bf the control devices beyond the
low mileage test period and estimates. The estimated reductions should
not be relied on unequivocally until confirmed by additional test data.
Other emission related control measures were considered for inclusion
in the transportation control strategy. Emission related control measures
produce a decrease in the quantity of pollutants emitted per mile of
vehicle travel. They have the advantage over VMT reduction methods of
achieving pOllutant reductions without requiring control measures, which
may have to include severe restraints, for reducing the VMT. However,
technical feasibility or cost effective deterrents to emission related
control measures such as inspection/maintenance, gaseous fuels and
electrification need to be overcome. Speed increases fall into the
emission related groups because emissions of CO and hydrocarbons are
reduced as speed is increased.
VMT reduction control measures may be considered as either alter-
natives or in addition to the emission related control measures. VMT
30
-------
reduction is achieved by either reducing the travel demand (fewer total
trips within the region) or to divert trips to less polluting forms of
transit. Socio-economic problems generated by the first solution tend
to dominate the obstacles to this group of control measures. The major
obstacles to the diversion of riders to less polluting forms of transit
are public acceptance of alternative transit modes and the high capital
and operating costs of these systems.
4.3.3 Institutional Considerations
Any candidate control measure should be considered in relation to
the economic, political, and social problems likely to be encountered
upon its implementation. The various obstacles to the control measures
considered for Philadelphia have been documented in subsection 4.4.9.
Cost effectiveness is also discussed for those control measures where cost
estimates are available in subsection 4.4.8.
4.3.4 Control Measures Considered
Several
as infeasible.
subsection.
control measures were considered which were finally rejected
The rationale for their rejection are discussed in this
Inspection/Maintenance. Idle Mode Test. This test measures the
emissions during an idling cycle. The test is performed rapidly and
test equipment is less expensive than for multi-cycle emission tests.
However, the test provides only limited diagnostic information for per-
forming the required maintenance if needed.
Inspection/Maintenance. Mandatory Tuneup. This control measure
requires that complete tuneups be performed on all vehicles regardless
of vehicle condition. Limited test data indicates that rejection of
more than about 40% of the tested vehicles does not result in substantially
greater emission reductions (8) It was therefore concluded that mandatory
T8TJoe1 Horowitz~ The Effectiveness and Cost of Inspection & Maintenance
for Reduclng Automobile Emissions
31
-------
tuneup would not be a cost effective control strategy.
Gaseous Fuels. Emission rates expected from 1975 model years and
beyond compare favorably with those rates from gaseous fue1ed vehicles.
Philadelphia's taxi fleet would have only about 400 pre-1975 cabs on the
streets by 1977 as candidates for possible conversion, an insignificant
impact on the air quality. No other sizeable fleets were found for
potential conversion.
Car Pools. The gradual population movement away from the center
city has resulted in reduced population densities and discouraged car
pools as a transit mode. Until this trend is reversed, voluntary car
pooling is not an attractive alternative for most commuters.
Economic Penalties. Economic penalties would not likely impact
high income levels to the degree they would impact low income groups.
32
-------
4.4 CONTROL MEASURES AND STRATEGY FOR PHILADELPHIA
4.4.1
Strategy Goal
It is estimated that to meet the ambient air quality standard for
CO by 1977 that a 9% reduction from 1971 levels in mobile source emissions
is required beyond that expected to be achieved by new car emission controls
and programmed highway changes. This equates to a total mass reduction of
about 26,000 tons CO per year. The control measures described below are
alternative or coexisting measures for attaining this stated level of
reduct ion.
4.4.2 General Considerations
The estimated.emissions reductions from these control measures indicate
that emission related control measures alone will not achieve compliance with
the ambient air quality standards by 1977. VMT reduction control measures
alone can be implemented that would achieve compliance but only with
massive funding for public transportation and very severe driver restraints.
It is not likely that such control strategies are implementable. It is
possible that a combination of emission related and VMT reduction control
measures will ~chieve compliance with somewhat less transit funding and
driver restraints. Following a description of the control measures and
their effects, various of these combinations will be compared.
4.4.3 Emission Related Measures
4.4.3.1
Inspection/Maintenance (Loaded Emission Test Without Retrofit)
Estimated emission reduction is 6 percent City total and 5 percent
for the CBD. EPA considers this approach to be the most generally applicable
of the several inspection/maintenance alternatives for in-use vehicle
emissions control. Therefore, their guidelines require that data and analyses
supporting the emissions reductions claimed for alternative approaches
must be submitted with the transprotation control plan. This control measure
has thus been included although other inspection/maintenance approaches can
be better integrated with Pennsylvania's established safety inspection
program.
33
-------
Annual reduction is 17~050 tons per year total for the City and 1.300
tons per year for the CBD. No reduction was considered for heavy duty and
diesel vehicles.
The specific emission test considered is the Key Mode test which
requires measurement of emissions during cruise, deceleration and idle modes
of an acce1eration-cruise-dece1eration-id1e cycle. (15) Average annual
reductions in CO are estimated to be 10 percent from a tuned base, 20 per-
cent reduction to no reduction after one year(l?} Act No. 154(22)of
Pennsylvania law is the authority for estab1ising an inspection/maintenance
program. The law requires inspections every six months. Therefore,
estimated average annual reduction would be 15 percent and was the value
used to determine the estimated emission reduction. Inspection of pre-
1968 vehicles is not considered because Act No. 154 requires inspection
only of vehicles equipped with emission controls. If all vehicles were
to be put under the in~pection program, additional reductions would be
possible.
Reduction estimates are effected by adjusting the 1977 emission
factor of the affected model years downward by 15 percent.
(15 )
"Control Strategies for in-Use Vehicles," Preliminary Draft, Environmental
Protection Agency, August 9, 1972.
(17)
Federal Register, Title 40, Preliminary Draft, Requirements for Preparation
Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, Transportation Control
Measures, October 12, 1972.
(22 )
Act No. 154, Approved June 16,1972, Effective September 15,1972.
34
-------
4.4.3.2
Inspection/Maintenance (Engine Parameter Diagnosis Without Retrofit)
Estimated emissions reduction is 4 percent City total and 3 per-
cent for the CBD. This approach requires that maintenance be performed on
the vehicle if needed after a periodic diagnostic test that prescribes
the maintenance requi red. Annual reduction is 11.480 tons per year total
for the City and 700 tons per year for the CBD. Parameters inspections might
include RPM, timing, spark plugs, ignition wires, distributor, air cleaner,
PCV valve, carburetor adjustment, air injection system, and emission controls.
Average annual reductions in CO are estimated to be about 7 percent
from a tuned base,13 percent reduction to no reduction after one year (15~
An ave!,age reduction of about 10 percent was thus assumed applicable for a
six-month inspection program. The estimates reflect empirical studies using
test fleets representative of the California vehicle population using 1972
Federal Certification Test Procedures. Differences from these estimates
may be expected when applied to the vehicle population in the Philadelphia
area. A major weakness of engine parameter inspection/maintenance is the
lack of an integral surveillance procedure for evaluating effectiveness.
Because of this and because of the statistical uncertainties in the
reduction estimates, an adjunct emission test program needs to be included
in surveillance procedures. This might be accomplished through statistical
sampling of the vehicles subject to inspection in only those regions of
the State that must implement transportation control strategies.
4.4.3.3
Inspection/Maintenance (Engine Parameter Diagnosis With Retrofit,
Air Bleed to Intake Manifold).
Estimated emissions reduction is 4 percent City total and 3 percent
for the CBO. Act No. 154 stipulates inspection of controlled vehicles only.
To avoid the political and administrative difficulties which may evolve
from requiring inspection of only one class of vehicles, the State may
wish to requi re the retrofitting of all precontrolled vehi cles, thus having
controls on all State licensed light duty vehicles. Air bleed to intake
manifold was chosen from several retrofitting methods because it appears to
be the most cost effective. Significantly higher reductions are
projected for 1977 with retroiiit than without retrofit but it must be
(15)IIControl Strategies for In-Use Vehicles. II
35
-------
realized that the same effect will occur without retrofit in later years
as pre-controlled vehicles gradually disappear from the streets. Annual re-
duction is 13,450 tons CO per year total for the City and 860 tons CO
per year for the CBO.
Emissions reduction estimates differ from estimates of reductions
from engine parameter diagnosis without retrofit by the application of the
same 10 percent reduction to pre-1968 light duty vehicles as to post-1967
vehicles. Test data indicate significantly higher reductions due to
air bleed to intake maniforld retrofit but full credit has not been taken
because the test data were limited.
4.4.3.4 Curbside Parking and Loading Regulations
The TOPICS traffic control program scheduled to be implemented by
1977 will not be effective in improving traffic flow in the CBO unless
existing parking and loading regulations are enforced. Benefits can thus be de-
rived only by strict enforcement of existing regulations in conjunction
with the TOPICS program. Estimated reductions due to the TOPICS program
are less than 1 percent total for the City and 3 percent for the CBO. City
total emissions reduction are 3,490 tons per year and CBO emissions reduction
are 810 tons per year. TOPICS effects will come from an increase in average
speed from 18.8 m.p.h. without TOPICS to 22.0 m.p.h. with TOPICS improve-
ments. This results in a reduction in average emission rates. Speed
projections were determined as described in Appendix B.
4.4.3.5 Electrification
Estimated emissions reduction is less than 1 percent if all motor
buses are electrified. Estimated reductions are based on a daily VMT
reduction of 84,000 miles average. Annual tonnage reductions are 688 tons
CO City total and 234 tons CO for the CBO.
4.4.4 VMT Reduction Measures
The control measures presented above all produce a decrease in the
quantity of pollutants emitted per mile of vehicle travel. The alternative,
in terms of achieving an allowable emission level, is to either reduce the
travel demand (fewer total trips within the region) or to divert trips to
36
-------
less polluting forms of transit. The 1attert diversion of trips,will be
considered first followed by alternative control measures to restrain total
t ri ps .
4.4.4.1
Increase Mass Transportation Ridership
It has not been possible within the time frame and scope of this
study to project increased transit usage specifically associated with each
measure defined below. Additionally, each of tbe measures has social and
economic implications quite apart from air pollution considerations. It
is therefore recommended that detailed planning consideration be given to
all aspects of any transit improvement measure prior to its implementation.
Emissions reductions are estimated for several levels of increased
transit ridership due to diversion as follows:
CITY TOTAL
In c re as e i n Ride rs hip
(pe rcent)
1
5
10
20
Reduction in Emissions
(percent)
0.2
1.0
2.0
4.0
Tons CO/Year
460
3010
5840
11960
CBO
Increase in Ridership
(percent)
1
5
10
20
Reduction in Emissions
(percent)
0.2
1.0
2.1
4.4
Tons CO/Year
60
260
540
1120
Calculations are detailed in Appendix-e. The analysis considers that
diversion is proportional for all trip lengths and therefore gives some
bias toward the shorter trip length. Accordingly the results are estimated
minimum effects. Greater effects on emissions are obtained by considering
37
-------
only work trips which are somewhat longer overall. The difference in
effects also suggests that emphasis be placed on implementing those
mass transportation contro: measures which focus on diversion to mass
transit of the longer trip types. The 1970 census(21) provides work
trip data by mode and gives an indication of origin-destination patterns
within Philadelphia and its Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA).
Effects of various levels of diversions of these work trips was estimated,
results as follows:
CITY TOTAL
Increase in Ridersh'Jp
(percent)
1
5
10
20
Reduction in Emissions
(percent)
0.3
2.0
3.0
7.0
Tons CO/Year
1060
5100
10080
20100
Mass transportation improvements programmed for completion by 1977
are listed in Appendix A. Additional control measures which have the
potential for increasing ridership are as follows:
. Center City tunnel connection of suburban rail stations
. Additional parK and ride facilities
. Capacity increase
. Shorter headways
. Security force to eliminate crime in stations
and transit cars
. Rider amenities (appearance, lighting, better
seating, station upgrading)
. Unified fare system
. Work staggering in CBD
. Circumferential transit
. Commuter rail and subway extensions
Center City Tunnel Connection
The tunnel will connect Penn Central Suburban Station and Reading
38
-------
Terminal, providing pass through commuter tr'ain service,additional trips
without intermodal transfer, and better use of capacity. Completion is
possible by 1976.
Additional Park and Ride Facilities
Existing facilities are a success and more are planned.
Capacity Increases
This control measure is to assure that equipment is available
to accomodate projected ridership increases.
Shorter Headways
Shorter headways also serve to increase capacity as well as being
a potential time savings incentive for increased ridership.
Rider Amenities (appearance, lighting, better seating, station
upgrading)
Station appearance and lighting is being improved on the subways.
Effects on ri dershi pare di ffi cult to project.
Securi ty Force
Some modes are presently being patrolled by man/dog teams. The
hoped-for effect is a sense of security provi ded by the presence of cri me
deterrents whether it be the physical presence of guards or remote camera
s urvei 11 ance.
Unified Fare System
Plans to eliminate some of these inequalities should be accelerated
to make intermodal transfer more attractive.
Work Staggering in the CBO
Successful work staggering would increase capacity an estimated
15 percent by stretching the present peak=hour to two hours. LIttle or
no capital funds are required.
Circumferential Transit
Better transit to outlying work areas should be provided by this
means. SEPTA plans for circumferential transit across North Philadelphia might be
achieved by 1977 with immediate funding.
39
-------
Commuter Rail and Subway Extensions
Lines should be extended to serve the expanding suburbs.
4.4.4.2
Restrai nts
Estimated emissions reduction is 2 percent (6130 ton/year) per
100.000 trips assuming an average trip length of 5 miles. Restraints will
be difficult to implement and only two are considered as feasible at this
time:
. Congestion Pass - Only those vehicles with demonstrated
need to be in congested areas may enter
. Parking Space Control - Growth "I parking spaces is
regulated to conform with allowable growth factors
It can be seen that the Congestion Pass is likely to be the more effective
of the two alternatives since there are only about 40,000 off-street
parking spaces in the CBO. Parking Space Control is seen as a useful
tool for the control of VMT growth discussed in the following subsection.
4.4.5 VMT Controls
If emission controls fail to reduce CO levels in the ambient air
to the level of the standard, the major criteria for further reductions
is the control of vehicular miles traveled (VMT). The responsible planning
agencies need to consider the effect of VMT on pollutant levels and set
VMT growth factors for conformance with air quality standards. This concept
was well expressed in Air Management Services transportation control plan(23)
which said,
"One of the most serious obstacles to success of this
plan is the persistent failure of the responsible
transporation planning agencies to adequately weigh
the environmental factor in their planning and implementation".
( 23)
Control of Vehicular Air Pollution in a Comprehensive Program,
November 3, 1972.
40
-------
The concept of VMT growth is shown on Figure 4-1. The positive
slope of the curve represents allowable increases in VMT growth as 1975
emission controls impact on an increasing percentage of the total vehicle
population. Reduced total emissions from the more effective 1975 emission
controls allows additional auto trips to be made up to a maximum level
of VMT. The implementation of an effective inspection/maintenance program
or other emission related control measures would allow the VMT ceiling to
be raised proportionate to the emission'reductions achieved.
