APTD-1373
TRANSPORTATION CONTROL
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
FOR THE GREATER
HOUSTON AREA
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
APTD-1373
TRANSPORTATION CONTROL
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
FOR THE GREATER
HOUSTON AREA
Prepared by
TRW Transportation and Environmental Operations
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, California 90278
Contract No. 68-02-0048
EPA Project Officer: Fred Winkler
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
December 1972
-------
The APTD (Air Pollution Technical Data) series of reports is issued
by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air
and Water Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, to report tech-
nical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies of
APTD reports are available free of charge to Federal employees,
current contractors and grantees, and non-profit organizations - as
supplies permit - from the Air Pollution Technical Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
277lltor may be obtained, for a nominal cost, from the National Tech-
nical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia
22151.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
TRW Transportation and Environmental Operations of Redondo Beach,
California, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-0048. The contents
of this report are reproduced herein as received from the TRW Trans-
portation 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-1373
ii
-------
1 .0 SUfvlMARY
1.1
1.2
2.
3.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Limitations of the Transportation Control
Strategy Analysis
Conclusions and Recommendations
INTRODUCTION
CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
3. 1
3.2
4.
Emission Estimates
Control Measures Considered
3.2.1 Stationary Source Measures
3.2.2 Mobile Measures
3.2.2.1 Control Individual Vehicle Emissions
3.2.2.2 Traffic Flow Improvements
3.2.2.3 Reduce Vehicle Use
PROPOSED CONTROL STRATEGY
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
APPENDIX A
B
C
D
E
Obstacles to Implementation
Implementation Procedure and Time Schedule
4.2.1
Implementation Surveillance
Agency Involvement
Legal Authority
F
Air Quality and Emission Data
Transportation Data Base
Study Contacts
References and Documentation
Public Attitude Survey on Air Pollution in
the Greater Houston Area
A Report on the experience of the San Diego
Air Pollution Control District on Control of
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Gasoline Marketing
Air Quality Forecasting Simulation Model
Gas Rationing During World War II
G
H
iii
Page
1
12
15
17
22
22
24
24
30
30
40
46
58
63
65
70
72
72
A-1
B-1
C-1
D-1
E-1
F-1
G-1
H-1
-------
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
2-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
4-1
l-A
2-A
3-A
LIST OF FIGURES
Estimated Emissions from Motor Vehicles
Projected Hydrocarbon Emissions vs. Speed for light
Duty Vehicles with Federal Emission Controls
Percent Reduction in VMT vs. Hydrocarbon Emissions
Estimated Total Hydrocarbon Emissions in 1977
Resulting from the Proposed Control Measures
Study Area
Estimated Hydrocarbon Emissions Based on Present
Regulations
Estimated Hydrocarbon Emissions Considering
Tightened REgulation V
Estimated Hydrocarbon Emissions Considering
Tightened Regulation V Plus Evaporative Controls
on Area Sources
Comparison of ~77 Hydrocarbon Emissions Based on
Various Levels of Stationary Source Controls
Houston CBD Employee Starting Times and Radial
Freeway Loading
Houston CBD Employee Quitting Times and Radial
Freeway Loading
Estimated Total Hydrocarbon Emissions in 1977 Resulting
from the Proposed Control Measures
Daily Maximum l-Hour Ozone Concentrations. Texas Gulf
Coast Special Ozone Study
Comparison of HC and 03 Measurements. Houston. 1972
Correlation of MacGregor Readings to Clinton Drive
Readings
iv
Page
4
5
9
10
18
23
25
28
29
43
44
61
A-4
A-6
A-8
-------
4-A
5-A
6-A
7-A
8-A
9-A
l-G
LIST OF FIGURES (contd)
Observational Model for the Relationship of Total
Hydrocarbons to Ozone in the Houston Area
Appendix J of Federal Rules and Regulations for
Preparation of Implementation Plans
Estimated Hydrocarbon Emissions Based on Present
Regulations
Estimated Hydrocarbon Emissions Considering Tightened
Regulation V
E~timated Hydrocarbon Emissions Considering Tightened
Regulation V plus Evaporative Controls on Area Sources
Percent Reduction in VMT ys. Hydrocarbon Emissions
Air Quality Forecasting Simulation Model
y
Page
A-9
A-ll
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-26
G-2
-------
3-1
3-2
3-3
4-1
4-2
l-A
2-A
3-A
4-A
5-A
6-A
7-A
8-A
9-A
lO-A
LIST OF TABLES
Mobile Source Control Measures
Yearly Vehicle Owner Costs for Different Inspection/
Maintenance Approaches
Effectiveness of Alternate Retrofit Devices
Proposed Implementation Plan Schedule
Agencies for Administering Proposed Measures
Summary of Air Quality Data
Summary of Hydrocarbon Emissions for the Greater
Houston Area in 1969 (Motor Vehicles not Included)
Summary of Carbon Monoxide Emissions for the Greater
Houston Area in 1969 (Motor Vehicles not Included)
Summary of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions for the Greater
Houston Area in 1969 (Motor Vehicles not Included)
Projections of Total Hydrocarbon Emissions from Sources
Other than Motor Vehicles in the Greater Houston Area
(based on the 1969 emission inventory)
Projections of CO Emissions from Sources Other than
Motor Vehicles in the Greater Houston Area (based on
the 1969 emissions inventory)
Projections of NOx Emissions from Sources Other than
Motor Vehicles in the Greater Houston Area (based on
the 1969 emissions inventory)
Projections of Total Hydrocarbons from Sources Other
than Motor Vehicles (based on present regulations)
Projections of Total Hydrocarbons from Sources Other
than Motor Vehicles Based on Possible Point Source
Reductions from Revision to Regulation V
Projections of Total Hydrocarbons from Sources Other
than Motor Vehicles Based on Regulation V Revision and
Expansion to Include Evaporative Losses from Certain
Area Sources
vi
Page
31
33
37
66
73
A-3
A-13
A-13
A-14
A-14
A-14
A-15
A-17
A-17
A-17
-------
LIST OF TABLES (contd)
ll-A Motor Vehicle Emission Projections Based on Federal
Motor Vehicle Emission Controls
12-A Motor Vehicle Emission Projections Based on Federal
Controls and Inspection/Maintenance Program
13-A Motor Vehicle Emission Projections Based on Federal
Controls, Inspection/Maintenance, and USAL/LIAF
Retrofit
14-A Motor Vehicle Emission Projections Based on Federal
Controls, Inspection/Maintenance, VSAD and Catalytic
Converter Retrofit
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
1971 Daily Motor Vehicle Travel
Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel (thousands)
Motor Vehicle Registration - H-GRTS Area
Fleet Vehicle Usage - Automobiles
1971 Daily Vehicle Mile Totals - H-GRTS Area - Light
Vehicles
1977 Daily Vehicle Mile Totals - H-GRTS Area - Light
Vehicles
1971 and 1977 Daily VMT H-GRTS_Area - Heavy Vehicles
1971 Daily Vehicle Mile Totals - Harris County -
Light Vehicles
1977 Daily Vehicle Mile Totals - Harris County -
Light Vehicles
B-10 1971 and 1977 Daily Vehicle Mile Totals - Harris County -
Heavy Vehicles
B-9
1971 Daily Vehicle Mile Totals - Galveston County -
Light Vehicles
B-12 1977 Daily Vehicle Mile Totals - Galveston County -
Li ght Vehi c1 es
B-11
vii
Page
A-22
A-23
A-24
A-25
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-11
B-12
-------
LIST OF TABLES (contd)
B-13 1971 and 1977 Daily Vehicle Mile Totals - Galveston
County - Heavy Vehicles
B-14 Average Travel Speed By County
B-15 Average Speed on Radial Freeways
B-16 Person and Vehicle Movement Trands in Central Houston
(Between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M.)
B-17 1971 CBD - Regional Vehicle Mile Totals Relationship
B-18 Distribution of Houston CBD Work Start and Quitting
. Hours
8-19 CBD Off-Street Parking
G-1
Emission Source Categories for Houston
viii
Page
B-13
B-15
B-15
B-17
B-19
B-20
B-21
G-6
-------
1.
SUMMARY
This report presents control measures that, if fully implemented,
will allow achievement of ambient air quality standards in the Greater
Houston Area by 1977.
The study was directed toward measures to control
"Set II" pollutants, specifically photochemical oxidants and carbon
monoxide.
There is no identified carbon monoxide problem in the Greater
Houston Area.
An ozone measurement study was performed on the upper Texas
Gulf coast between April and June of 1972.
This study identified a
regional photochemical oxidant problem of major magnitude.
As a result
of this study, the baseline maximum one-hour oxidant concentration was
revised upward to 0.315 ppm (630 ~gm/m3).
After careful eva1uation,a total hydrocarbon emission reduction goal
of 75% was established to meet photochemical oxidant standards in the
Greater Houston Area.
Calculations were performed to determine the total
hydrocarbon emissions from all sources including motor vehicles, and to
estimate the reduction possible with present stationary source regulations
and Federal motor vehicle emission controls.
This initial evaluation
determined that the ambient air quality standards could not be met by
1977, even with zero mobile emissions, unless hydrocarbon emissions from
stationary sources are also reduced signi.ficant1y.
Stationary Sources
Based on"these findings, the Texas Air Pollution Control Board
Staff reviewed their inventory of hydrocarbon sources in this region,
and reevaluated the reductions that might be realized by imposin2 the
present regulations and additional proposed restrictions.(4) This study
1
-------
resulted in a new estimate of hydrocarbon emissions from point sources
and a recommendation that Regulation V be tightened significantly.
Since
it was clear that stationary source as well as mobile measures were
required to reduce hydrocarbon emissions enough to meet the photochemical
oxidant standards, the results of the above study and further investiga-
tions into potential stationary source reduction measures were included
in this evaluation.
Additional consideration was given mainly to the
control of evaporative emissions from gasoline marketing and solvent
users; and with regulations to control fugitive emissions from process
industries.
Mobile Sources
The potential measures for reducing mobile source emissions fall into
three major groups:
control individual vehicle emissions, traffic flow
improvements, and reduce vehicle use.
Control of individual vehicle
emissions involves a multifaceted program affecting both old and new
vehicles.
Federal motor vehicle emission controls and changes in vehicle
engine design will reduce emissions from new vehicles.
Vehicle inspection/
maintenance can significantly reduce emissions by insuring all in-use
motor vehicles are in proper working order, particularly the emission
control devices.
Retrofit programs can reduce emissions from in-use
vehicles by the installation of emission control devices or, a ~pecial
case, conversion to gaseous fuels.
The effectiveness and need for retro-
fit measures is decreased over time as pre-1975 control vehicles are
phased out of the population.
A public attitude $urvey taken in the
Houston area indicates there is presently strong public support for an
-------
inspection/maintenance program, and Houston area residents generally
support a retrofit program if it is not too costly.
Figure 1-1 summarizes
the reduction in total hydrocarbon emissions from motor vehicles through
the present Federal motor vehicle controls and various inspection/maintenance
and retrofit options.
Traffic flow improvements will potentially reduce emissions by in-
creasing vehicle speeds and reducing their idling times in traffic.
These
types of measures are not effective in the Greater Houston Area because
levels of traffic service and average travel speed are quite high for an
urban area this size.
The net result of flow improvement programs is
likely to be the preservation of the existing level of service under
higher future traffic loads rather than an increase in average travel
speed.
Reduction in emissions with increases in travel speed becomes quite
marginal at speeds above 20 MPH, particularly as post-1975 vehicles become
a greater percentage of the vehicle fleet (see Figure 1-2).
The most direct way to reduce emissions from motor vehicles is to
reduce their use.
This general goal can be approached by three types of
measures:
reduce trip requirements, provide transportation alternatives
or establish vehicle restraints.
It is generally found that there is no
way, except on a voluntary basis, to reduce trip requirements.
Since
travel requirements cannot be diminished, some form of transportation
alternatives must be provided.
These can be in the form of public transit
Qr could include schemes to increase individual vehicle utilization, such
as car pool incentives.
A major transit improvement program for the
Greater Houston Area is currently in the final stages of plan definition.
This program constitutes an order of magnitude improvement over existing
3
-------
~
V) a:
z<
o I.&J
..... .....
V) .......
V) V)
..... z
:::EO
I.&J .....
~~
cc<
a: V)
<:::::)
UO
o :I:
a:.....
CI
>-
:I:
15
ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM MOTOR VEHICLES
100
75
FEDERAL CONTROLS
5
RE DUCTI ON GOAL
- BY1977 - - -
25
o
1972
1974
1976
1978
INSPECTION MAINTENANCE
CAT CONVERTER/VSAD
68-74 AUTOS
1980
Figure 1-1. Estimated Emissions from Motor Vehicles
-------
12
11
10
9
8
I
G)
.-
~
6
G)
u
.-
~
G)
>
'-
~
o
l
5
4
'"
c
o
'in
lit
.-
E
w
C
o
..D
...
C
u
o
...
-c
>..
J:
3
I
I
,
I'
I
\\
I'
1\
1\
\\
\\
\ \~~'"
'..
'" ..........
\ .... .... ::............--
.... ..... -- -----------
-- -- -- ----..------
'- -- -- - ... - - -------------------- 1977
, ---
.....-. ------- 1978
---
---
----- 1980
1972
2
o
o
45
50
55
60
15
20
25
30
35
40
Average Vehicle Speed ~ MPH
Figure 1-2.
Projected Hydrocarbon Emissions Vs. Speed for Light
Duty Vehicles with Required Federal Emission Controls
5
-------
transit service, however, it appears highly doubtful that the first phase
of this transit system could be completed by 1977 without immediate commit-
ment and expenditures.
Better efficiency in auto use through shared trip making could signi-
ficantly reduce VMT, and therefore, emissions.
Car pools are an obvious
method to increase this efficiency.
The public attitude survey conducted
in the course of this project indicates that nearly 40% of the respondents
are interested in work commute car pooling; however, 70% indicated they
would have significant difficulties in joining or organizing car pools.
Since one obstacle to car poolinq appears to be inform~tional, i.p..,
making persons with similar trip requirements known to each other, a
computer matching service might be particularly helpful.
Although this
type of program will probably not induce sustantial shifts to car pools,
experience in administering an information program will be required in
case restrictive driving measures are needed before adequate public
transportation is available.
Better utilization of the private auto-
mobile fleet would be the only transportation alternative available in
that situation.
Providing vehicle restraints, the last general category for reducing
VMT and the most effective, can be approached by land use controls; or
direct regulation of road use, fuel use or auto ownership.
Vehicle free
zones make a positive contribution to mobile source emission reduction;
however, reduction credits resulting from this measure have not been
quantified and no specific proposals for vehicle free zones have been
developed.
Free zones are encouraged wherever tney respond to other
planning goals and objectives.
6
~
-------
Parking control measures have the objective of reducing VMT by in-
ducing car pooling and shifts to public transit.
Despite some drawbacks,
parking control measures are desirable in the Houston Central Business
District (CBD and other activity concentrations which are now or will be
served by adequate public transit.
The imposition of tolls on freeways is a method most often put forward
for regulating road use. The imposition of tolls on the Houston area free-
ways is not recommended because the design of the freeways make conven-
ti ona 1 to l'1 i ng i neffi ci ent.
In addition, a high percentage of those priced
off the freeways by tolls may drive on surface streets rather than shift
to car pools or transit.
This could produce increased emissions as a
result of reduced travel speed and increased idling on surface streets.
Most important, however, tolling measures tend to be regressive.
Those
priced off the roads will primarily be low income persons.
Tax disincentives are very difficult to access.
Schemes to reduce
vehicle mileage by gasoline pricing are not very effective.
,.
Major i n-
creases in price do not appear to affect consumption.
People are willing
to pay for the convenience of using their cars.
Generally, 10\'1 taxes
are ineffective in reducing VMT and high taxes tend to be regressive.
The public attitude survey indicates there will be rigorous objections
by the public to high taxes.
Even though measures which ~ost less would not be effective in
reducing VMT, they should be given consideration as a means to obtain
revenue to subsidize mass transit.
Gasoline rationing is a direct restraint on vehicle mileage and
therefore, emissions.
Any direct vehicle restraint will be extremely
7
-------
objectionable to the public.
However, should one be required, gas ration-
ing appears to be the most effective approach.
It can be implemented easier
than any other i dentifi ed di rect t'estri cti on.
Figure 1-3 presents the percent of vehicle mile travel reduction
versus total hydrocarbon emission reductions considering various indivi-
dual auto control starting points.
Proposed Control Strategy
The proposed strategy is phased so as to take advantage of legisla-
tive or judicial remission, technology development and changes in require-
ments resulting from a better understanding of the air pollution problem
in the Greater Houston Area.
In its fully implemented form, it will allow
air quality standards to be met by the 1977 due date.
Phase I measures
have substantial justification, either in terms of significant air quality
improvement or other urban needs.
Present jusitification for Phase II
measures is tentative at best.
The final decision to implement them
must be based on a better demonstration of the need for further hydro-
carbon emission reductions than is now available.
Figure 1-4 summarizes
the emission reductions possible from implementation of Phase I and
Phase II of this proposed control strategy.
Phase I Measures
1. Continue evaluation of control measures - Expand the air moni-
toring program in the Greater Houston Area to include more stations and
gas chromotography at selected stations. Initiate a regular review of
the air quality and emission inventory data to determine if adjustment
of the emission control strategy is required to meet ambient air standards.
8
I
"'--
-------
en
z
0
..... c:::
en >-
en.........
..... en
::::E:z
LLJO
I-
Z
00
~~
-
:x: 30
2
10
FEDERAL NEW CAR CONTROLS
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE
VSAD/LIAF PRE 68 AUTOS
CATALYTIC CONVERTER 68-74 AUTOS
o
20
40
60
100
% REDUCTION IN LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE VMT
Figure1 -3. Percent Reduction in VMT Vs. Hydrocarbon Emissions
-------
r
400
V)
z:
0
......
V)
V)
......
::E 300
LLI
z:
g e:::
e::: ct:
ct: LLI
U >-
0 .........
e::: V)
CI Z
>- 0 200
~ I-
-J CI
ct: z:
I- ct:
0 V)
..... I- ::>
0 0
CI ::I:
LLI I-
I-
ct: 100
::E
......
I-
V)
LLI
Fi gure
o
33.5%*
PRESENT
REGS.
1-4
61.2%*
MEASURE
2
62.3%*
MEASURE
3
Estimated Total Hydrocarbon
Proposed Control Measures
Emissions
in
1977 Resulting from the
63.8%*
MEASURES
4,5,6
*REDUCTION FROM PRESENT
EMISSION LEVEL
70.1 %*
MEASURE
7
75%*
-------
2. Stationary source measures - Tighten and expand the Requ1ation V
stationary source controls as recommended by the Texas Air Po11ution Control
Service's study. Broaden the coverage of Regulation V to include all
counties in the region.
3. Mandatory inspection/maintenance - Implement an annual inspection/
maintenance program for in-use vehicles. An idle emission test performed
in conjunction with the annual safety inspection is the method recommended.
4. Mass transit - A substantial improvement in mass transit is re-
quired in the Greater Houston Area. Based on this need and recognizing
the extensive studies that have been perfo~med, it is recommended that
Phase I of the Houston Transit Action Program be implemented as soon as
possible.
. 5. Parking measures - It is recommended that parking measures be
instituted in all high density areas. These include strict enforcement
of existing parking regulations, elimination of preferential rates for all
day parking, and establishment of procedures to control parking availa-
bility as adequate mass transit is provided.
6. Car pool incentives - Initiate a formal information program
with the aim of increasing the amount of voluntary car pooling. This
program should include a computer matching element.
It is estimated that measures 4, 5 and 6 will bring about a 3 to
5 percent reduction in VMT.
The resulting decrease in emissions are
shown in Figures 1-3 and 1-4.
7. ~itive and evaporative emission controls - (a) Promulgate
regulations to control evaporative hydrocarbon emissions from all gaso-
line marketing levels. (b) Promulgate regulations to control all re-
active hydrocarbon emissions from solvent users. (c) Promulgate regu-
lations to attack fugitive losses from all process industries.
Phase I I Measures
If at the end of the evaluation period in 1974 it is determined
that additional hydrocarbon emission reductions are required, those
reductions can be obtained through implementation of the following
measure:
11
-------
8. Motor vehicle emission reduction - (a) Retrofit a catalytic con-
verter on all 1968-1974 automobiles and reduce the vehicle miles traveled
during the summer and fall months by 30% or (b) no major vehicle retrofit
program and reduce vehicle miles traveled by 50% during the summer and
fall months. The method recommended to effect the vehicle mile reduction
is gasoline rationing.
As is obvious. implementation of the Phase II measure would be very
difficult.
Rigorous objections at all levels of government, industry and
the public can be expected.
For that reason, it is not recommended unless
and until the need for additional (over Phase I) hydrocarbon emission re-
ductions are substantiated by additional ambient air quality monitoring.
1.1
LIMITATIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION CONTROL STRATEGY ANALYSIS
To be acceptable, an air pollution control strategy must reduce
emission levels consistant with the attainment and maintenance of National
Ambient Air Quality standards; Additionally, an imp1ementab1e trans-
portation control strategy must consider the economic factors associated
with its adoption as well as the social and political changes necessary to
accommodate each specific control measure.
The air quality benefits must
be b~':-'.ced against the social and economic dislocation cost by its imp1e-
mentation.
Limitations in the data and analytical methods became obvious
during the course of the study, and care must be taken in the interpreta-
tion and evaluation of the control strategy recommendations.
The proposed
control strategy must be considered as an initial attempt to quantify the
relationship between transportation processes and the regional air pollution
12
~
-------
problem.
Further study is indicated and should be used to modify this
baseline effort.
Several specific areas which need to be confirmed and
validated by future study are listed below.
Air Quality Monitoring - The air quality monitoring network in this area
is in its infancy.
Substantial expansions are required to obtain data
good enough to base decisions upon.
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 conditions.
Further, specific high measurements obviously due to adverse meteorological
conditions may be considered as episode control situations and should not
require the imposition of long term transportation control strategies for
their solution.
Emission Factors - The mobile source emission estimates in this study
are based upon the best available emission factors.
These emission factors
are being revised in light of in-use and new vehicle testing programs
being conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency.
It is highly
recommended that new emission factors be utilized as they become available
to recompute the severity of the mobile source generated emission in the
region.
Preliminary data indicates that emissions generated during the first
few minutes of vehicle operation represent a large portion of the total
emissions during any individual vehicle trip.
This implies the reduction
in the total vehicle trips may be more important than reducing the vehicle
miles traveled.
Unfortunately, the data relating to this phenomenon were
not sufficiently developed to be used in this study.
13
-------
Traffic Data Projections - Historically. traffic data projections
have not been collected with the view of estimating motor vehicle emissions.
The data, including vehicle flow speeds and modal mixes, were reworked
into the format necessary for emission calculations.
Potential inaccuracies
were introduced by this process.
Further, projections in vehicle growth
have been prepared by various agencies and little unanimity has been found
concerning appropriate growth rates.
Changes in traffic as well as ambient
air quality should be closely monitored between now and 1977 so that devia-
tions can be determined and appropriate adjustments made in the control
strategy.
It should be noted that stationary source estimates also suffer
frOm inaccuracies in the projection of industrial growth and in quantifying
expected results from the application of as yet untested control technologies.
Analytical Technique - The key calculation in control measure assess-
ment is relating emission levels to expected ambient air quality.
Due to
time and contractual constraints, it was not possible to utilize sophisti-
cated modeling techniques to develop this relationship.
Therefore, control
strategy reductions were based on a rollback technique that relates existing
emissions and air quality on a proportional basis.
The use of modeling is
highly recommended since it can consider the effects of local meteorological
and topographical features and describes the geographical extent of the
regional air pollution problem.
Such procedures, using models now under
development, should be performed between now and 1977, and the results
used to modify (if required) the control strategy recommended in this
document.
14
-------
1.2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Presented below are the major conclusions and recommendations that
have emerged as a result of this study.
Conclusions
.
Photochemical oxidants and total hydrocarbons are well
above the national standards a significant portion of the
time in the Houston area.
.
Stationary source as well as mobile source reductions are
required to allow the ambient standards to be met.
.
There is no adequate definition of the actual effect that
emission levels have on ambient air quality in the Greater
Houston Area. The present air quality measurements and the
accuracy of the emission inventory are not sufficient to
develop this relationship.
.
Significant reductions in hydrocarbon emissions can be
obtained by tightening Regulation V.
.
Annual inspection/maintenance is necessary to obtain full
benefit from Federal motor vehicle emission controls.
.
Traffic flow improvements offer only marginal positive
contributions to air quality.
.
A substantial improvement in mass transit is required
i~ the Greater Houston Area. The Houston Transit Action
Program is a major step in the right direction; however,
it is questionable whether the key elements can be
completed by the 1977 air quality deadline.
.
Substantial mobile source emission reductions over those
that can be achieved through individual vehicle emission
controls can only be obtained by direct reductions in
vehicle miles traveled.
.
The use of vehicles cannot be significantly restrained
without providing some alternate means of transportation.
Pricing schemes (including taxes) to discourage auto
travel are largely ineffective and heavily regressive.
.
.
Gas rationing appears to be the most directly effective
and administratively viable means of imposing VMT reductions.
15
-------
Recommendations
It is recommended that the Phase I control measures be implemented.
The measures have substantial justification, either in terms of signi-
ficant air quality improvement or other urban needs.
The final deci-
sion regarding implementation of the Phase II measure should be deferred
until the need for additional (over Phase I) hydrocarbon emission re-
ductions are substantiated by further ambient air quality monitoring and
a review of the air quality standards in light of the cost to achieve
them.
16
-------
2.
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a program to evaluate potential
control measures that will allow the achievement of air quality standards
for oxidants and hydrocarbons in the Houston-Galveston Region by 1977.
The measure evaluations include an assessment of their technical effec-
tiveness and institutional/social feasibility.
The program was performed
by Transportation and Environmental Operations of TRW, Inc., in conjunc-
tion with the DeLeuw, Cather and Company organization, a fully owned
subsidiary.
Region Description
The Houston-Galveston area is part of air quality control region
(AQCR) 7.
The region is composed of 13 counties with an area of 12,428
square miles, and is located on the coastal plains in the southeastern
part of Texas (see Figure 2-1).
The entire land area of the region is
very flat with no characteristic geomorphic features.
Altitude varies
/
from sea level on the coast to a maximum of 450 feet in Walker County
to the north.
The region encompasses the San Jacinto coastal basin and
is drained by the Trinity, San Jacinto, Colorado and Brazos Rivers and
many minor tributaries.
The climate is hot and humid. Temperatures
range from 44°F (mean minimum) in January to 93°F (mean maximum) in
July.
Rapid temperature changes are rare.
The annual rainfall averages
45 inches and occurs primarily in the spring and fall.
The major natural resources are the fertile soil, abundant oil and
natural gas deposits, abundant sea life and excellent access for ocean
shipping.
The region has experienced a very strong economic growth (it
is one of the fastest growing areas in the United States), and a
17
-------
TEXAS
CD
AUSTIN-WACO
AQCR
SOUTHERN LOUISIANA/
SOUTHEAST TEXAS
AQCR
@
t-()NTGOMERY
CD
\
\
f' I"" \
,'.....L---" \,.._" .......",\
\ ,......' \
\ ,
ALLER\ HARRIS \
---\.,.~ :~n
FT. BEND 'y ~-'f'-~-
-_J \~~.<,.
: \ «}/.'<
,--,- " ~
BRAZORIA \
CORPUS CHRISTI
VICTORIA
AQCR
GREATER HOUSTON AREA
HOUSTON/GALVESTON (i~ETROPLITAN)
AQCR (j)
G U L F 0 F [.1 E X I C 0
Fi gure 2-1.
Study Area
18
-------
continuation of this strong economic growth is anticipated assuming no
artifical disincentives are introduced.
According to the 1970 census, AQCR 7 has a population of 2,305,106
people.
Houston's population increased 39% during the 19605 which was
the fastest rate of growth in any of the nation's ten 1arge~t citi~s.
The Greater Houston Area consists of Harris County and the seven counties
surrounding it:
Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Liberty,
Montgomery and Waller counties.
The Greater Houston Area population
is projected to grow to 5 million people by 1990 and 9 million by 2020.
Industrial expansion with its attendant increase in job~ {double by 1990}
will cause an increase in industrial and vehicular emission problems
unless controlled.
The focus of this study, both in problem evaluation and measure
effectiveness assessment, is the Greater Houston Area.
Results may not
be applicable to either the other counties in the Air Quality Control
Region or to the rest of the state.
Problem Definition and Program Description
The Texas Implementation Plan submitted January 28, 1972, classified
the Houston area as a class I region for hydrocarbons, photochemical
oxidants and nitrogen oxides and a class III region for carbon monoxide.
Air quality' and emission inventory data can be found in Appendix A.
Nitrogen oxide concentrations were slightly over standards and it was
estimated that NOx levels would be within criteria by 1975 as a result
of present regulations and measures.
In addition, there are potential
alterations to the standard methods for measuring nitrogen oxides; there-
fore, this study did not call for development of strategies to control
19
-------
them.
Because the region was classified as priority III for carbon
monoxide and since there was no further evidence of localized problem
areas, no strategies were investigated specifically for this pollutant
either.
All efforts were directed to developing strategies that would
allow air quality standards for photochemical oxidants and hydrocarbons
to be met.
There was a basic groundrule that air quality could not be
degraded in another area or by a different pollutant as a result of any
strategy used to meet criteria.
The Texas Implementation Plan reported the maximum one-hour photo-
chemical oxidant concentration as .15 ppm (300 ~gm/m3). Based on this
measured level, Federal regulations specified a 50% reduction in total
hydrocarbons to meet the required photochemical oxidant standard. (1}(2)
A study was performed during April, May and June (1972) to measure
ozone by the chemiluminescent method at seven sites along the upper Texas
Gulf coast. Four of these sites were in the Greater Houston Area.(3}
During this test, ozone concentrations exceeded the national standards
a significant portion of the time.
Levels in excess of .3 ppm (600 ~gm/m3)
were recorded.
A summary of this data can be found in Appendix A.
Based on this study the oxidant problem was identified as regional in
nature with no indication of local hot spots.
In addition, the baseline
maximum one-hour oxidant concentration was revised upward to .315 ppm
(630 ~gm/m3)~ Utilizing this baseline oxidant concentration, the regu-
lations would require a reduction of near 100% of the hydrocarbon emissions
to achieve national photochemical oxidant standards.
Since this was
deemed impractical, EPA authorized use of a formula wherein a direct
percentage reduction in hydrocarbon emissions would be assumed to cause
20
-------
an equal percentage reduction in the maximum one-hour photochemical
oxidant concentration.
Based on this formula, a 75% reduction in total
hydrocarbon emissions is required.
Since the IIdegree of total hydrocarbon
emission reduction necessary for attainment and maintenance of the
national standard for photochemical oxidants will also be adequate for
attainment of the national standard for hydrocarbons,II(2) no further
reductions are required.
The program purpose then is to develop transportation control strat-
egies (measures) that will reduce total hydrocarbon emissions in the
Greater Houiton Area by 75%.
These strategies must be technically and
institutionally feasible, and legal authority to implement the measures
must be available or obtainable.
21
-------
3.
CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
A 75% reduction in total hydrocarbon emissions is required in the
Greater Houston Area to meet the air quality standards for photochemical
oxidants.
Before measures to achieve this reduction were evaluated, the de-
crease in emissions that would automatically result from Federal motor
vehicle emission controls, previously programed transportation system
improvements, and current stationary source emission regulations was
estimated.
This estimation defined the magnitude of required additional
emission reductions.
3. 1
EMISSION ESTIMATES
The estimated hydrocarbon emissions from the major source categories
are presented in Figure 3-1.
