APTD-1443
TRANSPORTATION CONTROLS
TO REDUCE
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS
IN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
^ss iir '»
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
APTD-1443
TRANSPORTATION CONTROLS
TO REDUCE
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS
IN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Prepared by
GCA Corporation
GCA Technology Division
Bedford, Massachusetts
Contract No. 68-02-0041
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
Property Of
EPA Library
-------
The APTD (Air Pollution Technical Data) series of reports is issued
by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and
Water Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, to report technical
data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies of APTD reports
are available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors
and grantees, and non-profit organizations as supplies permit from
the Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, or may be obtained,
for a nominal cost, from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
GCA Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts, in fulfillment of Contract
No. 68-02-0041. The contents of this report are reproduced herein
as received from GCA Corporation. The opinions, findings, and conclusions
expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. APTD-1443
11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many individuals and several organizations have been helpful in
carrying out this study; for these contributions the GCA Technology
Division extends its sincere gratitude.
Continued project direction and guidance were given by Mr. Fred
Winkler (Project Officer) and Mr. Dave Tamny of the Land Use Planning
Branch, EPA, Durham, North Carolina, and Mr. Israel Milner ( Co-Project
Officer) and Mr. C. C. Miesse of EPA Region III.
Many members of local and state agencies supplied data and critical
analysis to the study; particularly helpful assistance was received from
the Baltimore Area Air Quality Task Force.
Alan M. Voorhees, Inc., acted as subcontractors to GCA Technology
Division and supplied major input to the study especially in the areat
of traffic data, control strategies and implementation obstacles.
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title g.a^
I INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 3>1
A. BACKGROUND I'1
B. PURPOSE, SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF STUDY 1-1
C. CONTENT OF REPORT I'5
D. SUMMARY OF PROBLEM AND REQUIRED CONTROLS
(BALTIMORE)
II ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL 1977 AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM II-1
A. OUTLINE OF METHODOLOGY I1'1
1. Methodology for Carbon Monoxide II-2
2. Discussion of Methodology II-4
3. Methodology for Oxidants II-7
B. PRESENT AMBIENT AIR QUALITY LEVELS II-8
1. Air Quality Monitoring Systems II-8
2. Carbon Monoxide 11-12
3. Photochemical Oxidants 11-19
4. Conclusions 11-24
C. VEHICLE-MILES OF TRAVEL 11-24
1. Assessment of Traffic Data Base 11-25
2. The Koppelman Model and VMT
Calculations 11-26
3. Factors for Vehicle Type 11-33
4. Vehicle Age Distribution Data 11-38
D. POLLUTANT EMISSIONS 11-41
1. Emissions from Motor Vehicles 11-41
2. Stationary Source Emissions 11-42
E. EMISSION-AIR QUALITY RELATIONSHIP 11-47
F. PROJECTED 1977 AIR QUALITY LEVELS 11-54
III. EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE CONTROL STRATEGIES III-l
A. IDENTIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY EVALUATION III-l
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Con't)
Section Title
B. STRATEGIES TO REDUCE EMISSION RATE
1. Inspection and Maintenance Program 111-10
2. Retrofit of Uncontrolled Vehicles III-ll
3. Conversion to Gaseous Fuels 111-15
4. Traffic Flow Improvements 111-18
C. STRATEGIES TO REDUCE VEHICLE USAGE 111-20
1. Transit Service Improvements 111-20
^ 2. Motor Vehicle Use Restraints 111-26
3. Other Possibilities 111-33
D. SUMMARY EVALUATION 111-38
IV IMPLEMENTATION OBSTACLES IV-1
A. OVERVIEW OF PLANNING POLICIES IV-1
1. Baltimore IV-3
2. Baltimore Development Program 1972-1977 IV-6
3. RPC Transportation Plan IV-9
B. VEHICLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE IV-10
1. Legal Obstacles IV-11
2. Institutional Obstacles IV-13
3. Political Obstacles IV-13
4. Economic Obstacles IV-14
5. Technical Obstacles IV-15
C. TRANSIT STRATEGIES IV-16
D. PARKING STRATEGIES IV-17
1. CBD Parking IV-17
2. CBD Fringe Parking IV-22
3. Suburban Fringe Parking IV-26
E. CAR POOLS IV-28
1. Institutional IV-28
2. Legal IV-29
3. Economic IV-29
4. Political/Social IV-29
5. Technical IV-29
6. Lower Rates IV-30
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Cent.)
Section Title Pafie
V RECOMMENDED CONTROL STRATEGY V~1
A. RATIONALE AND RECOMMENDATIONS V"1
B. IMPACT ON POLLUTANT EMISSIONS v~5
C. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES v~6
VI SURVEILLANCE AND REVIEW V-l
APPENDIX A - VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL (VMT) A-l
APPENDIX B - UNADJUSTED VEHICLE AGE DISTRIBUTION B-l
DATA
APPENDIX C - ESTIMATED POLLUTANT EMISSIONS C-l
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Number Title Page
1-1 Summary of Expected 1977 Emission Levels 1-1
1-2 Recommended Control Strategies and Their Effects 1-13
II-l Air Quality Monitoring Sites II-9
II-2 Air Quality Instrumentation 11-11
II-3 Maximum 1-Hour Average CO Concentrations (PPM) 11-14
II-4 Highest 8-Hour Average CO Concentrations 11-15
II-5 Maximum 1-Hour Oxidant Levels 11-20
II-6 1-Hour Oxidant Concentrations Over 0.08 PPM 11-22
II-7 Vehicle Type Factors for Baltimore Area VMT Data 11-37
II-8 Distributions of VMT by Vehicle Age 11-39
II-9 Pollutant Emissions from Motor Vehicles by
Analysis Area and Vehicle Type 11-40
11-10 Carbon Monoxide Emissions 11-43
11-11 Hydrocarbon Emissions 11-44
H-12 Non-Vehicular CO Emissions Distribution by
Analysis Area 11-46
11-13 Morning Peak Hydrocarbon Emissions 11-48
11-14 Emission Densities by Analysis Area 11-52
11-15 Emission-Concentration Ratios 11-55
11-16 Calculations for Carbon Monoxide Projections 11-57
11-17 Calculations for Oxidant-Hydrocarbon 11-59
III-l Preliminary Evaluation of Transportation Controls III-3 to
III-9
VII
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Number Title
III-2 Effectiveness of Retrofitted Control Devices
III-3 Effect of Various Retrofit Programs on Light-
Duty Vehicle Hydrocarbon Emission Rates 111-13
III-4 Effect of Light-Duty Retrofit Programs on
Actual Motor Vehicle Population III-16
III-5 Effect of Evaporative & Crankcase Retrofit on
Heavy-Duty Vehicles 111-17
III-6 Effect of Changing Transit Fares on VMT III-
HI-7 Reductions in CO Levels-Central Marseilles
Auto-Free Zone 111-32
III-8 Effectiveness of Possible Transportation
Control Strategies in Baltimore 111-39
V-l Summary of Effectiveness and Feasibility V-2
of Potential Control Strategies
VI-1 Checkpoints in Transportation Programs VI-2
VI-2 Problem Assessment Issues VI-3
A-l 1970 Peak-Hour VMT A-2
A-2 1970 12-Hour VMT A-13
A-3 1970 24-Hour VMT A-24
A-4 1977 Peak-Hour VMT A-35
A-5 1977 12-Hour VMT A-46
A-6 1977 24-Hour VMT A-57
B-l Model-Year Distribution - R.L. Polk Data B-l
B-2 Age Distribution - Maryland State Data B-2
C-l 1970 Carbon Monoxide Emissions C-2
C-2 1977 Carbon Monoxide Emissions C-3
C-3 1970 Hydrocarbon Emissions C-4
C-4 1977 Hydrocarbon Emissions C-5
viii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Number Title Page
1-1 Baltimore Analysis Areas 1-9
II-l Typical Overnight High 8-Hour CO Levels 11-18
II-2 BMATS District Map 11-27
II-3 BMATS District Map, Baltimore City 11-28
II-4 Baltimore Interstate Highway Network, 1977 11-32
II-5 VMT Density vs. Distance from CBD - 1970 11-34
II-6 VMT Density vs. Distance from CBD - 1977 11-35
II-7 Comparison of 1970 - 1977 VMT Densities 11-36
III-l Comparison Between Central Analysis Area
and Downtown Parking Study Area III-28
IX
-------
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
A. BACKGROUND
States were required to submit implementation plans by January
30, 1972, that contained control strategies demonstrating how the National
Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards for motor-vehicle-related pollutants
would be achieved by 1975. In many urban areas, the states found they
could not achieve the carbon monoxide and oxidant air quality standards
by 1975 or even 1977 through stationary source control and the expected
emission reductions from the 1975 vehicle exhaust systems control. Major
difficulty was encountered by many states in the formulation of imple-
mentation plans that included transportation control strategies, such as
retrofit and inspection, gaseous fuel conversion, traffic flow improve-
ments, increased mass transit usage, car pools, motor vehicle restraints,
and work schedule changes. Because of the complex implementation problems
associated with transportation controls, states were granted until February
15, 1973, to study and to select a combination of transportation controls
that demonstrated how the standard would be achieved and maintained by
1977.
B. PURPOSE, SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF STUDY
The purpose of the study herein was to identify and develop
transportation control strategies that will achieve the carbon monoxide
and oxidant air quality standards required to be met by Maryland in the
Baltimore area by the year 1977. Maryland's deadline extension was
1-1
-------
actually for the carbon monoxide standard only, as the implementation
plan anticipated meeting the oxidant standard without transportation
control strategies. On the basis of more recent and better data, this
seems not to be the case, and so it is presumed that the State will re-
quest and receive an extension to 1977 for oxidants as well.
This study is one of a series, conducted in various urban areas,
included to help determine the initial direction that the States should
take in devising feasible and effective transportation controls, while
recognizing that the control strategies outlined in this study would
need to be periodically revised in the coming years. In general, the
existing state implementation plans were analyzed to verify and assess
the severity of the carbon monoxide and oxidant problems, and the most
promising transportation controls and their likely air quality impact
were determined. Major implementation obstacles were noted after dis-
cussions with those agencies responsible for implementing the controls
and, finally, a surveillance review process (January, 1973-December, 1976,
inclusive) was developed for EPA to use in monitoring implementation
progress and air quality impact of transportation control strategies.
In the specific case of Baltimore, it developed that the needs
were somewhat different than elsewhere. Prior to the beginning of the
present study, the Maryland Bureau of Air Quality Control (BAQC), in the
State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, had already joined with
the several local, state, and federal agencies involved in transportation
planning in the Baltimore area in forming an ad hoc group known as the
1-2
-------
Baltimore Air Quality Task Force. The Task Force's functions are to
consider the air quality impact of present alternative transporation
plans, and to work towar.d the on-going permanent incorporation of air
quality considerations into the transportation planning processes of the
Baltimore region. The organizations with representatives on the Task
Force are listed at the beginning of Section V.
The Task Force had planned a two-phase study, the first phase
of which was specifically directed toward the BAQC task of preparing
plans for the February 1973 submission to EPA, but which is imbedded
in a larger, longer-term framework involving the evaluation of long-
term planning alternatives. Thus, the present study, and much of the
consultants' effort, has been more supportive than definitive in nature,
attempting to focus on detailed air quality questions and short-term (1977)
planning possibilities, while remaining consistent with the broader
effort.
The first purpose of this study, problem assessment, has an
obvious parallel with the previous study of the problem embodied in the
December 1971 revision of the Implementation Plan. While the object is
the same - to define the need, if any, for traffic controls - there are
at least three very major differences in the data input available for
the assessment. The first of these is the availability of new pollutant
emission factors based on the revised federal motor vehicle test procedure,
which more accurately reflect the typical usage pattern of the urban auto-
mobile. The second major difference is the recent availability of photo-
-------
chemical oxidant data gathered by the reference method, which indicates
that the oxidant problem is significantly more severe than was apparent
from previous measurements. The third, and one which relates closely
to the conduct of this study, is the use in the assessment of vehicle
usage estimates generated by traffic planning procedures, in contrast
to the previously-used, cruder, estimates based on gross gasoline sales
data.
This last set of improved input data was the key element in
the beginning of the Task Force effort to upgrade the level of trans-
portation-air quality planning. The BMATS study, to the credit of the
Baltimore area, was one of the earlier regional transportation studies
(1962), and consequently, was too old to provide a desirable quality
of estimate. In addition, the projected trends have not all occured,
so that extrapolation was risky. Consequently, a new study, based on
1970 census data, was given a high priority by the Air Quality Task
Force. In addition, resource limitations and the desire to consider
a wide variety of alternatives had led the Task Force to select a new
usage-estimating model, the Koppelman procedure, which could fill these
needs with far less time and cost than more conventional alternatives.
Thus when the present effort began, there already existed a
major effort toward the preparation of this data, and at the first
few meetings, the consultants and EPA representatives agreed to await
its completion. This has led to a distortion of the study schedule to
the point that some elements have been treated less extensively than
originally planned, but the improved data base seems clearly worth it.
1-4
-------
Other than in the foregoing case, the scope of the study was
limited to the use of data and techniques already available during the
period of the study, thus requiring that a large number of assumptions
were made as to the nature of future events. The 1977 air quality
predictions were based on extant air quality data, on stationary
source emissions already projected for the State, and on projected
traffic patterns. The predictive methods themselves were often based
on anticipated emission control techniques, anticipated growth patterns,
and the assumed outcome of unresolved legal and political decisions.
(The opening of key major traffic facilities before 1977 is particularly
sensitive to the outcome of legal and politicaldecisions.) Further, the
development and ranking of transportation controls were based on extant
and predicted economic, sociological, institutional and legal consider-
ations. Thus surveillance efforts aimed at following the progress of
of events based on such information must, of necessity, maintain a con-
tinuing check on the validity of the assumed pattern of future events.
C. CONTENT OF REPORT
Section II of this report describes how the pollutant concen-
tration levels which could be expected to occur in 1977 in the Baltimore
area were projected. These levels were determined by an adaptation of
the proportional model using motor vehicle emissions from traffic patterns
predicted for 1977 together with predicted non-vehicular emissions for 1977
obtained from state agencies. Comparison of these predicted 1977 air pollu-
tant concentrations with the national air quality standards enabled the com-
putation of the motor vehicle emissions which would result in the air
1-5
-------
quality standards being met, and therefore the amount of further reduction
in the predicted 1977 motor vehicle emissions that would be required. In
order to determine the existing pollutant concentrations, an evaluation of
existing meteorological and air quality data was performed, with the final
determination as to the concentration values used being made in close co-
operation with representatives of the State, the Air Quality Task Force,
and EPA.
Section III describes how the candidate transportation control
strategies were developed and evaluated with respect to both technical
effectiveness and social feasibility. An important feature of this effort
was the continuing interaction between, on one hand, the GCA study team,
and on the other hand, representatives of local and state environmental,
planning, and transportation agencies, concerned citizens' groups, and EPA
representatives.
It should be noted that some possible area-wide transit strategies
were not considered because they were outside the 1977 time frame. For in-
stance, there is a plan for the provision of rapid rail transit, but under
present schedules, the first phase is not expected to be operational until
1978.
Section IV deals with the legal, institutional, social-political,
and economic obstacles to implementation of the various possible strategies,
although some discussion of these aspects has been necessarily included in
Section III. Because of the inversion of the study schedule made to
1-6
-------
accomodate the new VMT data, the discussion considers implementation ob-
stacles for the spectrum of strategies, rather than focusing on the specific
recommendations.
Section V discusses the rationale for selecting the specific
package of controls necessary to achieve the required reductions in motor
vehicle emissions and presents other possibilities, both within and beyond
the scope of the present study, and Section VI considers a surveillance
review process by which to monitor progress toward the standard.
D. SUMMARY OF PROBLEM AND REQUIRED CONTROLS (BALTIMORE)
The existing air quality levels in Baltimore are monitored by two
networks of sensors, one of which provided CO data at a number of sites
throughout the area, the other providing oxidant data for the center city
only. One network operates stations throughout the urban area and pro-
vided the carbon monoxide data used herein; after extensive validation,
data was available from seven sites. The maximum 8-hourly average levels
range from 20.6 ppm at a site in the center city area (though not in the
CBD) to 9.9 and 7.0 ppm at outlying suburban sites. Using the empirical
relation between air quality and emissions developed from these sites, it
is estimated that the maximum 8-hour CO level in the densest portion of
the city is about 30 ppm.
The only oxidant data available from these stations is from phenol-
phthalein grab samples, and in the past has generally indicated minimal oxi-
dant problem. However, reference-method data from the new state network's
1-7
-------
center-city sites has very recently become available, and data from the
summer of 1972 indicates a much more severe oxidant problem, with a maxi-
mum 1-hour level of 0.21 ppm. Thus this latter data was used for the
evaluation here.
In the case of carbon monoxide, using existing air quality data
and estimates of existing traffic levels, an empirical relation was
developed between air quality at a site and the emission density in its
vicinity. This relation was then used in conjunction with projected 1977
emission densities to predict the 1977 air quality in three separate anal-
ysis areas, as shown in Figure 1-1. The results, which included the re-
ductions through the federal Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Program, were
compared with the national air quality standards to determine any further
reductions required. In the case of oxidants, the standard relationship
derived by EPA enabled the direct determination of the total hydrocarbon
reductions required (69%) and any additional over that provided by the
federal programs.
With this methodology, it was determined that the oxidant standard
will not be met in 1977. The 1-hour carbon monoxide standard, which is
only slightly exceeded at present, will clearly be met in 1977. The
8-hour CO standard will be met in the Urban Fringe and Suburban analysis
areas, but will not be met in the Central Area in 1977 without further
transportation control efforts.
1-8
-------
Figure I-1 Baltimore Analysis Areas
T-9
-------
The oxidant levels will require a reduction in regional total
hydrocarbon emissions of around 40 percent of the already-reduced 1977
levels, which requires a 56% reduction in motor vehicle emissions. This
is based on an inventory of emissions in the 6-9 a.m. period; since the
problem is severe, this further refinement was felt desirable. Meeting
the 8-hour CO standard in the 11-square-mile Central Area of the Region
will require a 36.8 percent reduction of the already-reduced 1977 CO
emission levels there, or a 38.3 percent reduction in the motor vehicle
portion of the emissions. Table 1-1 presents a quantitative summary of
these expected emission levels and required further reductions, with 1970
emissions included for comparison.
These conclusions, and the methodology by which they were deve-
loped, represent GCA Technology Division's best assessment of the problem;
neither the methodology nor the conclusions have yet been accepted by the
Air Quality Task Force, although the Maryland BAQC representatives have
recommended that they be so accepted. This is, no doubt, partially due
to the extreme nature of the problem as developed, particularly in the
case of hydrocarbons.
Despite major implementation obstacles associated with some of
the candidate strategies, the severity of the problems, particularly the
oxidant-hydrocarbon problem, requires the choice of all the most effective
possibilities, including a retrofit program with an associated inspection
and maintenance program, and the total subsidy of transit fares. The maxi-
mum possible reduction of emissions from light-duty vehicles is not com-
1-10
-------
TABLE 1-1
SUMMA.RY OF EXPECTED 1977 EMISSION LEVELS
6-9 a.m. CARBON MONOXIDE (kg/mi /day)
HYDROCARBONS
(kg/day) CSMTRAL URBAN FRINGE SUBURBS
1970 Total
1977:
58,850
10,281
3,787
780
Light-duty vehicles
Heavy-duty vehicles
Other
Total
AQ Std. Equivalent
11,770
9,600
8,990
30,360
18,244
2,824
1,793
251
4,868
3,078
1,050
666
90
1,806
3,078
235
149
145
529
3,078
Further Reduction
Required
12,116
1,790
Stationary Sources and non-gasoline vehicles
1-11
-------
pletely sufficient, so a program of evaporative and crankcase control de-
vice retrofit for heavy-duty vehicles is necessary. Specifically, the
following are recommended:
1. Traffic flow improvements
2. Bus transit service improvements
3. Total subsidy of bus transit operations
4. Mandatory retrofit of uncontrolled vehicles:
a. catalytic converters on pre-1975 light-duty vehicles
b. crankcase and evaporative controls on pre-1973 heavy-
duty vehicles
5. Annual inspection and mandatory maintenance
The detailed reductions produced and the calculation of their
total effect are shown in the following Table 1-2. Note that the order
of their presentation is dictated by the needs of the calculations, and
not by preference for the various component strategies.
1-12
-------
TABLE 1-2
RECOMMENDED CONTROL STRATEGIES AND THEIR EFFECTS
Control Action
1977 Expected
Traffic flow im-
provements to
increase speed
Total subsidy of
transit fares
Effect
Emissions de-
crease equiva-
lent to 10%
VMT reduction
15% decrease
in VMT
Hydrocarbon Emissions (k^/day)
6-9 a.m. peak
Emissions Total Further Reduction
30,360
- 2,162
28,198
- 3,243
24,955
12,116
- 2,162
9,954
- 3,243
6,711
Carbon Monoxide-Central Area
(kg/mi^/day)
Emission Density Further Reduction
4,868
- 467
4,401
- 700
3,701
1,790
- 467
1,323
- 700
623
service improve-
ments and parking
restraints
Inspection and
maintenance pro-
gram
Effective emission
reduction: HC-4.01%
and CO-3.19%*
650
6,061
- 112
3,589
- 112
511
Control Device
Retrofit:
a) Catalytic con-
verters on pre-
1975 light-duty
vehicles
b) Evaporative
and crankcase
control on pre-
1973 heavy-duty
gasoline vehicles
Effective emission - 3.783
reduction: HC-23.337=
and CO-27.33%
20,522
Reduction of hydro-
carbon emissions by
6.8% of heavy-duty
vehicle contribution
2.612
17,910
3.783
2,278
2.612
- 957
2,632
- 957
0
No CO Effect
In both cases, %. reductions apply to the 757,, of motor vehicle emissions remaining after VMT reductions.
-------
II. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL 1977 AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM
A. OUTLINE OF METHODOLOGY
The basic procedure employed was to develop, for each city,* the
potential pollutant concentration levels which could be expected in 1977
without the application of transportation controls. These levels were
determined by proportional modelling using non-vehicular emissions supplied
by state agencies and vehicular emissions based on traffic data developed
during the course of this study. More sophisticated techniques could not
be employed due to the lack of appropriate diffusion models, and the
short time period of the contract, which precluded the development of a
suitable model and the required inputs. Comparison of potential 1977
air quality levels with the appropriate standard gave the allowable motor
vehicle emissions in 1977, which in turn formed the basis for the development
of transportation control strategies.
Emissions from non-vehicular sources were obtained from state
implementation plans updated as required from information supplied by
state agencies. Emissions from vehicular sources were computed following
the recommendations given in EPA draft publication An Interim Report on
Motor Vehicle Emission Estimation by David S. Kircher and Donald P. Arm-
strong, dated October 1972. Air quality data for each sensor within the
area was reviewed and evaluated in close cooperation with state and local
agencies. Meteorological records were examined and compared with seasonal
* In this discussion, the word city is used to denote the urban area covered
by the study and is not restricted to the area within the political limits
of the city.
II-l
-------
and diurnal variations in air quality levels. Finally the pollutant
concentration which would form the basis for the proportional rollback
calculations were decided upon in concert with state and local agencies
and EPA representatives.
Because of the major differences involved, the detailed method-
ologies for carbon monoxide and oxidants are presented separately below.
1. Methodology for Carbon Monoxide
Because ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide at any
given location appear to be highly dependent on carbon monoxide emissions
in the near vicinity, it was felt that some justification existed for a
modification of the proportional model. It was felt that in order to
reduce ambient CO levels in, for example, a central business district
(CBD), it would be more appropriate to roll back CO emissions in the CBD
itself, rather than in the entire air quality region. The assumption was
therefore made that pollutant concentration in any given zone was directly
proportional to the emission rate of that pollutant emission within that
zone. Accordingly, each city area was divided into traffic zones - about
the size of the central business district (CBD) in the center of the city
with increasingly larger zones towards the suburban areas. Where traffic
data was already available for existing "traffic districts" the traffic
zones were either the traffic districts themselves or suitable aggregations
thereof; otherwise the traffic zones were based on rectangular grids.
II-2
-------
Emission density/concentration ratios (e/c ratio) were de-
termined for each sensor, the e/c ratio being based on the total CO
emission density (expressed in kg/mi^/day) within the zone in which
the sensor was located, and the CO concentration value which formed the
basis of the proportional rollback computations. Based on the e/c ratio
so obtained, the maximum allowable emission density was derived which
corresponded to the national air quality level to be achieved (i.e.,
9 ppm for an 8-hour average), and the expected 1977 emission densities
for each zone were estimated from the predicted vehicular and non-vehicular
emissions for those years. Vehicular emissions were based on traffic
patterns predicted for those years in the absence of any transportation
controls imposed in order to meet national air quality standards for CO.
Non-vehicular emissions were obtained from state implementation plans
and state agencies, and take into account predicted growth and the pre-
dicted control strategies to be applied to those sources. The predicted
control strategies were generally those which state agencies considered
to be the maximum feasible, and therefore the predicted non-vehicular
emissions were assumed to be irreducible for the purposes of this study.
From these calculations, the areas in which emissions exceeding
the maximum allowable density were easily identified. On the assumption
that the predicted emission densities from non-vehicular sources were to
be taken as irreducible, the allowable emissions from motor vehicles in
each zone for the year of interest were then determined. For the purposes
of evaluating the effects of candidate transportation controls, the maxi-
mum allowable emission density for the year 1977 was expressed as a per-
II-3
-------
centage reduction from the 1977 "no strategy" emission density. However,
as will be seen in following sections of this report, as each traffic con-
trol was developed, emissions were recomputed, using the revised VMT's and.
speeds resulting from the application of the control measures.
2. Discussion of Methodology
Modified Proportional Model applications and the limitations
of the conventional proportional rollback method have been well documented
and reviewed and need not be discussed further here. The technique used
in the present study was an extension of the conventional rollback technique
in the sense that it assumed first, that the constant of proportionality
between emissions and concentration may be derived from emissions emanating
from the relatively small area around the sensor and second, that the same
constant of proportionality (the emission/concentration ratio) could be
applied throughout the area to determine pollutant concentrations in other
zones from the pollutant emissions in those zones.
Some justification of the first assumption can be found, for
example in recent work of Hanna** and Gifford who demonstrate the dom-
inance of urban pollution patterns by the distribution of the local area
sources. The success of their urban diffusion model, in which concentration
is simply directly proportional to the area source strength and inversely
proportional to wind speed, is attributed largely to the relatively uniform
distribution of emission within an urban area and the rate at which the
effect of an area source upon a given receptor decreases with distance.
* Noel de Nevers. Rollback Modelling, Basic and Modified. Draft Document,
EPA, Durham, N.C., August 1972.
** Hanna, S.R., "A Simple Method of Calculating Dispersion from Urban Area
Sources," J. APCA 2_1, 774-777 (December 1971).
*** Gifford, F.A., "Applications of a Simple Urban Pollution Model," (paper
presented at the Conference on Urban Environment and Second Conference on
Biometeorology of the Amer. Meteor. Soc., Oct. 31 - Nov. 2, 1972, Phila. Pa
II-4
-------
In the proportional model, meteorological effects, such as wind speed,
are assumed to be duplicated over one-year periods.
The validity of the second assumption depends, in large part,
upon the extent to which diffusion and transport parameters are uniform
from zone to zone - a factor which could not be investigated because of
the constraints of the program. Thus, it was felt that, in the absence
of a more sophisticated techniques, the use of this extension to the pro-
portional model was justified first, to obtain some assessment as to
whether the existing sensors were located in the hot-spots, and second,
to obtain some assurance that transportation strategies intended to re-
duce emission densities in one zone (to the level required to meet ambient
standards) did not increase emission densities to unacceptable levels in
adjacent zones.
As might be expected, where an urban area had several sensors,
the emission concentration ratios were widely different and this served to
underline the fundamental limitations of the technique employed. An im-
plicit assumption in the technique employed was that the air quality in a
traffic zone could be fairly represented by one concentration level and
that this level depended only upon the average emission density within that
zone. The two major factors mitigating against this assumption are
a) Emission densities are not uniform across even a small
traffic zone.
b) Concentration levels are not uniform across the traffic
zone partly because of the lack of uniformity of emission
density and partly because the point surface concentrations
are affected by micrometeorology and microtopography as
well as emission density.
11-5
-------
Considerable judgement had to be used, therefore, both in the derivation
of e/c rations and in their subsequent use. In heavily trafficked down-
town areas the variation was judged not to be too great, so that the single
recorded concentration might reasonably be expected to be representative
of the zone's air quality and emission density. However, in suburban
zones having overall low traffic densities, sensors were often found to
be placed at very localized hot spots, such as a traffic circle, so that
the recorded concentration levels were neither representative of the over-
all air quality nor of the overall emission density in the zone.
Accordingly, e/c ratios tend to be derived from sensors in
the central areas of the cities and applied to suburban areas for the
prediction of 1977 concentration levels. This procedure gives air quality
levels which were generally representative of the suburban zones. How-
ever, it must be realized that control strategies based on this procedure
while they ensure that the overall air quality in a suburban zone will
not exceed ambient standards, do not preclude the occurance of higher
concentrations in very localized hot spots such as might occur in the
immediate vicinity of a major traffic intersection.
Seasonal and Diurnal Variations - The carbon monoxide con-
centration level chosen as the basis for the base year e/c ratio in any
zone was, in all cases, the highest valid eight-hour average. The one-
hour average either never exceeded the standard or was very much closer
to the standard than the eight-hour average, so that controls required
to meet the 8-hour standard would also result in the 1-hour standard
being met. Motor vehicle emissions over 24 hours, 12 hours and max eight-
II-6
-------
hour periods were compared with sensor readings and the most appropriate
period of time selected on which to base calculations of emission density.
Although seasonal variations in readings were noted, traffic data was not
available on a seasonal basis, so that vehicle emissions were based on
annual average work day traffic data.
Background Concentration levels of CO were not taken into
account. Where a zone was located near a large point source, simple "worst
case" diffusion calculations were performed to assess the effect of the
point source on the zone. In all cases, it was found that this contribu-
tion was negligible. Where a zone actually contained a large point source,
its emissions were typically found to be greater than the automotive emis-
sions within the zone and any problem in that zone was regarded as due en-
tirely to the stationary source.
3. Methodology for Oxidants
The technique employed for oxidants was basically the same as
has just been described for CO with the major difference that only one, very
much larger area, was used as the basis for the proportional rollback. Be-
cause of the length of time required for the formation of oxidants from
hydrocarbon emissions, the relatively small areas used as the basis for CO
could not be justified. The actual area used in each city was largely a
matter of judgement and the decision was made in concert with state and local
officials and EPA. In general, it was about the size of the metropolitan area.
The reductions in hydrocarbon emissions necessary to achieve
oxidant ambient standards were obtained from Appendix J, Federal Register of
August 14, 1971=
II-7
-------
B. PRESENT AMBIENT AIR QUALITY LEVELS
In addition to summarizing the data on ambient air quality levels
in Baltimore relative to the national standards, this subsection includes
an analysis of the monitoring systems producing the data in relation to
their ability to provide information adequate for use in a study of the
type discussed here.
1. Air Quality Monitoring Systems
Data on ambient levels of motor-vehicle-related air pollutants
in the Metropolitan Baltimore AQCR is available from two separate networks.
The Metropolitan Baltimore Air Quality Survey network (MBAQS network) was
started in 1965 and currently includes ten stations, four in the City of
Baltimore and three each in Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties. The
Statewide Air Monitoring System (AIRMON network) operates stations through-
out the State, including two in the City of Baltimore, with a central data-
processing facility at the offices of the Bureau of Air Quality Control,
also in Baltimore. All of the twelve stations are in the relatively most
urbanized portion of the Region. Station location information is presented
in Table II-l; the "BMATS District" column refers to the study districts
defined by the Baltimore Metropolitan Area Transportation Study, which
will be used subsequently in considering the traffic data, and emission
estimates.
The ten MBAQS stations are operated by the Health Departments of
Baltimore City and the adjoining Counties; they measure carbon monoxide
and total hydrocarbons with automatic instrumentation, and measure NC>2 and
II-8
-------
TABLE II-1
AIR QUALITY MONITORING SITES
REFERENCE
NUMBER
State Network
1
2
MBAQS Network
11
12
13
21
22
23
31
32
33
34
JURISDICTION NAME
Baltimore City AIRMON #1
AIRMGN #2
Anne Arundel Co. Glen Burnie
Riviera Bch,
Linthicum
Baltimore County Towson
Essex
Garrison
Baltimore City Toone &
Robinson
Sun &
Chesapeake
Wilmarco
Eager St.
TRAFFIC
LOCATION DISTRICT
Green & Lombard Sts.
Calvert & 22nd St.
Dept. of Public Works
R.B. Elem Sch.
Overlook Elem. Sch.
Goucher College Serv. Bldg.
Woodward & Dorsey Ave.
Reistertown Police Barracks
Toone & Robinson Sts.
Sun & Chesapeake Sts.
200 Wilmarco Ave.
401 E. Eager St.
20
50
16
17
14
57
78
46
72
13
21
50
-------
photochemical oxidants with routinely-scheduled grab samples and wet
chemical techniques. The carbon monoxide instrumentation uses the
approved reference method, nondispersive infrared absorption, but the
oxidant sampling is by the phenolphthalein method, which is not an
approved equivalent to the reference method. The AIRMON stations, op-
erated by the State Bureau of Air Quality Control, continuously measure
CO, NO, N02, total hydrocarbons, Clfy, and total oxidants, all by the
reference methods, and in addition, report NOX and non-methane hydro-
carbons. A detailed list of the instruments and methods used are pre-
sented as Table II-2.
Questions of data validation weigh heavily in the evaluation
of the available air quality data in Baltimore. The AIRMON network has
been in operation only a relatively short time, since March 1972, and
so the data must be considered still subject to the extra validation
judgements typical of a network's shake-down phase. On the other hand,
the continuous data from the MBAQS system does not receive adequate
validation under normal, routine procedures, and is generally seriously
contaminated by undetected instrumentation errors, undeleted calibration
runs, and so on. The State Bureau of Air Quality Control has attempted
to validate the highest levels in the process of implementation planning,
resulting in the deletion of sizable blocks of data. Such an after-the-
fact effort by a separate agency is not a feasible substitute for proper
network operation, however, and an examination of the day in-day out
routine hourly average tabulations indicates that fair amounts of con-
tamination still exist. Consequently, the choice of data to use involves
11-10
-------
TABLE II-2
AIR QUALITY INSTRUMENTATION
(Vehicular-Related Pollutants)
POLLUTANT
METHOD
MANUFACTURER
AIRMON Stations
Carbon Monoxide
Photochemical Oxidant
NO, N02, NOX
Total Hydrocarbons
Methane
Infrared Intertech
Chemilumines cence
Colorimetric-Saltzman Linton
Flame lonization Beckman
Subtractive Column Beckman
Flame lonization
MBAQS Stations
Carbon Monoxide
Photochemical Oxidant
N02
Total Hydrocarbons
Infrared
Phenolphthalein
Colorimetric-Saltzman
Flame lonization
Beckman
(Grab Samples)
(Grab Samples)
Beckman
11-11
-------
a number of judgements, based both on the relative reliability of the data
as well as on the appropriateness of the analytical method; the experience
of the State BAQC staff has been relied upon heavily in making these choices.