4. 4. 6 CB 0 P ri 0 rity
The transportation plan should give priority to those strategies
which preferentially control emissions from the CBO. The ratio of emission
density in tons per year per square mile,was 4.0 in the CBO to 1 in the rest
of Philadelphia during 1971. Projections to 1977 show that the emissions
density will be reduced to 2.7 in the CBO to 1 in the rest of Philadelphia,
a significant reduction but still showing that emissions are concentrated
in the CBO to a degree requiring priority attention. The areas assumed
for determining emission densities were 2.9 square miles for
CBO and 124.1 square miles for the rest of the City. Since the CBO is
the only portion of the City for which VMT was available, there may be an-
other congested area where priority attention is needed. Oefiniti ve
traffic and air quality data in suspect areas or corridors such as those
listed in Section 3.1.5 are needed. Some example control measures
effecting CBO Priority are as follows:
. Effective traffic controls through curbside parking and
loading regulations
. Electrification of motor buses
. ~iversion of trips with CBO origin to mass transit
. Restraints
41
-------
3.0
0::
~ 2.0
if
:c
~
o
0::
CD
!E
>
1.0
FIGURE 4-1
ALLOWABLE VMT GROWTH FACTOR FOR
COMPLYING WITH THE CARBON MONOXIDE
AIR QUALITY STANDARD
(An Example Case)
172'
YEAR
42
-------
4.4.7 Control Measure Combinations
The cumulative effects of selected combinations of control measures
were compared in relation to VMT reduction required to meet the air quality
standard. A transportation control strat2gy is required to reduce mobile
source emissions by 26,000 ton CO/year from a base level of about 159,000
ton/year to 133,000 ton/year. Assuming that the TOPICS program is effective,
a 1% (4000 ton/years') reduction is achieved. Reduction effected by
inspection/maintenance (engine parameter without retrofit) would add
another 10,000 ton/year reduction for a cumulative reduction of 5%
(14,000 ton/.;'ear). With no other emission related control measures
implemented, a 10% reduction of VMT is required from 1977 base level
VMT to achieve the additional 4% (12,000 ton/year) reduction needed to
reach the 133,000 ton/year level. Turning now to one other combination;
if inspection maintenance is not effective or not implemented and assuming
the same reduction due to the TOPICS program, a 17% reduction in VMT is
needed to reach the same 133,000 ton/year level.
4.4.8 Cost Effectiveness
4.4.8.1
Limitations
Limitations of the data base for defining cost effectiveness is
described in subsections 3.3 and 3.4. Cost effectiveness is defined in
broad terms as the maximum benefit achieved for the lowest unit cost.
For the purposes of this stuQy, cost effectiveness is the reciprocal
of the total mobile source emission reduction achieved per unit of cost.
Limited data on inspection/maintenance control measures was available to
estimate the cost effectiveness for comparison of the a1ternative
inspection/maintenance procedures. In the case of the VMT reduction
control measures, no data base was available for relating the cost
of mass transportation improvements to reductions in VMT. The missing link
in the data is the individual response of the auto driver to the attractiveness
of the improvements in mass transit. Recommendations are made in the following
section for developing this information. Restraints can probably be
implemented at comparatively nominal costs but, to be implementab1e,
alternative modes of travel need to be provided. As a consequence restraints
must be tied to mass transportation costs.
43
-------
Analysis of inspection/maintenance cost effectiveness does not
adjust for routine maintenance that the vehicle owner would do anyway. Thus,
total maintenance costs are probably overstated substantially but the order
of preference ranking would be the same in any case.
4.4.8.2
Inspection/Maintenance
The three inspection/maintenance alternatives; loaded emission
test without retrofit, engine parameter diagnosis without retrofit,
and engine parameter diagnosis Hith retrofit were compared. Only the
costs and effects accruing to the Pililadelphia region were considered.
The following assumptions were made:
. Statewide inspection on
. 40% rejecti on rate
. Uninspected cars driving
. $ 30 average maintenance
. $ 38 average annual cost
manifold)
a si x month cycle
in region are negligible
cost
of retrofit (air bleed to
intake
The projected vehicle base was determined from 1960 & 1970 auto registrations
in Pennsylvania1s five county portion of the region projected linearly
to 1977. A base of 1.400,000 vehicles was estimated by these means. Franchised
stations in the region were assumed to be in the same proportiontto vehicle
population of the region as the statewide station to vehicle population
ratio. A 1977 base of 3300 franchised stations was projected.
The inspection and maintenance costs were based on studies reported
by EPA in a paper titled The Effectivness and Cost of Inspection and
Maintenance for Reducing Automobile Emissions.(8) Investment costs for the
loaded test are an order of magnitude estimate of the installation and
equipment cost of $ 100,000 per inspection lane, 5-year depreciation(19).
Regional requirements were estimated to be 72 lanes.
44
-------
Table 4 gives the estimated costs for each control measure.
Cost effectiveness values in dollars per ton of CO reduced per year are
as follows:
Loaded test without retrofit
Engine parameter without retrofit
Enqine parameter with retrofit
$ 3100
$ 5000
$ 5200
45
-------
Table 4-4. ESTIMATED INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE COST
Loaded Test Without Retrofit
Inves tment
1.00
Cost/Vehi cle
Inspection Maintenance
Engine Parameter without Retrofit
Engi ne Parameter wi th Retrofit
(1 )
(1)
3.20
16.80
33.60
24.00
Tota 1
37.80
16.80
24.00
40.80
40.80
Total Annual Cost 100
~ Loaded Test without Retrofit 1400 4,480 47040
en
Engine Parameter without Retrofit 23,520 33600
Engine Parameter with Retrofit 23,520 33600
Retrofit
52,920
57, 120
5 7 , 1 20
12,236
69, 356
(1) Negligible
-------
4.4.8.3
Increase Mass Transportation Ridership
Without projections for the modal shifts achieved by mass transit
co~tro1 measures, cost effectivenss is indeterminable. Several of the
public transportation measures require heavy capital investment. Rule of
thumb costs (20) associated with the various elements of the selected
control measures are listed as follows:
Center City tunnel connection
$206,000,000 capita 1 in ves tment
Additional park and ride facilities
$ 1500 per space
Capacity increases
$ 420,000 capital
$ 300,000 capital
$ 42,000 capital
$3,000,000 capital
for rai 1 car
for subway car
for motor bus
for enlarging a station
Se c u rity fo rce
$ 18,000 for one man/dog team annual operating cost
Ri der ameniti es
$ 400,000 - 700,000 for upgrading one station
Commuter rail and subway extensions
$20,000,000 per mile
Inspection of these figures ~how that the initial costs alone of a
comprehensive plan for mass transportation improvements is substantial.
Funding of mass transportation is a major obstacle and a high priority
item of the transportation control plan.
47
-------
4-.4 .9
Obstacles to Implementation
Documentation of obstacles was accomplished by literature review,
interview of state and local government officials, of citizen and
commercial groups, of the DVRPC, and written comments on preliminary
transportation plan proposals by many of the same organizations. Appendix
C includes a bibliography and a list of contacts. Extensive use of the
Six Cities Report(5) was made.
For each al ~ernative control measure, obstacles are documented by
category, as foll MS:
. Techr ca 1
. Ecor mic
.Ins'itutional
. Po I ti ca 1
. Lf,a 1
. T ~e Constraint
. N~gative Effect
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE - GENERAL
Technical Obstacles
The inspection test must pass or fail cars in a manner similar to
Federal Test Procedures. (16) Without this validation, there is no assurance
that the use of the inspection test as a basis for requiring maintenance
provides any real contribution to the improvement in air quality. In the
absence of such confidence, the State may not be eligible for Federal
financial support of the inspection program as authorized by the Clean
Air Ac t. (7)
The composition and physical properties of fuels vary with the
season and with the grade of fuel. These variables, interacting with
temperature and humidity changes, could under some circumstances accentuate
air-fuel ratio changes well beyond normal. (9) With air-fuel ratio changes,
changes in CO emission levels can be expected. Thus, failure rates may
48
-------
vary with the seasons and might overtax repair facilities and be a cause
for considerable complaint by vehicle owners.
Vehicle performance parameters other than low pollutant emissions
need to be achieved. Otherwise, owners may be tempted to tamper with
engine adjustments and emission controls despite severe penalties written
into the State law for such acts.
Institutional Obstacles
One public opinion survey reported by Northrup Corp (1) showed
considerable apprehension about the potential abuses by private garages.
Service garages tend to make unnecessary repairs (15)
Convenience of inspection station location can be a factor, as
indicated from the public opinion survey reported by Northrup(l).
Excessive trip lengths required to visit inspection stations will also
partially offset the effect of the inspection/maintenance on total
emission reduction.
Political Obstacles
Opposition to a statewide system from vehicle owners in the non-
urban areas with relatively clean air may be substantial.
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE - LOADED TEST
Technical Obstacles
The Clean Air Act requires that federally.funded programs be
demonstraced to be effective. Demonstrating effectiveness entails
measuring the emission reductions achieved. The effectiveness requirement
may cause too high a rejection rate which may be at variance with the
capacity of repair and retest facilities and may cause adverse public
reaction to high rejection rates.
49
-------
The loaded test does not specifically define which engine parameters
need correction (15).
Economic Obstacles
Large capital outlays are required for acquisition of expensive
equipment.
One study(2} concluded that the key mode test would require 142
classroom hours of training.
Legal Obstacles
The loaded emission test is not easily adaptable for use by State
franchized inspection stations. State law requires that inspection be
done by these stations.
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE - ENGINE PARAMETER DIAGNOSIS
Technical Obstacles
Mechanics have a tendency to disregard the diagnostic information
supplied (15).
The engine parameter test and required maintenance must be tailored
to relate to the specific engine and emission control system (17).
Legal Obstacles
Any control measure incorporating in-use vehicle emission control
approaches must provide for field verification of the emissions actually
achieved, as required by 40 CFR Section 51.19d of EPA regulation (l7).
RETROFIT
Technical Obstacles
The adverse effects of retrofit systems may include rough operation
at low speeds, rough idling speed, and an increase in creep speed.
50
-------
Installation of retrofit requires the adjustment of several engine
parameters. Emission reductions in any degree of magnitude over and
above that achieved from maintenance alone is questionable.
The effectiveness will decrease in future years as pre-controlled
vehicles become a smaller fraction of the vehicle population (15)
Political Obstacles
Organized opposition to retrofitting may come from Community Legal
Services and from labor unions.
Legal Obstacles
Inspection of retrofitted vehicles would require an amendment to
Pennsylvania Law.
CURBSIDE PARKING & LOADING REGULATIONS - IMPROVED TRAFFIC FLOW
NeQative Effects Obstacles
Increased travel speeds (and therefore shorter triptimes)
eventually generate longer trips. Also, it is conceivable that traffic
flow improvements by attracting more traffic could increase peak hour
traffic volumes on the existing street systems.
CURBSIDE PARKING & LOADING REGULATIONS - ENFORCEMENT
Technical Obstacles
In a given traffic lane, removal of parked vehicles must be total
for use of that lane by traffic.
Institutional Obstacles
Building maintenance service vehicles plus emergency parking require
temporary parking provisions which are now only provided by on-street
space utilization.
51
-------
Political Obstacles
City employees and city vehicles are frequent violators of parking
restrictions. Illegal parking by public vehicles suggests the need for
additional off-street parking space for these vehicles.
CBD merchants claim there is no viable alternative to curbside
loading during daylight hours and cite union objections to nighttime
loading operations. Nighttime loading would not be feasible for certain
IIMom and Dadll type enterpri zes.
ELECTRIFICATION
Economic Obstacles
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA)
has ordered five battery powered buses on an experimental basis. However,
since SEPTA also plans to replace 900 of its 1500 motor buses with diesel
operated vehicles, it is anticipated that a long time will elapse before
these new vehicles could even be considered for replacement.
INCREASE MASS TRANSPORTATION RIDERSHIP - GENERAL
Technical Obstacles
Low-density land-use patterns with their disperse origins and
destinations simply make major segments of the population difficult to
accommodate by mass transit.
Economic Obstacles
The Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1970 commits the
Federal Government to obligate $10 billion by 1982 for capital grants to
improvn transit systems. In the Six Cities Study(5) it was estimated that
if the Federal Government were to contribute two-thirds of the capital
investment costs needed by the six cities (New York, Chicago, Washington,
Los Angeles, Denver, San Francisco) over 90 percent of the total $10 billion
available for the entire country would be expended for just these six
52
-------
cities. Vigorous competition between urban areas for these funds may
be expected.
There is little or no prospect of attracting motorists to public
transport by minor improvements. Major improvements have a high price tag.
PARK & RIDE FACILITIES
Technical Obstacles
There is a lack of available space near some of the stations within
the city.
Institutional Obstacles
Such a program probably would do little by itself to encourage
more shoppers to use transit today. Today, most downtown sales are made
to "captive" office workers at noon and after work. The exception, of
course, is on Saturday and during certain times of the year such as
Christmas. It is felt that without major improvements throughout the
transit system, suburban shoppers will continue to drive to outlyin9 centers
despite the provision of transit parking facilities.
CAPACITY INCREASES/SHORTER HEADWAYS
Technical Obstacles
Public opposition to increasing the number of motor buses, particularly
diesel, may be substantial because of unpleasant sensory effects (noise,
smoke, odor) from the exhausts.
Access - egress is slowed and thus train$ tend to bunch at Market -
Frankford terminals (69th Street and Bridge - Pratt Street terminals).
At the 69th street terminal, the existing switching
the station is not long enough to enable an a-car train to
for its return run. The elimination of this problem will
new construction which may not be completed by 1977.
tunnel beyond
swi tch tracks
require major
53
-------
RIDER AMENITIES (APPEARANCE, LIGHTING, BETTER SEATING, STATION UPGRADING)
Economic Obstacles
Transit station amenities currently are being improved especially
in the CBD, and in the Model Cities Area. This will help to improve the
image of public transit but without a complete overhaul of the system
(new air conditioned cars, improvements in convenience and fare structure,
and an aggressive marketing program), these improvements probably will
have little effect on overall ridership. An old and long neglected
transit system cannot be made to rival the convenience and attractiveness
of the private auto without a massive expenditure of public funds. Even
if such authorization were forthcoming, it is doubtful that very much could
be achieved in the relatively short period prior to 1977.
UNIFIED FARE SYSTEM
Time Constraint Obstacles
SEPTA expects progress on this by 1977 on their system but neither
transit authority (SEPTA or PATCQ) see any hope of unification between
the systems by 1977.
WORK STAGGERING
Technical Obstacles
The scheduling of connecting transit modes will be more difficult.
Economic Obstacles
If a firm's schedule differs from that of its suppliers and/or
customers, economic activity is precluded during portions of the day. Also,
additional expense may be incurred for lighting, elevator operation, etc.
Additional labor costs will accrue to transit lines due to stretching
of peak hours.