Projections are included for 1975, 77, 78,
and 80.
These emission estimates are based upon regulations now on the
books, including Federal motor vehicle and Texas stationary source con-
trols.
The projections in stationary source emissions are based on a 3%
increase, but consider that most of the increases will be in new
or modified facilities which require application of better technology
under the Texas Permits Program.
The projections for motor vehicles
are based on a 6%/year increase in vehicle miles traveled.
These trends
conform with recent historical data.
A more complete discussion of
source emissions and projections can be found in Appendix A.
Traffic
and vehicle population data used to predict the vehicle contributions
can be found in Appendix B.
The computer program used to calculate the
predicted motor vehicle emissions (and effect on air quality) is des-
cribed in Appendix G.
It is apparent from Figure 3-1 that the required
-22-
-------
CO
CO
to
o
>- a
CO
1974
1976
1978
1980
Figure 3-1 Estimated Hydrocarbon Emissions Based on Present Regulations
-23-
-------
reduction in hydrocarbon emissions cannot be achieved by only imposing
transportation controls.
This reduction goal cannot be met even with
zero emissions from motor vehicless unless hydrocarbon emissions from
stationary sources are also reduced significantly.
3.2 CONTROL MEASURES CONSIDERED
It is clear that stationary source as well as mobile measures are
required to reduce hydrocarbon emissions enough', to meet the photochemical
oxidant standards.
Detail evaluation of stationary source measures fall
outside the scope of this study; howevers an estimate of the reductions
required to meet air quality standards and the effectiveness of control
measures available is required.
3.2.1
Stationary Source Measures
As a result of the above findingss the Texas Air Pollution Control
Services undertook a study to reevaluate their hydrocarbon emission
regulations. (4) This study included a review of all industrial point
source categories and resulted in a recommendation that Regulation V be
extended to include ethylene released from consuming plants and expanded
to include smaller tanks; and all vents not now abated from all of the
significant sources in the process industries.
Application of this
tighter regulation to all counties in the Greater Houston Area results
in the reductions shown in Figure 3-2.
The improvement is substantial
but still not enough to allow the reduction goal to be met by the appli-
cation of transportation controls.
Area sources are now a significant portion of the total hydrocarbon
emissions.
Two of the most significant categories of area sources are
evaporative losses from gasoline marketing and from certain solvent
-24-
-------
1976
1978
1980
Figure 3-2. Estimated Hydrocarbon Emissions Considering a Tightened
Regulation V.
-25-
-------
user categories.
Several methods are available for controlling evapora-
tive losses from gasoline marketing.
These include an adaptive pump
nozzle, absorber or condenser system and/or a vapor return and recovery
system.
Approximately 70% of the vehicles on the road, mostly domestic,
can be servic~d from one adaptive pump nozzle.
The average cost of
equipping service stations in the Houston area with evaporative recovery
systems would run approximately $2000 per station.
Developmental and
distributional problems may limit the availability of this type of equip-
ment for the near term.
Furthermore, the economic impact of this con-
trol approach should be further investigated.
Appendix F presents a
report on some of the experiences the San Diago Air Pollution Control
District have had with implementing an emission regulation that affects
gasoline marketing.
Controlling the Reid vapor pressure on a seasonal basis in the Houston
area should be considered.
THis could yield a significant reduction in
evaporative losses with a moderate impact on overall marketing operations.
Some drivability problems (during startup) may occur, although they should
be of a minimal nature.
Further reductions in hydrocarbon emissions can come through control
of organic solvents.
Dry cleaners, printers, degreasing operations, etc.,
could be required to incinerate or absorb evaporative emissions.
There
are certain organic solvents which have been shown to be virtually unreactive
in the formation of oxidants, and still others which have a low reactivity.
Substitution of these compounds for high reactive compounds should be en-
couraged.
Emissions from architectural coatings can be reduced by requiring
-26-",
-------
the use of water base or otner coatings naving an inorganic solvent
content of less than 20%. (2)
Implementation of area source regulations of the type described
above would result in tot~l hydrocarbon emissions, as shown in,Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-4 is a comparison of hydrocarbon emissions in the Greater
Houston Area in 1977 based on the three levels of stationary source
controls described.
Some additional point source reductions could be obtained through
the application of a regulation attacking fugitive losses.
Fugitive
losses are defined as hydrocarbon emissions escaping from pumps, com-
pressors, valves, etc. in process operations.
Fugitive losses are the
largest single remaining category within the point sources; however, to
substantially reduce them would be a major task with an additional
20% reduction the most that coul~ be hoped for.
-27-
-------
V')
z:
o
-
V')
V')
.-
:E:
LLJo::
z:ct:
o LLJ
~~
ct:V')
uz:
00
~I-
>-c
Z'~
CV')
LLJ ::J
~~
-
l-
V')
LLJ
Fi gure
;;
10
POINT
1974
1978
1976
1980
3-3.
Estimated Hydrocarbon Emissions Considering a Tightened
Regulation V Plus Evaporative Controls on Area Sources
-28-
.
-------
I
N
\0
I
400
V)
z:
o
I-
o
~
V)
:::::>
o
:I:
l-
V)
z:
o
.....
V)
V)
.....
:;:
L.&.J
300
20
z:
o
aJ
a:::
c:(
u
o
a:::
o
>-
:I:
100
o
COMPARISON OF 1977 GREATER HOUSTON AREA HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
- -
PRESENT REGULATIONS
Figure 3-4.
---
-
~
~
~
---
REDUCTION
--
GOAL
TIGHTENED REGULATION AND
AREA SOURCE CONTROL
~ POINT
AREA
Comparison of 1977 Hydrocarbon Emissions Based on Various
Levels of Stationary Source Controls
TIGHTENED REGULATION V
OTHER TRANSPORTATION
MOTOR VEHICLES
-------
3.2.2 Mobile Measures
A large number of potential measures to reduce mobile source
emissions have been identified.
Table (3-1) lists the control measurp~
seriously considered for the Greater Houston Area.
The measures have
been aggregated into groups based on the primary effect they are intended
to achieve.
The following is a brief discussion of each category with
some discussion of subgroupings.
3.2.2.1
Control Individual Vehicle Emissions
Re~ucing emissions at the source involves a multi-faceted program-
affecting both old and new vehicles.
Federal motor vehicle emission
controls and changes in vehicle engine design will reduce emissions from
new vehicles.
Vehicle manufacturers are the responsible agent, and they
pass along the cost of this effort to the car buyer.
Vehicle inspection/
maintenance can significantly reduce emissions by ensuring all in-use
motor vehicles are in proper working order, particularly their emission
control devices.
The required programs are administered by the state.
The operating costs are passed directly to the user, but start up costs
may be subsidized by state or federal agencies utilizing tax revenues.
Retrofit programs can reduce emissions from in-use pre-1975 vehicles by
installation of emission control devices or (a special case) conversion
to CNG or LPG.
In this case, the state generally assumes the responsi-
bility for the administration of the necessary programs.
The costs are
passed on directly to the user or may be subsidized by state agencies
utilizing tax revenues.
Effectiveness and need for the retrofit measures
is decreased over time as pre-1975 control vehicles are phased out of
the vehicle population.
-30-
-------
Table 3-1
Mobile Source Control Measures
Control Individual Vehicle Emissions
I Inspection/Maintenance
Mandatory Maintenance
Diagnostic Inspection
Emission Inspection
Loaded test
Idle test
I Retrofit Measures
Crankcase
I Evaporati ve
(N
--
I Exhaust
VSAD/LIAF
Air b1eed/VSAD
EGR
Catalytic converter
Capacitive discharge ignition
I Federal Emission Controls
Traffic Flow Improvements
Operational Improvements
New Facil it i es
Work Schedule Changes
Reduce Vehicle Use
I
Reduce Trip Requirements
Work Schedule Changes
Other Communications
(4-day week)
I
Provide Transportation Alternatives
I
Public Transit
Car pools
Provide Vehicle Restraints
Vehicle Free Zones
Parking Controls
Freeway Tolls
Restrictive Ramp Metering
Moritorium on Traffi-c Improvements
Tax Disincentives
Gasoline Rationing
-------
Inspection/Maintenance ~1easures - Mandatory maintenance, engine
diagnostic inspection, and exhaust emission inspection are all approaches
to reducing emissions from in-use motor vehicles.
All approaches are
aimed at ensuring motor vehicles are maintained in a manner sufficient
to keep emissions at a minimum.
The emission inspection procedures include the idle-made-test (where
~missions are measured during normal vehicle operations at idle), and
various dynamic mode tests (emissions are measured during representative
driving conditions which require the use of dynamometers to provide the
necessary engine loading).
Analysis of data presently available does not
indicate any significant difference among the emission reductions achieved
as a result of mandatory maintenance, emission inspection, or engine
parameter inspection measures for the current light-duty vehicle population.
The average initial effectiveness observed is:
.
Hydrocarbon exhaust emissions:
20% reduction*
.
Carbon monoxide exhaust emissions:
18% reduction*
.
Oxides of nitrogen exhaust emissions:
no significant change*
These results demonstrate that significant emission reductions can
be achieved by the proper servicing of the vehicle population.
Estimates
for the cost per vehicle for the various inspection/maintenance measures
are shown in Tab1e '3-2 . (5) These costs estimates are based on a 12-
month inspection interval and a yearly maintenance requirement.
If 6-
month inspection intervals were implemented, the cost would be approxi-
mately twice those shown on the table.
*Keyword is initial effectiveness. Overall effectiveness must consider
normal deterioration in performance until next cycle.
-32-
-------
Table 3-2. Yearly Vehicle Owner Costs for Different Inspection/Maintenance
Approaches
Inspectiona Maintenanceb TotalC
Cost Cost Cost
Mandatory maintenance $ 0 $ 55 $ 55
Diagnostic inspection 7 25 32
Emission inspection 2 25 27
aAmmortized initial capital investment
bAverage cost of maintenace. Assumes
maintenance
cInspection plus maintenance cost.
plus yearly operating costs.
all vehicles require yearly
As can be seen from the table, the emission inspection approach
appears to be the least cost method of providing incentives for proper
maintenance.
Emission inspection also appears to be the superior method
because of simple enforcement and flexibility for meeting changing
requirements.
Enforcement is simplified by requiring only that the vehicle
meet a specific emission limit to be certified.
This provides a direct
measure of the desired effect, the limits of which can be adjusted as
required to meet clean air goals (on a yearly basis if need be).
Enforce-
ment of mandatory maintenance and diagnostic inspection would require very
rigid rules and regulations to be placed on the adjustments and service
allowed on individual autos.
The emission test leaves the method of
achieving emissions goals up to the individual car owner (he may opt for
an additional control device to allow tuning for performance rather than
emissions).
This feature should make emission testing more acceptable
to the public than the other methods.
-33-
-------
A Public Attitudes Survey taken in the Houston area indicates there
presently is strong public support for an inspection/maintenance program
(see Appendix E).
Some 82% of the respondents are in favor and another
10% indicate they are not strongly opposed to such a program.
The re-
spondents indentified a charge of nearly $5.50 as a reasonable cost for
the annual inspection, significantly above the actual estimated cost
in the program under consideration.
Some 42% of the respondents felt
that the inspection should be done at state operated centers.
Nearly
46% favored private garages and service stations and less than 10% favored
\
city operated stations.
Emphasis has been placed by the Federal government on the corre1a-
tion of any emission inspection procedure to the full Federal test
procedure. (6) Dynamic mode emission tests (which require the use of the
dynamometer) provide the best correlation.
Loaded constant speed tests
using tailpipe concentration measurements achieve a satisfactory level
of correlation (a dynamometer is still required to load the engine).
Idle mode concentration tests have, as yet, not been adequate in this
regard.
Correlation to the Federal test procedure is important only for
the following reasons.
(1) The government believes that unless the
inspection program correlates with the Federal test procedure there may
be no assurance that the use of the inspection as a basis for requiring
maintenance provides any real contribution to the improvement of air
quality.
In the absence of such confidence the state might not be e1ig~
ib1e for Federal financial support of the inspection program as author-
ized by Section 210 of the Clean Air Act~
(2) The government believes
-34-
-------
that an acceptable level of correlation must be achieved to satisfy :the
enforcement requirements for the warranty provisions included in Section
2078 of the Clean Air Act.
If implemented, the warranty would require
manufacturers to bear the cost of any maintenance necessary to bring
vehicles into compliance within the framework of an in-use vehicle inspec-
tion test, if such vehicles have been properly operated and maintained.
Extensive tests by independent groups such as the Arco Clean Air Caravan
have shown that substantial emission reductions can be claimed for main-
tenance performed as a result of idle emission test results alone. (7)(8)(9)
The idle test is not as yet able to provide the diagnostic capability of
the loaded emission test.
Diagnostic capability is the main advantage
to the Federal test procedures and loaded emission test.
The idle emis-
sion test can, however, identify poor performance and that maintenance
is required.
The resulting maintenance provides emission reductions -
not the inspection.
Retrofit Measures - Retrofit is defined as an application of any
device or system that may be added to a motor vehicle, and/or any modifi-
cation or adjustment beyond that of regular maintenance which could be
made to reduce vehicular emissions.
There are three primary emission
sources in motor vehicles which can be potentially controlled by various
retrofit procedures.
For vehicles without emission controls, crankcase
venting typically contributes about 20% of the total hydrocarbon emission
from the vehicle.
Another 20% of the total hydrocarbon emission typically
result from evaporative losses from the carburator and the fuel tank
system.
Exhaust emissions account for the remaining 60% of the hydro-
carbon emissions, and 100% of the carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide
-35-
-------
emissions from uncontrolled vehicles.
In the Greater Houston Area, the
only identified pollutant problem is photochemical oxidants which require
a reduction in hydrocarbons.
Therefore, a retrofit system's ability to
reduce hydrocarbons will be its key evaluation paramett.
Crankcase emissions systems have been installed on automobiles for
some time, therefore crankcase emission retrofit devices will not be con-
sidered.
Evaporative emission control systems are more recent on new
cars; however, there are no available retrofit systems for this emission
category.
For this reason, retrofit devices to control evaporative emis-
sions will not be considered either.
Should a device become available,
substantial reductions in hydrocarbons emissions could be achieved through
its application.
Many exhaust emission control retrofit kits have been
evaluated and the results are summarized in an EPA report titled "Control
Strategies for In-Use Vehicles.II~) The more successful retrofit options
were sited in a draft revision to the implementation regulations, ~ )
and are listed in Table 3-3 with their average pollutant reduction per
vehicle and typical installed cost.
Although there are many potential retrofit options, the measures
listed in Table 3-3 are generally conceded to be the most cost effective
in their individual categOries.(5)(6)(1~(ln As stated earlier, hydro-
carbon reduction efficiency is the key evaluation parameter for retrofit
systems in the Houston area.
Therefore, the exhaust gas recirculation
and air bleed retrofits can be eliminated.
This is because they are less
effective in controlling hydrocarbon emissions and cost considerably
more than the VSAD/LIAF retrofit device.
-36-
-------
Table 3-3 Effectiveness of Alternate Retrofit Devices
Insta 11 ed Average Reduction per Vehicle
Retrofit Opti on Cost HC CO NOx
Pre-controlled Vehicles
Lean Idle Air/Fuel Ratio $ 20 25% 9% 23%
Adjustment and Vacuum Spark
Advance Disconnect
Oxidizing Catalytic Converter 195 68% 63% 48%
and Vacuum Spark Advance
Disconnect
Air Bleed to Intake Manifold 60 21% 58% 0%
Exhaust Gas Recirculation and 110 12% 31% 48%
Vacuum Spark Advance Disconnect
Controlled Vehicles
Oxidizing Catalytic Converter $175 50% 50% 0%
Exhaust Gas Recirculation 90 0% 0% 40%
The vacuum spark advance disconnect (VSAD) is a retrofit device which
can be installed in all used cars up to and including 1970.
It disconnects
the vacuum spark advance except when a thermostat switch senses the car
is tending to overheat.
the engine cools down.
In that case, the advance is reconnected until
The lean idle air fuel adjustment (LIAF) requires
tuning for a low idle engine rpm with a high air to fuel ratio, normally
14 to 1.
A single measure made of the two combined retrofit approaches
is very cost effective and results in significant reductions in both
hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides for affected vehicles.
This option is
very easy to implement, however, it must be accompanied by a means to
protect against engine overheating, particularly with older cars of
-37-
-------
marginal cooling capacity.
Part throttle economy and performance is
degraded slightly and may be the source of some. complaints from the public.
The oxidizing catalytic converter is highly efficient in the reduc-
tion of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions.
On older cars it
would require detuning to allow the car to run on lead free gasoline and
should include the vacuum spark advance disconnect retrofit to improve
effectiveness with nitrogen oxides. The actual converter is a device
installed in the engine exhaust system between the exhaust manifold and
the muffler.
The converter catalyst can be "poisoned" by leaded fuel
although recent prototype tests have shown the catalyst to be somewhat
tolerant of lead-containing fuel if it is not used more than 10% of the
time. (12)
Houston area residents generally support a retrofit program if the
cost is relatively low.
In a recent survey, 71% indicated they would
favor a retrofit program costing about $50 and another 9% indicated
they would not have strong objections to it.
(See Appendix E)
If the
retrofit to pre-1975 vehicles were to cost $200, only some 35% would
support it. The inference is that the public feels a retrofit program
for pre-1975 vehicles is a reasonable request if it is not too costly.
Gaseous fuel conversion is a special case of vehicle retrofit.
Within the near future only three types of gaseous fuels can be seriously
considered as alternatives to gasoline for powering motor vehicles:
liquified petroleum gas (LPG), compressed natural gas (CNG), and liquified
natural gas (LNG).
These fuels are inherently clean burning and produce
fewer hydrocarbons than gasoline owing to their lower molecular weight
-38-
-------
and carbon content.
Modification to gaseous fuel requires the installa-
tion of a special carburetor, special tank (pressure tanks for LPG and
CNG, and cryogenic tanks for LNG), pressure regulating devices, shutoff
valves and fuel lines.
This is generally regarded as a simple conver-
sion although more sophisticated modifications like engine gas recircu-
lation and catalytic converters can also be added for futher reductions.
For simple conversion, the cost of modifying an in-use light duty vehicle
to CNG or LPG ranges from $350 to $500, while conversion to LNG may cost
from $800 to $1000.
Large scale mandatory conversion of motor vehicles
to gaseous fuels is unwarranted in Houston because the fuel supply and
distribution network is very limited.
Conversion of large numbers of
vehicles and implementation of an adequate fuel distribution system
would be extremely expensive.
Considerable efforts are underway to meet
stringent 1975-76 Federal emission standards through modification of
conventional gasoline engines.
If successful, these efforts would obviate
the need for gaseous fuel systems.
(Simple conversion systems would be
unable t6 meet the 1975-76 standards without further engine modifications
and supplemental equipment.)
Given the substantial initial cost as so-
ciated with conversion to gaseous fuels, fleet owners could also be
expected to resist strongly any governmental attempts to require fleet
conversion as a short term air pollution measure.
On the other hand,
it is appropriate that the conversion of pre-1975 gasoline powered
vehicles to gaseous fuels be encouraged by providing tax incentives.
With adequate tax incentives and the economics inherent in gaseous fuel
operation, large fleet owner3 may find it to their economic advantage
to proceed with the high cost of conversion.
encouraged. 03) 04) 0 5) 0 6) 0 7}
All such action should be
-39-
-------
3.2.2.2 Traffic Flow Improvements
Measures to achieve emission reductions through improved traffic
flow fall in two categories:
construction of new major traffic facilities
(freeways, expressways and major arterial linkages) and operational
improvements to existing streets and highways.
The emission reductions
are brought about by increases in vehicle speeds, reduced idling, and a
general shortening of trip times.
Major facility construction normally enables significant increases
in vehicle travel speed in the corridors affected but also tends to
activate latent travel demand.
In the long run this reinforces auto
dependence and increases vehicle miles traveled.
Over the short range
time frame of primary concern in this study (to 1977) the air quality
impacts of new traffic facilities can be assumed positive.
The most
significant major new facility which will come into use in the time
period of concern is the East Loop Freeway (1-610).
Though its impacts
on air quality in that period will be positive, its contribution in terms
of regional air quality is too small to quantify.
Operational- improvements to existing streets and highways cover a
broad range of programs.
These include freeway improvements such as
ramp metering and removal of bottlenecks; and surface street improve-
ments such as areawide signal system integration, intersection channeli-
zations, minor widenings of streets and intersection approaches, insti-
tution of one-way street systems and the like.
Because they do not pro-
duce dramatic shifts in accessibility, operational improvements generally
do not lead to activation of latent travel demand and their impact on
emissions and air quality over the study period is assessed as positive.
-40-
-------
A number of traffic operational improvement programs are ongoing in the
Greater Houston Area.
Freeway ramp metering is already utilized on the
Gulf Freeway and produces positive flow improvements.
Metering has the
added utility of enabling bus priority entry to freeways and could also
be used in the future as a vehicle restrictive measure rather than for
flow improvement purposes.
Other extensive traffic flow improvement
programs for surface streets are also ongoing in the various responsible
jurisdictions.
However, operational and flow improvements do not have
a high payoff in terms of vehicle emission reductions for several reasons.
.
Levels of traffic service and average travel speed in
the Greater Houston area are quite high for an urban
area of this size. The net result of flow improvement
programs is likely to be preservation of the existing
level of service under higher future traffic loads rather
than an increase in average travel speed.
.
Reductions in emissions with increases in travel speed
become quite marginal at speeds above 20 miles per hour,
particularly toward 1977 as post-1975 model vehicles be-
come a greater and greater percentage of the vehicle
fleet, as indicated on Figure 1-2. Average travel speed
is high (above 30 mph) and the percentage of operations
1n the high leverage area below 20 miles per hour is
small. Moreover, of operations in the below 20 mph range,
few can be impacted as many occur on local neighborhood
streets where higher speeds are undesirable.
Flow improvement measures are seen as positive in terms of effect
on air quality but their specific contribution to areawide emission
reduction in the Greater Houston Area is small and difficult to quantify.
Where potential improvement projects in areas of operation in the high
leverage speed range below 20 mph can be identified, they are particularly
encouraged as these can have beneficial emission impacts out of dimen-
sion with the actual number of operations and VMT affected.
-41-
-------
Work Schedule Changes - Changes in work schedule have been proposed
as a control measure in some cities as they tend to
produce marginal
flow improvements by reducing commute period traffic congestion and reduc-
ing total work commute travel.
Two types of schedule changes have been
identified; staggered work hours and the four-day week.
Surveys of employees starting and quitting times in the Houston
CBD were conducted by the Houston Chamber of Commerce in 1972(18)and in
July 1972 the Texas Highway Department conducted traffic counts in the
morning and evening peak periods, accumulating volumes in 5-minute
intervals.
Findings of these data gathering activities were published
in the October 1972 issue of Houston Magazine.
The survey indicates
that there already is a considerable staggering of quitting times in the
Houston CBD.
Only 34% of the employees in the CBD quit at 5 P.M.
Nearly
27% quit before or at 4:30 P.M.
Another 17.5% quit at 4:45.
However,
relatively few CBD workers have quitting times later than 5 P.M.
In the morning the situation is quite different.
Fifty-three per-
cent of the CBD employees start work at 8 A.M.
Less than 2% start before
7:30 and less than 5% start between 8:45 and 9:15.
Figures 3-5 and 3-6 show the morning and evening loadings on the
radial freeways expressed in percent of capacity plotted against CBD
starting times.
The freeway loading time scale has been adjusted for
the offset of the count points from the CBO (to show the correspondence
between peak traffic and shift hours) on the basis of the Houston-Harris
County Transportation Study's 1969 Freeway Travel Time Survey. (lY)
-42-
-------
60
50
..0
120
100
80
A.M. P.ak P.rlod
30 60 ~ CClpacfty
.,.
w
20 40
I 10
G
>..
o
Q..
~
...
o
"* 0
Fi gure 3-5.
~ 20
u
&.
D
u
...
o
"* 0
-- Employ..
6:30 6:45 7:00 7: 15 7:30
6:45 7:00 7: 15 7:30 7:45
Time
7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30
8:00 8: 15 8: 30 8:45
Houston CBO Employee Starting Times and Radial Freeway Loadings.
-------
60
50
40
30 60
-f:::>
-f:::>
20 40
;10 ~20
.
>.. u
0
A. 0
Q.
E 0
. u
.... ....
0 0
;f< 0 ;f< 0
Figure 3-6.
120
P.M. P.ak Period
100
80
Capacity
;- Employees
I
3:30 3:45 4:00 4: 15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5: 15 5:30 5:45 6:00 6: 15
3:45 4:00 4: 15 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:15 5:30 5:45 6:00 6: 15 6:30
Time
Houston CBD Employee Quitting Times and Radial Freeway Loadings
-------
Although the freeways show high levels of utilization, comparison
of the two figures shows the impact of the substantial staggering in
the evening as opposed to the high concentration in the morning peak
work trip period.
The implication is that more extensive staggering of work hours
could result in some flow improvement.
However, as demonstrated previously,
flow improvements produce only marginal reductions in emissions.
The air quality problem in this region results from excessive area-
wide hydrocarbon emissions on an all day basis.
Such a problem responds
most directly to decreases in total daily areawide VMT.
Staggered
work hours do not decrease total daily VMT but simply spread the time
of VMT generation.
Such a strategy is most applicable when the problem
is a short duration, localized concentration of pollutant, particularly
carbon monoxide, which results from temporal concentration of traffic
flow.
Staggered work hours also tend to reduce the potential for car
pooling, a measure which does relate well to a ~ydrocarbon problem as
it tends to directly reduce VMT.
For these reasons, staggered work hours
are not recommended as a pollution control measure in the Greater Houston
Area.
The four-day week would reduce VMT generated in work commute travel.
Like staggered work hours, this would be a useful measure if the problem
were a localized, temporal problem in employment concentration areas.
However, indications are that increased recreational and other non-work
travel will fully replace if not exceed the reductions in VMT resulting
from decreased work commuting.
Thus, this measure does not respond well
-45-
-------
to the reqion'sareawide hydrocarbon emission problem and because of this
factor as well as problems of institutional feasibility. the four-day
week is not recommended as a control measure.
3.2.2.3 Reduce Vehicle Use
The most direct way to reduce emissions from motor vehicles is to
reduce their use.
The effectiveness of measures which reduce VMT are
potentially limited only by the amount of travel which is autocaptive
and essential.
This general goal can be approached by three types of
measures:
reduce trip requirements, provide transportation alterna-
tives, and establish vehicle restraints.
The use of vehicles cannot be
significantly restrained without providing some alternative means of
transportation.
A corollary appears to be that significant mass trans-
portation ridership increases do not occur without some form of natural
or artifical vehicle restraint.
Reduce Trip Requirements - An essential part of air pollution epi-
sode procedures, this measure is implemented when certain air pollution
alert stages are reached.
Emergency closing of offices, schools, etc.
eliminate them as destinations, in turn, eliminating the trip require-
ment.
As a general measure, there are no present means available to
effectively reduce trip requirements.
Trip generation is built into
life styles and land use patterns, therefore, it is not possible to
dramatically alter the number or types of trips in our time period of
interest.
Positive land use policies could channel future development
into concentrated nodes each containing a full range of urban activities
with walking the primary linkage.
Such a land use program would not likely
have a substantial impact until the later decade of this century or beyond.
-46-
-------
As described in an earlier section, a four-day work week would
reduce work trip requirements, but would probably induce increased
recreational and other trips.
Another possible approach to reducing trip requirements is a sub-
sitution of communications for travel.
Communications technology has
already replaced the need for travel in certain occupations.
Daily over
13 million shares are traded on the New York Exchange, predominately via
telephone and telecommunications, without direct personal contact.
Another parallel phenomena is the degree to which computerization is
changing the entire business world.
Computer installations at widely
scattered points are now linked into extensive computer utility networks.
Information may be input at Los Angeles, processed in Houston, and
transmitted for printing in Washington, D.C.
No travel or deliveries
are involved - all through electronics technology.
These kinds of operations are spreading rapidly and may be expected
to continue.
The important question is whether substitution can lead
to actual decreases in travel.
Recent experience would seem to indicate
to the contrary, considering the substantial increases in urban travel
over the past two decades, even as television, space satellites, computer
technology and other advances in telecommunications came into being.
In any event, it is certain personal travel requirements will not
diminish in the short time period this study covers.
Provide Transportation Alternatives - Since personal travel require-
ments cannot be diminished, some form of transportation alternatives must
be provided if vehicle use is to be reduced, particularly if vehicle
-47-
-------
restraints are implemented.
These alternatives can be in the form of
public transit, and could include schemes to increase individual vehicle
utilization such as car pool incentives or jitney cabs
(a formal (paid)
car pool or informal taxi).
Public Transit - The current public transit system in Houston
.
is a conventional bus operation providing fairly extensive area coverage.
It has 25 radial routes to and through the Houston CBO and five crosstown
lines.* The system is well run, having higher average operating speeds
than most transit systems in urban areas of this size.
It incorporates
such innovative improvements as exclusive bus lanes on CSO streets.
Public transit serves nearly 80,000 passengers on the average day, almost
85% of whom are captive riders.
Primary ridership is to and from the
Houston CSO which accounts for 45% of system patronage.
An additional
15% of daily ridership travels to and from the Houston Medical Center -
Rice Institute - University of Houston complexes south of the CBO.
Level
of service (area of coverage, headway, etc.) and ammenity improvements
(air conditioning bus stop shelters, etc) could result in significant
patronage increases, but it is unlikely that such improvements would
induce major shifts of choice riders from autos to transit.
A major transit improvement program for the Houston area is
currently in the final stages of plan definition.
Stage One of the
plan consists-of 40 miles of rapid transit routes in 7 corridors (4
fixed guideways and 3 busways) including a downtown subway, a number of
new semi-express freeway and local bus routes, a number of bus priority
*This discussion centers about RTL which serves about 98% of the region's
transit passengers.
-48-
-------
routes, route extensions into adjacent counties and secondary distribution
systems at major activity center stations.
The $800 million program is
recommended for immediate implementation with the Stage One system sch-
eduled for completion late in this decade or shortly after 1980.
This program constitutes an order of magnitude improvement over
existing transit service.
It should attract significant numbers of choice
riders from their autos to transit and will provide an acceptable alter-
native travel mode for those forced from their private vehicles, parti-
cularly if restrictive vehicle measures are imposed for air pollution
control purposes.
The chief questions are: Can the program be accelerated
so as to be in full service by the deadline for meeting the 1977 Federal
air quality standards?
If not, how much of the system could be in
service by 1977 and what shifts from auto to transit can be projected
for the partially completed system as of that date?
It appears highly
doubtful that the Stage One system could be completed by 1977 without
massive front-end expenditures and commitments.
The rapid transit bus-
I
way and guideway elements require substantial lead time for final design,
right-of-way acquisition, construction, and break-in to full service.
These tasks almost certainly cannot be completed in four years from the
date of this writing.
The elements which probably cannot be completed
in this time frame are those to which the order of magnitude improve-
ment in level of transit service and the major shift of choice riders
from auto to transit must be primarily attributed.
Elements of the plan
which could be completed by 1977 mainly involve improvements and innova-
tions in conventional bus operations.
Although these should yield sub-
stantial patronage gains and social benefits, their payoff in terms of
-49-
-------
automobile related air pollution reductions are marginal and difficult
to quantify.
Car Pools - The average occupancy of autos in the Houston CBD
.
during commute periods range between 1.29 and 1.35 persons per car, and
is likely lower for commute trips to other employment concentrations.
Greater efficiency (higher occupancy) in auto use through shared trip
making, could significantly reduce VMT and hence, automobile emissions.
The public attitude survey conducted in the course of this project indi-
cates that nearly 40% of the respondents are interested in work commute
car pooling (see Appendix G).