2. Carbon Monoxide
Data from both of the networks is gathered by approved, com-
parable infrared absorbtion techniques, so that, given appropriate pre-
cautions against interferences and good validation procedures, the data
could be used interchangeably. As indicated, the MBAQS data had serious
validation problems,but these are expected to be at a minimum so long as
concern is restricted to the maximum levels, as is the case with the present
study. The data from the two State AIRMON stations in Baltimore is avail-
able only since April, 1972; although the quality of the data appears excel-
lent, there is as yet no data for the winter season, when the 8-hour CO
levels prove to be greatest. The results from the early months of operation
also indicate relatively low carbon monoxide levels, with concentrations
rarely averaging as much as 10 ppm for an hour. This is believed by the
State to be due to the stations' locations; both are located relatively
further from significantly-travelled streets than is the typical urban
monitoring site.
Consequently, the MBAQS data will be used in the subsequent analy-
ses of carbon monoxide levels. During the period 1968-1971, the four MBAQS
Baltimore City stations reported maximum 24-hour average levels ranging
from 20 to 30 ppm, while the six outer stations reported maximum days around
10 to 15 ppm. The maximum hourly mean concentrations reported at the various
11-12
-------
stations ranged from 17 to 62 ppm, generally in proportion to the maxi-
mum 24-hour values; the 1-hour National Primary Air Quality Standard of
35 ppm was exceeded at the four Baltimore City Stations in the earlier
years, though none did so during 1971. The early MBAQS data has not been
summarized as 8-hour averages, so that direct comparison with the 8-hour
National Primary Air Quality Standard is not possible. A manual examination
of the unsummarized data by the State indicated that 8-hour average levels
occasionally exceeded 17 ppm, and so it was presumed that the 8-hour
standard of 9 ppm was exceeded fairly frequently. It is not clear that
these relatively high reported levels are completely valid; a summary of
maximum values is particularly susceptible to data contamination.
A more quantitative assessment of ambient carbon monoxide
levels is presented in Tables II-3 and 11-4, based on the most recent (and
most reliable) year of data available from the MBAQS network, the twelve
months from June 1971 through May 1972. The data in Table II-3 represent
the highest and second highest 1-hour average CO concentrations recorded
during the period. The 1-hour standard is exceeded only very rarely, and
then only by slight amounts and for single isolated hours. The highest
hourly averages are almost always observed at the time of the morning
peak traffic period; this indicates that the cause is most likely either
an unusual traffic situation on the nearby roadway or a case of a quite
persistant nocturnal radiation inversion lasting through the peak traffic
hour. The standard was exceeded more than once at only one station, so in
view of the emission reductions anticipated from the federal control pro-
gram, it is apparent that meeting the 1-hour standard by 1977 is not apt
to be of concern.
11-13
-------
TABLE II-3
MAXIMUM 1-HR AVERAGE
CO CONCENTRATIONS (PPM)
June 1971 - May 1972
STATION
MAXIMUM
VALUE (DATE)
SECOND
HIGHEST (DATE)
11 Glen Burnie
12 Riviera Beach
13 Linthicum
21 Towson
22 Essex
23 Garrison
31 Toone & Robinson
32 Sun & Chesapeake
33 Wilmarco
34 Eager St.
51 (12/1/71)
10 (4/29/72)
20 (4/19/72)
15 (6/29/71)
Data
Data
24 (9/16/71)
Data
27 (12/16/71)
20 (6/16/72)
42 (10/6/71)
10 (4/10/72)
17 (12/20/71)
14 (12/11/71)
Deleted As Invalid
Deleted As Invalid
23 (Twice)
Deleted As Invalid
21 (12/12/71)
20 (4/14/72)
11-14
-------
TABLE II-4
HIGHEST 8-HR AVERAGE CO CONCENTRATIONS
June 1971 - May 1972
STATION
11 - Glen Burnie
12 - Riviera Beach
13 - Linthicum
21 - Towson
22 - Essex
23 - Garrison
31 - Toone & Robinson
32 - Sun & Chesapeake
33 - Wilmarco
34 - Eager St.
CONG. (PPM)
9.9
9.3
8.5
5.9
5.3
5.0
4.9
7.0
7.0
6.1
4.3
13.6
12.9
11.6
11.0
10.7
10.5
14.1
10.9
9.9
9.1
DATA
DATA
20.6
20.1
20.0
18.9
18.6
18.6
DATA
15.6
12.9
12.5
12.3
16.4
16.0
15.5
15.4
14.9
14.4
14.1
14.0
n.:'
DATE
11/12-13/71
12/1/71
12/20-21/71
12/27/71
2/15/72
2/29-3/1/72
4/3/72
4/16/72
5/21/72
4/29/72
4/10/72
10/12-13/71
10/30/71
10/16/71
10/9-10/71
12/20-21/71
10/29/71
6/29-30/71
8/9-10/71
12/11-12/71
12/20-1/71
DELETED AS INVALID
DELETED AS INVALID
8/5-6/71
9/29/71
4/1-2/72
1/28/72
9/16/71
9/24-5/71
DELETED AS INVALID
12/11-12/71
6/29-30/71
7/3-4/71
2/29-3/1/72
2/25/72
2/24-5/72
5/11/72
10/^9-30/71
2/29/72
1/3/72
2/28/72
1/J I./ 72
I0/'.'l~2//l
TIME OF DAY
1800-0200
0000-0800
1800-0200
0400-1200
0300-1100
1800-0200
1600-2400
1600-2400
1500-2300
1600-2400
0000-0800
1800-0200
0000-0800
0300-1100
1900-0300
1800-0200
0300-1100
2000-0400
2100-0500
1900-0300
1700-0100
2200-0600
0300-1100
2200-0600
0300-1100
0300-1100
2200-0600
2100-0500
2000-0400
2100-0500
1900-0300
0800-1600
1700-0100
0200-1000
1900-0300
1600-2400
1600-2400
0200-1000
(WOO-] 700
1 ')()() -tl'lOll
I I - I '.
-------
In contrast, most of the monitoring stations recorded 8-hour
average levels well above the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm. Since the choice of
control strategy, if any, necessary to reduce high 8-hour CO concentrations
may depend on when and how they occur, an effort was made to determine the
typical patterns of seasonal and diurnal variation in high levels, if any
exist. Because of the format in which the data were available, it proved
necessary to investigate the variability using hourly averages. Because
of the missing and spurious data, however, it was not possible to clearly
quantitate the patterns prevailing at any single site, although it was clear
that there were obvious general tendencies. Seasonally, the highest maxi-
mum values tend to occur in the fall and winter months. Diurnally, the
highest hourly maxima tend to occur at the time of the morning traffic
peak from 7 to 9 a.m.; sustained periods of high hourly averages, however,
tend to occur in the evening and overnight, during the period from 6 or
7 p.m. through 3 to 5 a.m., most often in the fall and winter. As is seen
in Table II-4, the typical high 8-hour average either begins shortly after
the evening traffic peak and persists till past midnight or begins some-
time later, possibly lasting until the morning traffic peak. On only two
occasions, January 11 and February 25, 1972, both at the Eager Street
station, did a high 8-hour period occur through the day, including some of
both morning and evening traffic.
Thought of in terms of the known diurnal patterns in the
motor vehicle traffic that produces the carbon monoxide, this seems at
first somewhat unusual, as the overnight hours are clearly the time of
least traffic. The reason for this seeming contradiction is, of course,
11-16
-------
the daily pattern of changes in meteorological dispersion; during mid-day,
when traffic volume is high, the capacity of the atmosphere to disperse
pollutants is also at it's highest, with turbulent mixing and relatively
higher wind speeds. In contrast, the evening hours typically present
poorer dispersion, with frequent stable, nonturbulent conditions and
generally lower wind speeds, all at a time when traffic volumes are still
sizable. In the winter, with its early sunset, the poor dispersion condi-
tions are often "closing in" at the same time as the evening traffic peak,
or shortly after. Thus, it is not surprising to find the worst 8-hour
CO levels on early winter evenings. Figure II-l presents data for one
such period when several of the stations recorded relatively high CO levels.
The levels began increasing in late afternoon, and then the highest period
began just with the evening traffic. The weather was warm, but rainy and
then cloudy all day, so there was relatively little sunlight-induced tur-
bulence; overnight and Tuesday morning, the winds were under 3 miles per
hour and it was very foggy. In the late afternoon on Tuesday, a front came
through and the weather became suddenly clear and fairly windy; this is
readily seen in the graph as the abrupt decrease in carbon monxide levels
around 4:00 p.m., and the bare hint of a peak corresponding to the evening
rush hour. Noting the date in Figure II-l, it is apparent that another
factor contributed to the high levels - the last week of Christmas shopping.
This also helps emphasize the role of meteorological dispersion; the evening
traffic on Tuesday was surely at least roughly comparable to that on Monday,
yet the excellent dispersion has reduced ambient levels to near zero.
11-17
-------
8 HOUR STANDARD
12
6a,m. 12 6p.m.
MONDAY, DEC. 20, 1971
6a.m. 12
TUESDAY, DEC. 21, 1971
6 p.m
12
Figure II-l. Typical Overnight High 8-hour CO Levels.
-------
The data in Figure II-l was chosen because it illustrated
the point clearly; it is not from the stations with the highest levels,
nor were the days involved the highest at the st%tions. The shape of the
variation overnight is, however, quite typical of the high 8-hour average
CO levels found at the several stations.
3. Photochemical Oxidants
With respect to photochemical oxidants, there is less data
available; the MBAQS stations continuously record total hydrocarbon levels,
but measure oxidant only with grab samples and phenolphthalein wet chemistry,
which is not an approved equivalent to the chemiluminescence reference
method. The two AIKMON stations have reference method oxidant instruments
and methane instruments, but their data is available only since March 1972.
The 10-minute phenolphthalein oxidant data from the MBAQS station
is summarized in Table II-5, including the equivalent 1-hour potassium iodide
(KI) values, obtained by dividing by the "standard" correction factor of 2
and a peak-to-mean factor of 1.1. Taking these KI equivalent levels at
face value, it appears that maximum oxidants levels are approximately at
or just below the 0.08 ppm standard, rather uniformly so throughout the
area. The one station with a distinctly-higher maximum also recorded other
high values, so there is no evidence for concluding the maximum is an
anomaly. This station, in Riviera Beach, is generally downwind of the
central business district and the harbor industrial area, so it likely is
just reflecting the influence of these areas on days with appropriate meteor-
11-19
-------
TABLE II-5
MAXIMUM 1-HR OXIDANT LEVELS
MBAQS STATIONS, 1969-71
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION (PPM)
11
12
13
21
22
23
31
32
33
34
STATION
- Glen Burnie
- Riviera Beach
- Linthicum
- Tow son
- Essex
- Garrison
- Toone & Robinson
- Sun & Chesapeake
- Wilmarco
- Read St.
PHENOLPHTHALEIN
(10-minute)
0.128
0.256
0.171
0.177
0.138
0.118
0.103
0.144
0.172
0.149
KI EQUIVALENT
(1-Hour)
0.058
0.115
0.077
0.080
0.062
0.053
0.046
0.065
0.077
0.067
11-20
-------
ology. It was on the basis of this oxidant information that the State's
original implementation plan concluded that the 1-hour oxidant standard
would be just met by 1975 through the federal motor vehicle control
programs and stationary source controls.
The chemiluminesence oxidant instruments at the AIRMON stations
have only been operating since March 1972, and hence only the 1972 summer
is really available for determining maximum levels. The oxidant levels
over 0.08 ppm are tabulated in Table II-6. The highest hourly oxidant
level recorded was 0.21 ppm on August 26, 1972, and the second highest
0.20 ppm on July 19, 1972, both at the AIRMON #2 station. The instru-
ments have proven quite satisfactory, and there is no reason whatever
to question the data; thus, since the' data is gathered
by the reference method, it was decided to consider the levels determined
at the AIRMON sites as the ones that should be compared with the standard,
despite the short history of the data. The availability of this data
significantly modified the assessment of the present oxidant problem,
from a situation with maximum levels typically near the standard to one
with maximum levels well over twice the standard, and it presumably will
prove to be impossible to meet the standard by 1975, as was previously
thought.
With respect to the MBAQS data, two possibilities arise; the
data can be discarded, or we could choose to consider the phenolphthalein
data as defining patterns of spatial variations. The maximum value of
0.115 ppm at the Riviera Beach site is 1.80 times the 0.064 ppm average
11-21
-------
TABLE II-6
1-HOUR OXIDANT CONCENTRATIONS OVER 0.08 PPM
AIRMON STATIONS
DATE
STATION 1 June 4
(Green & Lombard Sts.) July 2
July 14
July 17
July 19
Aug 26
STATION 2 May 18
(Calvert & 22nd St.) May 22
May 23
May 24
June 3
June 4
June 16
June 30
July 11
July 14
July 15
July 16
July 17
July 18
July 19
July 20
July 21
Aug 11
Aug 12
Aug 26
Aug 27
MAXIMUM
1-HOUR CONG.
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.09
0.13
0.09
0.13
0.11
0.14
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.19
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.12
0.20
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.13
0.21
0.09
TIME OF DAY
EXCEEDED
2-3p.m.
2-4p.m.
12-3p.m.
12-lp.m.
12-3p.m.
l-4p.m.
2-3p.m.
12-3p.m.
2-4p.m.
lla.m. -7p.m.
lla.ci. -6p.m.
10a.m. -5p,m.
12-lp.m.
ll-12a.m.
12-lp.m.
lla.m. -3 p.m.
lla.m. -1 p.m.
lla.m. -3p.m.
lla.m. -llp.m.
l-2p.m.
9a.m. -6p.m.
10a.m. -llp.m.
lla.m. -llp.m.
2-3p .m.
12-5p.m.
lla.m. -5p.m.
12-2p.m.
11-22
-------
of the maximum values at the four Baltimore City sites. To estimate the
maximum and second-highest hourly average at the Riviera Beach station,
this ratio, interpreted as measuring a geographical pattern, can
be applied to the maximum and second-highest hourly average values from
the Baltimore City AIKMON stations. If this were done, the estimated
maximum and second-highest hourly oxidant levels for the Region would be
about 0.38 and 0.36 ppm respectively. It was decided, however, not to
make use of the MBAQS data in this way. While the concept of using the
data to establish a pattern for geographical extrapolation is fairly
sound, and the phenolphthalein data appears internally consistent and
of good quality, the striking difference in numerical values is too great
to overlook. The fault is very possibly in the "well-established" conver-
sion factor, which perhaps should be more carefully considered. As it
turns out in the present case, the maximum levels of 0.21 ppm raise
serious difficulties in meeting the standard, so that the question of
extrapolating to a higher value becomes largely a moot point.
As was the case with carbon monoxide, it is desirable to have
some knowledge of the type of meteorological conditions under which high
oxidant levels occur, in order to properly consider potential control
strategies. Fortunately, knowledge of the gross mechanisms of oxidant
formation is relatively well developed, although precise quantitative
relationships may not be available. The days on which the highest hourly
average oxidant levels occur are days with plenty of sunshine, clear skies
or very little cloudiness, and high temperatures, as expected. The wind
direction varies, typically from west to north, but occasionally shifting
11-23
-------
In the afternoon, perhaps indicating the formation of a sea breeze. After-
noon wind speed is not generally light, but is seldom over 12 mph; earlier
wind speeds are generally slower, though this would be typical of any day.
Mest af the high levels are recorded at the AIRMON 2 station north of the
ctnter city; the oxidant levels at Station 1, to the southwest, seem to
be consistently lower. However, even though the absolute value of the
Irveli differs, the correlation between the two stations is excellent;
this would imply that the differences are real geographic differences,
however caused, rather than being reflections on the quality of the data.
4. Conclusions
In very brief summary, the present air quality levels in Baltimore
reflect rather widespread violation of the 8-hour carbon monoxide standard,
and quite sizable violation of the oxidant standard. The data on which
these appraisals are made are subject to some criticism in the case of
CO, but are in general adequate when viewed from the perspective of the
typical data quality in a number of cities.
C. VEHICLE-MILES OF TRAVEL
Estimating the emissions from a population of vehicles requires
some measure of the amount they are driven; since the emission factors are
available in terms of grams per mile (per vehicle), the measure commonly
used is vehicle-miles of travel (VMT). In addition to VMT data, the
source-amiss ion relationship requires information on travel speed and on
the age distribution and vehicle-type mix of the vehicle population.
11-24
-------
1. Assessment of Traffic Data Base
The most critical of the inputs is the VMT information. In
order to make most use of the extensive air quality data and to provide
a rational basis for considering transportation control strategies
affecting sub-areas of the Region, it was necessary to have emissions,
and hence VMT estimates, on a relatively-fine scale, comparable at
least to the scale of areas in which strategies might be considered.
There were three general methods available for producing this
information from the available base data, specifically:
Use of current traffic data as a base condition, with.pro-
jections based on trendline analysis.
Use of the standard urban transportation planning method-
ology, consisting of a set of chain models including trip
generation, trip distribution, modal split, and traffic
assignment.
Use of an aggregate level, direct assignment type model,
which would output VMT without going through the conven-
tional model chain.
The first method was considered too gross for the analysis at
hand. The second was the most desirable from the technical point of view,
but because of the relatively high cost and time requirements of this pro-
cedure, it was beyond the scope of the present contract. There exists 1962
and 1980 VMT data produced by this methodology as part of the Baltimore
Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (BMATS) and interpolation of this
data was considered. However, discussions with local officials suggested
that the projected data had not, in fact, accurately predicted the actual
11-25
-------
historical growth trends. The third approach had considerable appeal, as
it seemed to meet the data requirements with the proper scale of analysis
for input to the emission models. In addition, such a model, which could
produce both VMT and speed estimates, was already being programmed for
use by the Maryland Bureau of Air Quality Control, and the results of their
efforts would be available for use in this study. Thus, this procedure
was selected for the development of transportation data. Since a variety
of tha necessary data was available for 1970, it was decided to use 1970 as
the "present" or base year for the computation and to use as data-base areas the
Districts defined previously for the BMATS study, Figures II-2 and II-3.
2. The Koppelman Model and VMT Calculations
The model used to estimate 1970 and 1977 vehicle miles of travel
and speed by facility type was developed by the Tri-State Transportation
Commission under the direction of Frank S. Koppelman. Although primarily
a highway needs model, designed as an aid in making highway investment de-
cisions, the Koppelman procedure contains sub-models which estimate the
parameters of interest to the air quality models.
For the N*w York City region, a regression model** was developed
to relata vehicle miles of travel density, vehicle trip origin density,
and expressway supply. The VMT model is summarized by:
VMT » 64.3 (VTE0-74) (e1'6
**
Frank S. Koppelman, A'Model for Highway Needs Evaluation, Highway
Research Record No. 314', Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C. 1970.
Tri-State Transportation Commission, A Model for Highway Needs Evaluation
Interim Technical Report 4157-2490, New York, 1969. '
-------
X
Figtu*w H~2 Baltimore Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (BWATS) Districts
11-27
-------
Figure TT-3 Baltimore Metropolitan Area Transportation Study
(BMATS) Districts-Baltimore City
11-28
-------
where:
VMT = vehicle miles of travel per square mile
VTE = vehicle trip ends per square mile
FE = foot-miles of expressway per square mile
FO = foot-miles of locals and arterials per square mile
Relationships were also developed between average speed, traffic
volumes, and trip ends:
SPD-EXP = 55.3 - 0.73 VLB - 5.19 log VTE
SPD-ART = 32.7 - 1.21 VLA - 8.64 log VTE
SPD-LOC = 18.9 - 6.5 log VTE
where:
SPD-EXP = average speed on expressways
SPD-ART = average speed on arterials
SPD-LOC = average speed on local streets
VLB = average volume per lane on expressways in thousands
VLA = average volume per lane on arterials in thousands
VTE = average vehicle trip ends per square mile in thousands
These two submodels were used by Berwager and Wickstrom as part
of a macro-level auto emissions model for the Washington, D.C. area. Based
on the Washington experience, the Maryland Bureau of Air Quality Control
decided to use this procedure in conjunction with their own emissions model
to evaluate alternative future highway systems. Thus, when this study was
initiated, the general framework had already been established, with the
Koppelman model as an integral part. It was agreed at the first formal
Sydney D. Berwager and George V. Wickstrom, Estimating Auto Emissions
of Alternative Transportation Systems, Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments, Washington, D.C., 1972.
11-29
-------
meeting held by EPA with the consultants and local officials that use
of this model should be continued. Because the equations, developed
originally for New York City, had provided a reasonable fit to the Wash-
ington data, no separate calibration was performed to relate the model
structure to Baltimore.
Inputs to the Koppelman Model
Vehicle trip end density and foot miles of expressways, arterials,
and local streets was required for each BMATS district to project 1970
and 1977 VMT with the Koppelman model. Vehicle trip ends were interpolated
from the 1962-1980 projections of the BMATS study. The BMATS trip ends
were calculated on the basis of composite 1962 auto-transit truck trips.
1970 and 1977 estimates of foot miles for each highway type were obtained
from current and projected highway network data provided by the Regional
Planning Council. Data on average volume per lane on expressways and
arterials, which the Koppelman model uses to estimate average speeds, was
y?
derived from the Highway Capacity Manual relationships. A description of
the 1970 and 1977 highway network, which forms the basis of input to the
Koppelman model, is included below.
1970 and 1977 Highway Networks
The 1970 base highway network, as updated by the Maryland Depart-
ment of Transportation for the region, was used for the 1970 estimates,
Highway Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report
No. 87, 1965.
11-30
-------
including all freeways, arterials, and major collector and local streets
in each BMATS district. No rapid transit links were expected to be corn-
plated by 1977; the 1977 transportation network was assumed to be simply
the same basic highway system, with the addition of some links in the
Interstate system within Baltimore city.
Figure II-4 is a map of the Baltimore City portion of the adopted
Interstate highway plan for the area, popularly termed the "3-A System,"
showing the links included in the 1977 analyses. Although it was assumed
that these links will be operational by 1977, it must be emphasized that
all of them are presently in some stage of litigation and/or environmental
impact review, and several other sections in the system have not yet
entered the location or design stage of the planning process. Thus the
assumptions regarding the additional completed links, which were provided
by the Interstate Division for Baltimore City, must be viewed as "optimistic"'
with much depending on the outcome of the various lawsuits.
The highway facilities assumed to be operational by 1977 were:
(1) I-70N (Leakin Park Expressway) to Hilton Parkway
(2) 1-83 (Jones Falls Expressway) to Gay Street
(3) 1-95 (northern section) to O'Donnell Street
(4) 1-95 (southern section) to Washington Boulevard
(5) Central Boulevard, Mulberry Street to Russell Street
The other segments of the Interstate system were not expected
to be completed until 1978 or later and, again, it was assumed that none
of the rail rapid transit system would be operational by 1977.
11-31
-------
Estimated complete in 1977
Proposed completion after 1977
Source: Interstate Division For Baltimore City
Figure U-b Baltimore Interstate Highway Network, 1977
11-32
-------
Results
The Maryland Bureau of Air Quality Control programmed and ran
the Koppelman model on facilities at the University of Maryland. The
data inputs were monitored and reviewed by the Air Quality Task Force
and the consultants, as were the results. The Koppelman model output
included VMT and average speeds by facility type for each District. Fig-
ures 11-5 and II-6 display these outputs, for 1970 and 1977, in terms of
VMT density as a function of distance from the central business district
(CBD). Although individual points exhibit considerable variation, the
results are reasonable in the light of general experience. Figure II-7
summarizes the general growth from 1970 to 1977. Based on the Koppelman
procedures, regional VMT densities are expected to increase approximately
40 percent during this period.
3. Factors for Vehicle Type
Because the input trip ends were composite data including travel
by heavy-duty vehicles, the output data also include truck travel, so it
was necessary to factor the VMT estimates into vehicle type. Heavy-duty
VMT was analyzed using several information sources to develop estimates
of the portion of VMT attributable to light-duty gasoline vehicles (6,000
Ibs. GVW or less), heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (over 6,000 Ibs.) and non-
gasoline vehicles. The latter category was derived from fuel tax data
for the State of Maryland; heavy-duty gasoline vehicles were estimated
from BMATS figures, adjusted for diesel, and interpolated for 1970 and
1977. The factors used are tabulated in Table II-7; the Bureau of Air
11-33
-------
bOO-
cT
'i
>-
t-
00
z
UJ
o
1-
X
>
10 -
1 -
i
.
1
9
J
m
\
' m
4
w
*
w
*
,
.
,
»
*
DISTANCE FROM CBD (Mi les)
15 16 17 I I
Figure H-5 VMT density (K/mi2) vs. distance from CBD (Miles)
Baltimore 1970
11-34
-------
600
1 00-
i n
0
^
1
2 ;
*
**
V
*
w
ft
!
ft
*
1
5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l(
DISTANCE FROM CBD (Mi les)
Figure U-6 VMT density (K/mi2) vs. distance from CBD (Miles)
Baltimore 1977
-------
DUU-
N
>
»-
1/1
Z
LU
0
g
10-
l-
<
\
S
\
S
s
s
\
\
\
^
s
X,
^
s
N.
N,
V
\
\
s s
x^
^
1970
\
"\
V
N^
N.
>
\
\^
SN
\
K
\
X
X
<
X.
s
N
v^
s
\
\
\
x^
\
\
N
\
""
\
V
\
\
"\
v
0 I 2 3 b 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I it 15 16 17 18 19
DISTANCE FROM CBD (Mi les)
Figure H[-7 Comparison of 1970-1977 VMI Densities.
11-36
-------
TABLE II-7
VEHICLE-TYPE FACTORS FOR BALTIMORE AREA VMT DATA
Light Duty Gasoline
Heavy Duty Gasoline
Heavy Duty Diesel
1970
Percent
88.9
9.9
1.2
100.0
1977 ^
Percent
86.0
12.5
1.5
100.0
Assumes 26 percent growth in truck registrations and
corresponding travel based on U.S. Department of Trans-
portation estimates.
Quality Control obtained similar estimates using a procedure related to
national statistics. The VMT estimates, by facility type, vehicle type,
and District, are tabulated in Appendix A, not only for the basic 24-hour
average weekday, but also for peak-hour and maximum 12-hour periods.
It is important to keep in mind that the Koppelman procedure pro-
duces its estimates based on empirical regressions on input parameters ex-
pressed as geographical densities, rather than from any input that makes
use of the fact that the highway system has a network structure. Because
of this, it is quite sensitive to the level of aggregation of the input,
i.e., the size of the geographical areas over which the input and output
densities are computed, and totally insensitive to the logical "connected-
ness" of the highway pattern. The Koppelman estimates of VMT, as shown in
Appendix A, cannot be considered valid at the District aggregation level,
11-37
-------
except possibly in the larger suburban Districts. They are, however,
assumed to be valid for use in analysis at a broader level of aggrega-
tion. For purposes of determining the emissions-air quality relationship,
the BMATS Districts were aggregated into clusters in the vicinity of
the air quality monitoring sites. For purposes of future air quality pro-
jections and for the analysis of candidate transportation control strate-
gies, the Districts were aggregated into three concentric rings centered
upon the central business distric (CBD). These rings, labelled Central, Urban
Fringe, and Suburbs, were jointly defined by the Air Quality Task Force
and the consultants as shown in Figure 1-1 they are subsequently re-
ferred to as "analysis areas'1.
4. Vehicle Age Distribution Data
Beyond VMT and speed data, the emission-estimation process re-
quires knowledge of the distribution of VMT among various model year
vehicles, in order to accurately take into account the changes in emission
factors. This information is a combination of the age distribution of
vehicles and the differences in the mileage driven by vehicles of various
ages. Vehicle age distribution data are available from two sources:
(1) the Maryland State Motor Vehicle Administration and (2) R. L. Polk &
Company, a commercial survey firm. Basic data from these sources are
tabulated in Appendix B, R.L. Polk data for automobiles and trucks sep-
arately, and State data for all vehicles. Table II-8 below
includestwo sets of vehicle-age and average-mileage distributions. The
data is from the sources noted, and the age-distribution data has been
11-38
-------
TABLE II-8
DISTRIBUTIONS OF VMT BY VEHICLE AGE
i
LJ
VO
POLK DATA USED IN PRESENT
Vehicle
Age (years)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Passenger
Vehicle
Distribution^3'
(Percent)
3.2
12.2
15.8
11.9
10.2
9.3
9.1
8.2
6.7
5.0
3.2
1.8
1.1
2.3
100.0
Cars
Average
Travel (b)
(Miles)
3,600
11,900
16,100
13,200
11,400
11,700
10,000
10,300
8,600
10,900
8,000
6,500
6,500
6,500
STUDY
Trucks
Vehicle
Distribution
(Percent)
3.0
10.8
13.5
10.7
8.3
8.1
7.7
6.4
5.3
4.2
3.3
2.5
2.2
14.0
100.0
Average
Travel^)
(Miles)
3,500
11,700
17,200
15,800
15,800
13,000
13,000
11,000
11,000
9,000
9,000
5,500
5,500
5,500
MARYLAND STATE
DATA
All Vehicles
Vehicle
Distribution^0)
(Percent)
4.1
11.8
11.5
10.5
9.3
9.5
9.2
7.7
6.5
6.0
5.0
4.0
| 4., I
) )
Average
Travel (c)
(Miles)
3,300
12,900
11,750
10,650
9,550
9,225
8,675
8,475
7,900
7,225
6,675
5,200
4,500
100.0
(a) GCA Adjustment to R.L. Polk data in
Table B-l
(b) Kircher & Armstrong, 1972, quoting
AMA Publications
(c) Maryland BAQC Modification of data in
Table B-2
(d) Bureau of Public Roads data quoted by
Maryland BAQC
-------
TABLE II-9
POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM MOTOR VEHICLES
BY ANALYSIS AREA AND VEHICLE TYPE
By Analysis Area:
Carbon
Monoxide
(kg/day)
1970 1977
Percent
Change
Hydro-
carbons
(kg/day)
1970 1977
Percent
Change
Central area
Fringe area
Suburban area
Total BMATS Area
108,450 50,085 -54
609,393 283,778 -53
396,695 234,333 -41
1,114,541 568,196
182,288 86,497 -53
By Vehicle Type:
Light-Duty Gasoline
Heavy-Duty Gasoline
Other
Total
905,145 343,630 -62
205,309 218,338 + 6
4,087 6,228 +52
1,114,541 568,196
141,578 47,062 067
40,038 38,411 - 4
672 1,024 +52
182,288 86,497
Note: The values for the total area are those calculated for the
entire area as a single piece; they differ slightly from the
sum of the District-level results because of the non-linearity
of the speed adjustment factor. To avoid confusion, the emis-
sions in the Suburban area have been determined by difference
so that the tables will sum properly.
11-40
-------
adjusted from that in Appendix B to account for the difference between
the mid-year vehicle counts available and the end-of-year distributions
desired.
The distribution based on R.L. Polk data was used for both
1970 and 1977 emissions estimates herein. The second set of distributions
was used by the State Bureau of Air Quality Control for their calculations,
and is included to provide some perspective on the magnitude of variation
in such data.
D. POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
1. Emissions from Motor Vehicles
Given the estimated 1970 population of motor vehicles, or
more specifically, their usage in the form of estimated vehicle miles
travelled (VMT), estimating emissions can be done with empirical relation-
ships, the classic emission factors. In the case of motor vehicles, the
emission factors are a function of the model year of the vehicle (the
initial control devices and emission level), the age of the vehicle
(deterioration), and the vehicle speed. Data on the distribution of
vehicles by age can be used to incorporate the first two factors, while
vehicle speeds must be estimated on the basis of traffic engineering pro-
cedures. In the present case, vehicle age distribution data was avail-
able from the Maryland State Motor Vehicle Administration for all vehicles,
and from the commercial survey firm of R.L. Polk and Co. for light- and
heavy-duty vehicles separately as tabulated in Table II-8; in the subse-
11-41
-------
quent emission calculations herein, the Polk data were used.
Basic emission factors by model year (in grams per vehicle
mile) and adjustment factors for deterioration and speed were taken from
the EPA draft document provided. A computer program incorporating these
relationships was prepared and used to calculate emission estimates from
the VMT and speed data produced by the Koppelman procedure. Such calcu-
lations were made for each of the 68 BMATS Districts, as well as for the
total study area; these are tabulated in Appendix C. In the case of CO,
these District-level emission estimates were then summed to provide the
totals for the three analysis areas as tabulated in Table II-9.
2. Stationary Source Emission
Although motor vehicles produce the larger portion of the carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions in the Baltimore region, there are
sizable stationary sources and non-automotive vehicular sources, and they
become increasingly significant as automotive emissions are reduced.
Estimated annual emissions from such sources in 1970 were about 95,000
tons of carbon monoxide and about 58,000 tons of hydrocarbons, representing
respectively about 18 and 45 percent of the totals for the region, as
tabulated in Tables 11-10 and 11-11.
For purposes of this effort, the major stationary source CO emis-
sions were included in the appropriate BMATS District, to be included for
density-calculation purposes in that District only. The emissions from the
smaller point sources of CO were distributed into the three analysis areas
*
Klrcher & Armstrong, 1972.
11-42
-------
TABLE II- 10
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
Source
Category
1970
tons/year kg/day
1977
tons/year kg/day °L
Non-Automotive (1)
Power plants
Refuse disposal
Space heating
Shipping, etc.
Aircraft
Industry
Sub-Total
1,345
3,070
4,535
10,320
23,810
52.680
95,760
3,350
7,650
11,300
25,700
59,300
131,200
238,500
0.2
0.6
0.8
1.9
4.4
9.7
17.6
350
1,300
3,500
11,750
29,000
41.600
87,500
870
3,240
8,700
29,300
72,200
103,600
217,900
0.1
0.4
1.1
3.7
9.2
13.2
27.7
Automotive (2)
Total
1.114.500 82,4
1.353.000 100
568.200 72.3
786.100 100
(1) Estimates in tons per year supplied by the Maryland State Bureau of Air
Quality Control; converted to kg/day assuming 365-day operations.
(2) GCA estimates based on average weekday traffic.
11-43
-------
Table
11-11
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
Source
Category
Non- Automotive (1)
Power Plants
Refuse Disposal
Space Heating
Shipping, etc.