54
-------
Institutional Obstacles
Work schedule changes may disrupt normal activities any of which
could be a viable obstacle for the individual, such as:
. Departure time to and from work
. Portions of the day spent home
. Social and recreational activities
. Scheduling of personal business
Negative Effect Obstacles
It is possible for work staggering to reduce mass transportation
ridership and increase VMT if transit schedules become less convenient,
and driving and parking is less congested at new arrival and departure
hours.(12)
Informal work staggering may already be in effect to a degree due
to early or late arrivals to capture choice parking spaces, avoid traffic
congestion, etc.
COMMUTER RAIL & SUBWAY EXTENSIONS
Technical Obstacles
Electric powered subway and commuter rail lines lack flexibility
in that they are not easily or economically shifted with shifts in population
densities and origin - destination requirements of the population. (18)
Because of high labor costs, track and catenary maintenance tends
to be the "program" type under which a section of line goes unmaintained
for extended periods. When maintenance is done,- it is with a highly
mechanized maintenance crew which may take a section completely out of
service during off-peak hours. Service disruptions then occur.(ll)
The railroad commuter market is not stable but rather fluctuates
over relatively short time periods (11).
55
-------
Economic Obstacles
To maintain the same level of servicet extensions require additional
transit or rail cars.
Political Obstacles
Opposition to a specific project (the Northeast extension) by
Northeast neighborhoods has been strong.
Time Constraint Obstacles
These control measures probably will not occur until after 1977 (13).
RESTRAINTS - GENERAL
Restraints by themselves are not effective control measures in terms
of economic impact and social well being. To maintain the economic vitality
of the CitYt it is necessary to provide alternative means of transportation
for those being restrained.
RESTRAINTS - CONGESTION PASS
Technical Obstacles
Through traffic must be rerouted from the areas where restraints
are applied. Provision needs to be made for attractive and convenient
bypass routes.
Political Obstacles
It will be very difficult to administert and impossible to administer
fairly (14~ Unless vehicles are physically restrained from entering
congested areas by gates at entrance pointst an elaborate windshield sticker
system would have to be devised and enforced by the City. This would be
possible under existing State law, however, it would require City Council
action.
56
-------
Legal Obstacles
Court challenges
their property had been
due process of law.
could ensue from those who claim the value of
reduced by preventing vehicular access without
PARKING SPACE CONTROL
Institutional Obstab1es
Public action to restrict the supply of space may afford excessive
profits for parking operators if market - set rates are allowed.
Political Obstacles
The City of Philadelphia has the authority through zoning to restrict
the construction of new parking facilities anywhere within the city limits.
It must, however, hold public hearings prior to such action. The major
objection to this measure is that it may hurt existing businesses and/or
discourage new firms from locating in the controlled areas. If firms were
to be located elsewhere in the Philadelphia area, especially in the
suburbs, property owners in the controlled areas might suffer a loss of
income and the City, in turn, a loss of tax revenue. In addition, some
renewal plans such as Market East depend on the construction of new
parking facilities as part of the concept. For these reasons, the city
vigorously opposes parking space control.
Negative Effect Obstacles
Shortage of parking space may encourage some commuters to be driven
to work by a member of their family with the reverse sequence repeated at
the end of the day. The net effect is a doubling in VMT for that work
trip. Also, results will depend on effectiveness of on-street parking
prohibition enforcement.
VMT Controls
Although it is imperative that responsible planning agencies in
the Philadelphia area consider air quality effects in planning transportation
57
-------
improvements, it does not seem desirable to encourage growth in the suburbs
while limiting development in Center City. This may seriously undermine
the future social and economic vitality of the Region's core.
A better approach may be to develop a bonus system to encourage
Center City developers either to physically connect their projects with
rapid transit and/or rail facilities or to pr~ide occupants with some
other means of public transportation.
4.4.9.1
Auto Air Pollution Questionnaire
A recent survey of public attitudes relevant to several of the control
measures is presented in Appendix D. This limited sample survey of
Philadelphia area residents provides some insight into the public response
to this control strategy.
58
-------
5.0
CONTROL STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
5. 1
AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
Federal.
Environmental Protection Agency. Transportation control plan approval,
Pennsylvania DER and Philadelphia AMS resource grants.
Department of Transportation.
Grants for mass transit funding.
State
Department of Environmental Resources (DER). Prepare transportation
plan, advisory to Penn DOT on inspection/maintenacne program, air
quality surveillance.
Department of Transportation. Inspection/maintenance program grants
for mass transit funding, data base correction.
Regional
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission has the regional
transportation planning responsibility.
City
Air Management Services.
Air quality surveillance.
Traffic Engineering Division.
TOPI CS improvements.
Department of Public Property. SEPTA property ownership.
Police Department. Mass transit security. enforcement of parking
regulations, restraints, vehicle inspection requirements.
City Planning Commission.
Planning function.
5.2 LEGAL AUTHORITY
5.2.1
Inspection/Maintenance
The law would have to be changed to require retrofitting.
Pennsylvania legislation is geared to enforcing the provisions of the
59
-------
federal Clean Air Act of 1970, which deals only with vehicles manufactured
60 days after December 31, 1970 and thereafter.
75 PS 819 and 75 PS 834 of Pennsylvania law specify that the state
has the authority to license private firms to carry out motor vehicle
emission inspections. This legislation does not provide for the state,
itself, to conduct the inspections.
The Clean Air Act of 1970, 42 USC l857f-5a (b)(2). states that
manufacturers must warrantee that vehicles sold after 60 days after
December 31,1970 will meet Federal air quality standards for the
particular model year of the vehicle. If the engine is tampered with,
either by a dealer or by the eventual owner, the warrantee will no
longer hold.
Act 154, section 2 of Pennsylvania law sets a fine of $
tampering. If the fine is not paid, a prison term of 30 days
imposed.
100 fo r
can be
5.2.2 Curbside Parking and Loading Regulations
The City Council under Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Code of 1959 as
amended (in 1963), 75 PS 1103, has the authority to establish any parking
and/or loading restrictions that it desires, and there is no limit on
the penality imposed to enforce such ordinances. If a state highway is
affected, however, permission must be sought from the Secretary of Penn DOT.
The City can contract for towing services, however, the City plans
to buy its own tow trucks and provide its own storage facilities.
The local ordinance establishi'ng towing policy must:
(1) Designate storage facilities.
(2) Require bonding of storage lot owners to insure liability.
(3) Set the fee for towing and storage.
Loading regulations can be handled by city ordinance (75 PS 1103).
60
-------
5.2.3 Mass Transit
The only thing which may prevent the Center City Tunnel from being
completed by 1976, is a lack of funds. However, the electorate has
approved a bond issue to finance the City's portion of this project.
The Philadelphia Parking Authority has the authority and the funds
to build additional transit parking within the City limits. It can also
acquire the land by eminent domain. SEPTA has the same power outside the
City.
Under the Metropolitan Transportation Authorities Act of 1967
(66PS2004 of Pennsylvania Law) SEPTA has the authority to build transit
parking both in Philadelphia and in other jurisdictions within its region.
The City can f'inance transit improvements either from its general
fund or from bond issues approved by the electorate.
In order to give buses priority at intersections or to establish
exclusive bus lanes, the City can pass the appropriate ordinance (75PS
1103 of Pennsylvania Law). If such provisions are planned for state
highways, however, the Secretary of Penn DOT must approve.
Under the Metropolitan Transportation Authorities Act of 1967
(66PS2001 and 2004 of Pennslyvania Law) SEPTA is empowered to establish
whatever fare structure it feels is appropriate. It must, however,
hold public hearings prior to establishing or modifying rates.
5.2.4 Restraints
Under 75 PS 1103 the City can regulate the use of any streets
under its jurisdiction. This includes restricting or prohibiting use.
State approval required for state highways.
The City can levy a parking tax just as it levies other special
taxes.
61
-------
5.2.5 VMT Control
The City is empowered to do as it sees fit with matters of zoning --
subjectt of courset to appeal.
5.3 DATA BASE CORRECTION
The limitations of the data base have been thoroughly described in
preceding sections. To correct errors likely to be inherent in the data
base, an intensified program should begin immediately to update the data
base. The elements which need to be updated are as follows:
. Air Quality. Monitoring of air quality for one year beginning
with the full operation of the City's citywide monitoring net-
work during 1973. Data is needed to better define the air quality
base level for determining reductions required and to validate the
air quality diffusion model.
. Detailed Traffic Data. Data is needed for air quality diffusion
modeling and to validate or correct VMT growth projection if
needed.
. Trip Type, Origin-Destination Data. Data is needed to help define
potential ridership increases from mass transportation control
measures.
. Vehicle population growth and age distribution. To update
projections.
.62:
-------
5.4 SURVEILLANCE CHECK POINTS
A timeline diagram is presented on the next page showing the
surveillance check points for monitoring progress toward the achievement
of the air quality goal by 1977. The need for immediate action on data
base update and on funding are paramount. A more positive definition of
control requirements and effects depend on the verification of the current
air quality leval and on current and projected traffic, trip type and
origin destination data. Immediate update of these elements of the data
base are needed prior to the selection of specific mass transportation
control measures and prior to establishing the extent of traffic restraints
required. Funding actions are considered in two categories: Immediate
Decision and Deferred Decision. Immediate decision funding are those
applications for funding already programmed or which can be programmed
without delaying for additional data collection. The mass transportation
control measures recommended for immediate decision funding are:
. Center City Tunnel Connection
. Additional Park & Ride Facilities
. Security Force
. Work Staggering in CSD
Deferred decision funding applications require additional data for justi-
fication or estimating the emission reduction effect. These are for the
mass transportation contrql measures which generally require large capital
investments and/or better defined projected diversion to mass transit.
Following update of the data base application for UMTA grants can be filed
and transportation bonds voted.
63
-------
I 1973 I 1974 I 1975 I 1976 I 1977 I l11
Data Base f-~--r-.--r-~--r-~-l--~-l
+:>
Air Quality ,,.,
c::
I ~ I ~ I I ~ I ;:0
Traffi c <:
rr1
>-.
r
Trip Type, Origin-Destination I l :f I r
I .... I .... ~
n
VMT Growth Projections rr1
I ..... I ..... I ..... I n
I ..... I ::r:
Vehicle Population rr1
..... . ..... n
7"
~ ~ I I I 1 -0
o
Legal Authority .......
:2:
-i
(/')
0'1 Funding I I I I I I
~
Immediate Decision ~ I I I
Deferred Decision
Implementation I I I I I
I I I I I I
Inspection Maintenance ....
Effectiveness Testing I I I + I I
~1ass Trans it
Restraints I I I I t .... I
I I I I I I
Fi gure 5-1
-------
APPENDIX A
AIR QUALITY AND EMISSIONS DATA
-------
THE PROPORTIONAL AIR QUALITY MODEL
A simple proportional model was used to determine the mobile source
emissions reduction required to achieve air quality standards. The
proportional model is based on the assumption that the reduction in air
quality concentration levels is directly proportional to emission reductions.
It was also assumed that stationary source emissions of CO were not signi-
ficant. This is a valid assumption because the larger stationary sources
of Philadelphia are far enough away from the receptor site used for concen-
tration measurements to have significant impact.
Calculations are as follows:
Fraction Reduction = R - Cmax - std
- Cmax - b
Cmax = Annual second highest CO concentration in
22.5 mg/m3 (measured October 16-17, 1971)
std = standard, eight-hour average = 10 mg/m3
b = background = 0
ambient air =
R = 22.5 - 10 = 0.56
22.5
A-1
-------
The equation for calculating emission factors is shown be1ow:(l)
n+1
E
enp = i=n-12
where,
EMISSION FACTOR CALCULATIONS
ci
di
mi
si
enp =
emission factor in grams per vehicle mile for
calendar year n and pollutant p,
c;
= the 1975 Federal test procedure emission rate for
pollutant p (grams/mile) for the i~ model year,
at 1 ow mi 1 e a ge
= the controlled vehicle pollutant p emission deteriora-
tion factor for the ith model year at calendar year n,
= the weighted annual travel of the i~ model year during
calendar year n (The determination of this variable
involves the use of the vehicle model year distribution),
di
mi
si
= the weighted speed adjustment factor for the ith model
year vehi c1es.
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)O.S. Kircher and D.P. Armstrong, "An Interim Report on Motor Vehicle
Emission Estimation," Environmental Protection Agency, October 1972.
A-2
-------
. v x D
ml = £. V x D
v = fraction of each modea1 year vehicle in use
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. For other
model years, si is greater than one below about 20 m.p.h. and less than
one above 20 m.p.h.
A-3
-------
TABLE A-l
CALCULATION SHEET - GASOLINE MOTOR VEHICLE EXHAUST EMISSION FACTORS
.POLLUTANT
CO
CALENDAR YEAR 1971 (Dec. 31)
VEHICLE WEIGHT CLASS
DHDv 0 LDV
METROPOLITAN AREA Philadelphia
MODEL
YEAR c. d' mi* s' CidimiSi
1 1 1
1959 77 1.00 .0173 1.05 1.40
i
1960 77 I 1.00 .0120 .97
!
1961 77- I 1.00 .0167 1.35
1962 77 1.00 .0251 2.03
1963 77 1.00 .0401 3.24
1964 77 1.00 .0593 4.79
1965 77 I 1.00 .0798 6.45
"
1966 77 i 1.00 .0992 8.02
1967 77 1.00 .1166 9.43
1968 42 1.47 . 1326 8.60
1969 34 1. 59 .1478 8.39
1970 31 1.32 .1648 7.08
1971 41 I 1.18 .0713 3.62
1972 19 ! 1.00 .0174 .35
! I
i I
I
I
!
~
LCidimiSi= 65.7 GMS
MILE
*See Reference No.7, Tables 14 and 20 for sample calculations of Mi.
Based on data from Tables B-1 through B-8, Appendix B.
A-4
-------
EMISSION REDUCTION ESTIMATES
Total emissions based on estimated reduction in either emissions or
VMT are calculated as described in this appendix. The % reduction is
calculated as follows:
% Reduction = lOO(B-R)
A
A = 1971 emission levels, tons/year
B = 1977 emission levels, tons/year
R = emission level after reduction, tons/year
A-5
-------
CALCULATION OF TOTAL EMISSIONS
Total Emissions (tons CO/year) = E = 0.402 (eL VMTL + eH VMTH =
eD VMTD)
.
{
e = emission factor, gm/mi1e
VMT = daily vehicles miles traveled
Subscrips:
L = light duty vehicle
H = heavy duty vehicle
D = diesel
x 10-3
Result is emission on December 31. To determine emissions on other dates,
total emissions were calculated for two consecutive years and interpolated
to required date. For example, to determine emissions for July 1977, total
emissions were determined for 1966 and for 1977 and midpoint of values found.
A~6
-------
EMISSION REDUCTION ESTIMATES
Total emissions based on estimated reduction in either emissions or
VMT are calculated as described in this appendix. The % reduction is
calculated as follows:
% Reduction = lOO(B-R)
A
A = 1971 emission levels, tons/year
B = 1977 emission levels, tons/year
R = emission level after reduction, tons/year
A-7
-------
Fi gure A-l .