Near 10% are already in car pools.
Less
than 20% of the respondents, not including those already in car pools,
felt they might be able to join an existing or organize a new car pool.
One of the obstacles to car pooling is informational, i.e., making persons
with similar trip requirements known to one another.
This information
can be provided by computer matching of persons interested in car pooling.
Institution of such matching services is recommended.
Large employers
should also encourage car pooling by providing "pooling boards" in their
establishment.
Experience indicates that information alone does not
encourage substantial levels of car pool formation.
More effective are
car pooling time and cost incentives or disincentives against driving
alone.
Exclusive bus lanes offer the one possibility of travel incen-
tives to car pools.
Where such lanes are presently provided, they are
generally not used to full capacity by the buses and could be shared by
autos carrying three or more persons.
Effectiveness of this joint
exclusive lane use has been demonstrated, most notably on the San Francisco
Bay Bridge.
Where exclusive freeway bus lanes are planned or in operation,
-50-
-------
it is recommended that considerations be given to ~ermitting joint use
by cars carrying three or more persons.
Similarly. where bus priority
is established at freeway ramp metering locations, it is recommended that
priority be extended to cars occupied by three or more persons.
It is
difficult to provide positive parking incentives for car pooling, as the
driver may drop passengers blocks from his final destination and will
thus have no patent evidence that he qualifies for special parking incen-
tives.
Uniformly higher parking costs constitute an incentive to car
pooling in that they tend to make driving and parking an economic hard-
ship.
Any measure which raises the cost of auto travel could be con-
sidered an incentive for car pools and mass transportation.
Vehicle Restraints - A number of measures have been identified which
will reduce vehicle use (VMT) by prohibiting or discouraging auto traffic
from specified areas or discouraging auto travel directly.
Many of the
measures are oriented towards the CBO because it is a high concentration
area and because transit service provides an acceptable alternative for
travel to, from and within the CBO.
Other measures that could be im-
posed regionwide or in selected areas include the direct regulation
or road use, fuel use, or auto ownership.
Vehicle Free Zones - Ban all vehicles from a few blocks (pedes-
.
trian mall treatment, superblocks) or from an extensive area of concen-
trated urban activity and you have vehicle free zones.
Such zones
obviously eliminate localized emission concentrations but potential
contribution to areawide reductions are limited by a number of factors.
To maintain the economic vitability of the "free zone," whether
large or small, copious parking is normally provided on the fringes.
-51-
-------
Since most travel consists of getting to and from the zone rather than
within it, emission reductions in terms of regional requirements, are
small.
Vehicle free zones, particularly large scale ones, could induce
significant shifts from auto travel to transit ridership, especially
with implementation of Stage One of the Houston Transit Action Program
which will provide attractive service with rapid accessibility to the
central area.
Such shifts produce more meaningful reductions in VMT
as they eliminate the whole auto trip.
However, the extent of such
potential mode shifts is difficult to project.
Large vehicle free zones
may require internal distribution systems (people movers) to facilitate
movement from transit stations or fringe parking areas to actual desti-
nations.
A drawback to large vehicle free zones is the tendency to
induce congestion (and higher emissions) on streets fringing the "free
zone. II
Overall, vehicle free zones make a positive contribution to mobile
source emission reduction.
No reduction credits resulting from this
measure have been quantified as no specific proposals for vehicle free
zones have been developed.
However, such zones are encouraged wherever
they respond to other planning goals and objectives.
.
Parking Control - This family of measures has the objective of
reducing VMT by inducing car pooling, and shifts to public transit
through price increases and reduced parking availability in major
activity centers.
As with vehicle free zones, this measure is likely to induce signi-
ficant shifts to transit, particularily after completion of Stage One
-52-
-------
of the Houston Transit Action Program.
Shifts to car pooling would
also occur, but the extent of these shifts are difficult to project.
Several drawbacks and implementation obstacles are apparent.
The
price-demand relationship of parking is not well understood, but experi-
ence in cities with close parking supply-demand relationships and high
parking fees (daily rates of $2 and up) indicates that parking demand
(auto use) is relatively insensitive to price.
When parking controls (pricing or availability limitation) are in
force, motorists tend to drive to the fringe of the restricted district
and park.
An additional negative impact is that more low-speed VMT may
be generated by vehicles circling the blocks seeking the scarce spaces.
Parking pricing or reduced availability schemes might reduce property
values and retail trade in areas where they are imposed.
This would
reinforce the tendency to decentralized future development activities.
This is unlikely in Houston because the core area has substantial
vitality and attractive transit services will be provided with imple-
mentation of the Stage One Transit Action Program.
Despite these drawbacks, some parking control measures are desirable
to induce car pooling and shifts to transit in the Houston CBD and other
activity concentrations which are now or will be served by adequate
public transit.
.
Tolls - One measure often proposed to discourage vehicle travel
is road use regulation.
The imposition of tolls on freeways is the
method most often put forward for regulating road use.
The design of the
urban freeways and expressways in the Houston area makes conventional
-53-
-------
tolling inefficient.
Freeways are designed to provide maximum accessi-
bility without compromising the level of traffic service.
Access ramps
tend to be numerous and closely spaced and would require construction
of a large number of toll stations.
Besides being extremely expensive
to construct and operate, increased emissions due to stop and go opera-
tions at numerous toll stations could outweigh emission reduction gains
that might result from reduced VMT.
Advanced tolling systems using
electronic detection or identification of vehicle, with computerized
monthly billings are technologically feasible and might eliminate some
of the drawback of conventional tolling (i .e., operational cost and
emissions due to delays).
Such a system would loose much of the psycho-
logical deterent of conventional tolling - the act of stopping and paying
the toll out of the pocket.
It is possible that a high percentage of
those priced off the freeways by tolls may drive on surface streets
rather than shifting to car pools or transit.
This could produce
increased emissions as a result of reduced travel speed and idling on
surface streets.
Tolling measures tend to be regressive.
Those priced
off the roads will primarily be low income persons.
For the above
reasons imposition of tolls on Houston area freeways is not recommended
as a means of reducing VMT.
.
Ramp Metering as a Restrictive Control - Ramp metering has been
developed and already extensively applied in the Houston area for opti-
mizing the efficiency of traffic movement in a freeway corridor.
It
may be possible to adjust the metering to maximize the difference be-
tween emission reductions possible by causing shifts to transit through
-54-
-------
long delays in entering the freeway and emission increases due to delqys
and increased travel on slower moving surface streets.
Potential effec-
tiveness of this scheme requires detailed study in each freeway corridor
but its exploration is recommended.
Metering also has potential utility
for shutting down the freeway for episode control, and as a means to
provide preferential entry for vehicles that have a higher utilization
(car pools, buses).
.
Moritorium on Traffic Improvements - Several factors mitigate
against schemes to reduce VMT by permitting traffic service conditions
to decay. thereby encouraging shift to transit or discouraging auto trips
from being made at all.
Although the proposed Transit Action Program
plan includes extensive transit operations and exclusive rights-of-way.
conventional transit service elements will be operating on the same
streets
as autos and would be negatively impacted.
Experience at most
U.S. cities confirms the motorists' dogged determination to drive in spite
of seeming intolerable levels of congestion.
Added to the safety com-
promise which would occur with a moritorium on traffic improvements is
the fact that VMT reduction due to shifts to transit could be outweighed
by pollution increases due to the increased auto operations in the low
speed, high emission ranges.
Tax Disincentives - It is very difficult to access how
.
a tax on various elements of driving will affect vehicle mileage.
There have been suggestions to charge a "pollution" tax in direct ratio
to the emission rate and mil~age of each motor vehicle or to increase
the tax on gasoline (consumption varies directly to mileage).
Schemes
-55-
-------
to reduce vehicle mileage through gasoline pricing are not very effective.
Even though the demand elasticities ot gasoline are not well defined,
it appears that major increases (perhaps doubling the price) do not appear
likely to affect consumption.
This is borne out by the staggering in-
creases in European auto travel even with fuel costs double those in the
United States.
People are willing to pay for the convenience of using
their cars.
Pricing schemes of this type are indiscriminately imposed
on all segments of society but the largest impact is felt by the limited
income groups.
Various taxes on the automobile have been proposed.
These range
from minor taxes of $5 to $10 a year for raising mass transit revenues
to stiff registration fees of $500 a year.
A variant of this proposal
is to place substantial registration fees on second or third family
autos. Low fees are not effective in reducing VMT; high fees on first
family autos are extremely regressive. Low income persons are hit hard-
est. High taxes on second family autos might provide reductions in VMT
and still avoid some of the more regressive elements of this type of
taxation.
However, there is no method presently available to estimate
the reduction potential or demand flexibilities of this type of measure.
The public attitude survey, reported in Appendix E, indicates there
will be rigorous objections by the public to any of the more restrictive
measures describ~d above.
Even though measures which cost less would not
be effective in reducing VMT, they should be given consideration as a
means to obtain revenue for mass transit.
. Gasoline Rationing - Gasoline rationing is a direct restraint
on vehicle mileage and therefore emissions.
There are a number of
56
-------
approaches to administrating such a program.
One general set of measures
are based on control at the source of gasoline production; the other
measure approach regulates gas consumption at the consumer (World War II
type rationing).
Regulating gasoline sales at the manufacturing or
wholesale level is a simpler task; however, without price controls
gas rationing in this form becomes a gasoline pricing scheme that tends
to be extremely regressive with the potential for apparent profiteering
that would probably make this method highly objectionable to the public.
World War II type rationing also has its drawbacks, particularly in its
administration requirements.
Appendix H presents a brief history and
description of World War II rationing.
This direct type of restrictions
would probably be the most even handed approach if it were administered
through an efficient agency utilizing computers and credit data procedures
similar to those developed by the major-Banks and credit card organizations.
Any direct vehicle restraint will be extremely objectionable to the
public.
However, should one be required, gas rationinq appears to be
I
the most effective, flexible and even handed approach.
It can be started,
adjusted to changing requirements, and terminated easier than any other
identified direct restriction.
-57-
-------
4.
PROPOSED CONTROL STRATEGY
There is no adequate definition of the actual effect emission
levels have on ambient air quality in the Greater Houston Area.
The
present air quality measurements and the accuracy of the emission inven-
tory are not sufficient to develop this relationship.
Even if the data
were available, the time restraints of this study made it impossible to
utilize the sophisticated mathematical modeling techniques required to
accurately estimate and project the relationship.
Therefore, the control
strategy recommendations are based on proportional rollback techniques
that relate estimated existing emissions and air quality on a propor-
tional basis.
This is not an adequate basis for implementing high impact
measures.
The proposed strategy is phased so as to take advantage of legisla-
tive or judicial remission, technology development and changing require-
ments as the result of a better ~nderstanding of the air pollution pro-
blem in the Greater Houston Area.
In its fully implemented form, it
will allow air quality standards to be met by the 1977 due date.
Phase
I measures have substantial justification either in terms of significant
air quality improvement or other urban needs.
The present justification
for Phase II measures is tentative at best.
The decision to implement
them must be based on a demonstrated need for further hydrocarbon emission
reductions, and a thorough evaluation of each individual measure in
terms of the needs of the people in the Greater Houston Area.
This study
had neither the time nor the data base sufficient to fully assess the
social, political and economic impact implied by the Phase II measures.
-58-
-------
Phase I Measures:
1. Continue evaluation of control measures - Expand the air
monitoring program in the Greater Houston Area to include more stations
and gas chromotography at selected stations. Initiate a regular (year-
ly or bi-yearly) review of the air quality and emission inventory data
to determine if adjustment of the emission control strategy is required
to meet ambient air quality standards.
2. Stationary source measures - Tighten and expand the Regulation
V stationary source cont4Qls as recommended by the Texas Air Pollution
Control Services Study.l) Broaden the coverage of Regulation V to
include all counties in the region.
3. Mandatory inspection/maintenance - Implement an annual in-
spection/maintenance program for in-use vehicles. This measure provides
significant reductions in motor vehicle emissions and is necessary to
obtain full benefit from the Federal new car emission controls. An emis-
sion inspection performed along with the annual safety inspec~ion would
be the simplest system to implement. Since the present safety inspec-
tion is performed at franchise stations and garages, the inspection pro-
cedure should be an idle emission test with mandatory maintenance required
upon failure. This method is recommended because it has lower start up
and training costs, and can be easily adjusted as more emission data
becomes available. A strong consumer protection element should be added
to the safety/emission inspection program. An upper limit on the amount
of money a person is required to spend on bringing his automobile into
comp~iance with emission regulations should be considered as a built-in
consumer/protection feature.
4. Mass transit - A substantial improvement in mass transit is
required in the Greater Houston Area. The contractor for the Houston
Transit Action study enjoys an excellent reputation in the field of
transportation planning, and has outlined a comprehensive mass transit
program. Based on the need for improved mass transit and recognizing
the extensive studies that have been performed, it is recommended that
Phase I be implemented immediately.
5. Parking measures - It is recommended that the following parking
measures be instituted in all hi9h density areas: (a) strictly enforce
existing parking regulations, (b) eliminate preferential rates for all-
day parking, (c) review existing parking availability and develop regu-
lations to control development and pricing of off-street parking,
59
-------
(d) as Phase I of the Houston Transit Action Program comes into operation,
increase parking costs in the CBD and other major activity centers.
6. Car pool incentives - (a) Initiate a formal public information
program with the aim of increasing the amount of voluntary car pooling.
(b) Enlist the cooperation of government agencies and large corporations
in providing preferential parking and/or other incentives for employees
who choose to car pool. (c) Initiate a pilot computer matching program
for potential car poo1ers to identify the type and amount of data required
to provide matching information on a large scale. Although this type
of program will probably not induce a substantial shift to car pools t
experience in administering an information program will be required in
case restrictive driving measures are needed before adequate public
transportation is available. Better utilization of the private auto-
mobile fleet would be the only transportation alternative available in
that situation.
7. Fugitive and evaporative emission controls - (a) Promulgate re-
gulations to control evaporative hydrocarbon emissions from all gasoline
marketing levels. (b) Promulgate regulations to control all reactive
hydrocarbon emissions from solvent users. (c) Promulgate regulations
to reduce fugitive losses from all process industries. Fugitive losses
account for approximately 50~000 tons/year emissions in this region. It
is reasonable to assume that a rigorously enforced fugitive emission
regulation should be able to reduce this figure by approximately 20%,
or 10,000 ton/year.
Figure 4-1 summarizes the emission reductions possible from imp1e-
mentation of Phase I.
Present total hydrocarbon emissions are approxi-
mately 525~400 tons/year.
The goal i~ to reduce emissions to approxi-
mate1y (-) 131 ~OOO tons/year by 1977.
Present regulations and Federal
motor vehicle controls will reduce emissions to -349,000 tons/year.
Application of a tightened Regulation V (measure 2) should reduce emis-
sions to -204~OOO tons/year.
Inspection/maintenance (measure 3) can
be expected to reduce this total to -198,000 ton/year.
Implementation
of the Houston Transit Action Phase I~ parking restrictions, and car
pool incentives (measures 4~ 5 & 6) can be expected to reduce VMT by
3 to 5% in 1977.
This VMT reduction results in total remaining hydro-
carbon emissions of approximately 190,000 tons/year, for an overall
Phase I reduction of approximately 64% from the 1972 emission level.
60
-------
0')
-J
VI
z:
o
-
VI
VI
-
::E:
I.I.J
z:
~
'"
cC
u
o
'"
Q
>-
:x:
....I
c:(
t--
o
I--
Q
I.I.J
~
E
-
I--
VI
I.LI
400
300
'"
cC
I.I.J
>-
......
VI
z:
o
I--
Q
z:
cC
VI
:;)
o
:x:
I--
200
100
33.5%*
o
61 .2%*
62.3%*
PRESENT
REGS.
MEASURE
2
MEASURE
3
*REDUCTION FROM PRESENT
EMISSION LEVEL
MEASURE
7
Figure 4-1.
Estimated Total Hydrocarbon Emissions
from the Proposed Control Measures
in
1977 Resulting
75%*
MEASURE
8
-------
Application of Measure 7 should result in a total hydrocarbon emis-
sion of approximately 157,000 tons/year in 1977.
This corresponds to an
approximately 70% reduction from the 1972 baseline.
No retrofit strategies were recommended for Phase I because the only
effective, low-priced retrofit was the VSAD/LIAF for pre-1968 automobiles.
In 1977 pre-1968 autos will be less than 10% of the total vehicle popu-
lation.
Since the average reduction per vehicle is only about 20% of
the exhaust hydrocarbon emissions, the overall impact of the measure
would be less than a 1% total hydrocarbon reduction.
The administra-
tive and enforcement cost for a retrofit program are not justified for
this magnitude of reduction.
A catalytic converter retrofit is very
effective, however, the costs and obstacles associated with such a retro-
fit place it in a Phase II situation.
Further study is required before
a commitment to this magnitude of a retrofit would be unequivically re-
commended.
Phase II Measures
If at the end of the evaluation period in 1975 it is determined that
additional hydrocarbon emission reductions are required, those reductions
will probably have to come from motor vehicles.
Measures 2 and 7 provide
for maximum technology control of stationary sources.
One of the most
significant findings of this study is that improved mass transit and
other incentives will not lure people from their cars in sufficient
numbers to make major strides toward achieving the 1977 air quality
standards nor will pricing disincentives force reduced auto travel levels
62
-------
on this order of magnitude unless costs extremely regressive to certain
segments of the population are imposed.
In light of this conclusion! two
complimentary methods for reducing automotive pollutants remain.
8. Motor vehicle emission reduction - (a) Retrofit catalytic con-
verter on all 1968-1974 automobiles and reduce the vehicle miles traveled
during the summer and fall months by 30% or (b) no major vehicle retrofit
program and reduce vehicle miles traveled by 50% during the summer and
fall months. The method recommended to affect the vehicle mile reduction
is gasoline rationing.
As is obvious! implementation of the Phase II measure would be
very di ffi cult.
Rigorous objections at all levels of government! in-
dustrYt and from the public can be expected.
For that reason! imple-
mentation is not recommended unless and until the need for the additional
(over Phase I) hydrocarbon emission reductions are substantiated by
further ambient air quality monitoring and! also the air quality
standards are fully reviewed in light of the cost to achieve them.
4.1
OBSTACLES TO IMPLEMENTATION
The relative significance of obstacles to implementation of the
proposed transportation control strategy has been estimated using the
following categories.
Technical obstacles - obstacles involving the design of hard-
ware! details of administrative procedure! or specification of
standa'rds or acceptance 1 imits necessary for implementing recom-
mended control measures.
Legislative obstacles - obstacles involving writing and passing
laws! rules, and regulations required for instituting and admin-
istering control measures.
63
-------
Socio-economic obstacles - obstacles involving the impact of
control measures on the public, commerce, and industry.
Political obstacles - obstacles involving the feasibility of
of productive interaction among appropriate leaders, adminis-
trators, legislators, and special interest groups for the
purpose of instituting recommended control measures.
In general, there appear to be few obstacles that would limit imple-
mentation of the Phase I control measures.
Stationary source reductions
probably have the fewest obstacles and they are generally technical and
socio-economic in nature.
Careful evaluation of requirements and care
in writing the resulting regulations may be sufficient to overcome these
obstacles.
Mandatory inspection/maintenance may encounter a few moderate
political obstacles depending on the shape the proposed program eventually
takes.
The public attitude survey shows that the public supports this
type of measure.
The parking measures could also meet with local opposi-
tion from commercial and business interests.
The mass transit program
appears to have wide public support.
There is some difficulty in finding
the start button, however.
It is not clear whether the implementation ob-
stacles are socio-economic in nature (where does the money come from),
or political.
There certainly appears to be no major legislative or
technical obstacles involved with mass transit.
The obstacles to implementing the Phase II measures are substantial,
even from a cursory examination.
Both the major automobile retrofit and
the gasoline rationing measure elements will encounter obstacles of major
significance in the socio-economic, political, and legislative categories.
64
-------
Gas rationing will be the most controversial and will encounter the great-
est amount of debate regarding public acceptance and political feasibility
of all the measures proposed.
Justification for proceeding with imple-
mentation of the Phase II measure must be substantial and visible (either
in terms of health effects or property damage) before any relaxation of
the political or socio-economic obstacles can be expected.
4.2
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE AND TIME SCHEDULE
The schedule for plan implementation is shown in Table 4-1.
The
table is generally self explanatory.
It assumes acceptance of the pro-
posed plan and indicates date for plan completion, approval, and necessary
legislation.
Pollution control measures are listed separately and dates
for their implementation are indicated.
of the implementation schedule.
The following are highlights
1. A formal air quality review and action plan procedure should be
initiated to operate on the expanded air quality surveillance program
information and yearly updates of source emission data. Decisions to
proceed with the more restrictive measures must be based, at least in
part, on information supplied via such a formal review.
2. New stationary source controls have been recommended. It is
proposed that Regulation V be revised as recommended by the Texas Air
Pollution Control Services study. The revised regulation should be adopted
by July 1973 with the final date for compliance in July 1976.
3. The inspection/maintenance program requires enabling legisla-
tion in order that it may be performed in conjunction with the Department
of Public Safety's annual safety inspection. The proposed schedule
calls for detailed program design to be complete by July 1973; for a
pilot program to be complete by January 1975; and mandatory emission
inspection to begin region-wide by July 1975.
4. Implementation of the mass transit program falls outside the
responsibility of the Texas Air Control Board; however, it is recom-
mended that Phase I of the Houston Transit Action Program be
65
-------
0'1
0'1
Table 4-1.
Proposed Implementation Plan Schedule
Element 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Revised Implementation Plan Submitted .
to EPA (Feb. 15, 1973)
Formal Air Quality Review Procedure and ... ... .t. "' ''' ", ''' '''
Action Plan Initiated (Measure 1) - ----
-
Legal Requirements of Plan
Texas Air Control Board
, Obtain enabling legislation for A
inspection/maintenance and retrofit
, Obtain enabling legislation for .&
gasoline rationing
HTAP Administering Agency
, Obtain legislative charter .
Air Quality Surveillance Program ...
Expansion (Measure 1) -
New Stationary Source Controls (Measure 2) '" ...
-
. Adopt revised Regulation V .&
, Compliance schedule required from ~
facilities existing before July 1973
. Final date for compliance .&
-------
0\
.....,
Table 4-1.
(continued)
Proposed Implementation Plan Schedule
Element 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Inspection/Maintenance Program
I Detail Program Design ....
I Pilot Program ~
I Final Program Adjustments --'
-
. Mandatory Emission Inspection Begins .A
-
Mass Transit Program
Implementation Phase I HTAP ~
I -
Parking Measures (local government)
I Increase on-street Enforcement A
. Eliminate All-day Preferential Rates .&
. Develop Off-street Parking Plan .
. Implement Plan and Increase Costs in .
High Density Areas
Car Pool Incentives
, Initiate Public Awareness Programs .&
I Obtain Car Pool Incentive Commitments .I. -.A
from Government and Large Employers -
I Develop and Test Pilot Computer Matching '" A
Program
I Prepare Procedures for Full Sca 1 e . ~."I ri.
Matching Program
I Obtain Data for Full Scale Program .... ....
(in case Measure 8 required)
-------
0"
co
.
Element 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Fugitive and Evaporative Hydrocarbon J..
Emission Controls (Measure 7) -
. Adopt Necessary Regulations A~
. Compliance Schedule Required A
. Final Date for Compliance A
Motor Vehicle Emission Reduction (Measure 8)
. Retrofit 68-75 Vehicles with Catalytic A-I 111111liliiii11 "
Converter System
, Develop Gasoline Rationing Procedures .6.---- .A
and Administrative System
. Implement Gasoline Rationing June - III -- -- --
thru September yearly
Phase I
Phase II ---.-
(if requi red)
Table 4-1
Proposed Implementation Plan Schedule
-------
implemented as soon as possible. Its importance cannot be overempha-
sized. If the more restrictive transportation measures are implemented,
a significant improvement in public transit will be needed to provide
alternative means of transportation.
5. Parking measures generally fall under the auspicies of the
local governments. These local governments should be made aware (through
the planning offices of the Texas Air Pollution Control Services) of
the basic need for the parking measures.
6. A general program to explore computer matching and to provide
support for other types of car pool incentives is necessary. The pro-
gram elements scheduled in the mid-1970s are included in case more
restrictive automobile controls are required, making large scale car
pooling mandatory (in lieu of wide availability of public transportation)
7. Additional fugitive and evaporative hydrocarbon emission control
regulations would have to be adopted by the beginning of 1975 in order
to meet full compliance by mid-1977.
The remaining elements of the proposed implementation schedule are
part of the Phase II proposed me~sure.
Decisions to proceed with their
implement~tion should occur as a result of the formal air quality review
process.
8. A major vehicle retrofit would require a minimum of two years
to complete. The retrofit decision must be made prior to July 1975
so that sufficient quantities of retrofit devices are available and
adequate information can be disseminated to the service/garage industry.
Detail study of gasoline rationing procedures and the development of an
administering system would be required before gas rationing could be
implemented. If required, the first gas rationing period would be June
through September 1977, and would occur every year following or until
other hydrocarbon emission reductions were sufficient to meet ambient
air quality standards without gas rationing.
69
-------
4.2.1
Implementation Surveillance
The proposed control strategy must be considered as an initial
attempt to quantify the relationship between industrial and transporta-
tion processes, and the regional air pollution problem.
The formal yearly
air quality review will be the checkpoint assessment that is needed to
provide appropriate adjustments to the control strategy.
types of data will be required for this process:
The fo 11 owi ng
. Ambi ent Ai r Quality ti1easurements
. Updated Emission Inventories
. Transportation Data (Traffic Projections)
Formal programs and procedures have been instituted to collect air
quality and emissions data and report them to the Environmental Protection
Agency (via the semi-annual report). The data from the expanded air
quality network (Measure l) should automatically be included in this
process.
Updated motor vehicle emission factors should be utilized as
they are developed from the on-going EPA testing programs.
Provisions should be made for H-GRTS, the regional transportation
coordinating agency. to regularly report traffic data to the Texas Air
Pollution Control Service.
Until 1975 the reporting requirements would
consist of yearly estimates of average areawide VMT stratified by vehi-
cle type, with estimates of VMT variations by day of week and month of
year; and estimates of distribution of VMT by travel speed ranges.
Appro-
priate arrangements would be necessary to insure input of necessary data
70
-------
by local jurisdictions to H-GRTS for compilation.
After 1975, if it
appears Phase II measures are required, more frequent reporting would be
needed to estimate and monitor effectiveness in achieving specified VMT
reductions.
Development of a simplified method for estimating areawide
average daily VMT on the basis of selected sample counts appears desira-
ble to minimize time, effort and cost of the more frequent reporting.
Following is a suggested traffic surveillance program for implementation
in this case.
o
o
Identify a selected number of traffic counting stations
(probably no more than 30) which can be regularly monitored
and from which accurate estimates of areawide average daily
VMT can be made. Use of permanent count stations with in-
duction loop counters appears desirable.
Develop factors for estimating areawide daily VMT on the
basis of the count sampling.
o
Conduct counts and estimate average areawide daily VMT every
3 months and report this data to the Texas Air Pollution
Control Service.
Computer analytical simulation techniques using models now under
development, should be utilized to better assess the relationship of
emissions and air quality.
Once calibrated, computer models can predict
the effects of proposed actions with high confidence.
This would not only
be a valuable tool for strategy assessment, it would assist in region-
al planning (permit application reviewf and enforcement.
71
-------
4.3 AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
The Texas Air Control Board is the primary agency for implementation
of all measures proposed in this report.
The Board has supra-management
responsibility for (1) administration of contract and grant programs
involving air pollution in the state of Texas, (2) coordination of air
pollution control programs which involve multi-county areas, and (3)
representation of Texas in finding the solution to air pollution pro-
b1ems which extend across state lines.
The Board presently has the power
to appoint task force teams to aid and advise the Board regardinq
studies and programs specific to certain areas of Texas.
The invo1ve-
ment of other agencies in the imp1emeotation of this transDortation
control strategy is necessary in s~yera1 areas.
Table 4-2 summarizes
the agency requirements for administration of the proposed measures.
4.4 LEGAL AUTHORITY
Adequate legal authority already exists to control stationary sources
as outlined in measures 2 and 7.
The legal authority to adopt emission
limitations is contained in Section 3.02,3.09,3.10, and 3.18 of the
Texas Clean Air Act, Article 4477-5, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes; and
regulations of the Texas Air Control Board.
Authority to prevent con-
struction, modification, or operation of any stationary source at any
location where emissions will prevent the attainment or maintenance of
a national standard is contained in Sections 3.27 and 3.28 of the Texas
Clean Air Act, Article 4477-5, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes; and in the
registration and permit requirements of Regulation VI of the Texas Air
Control Board
72
-------
Table 4-2.
Agencies for Administering Proposed Measures
State County/City
Measure 1 TACB City /County Health Depts.
Measure 2 TACB City/County Hea lth Depts.
Measure 3 TACB - DPS ---
Measure 4 Hi ghway Dept. HTAP Agency
Measure 5 -- City/County Law Enforcement
City Coucils, County
Commissioners
Measure 6 TACB City/County Health Depts.
Civil Defense Offices
Measure 7 TACB City/County ~ealth Depts.
Measure 8 TACB (retrofit)
Admi ni steri ng
Agency for gas
rationing to be
determined
Legal authority to carry out inspection, testing, and/or retrofit
of motor vehicles is contained in Section 3.l0(d) of the Texas Clean Air
Act, however, furth~r legislation is require9 to perform the ins~ection in
conjunction with the annual safety inspection.
Adequate legal authority rests with the local governments to imple-
ment the parking measures.
Legal authority does not exist to allow implementation of gasoline
rationing.
However, the Texas Air Control Board has legal authority to
to develop procedures and perform necessary planning, Section 3.04 of
the Texas Clean Air Act.
73
-------
APPENDIX A
AIR QUALITY AND EMISSION DATA
A summary of the air quality and emission data used to evaluate the
air pollution control measures described in Section 3 is presented in
this appendix.
Continuous measurement of gaseous pollutants did not begin in the
Houston area until 1971.
The Pollution Control Division of the Houston
Department of Public Health initiated the first continuous measurement
program.
The monitoring program began with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
dioxide, and total oxidants measurements.
Carbon monoxide and total
hydrocarbons were added at the beginning of 1972, and ozone measurements
began last May~20)(2l) There have been no gas chromatography studies to
determine the relationships and magnitude of the ambient non-methane
total hydrocarbon c~mponent.
The only emission inventory data available at the beginning of this
study wer~ the summary sheets presented in the Texas Implementation Plan.(l)
Administrative difficulties within the Texas Air Pollution Control Services
and regulations discouraging the disclosure of inventory information to
the public, made it impossible,to obtain sufficient inventory information
to properly evaluate the effects of control measures for stationary sources
and make constructive recommendations.
These problems have now been elimi-
nated, but not in time to allow a detailed investigation as part of this
study.
The emissions summary data presented in this appendix and used
in measure evaluation are based on the 1969 emission inventory as modified
A-l
-------
by a recent (still unreleased) Texas Air Pollution Control Services study
on hydrocarbon emissions from point sources. (4)
A.l
AIR QUALITY DATA
--------
Air quality data for "Set II" pollutants is summarized in Table l-A.
The figures for carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides are the same as those
reported at the time the Texas Implpmentation Plan was submitted in
January 1972.
Measurements taken since that date do not conflict with
these figures.
There are no identified "hot spots" or problem areas for
either pollutant; therefore, more control measures are not required.
Any measures developed for other pollutants must not degrade air quality
with respect to carbon monoxide or nitrogen oxides, however.
The maximums
for photochemical oxidants and hydrocarbons are different from those
reported in the Implementation Plan.