Aircraft
Solvent Usage
Gasoline Distribution
Other Industry
Misc. Gasoline Use
Sub-Total
tons/year
1,600
755
940
1,869
8,450
24,900
15,575
2,000
3,925
60,014
1970
kg/day
3,980
1,880
2,340
4,660
21,040
62,000
38,790
4,980
9,770
149,440
t
1.2
0.6
0.7
1.4
6.3
18.7
11.7
1.5
2.9
45.0
tons/year
1,850
300
1,070
2,136
2,900
11,200
15,000
2,300
4.470
41,226
1977
kg/day
4,606
747
2,664
5,318
7,221
27,887
37,350
5,727
11,130
102,650
7.
2.4
0.4
1.4
2.8
3.8
14.8
19.8
3.0
5.9
54.3
Automotive(3)
Total
182,290
331,730
55,0
100.0
86,500 45.7
189,150 100.0
(1) Tons/year supplied by Maryland State BAQC; converted to kg/day assuming
365 day operation.
(2) Figured as 60% of BAQC figure of same label to exclude diesel trucks and buses.
(3) GCA estimates based on average weekday traffic.
11-44
-------
according to their actual location, and then assumed to be distributed
uniformly within the area in the process of calculating emissions densi-
ties, as indicated in Table 11-12. Specific District assignments were
made for CO emissions from three sources: The Bethlehem Steel Sparrows
Point facility, Friendship Airport, and the Glidden-Durkee facility near
Curtis Bay. These sources account for nearly two-thirds of the regional
total of non-vehicular emissions; they produced over 11 percent of the
total regional CO emissions in 1970, and it is estimated that they will
amount to over 15 percent of the total in 1977.
The major non-vehicular sources are large enough to be a signi-
ficant portion of the CO problem in the area where their influence is
felt; since high 8-hour CO levels occur at times of minimum meteorological
dispersion, this is apt to be a fairly local small local area. Since it
is likely that these problems can be better defined by special monitoring,
etc., than through the empirical emission density-air quality methodology
herein, they are not dealt with further here, except to note that the air-
port, while not a vehicular source in the sense of the present effort,
isn't a stationary source in the sense that the State can deal with it as
such, so that its problem potential may warrent note by EPA.
The non-vehicular hydrocarbon emissions, like the emissions from
motor vehicles, were not distributed, but were treated in regional aggre-
gate, because of the long-time and broad-area nature of the oxidant-forma-
tion mechanisms. The non-vehicular hydrocarbon emissions, however, pre-
11-45
-------
TABLE 11-12
NON-VEHICULAR CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS DISTRIBUTION
BY ANALYSIS AREA
(Emissions in kg/day'3-*)
Major Point Sources:
Bethlehem Steel
Friendship Airport
Glidden-Durkee
Sub-total
Distributed Sources:
Central Area
Fringe Area
Suburban Area
Sub-total
Total
1970
73,500
59,300
19', 900
152,700
1,870
10,180
73,750
85,800
238,500
1977
36,750
72,200
9,950
118,900
2,160
11,740
85,100
99,000
217,900
Change
-50%
+22%
-50%
-22%
+16%
+15%
+15%
+15%
- 9%
(a)
Estimates in tons per year supplied by BAQC; converted to kg/day assuming
365-day operation.
11-46
-------
sent a complication in another area. They are largely from widely-
dispersed, small, retail gasoline and solvent-use sources, and as such
are quite difficult to control. Because they represent a quite sizable
part of the total, this relative inability to control the non-vehicular
sources becomes a crucial factor in determining whether the standard can
be met at all, let alone by the target date. Given this critical situa-
tion, it is inappropriate to maintain the crude assumption that all
sources are uniformly distributed throughout the day, which assumption is
implicit in using either annual or daily emission estimates.
To improve on this situation, the staff of the Maryland BAQC has
devised a method of making emission estimates appropriate to the 6-9 a.m.
time period of the hydrocarbon standard. This is done by applying to
each of the various categories of emissions a factor representing the por-
tion of the emissions from that type source that occur during the 6-9 a.m.
period in the summer. Table 11-13 summarizes these estimates; the second
column lists the morning peak factors used, and the balance of the table
results from applying these factors to the data of Table 11-11.
E. EMISSION-AIR QUALITY RELATIONSHIP
While the relationship between motor vehicles and their emissions
is a function of the automobiles themselves, subject to controlled engin-
eering research, the relationship between the emissions and the ambient
levels they produce is a function of meteorology, and must be determined
empirically in each geographical area. Involved in making this determina-
11-47
-------
TABLE II- 13
MORNING PEAK HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
Source
Category
Non-Automotive (1)
Power Plants
Refuse Disposal
Space Heating
Shipping, Etc. (2)
Aircraft
Solvent Usage
Gasoline Distribution
Other Industry
Misc. Gasoline Use
Sub-Total
Automotive (3)
Morning
Peak
Factor
1/8
1/8
0
1/8
1/8
1/12
1/12
1/8
1/32
1/4
1970
Morning Peak
ks %
498
235
0
583
2,630
5,168
3,233
623
305
13,275
45,575
58,850^ :
0.8
0.4
0.0
1.0
4.5
8.8
5.5
1.1
0.5
22.6
77.4
1977
Morning
kg
576
93
0
665
903
2,324
3,113
716
348
8,738
21V622
Peak
%
1.9
0.3
0.0
2.2
3.0
7.7
10.2
2.4
1.1
28.8
71.2
LOO.O 30,360 100.0
(1) Tons/year supplied by Maryland State BAQC; converted to kg/day assuming 365-day
operation.
(2) Figured as 60% of BAQC figure of same label to exclude diesel trucks & buses.
(3) GCA estimates based on average weekday traffic.
11-48
-------
tion is the question of what type of model - proportional, full diffu-
sion, or something intermediate - should be used to relate emission
levels and air quality levels. Obviously, since at least for CO, data
exists to define for us the geographical pattern of air quality levels,
any required emission reduction should rationally be sought in those
areas where the ambient pollutant levels are too high. This requirement
eliminates the simplest possible choice, a proportional or rollback
model based on a single maximum air quality value and the total emissions
in the entire region.
The most complex possible choice would have been a full diffusion
model, possibly with empirical sub-models to account for the effect of sen-
sor location and to calculate the requisite inputs. For purposes of this
study, the use of any such model had to be rejected on grounds of time
and cost, thus leaving the choice among various forms of proportional
modeling in some smaller areas. These models could be either based on emis-
sions from all the Districts in the region, with the different porportion-
ality constants being determined by diffusion techniques, or based on
single areas of one size or another about the sites, with simple linear
proportionality constants.
In brief summary, the method chosen for CO projections was por-
portional modelling in the three relatively homogeneous analysis areas,
with one uniform proportionality constant for the three, to be determined
from all the available data. The more complicated diffusion-allocated
rollback possibilities, such as in de Nevers 1972, were not chosen
11-49
-------
because the meteorological presumptions of such methods do not agree
with the known meteorological conditions at the times high CO levels
typically occur.
For similar reasons, the choice for use with oxidants was pro-
portional modeling on the single area defined by the Baltimore Metropoli-
tan Area Transportation Study; the difference in the size of the areas
chosen for the two pollutants reflects the different meteorological situa-
tions in which each normally reaches its maximum levels.
More specifically, the carbon monoxide methodology assumes that any
measure of air quality .would be proportional to the emission density at
the point in question, the proportionality constant being simply the
ratio of emissions to ambient concentrations, called "e/c ratio" for
brevity. Once determined for an urban area, the e/c ratio can be applied
to estimate the air quality associated with any emission density, or vice
versa; in particular, it can be used to establish the "permitted emission
density" associated with an air quality standard, in the present case, the
8-hour carbon monoxide standard of 9 ppm. The principal question in ap-
plying this projection procedure relates to choosing the areas within
which to aggregate emission estimates into a single emission density fig-
ure, since various choices produce various results. It should be noted
that if the entire study area is considered one area for this purpose
as with hydrocarbons, the procedure would be equivalent to a simple roll-
back of the region-wide emissions total.
While in the present study the BMATS Districts would seem a
natural choice for aggregation areas, study of the Koppelman emission
-------
estimates led to the conclusion that they were not really valid at the
District level, especially in the smaller center-city Districts where
interest centers. Thus the BMATS Districts were aggregated into three
"analysis areas," as described previously, and the density calculations
for carbon monoxide were made for these areas, as presented in Table
11-14. The analysis areas were defined in consultation with the Air
Quality Task Force, and of course are designed to ease the considerations
of the different types of strategies that might be applicable in the dif-
ferent portions of the urban area.
A similar but distinct question of choosing geographical areas
arises in the actual determination of the e/c ratio. Because the ratio
should in theory be a function of meteorological conditions primarily,
it should remain essentially constant over an urban area; thus it was
determined to utilize all the available data to provide one single ratio
for use in all three analysis areas, using the 1970 emissions estimates
and the measured air quality data to provide an e/c ratio at each air
quality monitoring site. Even so, the area considered in aggregating the
emission density around the station can affect the ratio at that site
somewhat, and so can have some effect on the overall combined e/c ratio.
Generally, in the various city studies, the immediate data reporting zone
has been used, and this was also done in Baltimore, using the appropriate
BMATS district. In several cases among the smaller Districts, however, it
was necessary to include adjacent ones also, often because the site was
quite near the District boundary. These aggregations were made in close
consultation with the BAQC staff and the staff of EPA Region III.
11-51
-------
TABLE 11-14
CO EMISSION DENSITIES BY ANALYSIS AREA
Emissions (kg/day)
1970 1977
Central Area (10.73 mi2)
Motor Vehicle
Stationary
Total
Urban Fringe (163.6 mi2)
Motor Vehicle
(a)
Stationary
Total
Suburban Area^ (602 .9 mi )
Motor Vehicle
(a)
Stationary
Total
108,450
1,870
110,320
609,393
10,174
619,567
396,695
73,736
470,431
50,085
2,144
52,229
283,778
11,665
295,443
234,333
84,546
318,879
2
Density (kg/day/mi )
1970 1977
10,107
174
10,281
3,725
62
3,787
658
122
780
4,668
200
4,868
1,735
71
1,806
389
140
529
Change
(percent)
-54
+15
-53
+14
-41
+15
(a) Distributed stationary sources only.
(b) Calculated by difference - see note, Table II-9.
-------
Developed in this way, the constant of proportionality, the
"e/c Ratio," should be essentially constant over a geographic region,
and hence over any set of sampling sites. Theoretically, the only dif-
ferences among sites would be the slight differences one might expect in
the meteorology over an area, which in the Baltimore area are believed
to be slight.
In practice, however, the air quality monitoring sites cannot be
presumed to represent precisely the average air quality over an area the
size of even a small BMATS District, certainly not in the same sense that
the average emission density does. Rather it would be a measure of the
average air quality in an immediate neighborhood perhaps a few hundred
meters in scale, with the results depending on whether the location is
at a point with air quality higher or. lower than the average over the
area of interest. Thus one expects a certain amount of variability among
the ratios from various sites.
While it isn't, of course, possible to be rigorous, general
knowledge about urbanization leads one to conclude that in the central
core of a city, this effect would likely be a lowering effect on the air
quality there,as monitoring sites in the densest portion of the city are
quite scarce by virtue of the very density they seek to reflect. On the
other hand, suburban sites might be expected to give relatively high air
quality values, because they must, of convenience if not of necessity, be
located in the developed portion of the area, near human activity, as
opposed to being located in the largely undeveloped portions of land in
such areas.
11-53
-------
There is very little that can be done to control this station-
siting effect. Other than attempting to minimize it in choosing neigh-
borhoods for sites, the only other approach, as is the case with many
things, is to gather enough data that the effect can be averaged out.
In the case of Baltimore, there are seven independent estimates
of this effect available in the observed values of the "e/c ratio" at the
seven monitoring sites with valid data; if the results seem consistent
with the theory as outlined, seven should be enough data points to average
out the siting effect and give a reasonable estimate of the true value of
the ratio.
The observed values of the "e/c ratio" actually determined, in
Table 11-15, vary a great deal, more so than was anticipated in advance.
They do in fact, however, vary in a manner consistent with the previous
discussion; the site closest to the city center yields a high value of the
ratio (corresponding to relatively low air quality), and the suburban sites
yield low ratios (high air quality), with the appropriate gradation between.
2
The extreme lowest observed ratio, 78 kg/mi /ppm at the Riviera Beach site
(#12), differs from the mean of the remainder by a factor of over 4; it
was excluded as an outlier. That site lies in the most urbanized corner
of a very large District, and hence represents an extreme example of the
effect of aggregation. The average ratio, excluding Site 12, was 342 kg/
j / -2
day/mi per ppm.
F. PROJECTED 1977 AIR QUALITY LEVELS
Having determined a uniform e/c ratio for CO, the 1977 air quality
levels can be projected by applying the ratio to projected 1977 emission
-------
TABLE 11-15
EMISSION-CONCENTRATION RATIOS
Monitoring
Station
11
12
13
21
31
33
34
BMATS
Districts
16
17
14
54,57
11,70,71
72,74
12,20,21
50,60
Area
mi2
4.98
35.5
14.7
17.4
7.55
6.71
2.99
Vehicular
3,021
483
2,547
2,406
6,153
6,078
10,818
Stationary
62
62
62
101
78
98
174
Total
3,083
545
2,609
2,507
6,231
6,176
10,992
Maximum
8-hr CO (ppm)
9.9
7.0
13.6
14.1
20.6
15.6
16.4
e/c Ratio
2
(kg /mi /day per ppm)
311
78
192
178
302
306
670
-------
densities; and the problem can be described by comparing the projected CO
levels to the standard. Alternatively, the ratio can be applied to the
standard to produce the "permitted emission density", and this can be
compared to the projected emission density. Similar approaches provide
similar results for oxidants as a function of hydrocarbon emissions, except
that the relationship is not strictly linear, but is presumed to follow
Appendix J, Federal Register 36:158!Ii:15502, 14 August 1971.
Table 11-16 projects 1977 carbon monoxide levels in the three
analysis areas. The upper portion summarizes the emission density calcu-
lations, both in density units and as percentages of the 1970 density.
2
In the Suburban Area, the existing 780 kg/day/mi is well below the 3078
that is equivalent to the 8-hour standard. In the Fringe Area, a density
reduction of 18.7 percent is required to meet the standard, and this is
easily accomplished by the federal motor vehicle control program. In the
Central Area, however, further transportation controls will be required.
The emission density must be reduced by 70.1 percent, from 10,281 to 3,078
2
kg/day/mi , in order to meet the standard, but the vehicle control pro-
gram reduces total emissions by only 52.9 percent. Including a small in-
crease in stationary source emissions, the projected 1977 emission density
2
is 4,868 kg/day/mi . This requires a further reduction, which will need
2
to come from transportation controls, of 1,790 kg/day/mi , which is 17.4
percent of the 1970 level, or 36.8 percent of the projected 1977 emission
density.
The lower portion of Table 11-16 summarizes these results in terms
of expected ambient carbon monoxide levels. It must be emphasized that
11-56
-------
TABLE 11-16
CALCULATIONS FOR CARBON MONOXIDE PROJECTIONS
Emission
Density
Calculations
1970 Estimate
Change from Motor
Vehicle Sources
Change from Stationary
Sources
1977 Without Control
Strategies
Permitted (8-hr
Standard)
Further Reduction
Required
()
Virtual Air Quality^ '
1970
CO-Central Area
Emission
Density Percent
(kg/day/mi ) of 1970
10,281 100.0
- 5,439 - 52.9
+26 + 0.2
4,868 47.3
3,078 29.9
1,790 17.4
(ppm)
30.1
1977 Without Strategies 14.2
1977 With Standard Met
9.0
CO-Fringe Area
Emission
Density Percent
(kg/day/mi2) of 1970
3,787 100.0
- 1,990 - 52.5
+9 +0.2
1,806 47.7
3,078 81.3
0 0.0
11.1
5.6
9.0
CO- Suburban
Emission
Density
(kg/day/mi2)
780
- 269
+ 18
529
3,078
0
2.3
2.2
9.0
Area
Percent
of 1970
100.0
- 34.5
+ 2.3
67.8
394.6
0.0
(a) Calculated by dividing above by e/c = 342
-------
these are virtual concentrations; since they are calculated from the average
emission density in the analysis area, they represent the average air quality
over the area, rather than being uniquely identified with a specific site.
The expected levels in the Fringe and Suburban areas in 1977, after trans-
portation controls have been applied, are simply entered as being below
the standard because it is not known whether they might be raised slightly
as a by-product of controls designed to reduce levels in the Central Area.
The precise effect, if any, would depend on the control measures selected,
but it is extremely unlikely that they would even approach the 9 ppm
standard.
Table 11-17 presents the calculations for projections of 1977
hydrocarbon emissions and ambient oxidant levels, with the entire BMATS
area considered a single area, with parallel calculations based on the two
different assumptions about emission inventories discussed in Subsection
II D. In either case, the combined vehicular control program and station-
ary source control fall far short of the 60 percent reduction needed to meet
the standard. The further-required 26.0 and 20.6 percent of 1970 emissions
represent 45.6 and 40.0 percent of expected 1977 emissions, respectively.
11-58
-------
TABLE 11-17
CALCULATIONS FOR OXIDANT-HYDROCARBON PROJECTIONS
Maximum 1-hour oxidant measurement 0.21 ppm
Requisite reduction in hydrocarbon emissions
(a)
69%
Summary of Emission Projections
Average Day
kg /day 7. of
1970
1970 Total estimate
Change
from
Change from
Sources
1977 without
Required to
Motor Vehicles
Stationary
strategies
meet
331,
-95,
-46,
189,
102,
730
790
790
150
836
100.
-28.
-14.
57.
31.
0
9
1
0
0
Summer a.m. Peak
kg/3 hrs
58
-23
- 4
30
18
,850
,953
,537
,360
,244
% of
1970
100.
-40.
- 7.
51.
31.
0
7
7
6
0
standard(b)
Further reduction required
86,314 26.0
12,116
20.6
(a) From Federal Register, op. cit.
(b) 1970 total less 69 percent
11-59
-------
III. EVALUATION OF POSSIBLE CONTROL STRATEGIES
In order to meet contractual timetable requirements, it was
necessary to conduct most of the evaluation and analysis of alternative
strategies and their impacts prior to detailed definition of the problem.
During the early portion of the study period, it was presumed, on the
basis of the existing implementation plan, that the air quality problem
in Baltimore would be primarily a relatively localized carbon monoxide
problem, and the preliminary investigation of alternative control strategies
was directed toward meeting that problem. As the new AIRMON data was
processed, however, it subsequently became apparent that there would be
a region-wide photochemical oxidant problem of considerable magnitude.
This would require a different set of solutions.
This section of the report will describe the proposed strategies,
present a technical evaluation and estimate of potential emission rate
or VMT reduction for each of the analysis areas, and summarize the findings.
Because of the constraints just discussed, however, the focus on the recom-
mended program of strategies is not as thorough as originally planned.
A. IDENTIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
A set of preliminary alternatives was established through the
combined efforts of the consultants and the members of the Air Quality
Task Force. The set consisted of the following alternatives:
III-l
-------
Strategies to Reduce Emission Rate
. Vehicle Retrofit
Inspection and Maintenance
Gaseous Fuel Conversion
Traffic Flow Improvements
Strategies to Reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel
Transit Service Improvements
Reduced Transit Fares
Reserved Lanes or Dedicated Streets for Buses
Car Pools
. Motor Vehicle Use Restraints
Increased Parking Charges
- More Fringe Parking
- Elimination of On-Street Parking During Off-Peak Hours
. Vehicle Free Zones in CBD
Staggered Work Hours
Four-Day, 40-Hour Work Week
Increased Fuel Tax
The preliminary evaluation as shown in Table III-l was presented
to the Air Quality Task Force and Table III-l has been modified to reflect
their comments. The table was necessarily brief to present a basis for dis-
cussion. The "Status" category refers to the proposed method of quantifying.
Each "Element" was reviewed independently for further evaluation and possible
incorporation in the proposed program package.
III-2
-------
TABLE III-l PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION CONTROLS
1. Element - Vehicle Retrofit
Description
Provide anti-pollution devices to pre-1968 vehicles, mandatory,
or at time of sale; controlled vehicles if necessary to meet
standards
Status
Quantify - determine net difference in VMT pollutants caused
by older vehicles as a baseline check
Feasibility
Legal: Requires state enabling legislation by 1974 to implement
Economic: Private - costly -if individual bears total burden;
state or local funding program necessary
Institutional: Local enforcement and compliance machinery
required
Political: Affects low-income people
Technical: Can be bypassed; availability of effective equipment
and manpower
Impacts
Air Quality: Pre-1968 vehicles5-25%, controlled vehicles
8-30% pollutant reduction per vehicle (CO and HC)
Transportation: No effect on mode choice or travel patterns
Comments
Low Feasibility
2. Element - Inspection and Maintenance
Description
Incorporate anti-pollution device inspection and emission test
with (proposed) safety inspection
Status
Quantify, using model; modify emission curves to assume all
vehicles meet standards without deterioration
Feasibility
Legal.: Need vehicle safety inspection law plus emission law
Economic: Capital equipment, training, maintenance program
Estimate $40 million capital costs, plus $7-$8 million
annual operating costs (including safety program)
III-3
-------
(TABLE III-l CONTINUED)
Institutional: Uncertainties expressed by officials; private
or public stations. Jurisdictional problems in imple-
mentation phase
Political: If private inspection stations, subject to political
favors promoted by auto manufacturer!)
Technical: NOX tradeoff - Frequency of inspection required for
effectiveness - Mandatory maintenance required - Rejection
rate
Impacts
Air Quality: 10-20% per vehicle (CO and HC)
Transportation: No effect on mode choice or travel patterns
Comments
Low Feasibility
30 Element - Gaseous Fuel Conversion
Description
Convert Fleet vehicles to gaseous fuel
Status
BAQC studying taxi and other fleet conversions - Report
November 1 - no VMT test
Feasibility
Legal: Would be discriminatory if required for fleets.
Law required to effectuate
Economic: Conversion costs approximately $300 to $400
per vehicle
Institutional: Selection process of candidate vehicles
impacts private sector
Political: Voluntary or mandatory?
Technical: Availability of fuel supply is critical constraint
Requires proximity to compressor-vehicles cannot use tunnels
Impacts
Air Quality: Less than 15% (CO and HC) per vehicle
Comments
Low feasibility
III-4
-------
(TABLE III-l CONTINUED)
4. Element - Traffic Flow Improvements
Description
Improve flow rate to alleviate idle mode and generally increase
speed on arterials
Status
Traffic flow in Baltimore is presently well-planned and
administered-new traffic signal system will improve flow further
by 1977 - evaluate traffic signal improvements, then re-examine
TOPICS type improvement
Feasibility
Legal: No problems with regard to signal system
Economic: Signal system already budgeted
Political: No one adversely affected
Institutional: City controls traffic operations
Technical: Little room for improvement after new signal system -
probably 5 percent improvement on arterial systems
Impacts
Transportation: Encourages more travel on raads that become
less congested
5. Element - Transit Service Improvements
Description
Service improvements - speed, frequency, schedules, etc., which
will encourage transit riding
Status
Service improvements not quantified separately
Feasibility
Economic: UMTA capital grant; who pays increased operating
costs not covered by increased revenue?
Institutional: Would require significant policy shifts
Impacts
Transportation: Minimal shift in auto usage expected if based
on transit service improvements only
Comments
Consider in combination with lower fares, increased parking
charges, fringe parking
III-5
-------
(TABLE III-l CONTINUED)
5.a Sab-Element - Reduced Transit Fares
Description
Reducing fares on buses will tend to increase transit riding
Status
Revise VMT based on estimated increase in transit riding
Feasibility
Legals Can fares be subsidized?
Economic: Funding for fares; funding for new buses (UMTA)
Institutional: Consistent with MIA policy?
Political: A political plus, since it benefits low-income
Impacts
Transportation: Some shift in mode to transit expected
5eb. Sub-Element - Reserved lanes or Dedicated Streets for Buses
Description
Currently have reserved lanes in peak-hour on major streets
Status
Estimate traffic flow improvement - little increase in transit
usage expected
Feasibility
Economic: Signing and enforcement costs
Institutional: Enforcement of reserved lanes
Technical: Need to maintain headways without bunching -
Consider dedicated street for access
Impacts
Transportation: Could improve flow on certain streets,
possibility of platooning
Comment
Greater effectiveness if employed in conjunction with fringe
parking lots
6, Element - Car Pools
Description
Encourage pooling in CBD by economic, social, or political means;
reserved lanes for car pools on expressways and city streets
III-6
-------
(TABLE III-I CONTINUED)
Status
Decrease in VMT can be estimated from increased car occupancy
changes
Feasibility
Legal: Enforcement problems
Economic: Cost of plan and enforcement; cost of construction,
implementation and enforcement
Institutional: Possibility of developing pooling information
systems; militates against staggered hours, etc.
Social: Constraints to force pooling may be unacceptable
Technical: Information system highly complex; Los Angeles
test not promising
Impacts
Transportation: Reduce VMT
Comments:
Could be effective if in combination with parking charge increase
7. Element - Motor Vehicle Use Restraints
7.a. Sub-Element - Increased Parking Charges
Description
Concomitant with improved bus service, reduced bus fares and/or
car pooling efforts
Status
Existing tax could be increased enough to divert to transit;
revised VMT can be estimated
Feasibility
Legal: Research required; enforcement
Economic: Reduced revenues concern of bond-holders; city is
competing with shopping centers with free parking
Institutional: Use of increased revenue - Possibility of
public lots and garages reverting to private use; city
does not want to penalize downtown parkers
Social: Unpopularity of increased taxes; regressive; impacts
low income; impact on CBD
Impacts
Transportation: Will cause shift of VMT to other areas
Comments
Feasible only for Commuters
III-7
-------
(TABLE III-l CONTINUED)
7.c. Sub-Element - Eliminate On-Street Parking during Off-Peak
Feasibility
Legal: Enforcement of parking limits is only 75% effective
presently
Social: Off-peak elimination cannot be justified
Impacts.
Air Quality: Negligible impact on air quality
Comments
Low Feasibility and effect
8. Element - Vehicle Free Zones(s) in CBD
Description
Eliminate traffic (possibly allow buses) in restricted areas
Status
Not feasible for total area; may be quantified for "hot spots"
Feasibility
Legal: Presently in litigation for suggested street closing
on Lexington; denial of access
Economic: Cost of providing adequate parking on fringe
Institutional: Deliveries; transit; auto-oriented businesses
Social: Problems may only be shifted; business may move out of
city
Technical: Adequacy of other streets
Impact
Air Quality: Would improve air quality in the restricted area,
may reduce air quality on periphery or adjacent street
Comment
Effective only if necessary to alleviate "hot spots" problem.
9. Element - Staggered Work Hours
Description
Voluntary or mandatory staggering of start and quit work hours
Feasibility
Institutional: Probably relatively easy to develop in CBD;
trend is in this direction; means of accomplishing
Impacts
Air Quality: Would not improve regional air quality problem
Transportation: This is a peak-shaving method presently
practiced in Baltimore in some areas
II1-8
-------
(TABLE III-l CONTINUED)
10. Element - Four Day. 40-Hour Work Week
Description
Tends to spread travel over the day (reducing peak concentrations)
and reduce VMT on a given day
Feasibility
Legal: Overtime pay; restrictions on female hours per day
Institutional: Interface with public and other businesses
Technical: Militates against car pooling and increased
transit usage
Comment
Could be instituted at large employment centers such as state
offices or Social Security for most effectiveness
11. Element - Increased Fuel Tax or Impose Sales Tax
Description
Would require "significant" increase to be effective
Status
Can quantify small increases on macro basis
Feasibility
Legal: Would require legislation; enforcement difficult due to
proximity to adjacent states
Economic: Revenues could be used for increasing transit service
Institutional: If statewide, would affect residents of non-
impacted areas
Social: Regressive tax for low-income
Impacts
Transportation: Would reduce VMT if tax were high enough
Comment
Would function as road pricing mechanism, with revenues to be
used for transit
III-9
-------
B. STRATEGIES TO REDUCE EMISSION RATE
1. Inspection and Maintenance Program - An inspection and
maintenance program would require periodic inspection and maintenance of
emission control devices, as well as other auto components that determine
the emission characteristics of a particular vehicle. In Baltimore, a
reasonable approach would be to incorporate such a testing program into
the proposed periodic motor vehicle safety inspection program.
The results of EPA studies on light duty vehicles indicate
average initial reductions of 25 percent for hydrocarbons, 19 percent for
carbon monoxide, and 0 percent for oxides of nitrogen using a loaded
emissions test . However, due to deterioration of parts related to emis-
sions, control or deliberate disconnects of these parts, it may be expected
that actual emissions reductions will be considerably less than the averages
from the EPA test procedures. Although EPA tests were relevant only for
1971 vehicles, it may be assumed that similar results will occur for future
model years. Lacking better data on deterioration factors, it has been
assumed that linear deterioration to the emission level before maintenance
will occur over the 12-month period between tests. As a result, the
average effectiveness for annual inspection is estimated to be about one-
half of the initial effectiveness, that is, average reductions of 12 per-
cent for hydrocarbons, 10 percent for carbon monoxide, and 0 percent for
oxides of nitrogen on a regional basis.
The overall effectiveness of the inspection and maintenance
program will be influenced by many factors including the test procedure
;': P.iivi.i minienLR 1 PrnLpctinn A^Priry, RPIJ>! i reinen i ? r')i normal inn. .V.ipjii !,
and Submitftal of Implementation Plans," (Draft) October 26, I'll'}
111-10
-------
(the original state plan was sized for idle mode test with a complete
diagnostic test option at additional cost to the patron), the rejection
rate, and enforcement. Regional reductions will also be affected by
changes in VMT0
2. Retrofit of Uncontrolled Vehicles - The Environmental
Protection Agency has provided estimates of the effectiveness of various
retrofit measures in reducing emissions from light duty vehicles. The
measures discussed by EPA are divided into two sets. The first set con-
sists of retrofit measures applicable to pre-eontrolled (i.e., pre-1968)
vehicles, while the second set consists of measures applicable to controlled
vehicles. Each measure has an associated average reduction per vehicle
for hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen, as reproduced
in Table III-2.
In order to use these vehicle-related emission reductions,
it was necessary to calculate the proportion of total emissions contributed
by vehicles of various model years, based on the data in Table II-8.
By using the effectiveness data and the model-year distribution in con-
junction with the base emission factors and deterioration factors, it is
possible to estimate the effect of a retrofit strategy on total light
duty emissions. As an example, Table III-3 summarizes such calculations
for hydrocarbons from light duty vehicles, for three levels of application
of the most effective retrofit devices, oxidizing catalytic converters.
The effectiveness data compiled by EPA is presented as reductions from an
on-going, maintained, emission-base, i.e. after the reduction due to the
* Environmental Protection Agency, Requirements for Preparation, Adoption
and Submittal of Implementation Plans, " (Draft) October 26, 1972
III-ll
-------
TABLE III-2
EFFECTIVENESS OF RETROFITTED CONTROL DEVICES
Retrofit Option
Pre-1968 Vehicles:
Lean idle Air/Fuel Ratio
Adjustment and Vacuum Spark
Advance Disconnect
Oxidizing Catalytic Converter
and Vacuum Spark Advance
Disconnect
Air Bleed to Intake Manifold
Exhaust Gas Recirculation and
Vacuum Spark Advance Disconnect
1968 and Later Vehicles:
Oxidizing Catalytic Converter
Exhaust Gas Recirculation
Oxidizing Catalytic Converter
and Exhaust Gas Recirculation
Average
HC
25%
68%
21%
12%
50%
0%
50%
Reduction
CO
9%
63%
58%
31%
50%
0%
50%
per Vehicle
NOx
23%
48%
0%
48%
0%
40%
50%
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, "Requirements for
Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation
Plans (Draft), October 26, 1972.
111-12
-------
TABLE III-3
EFFECT OF VARIOUS RETROFIT PROGRAMS ON
LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE HYDROCARBON EMISSION RATES
< 1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
V 1970
" 1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Change
Aggregi
Percent
of
1977
VMT
1.3
0.7
1.0
2.3
4.7
5.0
9.2
7.8
9.3
10.1
13.3
21.7
12.6
1.0
100.0
from previous
tte Change
Percent
of
1977
Emission
5.42
2.89
4.33
5.42
14.08
12.64
9.75
9.75
11.55
12.27
3.61
5.05
2.53
0.71
100.00
column
-12% for
Insp./Maint.
4.77
2.54
3.81
4.77
12.39
11.12
8.58
8.58
10.17
10.80
3.18
4.44
2.23
0.62
88.00
(-12.00)
-12.00
Hydrocarbon Emissions
Oxidizing Calalytic
1971-74
4.77
2.54
3.81
4.77
12.39
11.12
4.29
4.29
5.09
5.40
3.18
4.44
2.23
0.62
68.94
(-19.06)
-31.06
(7. of 1977 Base)
Converter
1968-1974
4.77
2.54
3.81
2.39
6.20
5.56
4.29
4.29
5.09
5.40
3.18
4.44
2.23
0.62
54.81
(-14.13)
-45.19
Retrofit
All Vehicles
1.53
0.81
1.22
2.39
6.20
5.56
4.29
4.29
5.09
5.40
3.18
4.44
2.23
0.62
47.25
(-7.56)
-52.75
-------
necessary inspection-maintenance program. Thus the effect of an inspection-
maintenance program, a 12 percent reduction in the case of hydrocarbons,
is also included in the Table III-3 calculations.
By 1977 the contribution of pre-1968 vehicles will be
relatively small; therefore, retrofit measures applied to pre-controlled
vehicles will be relatively ineffective overall, and hence might be ex-
cluded from a retrofit program. Although significant emission reductions
could be achieved by retrofitting all 1968 and after controlled vehicles
with oxidizing catalytic converters, some of the 1968-1970 models may have
operating problems with the unleaded gasoline required to maintain catalyst
effectiveness,, Since this would presumably increase enforcement difficulties,
excluding these vehicles might also be a sensible option. Consequently,
the effectiveness is determined for three possible variations of a retro-
fit program, based on which model year vehicles are included,,
If the most effective retrofit devices are used on all
vehicles, and an inspection-maintenance program is instituted, then the
emissions from light duty vehicles would decrease by about 53 percent for
carbon monoxide and 47 percent for hydrocarbons. In 1977, however, light
duty gas vehicles, while accounting for 86 percent of the area-wide VNT,
will account for much smaller portions of the motor vehicle emissions-- only
61 and 55 percent of the CO and hydrocarbon emissions respectively; the
balance is largely from heavy duty gasoline vehicles, which are relatively
uncontrolled (see Table II-9). In addition, it is presumed that the overall
effectiveness will be reduced by at least 5 percent by the inclusion of
111-14
-------
emissions from non-retrofitted transient vehicles. Thus the overall re-
duction in area-wide hydrocarbon emission, say, would be only 27.3 percent
of the motor vehicle portion, and a smaller proportion of the total
emissions. Table III-4 summarizes these adjustments. Since the reductions
in light duty vehicle emissions ultimately are seen to be insufficient, the
effect of a minor program of retrofitting heavy duty vehicles was also
calculated. Summarized in Table III-5, these calculations are based on
reducing evaporative and crankcase emissions from pre-1973 trucks to the
0.8 gram/mile figure applicable to 1973 and later models; the result is a
6.8 percent reduction in heavy duty vehicle hydrocarbon emissions,
3. Conversion to Gaseous Fuels - The Bureau of Air Quality
Control investigated the feasibility and effectiveness of fleet conversion
to gaseous fuel. Due to the technological requirements of converting
gasoline-powered vehicles to gaseous fuels such as liquified natural gas
(LNG), liquified petroleum gas (LPG), or compressed natural gas (CNG) the
most feasible approach was to consider conversion by fleet vehicles only.