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
o
CD
Soutll 8t.
N
Gray. Forry Ave.
ti
\')/~ ..,
IS'I. c5
I")
10
"'.
of"
~
Paok.r AVI.
o
A-a
-----
- ~--- . __1
-------
APPEND! X B
TRANSPORTATION DATA BASE
-------
Table B-1
PHILADELPHIA - CITYWIDE
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL PER DAY--1970
BY LIGHT VEHICLES
(1) (2) (3) Vehicle Miles
Percent of Percent of Weighted of Travel by
Age Tota 1 Light Miles Driven Percent of Light Vehicles
(Years) Vehicles in Use on Annual Basis Da ily Trave 1 (Thousands)
O'~ 3.7 3 . 8'~* 1. 74 173.4
1 7.7 7 . 5'~* 7.13 710.4
2 11.7 11.4 16.48 1,642.1
3 11.5 10.4 14 .78 1,472.7
4 11.3 9.5 13.26 1,321.2
5 11.1 8.5 11.66 1,161.8
6 10.3 7.8 9.92 988.4
7 9.1 7.1 7.98 795.1
8 7.5 6.4 5.93 590.9
9 5.5 5.9 4.01 399.5
10 3.7 5.5 2.51 250.1
11 2.5 5.4 1.67 166.4
12 1.8 5.4 1.20 119.6
13+ 2.6 5.4 1.73 172.4
Tota 1 100.0 100.0 100.00 9,964.0
(3) = (1) x (2)
~ (1 x 2)
*-Refers to next years model introduced in the Fall.
**-This percent reflects the fact that some vehicles in this age category have
not been driven for a full year.
Vehicle
Miles of Trave 1
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Miles of Travel
Light Vehicles
Tota 1
9,964,000
B-1
85.0
3.0
-2:.Q
94.0
Autos
Taxis
Light Trucks
9,010,000
318,000
636.000
-------
Table B-2
PHILADELPHIA - C ITIWIDE
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL PER DAY--1970
BY HEAVY VEHICLES
(1) (2) (3) Vehic Ie Miles
Percent of Percent of Weighted of Travel by
Age Total Heavy Miles Driven Percent of Heavy Vehicles
(Yea rs) Vehicles in Use on Annual Basis Da ily Trave 1 (Thousands)
O'~ 3.4 3.6*"< 1.65 10.5
1 7.1 7.6"<* 7.30 46.4
2 10.0 11.6 15.71 99.9
3 9.5 10.9 13.64 86.8
4 8.8 10.2 12.15 77.3
5 8.0 9.4 10.19 64.8
6 7.0 8.5 8.06 51.3
7 6.2 7.7 6.46 41.1
8 5.3 6.9 4.94 31.4
9 3.8 6.2 3.18 20.2
10 3.7 5.3 2.66 16.9
11 3.3 4.6 2.05 13.0
12 3.2 3.8 1.64 10.4
13+ 20.7 --2.:l 10.37 66.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.00 636.0
(3) = (1) x (2)
~ (1 x 2)
*-Refers to next years model introduced in the Fall.
**-This percent reflects the fact that some vehicles in this age category have
not been driven for a full year.
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Miles of Trave 1
Heavy Vehicles
Vehicle
Miles of Travel
Medium and Heavy Trucks
Buses
477 ,000
159,000
Tota 1
636,000
4.5
1.5
6.0
B-2
-------
Table B-3
PHILADELPHIA - CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL PER DAY--1970
BY LIGHT VEHICLES
(1) (2) (3) Vehicle Miles
Percent of Percent of Weighted of Travel by
Age Total Light Miles Driven Percent of Light Vehicles
(Years) Vehicles in Use on Annual Basis Da ily Trave 1 (Thousands)
0* 3.7 3.8** 1. 74 10.9
1 7.7 7 . 5*'~ 7.13 44.6
2 11.7 11.4 16.48 103.1
3 11.5 10.4 14.78 92.5
4 11.3 9.5 13.26 83.0
5 11.1 8.5 11.66 72.9
6 10.3 7.8 9.92 62.1
7 9.1 7.1 7.98 49.9
8 7.5 6.4 5.93 37.1
9 5.5 5.9 4.01 25.1
10 3.7 5.5 2.51 15.7
11 2.5 5.4 1.67 10.4
12 1.8 5.4 1.20 7.5
13+ 2.6 ~ 1. 73 10.8
Tota 1 100.0 100.0 100.00 625.6
(3) = (1) x (2)
~(1 x 2)
*-Refers to next years model introduced in the Fall.
**-This percent reflects the fact that some vehicles in this age category have
not been driven for a full year.
Light Vehicles
Vehicle
Miles of Trave 1
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Miles of Travel
Au tos
Taxis
Light Trucks
544,000
54,400
27,200
80.0
8.0
~
92.0
Tota 1
625,600
B-3
-------
Table B-4
PHILADELPHIA - CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL PER DAY--1970
BY HEAVY VEHICLES
(1) (2) (3) Vehicle Miles
Percent of Percent of weighted of Travel by
Age Tota 1 Heavy Miles Driven Percent of Heavy Vehicles
(Years) Vehicles in Use on Annual Basis Daily Travel (Thousands)
0* 3.4 3.6** 1.65 0.9
1 7.1 7.6** 7.30 4.0
2 10.0 11.6 15.71 8.5
3 9.5 10.9 13 .64 7.4
4 8.8 10.2 12.15 6.6
5 8.0 9.4 10.19 5.5
6 7.0 8.5 8.06 4.4
7 6.2 7.7 6.46 3.5
8 5.3 6.9 4.94 2.7
9 3.8 6.2 3.18 1.7
10 3.7 5.3 2.66 1.5
11 3.3 4.6 2.05 1.1
12 3.2 3.8 1.64 0.9
13+ 20.7 --...L.Z 10.37 -H
Tota 1 100.0 100.0 100.00 54.4
(3) = (1) x (2)
~ (1 x 2)
*-Refers to next years model introduced in the Fall.
**-This percent reflects the fact that some vehicles in this age category have
not been driven for a full year.
Heavy Vehicles
Vehicle
Miles of Trave 1
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Miles of Trave 1
Medium and Heavy Trucks
Buses
13.600
40,800
Total
54.400
2.0
6.0
8.0
8-4
-------
Table B-5
PHILADELPHIA - CITYWIDE
VEIIICLE MILES OF TRAVEL PER DAY --1977
BY LIGHT VEIIICLES
(1) (2) (3) Vehicle Hiles
Percent of Percent of Weighted of Travel by
Age Tota 1 Light Miles Driven Percent of Light Vehicles
(Ye:! rs) Vehicles in Use on Annual Basis Da i ly Trave 1 (Thousands)
0* 3.7 3.8** 1. 74 191.4
1 7.7 7 . 5~'r* 7.13 784.1
2 11.7 11.4 16.48 1,812.5
3 11.5 10.4 14.78 1,625.5
4 11.3 9.5 13.26 1,458.3
5 11.1 8.5 11.66 1,282.4
6 10.3 7.8 9.92 1,091.0
7 9.1 7.1 7.98 877.6
8 7.5 6.4 5.93 652.2
9 5.5 5.9 4.01 441 . 0
10 3.7 5.5 2.51 276.0
11 2.5 5.4 1.67 183.7
12 1.8 5.4 1.20 132.0
13+ -1.:! ~ 1.73 190.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.00 10,998.0
(3) = (1) x (2)
~(1 x 2)
*-Refers to next years model introduced in the Fall.
**-This percent reflects the fact that some vehicles in this age category have
not been driven for a full year.
Li2ht Vehicles
Vehicle
.tiles of Trave 1
Percent of
Total Vehicle
.tiles of Travel
Autos
Taxis
Light Trucks
9,945,000
351,000
702.000
85.0
3.0
...2.:.Q
94.0
Tota 1
10,998.000
8-5
-------
Table B-6
PHILADELPHIA CITYWIDE
VEIII CLE HILES OF TRAVEL PER DAY--1977
BY HEAVY VEHICLES
(1) (2) (3) Vehic J e Miles
Percent of Percent of Weighted of Tr.wel by
Age Tota 1 Heavy Miles Driven Percent of Heav~ Vehicles
(Yea r s) Vehiclcs in Use on Annual Basis Da ily Travc 1 (Thousands)
0* 3.4 3.6>"* 1.65 11.6
1 7.1 7 .6** 7.30 51.2
2 10.0 11.6 15.71 1l0.3
3 9.5 10.9 13 . 64 95.8
4 8.8 10.2 12.15 85.3
5 8.0 9.4 10.19 71.5
6 7.0 8.5 8.06 56.6
7 6.2 7.7 6.46 45.3
8 5.3 6.9 4.94 34.7
9 3.8 6.2 3.18 22.3
10 3.7 5.3 2.66 18.7
II 3.3 4.6 2.05 14.4
12 3.2 3.8 1.64 11.5
13+ 20.7 -1d.. 10.37 ~
Tota 1 100 . 0 100.0 100.00 702.0
(3) = (1) x (2)
~ (1 x 2)
*-Refers to next years model introduced in the Fall.
**-This percent reflects the fact that some vehicles in this age catego~y have
not been driven for a full year.
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Miles of Trave 1
Heavy Vehicles
Vehicle
Miles of Travel
Tota 1
702,000
4.5
1.5
6.0
Medium and Heavy Trucks
Buses
526,500
175,500
6-6
-------
Table B-7
PIlILADELPIIIA - CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
VEIIICLE MILES OF TRAVEL PER DAY--1977
BY LIGHT VEHICLES
(1) (2) (3) Vehicle Miles
Percent of Percent of Weighted of Travel by
AGe Total Light Miles Driven Percent of Light Vehicles
(Ye:1rs) Vehicles in Use on Annual Basis Da i ly Trave 1 (Thousand s)
0* 3.7 3.8** 1. 74 11.8
1 7.7 7.5''<* 7.13 48.5
2 11.7 11.4 16.48 112.2
3 11.5 10.4 14.78 100.6
4 11.3 9.5 13.26 90.3
5 11.1 8.5 11.66 79.4
6 10.3 7.8 9.92 67.5
7 9.1 7.1 7.98 54.3
8 7.5 6.4 5.93 40.4
9 5.5 5.9 4.01 27.3
10 3.7 5.5 2.51 17.1
11 2.5 5.4 1.67 11.4
12 1.8 5.4 1.20 8.2
13+ ~ ~ 1.73 11.8
Tota 1 100.0 100.0 100.00 680.8
(3) = (1) x (2)
1: (1 x 2)
*-Refers to next years model introduced in the Fall.
**-This percent reflects the fact that some vehicles in this age category have
not been driven for a full year.
Li£ht Vehicles
Vehicle
l-tiles of Trave 1
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Niles of Travel
Autos
Taxis
Light Trucks
592,000
59,200
29,600
80.0
8.0
4.0
Tota 1
680.800
8-7
92.0
-------
Table B-3
PHILADELPHIA - CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
VEIIICLE MILES OF TRAVEL PER DAY--1977
BY HEAVY VEHICLES
(1) (2) (3) Vehic Ie Miles
Percent of Percent of Weighted of Travel by
Age Tota 1 Heavy Miles Driven Percent of Heavy Vehicles
(Years) Vehicles in Use on Annual Basis Da ily Trave 1 (Thousands)
0* 3.4 3.6'~* 1.65 1.0
1 7.1 7.6** 7.30 4.3
2 10.0 11.6 15.71 9.3
3 9.5 10.9 13 .64 8.1
4 8.8 10.2 12.15 7.2
5 8.0 9.4 10.19 6.0
6 7.0 8.5 8.06 4.8
7 6.2 7.7 6.46 3.8
8 5.3 6.9 4.94 2.9
9 3.8 6.2 3.18 1.9
10 3.7 5.3 2.66 1.6
11 3.3 4.6 2.05 1.2
12 3.2 3.8 1.64 1.0
13+ 20.7 -2:l 10.37 6.1
Tota 1 100.0 100.0 100.00 59.2
(3) = (1) x (2)
~ (1 x 2)
*-Refers to next years model introduced in the Fall.
**-This percent reflects the fact that some vehicles in this age category have
not been driven for a full year.
Heavy Vehicles
Vehicle
Miles of Travel
Percent of
Total Vehicle
l-tiles of Travel
Medium and Heavy Trucks
Buses
Tota 1
59,200
B-8
2.0
.L.Q
8.0
14,800
44,400
-------
PHILADELPHIA TRAVEL AND VEHICLE CLASS ESTIMATES
Travel Estimates
Estimates of vehicle miles of travel within Philadelphia and its
central business district were based principally on historical
projections. City-wide travel was based on known 1960 traffic,
projected by trends in auto ownership and screen line crossings.
Travel within the central business district was based on trends
reflected by cordon counts taken on its perimeter as well as a 1963
traffic flow map.
During 1960, a complete inventory of travel data was made in con-
junction with the Penn-Jersey Transportation Study. These data also
provided the basis for planning by the Delaware Valley Regional
Planning commission and form the basis for establishing travel with-
in the City. Actual growth reflected by census, interim traffic
counts, available real life data, and judgement was used to estimate
1970 and 1977 travel from this base year.
Citywide Travel
During 1960 the existing major street system (expressways. major
and minor arterials) within the City accommodated 7.284,000 vehicle
miles of travel a day. The remaining local street system carried
an estimat~~)1,758,000 vehicle miles of travel,providing a total
9,042,000 t vehicle miles of travel within the City.
Auto ownership increas~d)from 400,000 to 463,200 (or 15.8 percent)
between 1960 and 1970.t2 Traffic volumes crossing an internal
screen line in north Philadelphia--generally following Allegheny
Avenue, the Penn-Central Railroad and Frankfort Creek between the
Schuylkill and Delaware Rivers--indicated a traffic growth of 19.1
percent from 1960 to 1970.(3)
(1) - Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
(2) - Census and R. L. Polk Company data.
(3) - Delaware Vallev Regional Planning Commission
screen line study.
-- unpublished
B-9
-------
It is expected that auto ownership and traffic in Philadelphia will in-
crease at a lower rate in the future.
Travel within the City was estimated to have increased 17.5 percent
between 1960 and 1970, or an average rate of 1. 75 percent per year.
For the seven-year period 1970 to 1977 it is estimated to increase
11. 2 percent, or on the average of 1. 60 p~rcent per year. Excluding
the effects of diversion possibly due to new freeways (discussed later) or
significant changes in transit use, the following estimates of vehicle
miles of travel (VMT) on a daily basis were made:
DAILY VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL
1960
1970
1977
Major Highway Systan7, 284, 000
Local Streets 1,758,000
8,550,000
2,050,000
9,500,000
2,300,000
Total
9.042,000
10,600,000
11 , 800, 000
Averare speed on the major street system in 1960 was 20.5 miles per
hour .(1 An average speed of 12 miles per hour was as sumed on the
local streets.