Hydrocarbons are considered only
because of their influence on photochemical oxidants.
A reduction in
the hydrocarbon emissions sufficient to allow photochemical oxidant to
meet standards is deemed sufficient even if the specified hydrocarbon
standard has not been reached. (2) The listed maximum concentration for
photochemical oxidants was measured during a study undertaken by the
Stat~ :~ Texas in the upper Texas Gulf coast during April, May and June
of 1972. (3) Four ozone measurement sites were in the Greater Houston
Area.
The sites were located in Lake Jackson, Dickenson, downtown Houston,
and the Houston ship channel.
The maximum daily one-hour average for each of these sites is plotted
in Figure l-A.
The national standard (.08 ppm) was exceeded a signifi-
cant portion of the time throughout this study.
The longest excursion
A-2
-------
Table 1-A. Summary of Air Quality Data
FEDERAL FEDERAL MEASURED
AMBIENT SAMPLE MAX. IN
POLLUTANT STANDARDS BASIS REGION
CO 10 mg/m3 8 HR. MAX. 8 mg/m3
40 mg/m3 1 HR. MAX. 15 mg/m3
PHOTOCHEMICAL 160 ).Ig/m3 1 HR. MAX. 630 ).191m3
» OXIDANTS
I
VJ
HYDROCARBONS 160 ).Ig/m3 3 HR. MAX. 3660 ~g/m3
(6-9 A.M.)
NOx 100 ).Ig/m3 ANNUAL ARITH 103 ).191m3
MEAN
-------
.5
.45
.4
.3
.3
. .2
03 PP;"
.2
::x> .1
I
~ .1
.0
GEOM. MEAN (AlL DATA) . .06636 PPM
ARITH. I£AH (AlL DATA) . .08376 PPM
-+--
I
--- - - LAK£ JACKSON
- OICKINSON
- - HOUSTON OOI/HTIMi
-'- HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL
"---
- ------
---- -- ----
--'---~-
I
---------,.----- --- -
-----;--.--
APR I L
I
.
I
--
~~ JULY
i
MAY
JUNE
Figure l-A.
Daily Maximum l-Hr. Ozone Concentrations, Texas Gulf Coast Special Ozone Study
-------
above the limit was for 17 hours at the Jefferson County Airport (outside
the Greater Houston Area) on May 29.
Abrupt weather changes resulting
in several days of rain, June 10 through 16, coincide with the decline in
the ozone level after June 10.
High ozone readings occur again at all
sites around June 19 and 20.
However, the low ozone level following this
rise was not caused by rain but by other climatic conditions such as
unseasonal temperatures and overcast skies.
Peak ozone concentrations
were usually preceded by zero levels early in the morning.
Three air
stagnation advisories were issued for the upper Texas Gulf coast during
the study.
They were May 24 from 1100 hours to May 25 at 1500 hours;
June 8, 1100 hours to June 10, 1100 hours; and June 19, 1100 hours
through June 20, 1100 hours.
Generally; peak ozone concentrations, and the number of times they
exceeded standards! increased as temperatures advanced to full summer
intensities.
Precipitous changes in ozone concentrations were often
found to coincide with wind shifts.
Since all monitoring sites experi-
enced high levels of ozone in concert, it appears that there is a unified
weather pattern over this coastal area and that the ozone problem is a
regional one.
Figure 2-A is a comparison of total hydrocarbons and ozone measure-
ments observed by Houston's continuous air monitoring program.(22) The
ozone readings observed at these stations correlate with those taken by
the state in the ozone study.
The plotted ozone measurements were
observed at a monitoring station located on Clinton Drive in Houston.
There were no continuous hydrocarbon readings at the Clinton Drive station
during this time period; therefore, hydrocarbon measurements taken at the
A-5
-------
)TAl HYDROCARBON (PPJII)
HOUR AVERAGE 6-9 AM
)::0
I
0"\
~-- -- -- __H- ---~-
7.0
,
---+--U~
"
II
II
"
------
----~--~-
----. ------------------ --
-- - +--
--------- -
3.
2.0
1.0
I
,
I
I /'
---------1:--" a
. \ ,'i
\ / "
\/ .
I
,
,
rJ
'oJ
/\
, \
r" "'\ /'
" \
\ "
,,~ ,
, ....
'-""
I
I
-~l
12
"
I.
,
JUNE
HC
o --- - -
3
Figure
Comparison of HC
2-A.
----------
-~--------
,
.
II
II
"
1\
"
---r-+ --.-- --
, \
I \
, ,
----r - r
, I
I '
I
, ,
',-0-
I :
I ,
I
I
,
,
,
"
\
/ \ I
\ I \ I
\ I -, I
~ \ I
\.J
12
I
.1.u ----- -- -----
I,
"
:'
,
"
"
I.!~____--
,
: I
I I
---+--' - ---
I
I I
I' I I
I I
+~...LL
I I'
, ,
, I
,
I
T-
,
,
1
t---l---
I \
\
I \
....A, I \ A
,'~---+--J----~~
.... , I 'I
\f " I
JULY
and 03 Measurements,
Houston
1
,
,
I
I
'--'''\ I
'- I
---I
.2
AUGUST
1972
\
\
'.."
,
\ ,
, ,
, ,
,,/
20
24
..
.3
,2
03 (PPH)
MAX. 1 HR.
COItCENTRATl(Jt
.1
\'
~I
-------
Health Department located on MacGregor Street were used for comparison
with the ozone readings.
As can be seen in Figure 3-A, the available
fragmental readings during the period of interest from the Clinton Drive
station closely correlate with the MacGregor Street readings.
All available measurement data were manipulated with various statis-
tical routines to see if a significant correlation could be found between
the ozone, total hydrocarbons, and various meteorological parameters.
Sufficient N02 measurements were not available to include them in the
effort. Simple correlation techniques could uncover no strong relation-
ship.
A stepwise multiple regression technique was attempted; however,
there was not enou~h data to obtain a statistically significant result.
This analysis leads to the conclusion that there is not sufficient ambient
monitoring data at this time to develop a statistical model for predicting
photochemical oxidant air quality.
Since the regulations for photochemical oxidant control are based
on hydrocarbon reductions,(2) which are in turn based on an observational
model~23) it was decided to see just what type of observational model
could be developed for the Houston area.
Figure 4-A is a plot of daily
3-hour average total hydrocarbons versus maximum daily l-hour average
ozone concentrations in the Houston area.
The upper dash line corre-
sponds with the same relationship for combined data from Los Angeles,
Denver, Cincinnati, Philadelphia and Washington which can be found in
Figure 5-1 of Reference(24). As can be seen, a majority of the readings
from the Houston network fall significantly under the data presented in
the hydrocarbon criteria document.
A-]
-------
-
i
~
-
& In
c::
.., 0
"- of
411
. ..
< u
o
~ "-
"0
):;:0 en ~
I
I W r-
OO ..,
...
o
I-
6
n_----"-
C GREGOR READI S
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5
.----
..
to
I
I \
3
\ CLINT~ DR
\ ,- READINGS
\
\ I
\
,
\
\
,
,
,
'--
,'\
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
/
,
2
CORREL COEFF. - .712
SLOPE - .804
Y INTERCEPT - .260
1
JU N E J U LV
'2 14 '8 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 2 4 , . 11
Figure 3-A.
Correlation of MacGregor Readings to Clinton Drive Readings
-------
.3
.
FROM HYDROCARBON AIR
QUALITY CRITERIA
,.,
,.
."
,.
."
."
."
./
"
./
'"
.
.2
II':,iIlJll
:E
CI..
CI..
.
.
""
o
'"
.2 /
/
/ . .
/
/
I .
I .
.1 I .
I .
I . . . .
I
I . .
.1 I . . .
I I ..
I . . . .
/ .
.~8'..:'. ..
.
.0 ... . .
.. . ... . e. . 8 .
. .
!881-' .. 8. 8
.
,.. .
0 2 3 5
0 1
6-9 AM AVERAGE TOTAL HYDROCARBON (PPM)
~
~
loLl
>
IIIIC
ex:
::»
o
=f
--
>-
~
....
~
><
~
Figure 4-A.
Observational Model for the Relationship of Total Hydrocarbons
to Ozone in the Houston Area
A-9
-------
The lack of correlation between any of the data and approaches
discussed above results in the conclusion that the prediction of photo-
chemical oxidant ambient air quality levels is impractical using any
modeling approach (statistical. physical. observational) considering.the
present data base. Therefore. emission reduction requirements will be
founded on the Federal regulations alone.
Figure 5-A is Appendix J of
the Federal Rules and Regulations for the preparation of implementation
p1ans.(2) Based on this appendix. a 630 ~g/m3 ozone reading requires
a hydrocarbon reduction of near 100%. Since this is impractical. EPA
has authorized the use of simple proportional rollback. A proportional
rollback of photochemical oxidants from 630 to 160 ~gm/m3 would result
in a reduction of approximately 75%. This percentage is also the reduc-
tion goa1 for hydrocarbons.
A-10
-------
~
I
-'
-'
Figure 5-A.
<>
a:
c
<>
z
c
t;
MAXIMUM ~EASURED I. MOl PHOTOC;;EIIICAL OXiOANT CONCE~TRA TICN. pp~
C.l5 C.r.! C 15
r ----r I
100~~.IO
I I
I
o ~
>=
~ 10
>-
!!!Ii
~~
~ ~ I
....""
~~ (Otr--
:>0
0-,
"'c
:~
~~ 40
-u
"'0
......
"'0
z%
0'"
"'a:
~~ 20 ~
"! l
z 0
o
;::
u
:>
S
a:
<
NOTE: NO IIYc~OCAReON OR PHOTOCHEMICAL
OX'DANT BACKGRCUNO ASSUMED
150
,
JSIJ
~
550
030
~
&OG
Appendix J of Federal Rules and Regulations for Preparation of Implementati~n Plans---
10<1
21')
JOO
4GO
450
jlAXIMUM MEASUR~D 1. hour PHOTOC~E.M!CAL OXIDANT CONCEN fRAT:OH. ~r 'm3
-------
A.2 EMISSION INVENTORY DATA
An accurate emission inventory is the most difficult component of
an air quality data base to obtain.
Every potential source of air po11u-
tion must be located, catalogued, its pollutants identified, and the
amount of pollutant emissions estimated or measured.
The first state-
wide inventory was completed in 1969.
The emission inventory is updated
yearly and becomes more accurate as new sources are identified and
catalogued and earlier estimates of emissions are replaced by measure-
ments taken at the source. .Because the inventory data used in this study
is mostly from 1969, its accuracy and completeness is questionable.
How-
ever, the deadlines of this study did not allow for extensive additional
data collection and the information available must be utilized.
A major
part of this study was to estimate present and projected emissions from
motor vehicles using the latest motor vehicle emission projections;
therefore, this emission category(mobi1e) will not be included here.
Tables 2-A through 4-A are emission summaries for CO, NO , and HC in
x
the Greater Houston Area. These tables were constructed from the 1969
emission inventory included in the Texas Implementation Plan.
Projections
of future emissions were estimated from the above baseline using indus-
.tria1 growth data compiled by the Houston Chamber of Commerce and other
sources.(1) (4) These projections are presented in Tables 5-A through
7-A, and take into account the reductions to emissions that will occur
from the enforcement of present regulations.
The hydrocarbon reductions
shown are contributab1e to Regulation V and are based on results of
another contractor's study made available by the Texas Air Pollution
Control Services. (26) Utilizing the above projection data, calculations
A-12
-------
Table 2-A. Summary of Hydrocarbon Emissions for the Greater Houston
Area in 1969 (Motor Vehicles not Included)
Point Area Transport*
Brazoria 23,415 600 '49
Chambers 818 174 32
Fort Bend 2,203 201 52
Galveston 55,562 500 82
Ha rri s 154,843 5,795 5,945
Li be rty 530 381 46
Montgomery 9,725 505 48
Wa 11 er 1 ,460 205 40
Total 248,556 8,361 6,294
Table 3-A. Summary of Carbon Monoxide Emissions for the Greater Houston
Area in 1969 (Motor Vehicles not Included)
Point Area Transport*
Br>azori a 147,225 1,042 253
Chambers 1,289 520 84
Fort Bend 50 349 95
Galveston 246,603* 891 358
Harris 75,442 14.451 14,320
Liberty 1 .458 1,308 163
Montgomery 93,012 1,653 109
Waller 4,857 624 60
Total 569,936 20,838 15,442
*Trains, boats, and planes
A-13
-------
Table 4-A. Summary of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions for the Greater Houston
Area in 1969 (Motor Vehicles not Included)
Po i n t Area Transport*
Brazori a 12,944 350 68
Chambers 1 ,366 78 50
Fort Bend 15,376 165 78
Galveston 49,842 520 114
Ha rri s 101,189 5,563 1 ,015
Liberty 1 ,457 173 67
Montgomery 1 ,319 263 72
Wa 11 er 1,795 86 58
Total 185,288 7 , 198 1 ,521
Table 5-A. Projections of Total Hydrocarbon Emissions from Sources
Other than Motor Vehicles in the Greater Houston Area
(based on the 1969 emission inventory)
1972 1975 1977 1978 1980
Point 271 ,603 141,329 149,936 154,434 163,839
Area 9, 136 9,983 10,059 10,909 11 ,573
Transport 6,877 7,514 7,972 8,211 8,711
Total 287,616 158,826 168,499 173,544 1 84 , 1 23
Table 6-A. Projections of CO Emissions from Sources Other than Motor
Vehicles in the Greater Houston Area (based on the 1969
emissions inventory)
1972 1975 1977 1978 1980
Point 622,784 680,532 721,976 743,635 788,922
Area 22,770 24,881 26,396 27,188 28,844
Transport 16,873 18,437 19,559 20,145 21 ,372
Total 662,427 723,850 767,931 790,968 839,138
A-14
-------
Table 7-A.
Projections of NO Emissions from Sources Other than ~otor
Vehicles in the x Greater Houston Area (based on the 1969
emissions inventory)
1972 1975 1977 1978 1980
Point 202,469 221 ,243 234,716 241,757 256,480
Area 7,865 8,594 9,117 9,390 9,962
Transport 1 ,662 1 ,816 1 ,926 1 ,984 2 , 1 04
Total 211,996 231,653 245,759 253,131 268,546
were performed to determine the total hydrocarbon emissions due to all
sources, including motor vehicles, and the estimated reductions possible
with the present stationary source regulations and Federal motor vehicle
controls.
This initial evaluation determined that the ambient air
quality standards could not be met by 1977, even with zero mobile emissions,
because estimated stationary source reductions were not adequate.
Based on these findings, the Texas Air Pollution Control Services
staff reviewed their inventory of hydrocarbons sources in this region,
and reeva~uated the reductions that might be realized by applying the
present regulations and additional proposed restrictions to this category
of industrial point sources. (4) This study utilized data for Harris
and Galveston counties from the "new" 1970 emissions inventory, from a
hydrocarbon emission study by another contractor, and from Section 4 of
Appendix B of the Federal Register- dated 14 August 1972.
The study re-
sulted in a new estimate of hydrocarbon emissions from point sources in
Harris and Galveston counties and a recommendation that Regulation V be
extended to include ethylene released from consuming plants and expanded
to include smaller tanks; and vents not now flared (or otherwise abated)
A-15
-------
from all of the significant sources in the process industry.
Included
in this report were estimates of the reduction in hydrocarbon emissions
that could be expected with a tightened Regulation V.
The results of the above study were utilized directly to update the
point sources for Harris and Galveston counties in this investigation;
however, the 1969 estimates were all that were available for the other
.- area counti es.
It was determined that the area source estimates in the
1969 inventory and in the above study did not include certain potentially
significant emission categories.
These were evaporative hydrocarbon
losses from gasoline marketing, losses from solvent user sources like
dry cleaners and decreasing operations; and evaporative losses from
paints, thinners, etc. These additional losses were estimated using EPA
estimation procedures and included in the inventory. (27)
Table 8-A summarizes the updateQ emission inventory resulting from
the above mentioned efforts.
Projections of future emissions are based
on present regulations.
Table 9-A is the inventory estimate that includes
reductions attributable to the tighter point source controls proposed
by the Texas Air Pollution Services Study. and application of the result-
ing tighter regulations to all sources in the Greater Houston Area.
As
can be seen, area sources are now a significant part of the total emission
inventory.
Additional regulations would be required to reduce them sub-
stanti ally.
These could include solvent user regulations similar to those
recommended in Appendix B of the August 14 issue of the Federal Register,
and gasoline marketing evaporative emission controls. (2) Table lO-A is
a summary of the emission inventory resulting from application of area
source regulations like those just described.
A-16
-------
Table 8-A. Projections of Total Hydrocarbons from Sources Other than
Motor Vehic1es(based on present regulations)
1972 1975 1977 1978 1980
Point 360,000 206,400 214,100 219,100 229,000
Area 47,710 52,400 57,400 60,300 64,700
Transport 6,900 7,500 7,900 8,200 8,700
Total 413,610 266,300 279,400 287,600 302,400
Table 9-A. Projections of Total Hydrocarbons from Sources Other than
Motor Vehicles Based on Possible Point Source Reductions
from Revision to Regulation V
1972 1975 1977 1978 1980
Point 360,000 160,385 68,253 69,600 71,500
Area 47,700 52,400 57,400 60,300 64,700
Transport 6,900 7,500 7,900 8,200 8,700
Total 414,600 220,285 133,553 1 38, 1 00 144,900
Table 10-A. Projections of Total Hydrocarbons from Sources Other than
Motor Vehicles Based on Regulation V Revision and Expansion
to Include Evaporative Losses from Certain Area Sources
1972 1975 1977 1978 1980
Point 360,000 160,385 68,253 69,600 71,500
Area 47,700 42,900 24,500 25,600 26,200
Transport 6,900 7,500 7,900 8,200 8,700
Total 414,600 210,785 100,653 103,400 105,900
A-17
-------
V) 400
z:
0
-.
V)
V)
-. TOTAL
:E:
w 0:::
c(
z: w
0 >-
OJ"""'" 300
0::: V)
c( z:
uo
0 I-
0:::
CI CI
~~ POINT
V)
CI ~
wo
:x> I- ::J: 200
I :il-
~
co -.
I-
V)
w
500
100
AREA
tIOTOR VEHICLES
o
1972
OTHER TRANSPORTATION
1980
1974
1976
1978'
Figure 6-A.
Estimated Hydrocarbon Emissions Based on Present Regulations
-------
500
V')
z:
0
-
V')
V')
-
:E:
LLI
0::
z:c(
OLLI 30
~~
5~
~o
c~
>-0
:I:~
)::0 CV')
LLI ::> 200
I ~~
\0
-
~
V')
LLI TOTAL
100
POINT
AREA
fIOTOR VEHICLES
o
1972 1974 1976 1978
Figure 7-A. Estimated Hydrocarbon Emissions Considering Tightened Regulation V
-------
):0
I
I'\)
o
V)
z
o
-
V)
V)
-
:::E
I.LJ
~
z<
o I.LJ
~~
< V)
uz
00
~I-
o
>-0
:::t:z
<
OV)
I.LJ =>
1-0
~~
-
l-
V)
I.LJ
Fi gure 8-A.
50
200
10
O.
1972
1974
1976
1978
TOTAL
POINT
mTO R VEH I CLES
AREA
1980
Estimated Hydrocarbon Emissions Considering Tightened Regulation V plus Evaporative
Controls on Area Sources
-------
A.3 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION DATA
Table ll-A presents the emission estimates for "Set 11" pollutants
from motor vehicles.
The motor vehicle population and traffic data used
to calculate the emissions are presented in Appendix B.
The emission
estimation procedure utilizes the latest EPA motor vehicle emission
factors.(28) The computer model described in Appendix G was used for
estimate calculations.
The projections through 1980 assume Federal
regulations for motor vehicle emission control will be met.
Table 12-A is the estimates of"Set 11" emissions based on imple-
mentation of a vehicle inspection/maintenance program.
Table 13-A is the estimate of "Set II" emissions based on an inspection/
maintenance program and a VSAD/LIAF retrofit of pre-1968 light duty
vehicles.
Table 14-A is the estimate of "Set II" emissions based on an inspection/
maintenance program, a VSAD/LIAF retrofit of pre-1968 light duty vehicles
and a retrofit of catalytic converter to all 68 - 74 light duty vehicles.
Measures which reduce VMT also reduce emissions.
Figure 9-A shows
the relationship of VMT to emissions.
Although the reductions are
directly proportional, emissions never go to zero, even with 100% VMT
reduction, because heavy duty vehicles are assumed to be unaffected by
any transportation oriented strategy.
A-2l
-------
Table ll-A.
Motor Vehicle Emission Projections Based on Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Controls
Source 'Category 1972 1975 1977 1978 1980
Total Hydrocarbon ':missions
Pre 1968 LOV 27,600 12,500 6,100 4,600 2,800
1968-74 LOV 28,000 37,900 30,700 24,400 14,900
Post 1974 LOV 0 200 2,500 4,300 8,100
HOV 9,700 11 ,600 11 , 1 00 10,800 10,400
Evap. & CC emissions 45,900 29,300 19,600 1 6 , 1 00 11 ,300
Total Motor Vehicle 111 ,300 91,500 70,000 60,200 47,500
Total Carbon Monoxide EmisSions
Pre 1968 LOV 290,200 131,500 64,000 48,700 29,000
1968-74 LOV 307,000 379,000 302,100 235,400 137,400
)::0
I Post 1974 LDV 0 1,300 17 ,700 30,600 56,500
N
N HOV 65,900 75,700 71,300 68,700 65 ,100
Total Motor Vehicle 663,100 587,500 455,100 383,400 288,000
Total Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
Pre 1968 LOV 19,400 8,800 4,300 3,200 1,900
1968-74 LDV 41 ,100 60,400 48,600 39,500 23,500
Post 1974 LDV 0 1,600 10,400 11,800 14.300
HDV 6,200 8,200 9.300 9,800 10,600
Total Motor Vehicle 66,700 79,000 72,600 64.300 50,300
LDV ;: Light Duty Vehicles
HDV ;: Heavy Duty Vehicles
Evap & CC;: Evaporative' and crankcase
-------
Table l2-A.
Motor Vehicle Emission Projections Based on Federal Controls and Inspection/Maintenance
Program
Source Category 1972 1975 1977 1978 1980
Total Hydrocarbon ~missions
Pre 1968 LDV 27,600 11,000 5,400 4,100 2,400
1968-74 LDV 28,000 33,400 27,000 21,500 13,200
Post 1974 LDV 0 100 2,200 3,800 7,100
HDV 9,700 11 ,600 11 , 1 00 10,800 10,400
Evap. & CC emissions 46,000 29,300 19,600 1 6, 1 00 11 ,300
Total Motor Vehicle 111,300 85,400 65,300 56,300 44,400
Total Carbon MonOxide Emissions
Pre 1968 LDV 290,200 131,500 64,000 48,700 29,000
» 1968-74 LDV 307,000 379,000 302,100 235,500 137,400
I
N Post 1974 LDV 0 1,300 17,700 30,600 56,500
w
HDV 65,900 75,700 71 ,300 68,700 65,100
Total Motor Vehicle 633,100 587,500 455,100 383,500 288,000
Total Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
Pre 1968 LDV 19,400 7,900 3,800 2,900 1,700
1968-74 LDV 41,100 54,300 43,800 35,600 21,100
Post 1974 LDV 0 1,500 9,400 10,600 12,800
HDV 6,200 8,200 9,300 9,800 10,600
Total Motor Vehicle 66,700 71,900 66,300 58,900 46,200
LDV = Light Duty Vehicles
HDV = Heavy Duty Vehicles
Evap & CC = Evaporative and crankcase
-------
Table l3-A.
Motor Vehicle Emission Projections Based on Federal Controls, Inspection/Maintenance,
and VSAL/LIAF Retrofit
Source Category 1972 1975 1977 1978 1980
Total Hydrocarbon_~missions
Pre 1968 LDV 27,600 9,400 4,600 3,500 2 , 1 00
1968-74 LDV 28,000 35,700 28,900 22,900 14,000
Post 1974 LDV 0 200 2,300 4 , 1 00 7,600
HDV 9,700 11 ,600 11 , 1 00 1 0 ,800 10,400
[vap. & CC emissions 46,000 29,300 19,600 16,100 11 ,300
Total Motor Vehicle 111,300 86,200 66,500 57,400 45,400
Total Carbon Monoxide Emissions
Pre 1968 LDV 290,200 101,300 49,200 37,500 22,300
:;x:.. 1968-74 LDV 307,000 379,000 302,100 235,500 137,400
I Post 1974 LDV 0 1,300 17,700 30,600 56,500
N
~
HDV 65,900 75,700 71,300 68,700 65 ,100
Total Motor Vehicle 663,100 557,300 440,300 372,300 281,300
Total Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
Pre 1968 LDV 19,400 8,000 3,900 3,000 1,800
1968-74 LDV 41,100 57,400 46,200 37,500 22,300
Post 1974 LDV 0 1,600 9,900 11,200 13,500
HDV 6,200 8,200 9,300 9,800 10 ,600
Total Motor Vehicle 66,700 75,200 69,300 61,500 48,200
LDV = Light Duty Vehicles
HDV = Heavy Duty Vehicles
Evap & CC = EViporative and crankcase
-------
Table l4-A.
Motor Vehicle Emission Projections Based on Federal Controls, Inspection/Maintenance,
VSAD and Catalytic Converter Retrofit
Source Category 1972 1975 1977 1978 1980
Total Hydrocarbon Emissions
Pre 1968 lDV 27,600 9,400 4,600 3,500 2,100
, 1968-74 lDV 28,000 19,000 15,400 12,200 7,500
Post 1974 lDV 0 200 2,300 4,100 7,600
HDV 9,700 " ,600 11 , 1 00 10,800 10,400
Evap. & CC emissions 46,000 29,300 19,600 16,100 11 ,300
Total Motor Vehicle "1 ,300 69,500 53,000 46,700 38,900
Total Carbon Monaxide Emissions
Pre 1968 lDV 290,200 101,300 49,200 37,500 22,300
» 1968-74 lDV 307,000 379,000 302,100 235,500 137,400
I
N Post 1974 lD~' 0 1,300 17,700 30,600 56,500
c.n
HDV 65,900 75,700 71,300 68,700 65,100
Total Motor Vehicle 663,100 557,300 440,300 372 ,300 281,300
Total Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
Pre 1968 lDV 19,400 8,000 3,900 3,000 1,800
1968-74 lDV 41 , 1 00 30,200 24,300 19,800 11 ,700
Post 1974 lDV 0 1,600 9,900 ",200 13,500
HDV 6,200 8,200 9,300 9,800 10,600
Total Motor Vehicle 66,700 48,000 47,400 43,800 37,600
lDV = light Duty Vehicles
HDV = Heavy Duty Vehicles
Evap & CC = Evaporative and ~rankcase
-------
):::0
I
N
0'1
VI
Z
80:::
VI >-
VI"-
-VI
~~
I-
z:
~CI
o:::~
5~
~~
OIl-
>-
:J:
FEDERAL CONTROLS
INSPECTION MAINTENANCE
VSAD/LIAF PRE 68
CAT CONVERTER
20
60
40
100
% REDUCTION IN LDV VMT'
Figure 9-A Percent reduction in VMT ys. Hydrocarbon emissions
-------
APPENDIX B
TRANSPORTATION DATA BASE
The Greater Houston Area has a heavily automobile oriented trans-
portation environment.
Some 96% of the total person trips in the area
are made by private motor vehicles.
Even in the most concentrated
activity center in the region, the Houston CBD, only slightly over 12%
of the person trips are by transit. (29)
Principal sources of transportation data in the area are the Houston-
Galveston Regional Transportation Study (H-GRTS) and the Houston Transit
Action Program.
H-GRTS is a cooperative venture sponsored by the cities
of Houston, Pasadena, Galveston, Bay town and Texas City; the eight
counties of the Greater Houston Area and the Texas Highway Department.
H-GRTS is responsible for continuing transportation planning functions in
the region.
The Transit Action Program is a project to develop immediate and
long rang~ plans for public transit services in the Houston metropolitan
area.
The program is jointly funded by the Urban Mass Transportation
Administration (UMTA) of the Federal Government's Department of Trans-
portation and the City of Houston.
Travel Data - Motor vehicle travel in the eight county H-GRTS Area
totalled some 13 billion vehicle miles in 1971, an average of 35 million
vehicle miles of travel per day. To accumulate this total, each regis-
tered vehicle in the region (see Table B-3) drove an average of 27 miles
per day or 9,850 miles per year in 1971, consuming an estimated 1.15
. d d. 1 f 1 (30)
billion gallons of gaso1lne an lese ue.
B-1
-------
Table B-1 presents 1971 average daily vehicle travel in the H-GRTS
region. Approximately 75% of the travel occurs in Harris County, the
most urbanized portion of the region, where nearly 80% of the total
population and vehicle regi5tration is concentrated.
More than 35% of the region's travel occurs on freeways and express-
ways; nearly 40% of the travel in Harris County is on these limited access
facil ities.
Table B-1. 1971 Daily Motor Vehicle Travel
Total Svstem Freeways and Expressways Only
System Dly Mtr Dly Mtr Veh Trvl % of
Mileage Veh Trvl Fwy Expy T ota 1 Tota 1
Area (mil es) (000 mi) (000 mi) (000 mi) (000 mi) Travel
Brazoria 1,765.1 1,887 - 82 82 4.3
Chambers 553.6 752 481 - 481 64.0
Fort Bend 1,230.9 1 ,252 29 - 29 2.4
Galveston 1,305.1 2.453 379 200 579 23.6
Ha rri s 8,555.5 25,867 10,098 225 10,323 39.9
Li be rty 945.5 797 - 86 86 1.1
Montgomery 1,645.6 1 ,553 562 269 831 53.5
Wa 11 er 749.6 448 121 12 133 29.7
Total H-GRTS 16,750.9 35,009 11 ,670 874 12,544 35.8
On the basis of Greater Houston Area traffic volume historical data,
the recent ann~al traffic growth rate appears to be approximately 6.5%
per year.(31) With compounding, this annual rate it,crease produces a
growth factor of 1.46 from 1971 to 1977.
No reliable data on vehicle miles of travel by vehicle type is
available for the Houston-Galveston Area. Typically. heavy vehicles
account for 5 to 6% of total vehicle travel in a large urban area.
B-2
-------
Applying the 6% figure for heavy vehicle travel and the 1.46%
growth factor to the 1971 vehicle travel figures indicated in Table B-1,
1977 vehicle travel projections and breakdowns by vehicle type of the
1971 figures were developed.
These estimates are presented in Table B-2
and projected to 1980 in Figure B-1.
Table B-2.
Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel (thousands)
1971 1977
Light Heavy Light Heavy
Area Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles
Brazoria 1,774 113 2,590 165
Chambers 707 45 1 ,025 66
Fort Bend 1,177 75 1,718 109
Galveston 2,306 147 3,370 214
Ha rri s 24, 146 1 ,541 35,720 2,280
Liberty 749 48 1,093 70
Montgomery 1 ,460 93 2,130 136
Wa 11 e r 421 27 615 39
Total H-GRTS 32,909 2 , 1 00 48,000 3,060
No attempt has been made to segregate vehicle miles traveled by
I
trip purpose, as the control measures contemplated do not distinguish
between trip types on a regional aggregate basis.
Vehicle Population Data - Table B-3 presents 1970 and 1971 vehicle
regi strati on totals for the H-GRTS area. Nearly 90% of the automobiles
and over 80% of the region's total motor vehicle population are concen-
trated in Harris County.
If the recent growth rates for total vehicles
and automobiles, 7.7 and 6.3 respectively. were to continue to 1977,
some 2,100,000 total motor vehicles and some 1,420,000 automobiles
would be registered in the region by 1977.