The relatively small range of travel distance provided by gaseous fuels
severely restricts the mobility and flexibility of vehicles which use it.
In addition, the costs of converting to gaseous fuel operation and the ac-
cessibility of supply stations necessarily limits the potential. The primary
constraint is the relatively limited supply of these fuels in the Baltimore
area. Thus, such operations are generally considered appropriate only for
operators of large fleets of vehicles such as government, delivery or
service trucks, and taxicabs^ In addition, there is a restriction on the
use of the Harbor Tunnel by vehicles carrying propane or other pressurized
tanks.
111-15
-------
TABLE III-4
EFFECT OF LIGHT-DUTY RETROFIT PROGRAMS
ON ACTUAL MOTOR VEHICLE POPULATION
Retrofit Program
I & M only HC
(Inspection & Maintenance) CO
I & M plus Retrofit
Model Years 1971-74
I & M plus Retrofit
Model Years 1968-74
I & M plus Retrofit
All Model Years
Reduction of
Emissions from
Single
Light-Duty
Vehicle (a)
12.00% (d)
10.00%
HC
CO
HC
CO
HC
CO
31.06%
32.63%
45.19%
46.27%
52. 75%
52. 92%
Reduction of
Emissions from
Population of
Light-Duty
Vehicle (b)
7.37%
5.27%
27.43%
29.08%
42.31%
43.44%
50.26%
50.44%
Reduction of
Emissions from
Entire Motor
Vehicle Population (el
4.01%
3.19%
14-92%
17.59%
23.02%
26.28%
27.34%
30.52%
(a) From calculations as in Table III-3.
(b) Assumes regulation of only 95% of light-duty vehicles, to allow
for transient vehicles; note this percentage assumes rigorous
enforcement, and should be much lower if such enforcement is not
provided.
(c) Light-duty vehicles emit 60.5% of total CO and 54.4% of total HC.
(d) Four significant digits are kept to preserve accuracy for subsequent
calculations; if is not meant to imply the estimates are that precise.
111-16
-------
TABLE III-5
EFFECT OF EVAPORATIVE AND CRANKCASE RETROFIT ON HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES
Emission Factors (gram/mile)
Model
Year
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
S1973
£1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
<1967
Vehicle
Aee in 1977
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>H
(a) From
Registered
Vehicles (a)
(percent)
3.0
10.8
13.5
10.7
8.3
8.1
7.7
6.4
5.3
4.2
3.3
18.7
100.0
Table II-8
Average
Mileage
(1000's)
3.5
11.7
17.2
15.8
15.8
13.0
13.0
11.0
11.0
9.0
9.0
5.5
Weighted
Travel
(b)
(percent)
0.9
10.8
19.7
14.4
11.2
9.0
8.5
6.0
5.0
3.2
2.5
8.8
100.0
Base
Emission
Factor
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
77.8
15-0
15.0
15-0
15.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
Deterioration
1.00
1.24
1.35
1.41
1.47
1.53
1.58
1.63
1.67
1.00
1.00
1.00
Evaporative
& Crankcase
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
8.2
Total
-------
Emissions from vehicles converted to natural fuels have
proved to be much lower than from the same vehicle operating on gasoline.*
For many fleets which have converted, operating costs have declined.
The technological and political obstacles to mandatory
conversion program, however, preclude consideration as a major strategy
in the Baltimore region and the relative impact would not be sufficient to
warrant such an approach.
Therefore, the best approach appears to be a voluntary
program for gaseous fuel conversion in the Baltimore area.
4. Traffic Flow Improvements - The application of traffic
operations improvements on an area-wide basis would be expected to yield
significant improvements in air quality. By decreasing the amount of time
spent idling and by increasing operating speeds on the street system, the
average emission rates could be reduced.
The type of improvements suggested would not include con-
struction of major new facilities, but rather the application of TOPICS-
type improvements, including sophisticated signal control, parking restrictions,
lane widening, turn-lane additions, and other minor redesign and channeli-
zation requiring a minimum of new right-of-way.
Due to the fact that the Federal TOPICS program has been
in existence only a few years, before-and-after studies are not readily
* U.S. General Services Administration, Pollution Reduction with Cost
Savings. No date.
111-18
-------
available. A survey of selected TOPICS reports found predicted average
speed increases ranging between 15 percent and 36 percent. In Gateshead,
England, where a before-and-after study of a traffic management plan was
completed, it was found that average speed in the cordon area increased
from 11.9 miles per hour to 16.3 miles per hour, a 37 percent increase.*
It is generally recognized that traffic flow in Baltimore is
presently well planned. Furthermore, bids have been solicited for a digi-
tized computer traffic signal control system which will be directly re-
sponsible to traffic conditions. This system will be operational prior to
1977. The backup study for this signal system predicted that a 10 percent
improvement in traffic operations would be realized.**
It is conservatively estimated that a comprehensive traffic
flow improvement program could yield speed increases of 5 percent on ex-
pressways and local streets, 15 percent on arterials, and an overall average
of 10 percent.
Examination of the emission factor indicates the great im-
portance of average speed as a determinant of motor vehicle emissions. In
particular, at low speeds, such as are prevalent in the central area of
Baltimore, a relatively small increase in speed could yield a very signifi-
cant decrease in emission rates.
It is suggested that the speed increases estimated above be
fully evaluated by inputting them into the emissions model on a district basis.
* Leanard, J.H., Benefits from TOPICS-Type Improvements. Civil Engineering
ASCE, 41:2, pp. 62-66, February 1971.
Peat, Marwick, Livingston & Co., Traffic Signal System Study, Feb. 1969.
111-19
**
-------
A deleterious side effect of this type of improvement
is the possible long-term stimulus to increase trip lengths and to induce
additional traffic. Over the short term, however, these effects should be
negligible.
An electronic surveillance and control technique will be
installed experimentally on the Jones Falls Expressway (1-83). Installation
of conduits should begin in early 1973. Since there are no parallel
routes to which vehicles may be diverted through ramp metering or electronic
messages, an information-only technique will be employed, primarily for
safety purposes. Detection devices will be placed every 0.2 mile of the
six-mile length of expressway in Baltimore City and information on traffic
status will be sent from the detectors to a computer. The computer will
assess the situation and transmit information to signs placed at one-mile
intervals. These signs will convey information to motorists about the con-
ditions ahead on the roadway. It is not expected that this system will
have a significant impact on speeds due to the absence of parallel roads
for diversion. It is planned that all sections of the 3-A System which are
constructed will have conduits built in for surveillance and monitoring
systems if needed.
C. STRATEGIES TO REDUCE VEHICLE USAGE
1. Transit Service Improvements
Considerable attention has been directed to the potential
for decreasing auto usage by making improvements to operating characteristics
111-20
-------
of transit systems. This aspect of diverting auto trip makers was in-
vestigated for Baltimore based on a previous mdal split study.*
This study indicated that the disutility associated with
access (out of vehicle) time was slightly greater than twice the dis-
utility associated with line haul time. It was thus possible to evaluate
a two-minute line haul time reduction and a one-minute access time reduction
simultaneously.
The effect of such a reduction was evaluated with the modal
split study which indicated percent transit of total person trips as a
function of income group, parking cost, a weighted measure of the travel
time difference between auto and transit, and trip purpose.
The mean travel time difference for each trip purpose was
used as a point of departure for shifting to reflect a modified travel
time difference induced by transit service improvements. The shift in modal
split was determined on a disaggregate basis for each income level. The
measures obtained were weighted by the number of families in each group to
obtain a weighted average of peak period modal split for each trip purpose.
By weighting the trip purposes according totheir relative frequency of oc-
currence, it was possible to derive changes in modal split on a regional
basis. A distinction was made between central area effects which were
measured using modal split curves corresponding to a $.09 - $.29 per hour
range of parking charges and urban fringe-suburban effects which were
measured using curves corresponding to zero parking charge.
* Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc., A Report on Mode Choice Analysis
for the Baltimore Region, prepared for the Baltimore Regional Planning
Council, 1969.
111-21
-------
Based on this methodology, it was found that in the central
area a two-minute reduction in line haul time or a one-minute reduction in
access time could raise peak period modal split from a current 47 percent
to 49 percent. The same policy would increase peak period modal split in
fringe and suburban areas from a current 19 percent to 20 percent. It is
estimated that these shifts would create a VMT reduction of 3 percent in
the central area and 2 percent in the urban fringe and suburbs.
MTA transit planning is presently being reviewed under an
Urban Mass Transportation Administration technical study grant. The study
report had not been released at the time of this study, but it is understood
there will be recommendations for transit service improvements and down-
town distribution systems.
Reduced Transit Fares Reducing transit fares was seen
as a potential means of increasing transit ridership and thereby reducing
auto travel. One study conducted for the U.S. Department of Transportation*
indicated that transit demand is relatively inelastic with respect to fare
increases. It was estimated that if fares were completely eliminated in
Boston, a four percent area-wide reduction in auto emissions would result.
Notwithstanding the results of the Boston study, the possi-
bility of reducing transit fares was examined in Baltimore with two alter-
native assumptions: (1) free transit, and (2) reducing transit fares by
15 cents. The potential for reducing VMT through these measures was found
* Domencich, T.A. and G. Kraft, Free Transit. B.C. Heath Co., Lexington,
Mass., 1970.
111-22
-------
to be quite significant. The impact on transit usage of a free transit
system yielded anticipated VMT reductions in the 13-14 percent range, over
the whole system.
Due to the poor implementation probability of a totally
subsidized transit system, consideration was also given to the possiblity
of decreasing transit fares by 15 cents. Anticipated VMT reductions amounted
to seven percent in the central area and four percent in the urban fringe
and suburban areas.
Changing Transit Fares - Current Mass Transit Administration
(MIA) fare policies in Baltimore City are summarized below:
Base fare 30 cents
Transfer charge 5 cents
Zone charge 10 cents
Children & students 15 cents
Senior citizens 15 cents
The effect of a free transit system was evaluated primarily
using the recent Baltimore mode choice study,* previously mentioned. To
evaluate free transit, it was necessary to consider a conversion from fare
reduction to an equivalent travel time savings. It was assumed that average
cost reductions of a free transit system would amount to 35 cents, excepting
the lowest income group (assumed to consist largely of persons with reduced
fare privileges) were a 20-cent average reduction was assumed. It was
further assumed that commuting time was valued at one-third of the family
hourly income rate.
* Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, A Report on Mode Choice for the Baltimore
Region, prepared for the Baltimore Regional Planning Council, 1969.
111-23
-------
The Baltimore modal split study included mean travel time
differences for each trip purpose. In each case, this was assumed to be
the point of origin from which free transit was shifted. The fare savings
on a disaggregate basis by income group and the relationships developed in
the study were used to measure the shift in modal split effected. The
measurements thus obtained for each income group were weighted according
to the number of families in each group to obtain a weighted average of
peak period modal split for each trip purpose. By weighting these figures
according to the relative trip-making frequency of each trip purpose, it
was possible to estimate the total shift in modal split for all trip purposes.
In applying the modal split study to the central area, the
set of curves with parking charges in the $.09 - $.29 per hour range were
used. Using the foregoing methodology, base condition modal split into
the central area was estimated at 47 percent for the peak period. This
estimate compares quite favorably with the 39 percent modal split developed
in the BMATS study for a 24-hour period. Assuming free transit service,
peak period modal split was estimated at 54 percent.
In applying the methodology to non-central areas, the modal
split curves assumed no parking charges were used. This analysis indicated
a current peak period modal split of 19 percent with an increase to 30
percent under a free transit scheme.
The potential impact on VMT of decreasing transit fares
15 cents was evaluated using an identica1 methodology to that employed for
free transit. The cost reduction was converted to an equivalent time savings
-------
and the modal split results utilized. Based on this technique, the antici-
pated increase in modal split from 47 to 51 percent in the central area
and from 19 to 22 percent in the urban fringe and suburbs would yield a
7 percent VMT reduction in the central area and a 4 percent VMT reduction
in the fringe and suburban areas.
The feasibility of transit fare reductions is dependent pri-
marily on the legal implications of subsidizing the system, especially
under MTA requirements to meet costs "as far as practicable" from the fare
box. Politically, these alternatives are attractive, since they would
particularly tend to benefit low income groups.
The fdlowing table summarizes the results of implementing
a free transit policy in Baltimore:
TABLE III-6 EFFECT OF CHANGING TRANSIT FARES ON VMT
Free Transit 15 Cent Reduction
Central Area
Urban Fringe
Suburbs
potential control strategy should perhaps be considered a sub-element of
transit service improvements. The ultimate impact on transit usage of re-
serving lanes or streets for buses is achieved through its effectiveness
in reducing waiting time or line haul travel time. The analysis performed
111-25
Present
Modal Split
% Transit
47
19
19
Modal Split
% Transit
54
30
30
Reserved Lanes or Dedicated
Change
in VMT
-13%
-14%
-14%
Streets
Modal Split
% Transit
51
22
22
for Buses - This
Change
in VMT
-7%
-4%
-4%
-------
for transit improvements is therefore valid here; that is, if reserving
lanes or streets could reduce the average wait by one minute or reduce
the average travel time by two minutes, VMT could be reduced by an estimated
3 percent in the central area and by 2 percent in the urban fringe and
suburbs.
Transit operations could be improved somewhat by strict
enforcement of existing reserved lanes in the downtown area. There are
about 14 miles of reserved bus lanes in downtown Baltimore. MTA is presently
considering some additional bus lanes in the east-west direction.
Although the application of this element of a control
strategy does not appear extremely effective in itself, the adoption of a
set of policies that would otherwise significantly increase transit usage
may require the institution of short segments of reserved street operations
on those few downtown streets which serve as foci of the transit system.
Reserved lanes for express bus service from fringe parking
areas would be essential to the successful operation of such fringe parking
facilities.
2. Motor Vehicle Use Restraints
Downtown Parking Charges - The potential reduction in VMT
through increasing downtown parking charges was evaluated using the modal
split study together with the Downtown Parking Study,* Again, the base
* Downtown Baltimore Parking Study, Baltimore City Dept0 of Planning,
"Core Area Parking." April 19720
111-26
-------
condition was assumed to be represented by the set of curves corresponding
to parking charges in the $.09 - $.29 per hour range. The change in modal
split induced by raising parking charges was measured using the set of
curves corresponding to parking charges greater than $.30 per hour. Con-
tributions of each income stratum were weighted according to the number of
families in that stratum. Similarly, weights were applied to each trip
purpose to derive overall effects. Applying this methodology indicated that
increasing central area parking charges to $2.50 per day from the present
average of $1.83 per space* would increase peak period modal split into the
area from the current 47 percent to 57 percent. This would result in a 19
percent VMT reduction in the downtown parking study area, as illustrated
in Figure III-l.
However, this policy is applicable only to the Downtown
Parking Study Area. Outside the parking study area, which is considerably
smaller than the central area addressed in this study, there are currently
few if any, lots with charges. The number of trip ends in the parking study
area in Figure III-l are approximately 35 percent of the trip ends in the
larger central area referred to in this study. Further, approximately 50
percent of the trips in the central area are through-trips with longer
average trip length in the central area. The net effect of these factors
is summarized below:
19 percent VMT reduction
x ,35 due to relative magnitude of downtown area
6.6 percent
x .33 to account for through-trip VMI
2.2 percent VMT reduction
* Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, A Report on Mode Choice Analysis for the
Baltimore Region, prepared for the Baltimore Regional Planning Council,
1969.
111-27
-------
Figure IU- 1 Comparison Between Central Area Used in Air Pollution Study
and Downtown Baltimore Parking Study Area
TT1-28
-------
The overall VMT reduction in the central area is estimated
to be between 2 and 3 percent.
The effect in non-central areas would be negligible.
Fringe Parking Policy - The possibility of developing
fringe parking lots outside the downtown area was considered as an alter-
native for reducing downtown air pollution. Current plans call for several
thousand new parking spaces to be provided outside the parking study boundary.
There are also currently existing two suburban fringe park-
ing areas, with direct bus service to downtown, carrying a combined passenger
load of approximately 2,000 persons per week.
In the Downtown Baltimore Parking Study, the effect of a
close-in ring of fringe parking on downtown parking requirements was ex-
plored. The fringe lots were assumed to be just outside the parking study
boundary which, therefore, places them inside the central area addressed
in this study.
A survey of downtown, auto drivers was conducted to deter-
mine the potential for fringe parking. The results were tempered by
judgment, as it was concluded that 20 percent of the drivers who park over
three hours on work trips would use such fringe spaces if the total cost
for parking and transit service were lower than their present parking costs,
It was concluded that such a program would divert 3,900 core area work trip
parkers to fringe locations by 1975, Interpolating these results to 1977
111-29
-------
would indicate a potential diversion of 4,100 parkers. The anticipated
impact of this inner fringe parking policy is summarized below:
20 percent of long-term auto work-trips will divert.
. 40 percent of auto trip ends are work trips.
. 84 percent of auto work trips are long term.
. The parking study area accounts for only 35
percent of the central area trip ends.
. 50 percent of the traffic through the central
area is through traffic.
. Through trips account for two-thirds of the VMT;
therefore, the net VMT reduction in the central
area is
.2 x .4 x .84 x .35 x .33 = .008, or
less than one percent of the central area VMT.
Eliminate On-Street Parking During Off-Peak Hours - While
on-street parking in the downtown area is currently regulated by peak hour
prohibitions and off-peak daytime meter charges, it has been estimated that
enforcement is only about 75 percent effective. Any measure to improve
adherence to these restrictions could be expected to result in some improve-
ment in traffic flow.
Removing the 6,800 curb spaces in the parking study area
during off-peak periods was judged to be an ineffective means of reducing
the VMT as this type of regulation would not significantly improve traffic
flow. In addition, the parkers potentially affected by such an action
would be those contributing least to the air pollution problem and most to
the economic base of the downtown.
111-30
-------
Vehicle Free Zones in Central Areas Much attention is
currently being focused on proposals to completely eliminate automobiles
in the central areas of major cities. Various types of auto bans have been
adopted in a number of European cities, as well as in Japan. Several
United States cities have experimented with street closings, as in New York,
or have developed pedestrian malls, notably the Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis.
The city of Tokyo,Japan has banned automobiles from four
shopping districts, comprising 122 streets, on Sunday, the busiest shopping
day. Carbon monoxide concentrations were reduced substantially, typically
on the order of 65 percent. Concomitantly, median street levels in the
areas of the traffic bans were reduced by 5-7 dB/A.*
A similar action was tried in New York City on a much
smaller scale, with a resultant 90 percent reduction in carbon monoxide
levels on some auto-less streets.
During October of 1971, a series of experiments were con-
ducted in the City of Marseilles to determine the air quality effects of
motor vehicle restraints.* One experiment prohibited all private cars from
entering the central area for a period of ten days. Nine kilometers of
exclusive bus lanes were used to supplement existing transit service, and
on one day all public transportation was free. The effects on air quality
of limiting traffic to buses and taxis are shown in Table III-7.
* Association pour la Prevention de la Pollution Atmospherique, Comite
Marseille-Provence, as cited in Organization for Cooperation and
Economic Development "Reducing Motor Vehicle Emissions through Traffic
Controls and Transportation Policies" (working draft) 1971.
111-31
-------
TABLE III-7
REDUCTIONS IN CO LEVELS -
CENTRAL MARSEILLES AUTO-FREE ZONE
Sampling Station
Banque Italienne
Dames de France
Ma gas in General
Belle Jardiniere
mean value
ppm of CO
before
19.3
19.4
17.5
18.9
18.8
after
3.9
2.8
3.8
4.0
3.6
Remarks
average of 7 readings /day
at each location
(8 a.m. - 6 p.m. )
Time
8 a.m.
10 a.m.
12 noon
2 p.m.
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
6 p.m.
ppm of CO
before
20.2
19.8
14.7
14.2
19.8
20.3
22.3
after
5.5
3.3
3.6
2.7
3.3
3.9
4.1
Remarks
average of readings
at four locations
Before: September 13 - October 6, 1971
Total of 1,138 samples taken at 2-hour intervals
After: October 7 - 16, 1971 (ban on private cars; buses and taxis
allowed).
Total of 496 samples taken at 2-hour intervals
Source: Association pour la Prevention de la Pollution Atmospherique,
Comite Marseille-Provence, as cited in Organization for
Cooperation and Economic Development "Reducing Motor
Vehicle Emissions through Traffic Controls and Transportation
Policies" (Working draft), 1971.
111-32
-------
In spite of the rather impressive environmental effects
of these policies, they were given low feasibility in Baltimore due to
anticipated strong community opposition. In particular, fear of deterior-
ation to the city's retail economic base was a major consideration. (It
should be noted that historical data suggests an increase in retail
activity accompanying such measures, in spite of early opposition to their
adoption).* If the air quality problem in Baltimore is defined as a
localized situation in downtown, this approach could be reconsidered.
3. Other Possibilities
Gar Pools - Typical urban area auto occupancy for travel
to work is 1.2 to 1.3 persons per vehicle. Through car pooling, the same
number of employees could be accommodated in few autos. Car pooling could
be encouraged by economic, social, or political means. Lanes could be re-
served on expressways and city streets for the exclusive use, or combined
use with buses, or car poolers. An information system could be developed
to link people with nearby origins and destinations. Practical appli-
cations of car pool incentives have generally not been successful, however.
The potential impact of car pooling on VMT in the Baltimore
region is extremely high. Surveys have indicated that the overall average
occupancy on internal automobile trips in the Baltimore region is 1.48
persons per vehicle. This average conceals a wide range of occupancy rates
for various trip purposes, ranging from a low of 1.14 persons per car for
* Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., Action Plan for Improvements in Trans-
portation 'Systems in Large U.S. Metropolitan Areas; Auto-Free Zones; a
Methodology for Their Planning and Implementation, prepared for the U.-S.
Department of Transportation, July, 1972.
111-33
-------
work trips to a high of 2.12 persons per car for trips made to serve
passengers (i.e., taxi trips).* If the average vehicle occupancy could be
increased to 2.0, a region-wide VMT reduction of approximately 25 percent
could be anticipated.
Unfortunately, this potential for car pooling is illusory.
The key issue is not what would happen if auto occupancy were raised to
2.0, but rather what response can reasonably be expected by encouraging
people to form car pools. Potential incentives to encourage car pooling
might include increasing parking charges, providing reserved lanes for car
poolers, and providing a centralized information system to link prospective
car poolers by origin and destination.
While the Baltimore modal split study develops an auto
occupancy model with income level, parking cost, and highway travel time
as independent variables, the model is merely descriptive and not policy-
sensitive. Due to a high correlation between variables, it is impossible
to use the model to predict the change in auto occupancy affected by, for
example, increasing parking charges.
Providing reserved expressway lanes for car poolers is
thought to be ineffective in Baltimore because the freeway system anticipated
by 1977 will not be congested enough for separate car pool lanes to be an
incentive.
* Baltimore Metropolitan Area Transportation Study, prepared for the
Maryland State Roads Commission by Wilbur Smith & Associates, 1964.
111-34
-------
The possibility of forcing people into car pools by legis-
lation does exist, but the probability of such an action would be negligible.
An interesting experiment was conducted in Los Angeles to
measure the willingness of people to use car pools.* Two local citizens
groups sponsored a so-called "Share a Ride Day" in which Los Angeles com-
muters were asked to share a ride either in a car pool or on a bus. In
fact, a computer was available to link potential car poolers.
The Southern California Rapid Transit District set up
special bus routes for the day. Local newspaper and radio stations gave
much publicity to the attempt and over 100,000 handouts were printed and
distributed to urge people to participate.
The California Highway Department, in a previous study, had
found that the average vehicle occupancy on Los Angeles freeways was about
1.2 persons per vehicle. The results of the effort showed that "Share a
Ride Day" had no significant effect on Los Angeles traffic. Average vehicle
occupancies showed no significant change.
Staggered Work Hours - The practice of staggering work
hours may be used to reduce peak-period travel volumes and traffic con-
gestion by spreading travel demand over a longer period of time. This
would tend to reduce the magnitude of pollutant concentrations; however,
this technique is appropriate for localized air pollution problems related
to peak concentrations in downtown areas, which are developed during the
*~Phil Meyers and John Walker, "The Effects of "Share a Ride Day" on
Los Angeles Freeways," Traffic Engineering, Aug. 1972.
111-35
-------
peak hour or two. Since the air quality problem in the Baltimore area
appeared to be 8-hour carbon monoxide and regional oxidant levels,
staggered work hour solutions in the central area were not appropriate for
further consideration.
It should be noted that there presently appears to be con-
siderable staggering of work hours throughout the region. In particular,
in East Baltimore, many workers start shifts about 6:00 or 6:30 a.m., and
complete work around 3:00 or 3:30 p.m. This means highway and street
facilities are more fully utilized during non-peak periods. For example,
peak direction split Baltimore-Washington Parkway is 52-48 (as compared
to 70-30 on facilities in other urban areas). This indicates a more con-
stant level of travel in the Baltimore region under present circumstances.
Four-Day, Forty Hour Week - Although the 4-day, 40-hour
work week presently encompasses a very small fraction of the labor force
in the United States, it appears to be gaining in popularity at an in-
creasing rate. In addition, a significant number of firms have adopted a
36-hour week comprised of four nina-hour days.
The possible effect of widespread implementation of revised
work schedules on traffic volume, congestion, and air pollution, is dif-
ficult to predict, although indications are favorable. Peaking of traffic
demand could be reduced by an amount dependent on the number of persons
changing to modified schedules. In addition, on one or more days, the total
number of work trips would be significantly reduced.
111-36
-------
There is little knowledge of the overall effect on trip-
making patterns that would result from substantial work schedule changes.
There is some evidence to suggest an overall increase in trip generation
due to a higher number of shopping and recreation trips.
Under the most ideal conditions, if 100 percent of the work
force participated in a four-day work week, with 80 percent of the work
force active on each day, a 20 percent reduction in work trips would occur.
It might be possible to assume that 10 percent of the regional work force
would be on a four-day schedule in 1977 if the concept were adopted by,
for example, government offices. Since work trips make up less than 40
percent of the total trips, it is doubtful that the four-day, 40-hour work
week could be expected to reduce VMT by more than 1 percent in 1977.
As with several other strategies, the 4-40 concept has a
high potential, but without a specific mandate, the probable effectiveness
is quite low. A deleterious side effect of widespread implementation of
this policy could be the loss of transit ridership, due to a reduction of
one round trip per week.
Increased Fuel Tax - It would require a substantial increase
in fuel taxes to discourage automobile usage effectively in the urban area.
The potential impact of such a strategy is difficult to predict, based on
existing information. Small increases in the gasoline tax, such as recently
imposed in Maryland and Virginia have had imperceptible effects on auto
driving. People do not perceive user taxes in the same manner as out-of-
1.11-37
-------
pocket costs for transporation, and there Is no experience with price
elasticities of substantial gasoline tax increases on which to base an
estimate.
Such a tax would probably have to be applied state-wide,
which would have a regressive effect on residents in other parts of the
state who are not affected by Baltimore air quality problems. However,
funds collected by such a tax could be placed in the consolidated trans-
portation fund which is allocated to all modes of transportation in the
state. In the Balimore area, many people could avoid the tax purchasing
fuel in adjacent states or the District of Columbia if uniform policies
were not adopted.
D. SUMMARY EVALUATION
A number of possible control strategies have been described
and a technical evaluation, based on a set of assumptions, has been de-
veloped for each. Table III-8 summarizes the reductions in emission rates
or VMT reductions which may be achieved from each of these strategies.
The reductions are not necessarily additive, and some are totdly dependent
on others, e.g., improved transit service must accompany increased parking
costs, increased fringe parking, and reserved lanes. The reductions in
emission rate from programs such as vehicle retrofit and inspection and
maintenance must be applied to emissions after they are adjusted to reflect
the strategies that would reduce vehicle miles of travel.
111-38
-------
TABLE III-8
EFFECTIVENESS OF POSSIBLE TRANSPORTATION
CONTROL STRATEGIES IN BALTIMORE
STRATEGY
VMT-REDUCING STRATEGIES
Traffic Flow Improvements
Transit Service
Improvements
Reserved Lanes for buses
Transit Fare Changes:
15-cent reduction
Free Transit
Increased CBD Parking
Charges
Increased Fringe Parking
Car Pools
4/40 Work Week
EMISSION REDUCTION
10% in all Areas
3% in Central Area
2% in Other Areas
0.1% in all Areas
7% in Central Area
4% in Other Areas
13% in Central Area
14% in Other Areas
2.5% in Central Area
0.0% in Other Areas
1.0% in Central Area
0.0% in Other Areas
1% in Central Area
0.5% in Fringe Area
1% in all Areas
SOURCE OF
EMISSION REDUCTION
Increased Speeds
VMT reduction by
increased transit use
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
VMT reduction by
usage changes
Same
Emission Reducing Strategies
Inspection & Maintenance
(I-M) 3.2% CO 4.0% EC
I-M plus catalyst retrofit
1971-1974 17.6% CO 14.9% HC
I-M plus catalyst retrofit
1968-1974 26.3% CO 23.07. HC
I-M plus catalyst retrofit
All Vehicles 30.5% CO 27.3% HC
Heavy-Duty Retrofit
Evap. & Crkcse. 0.0% CO 6.8% HC
Direct % reduction
in light-duty vehicle
emission factor
Direct reduction of
hvy-duty emission factor
111-39
-------
In order to quantitatively apply the technical evaluations of
the less effective strategies to the air quality problem in Baltimore, it
might be necessary to re-evaluate the assumptions, revise as required, and
recalculate, using the methodology described in the preceding section.
This is particularly tnue of combinations of strategies, where one strategy
might affect the assumptions underlying another. For example, if both
reduced transit fares and CBD parking policies are considered, it will be
necessary to adjust the assumptions for each, using the modal split analy-
sis, to precisely determine the total effect. Since the air quality
problem involves very sizable percentage reductions in emissions, however,
the intrinsic uncertainty of the larger percentage figures can be expected
to be of greater importance than the relatively-small non-additivity effects
in the less effective strategies.
This is not to imply that the precise quantitation of strategy
effects should be considered unimportant. The overall effect of the
strategies could amount to a noticeable impact on the life-styles of
Baltimore citizens, and more precise study may be warranted.
It should be further emphasized that the scope of this study did
not permit analysis of the transportation effects of long range land use
plans or major capital investment in any transportation facilities other
than those presently planned and committed. Major changes in the planned
highway or transit programs would require re-evaluation of expected impacts.
It is noted that throughout this study, no major land use changes have been
been assumed. The completion of the highway network, as input to the
111-40
-------
Koppelman model (see Sub-Section II-C) is an important assumption. Should
this not take place, the potential impact on VMT, particularly in the
central area, could be important. It is expected this will be examined
more fully in subsequent Regional Planning Council and Bureau of Air
Quality Control studies. In particular, the present transit analysis is
confined to buses, as it was assumed, based on a decision of the Air Quality
Task Force, that none of the planned rail rapid transit system could be
operational prior to 1978.
111-41
-------
IV. IMPLEMENTATION OBSTACLES
A. OVERVIEW OF PLANNING POLICIES
The Metropolitan Baltimore Intrastate Air Quality Control Region
is comprised of six political jurisdictions Anne Arundel County, Baltimore
City, Baltimore County, Carroll County, Harford County, and Howard County.
Under Maryland Law, the City of Baltimore has autonomy in areas of law
enforcement, taxation, and other metropolitan services within the city
limits. Baltimore County has no jurisdiction in the City of Baltimore.
In addition to the political jurisdictions, there are several
administrative and planning agencies at the state and local levels which
are concerned with actions which could modify and/or control travel in the
area. Most of these agencies are represented on the Baltimore Air Quality
Task Force, an ad hoc committee formed prior to the beginning of this
study to:
(1) Assess the immediate impact of alternative transportation
plans on the Baltimore region.
(2) Determine how environmental considerations could be made
a permanent part of the transportation planning process
in the Baltimore region.
The Task Force is comprised of a representative from the following
organizations:
Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene-
Bureau of Air Quality Control
Regional Planning Council (RPC)
IV-1
-------
Interstate Division for Baltimore City
Maryland Department of Transportation
Maryland Department of State Planning
Federal Highway Administration - Maryland Division
Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments
Baltimore City Planning Department
Baltimore City Mayor's Office
Baltimore City Health Department
During the study period, the Task Force met frequently with the
Contractors and EPA to monitor progress. In addition, individual interviews
were held with members of the Task Force to obtain more detailed information
than was available at the meetings. Other representative agencies contacted
include:
State, County, City Organizations:
Mass Transit Administration (MTA)
Baltimore Department of Transit and Traffic
Baltimore Department of Highway and Community Development
Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration
Maryland Gasoline Tax Division
Baltimore County Planning Department
Baltimore County Traffic Engineering Department
Non-Governmental:
Baltimore Bus Operators
IV-2
-------
Taxicab Association of Baltimore City
Maryland Motor Truck Association
The Task Force includes all agencies involved in the "3-C" trans-
portation planning process as required by the Federal-Aid Highway Act as
well as the A-95 review responsibility. This authority is vested with
the Regional Planning Council.
RFC was established as an independent state agency by the Maryland
General Assembly in 1963 in order to deal with the problems of rapid urban-
ization in a rational and sound manner. The Council is required to prepare
a suggested general development plan a plan which will provide for the
effective employment of natural and other resources of the region, and
which will assure a continuous comprehensive planning process within the
region. The RFC also serves as a coordinating agency 1) seeking to harmo-
nize and advance its planning activities with those of the state and of the
counties and municipalities within the metropolitan area; 2) rendering plan-
ning assistance; 3) stimulating public interest and participation in planning
for the development of the area; 4) serving as the referral agency for problems
affecting more than one unit of government; and 5) reviewing local government
programs and federal grant-in-aid requests when required by law. The Technical
Advisory Committee of RFC has also monitored the activities of this study.