A travel time survey made by the DVRPC over s~lected routes within
the region indicates a slight overall decrease in speeds on the Pennsyl-
vania routes between 1960 and 1971. Within the City the speed on the
maj"or street system was assumed to be 20 miles per hour with the same
12 miles per hour applicable on local streets. The weighted overall
average speed was calculated at 18. 5 miles per hour as follows:
Average
Speed
VMT
Average Speed
x VMT
Major Streets
Local Streets
20
12
8,550,000
2,050,000
10,600',000
171,000,000
24,600,000
195.600,000
195,600,000
10,600,000
=
18. 5 miles per hour
(I)-Delaware Valley Regional Planning Conmission.
8-10
-------
If no major highway or TOPICS improvements were made by 1977, it
is estimated that the average overall speed within the City would be
reduced to 17.5 miles per hour. The implementation of several
TOPICS projects and completion of the following sect;on~ of ~xpress-
way and river bridges indicates about a 20 mph overall speed will be
maintained under 1977 traffic volumes:
1-95 (Delaware Expressway) throughout City and southerly
to Chester.
1-76
(Vine Street Expressway)
1-476 (Mid-County Expressway)
Industrial Expressway-26th Street Connector interchange
Chester and Delair Bridges
1- 295 throughout region in New Jersey
1-76 connection to Ben Franklin Bridge; n New Jersey
The diversion of about 100,000 VMT from the City is expected with
the completion of the Mid-County Expres sway and the Chester Bridge--
most of the diversion resulted from completion of the Mid-County Ex-
pressway. As a measure of expected improved operations under high-
way or TOPICS projects in relation to Citywide operations, the follow-
ing were assumed:
The expected increase in speed would be applied to the
traffic volume on the facility before the improvement
was made and would be equivalent to the overall improved
operations.
No change would be made in the overall vehicle miles of
travel.
For example, a before study on a TOPICS project indicates that average
speed along a four-mile section of highway carrying 15,000 vehicles a
day is 20 miles per hour. TOPICS improvements are estimated to in-
crease the speed three miles per hour. The product of the VMT
(4.0 x 15,000) times the increase in average speed (three mph) would
be 180,000 VM2/hr. This would afford an increment of improvement
that can be related to the speed improvement for the overall system.
8-11
-------
Say overall system carries
average speed of 15 mph.
speed as follows:
1,000,000 vehicle miles of travel at an
The improvement would raise the average
Areawide: 1,000,000 x 15 =
Product increase due to
TOPICS
15,000,000
180,000
2
15,180,000 VM /hr.
New average speed =
15, 180,000 =
1,000,000
15.2 mph
Traffic diverted out of the city was assumed to have an equivalent
effect of increasing the speed on a given highway. Traffic on a newly
opened facility was assumed to afford an ~ddition equal to its use and
estimated speed.
The overall effects of both highway construction and TOPICS improve-
ments expected by 1977 are summarized as follows:
VMT
Average
Speed
VMT X Average
Speed Product
Base travel
Freeway and Bridge
Improvements
TOPICS improvements
Total
11,700,000
1 7 . 5 m ph
204,750,000
11, 700,000
19.9 mph
+21,530,000
+ 6,565,000
232,845.000
Increments of improvement are for the various highway improvements
shown in Tabl e 8-9.
CBD Travel
The City of Philadelphia Traffic Engineering unit made cordon counts
in 1959, 1963, and 1970 of all vehicles entering and leaving the city
center'bounded by the Schuylkill and Delaw~re Rivers on the west and
east, Spring Garden Street on the north and South Street on the south.
Daily traffic volumes on all streets within this cordon were also counted
in 1963.
8-12
-------
Table B-9
VMT - SPEED PRODUCT INCREASES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO HIGHWAY AND TOPICS IMPROVEMENTS
Improvement
Highway
Completion 1-95
(Delaware Expressway)
Vine Street Expressway
1-476 (Mid-County
Expres sway»:< *
Industrial Expressway.
26th Street Connector
(Interchange)
Chester Bridge***
Highway Improvements Total
TOPICS
CBD Core
CBD Fringe
Broad Street
Sou th
North
City Line Avenue
Walnut-Chestnut Street
(West of Schuylkill River)
Roosevelt Boulevard
Huntington Park Avenue
TOPICS Total
Grand Total
VMT
Increase in
Average Speed
(mph)
Increase in
VMT x Speed
420,000
140,000
40 *
10
16,800,000
1,400,000
710,000
2
1,420,000
104,000
350,000
15
1
1,560,000
350,000
21,530,000
125,000
380,000
375,000
1,900,000
3
5
76,000
304,000
143,500
8
3
4
608,000
912,000
574,000
136,000
840,000
54,000
3
2
2
408,000
1,680,000
108,000
6,565,000
28,095,000
*-Estimated equivalent to providing 40 mph operation on 6 miles of
new facility carrying 70,000 vehicles per day.
J(. *-Estimated equivalent to reducing travel on the Schuylkill Expres sway
by 10,000 vehicles per day, affording a two mph speed increase.
J(. *>'.<-Estimated equivalent to reducing travel on south route (Walt Whitman
Bridge-Penrose Avenue) through Philadelphia by 2,000 vehicles per
day, affording an average one mph speed increase.
B-13
-------
The total daily volumes entering (or leaving) during the three years
were as follows:
Year
Vehicles Entering
(or Leaving) CBD
1959
1963
1970
320,000
300,000
320,000
The drop in CBD traffic between 1959 and 1963 is principally attri-
butable to the completion of the Schuylkill Expressway during this
period. It is estimated that during the seven-year period (1970 to
1977) an additional 20,000 vehicles per day would enter and leave
the CBD- -equivalent to the growth in the previous seven years
(l 963 to 1 97 0) .
Travel in the CBD during 1963 was 637,000 VMT. Assuming that
it would increase at the same rate projected for the cordon volumes,
720,000 VMT was estimated for 1977. Completion of the Delaware
Expres sway was estimated to add a net of 20,000 VMT to travel within
the CBD. This travel made up of vehicles not now traveling in or
through the CBD (diverted from routes outside the CBD- -principally
the Schuylkill Expressway). Gross travel of 740,000 VMT within the
CBD was estimated by 1977-
Speed studies made by the City's Traffic Engineering unit in conjunc-
tion with TOPICS improvements in 1970 were used to estimate average
speeds at that time on streets in the three areas of the CBD--within
the Core (bounded by Locust, 18th, Race, and 7th Streets), along Vine
Street-Ben Fr:anklin Bridge route, and the fringe (including the remainder
of streets within the CBD). Travel on the three parts of the street sys-
tem for 1970 was as sumed to be proportional to that counted in 1963.
Daily VMT and average speeds in 1970 are as follows:
B-14
-------
VMT
Average
Speed
(mph)
Core Streets
Vine Street-Ben Franklin
Bridge
Fringe
136,000
8.0
122,000
422,000
22.0
13.0
Total
680,000
13.6
For the year 1977, an average of 70,000 vehicles per day were
assumed to use both the 1-95 Expressway and the Vine Street Ex-
pressway-Ben Franklin Bridge--accounting for 235,000 of the
740,000 VMT in the CBD. The remaining 505,000 VMT was
as sumed to be on the core and fringe streets. Average speed on
the streets was estimated assuming planned TOPICS improvements
(Including the elimination of illegal parking) were implemented
and the two expressways complete. Daily VMT and average speeds
for 1977 are as follows:
VMT
Average
Speed
Core Streets
Vine Street Expressway-
Ben Franklin Bridge
1-95
Fringe
125,000
11. 0
140,000
95,000
380,000
30.0
40.0
18.0
Total
740,000
22.0
Travel by Vehicle Type
Base travel data for 1960 from the Penn-Jersey Transportation Study
reports was used as a guide in estimating the proportion of travel
within the City and CBD by two classes of vehicle--light duty and
heavy duty. The proportion of travel by vehicle type was estimated
to be the same in 1970 and 1977- The vehicles included under these
two classes are:
Light duty- - autos, taxis and light trucks (panels and pickups)
Heavy duty--trucks and buses
B-15
-------
The travel on a regional basis (nine counties within the study cordon)
from the Penn-Jersey Study data indicated the following:
Percent of
Daily Vehicle Miles
Autos
Taxis
Light trucks
Heavy trucks
86.2
0.9
6.3
6.6
100.0
Citywide Vehicle Travel Distribution
Information on bus mileage was not included in the study. It was
noted, however, that travel by heavy trucks was les s than average
in the urban areas of the region. For travel distribution purposes
bus travel within the City was as sumed to replace the heavy truck
travel. Bus travel within Philadelphia was approximated, assum-
ing 100 miles of travel per day by the existing 1,500 motor SEPTA
bus fleet.
Taxi travel within Philadelphia was estimated as suming about 80 per-
cent of the region's 1920 taxis operated within the City, traveling 200
miles per day.
Based on the above, vehicle miles of travel within the City of Phila-
delphia on a percentage basis were estimated as follows:
Percent of
Daily Travel
Light Vehicles
Autos
Taxis
Light trucks
85.0
3.0
6.0
Subtotal
94.0
Heavy Vehicles
Trucks
Buses
4.5
1.5
Su btotal
6.0
Total
100.0
8-16
-------
CBO Vehicle Travel Distribution
Travel estimates in the CBO by vehicle class were based on
observation and interpolation of Citywide travel. Order-of-magnitude
estimates of travel in the CBO are:
Percent of
Oai ly Travel
Light Vehi cles
Autos
Taxis
Light trucks
80.0
8.0
4.0
Subtota 1
92.0
Heavy Vehi cles
Trucks
Buses
2.0
6.0
Subtotal
8.0
Total
100.0
B-17
-------
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
SEPTA
Near Term Completion (By 1977)
. Extension of the Broad Street subway from the
Synder Avenue Station southerly to Pattison
Avenue. To be opened late 1972 or early 1973.
. 144 new cars for rail commuter system (Penn-Central and
Reading Companies). New cars are to be 35 percent larger
than those replaced. By 1975.
. $38,000,000 for commuter parking facilities.
. Upgrade stations and extend concourses on Market-Frankford
Line to accommodate eight (8)-car. trains (current platforms
limit train lengths to six (6) cars).
. Enhance appearance and lighting at six (6) stations on the
Broad Street Line.
. Replace 900 of the 1500 motor bus fleet.
. Rehabilitate 300 of the 400 street cars ($53,000,000).
. $15.5 million to upgrade existing electric system and backup
facilities.
Longer Range (By 1980)
. Replace the 130 trackless trolley bus fleet.
. Extend Market-Frankford Line to the West.
. Provide Commuter Rail Service to International Airport.
. Connect the Penn-Central and Reading rail commuter sytem --
affording through train movements.
. Begin extension of transit route to serve Northeast Philadelphia.
. $10,000,000 in commuter parking facilities.
B-18
-------
PATCO
-
A.
A Woodcrest Station connected to I-295 and the New Jersey Turnpike with up-
wards of 4000 padd.ng spacE!s. Application filed "lith UNTA on August 11, 1971.
STATUS - Updated final application scheduled for filing with UMTA
during October 1972. Local share funding likely to be
available from Pennsylvania, New Jersey and the City of
Philadelphia.
PROPOSED CO~~LETION DATE - Late 1974 or early 1975.
COMMENTS:- Requirements for bus feeder support for Lindenwold Line and
Section 13-C agreements are the basic impediments to federal
funding. Implementation of project is fairly certain.
B.
Proposed MOorestown Line; at least 3 miles and as much as 9 miles.
STATUS - Report to Governors and Legislatures of Pennsylvania and New
Jersey is being prepared.
~ PROPOSED COMPLETION DATE - Late 1975 for 3 .mile extention and late 1976
for the additional 6 mile extent ion.
Cm.ll.ooTTS - 1.
2.
Availability of local share funding not assured.
Requires approval of Governors of both States.
C.
West Berlin; a 3 mile extension of the Philadelphia~Lindenwold Line.
STATUS - Report to the Governors and Legislatures is being prepared.
/ PROPOSED COMPLETION DATE - Early 1976
COHr4ENT S - l.
2.
Requires approval of Governors of both states.
Availabili;ty of local share funding not assured.
D.
A new Broadway Station Transportation Center in downtown Camden with direct
ramp connection0 to I-76 (North-South Freeway) serving primarily autos and
buses from Gloucester, Salem and Cumberland Counties.
STATUS - Presently investigating cost and patronage of a facility that
would meet Phi1adelphia-Southern ~rewJersey requirements.
PROPOSED CO!.WLETION DATE - Indefinite, dependent upon accelerated pro-
gress on I-76.
COMMENTS - Implementation is contingent upon favorable conclusions from
the cost andpatrunage investigations
8-19
-------
E.
Morr,an Blvd. Extension; a 2 mile branch off of the existing line from
Division street, Camden, to Morgan Blvd., present northern terminus of
the North-South Freeway.
STATUS - If 1-76 will b~ delayed for a prolonged period of time
then this extension is a more expensive alternative
for achieving 'an efficient interchange with 1-76 for
buses and autos.
The feasibility of this project is also being investi-
gated as a part of the overall DRPA mass transit study
as the first leg of the Gloucester County extension.
PROPOSED COMPLETION DATE - Indefinite
CO~ITS - Same as for Items B and C.
F.
Franklin Square Station - Proposed rehabilitiation and reopeninB.
STATUS - If required for Bicentennial celebration, DRPA has the capa-
bility of reopening station. Federal and Commonwealth funding
participation will be required.
PROPOSED COt{PIETION DATE - Improvements could be accomplished within
1 to l~ years from date funding is made available.
CQt.!MENTS - Initiative for reopening Franklin Square must come from
Bicentennial Corporation as a part of their transportation
program.
G.
Esthetic and environmental rehabilitation of existing subway stations
utilized by PATCO in Philadelphia and Camden as differentiated from those
imprQvements contained with UMTA project INT-UTG-lO which includes functional
improvements for the existing Locust Street subway stations.
COMMENTS - All items are the same as above with the addition of the
state of New Jersey as a funding participant.
6-20
-------
PHILADELPHIA TOPICS IMPROVEMENTS
Currently under consideration and expected to be implemented by 1977
are the following TOPICS projects. Estimates of current traffic volumes
and average speeds are indicated as well as estimates of speeds under im-
proved conditions.
Central Business District
Signals on Walnut Street, Chestnut Street, Market Street, J. F. Kennedy
Boulevard, Samson Street and Spring Garden Street between the Schuylkill
and Delaware Rivers are proposed to be upgraded under TOPICS. In con-
junction with this, the City of Philadelphia also plans to upgrade the remain-
ing signals within the CBD. Included with the modernization of the signals
is new control equipment to provide coordination during a. m., p. m., and
off-hour traffic flow. Illegal parking is expected to be eliminated as part
of the improvement program. Vine Street--planned to be reconstructed as
an expres sway by 1977 - -is excluded from the TOPICS improvement plan.