B-3
-------
Table B-3. Motor Vehicle Registration - H-GRTS Area
All Vehicles Automobiles
% %
County 1970 1971 Increase 1970 1971 Increase
Brazoria 73,261 77 ,881 6.3 46,635 48,798 4.6
Chambers 11 ,380 12,342 8.5 5,643 6,157 9.1
Fort Bend 31,262 34,072 9.0 19,830 21,498 8.4
Galveston 101 ,193 106,908 5.6 72,725 75,843 4.3
Harris 1 ,124,845 1,211,109 7.7 831,677 884,548 6.4
Liberty 23,560 25,422 7.9 13,292 13,962 5.0
Montgomery 33 ;-250 38,314 15.2 19,393 21 ,837 12.6
Wall er 9,133 10,397 13.8 5,350 6, 194 15.8
H-GRTS Area 1,407,884 1,516,445 7.7 1,014,545 1,078,837 6.3
Local data on automobiles in fleet usage was not acquired.
In large
urban areas such as Houston-Galveston, fleet vehicles normally comprise
5\ to 7% of total auto registration. Table B-4 presents a breakdown of
utilization of automobiles maintained in fleets of 10 or more based on
national figures.(32)
Table B-4.
Fleet Vehicle Usage - Automobiles
Type Fleet
Percent Total Fleet Autos
Business
Government
65.00
12.35
8.40
3.98
3.52
6.19
0.56
Utilities
Police
Taxi
Rental
Dri ver Tra i ni ng
Travel by Vehicle Age - Estimates of total daily vehicle miles of
travel by vehicle age groups for the years 1971 and 1977, segregated
for light and heavy vehicles are presented in Tables B-5 through 8-13.
B-4
-------
Separate compilations for the H-GRTS Area, for Harris County, which
comprises 75% of the H-GRTS total and for Galveston County, which
accounts for an additional 7%, are presented.
Table B-5.
1971 Daily Vehicle Mile Totals
H-GRTS Area - Light Vehicles
( 1) (2) (3)
Fraction of Relative Weighted Daily
Vehicles Annual Mile- Per Cent of VMT
Age in Use age Driven Dai Iy Travel (thousands)
o 8.80 3.8 4.20 1 , 382
1 12.30 7.5 11 .57 3,808
2 12.30 11.4 17.59 5, 788
3 11 .70 10.4 15.27 5, 025
4 9.90 9.5 11 .80 3,883
5 9.70 8.5 10.34 3,403
6 9.10 7.8 8.91 2,932
7 7.20 7.1 6.40 2, 106
8 5.80 6.4 4.66 1,534
9 4.40 5.9 3.26 1 , 073
10 2.40 5.5 1.66 546
11 1.90 5.4 1.29 425
12 1.00 5.4 .68 224
Over 12 3.50 5.4 2.37 780
100.00 100.00 100.00 32,909
3 = (1) x (2)
L(l) x (2)
B-5
-------
Table B-6.
1977 Daily Vehicle Mile Totals
H-GRTS Area - Light Vehicles
(1) (2) (3)
Fraction of Relative Weighted Daily
Vehicles Annual Mile- Per Cent of VMT
Age in Use age Driven Daily Travel (thousands)
o 8.80 3.8 4.19 2,011
1 12.30 7.5 11 .55 5,544
2 12.30 11.4 17.55 8,424
3 11 .70 10.4 15.23 7,310
4 1 0.40 9.5 12.37 5,938
5 9.70 8.5 10.30 4,944
6 9.10 7.8 8.88 4.263
7 7.20 7.1 6.40 3.072
8 5.70 6.4 4.54 2, 194
9 4.30 5.9 3.18 1,526
10 2.30 5.5 1.58 758
11 1.80 5.4 1.22 586
12 1.00 5.4 0.68 326
Over 12 3.40 5.4 2.30 1,104
100.00 100.00 100.00 48,000
3 - (-1) x (2)
-~m
B-6
-------
Table B-7. 1971 and 1977 Daily VMT
H-GRTS Area - Heavy Vehicles
(1) (2) (3) 1971 1977
Fraction of Relative Weighted Daily Daily
Vehicles Annual Mile- Per Cent of VMT VMT
Age in Use age Driven Daily Travel (thousands) (thousands)
o .034 3.6 .016 25 36
1 .071 7.6 .074 114 168
2 .100 11.6 .156 240 356
3 .095 10.9 .140 216 319
4 .088 10.2 . 121 186 276
5 .080 9.4 .102 157 233
6 .070 8.5 .081 125 185
7 .062 7.7 .064 99 146
8 .053 6.9 .049 76 112
9 .038 6.2 .032 49 73
10 .037 5.3 .026 40 59
11 .033 4.6 .021 32 48
12 .032 3.8 .016 25 36
Over 12 .207 3.7 .102 157 233
- -
1.000 100.0 1.000 1,541 2,280
3 = (1) x (2)
r (1) x (2)
B-7
-------
Table 8-8. 1971 Daily Vehicle Mile Totals
Harris County - Light Vehicles
(1 ) (2) (3)
Fraction of Relative Weighted Daily
Vehicles Annual Mile- Per Cent of VMT
Age in Use age Driven Daily Travel (thousands)
o 9.23 3.8 4.40 1 , 062
1 12.49 7.5 11 .76 2,840
2 12.43 11.4 17.79 4, 296
3 11 .72 10.4 15.30 3,694
4 9.85 9.5 11.75 2,837
5 9.59 8.5 10.23 2,470
6 9.07 7.8 8.88 2, 144
7 7.10 7.1 6.33 1,528
8 5.75 6.4 4.62 1,116
9 4.24 5.9 3.13 756
10 2.30 5.5 1.58 382
11 1.80 5.4 1.22 295
12 1.04 5.4 .71 171
Over 12 3.39 5.4 2.30 555
100.00 100.00 100.00 24, 146
3 - (1) x (2)
-r(l)>
-------
Table 8-9. 1977 Daily Vehicle Mile Totals
Harris County - Light Vehicles
(1) (2) (3)
Fraction of Relative Weighted Daily
Vehicles Annual mile- Per Cent of VMT
Age in Use age Driven Daily Travel (thousands)
o 9.20 3.8 4.38 1 , 565
1 11 .70 7.5 11.0 3,929
2 12.40 11.4 17.72 6,330
3 11 .70 10.4 15.25 5,446
4 10.70 9.5 12.74 4,551
5 9.90 8.5 10.55 3,768
6 8.50 7.8 8.31 2,968
7 7.10 7.1 6.32 2,258
8 5.60 6.4 4.49 1 ,604
9 4.20 5.9 3.11 1,111
10 2.90 5.5 2.00 714
11 1.70 5.4 1. 15 411
12 1.00 5.4 .68 243
Over 12 3.40 5.4 2.30 822
100.00 100.00 100.00 35, 720
3 - (1) x (2)
- ~ (1) x (2)
8-9
-------
Table B-l0.
1971 and 1977 Daily VMT
Harris County - Heavy Vehicles
(1) (2) (3) 1971 1977
Fraction of Relative Weighted Daily Daily
Vehicles Annual Mi le- Per Cent of VMT VMT
Age in Use age Driven Daily Travel (thousands) (thousands)
o .034 3.6 .016 25 36
1 .071 7.6 .074 114 168
2 .100 11.6 .156 240 356
3 .095 10.9 .140 216 319
4 .088 10.2 . 121 186 276
5 .080 9.4 .102 157 233
6 .070 8.5 .081 125 185
7 .062 7.7 .064 99 146
8 .053 6.9 .049 76 112
9 .038 6.2 .032 49 73
10 .037 5.3 .026 40 59
11 .033 4.6 .021 32 48
12 .032 3.8 .016 25 36
Over 12 .207 3.7 .102 157 233
-
1.000 100.0 1.000 1 , 54 1 2,280
3 = (1) x (2)
l: (1) x (2)
8-10
-------
Table 8-11.
1971 Daily Vehicle Mile Totals
Galveston County - Light Vehicles
(1) (2) (3)
Fraction of Relative Weighted Daily
Vehicles Annual Mile- Per Cent of VMT
Age in Use age Driven Daily Travel (thousands)
o 7.34 3.8 3.50 81
1 11 .53 7.5 10.87 251
2 11.59 11.4 16.59 383
3 11 .28 10.4 14.74 340
4 10.00 9.5 11 .93 275
5 10.28 8.5 1 0 . 97 253
6 9.72 7.8 9.52 220
7 9.56 7. 1 6.74 155
8 6.10 6.4 4.90 113
9 4.89 5.9 3.62 83
10 2.62 5.5 1.81 42
11 2.18 5.4 1.48 34
12 1.09 5.4 .74 17
Over 12 3.82 5.4 2.59 60
100.00 100.00 100.00 2, 306
3 = (1) x (2)
'\ (1) x (2)
.1-
8-11
...J
-------
Table B-12.
1977 Daily Vehicle Mile Totals
Galveston County - Light Vehicles
(1) (2) (3)
Fraction of Relative Weighted Daily
Vehicles Annual Mile- Per Cent of VMT
Age in Use age Driven Daily Travel (thousands)
o 7.3 3.8 3.47 117
1 11.50 7.5 10.78 363
2 12.00 11.4 17.10 577
3 11 .60 10.4 15.08 509
4 11 .00 9.5 1 3 . 07 440
5 9.80 8.5 10.42 351
6 8.50 7.8 8.29 279
7 7.50 7.1 6.66 224
8 6.10 6.4 4.88 164
9 4.50 5.9 3.32 112
10 3.20 5.5 2.20 74
11 2.10 5.4 1.42 48
12 1. 10 5.4 .74 25
Over 12 3.80 5.4 2.57 87
100.00 100.00 100.00 3,370
3 = (1) x (2)
~ (1) x (2)
L.-
B-12
-------
Table 8-13.
1971 and 1977 Daily VMT
Galveston County - Heavy Vehicles
(1) (2) (3) 1971 1977
Fraction of Relative Weighted Daily Daily
Vehicles Annua I Mi le- Per Cent of VMT VMT
Age in Use age Driven Dai Iy Travel (thousands) (thousands)
o .034 3.6 .016 2 3
1 .071 7.6 .074 11 16
2 .100 11.6 .156 23 33
3 .095 10.9 .140 21 30
4 .088 10.2 .121 18 26
5 .080 9.4 .102 15 22
6 .070 8.5 .081 12 17
7 .062 7.7 .064 9 14
8 .053 6.9 .049 7 11
9 .038 6.2 .032 5 7
10 .037 5.3 .026 4 6
11 .033 4.6 .021 3 4
12 .032 3.8 .016 2 3
Over 12 .207 3.7 .102 15 22
- - -
100.00 1.00 147 214
3 - (1) x (2)
- 1: (1) x (2)
For light vehicles, the 1971 fractions of the vehicle population
by age group were determined from current registration statistics.(33)
Vehicle population age composition varies slightly between Harris County,
Galveston County and the H-GRTS Area as a whole. For 1977 auto popula-
tion distributions, the current age distributions were adjusted to e1i-
minate variations due to past unpopular model years which could not
logically be projected to reoccur in future model year productions.
B-13
-------
For heavy vehicles, vehicle age distribution~ af~ Ud~ea on natlOnal
figures. Relative annual mileage by vehicle age figures for both light
and heavy vehicles are based on national statistics.(28) Vehicle mile
totals as apportioned in these tables are based on the figures presented
in Table B-2.
As can be seen from the tables, one-third of the daily vehicle miles
traveled in 1977 by light vehicles will be accounted for by vehicles
meeting the 1975 Federal emission standards.
Less than 6% of the 1977
daily vehicle miles will be contributed by pre-control (pre-1968 model)
vehicles.
Vehicles of 1968 and 1969 model years will account for roughly
8% of the 1977 daily vehicle mile total in the region.
Travel Speed Data - Distributions of vehicle miles traveled by speed
ranges for the region are not available from recent survey data nor are
complete figures for vehicle miles of travel by functional street classi-
fication.
However, the regional transportation study estimates that in
the urban areas, 80% of the vehicle miles traveled are on freeways,
expressways and arterial surface streets.
Collector and local streets
each carry about 10% of total vehicle miles traveled.
In rural areas
65% of the travel is on freeways, expressways and surface arterials;
25% on collectors and 10% on local streets.(35) The above information,
together with assumed average speeds* by functional street classification
enables estimation of the overall average travel speeds indicated on
Table B-14.
*Freeways and Expressways 50 MPH, Surface Arterials 30 MPH, Collector
and Locals 20 MPH
8-14
-------
Table B-14. Average Travel Speed by County
Tota 1 Da ily Freeway & Expressway Average Travel
County VMT Percent of Total Speed (MPH)
Brazori a 1,887,000 4.3 28.5
Chambers 752,000 64.0 44.7
Fort Bend 1,252,000 2.4 28.4
Galveston 2,453,000 23.6 32.8
Harris 25,867,000 39.9 36.1
Liberty 797,000 1.1 36.5
Montgomery 1,553,000 53.5 38.1
Wall er 448,000 29.7 40.3
The figures, particularly those for Harris County which accounts
for 80% of the total travel, indicate excellent levels of traffic service
for a major urban area. These high levels of service are substantiated
by speed studies on radial freeways serving the Houston CBD presented
on Table B-15.(36)
Table B-15.
Average Speed on Radial Freeways
Outside Total
Facility Inside Loop Loop to Belt Belt Average
East Fwy (1-10) 52.0 (51.6) 57.0 (56.3) 63. 1 (63. 1) 59.2 (59.0)
Eastex Fwy (US-59) 49.4 (43.2) 54.0 (53.8) 61.4 (61.0) 54.4 (52.2)
Gul f Fwy (1-45 47.0 (22.2) 58. 1 ( 54.3) 62.0 (63.4) 53.6 (35.6)
Katy Fwy (1-10) 53.9 (54.6) 54.5 (37.3) 64.0 (64.3) 59.8 (53.0)
No rth Fwy (I -45) 51.0 (36.5) 56'.8 (52.0) 63.1 (63.1) 58.6 ( 53 . 0)
South W (US-59) 49.3 (31.8) 55.3 (50.3) - - 52.4 (40.2)
LaPorte Fwy (SH-225) - - 53.2 (53.8) - - 53.2 (53.8)
Avg. All Radial 50.2 (35.6) 55.7 (50.3) 63.2 (63.3) 56.8 (49.4)
Freeways 0.00 = Off Peak Speed in MPH, Non Directional
(0.00) = PM Peak Speed in Outbound Direction
B-15
-------
The inference of these relatively high average speeds is that major
emission reductions cannot be anticipated as a result of traffic flow
improvements. To be sure, there are locations where flow improvements
can be achieved and are being achieved through continuing programs.
However, the percentage of operations below 20 miles per hour, the high
leverage area for achieving pollution reductions through flow improve-
ments, is quite small and of the operations in this range, many are on
local streets where speed increases are undesirable.
Houston and Galveston CBDs - Modifications to Central Business
District travel figure prominently among transportation control strategies
which have been identified as having promise in the Seven Cities Study.
For this reason it is instructive to document travel data for the Houston
CBD.
Table B-16 presents 1971 statistics for travel to and from the
Houston CBD and contrasts this data with surveys taken in earlier years. (29)
Note that the comparison to earlier surveys is on the basis of a smaller
area, the Houston Central District (CTD) as it was defined in 1953.
The most salient feature of the above data is that since 1965,
traffic entering the old central district has increased by only 4.2%.
Only some 13.5% of those entering the CTD use transit and this percent-
age has been steadily dropping over time.
The 1971 cordon counts indicated a total of 300,213 passenger cars
(including taxis) crossing the CTD cordon - 79.1% of the total crossings
and 79,147 or 20.9% commercial vehicles.
These breakdowns are deceptive
as the commercial vehicle count includes non-commercially registered
B-16
-------
Table B-16.
Person and Ver..:~:le Nlovement Trends in Central Houston
(Between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM)
CBD 1953 CTD Definition
1971 1971 1965 1960 1953
Vehicle crossings 477,690 379,360 363,927 327,875 340,658
Person crossings 771,127 633,796 641,709 531,004 639,964
to Bus passenger crossings 96,713 85,707 107,083 109,551 152,491
I
-'
......
Bus passenger % total 12.5 13.5 16.6 20.6 23.8
Max. vehicle acc~~::::J:ulation 45,477 29,752 33,421 24,869 22,735
and time of day 11:30-12 AM 2:00-2:30 PM 2:30-3:00 PM 1 :00-1 :30 PM 11:30-12:00 AM
,
Max. person accumulation 67,265 54,908 59.809 51,596 55,229
and time of day 11:30-12 AM 2:00-2:30 PM 1 :30-2:00 PM 1:30-2:00 PM 11 :30-12:00 AM
-------
pickup and panel trucks which are actually used for personal transpor-
tation.
The 1965 classification count which included non-commercially
registered pickups and panels in the passenger vehicle category indicated
94% passenger vehicles, 6% commercial vehicles, and these earlier per-
centages are estimated to reasonably indicate the actual current situation.
Based on traffic volume variation studies, it is estimated that the
ll-hour daytime counts summarized in Table B-16 account for 80% of the
total daily travel entering and leaving the CBO.
Peak hour cordon
crossings; 48,869 between 7 and 8 A.M., and 51,517 between 4:30 and 5:30
P.M., account for 26.5% of the total ll-hour daytime period crossings.
Average vehicle occupancy at the cordon was 1.38 (exclusing transit
passengers) but dipped below 1.3 during the morning commuter period.(37)
The Texas Highway Oepartment provided trip length information by
trip purpose and trip purpose breakdowns for travel to the Houston CBO.
This information, together with total 24-hour CBO travel as estimated
from the ll-hour counts was utilized to develop Table B-17.
As indicated in the table, travel to, from and within the Houston
CBO accounts for less than 7.4% of the light vehicle miles traveled in
the H-GRTS region and some 10% of Harris County light vehicle miles
traveled.
Houston CBO oriented travel accounts for some 3.6% of the
heavy vehicle miles traveled in the region and less than 4.9% of the
Harris County heavy vehicle VMT.
Cordon studies of the Galveston CBO(29) indicated a total of 90,172
vehicle and 149,986 person crossings of the cordon.
By comparison, this
is less than 19% of the travel activity associated with the Houston CBO
B-18
-------
Table B-17.
1971 CBD - Regional VMT Relationshios
Avera6e 0/ HGR TS % Hards Co.
Trip Number VMT VMT
Trip Length % C BD Trips Lt. Hvy. Lt. Hvy.
Purpose (miles) Trips (2.4 Hrs.) 'TMT Vell. Ven. Veh. Veh.
Home Based
Work 7.4 49.7 211,623 1',566,000 4. 76 6.48
20nle Based
Other 4. 7 30.3 129,017 606,000 1. 84 2.51
t;:J
I
.... ~o:i-Home Based-
\D
Passenger 4.2 14 59,612 250,000 .76 1. 04
i'\on-Home Based-
Commercial 4.2 6 17,887 75,000 3.57 4. 87
- -
Total 100 425,800 2,797,000 7.38 3. 57 10. 03 4.87
-------
and since Galveston CBD oriented travel constitutes such an insignificant
percentage of regional travel, detail breakdowns of it have not been
explored.
surveys(18) of companies employing 45% of the Houston CBO's work
force of 110,000 indicate a high percentage, between 27 and 32%, ride
to work in car pools.
(This includes riding with spouse.) However,
very few CBD employers have attempted to encourage car-pooling. The
surveys also indicated a considerable staggering of P.M. work quitting,
times but strong concentration of morning starting times at 8 A.M. as
indicated on Table B-18.
Table B-18.
Distribution of Houston CBO Work Start and Quitting Hours
Start (AM) Percent Quit (PM) Percent
7:00 1. 75 4:00 .75
7: 15 4: 15 10.25
7:30 11.25 4:30 15.75
7:45 8.25 4:45 17.75
8:00 53.25 5:00 35.25
8: 15 1.75 5: 15 2.0
8:30 9.0 5:30 6.25
8:45 1.0 5:45
9:00 1. 75 6:00 1.25
9: 15 2.0 6: 15 .75
9:30 .75 6:30 .25
9:45 6:45
10:00 .50 7:00 .75
91.25 91.0
B-20
-------
Central Business District Parking - Table B-19 presents off-street
parking space inventories for the Houston and Galveston CBDs.
When CBD
vehicle accumulations, as presented in Table B-16 and which include
vehicles traveling on city streets within the cordon as well as parked
vehicles, are compared to parking space availability, and considering
that on-street parking spaces are not included in the inventory. it be-
comes apparent that substantial reductions in spaces available would be
necessary for parking limitation strategies to have significant impact
on vehicle travel to the CBD.
Table B-19.
CBD Off-Street Parking
Type Houston CBD, 1972 Galveston CBD
Lot, Public 20, 1 77 2190
Lot, Private 6,116
Garage, Public 1 5 ,849 380
Garage, Private 4,582
Customer Parking 1 ,692
Total 48,416 2570
Transit - Local public transit services in the Houston region con-
sist entirely of conventional bus operations.
Although services are pro-
vided by several operators, 75% of the region's population and 98% of
the region's transit passengers are served by Rapid Transit Lines, Inc.
(RTL), a division of Houston City Lines, Inc., which is a subsidiary
of National City Lines, Inc.
Rapid Transit Lines, Inc. currently operate
735 route miles over 30 routes.
All but 5 routes are radial trunk line
routes to and/or through the Houston CBD.
Average system operating speed
8-21
-------
is 12.94 miles per hour, 5 to 15% faster than averages lrl mOst major U.S.
urban areas.
This indicates both the efficiency of the transit operat~on
and the high level of traffic service afforded by the areas street and
highway network. The RTL operation involves a fleet of 381 buses with
a total seating capacity of 19,429 passengers. Basic fare is 45 cents
with 5 cent zonal fare increments and free transfers.(38)
Total transit ridership is nearly 80,000 passengers daily including
school and CBD shuttle trips.
Note that the transit passenger counts
indicated in the CBD cordon data presented in Table B-16, 96,700 pas-
sengers, reflects double counting of passengers whose trips pass through
the CBD.
The CBD accounts for 45% of all transit trip origins and destinations
An additional 15% are concentrated in the Houston Medical Center - Rice
Institute - University of Houston complexes south of the CBD.
of the transit patrons are captive riders.(39)
Some 84%
B-22
-------
APPENDIX C
STUDY CONTACTS
This program began with a public meeting in Houston on September 19,
1972 to acquaint interested persons in the purpose and aims of the study,
and to request those having data to come forward with it. As a result
of this meeting, many follow-up visits and telephone conversations by
TRW and DeLeuw, Cather and Company personnel; a IIbest availablell body of
data was assembled.
starts on page C-2.
A summary list of the agencies and persons contacted
The largest portion of the data base came from the
following sources.
.
Air quality data was provided by Mr. Victor Howard, Director
of the Pollution Control Division of the Houston Department of Public
Health, and by the Texas Air Pollution Control Services through the
Vehicle Emissions Committee chaired by Mr. Jim Kamrath.
.
Mr. W. J. Laughlin of the Houston Transit Action Program provided
most of the background information, conclusions, and findings of the
Transit Action Program's recent system study.
.
Mr. Oliver Stork, Urban Planning Engineer with the Texas Highway
Department, and Study Director for H-GRTS, provided numerous reports
and other data on current and projected yehicle travel, existing street
and highway system, and ongoing and programmed improvements. This data
constitutes the principal background for Appendix B and other analyses
contained herein.
.
The official point of contact with the Texas Air Pollution Control
Services (and all other state agencies) was the Vehicle Emissions Committee
C-l
-------
whose full time members include Mr. H. Sievers; Mr. F. Hartman; and
Chairman, Mr. J. Kamrath.
Contacts with the Vehicle Emissions Committee
were closely maintained, allowing for continuous interchange of data and
ideas.
CONTACT SUMMARY CHART
Houston/Ga1veston
Agency/Person
Cltlzens'Environmenta1 Coalition of Southeast Texas
Richard Sievers, Ph.D.
Galveston County Maln1and Cities Hea1th Department
Charles Poirier
Southwest Center for Urban Research
Harry Penson
League of Women Voters of Houston
Mrs. Janet Wa1ker
Houston City Health Department
Albert G. Randall, M.D.
Victor Howard
Harris County Air/Water Pollution Control Department
Robert Douglas II I
Harris County Commissioners Court
Judge BI11 E11iott
Texas Railroad Commission
Frank Youngblood
San Jacinto TB & RD Association
W. R. Moore
Texas Air Control Board
Dr. Herbert McKee, Chairman
Char1es Barden, Executive Secretary
Texas Transportation Institute
Dona1d Woods
C-2
-------
Texqs Division of Planning Coordination (Governor's office)
Tony Breard
Texas Department of Community Affairs
B. R. Fuller
Houston Public Service Department
W. J. Laughl in
Houston-Galveston Area Council
Gerald Coleman
Texas Highway Department
Wiley Carmichael, District Engineer
Houston Urban Office
Texas Highway Department
William Ward, 01 iver Stork
Texas Highway Department, Division of Motor Vehicles
Robert W. Townsley, Director
Environmental Section, Texas Highway Department
Bob Rutland, Leo Muller
U. S. Postal Service
Victor E. Burger
Planning Survey Division, Texas Highway Department
Joe E. Wr I ght
T'xas Department of Publ ic Safety
Joe White, Chief of Motor Vehicle Inspection
Texas A&M, College of Engineering
Dr. Virgil Stouer
Texas Air Pollution Control Services:
Ken Ports Vick Newsom
Jim Kamrath Terry Echols
Hank Sievers Walter Bradley
Fred Hartmann Dennis Guiffre
Harris County Tax Assessor's Office
Mr. Cummings
Ana I yt i ca I Computer Serv ices, I nc.
Fred Brison
C-3
-------
Houston Independent Auto ~ealers Assn
Glenn MacCartel
Independent Garagp.men's Assn.
Raymond Saunders
Houston Chamber of Commerce
Transportation Planning Committee
Joyce Kaye
C-4
-------
11.
12.
13.
APPENDIX 0
REFERENCES AND DOCUMENTATION
1.
"Implementation Plan for Attaining National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,.1 State of Texas, January 28, 1972.
"Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementa-
tion Plans," Volume 36, Number 158, Federal Register, 14 August 1971.
2.
3.
"Ozone Concentrati ons A 1 onq the Upper Texas Gul f Coast April, May,
June 1972," Texas Air Pollution Control Service.
4.
Draft "Report on Hydrocarbon Study for Control Strategy for Industry
Point Sources in Region 7," Texas Air Pollution Control Services,
November 1972.
5.
Draft "Control Strategi es for In-Use Vehi cl es," Mobil e Source
Pollution Control Program, Environmental Protection Agency, August
9, 1972.
6.
Proposed Draft "Regulation 40 CFR Part 51, Protection of Environ-
ment: Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plan, Transportation Control Measures," EPA
October 1972.
7.
F. L. Voelz, et. al., IIExhaust Emission Levels of In-Service Vehicles.
Comparison of 1970 and 1971 Surveys:' S.A.E. Paper No. 720498,
May 1972.
8.
J. Panger, IIIdle Emissions Testing," S.A.E. Paper No. 720937,
October 1972.
9.
IIReport and Recommended Program of the Governor's Task Force on
Periodic Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance for Emissions Control, II
State of California, October 2, 1972.
10.
IIEmission Control of Used Cars: Available Options; Their Effective-
ness, Cost and Feasibility,1I Technical Advisory Committee to the
California Air Resources Board, June 1971.
IIAnalysis of Effectiveness and Costs of Retrofit Emission Control
Systems for Used Motor Vehicles," Olson Labs in association with
Northrop Corp., May 1972.
"Mini-VerterT.M. Catalytic Converter Emission Control Systems,"
Universal Oil Products Company, November 1972.
"Conversion of Motor Vehicles to Gaeous Fuel to Reduce Air Pollution,"
Environmental Protection Agency, April 1972.
0-1
-------
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
"Gas Power, The Fleet Owner's Gaseous Fuel Manua1," Ca1 Tech
Environmental Quality Laboratory. March 1972.
"Emission Reduction Using GAseous Fuels for Vehicular Propulsion, II
Institute of Gas Technology, June 1971.
liThe Benefits and Risks Associated with Gaseous Fueled Vehicles,"
Arthur D. Little, Inc., May 1972.
"Eva1uating Transportation Controls to Reduce Motor Vehicle Emissions
in Major Metropolitan Areas," Institute of Public Administration,
Teknekron, Inc., and TRW, Inc., Interim Report, March 1972.
"CBD Starti ng Times, II Houston Chamber of Commerce Transportati on
Committee, Houston Magazine, October 1972.
"Houston-Harris County 1969 Freeway Travel Time Survey. II
"Annual Report 1971 - Air Pollution Control Program," City of Houston
Department of Public Health, May 1972.
"Air Pollution Control Program - 1972 First Half Report," City of
Houston Department of PUblic Health, September 1972.
"Hour1y Readings from the Houston Air Monitoring Network from
January thru August 1972," Transmitted via letter from V. H.
Howard, Director, Pollution Control Division, September 1972.
"Air Quality Criteria for Nitrogen Oxides," AP-84, Environmental
Protection Agency. January 1971.
"Air Quality Criteria for Hydrocarbons," National Air Pollution
Control Administration, March 1970.
"Houston CBO, H-HCTS Report No. 5." Houston-Harris County Trans-
portation Study.
"Hydrocarbon Study for Control Strategy Development in Three Regions
of the State of Texas,.1 Radi an Inc., April 1972.
"Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors," Environmental
Protection Agency, 1970.
"An Interim Report on Motor Vehicle Emission Estimation," Environ-
mental Protection Agency, October 1972.
H-GRTS Newsletter, Volume 2, Number 2, Apri 1 1972.
H-GRTS Newsletter, Volume 2, Number 3, July 1972.
H-GRTS Report, "Traffic Volume Variations - 1970," August 1971.
0-2
-------
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
"Auto," Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association.
R. L. Polk Company, National Vehicle
"1972 Automobile Facts and Figures,"
ciation, Detroit, Michigan, 1972.
H-GRTS Newsletter, Volume 1, Number 3, July 1971.
Registration Service.
Automobile Manufacturers Asso-
Houston-Harris County Transportation Newsletter, Volume V, Number 1,
Janua ry 1970.
H-GRTS Newsletter, Volume 2, Number 4, October 1971.
"Transit Action Program, Basic Characteristics of the Transit System
in Houston," Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, October 1971.
"Transit Action Program, Basic Characteristics of the Transit System
in Houston," Alan M. Voorhees, November 1971.
Turner, Bruce D., "Workbook of Atmospheri c Di spers ion Estimates, II
National Air Pollution Control Administration, No. PB191482, 1970.
"Control Techniques for Hydrocarbons and Organic Solvent Emissions
from Stationary Sources," National Air Pollution Control Administra-
tion, 1970.
"Gasoline Modification -- Its Potential as an Air Pollution Control
Measure in Los Angeles County, II Final Report, California Air Resources
Board, Los Angeles County APCD, Western Oil and Gas Association,
November 1969.
Noel de Nevers, "Rollback Modelling, Basic and Modified," August 1972.
"Air Quality Criteria for Photochemical Oxidants, II National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Washington, D.C., March 1970.
Draft "Motor Fuel Vapor Emission Control Study, II Refinery Management
Services Co. for the American Petroleum Institute, October 1972.
F. L. Voelz, et.al., '!Variations in Automotive Emission Levels
According to Geographical Area and'Vehicle Make: A Nationwide
Survey," Atlantic Richfield Company.
"Traffic Volume - 1971," Houston-Galveston Regional Transportation
Study, Houston, Texas, August 1972.
0-3
-------
48.
49.
50.
"fraffic Volume Variation - 1970,11 Houston-Galveston REgional
Transportation Study, Houston, Texas, August 1971.