1. Baltimore
The City of Baltimore, through the goals and priorities that
have been enumerated in the guidelines for the city's development, has
IV-3
-------
indicated a concern for the impact of motor vehicles on the urban environ-
ment. These guidelines are documented in the comprehensive plan for
Baltimore City as adopted by the Planning Commission. The plan includes
goals and policies to guide the city's physical and social development, as
well as analyses of city's needs and resources and recommended patterns
*
of development.
Policy statements have been developed to provide a series of
guidelines, for specific functional areas such as transportation. These
policies have a bearing on the implementation of the transportation control
**
strategies that have been suggested:
The development of a system of major streets and highways
that will allow vehicle movement with a minimum of dis-
ruption to the city and the region. The emphasis should
be on the diversion of traffic away from the CBD.
The city shall investigate the options open to it in the
development of an intra-CBD distribution system to deter-
mine which mode or combination of modes will stimulate
economic activity while reducing the need for automobiles
in the downtown area.
The city shall encourage the rational expansion of the
trucking industry in a manner consistent with its goals
of enhancing and preserving the environmental of the city.
The city should actively support and encourage the develop-
ment of programs aimed at the minimization of the harmful
impacts of transportation in the environment.
An area plan has been formulated as a comprehensive concept
***
plan for MetroCenter, which includes the CBD, University of Maryland,
Baltimore City Planning Commission/Department of Planning, Baltimore's
Development Program 1972-1977, August 1971.
**
Department of Planning, Baltimore: Transportation Facilities and Services,
Baltimore Maryland.
Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd, MetroCenter/Baltimore Technical Study;
A Report of the Regional Planning Council and the Baltimore City
Department of Planning, 1970.
IV-4
-------
Inner Harbor, Mt. Vernon, and Mt. Royal Plaza, and Camden Industrial Park,
and provides an integrative framework for component sub-area plans.
The Charles Center and CBD plans first articulated the goals
for MetroCenter. Several of the strategies that were developed are also
important as parts of the process designed to preserve the urban environ-
ment. In brief, these include:
Separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic wherever
possible.
Greater dependence on an efficient transit system.
The development of modern traffic patterns and distri-
bution systems linking downtown with the expressway
system and the region.
The diversion of through-traffic away from downtown
streets.
The provision of adequate off-street parking for all
activities concentrated immediately adjacent to the
uses it serves.
Burying the automobile underground when not in use.
A basic part of the MetroCenter concept is a concern with the
control of vehicular movement. The MetroCenter plan relies on a network
of delivery spurs and boulevards to link the Interstate highway network to
city arterials rather than the traditional system of expressway rings.
Parking is another element in the movement system on which
MetroCenter has focused to some extent. A recommendation has been made that
a substantial amount of the required parking be placed underground,
IV-5
-------
or within parking structures in order to alleviate congestions on down-
town arterials.
Linked to the question of parking is the emphasis on the
development of the rail rapid transit system. This is seen as a method of
*
reducing the long-range need for parking. The recent parking study shows
that without the proposed rapid transit, 13,600 more parking spaces would
be required if the downtown area is to achieve its growth potential.
Further expansion of the downtown shuttle bus services, perhaps including
free CBD bus connections to all parts of MetroCenter, was recommended, as
was the idea that bus routes should serve transit stations and fringe
parking terminals in order to encourage people to leave their cars outside
the CBD.
2. Baltimore Development Program 1972-1977
To guide the city in making necessary physical improvements,
the charter requires the Planning Commision to prepare annually a six-year
recommended capital improvements program which is issued as Baltimore's
**
Development Program. The list of recommended projects is prepared by the
Planning Department after reviewing the requests of the various city agencies.
Subsequent additions and deletions are based on the Comprehensive Plan, the
city's overall priorities, the expressed needs of the citizens, the merits
Wilbur Smith and Associates, Baltimore Parking Study Technical Report. 1970.
Baltimore City Planning Commission/Department of Planning, Baltimore ' s
Development Program 1972-1971, August 1971.
IV-6
-------
of each project, and the financial constraints imposed by the Board of
Estimates Policy and Federal and state restrictions on the use of inter-
governmental funds. Only City Council approval of the first year of the
Development Program as part of the city Budget actually commits the city
to finance projects. One of the advantages of this process, however, is
that it implements the city's comprehensive Development Plan, in the short
term.
The Development Program has recommended an appropriation of
$1,529,861,000 for the period 1972-1977. The increase over that for 1971-
1976 is a result of the accelerated schedule for the construction of the
i
interstate expressway system, as described above.
Baltimore City participates in a unique financing system for
state-assisted transportation programs. A block grant is provided to the
city to fund police services, highway maintenance, debt service on revenue
bonds, and Federal-Aid highway matching funds. The amount allocated by the
state in 1972 was $35 million.
The specific functional areas of interest for this study are
appropriations for the Department of Transit and Traffic and the Off-Street
Parking Commission. The Department of Transit and Traffic will begin an
extensive modernization of the existing digital traffic control system.
The computerized Traffic Command and Control System will cost approximately
$5 million and is expected to be fully operational in three to four years.
(Bids will open for hardware, software, equipment, and installation in
IV-7
-------
December, 1972.) The Planning Commission recommended appropriations of
$1,329,000 from State DOT funds and $228,000 from Federal funds for the
first fiscal year.
The Planning Commission has recommended a Capital Improvement
Program of over $22 million for off-street parking. The specific physical
recommendations rely heavily on the downtown parking needs that were outlined
*
in the parking study.
The two uasic policy objectives to be implemented in the six-
year program are 1) the use of existing and future parking facilities in
the CBD for short term trips, and 2) the creation of fringe parking and
rapid transit facilities for commuters making trips of longer duration.
The parking facilities planned to meet the stated goals are described
below.
The total cost of implementing the comprehensive plan for
downtown parking is approximately $33 million. Of this total, $5 million
is for the hospital; $6.5 million is for Inner Harbor development; and
$17.5 million is for the proposed fringe are parking facilities. The
remaining $4 million include parking for the new government center, the
University of Baltimore, the Inner Harbor Campus of the Community College
of Baltimore, the downtown department store area, and the North Central
Core of the CBD. The 1972-1977 Development Program provides sufficient
funds to complete this comprehensive plan by 1980.
Witben Smith and Associates, 1970 Report.
IV-8
-------
The elements in the Program will be financed using several
already existing mechanisms. The Planning Commission has recommended that
most of the parking facilities be financed through the issuance of revenue
bonds. A $3 million revenue band issue was recently passed for institu-
tional parking. A second recommendation is that three large joint develop-
ment fringe parking garages that are being planned be financed jointly -
50 percent local and 50 percent Federal under the Federal-Aid joint
development. Finally, the Commission has suggested that the college and
the hospital parking be financed through the Maryland Health and Higher
Education Facilities Authority.
3. RPC Transportation Plans
The plans for the Baltimore area which have been described
do not exist in a spatial vacuum, but rather are linked into a regional
planning process. The Regional Planning Council has formulated a plan
which includes three major systems: highways, public transportation,
and other transportation modes. It has been recommended that this plan
be seriously considered by the Maryland DOT for inclusion in the proposed
state master plan for transportation. In addition to the capital improve-
ments detailed in the plan, implementation of the following related trans-
*
portation policies are equally important to its success:
Improve bus transit service
Locate residential areas and employment activities
so as to reduce commuting distances
Regional Planning Council, General Development Plan, Baltimore, Maryland,
September 1972.
IV-9
-------
Encourage more restrictive parking policies to
stimulate increased transit ridership and car pooling
Encourage modifying work shift patterns by large
employers to reduce sharp peaking of commuter travel.
This plan also places particular emphasis on the development
of the regional rapid transit system. Two types of system have been speci-
fied and are tied into surrounding centers and communities by a high
frequency feeder bus system. A high speed, high volume rapid transit
service is planned for major travel corridors which connect high density
residential areas with major employment and regional centers. Express and
limited bus service is planned in lower density corridors requiring rapid
transit service where the connecting highway system is adequate to provide
reliable high-speed service.
The cost of implementation of the recommended rapid transit
system will require an investment of $1.7 billion. Construction of the
28-mile Phase One rail rapid transit system is expected to start in 1974.
The total Phase One system is estimated to cost $650 million. In addition
to capital expenditures for rail rapid transit, several million will be
required to upgrade the bus system to meet service needs.
B. VEHICLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
A recommendation for a state emission inspection and maintenance
program is often associated with motor vehicle safety inspection programs.
However, the State of Maryland does not presently have a periodic safety
inspection for all in-use motor vehicles, although the adjacent states of
IV-10
-------
Pennsylvania and Virginia and the District of Columbia do have such pro-
grams. Maryland does have a law requiring a safety inspection of used
cars at the time of sale, which is estimated to cover about 15 percent
of all vehicles annually. There are about 1,200 licensed inspection
stations and approximately 2,300 mechanics are certified to perform this
service. The charge for this service is about $6.00, based on the average
mechanic's fee for 45 minutes to one hour of labor, payable to the licensed
station which performs the service. An additional $2.00 fee is collected
at the time of transfer of title to finance the program, which is admin-
istered jointly by the Motor Vehicle Administration and the State Police.
1. Legal Obstacles
Prior to the 1972 legislative session, a task force report
was prepared which recommended a system of regional state-operated stations
to provide periodic motor vehicle inspections (PMVI), including emission
testing and optional diagnostic tests for passenger cars and trucks. The
major bill in the legislature which incorporated the task force recom-
mendations did not pass. This legislation was part of the State's overall
safety program but did not have a high priority.
A similar bill has been profiled for the 1973 session of the
legislature and is again in the safety package presented to the Governor
by the Motor Vehicle Administration. (The bill was not available for
review when this report was prepared.) PMVI again has a relatively low
System Design Concepts, Inc., et al., Maryland Periodic Motor Vehicle
Inspection, prepared for the Task Force on Periodic Motor Vehicle
Inspection, Washington, D.C., December 1971.
IV-11
-------
priority, but the Governor may readjust the position before presenting
the 1973 legislative package.
Probabilities of passing the PMVI in 1973 are not high, based
on the expected safety priority status, the capital and operating costs,
and the possible reluctance of legislators to reinstate an inspection
system. (Maryland had a system of inspections, conducted by private
garages, which was not well controlled and eventually was written out by
law in 1965.)
The PMVI program was sized for emissions testing, but proce-
dures were not specified pending recommendations from EPA on evaluation of
short-cycle testing methods. In addition, the program called for reihspec-
tion of rejected vehicles. The repair of rejected vehicles was to be pro-
vided in the private sector at the owner's expense. The task force report
recommended a training program to include training in inspecting and main-
taining air pollution control devices.
Among the factors which may work toward passage of PMVI in
1973 are the emissions and diagnostic testing phases. If the air quality
problem is identified as severe enough to warrant extensive measures for
control, the implementation of such a plan, based on safety inspections,
will become more apparent. Inspection and maintenance may necessarily
be viewed as an enforcement mechanism to achieve and maintain air quality
by 1977.
IV-12
-------
Another factor is the Federal requirement that states have a
periodic motor vehicle inspection program under the Highway Safety Program
enacted in 1966. The Secretary of Transportation has discretionary power
to place a 10 percent penalty on all federal-aid highway funds apportioned
to the State. Maryland, however, ranks 15th in safety performance, although
the State is required to show significant progress toward meeting the safety
standards, including safety inspection.
2. Institutional Obstacles
One of the main purposes of the proposed PMVI is to establish
an integrated, coordinated, statewide plan under Maryland DOT. This is
best fulfilled by enacting the total system, including, in addition to
safety and emission inspections, District Courts, and driver examination
centers.
The joint administrative and enforcement role of MVA and State
Police has already been established and would be further reinforced by the
integrated State inspection stations. Emissions testing and enforcement
would probably add the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to the
administrative framework.
3. Political Obstacles
The political climate has been outlined above in the discus-
sion of the enabling legislation. The possibility of implementing the
program for Baltimore only, or for emissions inspection only, does not
IV-13
-------
appear likely, unless this were done at the discretion of the Governor
to enforce emergency powers.
4. Economic Obstacles
Because the most feasible inspection-maintenance program for
Maryland is tied to the planned statewide safety inspection program, the
total capital costs are high. The original plan called for 19 stations
located throughout the State. The Baltimore region would have six of
these stations. The estimated implementation cost in 1972 was $33 million;
this figure, however, did not include the cost of emissions testing equip-
ment, which could result in a total capital cost of $35 to $40 million,
depending on the type of testing equipment and mode required by EPA, as
well as inflationary factors. Funding required could be achieved through
the Maryland Department of Transportation, through issuance of consolidated
transportation bonds or revenue bonds.
Consolidated transportation bonds can be issued by the
Secretary of the Department of Transportation, with approval from the Board
of Public Works. Constitutional limits on these bonds appear to be 15 years,
Revenue bonds can be issued by the Maryland Transportation Authority and
must be retired from fees in 40 years.
Operating costs were estimated at $8 million per year. Fees
would be collected to repay revenue bonds. Additional funds would probably
be required to subsidize operations.
IV-14
-------
Other funding sources are available through Federal programs
such as diagnostic testing demonstration centers or recent legislation to
provide for pilot emission testing sites in selected cities.
5. Technical Obstacles
While the PMVI program appears to be the most feasible method
for implementing an emissions inspection and maintenance program, one major
obstacle appears to be the time frame. It has been estimated that the
entire program would require two to five years to become operational. It
might be possible, however, to complete the Baltimore area stations to
implement the 1977 State air quality plan if the total program package
Were adopted. A phase-in program was recommended by the task force.
Another factor is that emissions testing procedures have not
be promulgated by EPA which means that it is not possible to evaluate off-
the-shelf technology. Should the PMVI program be adopted, the Baltimore
region could serve as a good test site.
Much of the effectiveness of the program will depend on the
rejection rate. In the initial stages the rejections could be high due
to several causes, including inexperience of personnel or the relative ease
with which control devices can be made ineffective. Much would also depend
on the criteria set for rejection.
IV-15
-------
C. TRANSIT STRATEGIES
Since mid-1971, all transit functions in Baltimore City have been
the responsibility of the Mass Transit Administration (MTA) of the Maryland
Department of Transportation. The Baltimore Transit Company had been
purchased in 1970 by the redecessor agency, the Metropolitan Transit
Authority. MTA is responsible for planning, programming and implementing
mass transit services in the Metropolitan Transit District, which is com-
prised of Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and Anne Arundel County. MTA
plans to take over four suburban transit companies early in 1973. Thus,
the entire metropolitan transit system will be state-owned and operated
(Baltimore management is presently under contract to a private firm).
In addition to bus transit, MTA is planning and developing the
regional rail rapid transit system in coordination with the Regional
Planning Council. The Urban Mass Transportation Administration has re-
cently granted $22.5 million to help finance construction of the first
phase of the system. The local one-third funds will come from the Maryland
Department of Transportation.
There are few apparent legal or institutional obstacles to improved
transit services, or even reduced transit fares at the state level. Local
policy supports transit and could generally benefit from more transit
ridership. There is a question of economic policy, however, related to
the mandate of MTA to support all costs incurred for construction, acquisi-
tion, operation, and maintenance of transit facilities "as far as practicable"
IV-16
-------
from the fare box and Federal funding grants. Presently there are no
funds available from Federal sources to subsidize operating losses;
therefore it would be necessary for the state to review policy related
to operating losses caused by new services or reduced fares.
Present planning calls for many transit service improvements,
including acquisition of 100 new buses in 1973. An application to UMTA
to support this plan will be submitted in January. The transit technical
study (T9-5) is in the review stages, but it may be expected to recom-
mend turther service improvements.
D. PARKING STRATEGIES
1. CBD Parking
An important element of any overall strategy to reduce the
amount of automobile emissions is to control the flow of traffic into
the congested areas. One approach that should be considered is the manipu-
lation of the demand for parking in specific locations. This is very feasi-
ble in areas where a parking shortage exists.
Specifically there exists in Baltimore a shortage of spaces in
the core area, caused, to a large extent, by an overwhelming number of long-
term parkers. The magnitude of the problem has been quantified in the parking
study mentioned previously. Due to changes in land-use and natural growth,
this deficit will increase. The current plans propose to deal with it
through the combined development of fringe parking and rapid rail transit
IV-17
-------
in this way providing alternatives for those who would normally park in
the CBD. However, from the perspective of controlling cars by controlling
the supply of parking three strategies have been considered:
Increased parking charges in the CBD
Provision of CBD fringe parking lots
Provision of suburban fringe lots
These will be evaluated in terms of feasibility of implementation and the
obstacles to implementation.
a. Increased Parking Charges or Taxes in the CBD
Presently, in Baltimore hourly parking charges range
from $0.35 to $0.85 for the first hour and from $0.50 to $2.85 for all
day parking. The charge for lots as well as for metered spaces varies
with the location. These rates however are, on the average, lower than
those of other cities of comparable size.
There are, in addition to the privately operated lots,
six interim, metered surface parking facilities monitored by the Department
of Transit and Traffic, ranging in size from 49 spaces to almost 300. They
are "interim" lots because they are located on urban renewal land. The
charge at the Charles Center lot, the smallest, is $0.40 per hour with a
4-hour maximum; the others charge $0.25 for 2-1/2 hours, with a maximum
of 10 hours. These rates are slightly below those of the other lots in the
city. This has the effect of keeping the other rates down. The lower cost
IV-18
-------
also makes them somewhat more attractive to Commuters. A study recently
completed by the City Planning Department on these six interim lots
however indicated that their attractiveness was almost evenly split between
location and cost. Another interesting finding, from the same study, was
that 10 percent of the drivers interviewed had switched from some other
mode to the automobile, either because of cost (in some instances it is
cheaper than the bus) or convenience, although many had some distance to
walk to reach work sites.
Results of this type indicate that the convenience and
comfort aspects of fringe parking plus well-routed rapid bus service may
have more impact on commuter modal choice than the negative incentive
provided by increased parking costs.
A strategy to increase parking charges, aside from
questions of its efficacy, faces several types of implementation obstacles.
b. Institutional
A basic obstacle is the structure of the off-street parking
commission. The commission was formed for the purpose of providing financing
at low rates for private entrepreneurs interested in developing parking
facilities. The city provides capital construction funds through issuance
of revenue bonds and indicates where it would like the facility. Other
than this, the commission has only review power over the rates charged by
the individual operators. The only lots over which the city has direct
control are the six interim lots previously mentioned. This represents
IV-19
-------
966 spaces, and could provide some leverage for an upward shift in the rate
structure. Other lots charge lower prices because of them and a general
upward price would probably be followed by private operators.
c. Legal
There are, in addition, legal obstacles to any attempt
on the part of the commission to regulate the price set by private business.
For while there are presently no specific laws forbidding it, the assump-
tion of this type of power would immediately be challenged in the courts on
constitutional grounds. Presently, the situation is further complicated
by the price controls that have been instituted by the Federal government.
As an adjustment of the basic rate structure is not really
feasible, there are several less direct methods that pose no legal problems.
An adjustment of the $0.15 transaction tax might provide a method of in-
creasing the cost of parking. The tax was levied by the city for revenue
purposes, originally at $0.10 and recently raised to $0.15. It is a flat
rate on all parking in lots or garages and there are no legal limits on
the amount to which it could be raised.
Increased property taxes on the parking structures them-
selves might also cause rates to be raised. Presently the owners are taxed
only at the value of the undeveloped property. If they are taxed at the
value of the developed land, it is conceivable that the increase will be
passed on to the consumer.
IV-20
-------
Finally, increased construction costs due to a cutback
in low-interest city loans, may also be reflected in increased costs to the
consuner. However, as the demand for construction applications is not
great this would have a minimal effect.
d. Economic
Although these indirect techniques for causing price
increases have no legal obstacles, a consideration of the economic impact
of such an action may provide an effective deterrant to city policy-makers.
A general price-rise, would be unselective, discouraging
long-term parkers as well as those coming into town to shop. There is a
great fear on the part of the city's merchants, that any obstruction to
the flow of traffic into the CBD will jeopardize the commercial vitality
of the downtown. It is difficult to assess the potential magnitude of
this problem as there is no accurate way of determining how many potential
shoppers, discouraged by high parking charges in the CBD, will turn to the
suburban shopping centers for their needs, rather than taking transit into
town. For example, San Francisco, imposed an increased parking tax and
downtown merchants experienced a decline in the volume of business.
One way of avoiding this generalized result would be
to selectively raise the tax with the goal particularly of discouraging
the commuter. Rather than a flat rate an incremental increase after 3
hours might be imposed. This would tend to discourage all-day parkers
who drive into town for work, rather than penalizing shoppers.
IV-21
-------
e. Political/Social
Any attempt to raise prices for services will generate
political opposition. The present parking tax, as low as it is, is gener-
ally unpopular with commuters and with businessmen, many of whom are part
of a downtown merchants group designed to lobby against just such issues.
Any increase will create additional problems for city government whose
basic policy is to keep parking rates as low as possible to maintain a
viable center city. Consequently, it is doubtful that it will willingly
implement strategies that lead to other results. This is particularly
true of this situation where an excessive increase may be necessary to
divert commuters to public transit.
f. Technical
The technical obstacles to this solution have been dis-
cussed in the strategies section.
2. GBP Fringe Parking
The Baltimore parking study has indicated that because the
largest percentage (nearly 40 percent) of downtown Baltimore parking is
for work trips, the need to meet these long-term parking demands is the
most significant parking requirement for the central core area. Increased
use by downtown employees of public transport, coupled with the development
of fringe parking facilities could reduce future need to develop extensive
parking facilities in the central core area. Positive incentives such as
IV-2 2
-------
lower cost, convenience and comfort could promote mode changes in a way
the increased CBD parking rates will not.
Presently three sites have been selected and are being
studied for construction of fringe parking terminals. They are: (1) a
1,779-space structure to be located at the point where the proposed 1-170
spur will intersect the proposed new boulevard; (2) a 1,000-space air-
rights structure above the Baltimore and Ohio railroad yards, with direct
access to the proposed 1-395 spur; and (3) a 600-space garage adjacent
to 1-83.
As part of the total transit system, the terminal at 1-170
would be served by the planned rail rapid transit system, providing a
transfer point for motorists who ride the transit system to the core area.
Transportation from the terminal would be provided by a shuttle-bus service.
The terminals at 1-395 and 1-83 are not linked to the proposed rail rapid
transit, but would be served by rapid bus.
The obstacles to this strategy lie, to a large extent, in
the areas of coordination of services and development of funding and
operating procedures.
a. Institutional
The planning and implementation of these terminals rests
with the Bureau of Joint Development of the Interstate Division for
Baltimore City. The goal is to coordinate these parking facilities with
IV-23
-------
the Interstate highways serving transit under the Joint Development pro-
visions of the Federal-Aid highway programs.
b. Legal
The primary legal problem is related to the acquisition of the
land. The site selected for the terminal adjacent to 1-70, although not
in the existing condemnation corridor, falls within an NDP area which
should facilitate acquisition. The land for the other two terminals,
however, would have to be obtained through condemnation. Because of the
legal disputes surrounding the construction of some of the highways the
public may not be enthusiastic about the idea of parking terminals.
c. Economic
The highway act provides for 50 percent from Federal and
50 percent from local matching funds. The city would derive funds from
the sale of bonds and by tapping the State gasoline tax fund. The Federal
program would finance up to 50 percent of the cost of parking facilities
located at the fringes of the downtown area provided that the garage
serves (primarily) freeway type traffic before it reaches local streets.
There appears to be no local financing problems, and the city has pro-
grammed funds for the terminals in the six-year Development Program.
No steps have been taken to approach the Federal Highway
Administration for capital funds; therefore, the probabilities of Federal
funding are uncertain.
IV-24
-------
d. Political/Social
The idea of CBD fringe parking terminals is one that
has the support of the planning commission and the city government. There
may be some opposition from downtown merchants. The obstacle is that there
is no local constituency to support it. The commuter has to be convinced
that transit is a less costly and more convenient mode than the automobile,
and until this is done the potential market will not be realized. The
issue of the determination of the user charge for these facilities will
have a great bearing on their attractiveness to the commuting public.
Although the parking study indicated that people are more influenced by
convenience than by cost, it will still be necessary for the fringe parking
charge plus transit to be less than the parking rates in the CBD.
e. Technical
Because the success of the CBD fringe parking concept
depends on the consumer's perception of increased convenience, coordination
of terminal construction and initiation of the rapid bus system is particu-
larly important. Synchronization with the proposed rapid rail system is
not essential for this strategy to be initiated.
The timing and coordination of the construction schedules
for the expressways and the terminals that relate to them must also be taken
into consideration. It is likely that the highways will be completed before
the terminals. If this occurs, it is possible that the commuters will
IV-25
-------
adjust to this improvement and will be disinclined to use the terminal
facilities when they are provided. The relationship of these facilities
to phased rail rapid transit is being studied.
3. Suburban Fringe Parking
This type of facility is designed to service suburban areas on
the outer side of the Beltway. Using the facilities already provided by
shopping centers, spaces are provided for commuters to leave their cars
and take the rapid bus service into the city. To date two shopping centers,
GEM East and GEM West, are being used by MTA for this purpose. Each area
provides 200 spaces; it is estimated by MTA that approximately 100 at each
are used. The bus service is used by 2,000 people per week which requires
seven vehicles per day. There is no charge for the parking and the bus
fare is $0.50 each direction, which is comparable with competing fares.
a. Political/Social
There are no political or social obstacles, as the groups
affected by this service seem to be pleased. This includes the merchants
who provide the spaces. They see participation in the provision of parking
space at suburban lots as a form of advertising.
b. Technical
The availability of potential sites does not present an
apparent obstacle to the continued existence or expansion of suburban
IV-2 6
-------
fringe parking. There are numerous shopping centers in the vicinity of
the Beltway, and businessmen seem interested in participating in future
development.
The "Metro Flyer", an express bus from the Towson area
also serves a shopping center as well as some residential areas. The
15-mile trip to the Baltimore CBD utilizes the Jones Falls Expressway.
This is presently run by a suburban bus company, but MTA expects to take
over the company by early 1973.
c. Institutional
Although MTA has negotiated for these fringe parking sites,
further expansion of shopping center use would probably require greater
participation from Baltimore County. In earlier negotiations, not all
centers were interested in permitting their lots to be used for park and
ride services. Both the government and the consumer indicate approval of
the system, as is indicated by the number of new riders who have been at-
tracted to transit because of it, an attitude which will facilitate making
improvements.
d. Legal
At present there is no problem with land acquisition. The
shopping centers have given the MTA the right to use the space. If the
situation should arise that the merchants require the spaces for their
own use, there could be problems in moving the facility to some other center
or in seeking and purchasing other land.
IV-2 7
-------
e. Economic
The spaces are provided at no cost to the authority and
the $0.50 bus fare covers the operating costs. Presently the operation
is breaking even; however, this position is not likely to remain stable
with rising operating costs. Large costs might be incurred if land pur-
chase is required.
E. CAR POOLS
As the idea of car pools is a recent development, few formal
obstacles exist to hinder its effective implementation. However, as with
incentives for public transit, the negative attitude of the public must
be overcome before it can be effectively used.
The implementation strategies that seem most feasible for Baltimore,
in addition to the imposition of severe parking restrictions in the CBD
are:
The institution of a system of priority points for existing
spaces and the related idea of parking
Lower parking rates for people in car pools
1. Institutional
Employers who are already using another type of priority system
(seniority) may be unwilling to change, as it would most likely be unpopular
with the employees. In areas where government buildings predominate the
institution of this type of policy would be possible.
IV-2 8
-------
2. Legal
If large employers institute this system voluntarily, there
are no legal obstacles. If, however, the city government chooses to adopt
this as a city-wide strategy, there is the likelihood of legal action on
the part of private business.
3. Economic
This type of policy has no real implementation costs, unless
some type of monetary incentives are required to convince private business
to participate.
4. Political/Social
There are no stated objections on the part of city government
to car pooling. However, disatisfaction on the part of commuters may
result in pressures that will limit the action taken. The basic obstacle
again is convincing the commuter of the advantages of car pooling.
5. Technical
Positive incentives for car pooling will be most effective if
they are instituted in close coordination with some disincentives for CBD
parking. Aside from this possible obstacle, from a technical standpoint
it would not be difficult.
IV-29
-------
6. Lower Rates
As this strategy is a variation of the priority points system,
and is closely related to changing parking rates, the obstacles are similar
and need not be reiterated.
IV-30
-------
7. RECOMMENDED CONTROL STRATEGY
A. RATIONALE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to facilitate comparison of the several candidate
strategies with respect to both their effectiveness, discussed in Section
III, and their social feasibility, discussed in Section IV, numerical
ratings were applied to each of the various aspects considered.
The numerical ratings, summarized in Table V-l, were based on
judgment, interviews with local representatives, and expression of value
judgments at Task Force meetings. Depending on the level of application
or enforcement, i.e., whether a 15-cent or a zero transit fare were being
considered, these ratings could be adjusted accordingly. Criteria used in
evaluating the strategies were:
Technical effectiveness - ratings are recorded
separately for the central area and the region;
criteria are the amount of emission reduction
and the relative transportation effects.
Legal feasibility - Status of existing legislation;
requirements and obstacles to passage of new
legislation; enforcement measures; discriminatory
impacts.
Institutional feasibility - Administrative and
operating staff, facilities, authority; state
vs. city and county interests; private concerns.
Social/political feasibility - Compatibility with
local, regional, state, and Federal goals; impact
on individual mobility; effects on low-income
persons.
Economic feasibility - Capital costs; operating
costs; funding sources; individual burdens; impact
on bonded indebtedness.
V-l
-------
TABLE V-l
SUMMARY OF EFFECTIVENESS AND FEASIBILITY OF
POTENTIAL CONTROL STRATEGIES
Vehicle Retrofit
(pre-1975 vehicles)
Inspection and Maintenance
Traffic Flow Improvements
Transit Service Improvements
Reduced Transit Fares
Reserved Lanes
Car Pools (voluntary)
Motor Vehicle Use Restraints
Increased Parking Charges
Increased Fringe Parking
Four-Day-Work Week
(voluntary)
Effectiveness
Central
Area
4
4
4
2
4
1
1
3
1
1
Fringe &
Suburb
4
4
2
1
2
1
1
-
1
Feasibility
Legal Institutional
1 2
3 2
5 5
4 4
2 3
3 3
5
3 1
3 2
2
Social/
Political
1
3
5
5
3
4
2
2
2
3
Economic
1
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
Overall
Feasibility
Rating
1.3
2.8
4.8
4.0
2.8
3.5
3.3
2.3
2.3
2.8
Ratings are based on a scale of 1 - 5 with 5 representing the highest effectiveness or feasibility.
-------
Broad consideration was given to trade-off effects, such as the
potential reduction in transit riding due to car pooling or a four-day
work week. The overall feasibility rating was a simple average of the 4
rating parameters, except that no legal ratings were given to the voluntary
strategies. The voluntary programs, car pooling or four-day work week,
would have more potential if made mandatory, but would surely have a
minimum feasibility.
To meet the National Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards in
1977, the Baltimore urban area must reduce expected 1977 carbon monoxide
levels in the Central Area by 36.8 percent, and expected hydrocarbon
emissions 40.0 percent area-wide during the 6-9 a.m. period. Since there
are non-vehicular sources in the region, the required reductions are
even higher proportions of the emissions from motor vehicles only - 38.3
percent and 56.0 of the Central Area CO and the morning peak hydrocarbon
emissions, respectively.
It is apparent from the general run of effectiveness levels in
Table III-8 that there is a minimum of choice involved in selecting a
combination of strategies that will meet the standard, and Table V-l
emphasizes that it will likely be impossible to select a combination that
will both meet the standards in 1977 and meet with general approval. There
is in fact a definite trend for the most effective strategies to be rated
least feasible.
The two strategies with the highest combination of feasibility
and effectiveness are traffic flow improvements and a control-device inspec-
V-3
-------
tion and maintenance program. Between them, however, they can effect only
a 20 percent reduction in CO emissions and a 22 percent reduction in hydro-
carbons .
Further inspection of Table III-6 brings the conclusion that
no combination of strategies can meet the standards unless it includes a
program of retro-fitting pre-1975 vehicles with control devices. Because
of the very poor acceptance rating of a retro-fit program (largely due
to its cost), this is of course an unwelcome conclusion, though an unavoid-
able one. Consequently, the recommended combination of control strategies
includes compulsory retrofitting, as well as other, more desirable strategies
A combination of the most desirable and the most effective
strategies, including a retrofit program, inspection and maintenance, total
subsidy of transit fares, and traffic flow improvements, is, however, still
insufficient to provide the required hydrocarbon reduction, although it
does meet the carbon monoxide requirement. Since this program gains the
maximum possible reduction in emissions from light-duty vehicles, the
balance must be sought from heavy-duty vehicles or non-vehicular emissions.
The latter were presumed to be already controlled to the maximum extent
possible, although that assumption should be re-evaluated by the State in
the light of the severity of the problem. Accordingly, the further hydro-
carbon reduction needed was sought from heavy-duty vehicles, and a program
of retro-fitting evaporative and crankcase controls proves to be sufficient.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the overall control strategy
include:
V-4
-------
1. A comprehensive program of minor re-design
and construction, and improved signalization
and channelization.
2. A program of improved bus transit service
improvements designed to attract usage by
reducing both access times and line-haul
times.
3. The total subsidy of transit operations to
provide free transit service.
4. A program of mandatory retro-fitting of pre-
1975 model light-duty vehicles with oxidizing
catalytic converters equivalent to those on
1975 model vehicles.
5. A program of control-device inspection and
maintenance, mandatory for all light-duty
vehicles.
6. A program of mandatory retro-fitting of pre-
1973 heavy-duty gasoline vehicles with evapor-
ative emission and crankcase emission control
devices equivalent to those on 1973 and later
model vehicles.
It is recognized that this recommendation will be most difficult
to implement in practice, because of major obstacles, especially economic
ones, and it is not necessarily the opinion of the contractors that this
is the most desirable solution to the rather serious problem the Baltimore
area faces. The only other available alternatives, however, are outside
the scope of the present effort and cannot really be quantitated properly
with present information; they are discussed in a general manner in sub-
section C of this section.
B. IMPACT ON POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
The assessment of the impact of the recommendations on the
level of pollutant emissions is a three-step calculation; the percentage
V-5
-------
estimates of effectiveness are not directly additive, but must be applied
to the emissions remaining in each step, as summarized in Table 1-2.
Considering the emissions expected in 1977 (after the effect
of the federal motor vehicle emission control program has been included)
as 100 percent, the first step is to reduce this by the effect of strategies
that reduce VMT or increase speeds and hence reduce emissions. The traffic
flow improvements are conservatively estimated to reduce the aggregate
emissions by 10 percent, primarily by increasing speeds and decreasing idle
time. The transit services improvements and the fare elimination are
estimated to reduce area-wide VMT by about 2 and 14 percent respectively;
they are not completely additive, however, and the combined effect is
estimated at 15 percent VME reduction. Together these three elements of
the strategy reduce the emissions (of both pollutants) to 75 percent of
the original total.