Speed runs made by the City of Philadelphia during 1971 indicate the follow-
ing average travel speeds on the CBD street system:
Within the Core
On fringe streets
Vine Street between 18th
and 6th Streets
6 to 10 mph
11 to 15 mph
lO mph
TOPICS improvements are estimated to increase the average speeds from
between three to five miles per hour under 1971 levels of traffic volumes.
These speed increases cannot be attained unless the illegal parking
is eliminated.
Broad Street
Signal improvements and incorpo '-ation of a raised median on portions of
Broad Street--throughout its lenf th within the City are proposed as TOPICS
improvements.
South of City Hall the signals an very old and have no coordination. Average
speeds are estimated to be withi} the range of 8 to 12 mph. In addition to up-
grading the signal installations, Lhey will be interconnected and timed to pro-
vide progression favoring a. m., p. n1., and off-hour traffic flow. Progres sive
timing should double the existinL average speeds to between 12 and 20 mph.
B-21
-------
Average traffic volumes on Broad Street, south of City Hall are in the
order of 20,000 vehicles per day.
North of City Hall the Broad Street signals are interconnected affording
average overall speeds in the order of 20 mph. Their upgrading is ex-
pected to afford a two to three mph increase in average speed under
current weekday volumes averaging in the order of 40,000 vehicles 'per
day on this route.
City Line Avenue
TOPICS type improvements are to be made on City Line Avenue between
the Schuylkill Expressway and the west City Limits (Cobb's Creek) in-
cluding upgrading signalization, minor changes in channelization, and
other traffic engineering improvements. Estimated average speeds on
this street under current average traffic volumes of 35,000 vehicles per
day is 20 mph. Under the same traffic volumes the improvements are
estimated to increase the average speed three to five miles per hour.
Walnut Street-Chestnut Street
West of the City Center--between the Schuylkill Expressway and Cobb's
Creek--upgrading signalization coordination, signal visibility, and other
traffic operational features along the Walnut Street-Chestnut Street one-way
couplet under a TOPICS project are expected to be implemented by 1974.
The couplet accommodates an average of about 40,000 vehicles per day at
an average speed of 19 miles per hour. Existing improvements are esti-
mated to increase the average speed to 22 mph.
Roosevelt Boulevard
Traffic engineering improvements along Roosevelt Boulevard from Hunting
Park Avenue to the Bucks County line under TOPICS are under study and
expected to be implemented by 1977. Average daily traffic volumes on
sections of this facility vary from 50,000 to 120,000 vehicles per day with
estimated average speeds varying from 20 to 35 miles per hour along its
ll-mile length. Throughout its length, it accommodates an average of
70,000 vehicles per day at an estimated average speed of 27 miles per
hour. It has been assumed that the TOPICS improvements will affect
about a two miles per hour increase in average overall
speed under the same traffic volum"es.
B-22
-------
Hunting Park Avenue
Signalization and traffic engineering improvements on Hunting Park
Avenue.between East River Drive and Roosevelt Boulevard under
TOPICS are anticipated by 1977. Current traffic volumes average
20,000 vehicles per day. Estimated average speed over this route
is assumed to increase in the order of ten percent (from 18 to 20
miles per hour) with the TOPICS improvements.
Schuylkill Expressway
TOPICS improvements--principally to improve safety and provide
traffic condition information to motorists- -are soon to be implemented.
They include the installation of impact alternators at selected exit noses,
improvement of slippery pavement texture and illumination in 30th Street
underpass (Penn-Central Station), and changeable message signs to indi-
cate the degree of congestion on sections of Expressway. Traffic on
three high-volume ramps also is to be metered to decrease merging
turbulance during peak periods of the day. This is expected to improve
flow on the Schuylkill but may add congestion to adjacent streets as well
as increase the backup of traffic on the ramps waiting to gain access.
The net overall effect, in terms of vehicle miles of travel and average
speed, is unestimable at this time.
B-23
-------
PHILADELPHIA POLLUTION STUDY
Auto Travel-Transit Rider Relationships
To establish a guide in estimating the reduction in auto travel
(VMT) that might be expected, as suming auto riders could be shifted
to transit, the relationship that existed in 1960 (when such base data
were available) was examined.
Order-of-magnitude relationships indicate that, on a citywide
basis, for every 10 percent increase in transit ridership (formerly
persons using autos) a reduction of vehicle miles of travel of about
5 percent would occur. See Table B-10
Within the CBD, a 10 percent increase in transit ridership
(trips to and from this area) would afford a reduction in auto travel
in the order of 7 percent. See Table B-11
Mode split data quantifying current auto-transit relationships
are unavailable and, thus, would be subject to more extensive study
(beyond the scope of this report). However, as a guide, an order-
of-magnitude ratio of 2 to 1 (percent increase in transit ridership
made up of auto passengers to percent decrease in motor vehicle
miles of auto travel) appears applicable to Philadelphia and its CBD.
B-24
-------
PHILADELPHIA POLLUTION STUDY
Auto Travel-Transit Rider Relationships
(Alternative Analysis)
To establish order of magnitude reliance on the foregoing analysis,
a similar analysis was made assuming that improvements in mass transit
control measures would focus on work trips. The results seem to indicate
that the average work trip is somewhat longer than the average of all
trip types and thus higher reductions in VMT per trip diversion are
indicated.
Included in the 1970 census(l) are work trips originating in the area
by mode and by origin-destination. Extracting Philadelphia origin-
destination work trips from the data, it is estimated that about 491,000
work trips are by auto and 370,000 are by public transportation. Table
B-12 is an example of the effect on VMT from a 10 percent increase in
mass transit ridership due to diversion from vehicle trips.
(1)111970 Census of Population and Housing. Census Tract. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania - New Jersey Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area."
8-25
-------
Table 8-10
PHILADELPHIA - CITYWIDE
ORDER - OF - MAGNITUDE
TRANSIT RIDERSHIP-AUTO TRAVEL RELATIONSHIPS
Based on the Proportion of 1960 Internal Trip Origins(a)
Trip Origins
Within the City
(in thousands)
With 10%
Increase
in Transit
Persons
Per
Auto
1960
Base
Transit Person Trips (b)
Auto Person Trips(c)
Auto Driver Trips(C)
(automobile trips)
1,020
2,305
1,570
1, 125
2,200
1,500
1. 47
1. 47
Decrease in Automobile Trips ~ Decrease in Auto VMT(d)
70,000
1,570,000
= 4.5
Say 5 percent
(a) Penn Jersey Volume 1 Study Report and 1985 Regional Transpor-
tation Plan (Report No.5, Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Commis sion)
(b) Includes commuter railroad, rapid transit, surface bus and
trolley line s.
(c) Excludes taxi and truck trips.
(d) Disregards through auto trips, assumed to be less than 10 percent
of VMT within the City.
8-26
-------
Table 8-11
PHILADELPHIA - CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
OR DER - OF - MAG NITUDE
TRANSIT RIDERSHIP-AUTO TRAVEL RELATIONSHIPS
Based on the Proportion of 1960 Internal Trip Origins (a)
Trips with Origins
and Destinations
in the CBD(b)
(in thousands)
With 10%
Increase
in Transit
Persons
Per
Auto
1960
Base
Transit Person Trips (c)
Auto Person Trips (d)
Auto Driver Trips (d)
(automobile trips)
460
350
250
505
305
218
1.4
1.4
Decrease in Automobile Trips
with Origins and Destinations
in CBD
32,000
250,000
12.8%
Estimated Proportion of Auto
Travel Attributable to Through
Trips (Equivalent to 115,000
through vehicles(e) traveling
twice the distance of those
wi th origins and de s tina tions
in the CBD)
48%
(1-0.48)
x
Decrease in CBD Oriented
Automobile Trips
~
Decrease in
Auto VMT
O. 52
x
12.8%
....,
6.7%
Say 7 percent
(a) Penn Jersey Volume 1 Study Report and 1985 Regional Transpor-
tation Plan (Report No.5, Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Commission.
(b) Assumes trip destinations in CBD equal trip origins and a neglig-
ible proportion of the auto and transit trips have both their origin
and destination within the CBD.
(c) Includes commuter railroad, rapid transit, surface bus and trolley
lines.
(d) Excludes taxi and truck trips.
(e) Approximated from 1963 CBD cordon counts.
8-27
-------
Table B-12
PHILADELPHIA - CITYWIDE
ORDER-OF-MAGNITUDE
TRANSIT RIDERSHIP - AUTO TRAVEL RELATIONSHIPS
Based on Work Trips Into or Out Of City
1970 With 10% Increase
Base in Transit Change
Transit Work Trips 370,000 407,000 37,000
Auto Work Tri ps 491,000 454,000 37,000
Auto Dri ver Work
Tri ps 409,000 378,000 31,000
Decrease in automobile trips ~ Decrease in Auto VMT
31,000 -
409,000 - 0.08 (8 percent)
B-28
-------
APPENDIX C
CONTACT AND DOCUMENTATION LIST
-------
BI BU OGRAPHY
1.
Northrup Corporation, Mandatory Emission Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance, Final Report, Volume I: Summary (Anaheim, California:
Northrup Corporation in association with Olson Laboratories, Inc.,
1971), p. 3-1.
lA.
Federal Register, April 30, 1971.
lB. Air quality data collected by City of Philadelphia Air Management
Services, provided by EPA.
lC. Data provided by Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.
2. Ibid., Volume VI, p. 2.
3.
Federal Power Commission, Bureau of National Gas.
and Demand, 1971-1990. Staff Report No.2
Institute of Gas Technology, Emission Reduction Using Gaseous Fuels
for Vehicular Propulsion, pp. 5-8 to 5-9, p. 6-10.
Natural Gas Supply
4.
5. TRW Inc., and Institute of Public Administration, Evaluating Transportation
Controls to Reduce Motor Vehicle Emissions ~ Major Metropolitan Areas,
November 20, 1972.
6. Lawrence B. Cohen, Work Staggering for Traffic Relief: An Analysis of
Manhattan's Central Business District (New York: Praeger, 1968)
7. Kircher and Armstrong, An Interim Report on Motor Vehicle Emission
Estimation, EPA, October 1972.
8. Horowitz, The Effectiveness and Cost of Retrofit for Reducing Automobile
Emissions
9. Andreatch, et al, i~ew Jersey RERAIR Project:
£L, November 12, December 1971, p. 757.
10. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Commuter Railroad
Service Improvements for ~ Metropolitan Area. Sepact I, April 1,1969.
Tune-up at Idle, JAPCA,
11. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, A Commuter Car:
Environment and Seating. August 23, 1968
12. Private Communication
13. Letter from Jack Kinstlinger, Deputy Secretary for Planning, Pennsylvania
DOT, November 14, 1972.
C-l
-------
Letter from R. Damon Childs, Executive Director, Philadelphia City
Planning Commission, November 9, 1972.
15. Control Strategies for In-Use Vehicles, Preliminary Draft, EPA,
August 9, 1972. -
14.
Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures, Federal Register,
July 2, 1971. --
Title 40 - Protection of Environment. Chapter 1 - EPA (40 CFR Part 51).
Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation
Plans, Transportation Control Measures.
18. Delaware Valley Citizens Council for Clean Air, Position Paper.
Transportation.
16.
17.
19. Alexander, Feasibility Study of Automobile Emission Inspection in the
State of Pennsylvania, August 16, 1971.
20.
21.
Department of Public Property, City of Philadelphia.
Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population and Housin[. Census
Tracts. Philadelphia,~nsylvania - New Jersey Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area
22.
Act No. 154, approved by State legislature June 16, 1972, Effective
September 15, 1972.
Air Management Services, City of Philadelphia, Control of Vehicular Air
Pollution ~~ Comprehensive Program, November 3,1972.-- -
23.
C-2
-------
LISl OF CONTACTS
FEDERAL
EPA Region III
EPA Land Use Planning
Postal Service
Branch
STATE
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Bureau of Traffic Safety
District Engineer
Deputy Secretary for Planning
Deputy Secretary for Local and Area Transportation
New Jersey Department of Transportation
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
REGIONAL
Jelaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC)
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA)
Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA)
CITY
Air Management Services
Department of Public Property
Streets Department
City Planning Commission
Parking Authority
Police Department
Traffic Engineering Division
Mayor's Science and Technology Advisory Council
C-3
-------
CITIZEN GROUPS
Citizens Advisory Council
Delaware Valley Citizens' Council
Transportation Action Group
for Clean Air
INDUSTRY/COMMERCIAL
Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce
Yellow Cab Company
C-4
-------
APPENDIX D
AUTO AIR POLLUTION QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
AUTO AIR POLLUTION QUESTIONNAIRE
PHILADELPHIA METROPOLITAN AREA
The questionnaire shown in Figure D-1 was sent to a panel of
residents of the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area to obtain their views
on factors affecting auto air pollution and potential control measures.
A total of 178 usable questionnaires were returned. The sample was
selected by Consumer Mail Panels to be representative of the popu-
lation of the area in terms of income level and age. Annual family
income (1971) of respondents was:
Less than $8,000
$8,000-$15,000
More than $15,000
22%
52%
26%
Their home locations were distributed as follows throughout
the metropolitan area:
Location
Number
of Respondents
Per cent
of Total
City of Philadelphia
Towns in Metropolitan
Philadelphia -
Pennsylvania Suburbs
Towns in Metropolitan
Philadelphia -
New Jers ey Suburbs
71
40
74
42
33
18
178
100
Each respondent was asked to indicate the number of autos
owned in his household. Answers were as follows:
No car
One car
Two cars
Three or more
6%
39%
47%
8%
cars
Questionnaire responses were tabulated by income level and
car ownership of each panel member's family. Results of the survey
follow with appropriate explanatory notes.
D-1
-------
1.
All autos made in 1975 and thereafter will be equipped with emmision control devices to reduce air
pollution. II in 1975 you owned a car built beiore that year, how would you ieel about a law!£,:.
Quiring you to put emission control equipment which might cost $ZOO on your car? ("X" BELOW)
How would you ieel 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 agains t law. . . . . .
Very much against law. . . . .
1.
Cost $200
11. 8%
29.9
18. 1
40.3
2.
Cost $50
62.2%
22.7
6.4
8.7
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 ieel about a law reCJuirin~ periodic inspection oi
the emission control system to assure that it was working properly? ("X" ONE ONLY)
Very much in
fa vor of law
61.2%
Somewhat in
fa vor of law
30.9%
Somewhat
agains t law
3.9%
Very much
against law
3.9%
3b.
Assuming you ~ to have your car inspected at least once a year, what would you consider a
reasonable cost ior the inspection? (WRITE IN AMOUNT)
$
7.02
(Avg. )
Of 18 respondents who answered "nothing" to this question, 15 resided in the
New Jers ey portion of the metropolitan area where there is already an inspec-
tion program. The mean value given by all respondents who owned one or
more cars was approximately $6.95. The following is "a tabulation of the
mean value by car ownership status of the panel member's family:
No car
One car
Two cars
Three or more
cars
$9.44
6.75
7.12
6.77
0-2
-------
3c.