IIHouston-Harris County Transportation Plan, H-HCTS Volume 3,11
Houston-Harris County Transportation Study.
IIGalveston County Transportation Plan, GCUTS Volume 3,11 Galveston
County Urban Transportation Study.
0-4
-------
APPENDIX E
PUBLIC ATTITUDE SURVEY ON AUTO AIR POLLUTION IN THE GREATER HOUSTON AREA
Presented on the pages which follow are results of a questionaire
distributed to a small sample of households in the Greater Houston Area.
The survey was conducted with the assistance of a professional market
research group which maintains standing panels of households in major
metropolitan areas of the U. S., each panel representing a broad cross
section of househo1d$ in the given area. The following table indicates
some characteristics of the households surveyed.
Less than $4000- $8000- $10,000-
$4000 8000 10,000 15,000 $15,000+ Total
No. Households 12 17 27 64 43 163
having income
o Car l-Car 2 Cars 3+ Cars Total
No. Househp1ds
having auto 2 40 97 21 160
ownership
Significant insights from the survey are as follows:
.
More than 93% of the respondents feel that air pollution
is a problem in the Houston area and 76% feel it is a
serious or very serious problem. Ninety-nine percent of
the respondents feel air pollution is a problem nationwide
and 84% feel it is a serious or very serious problem. The
inference is that Houston area residents generally believe
they have an air pollution problem but perceive their local
problem as being less severe than that of the nation as a
whole. (see question 10)
Houston area residents generally support a retrofit pro-
gram for pre-1975 vehicles if the cost is relatively low.
Some 71% indicated they would favor a retrofit program
costing about $50 and another 9% indicated they would not
have strong objection to it. If the retrofit to pre-1975
vehicles were to cost $200, only some 35% would support it.
The inference is that the public feels that a retrofit
program for pre-1975 vehicles is reasonable but not a
costly one such as a catalytic converter retrofit.
.
E-1
-------
.
Some 82% of the respondents favor an inspection/maintenance
program. Another 10% indicate they are not strongly ~pposed
to such a program. The respondents identified a charge of
nearly $5.50 as a reasonable cost for the annual inspection,
significantly above the actual estimated cost in the inspec-
tion program under consideration. Some 42% of the respon-
dents felt the inspection should be done at state-operated
inspection centers. Nearly 46% favored private garages
and service stations and less than 10% favored city operated
stations.
.
Reaction to all types of travel restrictive controls is
strongly negative. Among the restrictive controls, exclu-
sive bus and car pool lanes followed by CBD traffic and
parking bans were seen as more acceptib1e. The acceptability
of exclusive lanes is attributed to the fact that this
control is perceived as having minimum negative impact on
the individual IS current options; while acceptance of the
IICBD restrictionsll probably stems from the fact that only
a small percentage of the area IS residents must now drive
there frequently. Strategies most unacceptib1e are those
which affect all auto owners - gas rationing and high
registration fees.
Response to transit related questions generally indicates
the area's current low reliance on public transit. Reasons
given as most important for choice of auto travel are:
lIauto more flexible, 11 indicating general reluctance to be
tied to a transit schedule and possible dissatisfaction
with current headways; lIauto more availab1e,1I indicating
transit routes do not well serve origin-destination pairs
for non CBD trips; and lIauto faster. 11 Factors seen as
most important in fficouraging utilization of public transit
are "more frequent servi ce, 11 ':convenient1y located stops and
stationsll (better route coverage), IIfaster trave1,11 and
1I10wer fares. 11 The responses indicate that achievement of
significantly higher levels of utilization require major
improvements in level of service (more routes, lower
headways, faster operations) rather than cosmetic improve-
ments such as cleaner buses, air conditioning, bus stop
benches, shelters and the like.
.
.
Some 37% of the respondents indicated interest in car
pooling for work commute trips. An additional 9.5% car
pool currently. However, 70% of the respondents indicated
it would be difficult to organize or join an established
car pool.
Some 71% of the respondents favor staggered work hours as
a means of reducing congestion. Only some 18% oppose it.
.
E-2
-------
.
Only 7.5% of the respondents would consider disposal of
a family car if better public transit service were avail-
able. Another 19% indicate they might consider disposing
of a car.
E-3
-------
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 before that year, how would you feel about a law ~
qui ring you to put emission control equipment which might cost $ZOO on.your car? ("X" BELOW)
How would you feel about this law if the cost was reduce!! by government subsidy to about $501
("X" BELOW)
1.
Z.
Feeling Toward Law:
Very much in fa vOl' of law. .
Somewhat in favor of law. . .
Somewhat against law. . . . . .
Very much against law. . . . .
1.
Cost $200
9.5%
25.0
21.6
43.9
2.
Cost $50
45.2%
25.8
9.0
20.0
3a.
Even cars properly equipped with emmision control equipmeJ'.t might still poUute the air if the equip-
.ment was not properly maintained. How would you feel about a law requirin~ periodic inspection of
the emission control system to assure that it was working properly? ("X" ONE ONLY)
Very much in
fa vor of law
Somewhat
agains t law
9.9%
Somewhat in
favor of. law
57.4%
24.7%
,
3b.
Very much
agains t law
8.0%
Assuming you.!!!2. to have your car inspected at least once a year, what would you consider a
reasonable cost for the inspection? (WRITE IN AMOUNT)
$
5.48
3c.
Assuming you ~ to have your car inspected at least once a year, where do you think the inspe<;tion
should be made? ("X" ONE ONLY)
At state-operated inspection centers.....
At city-operated inspection centers. . . . . .
At local service stations or garages. . . . .
At some other place (Specify):
E-4
41.9%
9.4
45.6
3.1
-------
4a.
Even if :>.11 autos were equipped with properly maintained
..mission control eysten1s, son1e cities might still have auto
air pollution problems due to the large number of cars
either on the streets at the same time or concentrated in
particular areas. Listed below are several possible ways
to reduce pollution under one or both or these conditIons.
Please tell me how you feel about ~ of these proposalB.
("X" ONE ON EACH LINE)
Proposal
a.
b.
Gasoline rationing.....................
Very high ($500) registration fee per auto.
Very high ($500) registration fee per auto
but only for the second, third, etc.,
auto;.. .. . . ............. . ...... .... .
Prohibit traffic and parking in central
busines s districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A tax on all day parking in central busi-
ness districts........................
A tci.x on parking in central busines s dis-
tricts regardless of whether a person
parked only one hO\lr or all day. . . . . . . .
Tolls on exit ramps of major freeways
'and expres sways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tolls on exit ramps of major freeways
and expressways but only when traffic
was heavy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Restrictions on non-essential auto travel
during times of high pollution by
issuance of special license plates or
vehicle sticker s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Turn some existing lanes into "bus only"
and "car pool only" lanes on major
expressways and streets. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
'Weighted mean.for each answer
E-5
To Me This Plan Is:
~ I
- J
cv ,.. ..0
- 0 cv cv 2 I
..0 Z:O ....-
111 cv 111..0 a.
.... .... ,.. cv 2 ~2 v
a. 111- u '
v ~..o v - a. ~ a, u
u ~ 2 '5 ~ v v v 111
u v a, Of"of...., U .8 ~ c
<; 8 ~ cva,u ~
Z cv 111 0 111
>- 0 u u ~ tI) ~ >-
,.. tI)<; u~ ~ ...
~ <; v
, :>
+2
tI
o
o
-I
-2
,
1.3 3.1 4.4 6.3 84.9
1.3 0.6 1.3 3.8 93.0'
,
3.2 3.8 1.0 14.1 76.9
26.5 24.7' 13.0 16.0 19.8
,
15.0 20.0 10.0 17.5 37.5
,
10.9 12.2 8.3 17.3 51.3
,
3.1 6.9 8.2 15.7 66.0
,
4.4 7.6 8.9 14.6 64.6
,
8.9 15.2 8.2 15.8 51.9
,
47.5 24.7 9.3 9.9 8.6
-------
4b.
Which of the proposals listed above would be the most acceptable?
(Give Letter:)
J - 55.5%
D - 2~.2
"
4c.
Which would be most unacceptable?
....... ............
(Gi ve Letter:)
B - 50.0%
A - 44.4
QUESTIONS S-8 ASK FOR INFORMATION REI~A'T'T"'!G TO OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.
CONSULT THEM, IF NECESSARY, FOR THE ANtiWERS.
Sa.
How o£tendo the various members of your household travel by public transportation?
ample, by bUB, subway, or commuter train.)
(For ex-
Husband
Wife
Childr en
(Over 16 Years Old)
Three or more times a week.
One or two times a week. . . . .
Once a month. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Once every three months. . . .
Ne ve r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
No hous ehold member. .. . . . .
1.3%
1.3
0.7
Or7
92.1
3.9
1.2%
1.2
1.2
4.3
91.9
5.8%
1.9
52.9
39.4
E-6
-------
5b.
Please rate each household member's reason for using public transportation. (Rate the most
important re-;;;;; "1", the next most important "2", the next "3", etc. If a household member
nevt'r uses public transportation, "X" the "never use" box at the bottOln of the list.)
I
I
I
I
I
1
: 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
I
I
.J
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
5c.
Please rate each household member's reasons for traveling by auto.
as in Question 5b. (WRITE IN BELOW UNDER ~)
5b.
Public
Transportation
Children
(Over 16
Years Old)
Reasons
Husband
Wife
a.
Cheaper........ ...
b.
Faster. . . . . . . . . . . .
c.
More comfortable. .
d.
Safer for pas senger.
e.
Less congested.....
f.
More available. . . . .
See Comments
g.
More flexible (1 can
come and go as
1 please). . . . . . . . .
Not enough of the
respondents use transit.
h.
More relaxing (able
to read while
traveling). . . . . . . .
i.
Need car during the
day............. .
j.
I do not have a
driver's license. .
k.
Car is not available
when 1 need it. . .
1.
Other (Specify):
m. Never use ("X" Box)
E-7
Follow the same procedure
5c.
Auto
Transportation
Children
(Over 10
Years Ole:
Wife
6
7
7
3
3
3
5
4
4
8
8
7
6
6
6
2
2
2
-- not applicable --
4
4
4
-- not applicable --
-- not applicable --
-- see comments --
-------
5d.
Again, consnlting other members of your household, please rate in order of effectiveness which item.
below'you f('el would be most e!!ective in encouraging the use of public transporation. (Rate the most
eCCective itl'.tn a "1". the next most effective "2", the next "3". etc.)
Items:
Husband
Cleaner and newer vehicles. .
7
Faster travel. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
Air- conditioned vehicles
7
More frequent service. . . . . .
Lower fares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Parking facilities at stops or
stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Shelters against bad weather
at stops or stations. . . . . . .
5
Better security to as sure
personal safety. . . . . . . . . . .
7
More conveniently located
stops and stations. . . . . . . .
2
Other (Specify):
Wife
Children
(Over 16 Years Old)
7
7
3
3
5
5
1
3
3
7
7
5
5
5
9
2
2
6a.
How would you or other hou8~hold members {eel about traveling to and from work in a car pool?
("X" ONE ONLY)
Very interested. . . . . . . . . . . .
Somewhat interested. . . . . . . .
Not at all interested. . . . . . . .
Already in car pool. . . . . . . . .
Do not travel to and from
work by car. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12.7%
24.1
48.1
9.5
5.7
-------
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. . . . . . . . . .
Son1ewhat easy. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Very easy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Extremely easy. . . . . . . . . . . .
Already in car pool. . . . . . . . .
7.
One of the major causes of 'neaB of high pollution iB traffic
congestion. Pollution could be reduced if traffic congeslion
and slop-and-go traffic was reduced. Listed below are
several ideas for reducing traffic congeBtion. 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 and 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):
. Weighted mean for each answer
E-9
32.5%-
14.4.
23.1
15.6
6.3
2.5
5.6
+2
.
55.7%
35.1.
26.0
.
44.f
55.b
12.6
A
46.. 2
64.6
19.6
A
48.4
+1
36.1%
43.~
A
32.5
40.5
1? 7
'C'
40.4
39.1
30.4
A 54.2
38.7
o 0 -I
6.3% 1.9%
16.2 5.2
23.4 18.2
12.4 2.6
10.5 1.3
36.4 10.6
14.1 0.6
4.4 0.6
26.1
9.7
3.2
-------
8.
Since traffic congestion is most scvere at times when people are going to or coming trom work,
one alternative for reducing congestion would be to have people sta rt 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 Lo 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 oppos ed. . . . . . . . . .
Very much opposed. . . ..... .
33.3%
37.7
10.5
7.4
11. 1
9a.
Please record the model year of each car owned in your household,
UNDER 9a)
Please estimate the nwnber of miles each car was driven in the last year.
(WRITE IN NUMBER OF MILES UNDER .2l!. BELOW)
(WRITE IN BELOW
9b.
9c.
For each car, please estimate what percentage of last year's mileage w<,s accounted for by
driving outside your local metropolitan area, (For example, vacation, business trips,
short weekend trips, etc.) (WRITE IN BELOW UNDER .2£)
9b. 9c.
9a. Last Year's Percentage of Mileage
Model Year Mileage Outside Local Area
Car # 1 1970 13.137 24%
Car #2 1969 10,936 21
Car #3 1969 10.633 32
Car #4 1966 6.625 49
9d.
I-Jow many licensed drivers arc there in your household?
(WRITE IN)
Number of Licensed Drivers:
2. 18 (a vg)
ge.
If better public transportation were available, would you consider disposing ot any ot the
cars you own?
Yes
Ma ybe
No
7.5%
19.3
73.3
9f.
How many? (WRITE IN)
1.03
cars
E-10
-------
lOa.
Overall, how serious a problem do you think auto air pollution is in your city? ("X'I. ONE BOX
UNDER ~ BELOW)
Overall, how serious a problem do you think auto air pollution is nationwide? ("X" ONE BOX
UNDER ~ BELOW)
lOb.
lOa.
City
lOb.
Nationwide
Very serious problem. . . . .
Serious problem. . . . . . . . . .
Slightly serious problem. . .
No problem at all . . . . . . . . .
51.3%
25.0
16.9
.6.9
49.0%
35.0
15.3
0.6
11.
If yotl have any views or comments regarding any question or idea, please record them:
E-11
-------
~
FIGURE
CONSUMER MAIL PANELS
323 SOUTH FRANKLIN STREET. CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60606
(2-C796)
Dear Panel Member,
Today, I am sending you a questionnaire which I consider both exciting and
interesting. Hopefully, you will too. This questionnaire deals with the irnpor.
tant problem of air pollution caused by automobiles.
As you know, autos are a major source of air pollution-especially in metro-
politan areas. You probably have read in newspapers or magazines that auto
manufacturers are being required to make changes in their cars that will
reduce the amount of pollutants coming out of cars. This will be particularly
true for cars manufactured in 1975 and thereafter.
Many pollution experts believe, however, that despite these new federal regu-
lations on auto air pollution, other ways will have to be found to further reduce
pollution caused by cars. The purpose of this questionn~ire is. to obtain your
reaction to the se new auto pollution control ideas being sugge sted by the
experts. In answering some questions, you will probably have to consult
other members of your family to get their ideas and reactions. I am sorry
if this is inconvenient, but I am sure you will agree that the importance of
solving poUution problems is worth making every reasonable effort.
As always, please check each of your answers after you have completed the
questionnaire. Then return it to me in the enclosed postage-paid envelope.
If you have any additional comments, please write them on the lines pro-
vided in Question 11.
Cordially,
"/-re...L/
E-12
-------
FIGURE
~~~~~~~~~.-._~
(Z-C796)
AUTO AIR POLLUTION QUESnONNAUtE
1.
All autos made in 1975 and thcrea.fte~ will be equipped with emnri~.ion control devlC'cs to reduce a.ir
ponution. II in 1975 you owned a car built belare tlat year. how would you (eel about a law re-
quiring you tv put emiesion control equipment which might cost $200 on your car? ("X" BEWW)
How would you feel about this law it the colt waf reduced by government "Jb.idy to about $501
("X" BELOW)
14-16
Open
Z.
FeeHnt! Toward Law:
Very much in favor of law. .
Somewhat in favor oC law. . .
Somewhat against law. . . . .
Very n.uch again.t law. . . .
I.
Cost $200
Z.
Cost $50
01
Oz (18)
03
04
01
OZ(17)
03
04
3...
Even cars properly equipped with emmision control equipment m.1ght diU pollute th.e air 1£ the equip-
ment was not properly maintained. How would you leel about a law requiring periodic inspection of
the emission control sy.tem to auuJ"e th",t it was workina: properly? ("X" OKE ONLY)
V;::o~~~~a~ '01
S~:::h:!t lia"w 02
Somewhat 03
against law
Very much 04
a,ainst law
3b.
Assuming you ~ to have your car inspected at least once.. year, what would you consider a
reaeonable l.O$t for the inspection? (WRITE IN AMOUNT)
ZO[TIZI
$
3c.
Assuming you had to have your car inspected at lea.t once a year. where do you think the in&pection
should be mad~ ("X" ONE ONLY)
At state~operated inspection center. .01
At city-operated inspection centers. .02
At local service stations or garages. 03
At .ome other place (Sped!y):
04
4...
Even H all autos wcre equipped with properly maintained
eniission control systems, some cities might still have auto
air pollulion prublc1ns due to the large number of car.
either on lh~ streets at the liame time or concentrated in
particular areas. Listed below are several poa.ible way.
to redue.! pollution undt:r one or both of these conditions.
Please tell me how you feel about each o! these proposah.
("X" ONE ON EACH LINE) -
Proposal:
... Gasoline ralioning .................... ..... 01 Oz 03 04 05 Z3
b. Very high ($500) reghtration fee pel' auto. . . . . . . . . .. 01 OZ 03 04 05 Z4
Very high ($500) rCiiltration fee per auto but only 01 OZ 03 04 05 ZS
for the srcond. third, etc.. auto. . . . . . . . . . . . .
d. Prohibit traf{ic and parking in central bu.ine.s districts 01 Oz 03 04 05 Z6
e. A tax on ~ parking in central buaineu di.tricta .. 01 OZ 03 04 05 Z7
I. A tax on parking in central bu.ineu di.trict. regardle.. 01 OZ 03 04 05 Z8
ol whether a person parked only one hour or all day
B. Toll. on exit ramp' oC major freeway. and expreuway., 01 Oz 03 04 05 Z9
h. Tolls on exit ramp!! oC major freeways and expre..way. 01 Oz 03 04 05 30
but only when tra!Cic was heavy. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I. Re.tricti.uns on non~e8llential.uto travel during time.
or high pollutJon by iJsuance of .pedal Jieen.e 01 Oz 03 04 05 31
plates or vehicle .ticker. .... .......... ...
j. Turn Dome existing lane. into "bu. only" aDd "car poot 01 Oz 03 04 05 3Z
only" I.nes on m.jor Clxpre.l.way. and .treeh. . . .
4b. Which of the prQPoeah li.ted above ,,"ould be the mo.t ac.:eptable7 (Give Lcuer:)- H
4c. Which would be mCHlt unacceptable? .' .............. .... (Give Letter:)- 34
E-13
(CONT'D.)
13
19
ZZ
-------
Page l
IZ-C796)
FIGURE
(CONT'DJ,
_(43)
_(49)
_(55)
_(61) (74.78
_(67) open)
_(73)~
Cd. Z
-(ZO) Dup.
1-14
I
OUESTIONS 5.8 ASK FOR INFORMATION RELAT'''lO TO OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.
CONSULT THEM, IF NECESSARV. FOR TI-IE AI<"WERS.
5a.
flow often do the variou. member. 01 your household travel by public tran.portation? (For ex-
ample, by bu., subway, or commuter train.)
Three or more time. .. week..
One or two time. a week. . . .
Once a month. . . . . 0 . . . . . .
Once every three month.. . . .
Nevler.. .. . .. .. . ... ... .
~
...01
. ..OZ
.. .03 (35)
...04
...05
...06
Children
(Over 16 Vear. Old)
...01
...OZ
.. .03(37)
...04
...05
~~ \ . .06
No household n\ember. . . . . .
~
...01
. ..OZ
.. .03 (36)
.. .04
...05
.. .06
5b.
Pleasc rate each houlehold member'. rea.on (or using public tranlportation. (Rate the mOlt
important re~ "1", lhe next mOlt important "Z", the next "3", etc. If a hou.ehold member
never ules public trantJporta.tion, "XII the "never u.etl box at the bottom ol the Iht.)
5c.
Plea.!le ra.te each household member'. rea.on. for traveling by auto.
as in Question Sb. (WRITE IN DELOW UNDER ~)
Sb. Public Transportation
Children
(Over 16
~ Yrara Old)
Follcrw the .ame procedure
:
,
,
,
,
,
:~
:..._(41)
:..._(47)
:..._(53)
:,.._(59)
:..._(65)
:. . . (71)
I. More flexible (1 can come : -
and 80 u I ple..e) . .. _(15) _(16) _(17):... _(18) _(19)
,
i ....--.. (Not Applicable) .......--
:. . . _(24) _(Z5) _(Z6)
,
j. 1 do not have a driver' 8 :
IIcen.e. . . . . . . . . .. _(Z7) _(28) _(29)!
k. Car h not available when - t
1 need It . . . . . . . . .. _(30. _(31) _(3Z)~ !
:
(33) (34) (35) !... (36) " (37) (38)
. - -- -- - - u"o.. -- -..."7:':....."7:':....."7:':. -- t..."7:': - -..."7:':....."7:': --
m. !'i.ver uoe ("X" Box) . .. 01 Oz 03 (39) !... 01 Oz 03 (40)
~
~
Sc. Auto Troana'Portatlon
Children
(Ove. 16
~ Yearll Old)
0. Chea.per..,....." 0 . °
b. Fa9Ler..............
_(38)
_(44)
_(50)
_(56)
_(62)
_(68)
_(39)
_(45)
_(51)
_(57)
_(63)
_(69)
_(40)
_(46)
_(52)
_(58)
_(64)
_(70)
_(41)
_(48)
_(54)
_(60)
_(66)
_en)
1;;. More comfortable. . . . .
d. Safer for passenger. . . .
01::. Lea. congested ° .. . .. . .
f. More a.vailable . . . . .. . .
h. More relaxing (able to
re.~ while travelihg). .
i. Need car during the ~ay ..
_(ZI) _(2Z) _(H)
- --.. (Not Applicable) -.. .".
----. (Not Applicable) .-..-
.. --. (Not Applicable) .. - --
I. Otber (Specify),
5d.
Again, consulting other member. or your houaehold, pleaae rate in order ol eClectiveneaa whic.h item.
below you feel would be mo~t e!!ective in encouraging the uae of public tranaporaUon: -(Rate the moat
effective item a IIJ", the next moat effective "2", the next "3u, etc.)
~
Cleaner and newer vehiclea . . . .. . . .
Children
(Ove. 16 Vears Old1
_(43)
_(46)
_(49)
_(5Z)
_(55)
_(58)
~
_(41)
_(44)
_(47)
_(50).
_(53)
_(56)
~
_(4Z)
_(45)
_(48)
_1511
_(54)
_(5"7)
F&lIter travel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Air-conditioned vehiclee . . . . . . . .. .
More frequent .ervice. . . . . . . . . . ..
Lower lare. .................
Parking facilities at atops or .tation.
She1te-1"I against bad wea.ther at .topa
or atation. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
_(59)
_(60)
_(61)
Better Iccurity to assure personal
lafety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mon conveniently located atop.
01' ltations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
_(6Z)
_(63)
_(64)
_(65)
_(66)
_(67)
Other ISpeclly),
(71-78 "pn)
79gr)80
_(68.
_(70)
_(69)
."
;,'
I
E-14
-------
(Z-C796)
HOW' would you 01' other hou.ehold member. feel about travdin, to and horn work. lri . car pool?
(ItX" ONE ONLY) \-
. - Very 1ntere.ted . . . . . . .01
Somewhat Inte rc .ted. . . .02
Not at .11 tntere.ted . . . .03
Already In car pool. . . . .04
Do not travcl to and from 05
work by car. . . . . . . .
6&.
6b.
If it became net:e..ary to rc.trtct the number ol care on expres.way. and streeh in order to
reduce pollution and car pooh became necc.aa.ry, how difficult do you think it woulrl be to get
into one an existing one or organbe one among.t your friends. neighbon and/or work auod.lea.
("X" ONE ONLY)
Extremely difficult. . . . .01
Very diHicuH ....... .02
Somewhat dUl1cult . . . . .03
Somewhat ea.y .. . . . . .04
Very easy. . . . . . . . .. . .05
Extremely ca.y . . . . . . '06
Already in car pool. . . .07
7.
One of the major causes of area. of high poJllution is trafCic
congestion. Pollution could be reduced if tr.i.!lic congestion
and stop-a.nd-go traffic was redl1ced. Lilted below are
.evera.l idea.s lor reducing traffic conge.tion. Please t~ll
me how ctfcctivc you think ea.ch of these ideas would be in
reducing congestion and pollution. ("X" ONE BOX FOR
EACH IDEA)
~
a.
Prohlbit parking, loading and unloading on bu.y streets
Inc'-ease the nwnber of one..way streets. . . . . . . . . . .
Eatablhh rever.ible lanes on busy streets to be used
during rush houri. . . . . . . . - ; . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prohibit turns. ,at bUIY i~teraection8 during rulh houri.
Widen ma.jor .treet.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Widen nwLjor .treeh at intersections only. . . . . . . . . .
Provide pede!Jtrian underpasses and/or overpassell . . .
Improve timing oC h'alflc lignal.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b.
c.
d.
e.
r.
g.
h.
I.
Increase the number and frequency of ra.dio tra.ffic re-
port. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-. .
Turn. .ome existing lano. into "bu. only" .nd "car pool
only" lane. on expret.way. and bUlY .treet. ....
Your idea. (Pleate Liat):
j.
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02 03 O~
Oz 03 04
Oz 03 04
02 03 O~
Oz 03 04
Oz 03 04
Oz 03 04
Dz 03 04
Oz 03 04
Oz 03 04
Oz 03 04
01
01
01
Since trarfic congelUon I. mo.t severe at times when people are going to or cornlug from work.
one a.lternative for reducing congeltion would be to have people IItart and .top work at different
time. of the day. Tha.t ill, some people would IItart work at 5:00 AM and qoit at 2:0IfPM. otheu
would work from 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM. otherl trorn 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM. etc. Ho~ do you feel about
thlo Idea? ('OX" ONE ONLY)
8.
Very much in lavor. . . . .01
Somewhat in lavor ..... Dz
IndWeront. . . . . . . . . . .03
Somewhat oppo.ed ..... Q4
Very much oppo.ed. . . . . Os
(PLEASE CONTINUE ON THE NEXT PACE)
E-15
FIGURE
PalG 3
Cd. 3
Dup.
1.14
IS
16
17
18
19
zo
ZI
ZZ
Z3
Z4
ZS
Z6
Z7
Z8
(CONT'D.)
-------
FIGURE
Pale 4
IZ-C796)
9b.
Please record the model yea.r ot each car owned in your houlehold.
UNDER ~)
Ple.;uc estimate the number DC miles each car wa. driven in the la.t year.
(WRITE IN NUMnEH OF MILES UNDER 22. BELOW)
(WRITE IN BELOW
9..
9c.
For each car, plcavc e.timat.e what pt:Tcrnti\ge of laet year', mileage wa. a.ccounted lor by
driving outside your loca.l mctropolit.a.n area. (For example, vacation. budnc.. trip.,
,hart weekend trip'. etc.) (WRITE IN BELOW UNDER ~)
9b.
Last Year',
Mile~ ge
90.
Model Year
9c.
Pc rc e ntage of Mileage
Outside Local Area
Car II
_'t.
_'/.
29o=I:J31
32 o=I:J 34
3So=I:J17
38o=I:J40
Car IZ
Car #4
-'"
_%
Ca r H 3
9d.
How many licensed dTiveTs are there in your hou8chold?
Number of Licenaed Drivers:
(WRITE IN)
041
ge.
If better public transportation wer.e avai1.a.ble, would you consider dhposing of any 01 the
cars you own?
Yea oil-
Maybe [}~ 9f. How many? (WRITE IN) _c"'7
No U37
42 o:::J 43
lOa.
Overall, how serious a problem do you think auto air pollution h in your city?
UNDER ~ BELOW)
Overall, how serious a problem do you think auto air pollution is nationwide? ("X" ONE BOX
UNDER ~ BELOW)
r"x" ONE BOX
lOb.
Very serious problem. . . . . .
Serio~s problem. . . . . . . . .
Slightly serious problem. . . .
No problem at .11. . . . . . . . .
10.. City
01
02 (44)
03
04
I Db, Nationwidf'
01
02 (45)
03
04
It.
U you have any views or comment. regardine any question or idea, pJealle record them:
(46-78 open)
79!ill)!0
Thank you for your help. Please check your anawera and then return the questionnaire to me in tbe
enc10sed postage-paid envelope.
E-16
-------
APPENDIX F
A REPORT ON THE EXPERIENCE OF THE SAN DIEGO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
ON CONTROL OF HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE MARKETING
1.0
I tHRODUCT I Ot~
1.1
Purpose
A trip to San Diego vIas made by Pdcr J. V!cllcr on 8 October 1972 for
the purpose of gathering information fron! t~e San Diego Air Pollution Con-
trol District (SDAPCD) on the control of hydrocarbon (HC) emissions fro'~l
gasoline Plar"keting.
1.2
Contacts
lh~ j"O IIC)I" 19 personne 1 v.[ere contactcc:
Clark Gaulding, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer
Johr. Farns\vorth, Senior Air Pollution Engineer
Barnard R. McEntr~, Air Pollution Engineer
Ray Skoff, Air Pollution Engineer
A 11 ..,..,0 r kat:
County of San Diego Air Pollution
Departffient of Public Health
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, California 92101
Contrel District
(714)
236-3826
(McEntre and Skoff provided ;-ne with rr:ost of the information described in
th is report.)
TECHtJ I CAL I NFOR,'1AT I ON
2.0
2.1
General System Design
2. 1 . 1
Baseline System
The baseline system is as In Figure 1.
The tank truck fills
an underground storage t~nk at the service station and car tanks are
filled froln pWllpS .vhieh bring gasoline from the underground tank.
The disadvantages of this system are:
(1.) Since the temperuture of th~ gasoline i~ the tank truck
is very probably (in moderate to hot climates) higher than the
gasoline temperature in the underground stof"<:1ge tank~ the total vt);Jor
F-l
-------
pressure in the underground tank is increased.
Normally a 1.0 PSI
relief valve is used for underground tanks; if the increase in vapor
pressure exceeds this, gasoline v<:Jpor "Jill be emitted to the atmo-
sphere.
(See Attachment A)
(2.) The empty car tank is similarly full of v<:Jpor, which is
displaced to the atmosphere as the ca~ tank is refilled.
(3. )
The topcaps on the tank truck are opened during the
transfer of gasoline to the underground tank.
This allows air to
enter the truck tank and gasol ine vapor to exit from it. The air
in the truck forms (according to McEntre) an explosive mixture~
with the gasoline vapor in the truck. Thus, the driver returns to
the bulk terminal with a highly dangerous cargo.
2. 1.2
Recovery by Condensation
To recover vapor displaced from the underground tank (or car
tank), some systems condense the vapor and either hold the condensate
or return it to storage in the underground tank. Typically 10% of
the hydrocarbon throughput is lost to the atmosphere with such a system.
2. 1 .3
Recovery of Adsorption
Some systems use carbon canisters to adsorb the vapor. The
canister may be periodically back-flushed (without removal) or may
be removed and the trapped gasoline destroyed or recovered.
2. 1.4
Recovery by Vapor-Return
With a vapor-return system, a vapor line running from the
underground tank to the tank truck carries displaced vapor from the
tank back to the truck (See Figure 2). The truck is kept closed,
except for the fill line and vapor line to the underground tank.