The second calculation step is to apply the effect of the light-
duty retrofit and inspection-maintenance programs to the 75 percent balance.
The effect of the catalytic converter retrofit is a reduction of 27.34 per-
cent of the hydrocarbon emissions and 30.52 percent of the CO emissions
from the "average" vehicle. This figure has been modified to reflect the
effect of vehicles not subject to the program, such as heavy-duty and
transient light-duty vehicles. As discussed previously, it is assumed that
95 percent of the light-duty vehicles are effectively controlled. The
estimated effectiveness of these programs is of course heavily dependent
on the degree of enforcement. The 95% factor used is intended to allow
V-6
-------
for travel by vehicles registered out of the Baltimore area, primarily out
of state; it makes no allowance for less than thorough enforcement. If,
as is likely, the enforcement experience indicates that a lower factor
would be more accurate, this could be accommodated by increasing the emission
reductions gained from heavy-duty vehicles as from non-vehicular sources.
As seen in Table 1-2, the accumulated effect of these strategies
meets the required reduction in CO emissions in the Central Analysis Area;
in fact, as most are uniformly effective, they will affect reductions
region-wide. These strategies are not enough, however, to provide the
required hydrocarbon reduction, leaving a required further reduction of
2612 kg, or about 8.6 percent of the original expected 1977 total. This
latter portion is then gained by the heavy-duty vehicle retrofit program.
C. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES
As a careful study of the several tables of emissions indicates,
the difficulty in achieving the necessary hydrocarbon emission reduction
arises in large part because of the large portions of these emissions
constructed by stationary sources and heavy-duty vehicles, neither of
which is controlled by most of the measures under consideration in the
present study. Thus the major burden of providing the sizable hydrocarbon
reduction falls heavily on the light-duty vehicle. It should be noted that
because of it's nature as a major port city, Baltimore has greater-than-
typical truck traffic, so that that portion of the problem is correspond-
ingly magnified. The principal alternative to the present recommendations
would seem to be a greater effort at reducing heavy-duty vehicle emissions
V-7
-------
through a greater retrofit program. The principal obstacle to planning
such a program is the lack of quantitative information on the emissions
of retrofitted trucks, and the requirement by EPA that States furnish
evidence of effectiveness of such a program.
There is also the alternate possibility of striving for further
VMT-reduction-through-transit-use by accelerating plans for the planned
rail rapid transit links. Although careful consideration of such possibil-
ities was eliminated from the present study by the Air Quality Task Force,
there do seem to be possibilities, particularly when one considers the
impact of the subsidized-fare alternative.
V-8
-------
VI. SURVEILLANCE AND REVIEW
It is difficult to program a coherent detailed plan for implementing
the recommended strategies because of the difficulty in circumventing the
obstacles involved. There are, however, a number of events which either
are expected to occur and hence inherent in the assumptions herein, or
else are necessary for the successful implementation of the recommendations,
These are summarized chronologically in Table VI-1, with the most crucial
checkpoints marked with an asterisk.
It should be noted that this type of surveillance applies principally
to transportation controls. An equally important part of any surveillance
process, one which should be the responsibility of all parties, is the
continuing reassessment of both the problem itself and the appropriateness
of the required controls. As was discussed earlier in this Introduction,
the present study employed a whole range, not only of extant data and
techniques, but also of assumptions about the course of future events.
This data base should be continuously reviewed as new information becomes
available. Thus, although the key background parameters are called out
in the Surveillance Process, a thorough and continuing review of all the
data, techniques and assumptions contained in this report will be required
to properly update the problem definition and appropriate control measures.
Since the assessment of the air quality data and the pollution problem it
implies has been a source of occasional lack of unanimity, Table VI-2 lists
a few of the issues of that nature that should be periodically reassessed.
VI-1
-------
TABLE VI-1
CHECKPOINTS IN TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
DATE PROGRAM
1973 Legislature pass periodic motor vehicle inspection program
with provision for inspection and maintenance.
Final engineering and design on Phase I, Northwest and South
lines, rail rapid transit.
Decisions on proposed highway court cases and review of
Environmental Impact Statements.
MTA purchase of suburban bus companies.
Probably additional UMTA funding for buses and rapid transit.
Begin installation of digitized traffic signal control
system.
1974 Legislature pass legislation permitting transit fare subsidy.
Legislature pass legislation authority for retrofit programs.
Plans for construction of inspection stations.
Construction of Phase rapid transit commences.
Completion of 1-95 to Eastern Avenue.
Implementation of traffic surveillance on 1-83.
1975-76 Construction of inspection stations in Baltimore area.
Implementation of transit fare schedule changes.
Traffic signal control system operational in Baltimore City.
1978 Phase I rapid transit operational.
VI-2
-------
TABLE VI-2
PROBLEM ASSESSMENT ISSUES
Air Quality Data Availability
1. Data from AIRMON stations during first winter of operation (1972-73).
2. Data from newly-installed oxidant sensors in suburban areas (summer, 1973),
Air Quality Data Validation
1. Continuing integration of MBAQS stations into state-wide data system -
should include significant improvement in validation procedures.
2. Completion of AIRMON shake-down and full development of data processing
system.
Other Air Quality Data Bases
1. Possible revised oxidant - hydrocarbon relationship based on contin-
uously-expanding non-methane - hydrocarbon data availability.
2. Possible use of AIRMON data to develop a Baltimore-based oxidant -
hydrocarbon relationship.
-------
APPENDIX A
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL
-------
APPENDIX A
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL (VMT)
The data contained in the following tables was provided as an input
to the emissions model. Total district VMT was estimated by facility
type as described in Section II0C of the text. VMT by vehicle type was
factored, as described in the text. It should be noted that the estimates
for heavy duty vehicles (trucks) and diesel vehicles (non-gasoline) are
based on regional and area factors, as real data at the level of detail
of individual districts is not available. These figures provide the best
estimates of regional travel prorated to a district level for purposes
of analysis.
The data are presented for 24-hour, peak-hour, and 12-hour time
periods, for 1970 and 1977. The basic data was developed for the two
years by the Koppelman procedure, and the various time periods were esti-
mated with factors. Drawing from past engineering studies of traffic
volume for 12-hour and peak-hour periods (BMATS, 1962), it was determined
that the 24-hour VMT projections for light duty gasoline, heavy duty
gasoline, and heavy duty diesel vehicles would be weighted by 10 percent
for peak-hour and 75 percent for 12 hour estimates.
A-l
-------
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
Metropolitan Ar»a Baltimore
Year
1970
Time Period_Peak_Hour_
District
1
10
11
12
13
20
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
12
4
9
17
8
14
23
11
18
41
22
13
21
43
23
13
20
18
9
14
VMT
LD
0
10,608
--
1,623
12,231
0
8,746
--
2,794
11,540
0
2,504
--
905
3,409
7, 135
12, 162
--
6,068
25,365
3,754
10,660
--
6,007
20,421
0
12,067
--
4,067
16, 134
HD
0
1,184
--
181
1,365
0
976
--
312
1,288
0
280
--
101
381
796
1,357
--
677
2,830
419
1,190
--
671
2,280
0
1,347
--
454
1,801
Diesel
0
143
--
22
165
0
118
--
38
156
0
34
--
12
46
96
164
--
82
342
51
144
--
81
276
0
163
--
55
218
Area
(sq. mi.)
.554
1. 14
1.61
2.20
5.07
2. 17
A-2
-------
Baltimore - 1970 - Peak Hour
District
21
22
30
31
32
33
40
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
42
22
12
20
21
12
17
18
8
13
19
10
15
20
11
16
21
11
17
36
16
7
15
VMT
LD
2, 182
5,457
--
2,713
10,352
0
5, 102
--
2,236
7,338
0
8, 105
--
3,096
11,201
0
10,274
4,560
14,834
0
10, 142
--
4,632
14,774
0
14,590
--
6,591
21, 181
5,312
14,905
4,009
24, 226
HD
244
609
--
303
1, 156
0
569
--
250
819
0
905
--
346
1,251
0
1, 147
509
1,656
0
1, 132
--
517
1,649
0
1,628
--
736
2,364
593
1,663
--
447
2,703
Diesel
30
74
--
37
141
0
69
--
30
99
0
109
--
42
151
0
139
62
201
0
137
--
63
200
0
197
--
89
286
72
201
--
54
327
Area
(sq. mi.)
2.34
2.24
1. 13
2.93
3. 91
5.71
1. 61
A-3
-------
Baltimore - 1970 - Peak Hour
District
35
36
37
38
44
45
46
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
44
24
13
22
43
23
14
24
45
26
16
24
34
19
27
43
23
13
23
44
25
15
26
48
30
18
26
VMT
LD
4,670
10,320
--
5,280
20,270
17,358
15,823
9,230
42,411
6,632
20, 168
--
10,532
37,332
0
3,560
--
1,585
5, 145
6,972
9,421
--
4,790
21, 183
17,214
13,438
--
8, 105
38,757
4,749
16,677
--
8,434
29,860
HD
521
1, 152
--
589
2,262
1,937
1,766
1,030
4,733
740
2,251
--
1, 176
4, 167
0
397
--
177
574
778
1,052
535
2,365
1,921
1,500
--
905
4,326
530
1,861
--
941
3,332
Diesel
63
139
--
71
273
234
214
--
125
573
90
272
--
142
504
0
48
--
21
69
94
127
--
65
286
232
181
--
110
523
64
225
--
114
403
Area
(sq. mi.)
6.46
10. 1
20.4
25.3
3.63
8.79
27.9
A-4
-------
Baltimore - 1970 - Peak Hour
District
47
48
49
54
55
56
57
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
52
34
20
32
33
20
27
56
40
24
36
38
19
10
16
40
20
11
18
43
24
14
22
44
25
14
25
VMT
LD
6,479
8,455
--
4,943
19,877
0
10,612
--
4,821
15,433
1,473
2,461
--
1,425
5,359
471
18,093
--
7,521
26, 085
4,213
11,536
--
5,875
21,624
12, 103
25,998
14, 195
52,296
10,391
12,425
--
6,515
29,331
HD
723
944
--
552
2,219
0
1, 184
--
538
1,722
164
275
--
159
598
53
2,019
--
840
2,912
470
1,288
--
656
2,414
1,351
2,902
-_
1,584
5,837
1,160
1,387
--
727
3,274
Diesel
88
114
--
67
269
0
143
--
65
208
20
33
--
19
72
6
244
--
102
352
57
156
--
79
292
163
351
--
192
706
140
168
--
88
396
Area
(sq. mi.)
21.3
43.6
23.8
6.09
3.36
19.3
11.3
A-5
-------
Baltimore - 1970 - Peak Hour
District
41
42
43
50
51
52
53
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
37
18
10
17
18
9
14
41
21
12
21
35
16
7
14
18
9
14
20
10
16
20
10
16
VMT
LD
7,358
14, 132
--
5,896
27,386
0
18,724
--
8,572
27,296
11, 184
14,800
--
7,344
33,328
1,506
17,956
--
4,405
23,867
0
17,395
--
6,995
24,390
0
13,484
--
5,854
19,338
0
9,776
--
4,528
14,304
HD
821
1,577
--
658
3,056
0
2,090
--
957
3,047
1,248
1,652
--
820
3,720
168
2,004
--
492
2,664
0
1,942
--
781
2,723
0
1,504
--
653
2, 157
0
1,091
--
505
1,596
Diesel
99
191
--
80
370
0
253
--
116
369
151
200
--
99
450
20
242
--
60
322
0
235
--
94
329
0
182
__
79
261
0
132
--
61
193
Area
(aq. mi.)
2.97
4.85
4.95
1.87
2.96
4.61
4.01
A-6
-------
Baltimore 1970 Peak Hour
District
72
73
74
23
24
25
34
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
42
21
11
20
42
22
12
20
41
22
12
19
43
24
13
26
41
21
12
20
44
24
15
21
38
18
11
19
VMT
LD
1,606
2,589
--
1,424
5,619
1,282
4, 167
--
1,716
7, 165
2, 149
7, 100
--
3,274
12,523
17,766
11,742
--
5,838
35,346
6,828
13,242
--
6,458
26,528
1,256
5, 293
--
2,924
9,473
10, 341
13,074
6,660
30,075
HD
179
289
--
159
627
143
465
--
192
800
240
792
--
365
1,397
1,983
1,311
--
652
3,946
762
1,478
--
721
2,961
140
591
--
326
1,057
1, 154
1,459
--
743
3,356
Diesel
22
35
--
19
76
17
56
--
23
96
29
96
--
44
169
240
159
--
79
478
92
179
--
87
358
17
72
--
40
129
140
177
--
90
407
Area
(sq. mi.)
1.01
1.27
2.73
6. 81
5.07
6. 18
3.92
A-7
-------
Baltimore - 1970 - Peak Hour
District
60
61
62
63
64
70
71
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
17
7
13
20
10
16
22
11
17
40
22
11
19
37
20
11
18
19
8
14
32
14
8
12
VMT
LD
0
8, 182
--
2,515
10,697
0
9,630
--
3,356
12,986
0
8,480
--
3,746
12,226
2,659
12,789
--
4,380
19,828
4, 188
18,468
--
6,915
29,571
0
4,666
--
1,564
6,230
2,759
15,487
--
6,213
24,459
HD
0
913
--
281
1, 194
0
1,075
--
375
1,450
0
946
--
418
1,364
297
1,427
--
489
2,213
467
2,061
--
772
3,300
0
521
--
175
696
308
1,728
--
693
2,729
Diesel
0
111
--
34
145
0
130
--
45
175
0
115
--
51
166
36
173
--
59
268
57
249
--
93
399
0
63
--
21
84
37
209
84
330
Area
(sq. mi.)
1. 12
2. 21
3.57
4.54
2.64
1.14
1.06
A-8
-------
Baltimore 1970 Peak Hour
District
58
59
65
66
67
68
75
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
56
39
23
35
37
21
31
44
24
14
27
44
25
15
24
50
31
18
29
50
32
19
30
43
23
11
19
VMT
LD
1,803
5,859
--
2,817
10,479
0
2, 874
--
1,060
3,934
18,595
11,277
7,054
36, 926
9,592
20,045
9, 919
39,556
6,086
9,960
--
5, 824
21,870
6,289
10,678
--
5,579
22,546
1,748
5,936
--
2,698
10,382
HD
201
654
--
314
1, 169
0
321
--
118
439
2,075
1,259
787
4, 121
1,070
2,237
--
1, 107
4,414
679
1, 112
--
650
2,441
702
1, 192
--
623
2,517
195
663
--
301
1, 159
Diesel
24
79
--
38
141
0
39
--
14
53
251
152
95
498
130
271
--
134
535
82
135
--
79
296
85
144
--
75
304
23
80
--
36
139
Area
(sq. mi.)
56.0
22.4
8.76
11. 1
29.2
19.8
4.58
A-9
-------
Baltimore - 1970 - Peak Hour
District
76
77
78
79
14
15
16
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
21
12
17
44
24
14
22
24
14
20
30
16
23
43
24
15
22
33
19
VMT
LD
0
17,615
--
7,515
25, 130
3,300
10,475
--
5, 161
18,936
0
11,699
--
5,570
17,269
0
3,589
--
1,650
5,239
10,921
28,614
14,571
54, 106
0
3, 289
1,531
26 j 4, 820
21
12
17
0
12,011
--
5,474
17,485
HD
0
1,966
--
839
2,805
368
1, 169
--
576
2, 113
0
1,306
--
622
1,928
0
401
--
184
585
1, 219
3, 194
1,626
6,039
0
367
_ _
171
538
0
1,341
--
611
1,952
Diesel
0
238
--
101
339
45
141
--
70
256
0
158
--
75
233
0
49
--
22
71
147
386
197
730
0
44
_ M
21
65
0
162
--
74
236
Area
(sq. mi.)
6.24
12.0
11.6
14.4
14.7
12.4
4.98
A-10
-------
Baltimore 1970 Peak Hour
District
17
18
26
28
27
29
39
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
29
18
23
28
18
24
45
26
16
26
49
31
19
30
30
18
25
33
20
27
50
32
18
28
VMT
LD
0
16,262
--
9,323
25,585
0
35,073
--
1'6, 493
51,566
10,946
14,477
--
8, 245
33,668
10,351
10,998
--
7, 128
28,477
0
11, 167
--
5,063
16,230
0
29,766
--
13,062
42,828
5, 246
13,766
--
6,742
25,754
HD
0
1,815
--
1,041
2,856
0
3,915
--
1,841
5, 756
1,222
1,616
--
920
3,758
1, 155
1,228
--
796
3, 179
0
1,246
--
565
1,811
0
3,322
--
1,458
4,780
586
1,536
--
752
2,874
Diesel
0
220
--
126
346
0
474
--
223
697
148
196
--
111
455
140
149
--
96
385
0
151
--
68
219
0
402
--
176
578
70
186
--
91
347
Area
(sq. mi.)
35.5
37.0
11.6
22.3
20.5
61.2
27.8
A-ll
-------
Baltimore - 1970 - Peak-Hour
District
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
VMT
LD
TOTAL
1.483.390
HD
TOTAL
165, 565
Diesel
TOTAL
20,031
(sq. mi.)
VMT
Total
For All
Vehicle
Types
1, 668,986
A-12
-------
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
Metropolitan Area Baltimore
Year____L£lfl
Time P*rinri 12-Hour
District
1
10
11
12
13
20
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
12
4
9
17
8
14
23
11
18
41
22
13
21
43
23
13
20
18
9
14
VMT
LD
0
79,556
--
12, 174
91,730
0
65,597
--
22,302
86,549
0
18,783
--
6,789
25,572
53,514
91,215
--
45,508
190, 237
28, 151
79, 948
--
45,054
153, 153
0
90,506
--
30,499
121,005
HD
0
8,879
--
1,358
10,237
0
7,321
--
2,339
9,660
0
2,096
--
758
2,854
5,973
10, 181
--
5,079
21,233
3, 142
8,923
--
5,029
17,094
0
10, 102
--
3,404
13,506
Diesel
0
1,074
--
164
1,238
0
886
--
283
1, 169
0
254
--
92
346
722
1,232
--
614
2,568
380
1,079
--
608
2,067
0
1,222
--
412
1,634
Area
(sq. mi.)
.554
1. 14
1.61
2.20
5.07
2. 17
A-13
-------
Baltimore - 1970 - 12-Hour
District
21
22
30
31
32
33
40
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
42
22
12
20
21
12
17
18
8
13
19
10
15
20
11
16
21
11
17
36
16
7
15
VMT
LD
16,366
40,926
--
20,345
77,637
0
38,264
--
16,769
55,033
0
60,790
--
23,219
84,009
0
77,056
--
34, 197
111, 253
0
76,062
--
34, 743
110,805
0
109,424
_ -
49,430
158,854
39,838
111,784
--
30,065
181,687
HD
1,826
4,568
--
2,271
8,665
0
4,271
--
1,871
6, 142
0
6, 785
--
2,591
9,376
0
8,600
--
3,817
12,417
0
8,489
--
3,878
12,367
0
12,213
5,517
17,730
4,446
12,476
--
3,356
20, 278
Diesel
221
553
--
275
1,049
0
517
--
227
744
0
821
--
314
1, 135
0
1,040
--
462
1,502
0
1,027
--
469
1,496
0
1,478
__
668
2, 146
538
1,509
406
2,453
Area
(sq. mi.)
2.34
2.24
1. 13
2.93
3.91
5.71
1.61
A-14
-------
Baltimore - 1970 12-Hour
District
41
42
43
50
51
52
53
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
37
18
10
17
18
9
14
41
21
12
21
35
16
7
14
18
9
14
20
10
16
20
10
16
VMT
LD
55, 188
105,990
--
44,220
205,398
0
140,429
--
64,292
204,721
83,879
111,000
--
55,079
249,958
11,297
134,672
--
33,034
179; 003
0
130,462
--
52,460
182,922
0
101, 127
43, 901
145,028
0
73,320
--
33,956
107,276
HD
6, 160
11, 830
--
4,936
22,926
0
15,674
--
7, 176
22,850
9,362
12,389
--
6, 147
27,898
1,261
15,031
--
3,687
19,979
0
14,561
--
5,855
20,416
0
11, 287
4, 900
16, 187
0
8, 183
--
3,789
11, 972
Diesel
744
1,431
--
597
2,772
0
1,896
--
868
2,764
1, 133
1,499
--
744
3,376
152
1,818
--
446
2,416
0
1,762
--
708
2,470
0
1,365
593
1,958
0
990
--
458
1,448
Area
(sq. mi.)
2.97
4.85
4.95
1.87
2.96
4.61
4.01
A-15
-------
Baltimore 1970 - 12-Hour
District
60
61
62
63
64
70
71
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
17
7
13
20
10
16
22
11
17
40
22
11
19
37
20
11
18
19
8
14
32
14
8
12
VMT
LD
0
61,362
--
18,866
80,228
0
72,225
--
25, 170
97,395
0
63,597
--
28,098
91,695
19,943
95,917
--
32,847
148,707
31,411
138,509
--
51,864
221,784
0
34,992
11,726
46,718
20,690
116, 156
--
46,598
183,444
HD
0
6,849
--
2, 105
8, 954
0
8,061
--
2, 810
10,871
0
7,098
--
3, 136
10, 234
2,226
10,706
--
3,666
16,598
3,506
15,456
--
5,789
24,751
0
3,905
__
1,309
5, 214
2,309
12,964
-_
5,201
20,474
Diesel
0
829
--
254
1,083
00
975
--
340
1,315
0
859
--
380
1,239
269
1,295
--
443
2,007
424
1,870
--
701
2, 995
0
473
158
631
279
1,568
629
2,476
Area
(sq. mi.)
1.12
2.21
3.57
4.54
2.64
1. 14
1.06
A-16
-------
Baltimore 1970 - 12-Hour
District
72
73
74
23
24
25
34
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
42
21
11
20
42
22
12
20
41
22
12
19
43
24
13
26
41
21
12
20
44
24
15
21
38
18
11
19
VMT
LD
12,047
19,419
--
10,683
42, 149
9,617
31,251
--
12,869
53,737
16, 120
53, 249
--
24,555
93,924
133,243
88,064
--
43,781
265,088
51,209
99,320
--
48,437
198,966
9,433
39,700
21,929
71,062
77,555
98,058
--
49,950
225,563
HD
1,345
2, 168
--
1, 193
4,706
1,073
3,488
--
1,436
5,997
1,799
5,943
--
2,741
10,483
14,871
9, 829
--
4,886
29,586
5,716
11,085
--
5,406
22, 207
1,053
4,431
2,447
7,931
8,656
10,945
--
5,575
25, 176
Diesel
163
263
--
144
570
130
422
--
174
726
219
719
--
332
1,270
1,799
1, 189
--
591
3,579
692
1,341
--
654
2,687
128
536
- -
296
960
1,047
1,324
--
674
3,045
Area
(sq. mi.)
1.01
1.27
2.73
6.81
5.07
6. 18
3.92
A-17
-------
Baltimore 1970 - 12-Hour
District
35
36
37
38
44
45
46
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
44
24
13
22
43
23
14
24
45
26
16
24
34
19
27
43
23
13
23
44
25
15
26
48
30
18
26
VMT
LD
35,026
77,402
--
39,597
152,025
130,184
118,669
--
69,227
318,080
49,737
151,260
--
78,991
279,988
0
26,699
--
11,888
38,587
52,288
70,657
--
35,923
158,868
129, 108
100,784
_ _
60,790
290,682
35,620
125,075
--
63,252
223,947
HD
3,909
8,639
--
4,420
16,968
14,530
13,245
--
7,727
35,502
5,552
16,883
--
8, 816
31,251
0
2,980
--
1,327
4,307
5, 836
7, 886
--
4,010
17,732
14,410
11, 249
6,785
32,444
3,976
13,960
--
7,059
24,995
Diesel
473
1,045
--
535
2,053
1,758
1,602
--
935
4,295
671
2,042
--
1,067
3,780
0
361
--
161
522
706
954
--
485
2, 145
1,743
1,361
__
821
3,925
481
1,689
--
854
3,024
Area
(sq. mi.)
6.46
10. 1
20.4
25.3
3.63
8.79
27. 9
A-18
-------
Baltimore 1970 - 12-Hour
District
47
48
49
54
55
56
57
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
52
34
20
32
33
20
27
56
40
24
36
38
19
10
16
40
20
11
18
43
24
14
22
44
25
14
25
VMT
LD
48,589
63,414
--
37,071
149,074
0
79,592
--
36, 161
115,753
11,046
18,455
--
10,690
40, 191
3,533
135,697
--
56,410
195,640
31,595
86,520
--
44,062
162, 177
90,773
194,987
--
106,459
392,219
77, 935
93, 186
--
48,865
219,986
HD
5,423
7,078
--
4, 138
16,639
0
8,883
--
4,036
12,919
1,233
2, 060
--
1, 193
4,486
395
15, 146
--
6,296
21, 837
3,527
9,656
--
4,918
18, 101
10, 131
21,763
--
11,882
43,776
8,699
10,400
--
5,454
24, 553
Diesel
656
857
--
500
2,013
0
1,075
--
488
1,563
149
249
--
144
542
48
1,832
--
761
2,641
427
1, 169
--
595
2, 191
1,226
2,632
--
1,437
5,295
1,052
1,259
--
660
2,971
Area
(sq. mi.)
21.3
43.6
23.8
6.09
3.36
19.3
11.3
A-19
-------
Baltimore - 1970 - 12 Hour
District
58
59
65
66
67
68
75
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
56
39
23
35
37
21
31
44
24
14
27
44
25
15
24
50
31
18
29
50
32
19
30
43
23
11
19
VMT
LD
13,524
43,940
--
21, 128
78,592
0
21,552
--
1, 198
29,500
139,462
84,581
--
52,905
276,948
71,942
150,335
--
74,394
296,671
45,648
74,699
--
43,683
164,030
47,166
80,087
--
41,840
169,093
13, 111
44,516
--
20,234
77,861
HD
1,510
4,904
--
2,358
8,772
0
2,405
--
887
3,292
15,566
9,440
--
5,905
30,911
8,029
16,779
--
8,303
33, 111
5,095
8,337
--
4,876
18,308
5,264
8, 939
4,670
18,873
1,463
4,969
--
2,258
8,690
Diesel
182
593
--
285
1,060
0
291
--
107
398
1,883
1, 142
--
714
3, 739
971
2,030
--
1,004
4,005
617
1,009
--
590
2,216
637
1,082
_ _
565
2,284
177
601
--
273
1,051
Area
(sq. mi.)
56.0
22.4
8.76
11. 1
29.2
19.8
4.58
A-20
-------
Baltimore 1970 12-Hour
District
76
77
78
79
14
15
16
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
21
12
17
44
24
14
22
24
14
20
30
16
23
43
24
15
22
33
19
26
21
12
17
VMT
LD
0
132, 112
--
56,365
188,477
24,748
78,563
--
38,711
142,022
0
87,742
--
41,774
129,516
0
26,918
--
12,378
39,296
81,907
214,607
--
109, 282
405,796
0
24,667
--
11,482
36, 149
0
90,084
--
41,054
131,138
HD
0
14,745
--
6, 290
21,035
2,762
8,768
--
4,321
15,851
0
9,793
--
4,663
14,456
0
3,005
--
1,382
4,387
9, 142
23,953
--
12, 197
45,292
0
2,753
--
1,282
4,035
0
10,055
--
4,582
14,637
Diesel
0
1,784
--
761
2,545
335
1,060
--
523
1,918
0
1, 185
--
564
1, 74.9
0
364
--
167
531
1, 105
2,897
--
1,475
5,477
0
333
--
155
488
0
1, 216
--
554
1,770
Area
(sq. mi. )
6.24
12.0
11.6
14.4
14.7
12.4
4.98
A-21
-------
Baltimore - 1970 - 12-Hour
District
17
18
26
28
27
29
39
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
29
18
23
28
18
24
45
26
16
26
49
31
19
30
30
18
25
33
20
27
50
32
18
28
VMT
LD
0
121,962
--
69,925
191,887
0
263,049
--
123,695
386,744
82,093
108,578
--
61,838
252,509
77,636
82,485
--
53,463
213,584
0
83,753
--
37,973
121,726
0
223,344
_ _.
97,964
321,208
39,346
103,246
--
50,561
193, 153
HD
0
13,613
--
7,804
21,417
0
29,360
--
13,806
43, 166
9, 163
12, 119
--
6,902
28, 184
8,665
9,206
--
5,967
23,838
0
9,348
--
4,238
13,586
0
24,916
_
10,934
35,850
4,391
11,523
--
5,643
21,557
Diesel
0
1,646
--
944
2,590
0
3,552
--
1,670
5,222
1, 109
1,466
--
835
3,410
1,049
1, 114
--
722
2,885
0
1, 131
--
513
1,644
0
3,014
__
1,323
4,337
531
1,394
--
683
2,608
Area
(sq. mi.)
35.5
37.0
11.6
22.3
20.5
61.2
27.8
A-22
-------
Baltimore - 1970 - 12-Hour
District
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
VMT
LD
TOTAL
11,125,407
HD
TOTAL
1,241,727
Diesel
TOTAL
150,221
(sq. mi.)
VMT
Total
For All
Vehicle
Types
12,517,355
A-23
-------
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
Metropolitan Area. Baltimore
Year.
1970
Time Period_24iHour_
District
1
10
11
12
13
20
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
12
4
9
17
8
14
23
11
18
41
22
13
21
43
23
13
20
18
9
14
VMT
LD
0
106,075
--
16,232
122,307
0
87,463
--
27,936
115,399
0
25,044
--
9,052
34,096
71,352
121,620
--
60,677
253,649
37,535
106,597
--
60,072
204, 204
0
120,674
--
40,665
161,339
HD
0
11,839
--
1,811
13,650
0
9,761
--
3, 118
12,879
0
2,795
--
1,010
3,805
7,964
13,574
--
6,772
28,310
4, 189
11,897
--
6,705
22,791
0
13,469
--
4,539
18,008
Diesel
0
1,432
--
219
1,651
0
1, 181
--
377
1,558
0
338
--
122
460
963
1,642
--
819
3,424
506
1,439
--
811
2,756
0
1,629
--
549
2, 178
Area
(sq. mi.)
.554
1.14
1.61
2.20
5.07
2.17
A-24
-------
Baltimore 1970 24-Hour
District
21
22
30
31
32
33
40
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
42
22
12
20
21
12
17
18
8
13
19
10
15
20
11
16
21
11
17
36
16
7
15
VMT
LD
21,821
54,568
--
27, 126
103,515
0
51,018
--
22,358
73,376
0
81,053
--
30,958
112,011
0
102,741
--
45,596
148,337
0
101,416
--
46,324
147,740
0
145,898
--
65,907
211,805
53, 117
149,045
--
40,087
242, 249
HD
2,435
6,090
--
3,028
11,553
0
5,694
--
2,495
8, 189
0
9,046
--
3,455
12,501
0
11,467
--
5,089
16,556
0
11,319
--
5, 170
16,489
0
16,284
--
7,356
23,640
5,928
16,635
--
4,474
27,037
Diesel
295
737
--
366
1,398
0
689
--
302
991
0
1,094
--
418
1,512
0
1,387
--
616
2,003
0
1,369
--
625
1,994
0
1,970
--
890
2,860
717
2,012
--
541
3,270
Area
(sq. mi.)
2.34
2.24
1.13
2.93
3.91
5.71
1.61
A-25
-------
Baltimore - 1970 - 24-Hour
District
41
42
43
50
51
52
53
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
37
18
10
17
18
9
14
41
21
12
21
35
16
7
14
18
9
14
20
10
16
20
10
16
VMT
LD
73,584
141,320
--
58,960
273,864
0
187, 239
--
85,722
272,961
111,839
148,000
--
73,438
333,277
15,062
179,562
--
44, 045
238,669
0
173,949
--
69,947
243,896
0
134,836
--
58,535
193,371
0
97,760
45,275
143,035
HD
8,213
15,773
--
6,581
30,567
0
20,898
--
9,568
30,466
12,482
16,518
--
8, 196
37, 196
1,681
20,041
--
4,916
26,638
0
19,415
--
7,807
27,222
0
15,049
--
6,533
21,582
0
10,911
- _
5,053
15,964
Diesel
993
1,908
--
796
3,697
0
2,528
--
1, 157
3,685
1,510
1,998
--
992
4,500
203
2,424
--
595
3,222
0
2,349
--
944
3,293
0
1,820
--
790
2,610
0
1,320
_ _
611
1,931
Area
(sq. mi.)
2.97
4.85
4.95
1.87
2.96
4.61
4.01
A-26
-------
Baltimore - 1970 - 24-Hour
District
60
61
62
63
64
70
71
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
17
7
13
20
10
16
22
11
17
40
22
11
19
37
20
11
18
19
8
14
32
14
8
12
VMT
LD
0
81,816
--
25, 154
106,970
0
96,300
--
33,560
129,860
0
84,796
--
37,464
122,260
26,591
127,889
--
43,796
198,276
41,881
184,678
--
69, 152
295,711
0
46,656
--
15,635
62, 291
27,587
154,874
--
62, 131
244,592
HD
0
9, 132
--
2,807
11,939
0
10,748
--
3,746
14,494
0
9,464
--
4, 181
13,645
2,968
14, 274
--
4,888
22, 130
4,674
20,612
--
7,718
33,004
0
5,207
--
1,745
6,952
3,079
17,285
--
6,934
27,298
Diesel
0
1,105
--
339
1,444
0
1,300
--
453
1,753
0
1, 145
--
506
1,651
359
1,727
--
591
2,677
565
2,493
--
934
3,992
0
630
211
841
372
2,091
--
839
3,302
Area
(sq. mi.)
1. 12
2.21
3.57
4.54
2.64
1.14
1.06
A-27
-------
Baltimore - 1970 24-Hour
District
72
73
74
23
24
25
34
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
42
21
11
20
42
22
12
20
41
22
12
19
43
24
13
26
41
21
12
20
44
24
15
21
38
18
11
19
VMT
LD
16,063
25,892
--
14, 244
56, 199
12,822
41,668
--
17, 158
71,648
21,493
70,998
--
32,740
125,231
177,657
117,419
58,375
353,451
68,279
132,427
--
64,583
265,289
12,577
52,933
29,238
94,748
103,406
130,744
--
66,600
300,750
HD
1, 793
2,890
--
1,590
6,273
1,431
4,650
--
1,915
7,996
2,399
7,924
--
3,654
13,977
19,828
13, 105
6,515
39,448
7,621
14,780
--
7,208
29,609
1,404
5,908
- _
3,263
10,575
11,541
14,593
--
7,433
33,567
Diesel
217
350
--
192
759
173
563
--
232
968
290
959
--
442
1,691
2,399
1,585
_-
788
4,772
922
1,788
--
872
3,582
170
715
_ _
395
1,280
1,396
1,765
--
899
4,060
Area
(sq. mi.)