Assuming you had lo have your car inspected at least once a year, where do you think the inspection
should be mad;?'" ("X" ONE ONLY)
At state-operated inspection centers. .. ..
At city-operated inspection centers. . . . . .
At local service stations or garages. . . . .
At some other place (Specify);
D-3
61. 8%
3.4
31. 5
3.4
-------
4a.
Evcn if all autos wcre equipped with properly maintained
"mission control systems, some cities might still have auto
air pollution problems due to the large number of cars
cjtbcr on the streets at tbe same time or concentrated in
particular areas. Listed below are several possible ways
to reduce pollution under one or both of these conditions.
Please Ic]] me how you feel about ~ of these proposals.
("X" ONE ON EACH LINE)
Propos al
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-
nes s districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A tax on parking in central business dis-
tricts regardless of whether a person
parked only one hoyr 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.
£.
g.
h.
1.
j.
A- Indicates the weighted mean for each answer.
Q)
-
..0
<11
....
0.
Q)
(J
(J
<£;
>.
'"'
Q)
:>
+2
2.3%
5.8
30.6
17. 1
4.6
1. 1
1.7
11. 9
31. 6
I
To Me This Plan Is:
.... Q)
<11-
.L:..o
~ 2
Q) 0.
a ~
o (J
tI)<£;
tl
7.6%
1.7
7.0
A
32.9
24.6
20.2
10.9
9.8
21. 6
A
34. 5
'"'
o Q)
Z:Q
'"' Q) 2
Q) - 0.
-E~Q)
or-i ~ U
Q) 0. (J
Z Q) <11
(J r:::
(J ::J
<£;
o
4. 7%
1.1
4.7
9.8
10.9
12. 1
14.4
14.4
17.0
10.9
Q)
....-
<11..0
.L:2
~ 0.
Q) Q)
a ~
o <11
tI) r:::
::J
o
11.6%
8.5
13. 5
15.0
A
15.4
..
17.3
16.7
16. 1
A
13. 1
9.2
'-I
....
..0
<11
....
0-
v
(J
(J
<11
C
::J
>.
'"'
v
:>
I
I
I
-I
-2
A
73.81
88.6
A
69.0
11. 6
32.0
45.7
A
56.9
A
58.0
36.4
13.8
In general, the level of acceptability of each proposal decreased with greater car
ownership. Families owning two or more cars were usually more opposed to the
control measures than those with fewer cars owned in their household.
D-4
-------
4b.
Which of the proposals listed above would be the most acceptable?
(Give Letter:) D - 38.40/0
J - 30.2
4c.
Which would be most unacceptable?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(Give Letter:) B
A
60.9%
29.9
QUESTIONS 5-8 ASK FOR INFORMATION RELA'T'T"!G TO OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.
CONSULT THEM, IF NECESSARY, FOR THE ANSWERS.
5a.
How often do the various members of your household travel by public tra.nsportation?
ample, by bus, subway, or commuter train.)
(For ex-
Three or more times a week.
One or two times a week. . . . .
Once a month. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Once every three months. . . .
Neve r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
No household member. . . . . . .
Husband
(158R)':'
12.0%
3.8
3.8
14.6
62.7
3.2
Wife
(174R)
13.8%
6.3
8.6
22.4
48.9
Chi1dr en
(Over 16 Years
(105R)
17.1%
2.9
4. 8
5. 7
25.7
43.8
Old)
':'- (158R) = 158 respondents in thi,s category.
D-5
-------
Please rate ~ household member's reason for using public transportaUon. (Rate the most
important r.cason "1", the next most importa-nt. "2'.', the next "3", etc. If a household member
never uses public transportation, "X" the "neveI' .use" .box at the bottom of the list.)
Please rate each household member's reasons for traveling by auto. Follow the same procedure
as in Question Sb. (WRITE IN BELOW UNDER 2.£) ,
CONCENSUS RATING
5b. Public Transportation: 5c. Auto
Children:
(Over 16 :
I
Years Old) I 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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: ----NOT APPLICABLE-----
I
.1
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
5b.
5c.
Reasons
a.
Cheaper...........
Husband
Wife
6
3
4
8
7
2
1
5
4/153
Transportation
Children
(Over 16
Years Ok
Wife
b.
Faster. . . . . . . . . . . .
1
6
3
6
6
c.
More comfortable. .
2
3
1
3
2
d.
Safer for passenger.
7
10
8
4
4
e.
Less congested.. . . .
7
9
5
8
7
f.
More available.. . . . .
3
8
6
6
5
g.
More flexible (I can
come and go as
I please). . . . . . . . .
5
2
2
2
1
h.
More relaxing (able
to read while
traveling). . . . . . . .
10
7
8
1
2
i.
Need car during the
'da.,y. ," i.'. . . . . .', . .
4
10
5
8
j.
I do not have a
driver's license..
5
-----NOT APPLICABLE-----
9
1
7
10/174
7/59
k.
Car is not available
when I need it . . . .
6
3
4
There were very few "other" reas ons given. Some respondents cited lack of transit
service near their home as the main reason for driving.
1.
Other (Specify):
m. Never use ("X" Box)
99/193
85/174
27/59
D-6
-------
5d.
Again, cons'titing other member. ot your houlchold, plea.e rate In order ot etlectiveneBII which iteml
below you (reI would be most e£toctive In encouraging the ule ot public tranlporation. (Rate the mOlt
effective it"m a "1", the next mo.t eUecthre "Z", the next "3',', etc..
CONCENSUS RATING
Children
(Over 16 Years Old)
~:
Husband
wife
Cleaner and newer vehicles. . 5 4 6
Faster travel. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 5 3
Air-conditioned vehicles. ... 8 9 7
More frequent service ...... I I Z
Lower fares. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Z Z I
Parking facilities at stops or
stations ................. 4 7 9
Shelters against bad weather
at stops or stations. . . . . .. 9 8 5
Better security to assure
personal safety. . . . . . . . . .. 6 3 4
More conveniently located
stops and stations ........ 7 6 8
Other (Specify):
Again, there were few "other" responses, but some panel members indicated
they might use public transit if there was service near their homes.
D-7
-------
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. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13.9%
26.5
39.2
6.0
14.5
U it became necessary to restrict the number of cars on expressways and streets in order to
reduce pollution and car pools became necessary, how difficult do you think it would be to get
into one an existing one or organize one amongst your friends, neighbors and/or work associates.
("X" ONE ONLY)
6b.
Extremely difficult. . . . . . . . .
Very difficult. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Somewhat difficult. . . . . . . . . .
Somewhat easy. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Very easy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Extremely easy. . . . . . . . . . . .
Already in car pool. . . . . . . . .
D..S
32.1%
11.3
31. 0
7.7
4.2
3.0
4.8
-------
7.
One of the major causes of areas of high pollution is traf!ic
congestion. Pollution could be reduced if traffic congestion
and stop-and-go traffic was reduced. Listed below arc
several ideas for reducing traffic congestion. Please tell
me how effective you think each of these ideas would be in
reducing congestion and pollution. ("X" ONE BOX FOR
EACH IDEA)
Idea:
a.
Prohibit parking, loading a-nd unloading
on busy streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Increase 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 major streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widen major streets at intersections only. .
Provide pedestrian underpasses and/or
overpasses. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. .......
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.
i.
j.
Your ideas (Please List):
+2
61. 3%
13.4
26.5
A
38.9A
43.6
9.4
A
411:. 5
66. 5
16.6
+1
~9. 8%
~4.;.
A 47.6
44.3
39j 4
44":' 4
40.6
30. .5
A
54.4
A
38. 2 44. 2
o
o
-I
5.3%
23.2
0.6%
9. 1
18. 1
7.8
13.2
13.9
33.8
3.6
3.0
12.5
12. 1
2.4
2.4
0.6
25.4
3.6
10.3
7.3
Ideas given by panel members included stricter enforcement of traffic and parking
regulations and the need for buses to stop next to the curb when loading or dis-
charging passengers. There were also some respondents who suggested that
truck deliveries be scheduled during off-peak periods or that freight now being
delivered by large trucks be transferred to smaller vehicles for distribution with-
in the city.
A- Indicates the weighted mean for each answer.
D-9
-------
8.
Since traffic. congestion i~ most severe at times when people are going to or coming from work,
one alternahve for reducmg congestion would be to have people start and stop work at different
times of the day. That is, some people would start work at 5:00 AM and quit at 2:00 PM, others
would work from 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM, others from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM etc. How do you feel about
this idea? ("X" ONE ONLY) ,
Very much in favor. . " . . .. .
Somewhat in favor.. . . .. .. . .
Indifferent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Somewhat opposed. . . . . . . . . .
Very much opposed. . . . . . . . .
30.6%
37.0
15.0
8. 1
9. 2
9c.
Please record the model year of each car owned in your household. (WRITE IN BELOW
UNDER ~)
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 percentap;e of last year's mileage w;ts accounted for by
driving outside your local metropolitan area. (For example, vacation, business trips,
short wl.!ekend trips, etc.) (WRITE IN BELOW UNDER .2£.)
9a.
9b.
9b. 9c.
9a. Last Year's Percentage of Mileage
Model Year Mileage Outs ide Local Ar ea
Car # 1 1969 12,070 33
Car #2 1967 9, 703 23
Car' #3 1967 12,208 31
Car #4 N/M':' N/M N/M
,~- N /M
Not meaningful because of too few responses.
D-10
-------
lOa.
lOb.
9d.
How many licensed drivers are there in your household?
(WRITE IN)
Number of Licensed Drivers:
2.0 (Avg. )
ge.
If better public transportation were available, would you consider disposing oJ: any oJ: the
cars you own?
Yes
Ma ybe
No
4.3%
20.4
75.3
9f.
How many? (WRITE IN)
.97
cars
Overall, how seriolls a problem do you think auto air pollution is in your city? ("X'f ONE BOX
UNDER.!..£!. BELOW)
Overall, how serious a problem do you think auto air pollution is nationwide?
UNDER lOb BELOW)
("X" ONE BOX
lOa.
lOb.
City
Nationwide
Very serious problem. . . . .
Serious problem. . . . . . . . . .
Slightly serious problem. . .
No problem at all . . . . . . . . .
30.9%
40.0
24.6
4.6
45. 5%
41. 3
12. 0
1.2
0-11
-------
11.
If you have any views or comments regatding any question or idea, please record them:
A large number of respondents expressed their opinion that air
pollution was more attributable to stationary sources (industry) and
"dirty" trucks and buses than to autos. Some suggested that auto manu-
facturers should bear the cost of reducing air pollution. A favorable
attitude toward trolley buses was expressed along with suggestions that
cars be made more pollution-free by converting them to electric power
or rotary engines or by improving quality of fuel. Finally, several
respondents reiterated the need for additional parking at commuter rail-
road stations.
D-12
-------
~
Fi gure 0-1
CONSUMER MAIL PANELS
J2J SOUTH FRANKLIN STREET. CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60606
(2-C796)
Dear Pan"l "tvlenlber,
Today, I am sending you a questionnaire which I consider both. exciting and
interesting. Hopefully, you will too. This questionnaire deals with the impur-
tant problenl of air pollution caused by automobiles.
As you know, autos are a major source of air pollution-especially in metro-
politan areas. You probably have read in newspaper s or magazines that auto
manufacturers are being required to make changes in their cars that will
reduce the amount of pollutants coming out of cars. This will be particularly
true for cars manufactured in 1975 and thereafter.
Many pollution experts believe, however, that despite these new federal regu-
lations on auto air pollution, other ways will have to be f~1:1nd to further reduce
pollution caused by cars. The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain your
reaction to these new auto pollution control ideas being suggested by the
experts. In answering some questions, you will probably have to consult
other members of your family to get their ideas and reactions. I alTI 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 th.e
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,
.I-~" -<-/
0-13
-------
AUTO AIR POLLUTION QUESTIONNAIRE
I.
Fi gure 0-1
CONSUMER MAIl PANElS ~
UJ .ov1'''' n..uau..... ."tt:n CHICAGO, lI..u/lllOll ...
(Z-C796)
Z.
All autos m..uc In 1975 and thereafter wiIl be equipped with em.lnfaion control deviC'cs to reduce air
polluLlon, if 10 1975 you owned a car built belore that year. how would you feel about a law.!!.:..
~ you to put {:mi5$i..-.n control equipment which might cost $200 on your car? ("X" BELOW)
How would you Ieel about this law it the coat was reduced by government subsidy to about $501
("X" BELOW)
14-16
Open
FeeJing Towilrd Law:
Very much in favor of law. .
Somewhat HI favor of law. . .
Somcwh,d against bw . . . . .
Very n1uch ag:aio6l law. . . .
I.
C05t $200
01
02 (17)
03
04
3a.
2.
Cost $50
01
02(18)
03
04
Even cars properly equipped with emmision <::ontrol equipment might still pollute the air if the equip-
ment \'.:as not properly maintained. I-low would you leel about a. la.w requiring periodic inspection of
the emission cO;"Jtrol system to a.ssure that it was working properly? ("X" ONE ONLY)
V;::o~~~~aj; OJ
S~::.::h:lt Jianw 02
Somewhat 03
against law
Assuming you had to h.ave youT car inspected at least once a year, what would you consider a
reasonable Lo~~r the inspection? (WRITE IN AMOUNT)
ZOo=JZI
3b.
3c.
Very much 04
aga.inst law
Assuming you had to have your car inspected at lea at once a year, where do you th.ink the inspection
should be mad;:;- ("X'! ONE ONLY)
At state-operated inspection c4!:Dtere .01
At city-operated inspection centers. .02
At local service stations or garage. .03
At aome other place (Specify):
04
4a.
Even if a.ll a.uto~ were equipped with properly maintained
em.ission control systems, some cities might still have auto
air pollution probh"lTIs due to the large number oC cars
either on th(. slreets at the same time or concentrated in
partic.dar areas. Listed below are several p01.ible way.
to reduc" pollution und~r one or both of thelle conditions.
Please tell Ole how you feel about each oC these proposals.
("X" ONE ON EACH LINE) -
Propos;d:
a.
b.
Ga saline ralioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
Very high ($500) registration fee per auto. . .. . . . . .. .. .
Very high ($500) registration {e~ per auto but only
lor the second, third, etc.. auto. . . .. .. . . . . . . . .
Prohibit traffic and parking in central bu.lne.. dlltricte
A tax on ~ pa.rking in centra.l bu.inc'l districh . ..
A tax on parking in central bU8lneB' dhtrich regardle..
oC whether a person parked only one hour or all da.y
d.
e.
f.
4b.
g. Toll& 00 c:xU ramps of m.ajor freeways and expres8way.
h. Tolls on exit r~mpa oC major freeways a.nd exprcolwaye
but only when lr.il.ffic was hoeavy. . . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. .
i. RcstricUUIl8 on non-essential auto travel during timell
oC high pollution by ilHlua.nce of aped&! Ucense
plates or vehicle iJt!ck.ere . . .. 0 . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
j. Turn some existing Ian.;;1I' into !rbus onl~1 end "car pool 01
only" lanes 00 rn.a.jor (CxpreID"way. and .treete. . . .