When fill in9 of the underground tank is complete, the truck returns
to the bulk terminal with a load of saturated (and, therefore,
non-explosive) gasoline vapor.
-!:
Minimum air-fuel ratio (weight basis) for
(ie, most effective for combustion) ratio
16.
explosive mixtures is 9; optimum
for explosive mixtures is 14 to
F-2
-------
Vapor-return applied to car tank filling takes a
A vapor line running parallel to the gdsoline line used
car tanks retuns displaced vapor to the storage tank.
similar form.
for filling
return applications require a vapor-tight coup] in9 with each tank.
Both vc:por-
2.2
:,~,,'cific Sv<;tems iJnd Hard\'!are
2.2. I
Nam~s and Addresses of Manufacturers
Attach"ient B includes a I ist of system and Ilard\vare supfJI iers.
Those marked I'outll have withdrawn their interest; those marked \Jit~
an
IIX" seem to be the rnest promising or furthest-developed.
2.2.2
Descriptions of Systems and HiJrdware
See Table I.
3.0
LEGAL AND POLITICAL INFORMATION
3. 1
Rules 61 and 63
Attachment C is a package sent by Gaulding to gasol ine marketing
operators. It includes the applicable SDAPCD rules (61 and 63) and a
compliance form for permitting. Key aspects of these rules are:
Ru I e 6 I: (1.)
(2 ~ )
Ru I c 63: (I.)
(2. )
(3. )
(4. )
Lower tank size limit for control
requirement
i s 250 ga I .
Last paragraph in (a) is subject to misinterpretation
and shouid be more explicit.
Lower tank size limit for control requirement is 250 gal.
for stationary tanks and 5 gal. for boat and MV tanks.
(Average ranch or farm storage tank is 550 to 1000 gal.;
fill ing station tanks range from 8000 to 10000 gal.)
"AIIII in line 11, sentence beginning with "L::>ading ..."is
defined AS 100~ by SDAPCD.
Items (1) und (2) of the rule requires 90% efficiency for
absorption and condensation and IOO;~ efficiency ("all")
for fuel handling (e.g., lfa[1or return) systems.
Existing sources must have submitted a comp1 iance schedules
by 1 July 1972* and must be in complianc0 by I January 197~.
* The date for this requirement has not been enforced rigorously - some schedules
have been received, others are in progress.
F-3
-------
3.2
Lega1 and Po1itica1 History
3.2. 1
Suit by Ca1ifornia Oi1 Joubers Assoc.
C.OJA suppl ies gas01ine to private accounts and independent
service stations. It filed a suit recently to challenge the rules
but the suit has been dropped because COJA did not exhaust the
administrative procedures specified in the rules (namely, the right
of hearing and app~al). A ~ajor contention is that COJA WI i I ue
hurt economically by the new rules, but the organization has not
been ab1e to show an economic disadvantage.
3.2.2
Filling Stations
One station operator recently app1 ied for authority to con-
struct a station in San Diego. The application was initial1y re-
jected because of insufficient contr01, but the operator resub-
mitted the application, this time with a description of a
recovery system. Action on. this app1ication has been de1ayed
pending the development of tank farm faci1ities for disposa1 of
vapor recovered from vapor-return systems at fi 11ing stations.
Eva1uation of several other fi1ling station applications is
underway. Genera11y oil co~panies with existing or p1anned stations
in San Diego seem to be complying with the rules. This mayor may
not actually be the case; it will become definite in the near future.
F-4
-------
~f~ MPs
~
~
-f
"T\
I
-------
"T1
J
m
r
. .":;"-IV;'"~:; I J ,,-=i~ f-,--)1
~ \ L\ 1- I ~;;. (~:-~:...:.;::~
i . i , I
-~~ i-
Lc:c:;:: ~," 2, .! I
i .:; .!;II~.:. ~:::.: ~ ....,J.
--' ..~'..
/'!:f 1>. 2..
J/A'Po,'Z, N.E7t/./!..1.I
S VS'lZ=.r/i
-------
SupplIer
AtlantIc EngIneerIng
talgon Corp.
.(Pittsburgh ActIvated
Carbon Dlv.)
Dover Corp.
(OPW Div.)
Ocean Resources,
Inc.
.."
I
-...J
Shields, Harper
& Co.
.Vaporex
Rous se 11, B 1 rdsa II
& Wa rd (RBW)
Description
Condenser. Condensate Is returned to
underground storage tank.
Adsorber. Replaceable carbon canisters;
OPW pump nozzles are used. SYStem being
tested at San Diego County Operational
Center, where county vehicles are serviced.
PAC has funded modlficaticn of the Center.
Nozzle only. See Fig. 3. This is the only
commercially available n02z1e at present.
DefinItion of system is presently vague.
Technical description has not yet been
dIsclosed. ShIelds, Harper & Co. will
own and lease out their r..covery equip-
ment. They will also own 311 gasol ine
recovered.
System reduces the volume of entrained air
mixed with vapor and retu'ns recovered
gasoline to storage tank. (Major restraint
on this type system is that recovered gas-
01 Ine must be at same tem~erature as gas-
01 ine In storage tanks.) A prototype is
being used by Chula Vista Vel low Cab Co.
Adsorber. Parallel carbon canisters. One
canister Is heated and backflu~hed by vacuum
to the storage tank while the other remains
In operation. Recovered vapor is bubbled
thru 1 iquid ga501 ine in storage tank. System
Includes a nozzle Jesign (see Fig. 4).
Approximr.!te
Capital Co:>t'~
$5000
$65
(Price wi 11
probab I y be
reduced to $35
if/vJhen nozzles
are produccd in
large quantities)
Not determined
$1500
$2300
'~Does not Include Installation and peripheral harri.,are (piping, valves, etc.)
costs are volatlle.
Status
Available
Developmental
Ava flabl e
Unknown
Oeveiopi'lental
Prototype
avaiiab1e
Developmental
These estimated
-------
.."
I
co
J06~ 3'
OPvJ /./~ Z'-Z.t.£!:
-------
~ ~.~ !/'PO
~.6/ _1/ -;"/~--'~---~ ..- --v"'~' /1
~".. ./
- 7 .- ---- -- --
.~~
/C. ,;
....-:;/".,
I~':';
,,(; ;:./
.."
I
\0
~
,.~: II-
t
6 t-- ~ o t,\ i..i ~
~~:..----
PI&' 4
./?gt() #~zz.I..G
l>es/6A1
-------
Attachment A:
Example Calculation of Pressure Increase in Underground
Storage Tank During Filling (McEntre)
Estimate (considered conservative):
Temperature of gasoline in truck = 90~F
Temperature of gasoline storage tank = 700F
Assume:
2000 gal. gasoline in truck
400 gal. gasoline initially ~n storage tonk
Th.us:
Temperature of mixture after fillinQ = o7oF
Initial t~nk pressure (before filling):
gasoline vapOi: 6.8 PSIA
tank air: 7.9
tota I :
14.7 PSIA
Tank pl~~~UIC ~~~cr fil~ing:
to ta 1 :
9.4 PSIA
7.9
17.3 PSIA
gasol ine vapor:
tank air:
Increase in vapor pressure =
17.3 - 14.7 = 2.6 PSIA
F-10
-------
GtJllnftJ nr-" StHll] j'C U Bl
::: In
'II :d
~ \.. ,'I j I! .
.' II ,,:," '. ~. ,.."':;:-:~;;;~je;1 i;
"Y C1D"'~'.1 1 'I"-"}
': .': ;;,'.}~:~~~l=~
't'.':~ ::~~'i:~~.",-
"' r I":' . ,'" :! 1'''
..~, "... '.' .'..-, "'"
... . "n .J..~. ~.~~ ~'. . .
-.
DEP.-\nT:-'IE~T OF PlJBLLC HEALTH
J B ASKEW. M. D.. M P H
O:AEC. TC'R OF PWBL:C H Eo\.L """
:.,on F'AC!F"'iC HI(.HWAY
SA"J .t)!E~jO. CA £12~OI
"fFLEPJ-iO'JE" 238 7711
Gentlemp.n:
This office recently mailed a package of material (letter, fo:::-ms, etc.) regs.rd-
ing the requirenents of Rules 61 and 63 of the County of Se.n Diego Air Pc11utic.:1
Control District to all k..'10"r."Il affected p?rties. In response to ttat correq)~!"1-
dence, you nls.de a verbal or "rri tten requp.fJt to the District that you be ,!?ro'liG.2c.
with the n~~es of individuals or firms that have c~ntacted the Distric~ ~nQ~C~~-
ins th~t they have an interest in or capability for the development of equip~ent
that !:lay be required to co;nply -with Rules 61 and 63.
The !Jis-::::-ict is not routinely issuing such a listing.; hO;'Tever, in an effort to
assist i~ a:1Y reasonable ~ay possible, the District is providing such a listing
to you and any others ,.;ho have made specific requests. Please find the sub.ject
listir.g enclosed.
In providinB this inforDation, the ~istrict ~nshes to nake several poin~s ~lear.
The list includes in alphabetical order all persons or co~p~1ies that h~ve spec-
ificall;y' indicC'.ted to the District that tney. are interested in devel=ping or
e.ssistir.g in the deve':opJ:lent of equi:pr.lent that might be required.to n:.eet R:.Ll~::;
61 and 63. The District does not consider the listing complete, since in all
likelihood ~here are others who have not contacted the District 1;ho have a similar
interest or capability; therefore, the District intends to augment the lis~ to in-
clude ~~yone who requests t~at they be included. Finally, the District expressly
disavOI.rs aI,y advance endorse!:lent of any individual or ccnpany on the list, or of
any equip;;~nt or methodology that they may reco~end; the District ~~ll eval~ate
equip~ent and/or syst~ only when incorporated in specific Compliance Schedules
or in app1icat~ons for Authority t~ Construct. .\ny questions 'r~garding this ~tter
should be directed to me or to Hr. John .Farnsvrorth.
CLG:mj
Attachmert
Sincerely, t1-
ClaJ- -t pa~~&t.+~
CLARK L. GAULDING, C:ITEF '7
Air Po~ution Control Service
&rt'i~g all 01 fbe ill£wpur",..d "lid IIl/iIlCUrpIJra/I! arcas 01 Sail Diego County
F-ll
-------
.,#J?7fl('I-/MG"Vr OJ t'dl£lrrv.
IIITJIVIDU;'lJ CR lo'IP.:.:3 HDIC;.'ln;.G HT.::..:.tE:S'l' Il1 OR C,\.PABILITY lo'OR DhV3LCE.:l;i;T OI!' ::QUIPj.::;t;T FOR
Rulee 61 c.nd 63 CO:~l)lic.ncc
County of San Dic~o Air ?ollution Control DiDtrict
The follo',",in:; li:5tinC hc.s been mo.cie av:..ilable by the San DieGo County Air l'ollu-
tiol1 Control District on request and as sp~cifically qualified by the ~istrict
letter cia tad The listi:1(; has no meaning except tha.t expressly 8tatcd
in that letter.
r/
L Aeroquip Corporatio:1
Bo.rco lJi vioj.on
BarrinGton, Illinob
60010
Hazlett, Wesley W.
1089 Indi~~ Village Road
Pebble Beach, CA 93953
x
Atlantic ~nGineerinG' Inc.
2275 ;i. Lincoln J~ve.
j"n;:;lle~, c;. 92001
6170 Thornton ,~ve.
ik.i:J.r::, C,;' S45GO
(Attn: Jol~ c. Taylor)
Kenton Equip1Jent Company
3200 Kurtz Street
San Diego, CA 92110
Iiacl1ant, ;"ri tz A., Inc.
3475 E. Street
San Diego, CA 92102
r.- [The Bendix Corpomtion
oJ l Bendix Center
Southi'ield, I.:ichi,;;an 48075
North -~eric~" Carbon, Inc.
Box 19737
ColUJJlbus, Ohio 43219
Calgon Corpor~tion
1"<
Pi tt~G".lrLJh ..\~,. -:-::,.,..:" -::~~
':::.:-'::>on Di v.
Ocean Resources, Inc.
15.. .1'.0. .Pox 2244
(1) La JOlla, CA 92037
P;O. Box 1346
Fittsbur,)l, PA
15230
Coast Equip~ent Exchan8e
6411 I,:aple Street
l:est.ail1ster, C:~ 92633
Par}:er-P..£lnnifin
Puelin0 Division
18321 Jc.:...bol'ce Blvd.
Irvine, CA. 92664
Cyrus, I.:r. John E.
Jor~ ~. Cyruz Co.
}'.O. Box 10161
San Die~o, C~ 92119
Hheelll Superior, .Div. of :-wee;a I.lf€;. Co.
6155 SOUtil ~stern Ave.
Los Angeles, C~ 90040
')(
Dover Corporation/0:~ Div.
2735 Colerain Ave.
Cincir~ti, Ohio 45225
x
~hields, Harper ~ Co.
5107 Broadl'h..y
Oakland, CA 94611
SilCO Wtleaton, Inc.
Ch&uberlain Blvd.
Conneaut, Ohio 44030
Tokheim Corporation
1600 Wabash Ave.
Ft. Wayne, Ind. 46c.Ol
Gulf Lnviroru~ental Syst~s
P.O. Box 608
San Diego, CA 92112
x
Vaporex
900 Orange Fair Lane
Anaheim, CA 92601
(Attn: B.B. ~:urray)
Hamilton Constr~ctors
904 "":e:;t::.in8ter l,ve.
.L.l.hcmbra, CA 91L03
Vigeins Connectors, Div. of ~i;gins
500 ~ri~w~ 3treet
Los JU1~eles, CA 90022
)( Rvs;wc.c I (J'/~bJA(( J ,,~o tVNIJ (,I( e 9' tv)
16 t1UO w. 9 AUti; rD )S""'" 6t1O
JOvY'UFJG"'b I ;Wit.", ~f1"7~
"JJ~/: -<.. P ;1,1.1',..,£1:11'
9/25/72 (Revised)
F-12
-------
I:~JlU J lU []f. fjtul ']] 1'e U. DJ
" iI...
". IiI.
,"
"'
",.: .tlf
"
I .' ~ . . -
:: ~: ;,: ::,. '\:.i.'J ~F:~::~~ i ~/ ::1: ~ ~ ~.:.';.~:. '.:1 ~~~'IK"\T OF PUBLIC HEALTH
J B ASKEW. MD. M P. H
DIRf.c~oR C1F P'...tH...1C HlALTh
1~'QO FA(.JFIC HiGHWAY
$Af~ nlEGO CA 92101
l'FlEPHONE 23~.7-; \
On January 17, 1972, the Board of Supervisors of the COQ~ty of San
Die30, acting as Directors of the San Diego COlm".;y Jdr Pollution
Control District, passed ti'lO neH rQles, 61 and 63, '.,hich ;-rill e.ffect
all service ste.:tions c.':""id associated support facilities in the County.
Thes e t\'iO. rUles, ,';hich c.re reproduced in :Cull a:J.d enclosed a.long ,.;'2 t!1
Rttles "I n :"1....,(1 40 "rp.le.tinc; to pe::.--r.1it~ f..i~d r~~z ~ affect. tbc sto!'c..r~e and
transfer of Gasoline f1'o::1 bulle supplier to ulti;-1~te CO;lSQ':1.er.
These Rules establish a co~liance date of Jc.nuc-17 1, 1974, 011 faci1-
i ties that are in eyJ.stence or are being constructed 0~1 June 30, 1972,
(facilities constructed. after June 30, 1972, !:".ust cc:~,=,ly at ste.~,t of
operatioa). In order to satisfy the Air Pollutio:J. CO!'!.tl'ol District
that the Rules ,nll be Det by Jan~ry 1, 1974, a compliance sc!1eQ~le
shmring T:J.ethods to be used in meeting the requil'e.~e.nts, and critical
dates in tte ir~le~entation of these methods, Dust be sub::titted by
July 1, 1972. If this compliance schedule is not sub~itted by JlUY
1, the require~ents of the Rules beco~e effective iD':1.cdiately; if the
submitted co~pliance schedule is not adhered to, the Rules become
effective on the date the schedule is not a~~ered to.
Tnus, the compliance sched11le must be carefully considered before sub-
mission and fol101'lcd after subr.rlssion; a Rule 61-63 cor:~9liance schedule
form is enclosed for ;lour use in submittins the schedule. HOHever, sub-
mission of this form \-n thout sU:9portin{; explc.nc.tion ~-.'ill not constitute
a.n .acccpte.ble co~!!pliance schedule in most cases. The explanations re-
quired in items Ho. 1,2, and 3 of the fOI'1:l should be augmented \d th
schematic dro.':lings and diae;ro.ms, and the ID3.jo1' elements of the control
syst~n should be desc~ibeQ in sufficient detail to provide a clear Wl-
dersta.nding of the basic technical concepts involved.
SerL"lng "/1 of "fIN incor/Jllr"fcd "lid IIlIincor/JlJrale.l are"s of S"n Diego Curmly
F-13
-------
A consolidated schedule m~r be acceptable in certain cases ~dth prior
approval from the Di strict: an e::ample '-Tould be one mmer contemplating
the SOlne cor:-ecti ve r.leasures for scveral sir.Li.lar facilities at the smne or
different locatio~s. To resolve thc dctaUs of such a schedule, or MY other
questions reco.rdinr: thj.s matter, plcase contact the Senior Air Pollution
Engineer, ).2.-. John K. F~ns'iorth, or 1;1C, at 239-7711, extension 631. Your
cooperation in this no.ttcr ,Till be a:9preciatcd.
The instl~ctions contD.i,-eu in this letter pertaining to compliance schedules
do not ap:ply t.o CD.soli::c storc£c ta..'1ks and C2.soline transferrinc; equipment
at locatio:1s ,'~~1Cre t]:c c
-------
RULE 61. S';'O:IMJE Of.' VOLA1'II.E onOft.I:IC co:,!rou~ID:;.
(n) A pe,.~on $h::ll, not hold or "torc "n;/ volat11c 01'{;an1c
cOr.'!pound h~vln~ 3 vapor ~r("C3urc 0.1' 1.5 pounds pc-r s'1u:\l'c
inch a~~olutc or ~rcnlcr. ullder actual ~tora~c condltlon3.
10 any st~tlo:\~r:., tCl~k. rCf;crvoir Cl" other cO:1talncr of
more ltl~n 2~~ callons cnp~clty unle~3 ~UC!l tal'~. re~crvolr
c.r othc1' t:nnt:-:1ncr 15 a prf>ssl'::'c t~T1~-{ !1Gir.~~ln':'n~J ::l~
all tl:.:f;~. hlol')dIU; prc5:;'~rcs !iufflclcnt. to (Jl"cvcnt.. hydr-o
c.J::-ucn v;lr,or tJf" f.i\:; l03~ to the a1..::1osphcJ'c J or 1:.; clcslc;ncd
and erJl;liH"\I~tI \Ilth one of the foller,line; V.1pOl' lo!';s cOlllrol
devices Gr SY3tc~~. pr'opcrly In~tallcd. 1n food woz'klrlg
order, and 1n ~pcr.1t1on~:
(l) A fJoa~lnt; roof, co,,"1sanr, of a pontoon
typ~ or double dcc~ type ~oor. or lr1tcl~31 ;lo~tlnC
co\'c~. rc~l.i.lI?, on the 5urface of the liquid contc:nts
bnd cqulppc~ ~1th 3 clo~urc ~ca1. or scal=. to clo~c
tJl(' ~paC"e bet\'I'e:cn th~ roof ccJr.;c and t~nk \\'all. (This
cont.rol c<)ulolncnt 1~ n:Jt c.nrrO;1l'llltc if tr.c volatile
or~Jnlc conoound h~~ a v~;'or prc~~urc of 11 p~UllJ~
per .::;~u;).rc inch n::.:;o]wtc or Cl'eater under ;)ctu;:tl
ri tor<1~c cond! tl on5 . ) A]] t~mk ri1\1:~l n~ a:1d :;r\;;"lp11ng
dc~lcr's ~h311 be ~a~-&l~~~t cx~cpt wilen cau31nR or
san1plln~ 1~ l~~ln~ place.
RULE 63. VOLJ\TII.£ OIlGA:UC CO:-;POU::O l.'JJ\DIJIC FACIJ.ITIES.
(~) A per.on "hall noL load or ~llow thc 10ad1n~ of volatile
orcan1c cO~I~ound~ havln~ a vonor pre:;~ure or l.~ pounds
per ~~unr~ inci) absolute or ereater, undc)' actual ~tornc~
cond1t1o~5 1nto ony LEI'}:' truc~ 0:' traile~, ral1ro~d tank
car, locomotivc, a1rc~nrt. st~tlonary otora~c t:Jn~ ~ltJ1
a capncity of ~orc t)lnn 2~O ~~llon~. or bont or ~oLor
vehicle fuel ~:lnk h;..vln::; a c;ln:lcl t.y rr'c;'\lcr tlwn 5 r.t111ons
from any .'o:I.(.I1nr; ra,:l)~ty unlc=:; ~u~h tun:': or 10i:ulinr.
facility 15 ~qul~'!)cJ \illh & vapor collccllo~ ~n~ (!1:;po5al
~y~tc!n. or !~~ C1ulv~1rnt. ~rcncl"l~ !n~t:lllcd. In ~cod
workin~ ordcl'. ~1n~ in ~~~I"~llon. L('I:!ulr~: :;hal1 be ::J.cco!,'p113hed
in .3uch a J:}:l~\:1cr that. ':111 dl:;f']accd v.inOI. ilnd air \/111
be ve:otc"u 0111y \.0 the v~!')or dl :;!10:i.:l l :'Y5lcr.'l. /I. r.;(!~n:l
.r;hall be P:-O",j deo to ;.-r~vent !lquld o~:"::1~lc ~O'1!)o:::;d draln~!:e
from thc lo"dlnr; devlce "ben It 1" re,,,o\'cd from the hatch,
or to acco:;'pll:Oh CO;II~}ctc dr:l1nystem.
"T1
I
......
~
(2) A varor collect10n ~n~ d1"p~.al "y:tc~,
con~1::>t1nf; oC n v~por r,at..!!cr1nr; 51~tC~11 c.:l~~~lc of
co1lcc\.lne; t~IO vol~tl1c orr.Dnt~ co::.:)OL:nu V.1eors and
tn~cs dl~ch~rc~~. ~:;~ n v~po~ d!:~c~~l ~y::~~ ~~
prcscrlbed I~ ~ulc 61. All t~nk rau~inr; hnd GA~r11n&
jcvlces :3hall be ~as-tl~ht except ~!jlcn gauGinG or
aamrl1n& Is tak1n{; place.
(3) Othcr equlpnent of at lea"t cqual efficiency
to tne cqu'rm:nt oocclflcd 1n (1) and (2) above,
provided plano for 5ueh cqu1pmcot arc "ubm1tLed to
nr,~ ~pprovcd bY thc A1r Pollt:tion C.ontrol Officer.
(2) A vapor ha~dI1~e system wh1ch dircct~ all
vapor::> to a ruel ~o~ ~y:;tcm.
(3) Othcr equlrmcnt of-at lca.t 90 pcr ccnt
eff1clency, provldcd plans for such equ1pment are
.ubm1tted to and ap?roved by the A1r Pellu~10n Cont~ol
Officcr.
Intermediate storDee vczse1s m4Y be u5ed prior to
dispo::>al of v~por~ under 1. 2. or 3. ~bove, provided they
are 50 dC51Gncd as to prevent relca~c of vapors at any
time durInr.; U:1C.
Prensurc ta~l," rC'1ul,.ed by .h1" rule may bc cquipp"d ,-11th
one-w~y ;)\.;tQ:;'Iiltlc P~C~~\W~ re]lef valves necc55'::u.y to
mcct an.' othcr requ1rc;c"n~s of 1:111,
(b) Not"ILh.tandl~~ suhdlv1.ion (a) of th1. Rule,
a per30:1 holulnr; 01' storlni~ tile above' ::;pccifIcd conpounds
in n ~tot1onal'Y tank. rc~ervo!r or other container oj'
'nOr'e th;.J1 25G ('Qllo.,5 cilpt1cily Hhic!l \'.,1<:; (:!i..lle!' In existence
on June ]0, 1912 or 1n thc proce.s of ~eln~ 1n"~alled
on ~:il11 June 30. 1972 on the p~'CI:LisC3 .{,llcr" thcy \'1crc
to be u~ed, 5!.all not be subject to the pl'ovisloll~ of
s~ud1vi.1c" (a) of thb Hulc un~ll Janu",'y 1, 191~, provided,
h.:>NcvC'r. tnat .such pcr:;on 1::; her'C'~y required to file 00
or uefore July 1, 19'/2 a co"pl1~!1CC "cheaulc "ah t:,e
A1r Pollut10n Control Off1cer ohc~ln~ hu-/ thc per.on Nill
brine tJ1:; operatIon::. into compli;1:1CC \.;1th subd1vl~lon
(a) of Lbis Rulc on or before "a1d J"nu~ry 1, 191~. Pal1ure
to file such coc,pl1ance "ehedu1c or ab1de hy it. teMo;5
~h"ll ren,lcr the prohibition conta1~ed 1n subdlv1"10n
(a) Qf th1s Rulc l~.~dl~tely ~Dnllcablc to ouch oerson
on July 1, 1972.or on the {btc' of said pcr:.oon'a f.:ll1Ul'f.!
to abide by said compliance :achcdulc.
(b) Notu1thsta~d1ne subdiv1sion (a) of thl. Rule,
a person loadin~ or allowln~ the loedin~ or the above
npcc1flt":d CO:I:DOUI}~5 1n tile 3bovc spcc.!.ficd ::.torJ.Cc vcssels-
fl'o:n the al,ovc :;()(.cl1'icJ lO;J.tJin~ facl11tlc::>. citl1cr- of
which were 1n cxl~tenc~ OIl Jun~ 30, 1972 or 1n t~)e process
of bc!nt: Inst<:!llcG for u~e on ::;aid Ju~~ 30. 1972. shall
not be sulJJc.ct to UtC provi51ons or ::;ubuivls10:1 (a) of
t~I~S Hulc until J<1nl;::Jry 1. 19711. provided, ho:...ever. that
:;uch rer:JO:l 1:. hereby rcqul:--cd to file on or before July
1. 1972, a comp1lilncc ~chccule \'11th t!lC f\lr Pollut1on
Conlrol Orf1 cCr' shm':ln:: nO~1 the p~l"30n \"li11 brln{i his
operation into cor:~ll~ncc \/ll~ ~~bd:v~$lon (a) of thi~
Rulc on or ucfore J~nUDry 1, 197Q. Fa1lurc to file such
cOI:'pllancc sc:~c:c!ulc or abide by it:; terms shall render
thc prohih1tlo~ contained 1n subdivis10n (a) of this R..le
IIro"ed1atcly applicable to .uch pcr50n on July I, 1972
or on Lhc daLe of "aid per30n's failure to nblde by .ald
co~pliancc .chcdule.
- Rules and RcGUl/).tion, Cou-'1t:r of San Diego
P.ir Pollution Control District; Adopted January 17, 1972
-------
nULE 10. PElU,H1'S nEQUIH:,V. (a) At;','il,.IHTY TO CO:~S':i'RUCT-
Any ~cr50n bul1dln~, eree~ln~, alterin~ or rppl~eJnc eny
artle:lc, r,\~chlnc, c(~u1pr~cnt or ot:H~r conLJ't v:~ncc, the
u::;c of \-i~lch IJ1J.Y C;!U5C the 1S:-iUHIlCl' of a1]' cant.:",! n:"lntr.
or lhe usc of \.;hlch may e1l.l.ln.\L...: or r~Juce or ~or.1,..rol
th~ Issuat1CC of air cont;\I~ln:lnt~) shall flrzt olJta1n wr1tte"
authorlzal1on for ::;UC~1 conslructlo11 from the Air rollutl~n
Control Orfjcer._. f\ ~("n:I:-:l~(, '\IJtr.o!'1to/ to C(Jr):.ll'u('t \-11)1
b~ r('ouir~d f0r t'~(:~1 i'i{'cc ()1' cnutnrr'nt. .......r..:0CIlr.t 1 'T'~J
By:;t.C'i;"l~ Pl'OCC3$ line 01" [lroC(':::i5 lli.l\. i;rO\~\lct':J, i1 I'rll,JlJct
or pcrfor"l.:I 3. 5crl/1cc 1nr:\t"'nrndcntlv of otLer cl}~:;H~nt
prD~:l!""t. 1.1nc5.. :;'I;.tl~r.~:ii. ')rocl',;.~nc3 or flroce::J~C'~~
;,l..;th()ritv to l:ont:-uct f,1~;dl r('~.1:11n in e~'rL'ct until tl~c
[\1..-'1':"":11.. to o~!'r:llC t:H.' c(:'llrv'l'Ilt 1'01' \::~1c~1 ti,t" :1~1r>11.c;It.10f1
~f':lcd 15 r:r:.r.tC'u or ccnlcd Ot' the ?Dr"licat.i0n 1$ c<\nc:clled.
(r) PEfII.:l'f TO ~ELr, OR n:,;;T. ill Any rer30n who
8e~la or rent9 to ~~~t~/r2~._oth~, perRon an incinerat=r which
m~y UC U~l'd to oiGno:;c oC cOI:,hu:n..ll11c J.cfu:;c by hUI'II.!.')~
wit.hin S~1I1 Plcf"'o County and ~':i1"ch Inc1nCl'3tor 1:. ~\,) .'1-
U5~~ CXC1\f~;1V,.ry 1n connecl:1(11) Hith an:! ~ll'UCtuI'C, daoignodtttt"
nnd u:;cd l!xc)u31vcly a~ a (h:c.:i11.iY~ for no~ J:\Ol'C \.Ihin ~OUI.
faml1ie:;, :;11'111 rl,""t (,bLidli a pe,'"lIt f,'('''' ti\C :.lr PolJution
Control Cfflce,' to :;elJ or I"erot :;ue!1 ~r.cl:J~r':1tor"
"
I
...oJ
C'\
(t.) PCr.:nT TO OPERATE. IJpfore any article, machine,
equ1pJOe:1t or other cont,-iva:1ce dese,'l~ed i:1 Hule 10 (Authol-1ty
to Construct) ~~y be oncratcd or u~cd, a ~rittcn peI':~lt
shall be obtalr.pd from the Air Pollutlor. Control Officer.
Ho pel'l:!i t to Opcl':1te or use sh?ll be c;r',)r,tcd ei ~):er by
~he A~r Pollution Contl'ol Officer or the Jlc::lrinG Board
for any article, r.~:J.:::hlr.e, cqulo:.1cnt or ccntrlvf1ncG dc~crlbcd
1r. Ie..hcI'c In .thczc rtulcs an1 Hcr;ulatlon:.. A ~"'f'I;"trilt~
f\~r;1tt to o~'.("rj1~(' .,.,111 bC ["('null'C'c for f'-,l(,~~ of" cQu1r.in,:,nt.
~llICL 1:1.::', :-;"~-,~:':-:, ~:-;o~C':-,:; l1r:c OP rr:r:(';.~ th~lt p~,)cluc('~
a ~rol!t:c1,.. nr ~~:-,rt1r'n.-; :~ :,r'1""/,] Cf' 1n:~crJ('I"(:('fltlLQf ot~!(ll.
CClulpo-:C'r.t. prorJu.:-' l' nC's 1 svstCI71~. T1roce:~:~ lincz or Ol'OCC5SCS.
JZ1~n(,J':',o~..1l~r('nt~ It) imy {Jth~~"~!.!
fl'r )t".:,. l.~\;!n ("1(' 'fI~;\r ~:n'l :I~.t icl(:..J l'nr.~JtrH:, ('(IIJ!{"'\I'lCnt.