1.01
1.27
2.73
6.81
5.07
6. 18
3.92
A-28
-------
Baltimore 1970 24-Hour
District
35
36
37
38
44
45
46
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL,
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
44
24
13
22
43
23
14
24
45
26
16
24
34
19
27
43
23
13
23
44
25
15
26
48
30
18
26
VMT
LD
46,701
103,203
--
52,796
202,700
173,579
158,225
--
92,303
424, 107
66,316
201,680
--
105,321
373,317
0
35,598
--
15,851
51,449
69,717
94,209
--
47,897
211,823
172,144
134,379
--
81,053
387,576
47,493
166,766
--
84,336
298,595
HD
5, 212
11,519
--
5,893
22,624
19,373
17,660
--
10,302
47,335
7,402
22,510
--
11,755
41,667
0
3,973
--
1,769
5,742
7,781
10,515
--
5,346
23,642
19,213
14,998
_-
9,046
43,257
5,301
18,613
--
9,412
33,326
Diesel
631
1,393
--
713
2,737
2,344
2, 136
--
1,246
5,726
895
2,723
--
1,422
5,040
0
481
--
214
695
941
1,272
--
647
2,860
2,324
1,814
1,094
5,232
641
2,252
--
1, 139
4,032
Area
(sq. mi.)
6.46
10.1
20.4
25.3
3.63
8.79
27.9
A-29
-------
Baltimore - 1970 - 24-Hour
District
47
48
49
54
55
56
57
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
52
34
20
32
33
20
27
56
40
24
36
38
19
10
16
40
20
11
18
43
24
14
22
44
25
14
25
VMT
LD
64,785
84,552
--
49,428
198,765
0
106,122
--
48, 214
154,336
14,728
24, 607
--
14, 253
53,588
4,711
180,929
--
75,213
260,853
42, 126
115,360
--
58,749
216,235
121,031
259,983
--
141,945
522,959
103,913
124,248
--
65, 153
293,314
HD
7,231
9,437
__
5,517
22, 185
0
11,844
--
5,381
17,225
1,644
2,746
--
1,591
5,981
526
20, 194
--
8,395
29,115
4,702
12,875
--
6,557
24, 134
13,508
29,017
--
15,843
58,368
11,598
13,867
--
7,272
32,737
Diesel
875
1,142
--
667
2,684
0
1,433
--
651
2,084
199
332
--
192
723
64
2,442
--
1,015
3,521
569
1,558
--
793
2,920
1,634
3,510
--
1,916
7,060
1,403
1,678
--
880
3,961
Area
(sq. mi.)
21.3
43.6
23.8
6.09
3.36
19.3
11.3
A-30
-------
Baltimore - 1970 - 24-Hour
District
58
59
65
66
67
68
75
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
56
39
23
35
37
21
31
44
24
14
27
44
25
15
24
50
31
18
29
50
32
19
30
43
23
11
19
VMT
LD
18,032
58,586
--
28, 170
104,788
0
28,736
--
10,597
39,333
185,949
112,774
--
70,540
369,263
95,922
200,447
--
99, 192
395,561
60,864
99,599
--
58,244
218,707
62,888
106,783
--
55,787
225,458
17,481
59,355
26,979
103, 815
HD
2,013
6,539
--
3,144
11,696
0
3,207
1,183
4,390
20,754
12,587
--
7,873
41,214
10,705
22,372
--
11,071
44, 148
6,793
11, 116
--
6,501
24,410
7,019
11,918
--
6, 226
25, 163
1,951
6,625
--
3,011
11,587
Diesel
243
791
--
380
1,414
0
388
--
143
531
2,511
1,523
--
952
4,986
1,295
2,706
--
1,339
5,340
822
1,345
__
786
2,953
849
1,442
--
753
3,044
236
801
--
364
1,401
Area
(sq. mi.)
56.0
22.4
8.76
11. 1
29.2
19.8
4.58
A-31
-------
Baltimore - 1970 24-Hour
District
76
77
78
79
14
15
16
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
21
12
17
44
24
14
22
24
14
20
30
16
23
43
24
15
22
33
19
26
21
12
17
VMT
LD
0
176, 149
--
75, 153
251,302
32,997
104,750
--
51,614
189,361
0
116, 989
--
55,699
172,688
0
35,890
--
16,504
52,394
109,209
286, 142
--
145,709
541, 060
0
32,889
--
15,309
48, 198
0
120, 112
--
54, 738
174,850
HD
0
19,660
--
8,387
28,047
3,683
11,691
--
5,761
21, 135
0
13,057
--
6,217
19,274
0
4,006
--
1,842
5,848
12, 189
31,937
--
16,263
60,389
0
3,671
1,709
5,380
0
13,406
--
6, 109
19,515
Diesel
0
2,378
--
1,014
3,392
446
1,414
--
697
2,557
0
1,580
--
752
2,332
0
485
--
223
708
1,474
3,863
--
1,967
7,304
0
444
_ _
207
651
0
1,621
--
739
2,360
Area
(sq. mi.)
6. 24
12.0
11.6
14.4
14.7
12.4
4.98
A-32
-------
Baltimore 1970 24-Hour
District
17
18
26
28
27
29
39
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
29
18
23
28
18
24
45
26
16
26
49
31
19
30
30
18
25
33
20
27
50
32
18
28
VMT
LD
0
162,616
--
93,233
255,849
0
350, 732
--
164,926
515,658
109,457
144,770
--
82,451
336,678
103,514
109, 980
--
71,284
284, 778
0
111,671
--
50,630
162,301
0
297,658
--
130,619
428,277
52,461
137,661
--
67,415
257,537
HD
0
18, 150
--
10,406
28,556
0
39, 146
--
18,408
57,554
12,217
16, 158
--
9,202
37,577
11,553
12,275
--
7,956
31,784
0
12,464
--
5,651
18,115
0
33,221
--
14,579
47,800
5,855
15,364
--
7,524
28,743
Diesel
0
2, 195
--
1,259
3,454
0
4,736
--
2,227
6,963
1,478
1,955
--
1, 113
4,546
1,398
1,485
--
962
3,845
0
1,508
--
684
2, 192
0
4,019
--
1,764
5,783
708
1,859
--
910
3,477
Area
(sq. mi.)
35.5
37.0
11.6
22.3
20.5
61.2
27.8
A-33
-------
Baltimore - 1970 - 24-Hour
District
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
VMT
LD
TOTAL
.4,833,849
HD
TOTAL
1, 655, 613
Diesel
TOTAL
200,273
(aq. mi.)
VMT
Total
For All
Vehicle
Types
16,689,735
A-34
-------
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
Metropolitan Area Baltimore _
Time P*rinri Peak-Hour
District
1
10
11
12
13
20
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
30
10
3
8
16
7
13
23
11
18
40
20
12
20
42
22
13
20
36
18
9
15
VMT
LD
1,815
13,705
2,479
17, 999
0
10, 225
3, 266
13,491
0
2,696
974
3, 670
7, 045
12,009
-
6, 021
25, 075
6, 563
10, 976
7, 127
24, 666
1,456
12, 853
4, 247
18, 556
HD
264
1, 992
-
360
2, 616
0
1,486
475
1, 961
0
392
142
534
1, 024
1,746
875
3, 645
954
1, 596
1, 036
3, 586
212
1, 868
617
2, 697
Diesel
32
241
44
317
0
180
57
237
0
47
-
17
64
124
211
-
106
441
115
193
125
433
26
226
75
327
Area
(sq. mi.)
. 554
1.14
1.61
2.20
5.07
2. 17
A-35
-------
Baltimore - 1977 Peak-Hour
District
21
22
30
31
32
33
40
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
42
23
12
24
42
22
12
25
17
8
13
19
9
14
40
20
11
16
41
21
11
18
35
16
7
15
VMT
LD
5,489
4, 837
-
2, 299
12,625
5, 484
3,722
-
1,569
10,775
0
8, 579
3,277
11,856
0
10,639
-
4, 722
15,361
1,501
10,604
-
5,396
17,501
3,380
13, 210
-
6,267
22,857
5,616
15,718
-
4,218
25,552
HD
798
703
-
334
1,835
797
541
-
228
1,566
0
1, 247
-
476
1,723
0
1,547
-
686
2, 233
218
1, 541
-
784
2,543
491
1, 920
-
911
3,322
816
2, 285
613
3,714
Diesel
96
85
40
221
96
65
-
28
189
0
151
-
58
209
0
187
-
83
270
26
186
-
95
307
59
232
-
110
401
99
276
-
74
449
Area
(sq. mi.)
2.34
2.24
1.13
2.93
3. 91
5.71
1.61
A-36
-------
Baltimore
1977
Peak-Hour
District
41
42
43
50
51
52
53
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
36
17
9
16
17
9
14
39
20
12
20
37
17
8
15
17
9
14
20
10
16
19
10
15
VMT
LD
1, 683
15, 098
-
6,473
29, 254
0
19, 179
-
8,780
27, 959
12,504
16,484
8, 152
37, 140
2, 943
14,402
-
3,466
20,811
0
17, 949
7, 217
25, 166
0
14,072
-
6, 109
20, 181
0
10, 974
-
5, 082
16, 056
HD
1, 117
2, 195
-
941
4, 253
0
2, 788
1, 276
4, 064
1, 818
2, 396
-
1, 185
5,399
428
2, 094
-
504
3, 026
0
2,609
1, 049
3, 658
0
2, 046
888
2, 934
0
1,595
739
2, 334
Diesel
135
265
114
514
0
337
154
491
220
290
143
653
52
253
-
61
366
0
315
-
127
442
0
247
-
107
354
0
193
-
89
282
Area
(sq. mi.)
2. 97
4.85
4.95
1.87
2.96
4.61
4.01
A-37
-------
Baltimore - 1977 - Peak-Hour
District
60
61
62
63
64
70
71
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Fr«eway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
17
7
13
20
10
16
22
11
17
40
21
11
20
38
20
11
19
18
8
14
31
13
8
12
VMT
LD
0
8,725
-
2, 682
11,407
0
9, 991
-
3,482
13,473
0
9,393
4, 150
13,543
5, 197
12,699
-
4,286
22, 182
14, 121
15,417
-
4, 944
34,482
0
5,384
1,804
7, 188
2,812
15,759
-
6,313
24, 884
HD
0
1,268
-
390
1, 658
0
1,452
-
506
1-, 958
0
1,365
-
603
1, 968
755
1,846
623
3, 224
2, 053
2,241
719
5, 013
0
783
-
262
1,045
409
2,291
918
3, 618
Diesel
0
153
-
47
200
0
175
-
61
336
0
165
-
73
238
91
223
75
389
248
271
-
87
606
0
95
32
127
49
277
-
Ill
437
Area
(sq. mi.)
1.12
2.21
3.57
4.54
2.64
1. 14
1.06
A-38
-------
Baltimore - 1977 - Peak-Hour
District
72
73
74
23
24
25
34
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
40
19
10
18
43
22
12
26
40
21
11
18
43
23
13
28
42
22
12
24
43
23
14
22
38
18
10
20
VMT
LD
1,988
3, 198
-
1,851
7,037
5,518
3,807
-
1,092
10,417
2,273
7,664
-
3,613
13, 550
22,388
11,245
-
5, 353
38,986
15, 126
10,918
-
5,215
31,259
3,034
6, 162
-
3,672
12,868
16,917
12,367
-
6,384
35, 668
HD
289
465
-
269
1,023
802
554
-
159
1, 515
330
1, 114
-
525
1,969
3,255
1,635
-
778
5,668
2, 199
1,587
-
758
4, 544
441
896
-
534
1,871
2, 459
1,798
-
928
5, 185
Diesel
35
56
-
33
124
97
67
-
19
183
40
135
-
63
238
393
198
-
94
685
266
192
-
92
550
53
108
-
65
226
297
217
-
112
626
Area
(sq. mi.)
1.01
1.27
2.73
6.81
5.07
6. 18
3.92
A-39
-------
Baltimore - 1977 - Peak-Hour
District
35
36
37
38
44
45
46
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
44
25
13
25
41
22
13
23
44
25
15
24
32
20
27
43
23
13
23
43
24
14
25
46
27
17
25
VMT
LD
8,433
8,722
-
4,491
21,646
18,232
17,899
-
10,390
46,521
13,793
21,226
-
11,864
46,883
0
9,678
-
4,650
14, 329
7,302
9,049
-
4,588
20,939
16,822
13,238
-
7,981
38,041
8,606
20,712
-
11, 170
40, 488
HD
1,226
1,268
-
653
3, 147
2,650
2,602
_
1,510
6,762
2,005
3,086
-
1,725
6, 816
0
1,407
-
676
2,083
1,061
1,315
-
667
3,043
2,445
1,924
-
1, 160
5,529
1,251
3,011
-
1,624
5,886
Diesel
148
153
-
79
380
320
314
_
183
817
242
373
_
208
823
0
170
-
82
252
128
159
-
81
368
295
233
-
140
668
151
364
-
196
711
Area
(sq. mi.)
6.46
10. 1
20.4
25.3
3.63
8.79
27.9
A-40
-------
Baltimore
1977 - Peak-Hour
District
47
48
49
54
55
56
57
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
50
32
19
30
31
19
26
54
36
22
33
38
19
10
15
40
20
11
18
43
23
14
22
43
23
14
23
VMT
LD
6,963
9,248
_
5,540
21,751
0
15, 378
7,252
22,630
2,206
4, 115
-
2, 569
8, 890
478
18,365
_
7,634
26,477
3,935
10,785
-
5,497
20,217
12,035
26,161
-
14,354
52, 550
11,423
14,283
-
7,779
33,485
HD
1,012
1, 344
_
805
3, 161
0
2,235
-
1,054
3,289
321
598
-
373
1, 292
70
2,670
_
1, 110
3,850
572
1,568
-
799
2,939
1,749
3,803
-
2,087
7,639
1,661
2,076
-
1, 131
4,868
Diesel
122
162
_
97
381
0
270
-
127
397
39
72
45
156
8
323
_
134
465
69
189
-
97
355
211
459
-
252
922
201
251
-
137
589
Area
(sq. mi.)
21.3
43.6
23. 8
6.09
3. 36
19. 3
11.3
A-41
-------
Baltimore - 1977 - Peak-Hour
District
58
59
65
66
67
68
75
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Ar-berial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
55
38
23
33
35
20
29
44
24
14
26
42
23
13
22
48
29
18
27
47
29
17
27
44
24
12
22
VMT
LD
2,043
7,056
_
3,514
12,613
0
4,916
-
1,953
6,869
18,242
11,175
-
6,989
36,406
15,460
22,684
-
11,939
50,083
7,121
13,359
-
7,891
28,371
7,520
13,761
-
7, 550
28, 831
2,579
4,067
-
1,968
8,614
HD
297
1,026
-
511
1,834
0
715
-
284
999
2,652
1,625
-
1,016
5, 293
2,247
3,298
-
1,736
7,281
1,035
1,942
-
1, 147
4, 124
1,093
2,000
-
1,097
4, 190
375
591
-
286
1,252
Diesel
36
124
-
62
222
0
86
-
34
120
320
196
-
123
639
272
398
-
210
880
125
235
-
139
499
132
242
-
133
507
45
71
-
35
151
Area
(sq. mi.)
56.0
22.4
8.76
11.1
29.2
19.8
4. 58
A-42
-------
Baltimore - 1977 - Peak-Hour
District
76
77
78
79
14
15
16
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
(mph)
41
22
12
21
44
24
14
24
45
25
14
22
28
16
23
43
23
14
22
28
17
23
20
11
16
VMT
LD
6,282
13,094
-
5,838
25,214
10, 398
9,970
-
5, 590
25,958
3,705
10,088
-
5,536
19, 329
0
5,847
-
2,689
8, 536
12,325
28,449
-
15,009
55,783
0
7,825
-
3,642
11,467
0
13,213
6,021
19,234
HD
913
1,903
-
849
3,665
1,512
1,449
-
813
3,774
539
1,466
-
805
2,810
0
850
_
391
1,241
1,792
4, 136
-
2, 182
8, 110
0
1, 138
-
529
1, 667
0
1, 921
-
875
2,796
Diesel
110
230
-
103
443
183
175
_
98
456
65
177
-
97
339
0
103
_
47
150
216
500
-
264
980
0
137
-
64
201
0
232
-
106
338
A
(sq. mi.)
6.24
12.0
11.6
14.4
14.7
12.4
4.98
A-43
-------
Baltimore - 1977 - Peak-Hour
District
17
18
26
28
27
29
39
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
26
16
22
26
16
22
44
25
15
25
47
27
17
27
47
28
16
32
48
31
18
31
49
30
17
27
VMT
LD
0
25,091
__
13,470
38, 561
0
43,292
_ _
20,423
63, 715
12,480
14,412
--
8, 365
35, 257
12,105
14,803
--
9,413
36,321
21,007
9,634
5, 520
36, 161
28,817
28, 292
--
13,022
70, 131
8, 390
17,825
--
9,012
35,227
HD
0
3,647
1,958
5, 605
0
6,293
- _
2, 969
9,262
1,814
2,095
--
1,216
5,125
1, 760
2, 152
--
1,368
5, 280
3,054
1,400
802
5, 256
4, 189
4, 113
--
1,893
10,195
1,220
2, 591
--
1,310
5, 121
Diesel
0
441
_ _
237
678
0
760
359
1,119
219
253
--
147
619
213
260
--
165
638
369
169
97
635
506
497
--
229
1,232
147
313
--
158
618
Area
(sq. mi.)
35.5
37.0
11. 6
22.3
20.5
61.2
27.8
A-44
-------
Baltimore - 1977
Peak-Hour
District
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
VMT
LD
TOTAL
1. 741.023
HD
TOTAL
253,086
Diesel
TOTAL
30,580
Area
(sq. mi.)
VMT
Total
For All
Vehicle
Types
2,024,689
A-45
-------
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
Metropolitan Ar»a Baltimore
Year
1977
Time Period_JJLHour_
District
1
10
11
12
13
20
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
30
10
3
8
16
7
13
23
11
18
40
20
12
20
42
22
13
20
36
18
9
15
VMT
LD
13,612
102,785
18, 596
134,993
0
76,688
-
24, 494
101, 182
0
20, 218
-
7, 308
27, 526
52, 838
90, 070
-
45, 160
188,068
49, 220
82, 322
-
53, 456
184, 998
10, 923
96, 397
-
31, 850
139, 170
HD
1,979
14, 942
-
2,703
19,624
0
11, 148
-
3,561
14, 709
0
2,939
-
1,062
4,001
7,681
13,093
6, 565
27, 339
7, 155
11,967
-
7,771
26, 893
1, 588
14,013
-
4,630
20, 231
Diesel
239
1,805
-
326
2,370
0
1, 347
-
430
1,777
0
355
-
128
483
928
1, 582
-
793
3, 303
864
1,445
-
939
3,248
192
1,693
-
560
2,445
Area
(sq. mi.)
. 554
1. 14
1.61
2. 20
5.07
2. 17
A-46
-------
Baltimore
1977
12-Hour
District
21
22
30
31
32
33
40
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
42
23
12
24
42
22
12
25
17
8
13
19
9
14
40
20
11
16
41
21
11
18
35
16
7
15
VMT
LD 1 HD
41,169
36,276
-
17,245
94,690
41, 133
27,914
-
11,764
80,811
0
64, 340
-
24, 575
88,915
0
79,794
-
35,412
115, 206
11,254
79, 528
40,470
131, 252
25, 352
99,075
47,000
171,427
42, 120
117, 882
31, 634
191,636
5,984
5,273
-
2,507
13,764
5,979
4,058
1,710
11, 747
0
9, 353
-
3, 572
12,925
0
11,600
5, 148
16,748
1, 636
11, 561
-
5,883
19,080
3, 686
14, 402
6, 833
24, 921
6, 123
17, 136
-
4, 598
27, 857
Diesel
723
637
-
303
1,663
722
491
-
206
1,419
0
1, 130
-
431
1,561
0
1,401
-
622
2,023
197
1,397
711
2, 305
446
1,740
825
3,011
740
2,070
556
3, 366
Area
(sq. mi.)
2. 34
2.24
1. 13
2.93
3. 91
5.71
1. 61
A-47
-------
Baltimore
1977 - 12-Hour
District
41
42
43
50
51
52
53
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
36
17
9
16
17
9
14
39
20
12
20
37
17
8
15
17
9
14
20
10
16
19
10
15
VMT
LD
57, 623
113, 232
-
48, 544
219, 399
0
143, 842
-
65, 853
209, 695
93,776
123, 629
-
61, 140
278, 545
22, 070
108, 016
-
25,997
156,083
0
134, 615
_
54, 131
188,746
0
105, 539
45, 816
151, 355
0
82, 304
-
38, 118
120,422
HD
8, 377
16,460
-
7,056
31,893
0
20, 910
-
9,573
30,483
13,632
17,972
-
8,888
40,492
3,209
15,702
-
3,779
22,690
0
19,568
_
7,869
27,437
0
15,342
-
6,660
22,002
0
11,964
-
5,541
17,505
Diesel
1,012
1,988
-
853
3,853
0
2,526
-
1, 157
3, 683
1,647
2, 171
_
1,074
4, 892
388
1, 897
_
457
2,742
0
2,364
_
950
3, 314
0
1,853
-
805
2,658
0
1,445
669
2, 114
Area
(sq. mi.)
2.97
4. 85
4. 95
1.87
2.96
4.61
4.01
A-48
-------
Baltimore
1977
12-Hour
District
60
61
62
63
64
70
71
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
17
7
13
20
10
16
22
11
17
40
21
11
20
38
20
11
19
18
8
14
31
13
8
12
VMT
LD
0
65,435
20, 118
85, 553
0
74, 935
_
26, 114
101, 049
0
70,447
-
31, 124
101, 571
38, 976
95, 240
-
32, 143
166, 359
105, 909
115, 625
37, 079
258, 613
0
40, 381
-
13, 533
53,914
21,088
118, 194
-
47, 348
186, 630
HD
0
9, 512
-
2,924
12,436
0
10,893
__
3,797
14,690
0
10,241
4, 525
14,766
5,666
13,845
-
4,673
24, 184
15, 395
16,808
5,390
37,593
0
5,870
-
1,967
7,837
3,065
17, 182
-
6,883
27, 130
Diesel
0
1, 149
353
1, 502
0
1,316
459
1,775
0
1, 237
_
547
1,784
685
1,673
565
2,923
1, 860
2,030
651
4,541
0
709
238
947
371
2,075
-
832
3,278
Area
(sq. mi.)
1.12
2.21
3. 57
4. 54
2.64
1. 14
1.06
A-49
-------
Baltimore - 1977 - 12-Hour
District
72
73
74
23
24
25
34
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
40
19
10
18
43
22
12
26
40
21
11
18
43
23
13
28
42
22
12
24
43
23
14
22
38
18
10
20
VMT
LD
14,908
23,982
-
13,883
52,773
41,386
28,555
-
8, 193
78, 134
17, 045
57, 481
-
27,095
101,621
167,911
84, 338
-
40, 147
292,396
113,445
81, 883
-
39, 112
234, 440
22,754
46,214
-
27, 539
96, 507
126, 876
92,752
-
47, 877
267,505
HD
2,167
3,486
-
2,018
7,671
6,016
4, 151
-
1, 191
11, 358
2,478
8, 356
-
3,939
14,773
24, 409
12,260
-
5,836
42, 505
16,491
11,903
-
5,686
34,080
3, 308
6,718
-
4,004
14,030
18, 443
13,483
-
6,960
38, 886
Diesel
261
422
-
244
927
727
502
-
144
1,373
299
1,010
-
476
1,785
2,948
1,481
-
705
5, 134
1,992
1,438
-
687
4, 117
400
812
-
484
1, 696
2,228
1,629
-
841
4, 698
Area
(sq. mi.)
1.01
1. 27
2.73
6. 81
5.07
6. 18
3.92
A-50
-------
Baltimore
1977 - 12-Hour
District
35
36
37
38
44
45
46
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
44
25
13
25
41
22
13
23
44
25
15
24
32
20
27
43
23
13
23
43
24
14
25
46
27
17
25
VMT
LD
63, 245
65,415
_
33, 680
162, 340
136,741
134, 242
-
77,927
348,910
103, 445
159, 196
-
88, 976
351,617
0
72, 588
34, 878
107,466
54,763
67, 866
34,411
157,040
126, 167
99, 286
-
59,860
285, 313
64, 544
155, 342
-
83,773
303, 659
HD
9, 194
9,509
_
4,896
23,599
19, 877
19,514
-
11, 328
50,719
15, 038
23, 141
12,935
51. 114
0
10, 552
-
5,070
15,622
7,961
9,866
-
5, 003
22, 830
18, 341
14,433
8,702
41,476
9, 383
22, 582
12, 178
44, 143
Diesel
1..111
1, 149
_
592
2,852
2,402
2,357
1,369
6, 128
1,817
2,795
-
1, 562
6, 174
0
1,275
-
613
1, 888
962
1, 192
-
605
2,759
2, 216
1,744
-
1,052
5,012
1, 133
2,728
-
1,471
5, 332
Area
(sq. mi.)
6.46
10.1
20.4
25.3
3.63
8.79
27.9
A-51
-------
Baltimore
1977 - 12-Hour
District
47
48
49
54
55
56
57
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
50
32
19
30
31
19
26
54
36
22
33
38
19
10
15
40
20
11
18
43
23
14
22
43
23
14
23
VMT
LD
52, 220
69, 356
-
41, 548
163, 124
0
115, 334
54, 390
169,724
16, 544
30, 863
_
19,266
66, 673
3, 587
137,735
57, 253
198, 575
29, 511
80, 890
-
41, 227
151, 628
90, 260
196, 205
-
107,658
394, 123
85, 670
107, 126
-
58, 340
251, 136
HD
7, 591
10,082
-
6,040
23,713
0
16, 766
7,907
24, 673
2,405
4,487
_
2,801
9, 692
521
20,022
8, 323
28,866
4,290
11,759
-
5,994
22,043
13, 121
28,522
-
15,650
57,293
12,454
15, 572
-
8,481
36, 507
Diesel
917
I, 218
-
730
2,865
0
2,025
-
955
2,980
290
542
338
1, 170
63
2,419
1,005
3,487
518
1,421
724
2,663
1,585
3,446
-
1,891
6,922
1, 505
1,881
-
1,025
4,411
Area
(sq. mi.)
21. 3
43.6
23. 8
6.09
3.36
19.3
11.3
A-52
-------
Baltimore
1977 12-Hour
District
58
59
65
66
67
68
75
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
55
38
23
33
35
20
29
44
24
14
26
42
23
13
22
48
29
18
27
47
29
17
27
44
24
12
22
VMT
LD
15, 321
52, 922
26, 357
94, 600
0
36, 872
-
14, 648
51, 520
136, 817
83, 816
-
52,418
273,051
115,952
170, 131
-
89, 544
375, 627
53, 406
100, 194
59, 184
212,784
56,396
103,203
-
56,621
216, 220
19, 346
30, 503
-
14, 760
64, 609
HD
2, 228
7, 693
-
3, 831
13,752
0
5, 360
2, 129
7,489
19, 889
12, 184
-
7, 620
39, 693
16, 856
24,731
13,017
54, 604
7,763
14, 565
-
8, 603
30,931
8, 198
15,002
-
8,231
31,431
2,813
4,434
2, 146
9, 393
Diesel
269
929
463
1, 661
0
647
257
904
2,402
1,472
-
920
4,794
2,036
2,987
1,573
6,596
938
1,760
1,040
3,738
990
1,812
-
995
3,797
340
536
-
260
1, 136
Area
(sq. mi. )
56.0
22.4
8.76
11.1
29.2
19.8
4. 58
A-53
-------
Baltimore - 1977 - 12-Hour
District
76
77
78
79
14
15
16
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
41
22
12
21
44
24
14
24
45
25
14
22
28
16
23
43
23
14
22
28
17
23
20
11
16
VMT
LD
47, 116
98,202
-
43,785
189, 103
77, 987
74,776
-
41,927
194, 690
27,788
75, 658
41,519
144,965
0
43,850
-
20, 165
64,015
92, 440
213, 366
-
112, 571
418, 377
0
58, 686
-
27, 316
86,002
0
99,096
45, 161
144, 257
HD
6,849
14,276
-
6,365
27,490
11,337
10, 870
-
6,095
28, 302
4,040
10,998
-
6,035
21,073
0
6,374
-
2, 931
9, 305
13, 438
31,016
-
16, 364
60, 818
0
8,531
3,971
12, 502
0
14, 405
-
6, 565
20, 970
Diesel
827
1,724
-
769
3,320
1,370
1,313
-
737
3,420
488
1,328
-
729
2,545
0
770
-
354
1,124
1,623
3,747
-
1,977
7, 347
0
1,031
-
480
1,511
0
1,740
-
793
2,533
Area
(sq. mi.)
6.24
12.0
11.6
14.4
14.7
12.4
4.98
A-54
-------
Baltimore - 1977 - 12-Hour
District
17
18
26
28
27
29
39
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
26
16
22
26
16
22
44
25
15
25
47
27
17
27
47
28
16
32
48
31
18
31
49
30
17
27
VMT
LD
0
188, 183
_
101,022
289,205
0
324,686
-
153,169
477,855
93,598
108,088
-
62,738
264,424
90,784
111,020
70,598
272,402
157, 550
72,253
-
41, 399
271,202
216, 131
212, 186
97, 668
525,985
62,925
133,688
67, 593
264, 206
HD
0
27, 356
_
14, 685
42,041
0
47, 198
-
22,265
69,463
13, 606
15,713
9, 120
38,439
13, 197
16, 139
-
10,262
39, 598
22,902
10, 503
-
6,018
39, 423
31,418
30, 845
-
14, 198
76,461
9, 147
19,434
9,826
38,407
Diesel
0
3,305
_
1,774
5,079
0
5,702
_
2,690
8, 392
1,643
1,898
_
1, 102
4,643
1,595
1,949
-
1,240
4,784
2,767
1,269
-
727
4,763
3,795
3,726
-
1,715
9, 236
1, 105
2,348
1, 187
4,640
Area
(sq. mi.)
35.5
37.0
11.6
22.3
20.5
61. 2
27. 8
A-55
-------
Baltimore
1977
12-Hour
District
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
VMT
LD
13,057, 61
HD
1, 898,155
Diesel
229, 316
Ar6a
(sq. mi.)
VMT
Total
For All
Vehicle
Types
15,185,082
A-56
-------
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
Metropolitan Area _ Baltimore
1977
Time Period.
24-Hniiv
District
1
10
11
12
13
20
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
30
10
3
8
16
7
13
23
11
18
40
20
12
20
42
22
13
20
36
18
9
15
VMT
LD
18, 149
137,046
24,794
179. 989
0
102, 250
-
32, 659
134,909
0
26,957
_
9,744
36,701
70,451
120,093
-
60,213
250. 757
65, 627
109,762
71,274
246, 663
14, 564
128, 529
_
42, 466
185, 559
HD
2,638
19,922
3,604
26. 164
0
14, 864
4,748
19.612
0
3,919
_
1,416
5, 335
10, 241
17,457
-
8,753
36,451
9,540
15,956
-
10,361
35,857
2, 117
18,684
_
6,173
26,974
Diesel
319
2,407
435
3. 161
0
1,796
573
2, 369
0
473
_
171
644
1,237
2, 109
-
1,057
4,403
1,152
1,927
-
1,252
4,331
256
2,257
_
746
3,259
Area
(sq. mi.)
. 554
1. 14
1.61
2.20
5.07
2. 17
A-57
-------
Baltimore - 1977 - 24-Hour
District
21
22
30
31
32
33
40
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
42
23
12
24
42
22
12
25
17
8
13
19
9
14
40
20
11
16
41
21
11
18
35
16
7
15
VMT
LD
54> 892
48,368
-
22,993
126,253
54, 844
37,219
15,685
107,748
0
85,787
-
32,766
118,553
0
106,392
-
47,216
153, 608
15,005
106,037
-
53,960
175,002
33,802
132, 100
-
62, 666
228,568
56, 160
157, 176
-
42, 178
255, 514
HD
7,979
7,031
-
3,342
18,352
7,972
5,410
_
2,280
15,662
0
12,471
-
4,763
17, 234
0
15,466
6, 864
22, 330
2, 181
15,414
-
7, 844
25,439
4,914
19, 203
-
9, 110
33,227
8, 164
22,848
-
6, 131
37, 143
Diesel
964
849
404
2,217
963
654
_
275
1,892
0
1,506
575
2,081
0
1,868
-
829
2,697
263
1,862
948
3,073
594
2,320
-
1, 100
4,014
986
2,760
741
4,487
Area
(sq. mi.)
2.34
2.24
1.13
2. 93
3. 91
5.71
1.61
A-58
-------
Baltimore - 1977 - 24-Hour
District
41
42
43
50
51
52
53
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
36
17
9
16
17
9
14
39
20
12
20
37
17
8
15
17
9
14
20
10
16
19
10
15
VMT
LD
76,830
150,976
64,725
292,531
0
191,789
-
87,804
279, 593
125,035
164, 839
81,520
371,394
29,427
144,021
34,663
208, 111
0
179,487
-
72, 174
251,661
0
140,718
61,088
201,806
0
109,739
-
50, 824
160, 563
HD
11, 169
21,946
-
9,408
42, 523
0
27,880
_
12,764
40, 644
18, 176
23,962
-
11,850
53, 988
4,278
20,936
5,039
30, 253
0
26,091
10,492
36, 583
0
20,456
8, 880
29, 336
0
15, 952
7, 388
23, 340
Diesel
1, 349
2,651
_
1, 137
5, 137
0
3,368
_
1,542
4,910
2,196
2,895
-
1,432
6,523
517
2,529
609
3,655
0
3, 152
-
1,267
4,419
0
2,471
1,073
3, 544'
0
1,927
892
2,819
Area
(sq. mi.)
2.97
4.85
4.95
1.87
2.96
4.61
4. 01
A-59
-------
Baltimore
1977
24-Hour
District
60
61
62
63
64
70
71
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
17
7
13
20
10
16
22
11
17
40
21
11
20
38
20
11
19
18
8
14
31
13
8
12
VMT
LD
0
87,247
-
26,824
114,071
0
99,913
-
34,819
134,732
0
93,929
-
41,499
135,428
51,968
126,987
42,857
221,812
141,212
154, 167
-
49, 439
344,818
0
53,841
-
18, 044
71,885
28, 117
157,592
-
63, 131
248, 840
HD
0
12,683
3,899
16,582
0
14, 524
-
5,062
19,586
0
13, 654
-
6,033
19,687
7,554
18, 460
-
6,230
32,244
20, 527
22,411
-
7, 187
50, 125
0
7,827
-
2,-623
10,450
4,087
22,909
-
9, 177
36, 173
Diesel
0
1, 532
-
471
2,003
0
1,754
-
612
2,366
0
1,649
-
729
2,378
913
2,230
-
753
3,896
2,480
2,707
-
868
6,055
0
945
-
317
1,262
494
2,767
-
1, 109
4,370
Area
(sq. mi.)