Which of the pi"opo8ah Hated above ,A,ould be the mo.t acC'eptable?
4c.
Which wouJd be moat unacceptable?
.. ................ .....
0-14
01
01
dl
01
01
01
01
01
02 03 04 05 Z3
Oz 03 04 05 Z4
Oz 03 04 05 ZS
02 03 04 OS Z6
Oz 03 04 OS Z7
PZ 03 04 05 Z8
Oz 03 04 05 Z9
Oz 03 04 05 30
Oz 03 04 05 31
Oz 03 04 05 3Z
(Cive Letter~- 13
(Give Letter:)- 34
01
(conti nued)
13
19
ZZ
-------
Page 1.
Fi gure D-1
12-C796)
I
Om:STIONS 5.8 ASK FOR INFORMATION IlELAT'''O TO OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.
LONSULT TIIF.M, JF N£CESSARY, FOR TIn: AI'o.>WERS.
I
Sa.
1[0..... o(ten do the various mcmber. o( your household travel uy public tranBportalion?
ample, by UUII. aubway, or commuter train.)
(For ex-
Three or more limcR a week.
One or two timc8 a week. . . .
Once a monlh. . . . . . . . . . . .
Once every three months. . . .
Neve r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~
...01
. ..02
.. .03 (35)
.. .04
.. .05
.. .06
Children
(Ov('r 16 YeaI'I Old)
...01
.. .02
.. .03 (37)
. ..04
...05
.. .06
No hOUlchold n\ember. . . . . .
~
...01
" .02
.. .03 (36)
.. .04
. ..05
.. .06
5b.
Pleasc rate rach houschold mcmber's re.uon for u8ing public transportation. (Rate thE' moat
irnportant re~ "111, the next m.ost important 11211, the nE-xt "31', etc. 1£ a household member
never uses public tran::lportation. "X" the IInever use't box at the bottom of the liet.)
5c.
Pleasc rate each hou~~hold member's reasons lor traveling by auto.
as in QUt"etion !:lb. (WRlfE IN BELOW UNDER 1s,)
Follow lhe same procedure
.
.
,
,
:
,
:~
:..._(41)
:..._(47)
:..._(53)
:..._(59)
:..._(65)
!..._(7I)
g. More nexible (1 can come ,
and go as I plea.e) . .. _(15) _(16) _(17) i'" _(18) _(19)
h. More relaxing (able to :
read while traveling).. _(21) _(22) _(23): - - - - - (Not Applicable) - - - --
I. Need car during the day. - - - - - (Not Applicable) -. - - - i... _(Z4) _(Z5) _(26)
:
licen.e. . . . . . . . . .. _(Z7) _(28) _(29):
,
k. Car 11 not available when :
Jneedlt.......... _(30) _(31) _(3Z):
,
:
(33) (34) (35) !... (36) (37) (38)
.. - - -.. - - -- -. -- -- _::-:: -- - - _'7:':- -. - _'7:': -- - ~ u_'7:': - - --::-:: --. - -'7:':--
m. Never u.e I"X" Box) . .. 01 Oz 03 (39) !... 01 02 03 (40)
~
Sh. ?ubIi<:' Transportation
Children
(Over 16
...!!.i!::.. YC'ars 01d)
Sc. Auto TransportatiC'n
Children
(Over 16
~ Years Old)
~
a. Chea.per............
b. Fasl('r.............
_(38)
_(44)
_(501
_(56)
_(62)
_(68)
_(40)
_(46)
_(52)
_(58)
_(64)
_(70)
_(39)
_(45)
_(51)
_(57)
_(63)
_(69)
_(42)
_(48)
_(54)
_(60)
_(66)
_In)
_(43)
_(49)
_(55)
_(61) (74.78
_(67) open)
(73) 79EIf.180
--
Cd. 2
_(20) Dup.
1-14
c. More cornfortauJe . . . . .
d. Safer for passrnger. . . .
e. Less congcsl('d.......
f. More avaibble . . . . . . .
j. I do not have a driver's
----- (Not Applicable) -----
- - - - - (Not Applicable) ... . .
I. Other (Specify):
5d.
Again, consulting other member. of your household, please rate in order of effectiveneas which itema
below you (eel would be most effective in encouraging the use of public transporation; -'Rate the mOlt
effective item a 111", the next most effective 11211, the next "311. etc.)
Children
~ ~ ~ (Over 16 Years Old)
Cleaner and newer vehicles. . . . . .. _(4.1) _(4Z) _(43)
Falter travel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _(44) _(45) _(46)
Air-conditioned vehicle. . . . . . . . .. _(47) _(48) _(49)
More lrequent service. . . . . . . . . .. _(50) _(51) _(52)
Lower lares ................. _(53) _(54) _(55)
Parking lacilitie II at stop. or .tation. _(56) _(5.7) _(58)
Shelters against bad weather at .tops
or .tations ............... _(59) _(60) _(61)
Better security to assure personal
.atety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _(6Z) _(63) _(64)
More conveniently located .tops
or .taUon. ............... _(65) _(66) _(67)
Other (Specify): (71.78 open)
_(68) _(69) _(70) 79G:ill80
(continued)
D-15
-------
(2-C7961
How would you or other hou.ehold member. 1..1 about traveUna to and from work In a car pool?
("X" ONE ONLY)
6a.
Very Int..uted . . . . . . .01
Somewhat intere.ted. . . .OZ
Not at allinteruted . . . .03
Aheady In car pool. . . . .04
Do oot travel to and trom Os
~ork by ca r. . . . . . . .
6b.
U it became nece..ary to re.tdet the nwnber of car. on expreleway' and .treeta in order to
reduce pollution and car pooh became necce.ary, how difficult do you think it would be to let
into one an cxi.t1ng onc or oTfi~anh.e one among.t your friends, oeighbor. and/or work ..eodate..
("X" ONE ONLY)
Extremely difHcult. . . . .01
Very ditrlcult ""'" .02
Somrwhat difficult. . . . .03
Somewhat ca.y ., . . . . .04
Very ...y. . . . . . . . . . .0s
Extremely e..y . . . . . . '06
Already In car pool. . . .07
7.
One of the major causes of area. of high pollution is traffic
conge.ticR. PoUution could be reduced it traflic congeation
and atop-and..go traffic wa. reduced. Listed below are
several ideas for reducing traffic congestion. Please te11
me how effective you think e-ach of lhc.e ideas would be in
reducing congestion and pollution. ("XII ONE BOX FOR
EACH IDEA)
~
a.
b.
c.
Prohibit parking, loading and unloading on bUIY street.
Increase the numbor of one-wa.y streets. . . . . . . . . . .
Establisb reversible lanes on bu.y streets to be u.ed
during TUeh houri. . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prohibit turns at bu.y intersections during ru.h hours.
d.
e.
f.
..
h.
I.
Widen rna.jor .treet.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widen major .treets at intersections only. . . . . . . . . .
Provide pedestrian underpa'8ea and/or overpasses. . .
Improve timing of traffic lignala. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Increase the number .nd frequency of radio traffic re-
port. . " . " . " . " . . " . . . . " . . . . " . " . . . . . .-. .
Turn some existing laDel into "bu. only" and "car pool
only" l.nell on expre.sway. and bUIY .treeh ....
j.
Your idea. (Plea.e Lilt):
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02 03 04
02 03 04
oz 03 04
oz 03 04
oz 03 04
OZ 03 04
oz 03 04
Oz 03 04
02 03 04
02 03 04
02 03 04
01
01
01
Since traffic conge.tion Ie most severe at times when people are going to or coming from work,
one alternative lor reducing congestion would be to have people atart and .top work at different
time. of the day. That i., some pepple would start work at 5:00 AM and quit at 2:0tfPM. other.
would work (rom 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM. other. from" 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM, etc. How do you feel about
thh Idea 7 ("X" ONE ONLY)
8.
Very much in favor. " . . .01
Somewhat in favor. . . . .OZ
Indllleunt.......... .03
Somewhat opposed. . . . . [)4
Very much oppo.ed. . . . .05
(PLEASE CONTINUE ON THE Nli::XT PAGE)
D-16
Fi gure D-l
Pa.. 3
Cd. 3
D\ip.
1-14
17
18
19
ZO
21
2Z
Z3
Z4
Z5
26
n
28
(continued)
IS
16
-------
Fi gure D-1
(continued)
Page 4
(Z.C7961
9a.
Plcallc record the model year of each car own('d In your houaehold.
UNDER 1:!.)
Pleasc cstim.'LlC the number of mUes each car was driven In the laat year.
(WRITE: IN NUMBEIt OF MII.ES UNDER ~ BELOW)
(WRITE IN BELOW
9b.
9c.
For each ca.r, please fMtimale what pt:rcf'ntaJ:e of last yrar's mllcac~ wall accounted for by
driving outside yonr local metropolilan area. (For example, vacation. business trip.,
.hort weekend trips, ctc.) (WRITE IN BELOW UNDER .2£.)
9..
Model Yeil< r
9b.
Last Year'.
MiJcC\~e
9c.
Percentage of Mileage
Ouhid.. Loc.a 1 A rea
Car' 1
_'/0
Z9D=c=J31
3Z c::::::r=o 34
3SD=c=J37
3SD=C=J40
Car III
-"/-
Car N 3
-"
-"
Car H4
9d.
How rnany licensed driv{'rs are there in your household?
Number Ctf Licensed Drivers:
(WRITE IN)
041
9..
If better public tTan~porttl.tion were ava.Hable, would you consider dhposing of any 01 the
cars you own?
Yes oil-
Maybe D~ 9f. How many? (WRITE IN) - cars7
No [J37
4Z CCJ 43
lOa.
Overall, how serious a problem do you think auto air pollution Ie in your city? (It }('I I ONE BOX
UNDER ~ BELOW)
Overall, how serious a problem do you think auto air polluUoa is nationwide? ("X'" ONE BOX
UNDER ~ BELOW)
\Ob.
Very serious problem. . . . . .
Se-rious problem. . . . . . . . .
Slightly serious problem. . . .
No problem at all. . . . . . . . .
lOa. City
01
Oz (44)
03
04
lOb. Nationwidf':
01
Oz (45)
03
04
11.
If you have any views or comments regarding any que8tion or idea, plea.e record them:
146-78 open)
798D10
Thank you for your help. Please check your an.wers and then return the questionnaire to me in the
enclosed postage-paid envelope.
D-17
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 11. Report No. 12. 3. Recipient's Accession No.
SHEET APTD-1370
14. IIt1e and SubtItle 5. Report Date
Transportati on Control Strategies for the State Implementa- December 1972
ti on Pl an City of Philadelphia. 6.
7. Author(s) 8. Perform ing Organization Re pt.
Land Use Planning Branch No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
TRW Transportation and Environmental Operations DU-72-B895
7600 Colshire Drive 11. Contract/Grant No.
McLean, Virginia 22101 68-02-0041
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of KePtfl f4!ir'
Environmental Protection Agency ~i~alred 5
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards eport 12/1 ~72
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711 14.
Is.suhPlemenraryNotes Prepared to assist in tne development of transportation control plans
by t ose State Governments demonstrating that National Ambient Air 8ua'ity Standards
cannot be attained by implementing emission standards for stationary sources only.
16. Abstracts
The document demonstrates the nature of the Air Quality problem attributed to motor ,
vehicle operation, the magnitude of the problemmd 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 poJlutants originating within a motor vehicle
and released to the atmosphere.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards - Air Quality Standards promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Aqency and
published as a Federal Regulation in the
Federa 1 Register.
17b. Idenrifiers/Open-Ended Terms
VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled
Vehicle 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 Qual ity Control of Motor Vehicle Pollutants
18. Availability Statement 19. Security Class (This 21. No. of Pages
For release to public Report) all
rr~]("l
20. Security Class (This 22. Price
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
FORM NTIS.35 (REV. 3.72)
U5COMM-OC '49~2-P72
-------
~HS1RUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM NTIS-35 (10-70) (Biblio.l:raphic Data Sheet based on COSA TI
Guidelines to Format Standards for Scientific and Technical Reports Prepared by or for the Federal Government,
PB-ISO 600).
1,
R"port ~umber. Each individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation selected by the performing
organizarion or provided by the sponsoring organization. Use uppercase letters and Arabic numerals only. Examples
F ASEB-NS-87 and F AA-RD-68-09.
2.
Leave blank.
J, Recipient's Accession Number.
Reserved for use by each report recipienr.
4. Title and Subtitle. Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed promi-
nently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller type or otherwise subordinate it [0 main title. When a report is prepared in more
chan one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and include subtitle for the specific volume.
50 Report Dote. Fach report sball 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. Parforming Organi zation Code.
Leave blank.
7. Author{s). Give name(s) in conventional order (e.g., John R. Doe, or J.Robert Doe).
f rom the performing organizat ion.
List author's affiliation if it differs
B. Performing Organi zation Report Number.
losen if performing organization wishes to assign this numbpr.
9. Performing Organization Home and Address. Give name, strec(, city, state, and
an or,ganiza{ional hierarchy. Display the name of the organization exactly as it
as USGRDR.I.
zip code. List no more rhan two levels of
should appear in Government indexes such
'10. Project/Task/Work Unit Number. Use [be proJeCt, task and work unit numbers under which the report was prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Number.
lnser[ 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 imerim, final. etc., and, if applicable, datcs covered.
14. Sponsori!,g Agency Code.
Leave blank.
15. Supplementary Hotes. Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with.
Translation of Presented at conf{'rcnce of .. To be published in SuperscJcs . . . Suppl<.:men~s . . .
16. Abstroct. Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most si~nificant information contained in [he report.
If the report conrains a significant bIbliography or lircrature survey, mention it here.
17. K"y Words and Document Analysis. (0).
proper authorIzed terms that identify the
35 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 subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(e). COSATI Field/Group. Field and Group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATl Subject Category List.
Since tbe majority of documen1S are multidisciplinary in nature, the primary Field/Group assignmem(s) will be the specific
discipline, area of human endeavor, or type of physical object. Tbe application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary
Field/Group assignments tbat will follow the primary posting(s).
Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Ierms the
major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise 'to be used
W. Distribution Statement. Denote releasability to tbe public or limiration for reasons other than security fOt example "Re-
lease unlimitedU- Cite any availability to the public, v.ith addre!-ls and price.
198. 20. Security Classification. Do not submit classified reports to the National Technical
21. Number of Pages.
list, if any.
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but excluding distribution
22.
Price. Insert tbe price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Punting Office, if known.
FORM NTIS-35 (REV. 3.72)
USCOMM~DC 14~82-P72
'trU. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1973-746-768/4147-Region 4
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AI
Technical Publications Branc
Office of Administration
Research Triangle Park. N. C 2'
AND FEES PAID
L PROTECTION AGENCY
A 335
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
THIRD CLASS BULK RATE
If you do not desire to continue receiving this technical report
series, please CHECK HEREQ, 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-1370
------- |