01' ('Il !I"r' (,I)LI~'J"':II'" I!r.:' r'/r:!",t.I_~I~~~j~Lf__I:~:.!.:.!.:....Li.
~~T'I"":I ~',""."r:'. L": /:',1(' 11. l:lP lJ;::!.:.-9J~I.L!'l
~~I: \;:,,~~; 1 ;.::1' :.}.~.": ';:~ ~'~ ,":'j' r;~: ~'(,' ':1 ~ ~:,'~ ;:,~~~l~_:~n ~~~~, .t~ ~;e
~I~:,"~:;;~,;: ,,~!::i; 1 ~'~~~>:~~;,';~~~~ ~:'~~~:::t:t:~.
li-iJ_l~:.r::,;.D-'j~~.l:j'-L:]-~~ :\.'r"',:t. to ;-(":1\ for' ;:1',' :.~JI',l
~~i1;1 ~ ~,t. ~:h~,rl'~ ;'1) :I~:~ i~1 ( '~~~: ::rl'~:: ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~i~:~'JI \~~,;~T"~ J
cr,t:ir'",l'IIL Jr' C()J\t!'ivar,cc~ r".!nLC'j bv fI("!l<1 pcr:-~cn.
(r;) CO;n'I\OL EQ,-IIP;1;:m', i;o~h!nG In this rule sh111
be eonstl.ued to au~horize ~he Con~,'ol Officel' to reQul1'c
the US" of lJae;-,lne:'y, tieviees, 0'. eQulpil.ent of a p;)r't!eullir
type 01'" dcslr;n. ~r t~lC rC'~u:r~~ emi~:;lor. :i~ancJard r.i:i:l
be met by m;)chincrj', d"vlec, eQu1p:"ent, product, or pr.OCClSlS
change ot!u:.rw.1se ava1.1able.
(c) POST;IIG 01' P!::r.;UT TO OPEHATE. A person who
has been c;r'anted under lIule 20 a pel'wl t to operate any
article, }!1;'1ctdnc. equlp;n('nl. or other cO:1trlvDncc uCf,crlbed
1n Rule 10(1.», ~r~al1 [lJ';nl] :-~rrlx :>uch pCl';.i1t to OpCJ.~1tC,
IIn approved facslnl1e, or other approved Idcnt1flca~lon
bearinG the per",i t :1l1mber "pon the nrt1 ele. r.lae!11 ne, equlpment.
or other ccn:riv~1cc 10 sueJl ~ m~~ncr a~ to be clearly
visible and :1ccecs1olc. In the event that the article,
machIne; cqulp::w:lt ~ or otter contrivance 1:; so cor.~tructcd
or operated Lho: the pernlt ~o oper2te ean:1ot be so placed,
thc permlt to opera.te sl.all oe mounter.! 50 :.5 ~o be el"arly
vislble 1n a:1 accessible place wi~h1n 25 feet of the artlcle.
~3chlne. cqu1pmcn~. or ot})cr contr1vance, or maintained
readily avallable at all tlmes on the operatln& pre~lselS.
(d) ALTEHA1'IOII OF PERIU'r. A person shall not ~lllfull)'
deface, alter, forr;e, cour.terl'e1t, or falslfy e.ny. pern1t
is:;ucd under thc:;e Rules .mll Heculat10ns.
RULE 40. 1Y.J~f1 ~PPLIC~TION FEES. Every applicant,
except any State or local qovcrnmental agency or public
diotrict, tor an authority to construct ali'llor a permit
to operate any articlc, m.:achinc, equipment, or other ,:ol\trivance.
8h~,lJJ~IV n-f111n('" fee n:- ~'IO.OO for £':lch ;J":111r.at1o~
flif.fL \;I}(~n'-' :;-1:)'";11": ;~pnlic:ltlon 15 ;;IJIJ,:11tlt'd fOI' bf)~~
;;-;'~II'IHII'\I.Y t.o (:,,:,:;t:'uct arU:1 "I~rr:lt to 0:H.'j':1LC. tn""
O]1Tli~ f't'C' :;j);'"\l~ hi~ ~J:'1.0~. ::IiCl.~ an al\rl:ca:..iO:1 1::0 filcd
for a pen:1U: \:0 (J!1CI';:,tC an.,! ar\:lcle, r.,;:lC;hlnc p CQulp;ncnc
or o\..hcr contrivance by rC~.I:;O:1 or t~~nn5rcr froJ:\ (,nC' person
to another, ;,nd '.,here a per~,1t ~o opera~e had previously
becn C:1.antcd uno"". Rul e 10 and no ..1 tel'ation, addl :lon
or transfer of loe,-,tion ha:; been m;)de, the "pplicant 3hall
pay a $10_00 f111r.e fee.
Where a :;lnp,le perm1t to operate has been eranted
under Rule 10. nnd whcre the Air Pollution Control Officer
would havc lssued separate or revlsed permits for each
permit unit Included lfi tne orir.lnal application, the
A1r Pollution Control Officer ~;)y 1ssue such separate
or rcvi::ed per"l ts ~/l tl:out fces,
A rc~up:;t for d"pllcate permit to operate shall be
made 1n writinr. to the Air Pollutlon Control Officer w1th1n
10 days after the destruction, loss or defacement of a
permit to operate, A fc~ of $5.00 shall be c~arbed, excepC
to any state or local qovernment ~~~;t~~;~t~J agency or
public distr1ct, for ies~in9 a G~plicat. p.~1t to operate.
-------
AJ T77'J elf,u 6X/ ~
~/ eCWT7i()
COUNTY or SAN DIEGO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
RULE 61.63 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
INSTqUCTIONS: THIS roqM IS TO
A SINGLE COPY or EACri rOqM AND
MULTIPLE UNITS or EQUIPMCNT oq
BE COMPLETED BY THE O~NER rOR EACH rACILITY SUBJECT TO RULES 61. AND/OR 63.
ANY ATTAC~MENTS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED. A COHBINED COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE ~OR
rACILITIES AT MORE THAN ONE LOC~TION MAY DE ACCErTABLE ~ROVIDED THE APCD
HAS GRANTED PRIOR APPROVAL rOR SUCH A COMBINED SCHEDULE.
THIS rORM IS INTENDED AS A GUIDE; IT SriOULD BE AUGMENTED ~ITH ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTIONS,
~ROVID" A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING or THE BASIC TECHNICAL CONCEPTS O~ THE COMFLIANCE FLAN.
STORAGE OR DELIVERY FACILITY NA~C
DRAWINGS, ETC.. TO
LOCATION
O~NER (NAME)
TIT. t
ADDRESS O~ OWNER
TELEPHONE
NUMDER Or STORAGE TANKS
51 ZE
Nu~eER O~ DELIVERY NOZZLES OR LOADING ARMS
1.
PROPOSED METHOD ~OR CONH:OL O~ VEI,T I NG rROM STORAGE TANKS (RULE 61).
o PRESSURE TANK METfIOD 0 VAPOR HANDL I t!G SYSTEM
o OTHER
EX:>LA l:i
2.
PROPOSED METriOD rOR CONTROL Or DISPLACED VOLUME ~ROM STAT'ICINARY STORAGC TMms DURING LOADING or nUID
INTO SUCH TANKS (~ULE 63).
o ABSORBER OR rC-""E"SAT I O~.I SYSTEH
o VAFOR "'.'.~'~~ I fiG SYSTEM
o OTHER
EXPLAI N
3.
PROPOSED '.ET"OD rOR CONTROL or D I SFLACED VOLUME rROM TANKS or NON~ST AT 10NARY SOURCES DUR I 'j" DeL! VERY
or rLUID INTO SUCH TANKS (RULE 63).
c:J AeSORBER OR CONDENSATION SYSTEM
c=J VAFOR HANOLING SYSTEM
o OTHER
EXPLAIN
4.
SCHEDULE DATES
ITEMS 1,2. ~ 3
ITEM 1.
rOR SUBMI$SION Or ApPLICATIONS rOR AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT AND PERMIT To OPERATE ~OR
ITEM 2.
ITEM 3.
5.
SCHEDULE DATES roP' START or CONSTRUCTION OR INSTALLATION rOR ITEMS 1.2.3.
ITEM 1. ITEM 2. ITEM 3.
6.
SCHEDUL E DATES rOR COMPLET I ON Or CONSTRUCT ION OR I NSTALLAT I ON AND READI NESS ~OR EVALUAT I ON rOR
PERMITS TO OPtRATE rOR ITEMS 1,2.3.
ITEIo4 1.
ITEIo4 2.
ITEIo4 3.
SIGNATURE O~ OWNER
(ORIGINATOR SHOULD MAKE COPT rOR HIS RECORDS.)
DATE
Do NOT WRITE BELO~ (APCD USE ONLY)
COMPLIANCE SCHEDU~[:
REV I EWED BY
ACT I ON
DATE
PROGRESS REPORT DUE DATES
APCD 8
6/72 2M
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF ~J~LIC HEALTH
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
F-17
-------
APPENDIX G
AIR QUALITY FORECASTING SIMULATION MODEL
The state of air quality is influenced by a large number of complex
relationships and interactions. Any attempt to forecast future air
quality must account for these factors.
One method for addressing this
problem in a systematic framework involves the use of a computer simu-
1ation model.
Here, the various relationships affecting air quality
(such as transportation controls) can be assessed quantitatively.
The model developed for this study permits the forecasting of future
air quality of each Set II pollutant for the 1975 through 1980 period.
Basically, the model consists of the following four elements.
o Air Quality Model (RBM)
o Vehicle Population Model (VPM)
o Vehicle Emissions Model (VEM)
o Strategy Assessment Model
Each describes a different facet in the process used to forecast
future air quality.
Figure 1-G presents a schematic overview of the
composition and relationships between the various model elements.
Since
the model was developed for evaluating the merit of various transportation
control measures, it quite naturally focuses with more detail on the
mobile as opposed to stationary sources. The model is sufficiently
flexible in design, however, to permit a more elaborate description of
G-1
-------
G)
I
N
............................................
. .
. .
. . ......."._r.-m8 .
. II _0U8_-.n: .
. .
. .
. 0
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
o .
. .
. .
. '..,9'.- (1.11) .
. , ~~~I::IIU8' 1(K!tl[.-:!tIlll.U-.
. 1,.1 . , '* J 1lM5 IU 'I 1"1.111 II . I-nUl. It.U1I -...110. .
. DJ~nIIUTICIft ...
. : ::~: ~n~: ,-, .
. .
. .
. .
. ~(=~[U ~11. .
. 1',J-''''I,J-1 ~ .
. ".J. 'UIS J -:.~; 'U'.M. .
. .
: '.J.~~:',~~,I,;<-'" VPM:
. 'f£IlIW-...AI/II8- .
. .
. .
,....................... ..................
...............................................~
. 0
. 'c-iiTtOllnltll.",n'O'!""'j ~'-1111.~'~ .
. ~("ft.. i : .
. { . t [ D II ~ . II >rlleu KILU IU'1ltO 1""1 I .
: ft '-, t ,. " I"-n JI II IVIUt.t?tiD I :
: ...;~: ::~:=~:;~:~:f:~I::-;:~: L L- :
. :;-: ~.;~z.t~;:~~~~~~;\.:~~~ .
o ',. ,..u_~" ,~,~ .
: \ (.",u" OJ:
: V E M 1 : :~~~::.::~ :
. "~""DIST"IUIlOil .
. q"ltUOIISU__l --.-- ---~- .
. .
. .
. .
. .
...............................................
Table l-G.
.......................................
. .
. .
-:,:" ~:';:-::h~~~~J
M \IIU"I""'OI
. ~ ~~I~ -~.~..~~n .
: "',J' -7~) - .0
~rd"vT .
. .
. .,',' =::S':-:~ .
. " . ~~;~::fOlj!"AU8t[ .
. ',j [A1(5Oh1111[.('1011 .
o J .
. -. ...... MUj ~:'ru-m:.l~ .
o I ~:uo~::::""..~".
. S(IUI(! J .
. I -_»:~ ~~II.IUII~ .
: [:::~.+t, :
. tt'~TIII.11.U.PTOII' .
~ C~'~--=J ~
. tOI'IIIl u.l:11'UIIOIh .
. WOIDIJlIIIoI. 1: 111.J Ij .
. tj'I"'-.." -Ii L-- .
. t ~ U,.J ~J .
: '.'_'"'M"~".U"~' RBM:
. 0
o .
. .
. .
o .
.......................................
... . .. .'. . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.................
.
o
o
.
.
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.............................
OUTPUT
"" '--"'~' ,- .-.. . ~._.. ,. ~-
---,.-'..".... ,
'.
. .
,.n ,.
. ".
..
. .
, ..
....' ".w n' ....'
. ''''.- ,"." .".-, " ~
."" .., ~ ".." .-.'. ,',."
.'.. "'.. "'..' "... '.'
"',U "'.. m." ."."
.-,"" "..t, .-- ... ".' ".' ...
... ...", "- ,,"~
,....
Air Quality Model
Schematic
-------
stationary sources, as appropriate.
The following presents a more
detailed discussion on the basic characteristics of the model.
AIR QUALITY MODEL
Two different methods are used for estimating future air quality.
The first one, employing simple roll-back concepts, assumes that reqiona1
air quality will improve in direct proportion to reductions in regional
emissions.
Future air quality is estimated by:
AQF = AQB . [(EF/EB) . SB + (1 - SB) . GF]
(G-l)
wh ere:
AQ - Regional air quality
(F - Final Year, B - Base Year)
,...
E - Motor vehicle emission in region
S - Ratio of motor vehicle emissions to total pollutant emissions
in region
GF - Growth factor for stationary source emissions in region
Equation G-2, modified slightly to account for natural back9round
concentration levels, is referred to as "Simp1e Roll-back" and operates
in the form:
JlOxx
L.)19xx
b + (AQbase year - b). LE base year
(G-2)
=
where b is the background concentration level
where 0y and 0Z are functions of the atmospheric stability
class and the distance from source to receptor.
h. is the
J
effective stack height.
G-3
-------
The Roll-Back equation using the location factors becomes:
AQ xx = b + (AQbase year-
L lflj, 19xx
b)
Llf.E.
J J' base year
Since the location factors appear in both the numerator and
denominator of the concentration multiplier, only the relative
magnitude is important.
As the distance between the receptor and the source increase both
crz and cry increase, the rate of increase depending on the atmospheric
stability class.
The atmospheric stability class characterizes those meteorological
conditions required by the Air Quality Model. As described in the Turner
Workbook [40], the stability class quantifies the turbulent structure
of the atmosphere around the area being considered.
It depends mainly
on the amount of incoming solar radiation, the cloud conditions and
surface wind speed.
The stability class ranges from A to F, A being
the most unstable, F the most stable. Figures correlating cr and cr
y z
with the stability class along with a complete description of the
technique are found in the Turner Workbook.
This technique, although simple to use, has some severe restrictions.
It does not account for the fact that some emission sources are closer
than others to the receptor or problem area.
Nor does i t cons i der
differences in effective stack height of the various sources.
sources.
Finally, it ignores meteorological conditions.
G-4
-------
The Modified Roll-back, or Semidiffusion Mo-del takes into account
some of these effects while retaining the simple form of the roll-back
equati on.
This modification to Simple Roll-back is an attempt to
characterize the atmospheric distribution of emissions while avoiding
a full scale dispersion model.
While these larger models are available
they have not been applied to the Houston area planning.
The Semidiffusion Model assigns a relative importance to each
source depending on its distance from the receptor, (or hot spot)
the prevailing atmospheric stability class, and to a small degree,
on the effective stack height of the source. This relative
importance index is called the Location Factor (If).
lf
j
=
1
fJyfJz exp(4\
~q3 J
for a particular source j
The air quality model correlates oxidant concentrations to hydro-
carbon values through the use of the observational model relationship
presented in Figure 4-A of Appendix A. The model references the total
hydrocarbon concentration to derive oxidant concentration values at each
year for each strategy.
Table G-l presents a list of the 8 source categories (both mobile
and stationary) used in characterizing the semi-diffusion model for the
Houston Region.
In general, when controls are applied to mobile sources
which are relatively closer to the receptor then their stationary counter-
parts, the semi-diffusion model will yield lower estimates of pollutant
concentrations then the simple roll-ba~k model.
G-5
-------
VEHICLE POPULATION MODEL
The Vehicle Population Model (VPM) is a general methodology for
analyzing the impact of changes in the vehicle population on resultant
vehicle emissions.
Used in conjunction with the Vehicle Emission Model,
VPM can provide estimates of net emissions for the period 1972 - 1980
under a variety of alternate control measure considerations.
The basic model methodology involves analytically describing the
"birth and death" process taking place within the vehicle population
itself.
Older vehicles are continually aging, with the oldest leaving
the population entirely after many years of service.
Simul taneous ly,
new vehicles are being added to the population at some pre-assigned rate
Because of this process, the relative weights of various vehicle age
groups in determining the net emissions change with time.
Any accurate
emissions projection must account for this phenomenon.
VPM computes the vehicle age distribution over time, adjusting for
both new cars and vehicle attrition.
This distribution provides a set
of weighting factors for each age class and for each year analyzed.
Table G-l. Emission Source Categories for Houston
1. Uncontrolled Vehicles
2. Controlled Vehicles
3. Post-1974 Vehicles
4. Heavy-Duty Vehicles
5. Crankcase and Evaporative Losses
6. Point Sources
7. Area Sources
8. Other Transportation
G-6
-------
Combined with independently estimated vehicle emission rates, this dis-
tribution data can lead to emission projections weighted for changes in
vehicle population characteristics.
This weighting process is crucial in making accurate projections.
Under the current vehicle breakdown, three separate classes of light
duty vehicles are considered:
uncontrolled
(pre 1968), controlled
(1968 - 1974) and post 1974.
Emission levels of the first group rises
substantially over time due to vehicle deterioration.
Yet, due to natural
attrition processes, their numbers decline.
The net contribution of this
group depends upon the interaction of both vehicle attrition and deterio-
ration.
levels.
Similarly. post 1974 vehicles have sUbstantially reduced emission
As they enter the population and represent an increasingly large
fraction, the population's emissions characteristics will approach those
of the post 1974 cars.
It is this complex interaction between vehicle
attrition, entrance of new cars and resultant population emission levels
which is described quantitatively by VPM and which can provide a straight-
forward mechanism for projecting emission levels over future periods.
The
emission levels for new cars entering the population are assumed to be
in compliance with promulgated standards.
The model can also be used
for measuring the time related effectiveness of various proposed vehicle
control strategies, both singularly and in combination.
This can be
accomplished by introducing quantitative point estimates of strategy
effectiveness and simulating the model over a specified time horizon.
G-7
-------
VPM requires the following as basic input:
o
Initial vehicle population
Initial vehicle age distribution
o
o
Population growth rate
o
Vehicle attrition rates
o
Initial vehicle emission levels by model year
Emission deteriorate rates by model year
o
VEHICLE EMISSION MODEL
The Vehicle Emissions Model (VEM) characterizes emission levels for
the first five source categories of Table G-l.
Equation G-3 presents the
relationship used in estimating emission levels for categories one through
four.
n2
E = 2:
C. d. t~. S. VMT.
, , " ,
i = nl
(G-3)
where:
Ci = the new car (low mileage) emission rate for model year i
di = the time decay factor
".II ~
the weighing factor for fraction of vehicle miles traveled
Si = the speed correction factor
VMTi = annual vehicle miles traveled per year for one vehicle
in ith model year
Ml, M2 = time limits for the appropriate category
E = emission rate by vehicle in grams per year
G-8
-------
Similarly, equation G-4 shows the relationship for estimati~g
evaporate and crankcase losses
E = 2:: hi Mi VMTi
wh ere:
hi = evaporative and crankcase emission losses for ith model year
Conversion of emission rates from grams per year to grams per second,
for incorporation into AQM, requires the use of the diurnal distribution
of vehicle miles traveled within the metropolitan area and the pollutant
measurem~nt sample basis.
Both are used to calibrate annual emission
rates with actual traffic flows and peak pollutant levels.
The effective-
ness of various control measures for these five categories is then applied
directly to the resultant emission rates.
STRATEGY ASSESSMENT MODEL
The strategy assessment model is used in characterizing the effective-
ness of various vehicular control measures.
A measure can be defined
(in the m6del) in terms of:
1) the percentage drops of emission rates in
heavy duty vehicles,
2) a change in average speed for light and/or
3) a VMT multiplying factor, 4) and the new average
each source category,
distances between the sources and the receptor.
These parameters are used to compute total vehicular emission rates
which enter into the air quality calculations.
The percentage emissions drops are applied directly to the total
vehicular emission rates.
Inspection/Maintenance as an example affects
only the average emission rates and thus can be defined with percentage
drops, 12 for HC, 10 for CO, and 0 for NOx> with no change in the VMT
multiplying factor, speeds or average distances.
G-9
-------
The average speeds are used to determine the multiplying factor,
Si, in equation G-3. As speed increases, Si decreases in a monotonic
but nonlinear fashion, but has no effect on either NOx emissions or
post 1974 vehicles.
This parameter, along with the VMT multiplying factor,
allows the analysis of road improvement and traffic control measures.
The VMT multiplying factor affects all gasoline powered vehicular
emission rates in a similar manner.
Using a value of 0.5 means half the
base year mileage can be eliminated by this strategy, resulting in a 50%
drop in mobile source emission rates.
The VMT factor can also be used
to quantify unusual changes in growth patterns.
Distance changes influence the location factors instead of the
emission rates themselves.
Therefore, a strategy which changes only
distance from source to receptor (such as removing all cars from the
central business district) will affect only the Modified Roll-back
results.
In general, moving a source away from the receptor will
decrease the pollutant concentration an amount depending on the per-
centage emissions contributed by that source and the atmospheric stability
class.
Experience has indicated that the Modified Roll-back model will
yield lower estimates of pollutant concentrations then the simple method
when the following conditions exist: 1) Mobile sources located closer
then stationary,
2) Mobile sources constitute a large
component of the
total, and
3) Measures applied to mobile sources resulting significant
reduction.
Combination strategies can be considered by the model by combining
the percentages of separate measures.
In general, the analysis of
measure interactions is made by the user and the total percentage emission
reductions are inputted into the model.
G-10
-------
APPENDIX H
GAS RATIONING DURING WORLD WAR II
Chronology
April 1941
The Office of Price Administration (OPA) is formed
under the War Production Board to curtail inflation
and administer the distribution of essential goods
which had become scarce due to the war.
March 1942
Trial gas rationing on East Coast begins. It's due
to regional shortage caused by Nazi U-boars sinking
American tankers in the Atlantic.
July 1, 1942
December 1,1942
Official East Coast gas rationing begins.
Official gas rationing extended to all states. How-
ever, reason is to conserve the rubber consumption
by limiting tire wear. The Japanese had captured 90%
of the rubber exporting countries.
December 1943
By this time, gas rationing throughout the United
States was based on scarcity of gasoline. Tire wear
became a secondary concern.
September 1945
With the end of the war with Japan, gasoline rationing
ended.
Administration
Like all of the rationing systems during World War II, the rationing
of gasoline was controlled by a system of coupon books.
There were two
types of ration books:
highway types, intended for automobiles, motor-
cycles, etc., and non-highway types for motorboats, farm machinery,
enginers, etc.
Five classes of ration books existed for the highway types.
Book
"A" was the basic rationing
book for passenger cars, as Book "B" was
the basic rationing book for motorcycles.
If a registered car owner
could substantially illustrate that he regularly carried three or more
persons in connection with his occupation, or that his ride-sharing plan
H-l
-------
was infeasible but that alternative transportation was inadequate, he
could obtain supplementary rations according to his need.
These would
be supplied by Book "B".
Rati on Book "C, II affordi ng mil eage greater
than that of "B," was for passenger automobile drivers whose driving
needs were considered most essential to the war effort.
Fi na lly, there
were two books ("T-l" and IT-2") for certain commercial operations con-
sidered essential to the maintenance of the domestic economy (e.g.,
trucks, buses, taxis, ambulances, military vehicles, etc.).
(OPA Plan
for Mileage Rationing Instructions to administrators, November, 1942.)
Each coupon was worth a certain amount of gasoline which varied
between 2 and 5 gallons throughout the war.
Every quarter the Director
of Petroleum decided the value of the coupons, usually allowing from 380
to 470 miles of travel per month.
Book "A" contained four pages of
seven coupons per page.
Coupons on each page were numbered successively.
Each page was valid for a certain period of time (two or three months)
and thereafter became invalid.
If a person hadn't used up his coupons
for a specified period, he could never use them.
Ration Book "B" (supplement to "A") had 16 coupons intended for three
months I use.
If the mileage need of the holder was less, the period of
use was extended.
Book "e" contained 64 coupons, good for a period of
three months, "T-l" contained 96 coupons and IT-2" contained 384 coupons
worth five gallons each.
The "0" coupon books contained 32 coupons, but
the value of each coupon was less than that for autos.
The Director of OPA was responsible for nationwide distribution of
gasoline ration books.
Actual distribution was done by Registrars and
H-2
-------
Local War Price and Rationing Board.
REgistrars were only responsible
for issuing basic ration books for cars and motorcycles ("BII and "0").
All exceptions were handled by the Local War Rationing Boards.
In order to obtain a basic gas rationing book, two form$ had to be
filled out -- one for the coupon book and one for checking tire wear.
Another form, OPA R-535, had to be filled out if the applicant desired
supplemental rations.
The coupons were issued upon receipt of a com-
plete form with the applicant's signature and a valid motor vehicle regis- - -
tration with the applicant's name on it.
In order to obtain supplemental
rations, individuals had to somehow show their need.
This "proof" was
was not standardized, and was quite often based on the honor system.
Basic ration books were distributed initially throughout the U. S.
during three days (November 9,10, and 11, 1942).
Other ration books
were distributed for the rest of the month by the Local War Price and
Rationing Boards.
Records of the number of each coupons issued was kept by the Regis-
trars and Boards.
These "Inventory Record Forms" were then sent to the
State Director of the OPA.
He, in turn, sent a summary report to the
OPA.
These records were compiled for comparison to the, number of coupons
actually used, and the amount of gasoline distributed. The coupons were
passed from the car owner to the dealer to the intermediate distributor
to the licensed distributor.
The licensed distributor was not required
to exchange such coupons to secure replenishment of their supplies.
Instead they transmitted all of the coupons they received from the inter-
mediate distributors and dealers along with their State tax form.
H-3
-------
Another check on the rationing system was accomplished by requiring
gasoline dealers and intermediate distributors to register pertinent
information with their War Price and Rationing Boards.
They indicated
on appropriate forms the capacity of their storage tanks and the amount
of gasoline at hand at the time of registration.
As the war progressed, the administration and issuance was somewhat
simpl Hied.
simpl Hied.
First, the application and renewal forms were shortened and
Then, provisions were made for renewal and other board
transactions by mail, thus saving time and travel.
Also, the ration
banking system was applied to gasoline rationing (OPA, Fourth Report of
the Office of Price Administration).
Effectiveness of Program in Reducing Car Mileage
By January 1,1943,25 million passenger cars were having their gas
intake rationed.
Of these autos, 25.4% (6,370,000) were on "B" rations,
and 14.3% (3,590,000) were on "C" rations.
Thus, over half of the
civilians were on "A" rations, or the most limited category.
The Office
of Price Administration estimated the average mileage per car to have
been 5,150 miles, which was one-half of the pre-rationing average mileage.
The sale of gas dropped 40% from December 1,1942 to January 1,1943
in states west of the Alleghenies.
Price Administration.)
(OPA, Fourth Report of the Office of
During 1943, daily nationwide driving was reduced by 255 million
miles or 32.6% from total mileage in 1941.
On a local level the average
mileage reduction was 26%.
H-4
-------
Public Reaction to Gas Rationing
Overall the public saw gas rationing as a necessary burden borne for
the war effort.
President Roosevelt's message on an OPA explanatory
pamphlet in August 1942 read as follows:
"We are now in this war. We are all in it -- all the way.
Every single man, woman and child is a partner in the most
tremendous undertaking of our American history. Ahead there
lies sacrifice for all of us.
But it is not correct to use that word. The United States
does not consider it a sacrifice to do all one can, to give
one's best to our nation, when the nation is fighting for its
existence and its future 1 ife. II
However, when extension of gasoline rationing from the East Coast
to the West was considered in Congress "it was greeted with considerable
misgiving and opposition in the areas affected. II
(OPA, Fourth Report of
the Office of Price Administration) "Californians feared rationing would
mean a traffic holocust especially in spread-out Los Angeles; they freely
used words like "panic, riot" to describe their fears of what rationing
might bring. II
(Time, December 30, 1942)
On a more individual basis, people were confused and bitter because
the distribution didn't seem fair.
"Many who accepted the "A" cards
because they did not have to use their cars for business were bitter
when they found that some of their neighbors, who could equally well
switch to other forms of transportation, had asked for and received "B"
or even "X" cards. II
(The Nation, March 23, 1942)
Problems with Administration and Enforcement
A lot of the administrative problems were ironed out during 1943.
But before this time, there were two main problems with administration.
First, standards weren't specific enough to actually carry out the fair
H-5
-------
division of supplies.
Proof of need was not required; gasoline rationing
was basically on the honor system.
Also~ procedures for obtaining ration
books were time-consuming, confusing and impersonal.
Enforcement problems stemmed from an incomplete system of enforcing
proper use of coupons.
Each car had a window sticker indicating the type
of ration book available to the owner.
However, if the owner had obtained
extra coupons through the black market these were accepted at many service
stations. After five months of rationing on the East Coast, OPA investi-
gators found that 70% of the 500 gas stations in these states were vio-
lating gas rationing rules, and distributing more gasoline than they
should have.
Besides misuse of valid coupons, there was quite a problem
to halt\distribution of counterfeit coupons.
(OPA, First Quarterly Report)
H~6
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA /1. Report No. 12. 3. Recipient's Accession No.
SHEET APTD-1373
4. T .tle and :>ubtltle 5. Report Date
Transportation Control Strategy Development for the Greater December 1972
Houston Area. 6.
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Rept.
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
One Space Park 11. Contract/Grant No.
Redondo Beach, Cal Horni a 90278 68-02-0041
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period
En vi ronmenta 1 Protection Agency R i1,°a: red 8/tf72
eport 12/ /72
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 14.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
15. Supplementary Notes Prepared to assist in the development of transportation control plans
by those State Governments demonstrating that National Ambient Air Quality Standards
he . hv i . emic;c;;nn standards for stationarv sources onlv.
16. Abstracts
The document demonstrates the nature of the Air Quality problem, attributed to motor
vehicle operation, the magnitude of the problem and a strategy developed to neutralize
these effects in order that National Ambient air quality standard may be attained and
maintained.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 170. Descriptors
Motor Vehicle emitted pollutants - air pOllutants originating within a motor vehicle
and released to the atmosphere.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards - Air Quality Standards promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency and pUblished
as a Federal Regulation in the Federal
Register.
17b. Identifiets/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.
17c:. COSATI Field/Group Environmental Quality Control of Motor Vehicle Pollutants
18. Availability Statement 19. Security Class (This 21. No. of Pages
Report) all
For release to public '1TNrl
20. Security Class (This 22. Price
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
. 3-72)
FORM NTIS 3$ (REV.
U5COMM-DC 149!52-P72
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM NTIS-35 (10-70) (Biblio~raphic Data Sheet based on COSATI
Gui[l 4
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE1
Technical Publications Branch
Office of Administration
Research Triangle Park, N C 277'
CH F :
ND FEES PAID
PROTECTION AGENCY
335
SPECIAL FOURTH CLASS RATE
BOOK
If you do not desne to continue receiving this technical report
series, please CHECK HERE D . tear olf this label, and teturn
it to the above address. Youi name will then be piomptly removed
from the appropriate mailing list.
PUBLICATION NO. APTD-1373
------- |