1.12
2.21
3.57
4.54
2.64
1. 14
1.06
A-60
-------
Baltimore
1977
24-Hour
District
72
73
74
23
24
25
34
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
40
19
10
18
43
22
12
26
40
21
11
18
43
23
13
28
42
22
12
24
43
23
14
22
38
18
10
20
VMT
LD
19,877
31,976
-
18,511
70, 364
55, 181
38,073
-
10,924
104, 178
22,726
76,641
-
36, 127
135,494
223,881
112,451
-
53,529
389,861
151,260
109, 177
-
52, 149
312,586
30, 339
61,619
36,719
128, 677
169, 168
123,669
_
63, 836
356,673
HD
2,889
4, 648
_
2, 691
10, 228
8,021
5, 535
-
1,588
15, 144
3,304
11, 141
-
5,252
19, 697
32,545
16, 347
-
7,781
56,673
21,988
15,871
-
7,581
45, 440
4,410
8,957
-
5,338
18,705
24,591
17,977
_
9,280
51, 848
Diesel
349
562
_
325
1,236
969
669
-
192
1,830
399
1,346
-
634
2,379
3,931
1,975
-
940
6,846
2,656
1,917
-
916
5,489
533
1,082
-
645
2,260
2,971
2, 172
_
1, 121
6,264
Area
(sq. mi.)
1.01
1.27
2.73
6. 81
5.07
6. 18
3.92
A-61
-------
Baltimore - 1977 - 24-Hour
District
35
36
37
38
44
45
46
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
44
25
13
25
41
22
13
23
44
25
15
24
32
20
27
43
23
13
23
43
24
14
25
46
27
17
25
VMT
LD
84, 327
87,220
-
44, 907
216,454
182,321
178,989
-
103,902
465,212
137,927
212,261
118,635
468,823
0
96,784
-
46,504
143,288
73,017
90,488
-
45,881
209,386
168,222
132,381
79,813
380,416
86,058
207, 123
111,697
404, 878
HD
12,258
12,679
-
6,528
31,465
26, 503
26,019
-
15, 104
67,626
20,050
30, 855
.
17, 246
68, 151
0
14,069
-
6,760
20,829
10,614
13, 154
-
6,670
30,438
24, 454
19,244
-
11,602
55, 300
12,510
30, 109
-
16,237
58, 856
Die a el
1,481
1,532
-
789
3,802
3,202
3,143
-
1,825
8, 170
2,422
3,727
_
2,083
8,232
0
1,700
-
817
2,517
1,282
1,589
-
806
3,677
2,954
2,325
-
1,402
6,681
1,511
3,637
-
1,961
7, 109
Area
(sq. mi.)
6.46
10.1
20.4
25. 3
3.63
8.79
27.9
A-62
-------
Baltimore - 1977 - 24-Hour
District
47
48
49
54
55
56
57
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
50
32
19
30
31
19
26
54
36
22
33
38
19
10
15
40
20
11
18
43
23
14
22
43
23
14
23
VMT
LD
69,626
92,475
55,397
217,498
0
153,779
-
72,520
226,299
22,058
41, 151
_
25,688
88, 897
4,782
183,647
-
76, 337
264,766
39,348
107, 853
54,969
202, 170
120,346
261,607
143,544
525,497
114, 226
142, 834
-
77,787
334, 847
HD
10, 121
13,443
8,053
31,617
0
22,354
-
10, 542
32,896
3,207
5,982
,_
3,734
12,923
695
26, 696
11,097
38, 488
5,720
15, 678
-
7, 992
29, 390
17,494
38,029
20, 866
76, 389
16,605
20,763
-
11, 308
48, 676
Diesel
1,223
1,624
973
3,820
0
2,700
_
1,273
3,973
387
723
_
451
1,561
84
3,225
-
1,340
4,649
691
1,894
-
965
3,550
2, 113
4,594
~
2,521
9,228
2,006
2, 508
-
1,366
5,880
Area
(sq. mi.)
21.3
43.6
23.8
6.09
3. 36
19.3
11.3
A-63
-------
Baltimore - 1977 - 24-Hour
District
58
59
65
66
67
68
75
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
55
38
23
33
35
20
29
44
24
14
26
42
23
13
22
48
29
18
27
47
29
17
27
44
24
12
22
VMT
LD
20,428
70,563
-
35, 142
126, 133
0
49,163
-
19,530
68,693
182,423
111,754
_
69,891
364, 068
154,603
226, 841
-
119, 392
500,836
71,208
133,592
-
78,912
283,712
75,195
137,605
-
75,495
288,295
25,794
40,671
-
19,680
86, 145
HD
2,970
10,257
-
5,108
18,335
0
7, 147
2,839
9,986
26,518
16, 245
_
10, 160
52,923
22,474
32,975
_
17, 356
72,805
10, 351
19,420
_
11,471
41, 242
10,931
20,003
-
10, 974
41,908
3,750
5,912
2,861
12,523
Diesel
359
1,239
-
617
2,215
0
863
-
343
1,206
3,203
1,963
_
1,227
6,393
2,715
3,983
_
2,097
8,795
1,250
2,346
_
1,386
4,982
1,320
2,416
-
1,326
5,062
453
714
346
1,513
Area
(sq. mi.)
56.0
22.4
8.76
11.1
29.2
19.8
4.58
A-64
-------
Baltimore
1977 - 24-Hour
District
76
77
78
79
14
15
16
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
41
22
12
21
44
24
14
24
45
25
14
22
28
16
23
43
23
14
22
28
17
23
20
11
16
VMT
LD
62,821
130,936
_
58, 380
252, 137
103,983
99,701
55,903
259,587
37,050
100,877
-
55,358
193,285
0
58,466
_
26,886
85,352
123, 253
284, 488
-
150,094
557,835
0
78,248
-
36,421
114,669
0
132, 128
60,214
192, 342
HD
9, 132
19,034
8,487
36, 653
15, 116
14,493
_
8, 126
37,735
5,386
14, 664
-
8,047
28,097
0
8,499
_
3,908
12,407
17,917
41, 355
-
21,819
81,091
0
11,375
-
5,294
16,669
0
19,207
8,753
27,960
Diesel
1, 103
2,299
_
1,025
4,427
1,826
1,751
982
4,559
651
1,771
_
972
3,394
0
1,027
_
472
1,499
2, 164
4,996
-
2,636
9,796
0
1,374
-
640
2,014
0
2, 320
-
1,057
3,377
Area
(sq. mi.)
6.24
12.0
11.6
14.4
14.7
12.4
4.98
A-65
-------
Baltimore - 1977 - 24-Hour
District
17
18
26
28
27
29
39
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
26
16
22
26
16
22
44
25
15
25
47
27
17
27
47
28
16
32
48
31
18
31
49
30
17
27
VMT
LD
0
250,910
-
134,696
385,606
0
432,915
-
204, 225
637, 140
124,797
144, 117
-
83,651
352,565
121,045
148,026
-
94, 130
363,201
210,066
96, 337
-
55, 199
361,602
288, 174
282,915
130,224
701, 313
83,900
178, 250
90, 124
352,274
HD
0
36, 474
-
19, 580
56,054
0
62,931
-
29,687
92,618
18, 141
20,950
-
12, 160
51,251
17,596
21,518
-
13,683
52,797
30, 536
14, 004
8,024
52, 564
41, 891
41, 126
18,930
101,947
12, 196
25,912
13, 101
51, 209
Diesel
0
4,406
-
2,365
6,771
0
7,602
-
3,586
11, 188
2, 191
2,531
-
1,469
6,191
2, 126
2,599
-
1,653
6,378
3, 689
1,692
-
969
6,350
5,060
4,968
-
2,287
12, 315
1,473
3, 130
_
1, 583
6, 186
Area
(sq. mi.)
35.5
37.0
11.6
22.3
20.5
61. 2
27.8
A-66
-------
Baltimore
1977
2 4-Hour
District
Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
VMT
LD
TOTAL
17.410.123
HD
TOTAL
2. 530.847
Diesel
TOTAL
305,729
Area
(aq. mi.)
VMT
Total
For All
Vehicle
Types
20.246. 699
A-67
-------
APPENDIX B
UNADJUSTED VEHICLE AGE DISTRIBUTION DATA
-------
TABLE B-l
MODEL-YEAR DISTRIBUTION - R.L. POLK DATA
(As of July 1, 1971)
Model
Year
1971 " /
1970
1969 ~;
1968
1967
1966 !
1965
1964 ^
1963 V'
1962 ' '
1961 " '
1960 :" ?
1959 '« *7
1958 ;f V
1957 '^"'
1956
Prior
TOTAL
Passenger
Cars
79,849
143,169
101,398
88,392
76,617
76,564
72,273
59,461
46,537
31,492
16,867
11,459
5,380
2,596
3,150
2,363
7,650
825,217
Percent
9.7
17.3
12.3
10.7
9.3
9.3
8.8
7.2
5.6
3.9
2.0
1.4
.6
.3
.4
.3
.9
100.0
Trucks
9,455
15,022
12,404
8,808
8,470
8,551
6,979
6,069
4,648
3,764
2,729
2,438
2,000
1,267
1,512
1,541
7,728
103,468
Percent
9.1
14.5
12.0
8.5
8.2
8.3
6.8
5.9
4.5
3.6
2.6
2.4
1.9
1.2
1.5
1.5
7.5
100.0
B-l
-------
TABLE B-2
AGE DISTRIBUTION - MARYLAND STATE DATA
(As of June 7, 1971)
Vehicle Age (Years) Percent
< 1 4.6
1-2 13.1
2-3 12.7
3-4 11.4
4-5 10.0
5-6 10,2
6-7 9.8
7-8 8.0
8-9 6.6
9 & Over 13.6
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C
ESTIMATED POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
-------
APPENDIX C
ESTIMATED POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
The emissions estimates for 1970 and 1977 tabulated herein were
calculated from the District-level VMT data in Appendix A by the same
procedure (same computer program) as the estimates in other studies in
this series. The totals for each pollutant and year at the bottom of
the tables are calculated as a single calculation for the entire study
area; the slight difference between these totals and the sum of the
District figures has been absorbed into the figures for the Suburban
Analysis Area.
Similar calculations have been made by the Maryland State Bureau
of Air Quality Control with the same input data, but with a different
emissions calculation procedure and with the different age distribution
data already described.
The principal difference in the resulting estimates is that projected
1977 hydrocarbon emissions from the BAQC calculations are much lower than
the GCA calculations. This difference is believed due to the BAQC com-
bining of heavy-duty VMT and light-duty VMT in one age-distribution array,
and adjustments exterior to the BAQC computer program are used to correct
this effect.
C-l
-------
UBII C - 1
1970 cox* Hoaaax wuiton
WICK
iiilujir*
NO.
^
13
13
IT
IB
19
2U
21
Zifc
23
25
-Zf
27
tf
29
3V
31
33
~3*"
35
S7
3D
39
41
42
43~
8-
46
4T
90
TT
52
55
96
n
91
91
60
i!
63
64
69
66
7
61
TO
Tl
T4
T6
-Ji-
lt
#]
0.994
K610
5.070
12.400
39.500
L1CHI
IM.ni
11344,51
" 1W73.74
2240.62
12452.21
2315)54
13910.08
>0 OUtplct 19
2.340
6.810
6.160
1 1 .600"'
20.500
22.300
61.200
2.730
5.710
6.160
20.400
27.800
4.850
3.630
27.900
21.300
43.600
23.600
1.870
2.960
4.610
4.010
3.360
17.300
11.306
56.000
22.400
1.120
3.970
4.940
2.640
76O
11.100
17 .ZOO
',9.800
-I196Z.15
6389.84
17259.48
5550.97
ISB« ^Z
8215.65
12217. If
20071.52
10844.80
14823.75
11684.34
20066.53
2471.48
11770.59
20668.67
11742.78
14266.69
8198.02
7255.66
2013.81
18115.98
1X300.27
13731.03
10220.42
14028.97
29742.13
15191. 3T
4138.62
1703.71
8172.07
8378.79
Z3X7.79
.9356.75
7863.73
.1270.77
9876.89
7776.79
' § DUM1M 6»
1.140 4493.06
1.010
2.710
6.240
12.000
11.600
T4.400
m.ioo
1403.76
7861.39
17490.46
10975.10 "
10743.10
2771.73
905145.06
OU'T
EMISSION
DENSITY
-nrew/sg.nn
20477.45
7748 .90
1391.69
2456.06
186 '.T,
391.83
"55IZ15T-
2730.70
2534I43
898.22
1451.85
400.76
327.97
3701.30
-"2676 .70
2596.10
4X05.30
1896.81
983.65
96.11
423.40
104X7.33
4261.58
3234.93
511.35
saTTTs
166.41
9687)69
61X2.52
2978.53
2 546 .73
""VTT5.-Z9
1541.04
1344.90
73 .90
76\06
7296.49
?347.06
7332.96
ZOT9.24
_I716.29
494!89
3906.20
If 671. 19
3370.26
"3*80.83
2879.63
2796.55
916.26
943.37
192.50
1164.17
EMI5SION5"
TITCM7
2573.09
2003.59
509.19
2924.42
" 5T896.3H
525.18
Z772140
3155.09
" 6Z3B.4J
1449)33
"115X.95 -
3914.37
1259.00
3920.04
1963.44
2771 J5T
4552.67
2459.95
2391. tt"
3362.27
4272. 5Z
2650.22
4551.54
551.50
2669.79
3XZ9.74
4698.09
2663.46
323.9. 7 7
1645.70
456.78
4109.11
4150.89
3114.49
2318.20
6746.13
3447.12
938.71
" 396.56
1853.63
2049.33
1900.49
4390.95
4051.85
4924.63
2240.31
2222.54
1010.01
4489.17
772.05
1002.62
1793.13
3958.17
2493.97
2462.04
628.67
205309.81
' EMTSSTDT4
DENSITY
-rKGM7SU7WTT
4644.54
1757.53
315.64
557.08
46V. 14
42.35
89.88
619)37
~- 517.77
574.87
203.72
3Z7.31
90.90
1Z4.Z9
74.39
839.54
588.84
10X9.93
430.23
223.11
21.80
96.04
237X.72
966.62
733.74
115.99
87.30
37.75
~ 19.19
2197.39
1402.33
675.59
578.11
349.54
305.06
16.76
- 17.25
1655.02
- 927.30
532.35
1663.24
462.54
434.65
76.72
112.25
085. V<
4235.06
764.41
789.47
653.16
634.32
207.82
213.97
43.66
264.06
UlntK
-EBITSTOHS rhCSSlUN
DENSITY
33.70
31.90
9.39
6V. BB
56.27
147.09
13.27
4H.IT
70.50
.4.45--
28.51
97.40
f J.UY
26.10
"72775
44.72
19.01
40.86
58.35
8Z.86'
55.94
102.87
14.16
70.97
66.74
75.21
58.35
"2.27
54.76
42.51
- " 14.76
65.76
67.19
53.27
144)o9
80.82
28.86
29.47
" 35.78"-
33.68
81.48
108)99
62.11
17.16
67.39
15.47
19.74
34.49
69.23
52.17
47.58
14.43
4017.63
60.82
27.89
5.X3
11.10
1.07
1.99
12.18
14.30
4.22
2.18
1.93
13.95
10.22
21.14
9.07
5.04
0.56
2.55
41.45
25.41
15.51
16.07
2.95
2.57
0.98
0.62
35.17
22.70
11 .56
9.83
11.80
7)47
7.15
0.52
5.48"
26.31
" 16.19
9.43
30. X6
" 11.61
9.82
Z7B6
3.14
15.06
63.58
13.32
15.54
12.63
11.09
4.35
4.10
l.OC
5.76
TOT
EMISSIONS
13751.28
" 10867.13
2T5X.19
15332.89
2853.99
17135.66
7867)67
21271.75
6836.07
Z07547Z3
10123.80
24742.20
13345.51
18244.38
27192.16
14390.40
24720.93
2777.15"
14511.33
2TT78I.OB
25431.96
14464.59
175X4.94
B943)e7
22290.85
22516.54
16P9X.79
12578.05
23132.75
17270.64
36632.35
19725.31
5106. IX
2100791
10055.17
11120.45
10313.15
23X31. IX
2201 7. S2-
26204.39
I2177.4T
12083.39
54X0.23
24348.01
4191.47
5443.00
9679.02
'871.50
21477.86
13541.1}
13472.72
1415.03
1114411. »
«r
EM1&&1UN
DENSITY
29162.61
7934.32
ITU. 16
3024.24
230.16
4X2.69
3362)29
3123.60
1106.16
T7B7;i₯
493.84
404. 2X
4554.78
-731B.ZB
3195.16
5916.37
2336.10
1211.81
118.46
521.79
12707.50
5243.70
3984.74
630. 2X
"474.75
205.13
~ "164.43
11920.24
7607. 5S
3665. 6X
3136.6T
3798.48
" 5140.01
1*98.05
165?. 11
91 .IX
8977^83
2888)84
9026.96
2513". 3 7"
2360.76
417.0*
610.27
4X07.22
22769. 81
4149.77
3545)41
1720.10-
3441.76
1121.41
1161.44
237.15
1433. »9
C-2
-------
TABLI 0 - I
1977 CAUOH HOHOTIDJ nauioin
CATEGORY
ZONE AREA
NO.
" -
OB 1 0.554
-TO 1.1*0
11 1.610
TZ 2. ZOO
U S.070
TT 1*7700-
15 12.400
T5" TY9BCT
IT 35.500
IISHT
EMISSIONS
(KGH)
5086.40
3449.30
780.26
4H66.70
10680.75
2069.89
"4458.18
7474.91
19 No Diicrlet 19
20 2. ITS"' "4295763
21 2.340
~2Z" 2. 240 -
23 6.610
"FT" 5.070
~Z6~~ '. 1 .60TJ
27 Z0.500
~2r 227300
29 61.200
~3TT I.13U
31 2.930
"32" T.'91ff
33 5.710
34" T792TT
39 6.160
76" 1O.1OD
37 20.400
31 25Y3OTT
39 27.900
"W -I7STO'
~*I "2.970
42 4.P50
43 ~ 4.950
44 3.630
43 a.fvu
46 27.900
~«7 2T73TJTJ
+« 43.600
-49- ~2 37800
SO 1.870
91 Z.VOU
52 4.610
~53 4~;OTO
9* 6. 090
"55" 3.360
56 19.300
58 56 '.000
-W~ Z2.400
60 1.120
-si Tizio
62 3.570
99 ^.54-U
64 2.640
-f3 BV76T
66 11.100
-fT ZT7200
68 19.800
2243.90
"1815;23
6142.77
5373. Z5
6014'. 27
5094.32
"5877.23
2V62.*34
3643.39
'401B799
4859.18
6773V52
3723.66
UMU'.U /
8214.11
2299'.97
5555.03
5812^73
6430.63
7057.00
T2BTV95
3801.02
6886.63
3IB 2^.47
3724.72
1243. 5*8
4747.99
"STOBTB'O"
4656.11
3822.42
6196.93
4290.83
10049.39
6TJ2"6.45
1737.54
1050. Z8
2819.26
3051.46
3024.39
4J93.V6
6159.51
5916.38
9362.00
4513.23
4631.59
o» Me DUtrlot 69
TO 1.140 1726.9V
n i.oso
T2 1.010
/i i.^ru
74 2.T30
F9 ^.SlfU
T6 6.240
Tl 1K6OO
"Tf 14.400
6727.3"
1464.47
1680.48
2858.13
1SVV.6U
4974.85
~4445.24
3636,36
1567.37
WHT 777. 500 343630.31
DUTY
EMISSION
DENSITY
(KGM/SO.MII
9181.36
3025.77
489.60
959.90
726.58
166.93
895.22
210.56
1980.01
958.93
810.37
902.02
~lO6;i .76
518.47
248.50
263 .55
7521754
1243. 4P
1027.08
850.99
1727.96
604.49
TT42T5B-
402.65
90.91
199 .82
3610.39
2165.20
1455.05
1472.52
1047.11
731.B6 "
246.03
149.41
H5.43
'52.25
2539.03
Z 13U .6H"
1010.44
953.22
1017.56
1277.03
520.69
'533-.3I
31.03
46.09
2517.19
1380.75
047.17
VSTi 83"
2333.15
675.39
R43 .42
154.56
233.92
1514. VI
6346.59
1449.97
1323 .2 1
1046.93
-~3^97?8~
797.25
370 .44
313.43
108.15
441 .97
HEAVY
EMISSIONS
{ KGMJ
2993.63
2069.79
491.11
3X00.95"
3094.03
6041.29
1346.06
2730.52
4773.01
73ZT7TE
2632.23
1465.17
1202.57
4146.41
"33₯9.5S
3970.88
3557.83
3938.10
-T78T7SI"
2220.46
2466.54
3034.53
4347.62
2452.04
'351'4'iBB
53S1.42
1544.66
3749.87
3574.85
3985.22
4245.57
4640.07
2468. 15
-575T.S5
4551.78
Z196.66
24R3.79
870.41
2910.15
~~379~9 . 7T
2855.57
2327.75
37P7.49
2680.65
6438.84
3922 .10
1222.12
715.39
1878.46
1867.61
2790.'OB
3909.21
3959.53
6033.23
3033.95
3109.81
I0<*y.61
3992.61
910.00
1126. 97
1780.58
T032.35"
3162.78
293 1 . 91
2339.57
1014.69
210333.56
DUTY
EMISSION
DENSITY
IKGH/S9.MII
5403.55
1115.60
3C5.04
T4T4"T9~0"
610.26
465.39
108.55
540.30
134.45
-7T1TE4-
1213.01
626.14
536.86
600.07
""TOUTTT
255.62
342.32
173.55
176.60
T580i3F-
757. »4
630.83
531.44
1109.09
390.19
"546.03
263.79
61.05
134.89
2220.41
1341.82
075.38
937.39
679.93
404.37
163.15
103.13
56.97
36.57
1560.51
1293.69
619.43
580.49
621 .92
797.81
333.62
347.09
21.92
31 .94
849.90
523.14
614.55
1400.76
452.00
543.53
104.07
157.06
920.71
3766.61
909. 7P
655.16
2?5~. 40
506.06
244.33
201 .69
70.46
280.02
UTHEK
EMISSIONS
(KGH I
14.50
41.35
13.14
09 ."ST"
88.40
199.92
41.09
58.92
138.20
"2TO-.35"
66.50
45.25
38.62
139.73
46. 1 1
126.34
129.58
130.17
v/.l,l
55.05
62.72
01.91
127.03
77.56
"TSETTT
167. »7
51.35
126.26
91.56
104.03
100.19
133.09
136V34
145.09
77.95
31 .09
31 .85
74.53
90.19
72.31
57.54
94.89
72 .46
188.3.'
119.99
45.19
24.61
48.27
40 . 53
110.99
130.40
179.49
101.61
103.32
25.76
09.17
25.21
48.56
30 . Hi
90. 31)
93.01
69.27
30.57
6227.25
-IHTSTfON
DENSITY
(KGM/SO.MI)
116.42
42.41
8.16
40.85"
17.44
13.60
3.31
13.04
3.09
"6H7 '
30.64
19.34
17.24
20.52
2ZTTO
7 .46
10.09
6.32
5.84
4.11
-3TV59
10.79
16.04
14.34
32.61
12.59
is: si
0.23
2.03
4.54
56.87
35.29
20.66
26. P9
15.51'
5.20
3.66
1.86
1.34
39.88
30.47
15.69
14.35
15.58
21.56
9.76
10. 62
0.81
1.10
21.84
13.60
IT. 51
42.04
14.90
16.17
3.48
5.22
22.5V
84.12
24.96
17.79
6 .74
14.48
7.75
5.97
2.12
'.01
TOTAL
EMISSIONS
(KGMI
8144.59
5567.51
1292.51
E354.Z9
8049.12
17721.96
3457.04
7257.61
12386.11
ZTf759".fl9-
6995.35
3754.31
3056.42
10420.90
4093 .03
10111.51
0781 .73
9945.50
4770.62
5918.09
654R.25
7975.61
11249.06
625.4.06
14T9TV6T
13763.39
3895.99
9431.15
9479.14
10520.67
11402.77
12062.12
10827 iW
11583.50
5457.07
6209.59
2145. B5
7740.72
-101*76 .'70
7506. OC
6207.70
10079.30
7043.94
16676.55
ICO'£BV53
3Q04.05
1790.29
4563 .58
4978.20.
4940.53
7?53 .53
10179.70
10006.39
15574.71
7653.86
7844.71
2802.36
10009.16
240«. 56
2844 .77
4695.26
26'62 iB9
8227.98
7470. IB
6045.21
?612.64
'JO-H6.I3
EMISSION
DENSITY
1KOH/SO.HII
4701. 41
4883.78
802.90
3797.40
1587.60
1205. 5«
278.79
1457.35
348.90
~ '547.83"
3223.67
1604.41
1364.47
1531.41
1 7H6.D3
662.30
P71.6H
428.38
445.99
4239^48
2020.10
1674.75
1396.78
2869.66
1015.27
T₯05TIT
674.68
153.99'
339.25
588T.66
3542.31
2351.09
2436. 7T
l*31.7!>
415.16
256.20
144.26
90.16
4139.42
3^44. H 3
1645.55
1548.06
1655.06
2096.41
064.07
U9"l ~02
53.66
79.92
4074.62
2252. 5B
1383.90
'T57y . vu
3855.99
1142.28
1403.13
262.12
396.20
2458.1.
10197.32
23P4.7I
1719.87
)H l'.4Z
1319.59
622.51
521.14
181.43
730. »0
C-3
-------
CAlbUUKV - LIQMT
ZONE »RE» EMISSIONS
NO.
" ISO. Nil IKGM)
OD I 0.554 1464. 54
10 1.140 1252. 3?
11 1.610 341.49
13 9.070 1948.45
-R" W.700 ' 4969.25
15 12.400 415.68
15 4.980" - 1788.08
17 35.500 2330.10
19 Ho M.trlct 19
21 2.340 993.50
23 6. RIO 3039.76
25 6.180 387.65
26 11.600 2931.46
27 20.500 1435.50
29 61.200 365B.13
31 2.930 1581.98
33 5.710 2189.09
34 3.9ZU ^yz"»."/l
35 6.160 1HR2.62
37 20.400 3364.36
3B 257300 45D~.I7
39 27.800 2166.58
TO 1 .610 Z4VU.Y3
~*T 2.970 2735.10
~4T 4.950 3110.03
44 3.630 1930.12
~4T~ 8.790 3325.08
44 27.900 2566.42
TfF 21.300 1598.39
48 43.600 1319.92
~4T 23.HOO 414760
50 1.870 2566.73
52 4.610 2033.33
~ST 4.010 "1510.05
54 6.090 2758.16
~9T 3.366 2145.49"
~ST 11.300 2592.06
99 96.000 827.97
~W 22.400 3"2~3~7ST
60 1.120 1159.11
4T 2.210 1347.93
42 1.570 1250.83
IT £.940 1932.06
44 IV440 2947.75
W r.TiO "3158.68
4* 11.100 3559.74
ft I*. 200 Tsza.ia
66 19.800 1855.96
TO 1.140 654.54
"TT" 1.060 2734.13
72 1.010 538.50
TJ 1.2TO "687.94
74 2.730 1212.71
"7* 4.580 1005.34
T4 4.240 2561.46
TT flTBOO T7₯t7r»
T* 11.400 1683.49
TV 14.400 471.72
ff 777.500 141977.69
uul V
EMISSION
DENSITY
(KGH/50.HII
2643.57
1098.53
212.11
TTJ75VBT~
384.31
338.04
33.52
359.05
65.64
795.01
424.57
446.37
4vy .u
143.63
"252.71
70.02
59.77
539^93
"""3T5.Z2
383.38
746". 15
305.62
164.92
17.40
77.93
154T.IT
"92"OT9T~
531.71
91 .99
30.27
f7~74~2 "
1372.58
441.07
' 376.57
452.90
"63f>~.54 "
14.79
KTW"
1034.92
-6b"9"T«
350.37
1116.57
3W75S
320.70
62T6"r~"
93.74
574.15
2579". 37 "
533.17
"54T".6*
444.22
Z19.51
410.49
147.18
145.13
32.76
182.09
HEAVY UUIY
EMISSIONS EMISSION
DENSITY
(KGMI IKGM/Sg.MI)
435.31 735.77
364.88 320.07
97.71 60.69
66b.4V -JC2V49"
550.97 108.67
1391.41 94.65
114.39 9.22
514.15 103.24
650.97 13.34
501.07
281.34
215.25
835.87
249.82
308.93
397.85
630.84
1003.91
459.22
630.98
831.01
52". 6P
!U4if.Jlip
937.27
120. F>5
591.93
717.15
~7l2Tl.90
359.70
r4"97rr
842.53
847.20
991.30
49S.54
503.77
189.36
80IV57
152.43
194. »2"
344.19
735.98
496.53
478.58
131.37
40037.57
230.91
120.23
96.09
122.74
40.42
69.74
19.41
23.29
16.4C
156.73
113. B7
110.50
211.99
85.32
45.94
4.7P
21.29
445.43
"2^3". 3 3
177. 5
"176. 6
148. 6
25. 9
20.22
8.31
4.64
399.16
127.63
109.06
131.21
102.31
03.5
3.9
3.9
301.4
175.97
100.76
319. 14
99.00
89.31
17.07
25.44
166. 1 1
756.29
150.92
153.40
126. OP
~53~;3TS"
117.94
41.38
41.26
9.1?
51 .50
EMISSIONS EMISSION
DENSITY
(KGHI (KGM/SO.HI1
5.54 l?-.00
5.23 4.59
1.54 0.96
9.26
24.53
2.18
7.92
11.60
4.69
3 .37.
16.02
4.29
I5".Z5
7.36
12.90
19.41
6l72
9.60
13.63
9.18
16.92
2.33
11.67
10.98
12.4,
12.37
15.10
9.60
13.53
9.01
6.99
2.43
10.32
B.76
6.43
11.87
9.80
23.70
13.29
4.75
1.78
4.85
5.PP
5.54
"5T9T
13.40
16.73
17.93
9.91
10.22
2.82
11.03
2.54
3.25
5.67
11.39
fl.55
7 .5^
2.37
672.3^
1.83
1.67
0.18
1.59
0.33
3.37
2.00
2.35
o!&9
I. 37
0.36
0.58
0.32
2.29
1.68
3.48
1.49
0.83
O.C9
0.42
6.82
4.18
2.55
3.05
2.64
0.49
0.42
0.16
0.10
5.7"
1 .90
1.62
1 .94
2.92
1 .23
"1.18
0.08
0.06
4.33
2.66
1.55
1.98
5.08
1.91
1.61
0.34
0.57
2.48
10.46
2.52
2.56
2.08
TTUT-
1.82
0.72
0.67
0.16
0.86
EMISSIONS EMISSION
DENSITY
IKGH1 (KGH/SO.MII
1905.40 3439.34
1622.43 1423. IB
440.75 273. 74
3U43.UV 13B3.9V
2508.67 494. >1
6385.17 434.37'
532.25 42.92
Z3I0.15 46r.89
2992.66 84.30
5VM1 .VH Ibl .6U
2233.56 1029.2V
1279.54 546. 81
"967.53 431.93
3891.64 571.44
1141.77
3755.64
1840.70
2972.52
4681.45
2047.92
-[WS.1&
2829.67
3769.55
2420.48
4318.54
563.34
2770. If
3219.07
357. '.61
3999.58
2479.01
3285.54
2038.14
1689.26
527. 3"7
3323. 9C
2630.47
1953.88"
3569.07
2767V84
3323.60
1054.59
413.47
1501.59
1742.72
1616.07
2490.23
3803.68
4042.61
4568.96
2336.63
2369.95
846.72
3546.88
693.47
886.00
1562.57
1295.37
3308.82
2271.30
2169.90
605.47
1W2287.56
184.75
323.76
89.79
133.30
76.49
698.95
509.81
495.56
961.62
392.94
211.69
22.27
99.65
1999.42
11 88. 42
aoa.oo
6X2.92
117.76
3al74
2T7IS"
1777.53
570.60
487.25
586.05
294.12
18.83
1340.71
7B8.56
452.6"
54B.M
1440.79
46T7W"
411.62
»"OV07"
119.69
742 . 74
3346;iT
686.61
697.64
572.37
~ 283.13
930.24
U9.TS
187.06
42.01
234.49
-------
TABU C - *
1977 annocAucn HUSSIONS
VEHICLE
TTTE6BR?
I ONE AREA
NO.
(SO. MI)
10 1.140
U 1.610
13 5.070
15 uUoO
17 35^900
T.TGHT T)U7Y
EMISSIONS EMISSION
DENSITY
IKGMI (KGM./SO.HII
432.64
105.78
666. *4
- 1483.67
297.50
" 579.74
1038.29
19 lo_BlMrlet 19
"2TT 2.170 561.19
21 2.340 321.50
23 6.810 928.21
25 6.1*0
If TT.SOO"
27 20.900
- TB 22.300 '
29 61.200
31 2.930
33 9.710
"3* 3";9Zir
39 6.160
37 20.400
" JV 25.JOU
39 27.800
41 Z.V7O
42 4.A30
44 3.630
46 27.900
4f> 43.600
90 1.870
5A Z.Vbd
92 4.610
94 6 '.090
96 19.300
96 96loOO
60 U120
ft Z-iZlTT
62 3.970
64 2.640
H BY7BO-
66 11.100
ft/ 2V.2UU"
68 19.900
» ID Dtl
70 1.140
72 U010
"73" 1.270 '
74 2 .730
19 4.9UU
76 6.240
M 12.0UO
76 11.600
-7» Wi*00
TOm 777.900
342.35
"T77.99
811.96
-880.46
1590.68
474.43
323.61
653.08
541.48
11*5.11
846.06
' 739.79
- ' S36.69
95.04
1001.93
539.73
V4£.0g
1011.38
5O1.1I~
359.70
620.19
613^70
491.42
*10.19
576.67
1396.43
281.66
162.74
391.92
-W3.93
399.60
849^17
- 8TTO-.97
1313.65
-684.17
698.40
82B.'21
200.20
Z3r.40
389.40
£23.U4
682.68
"S47.17
909.31
223.38
47061.98
379.51
65.70
131.53
100.93
23.99
116.41
29.25
258.61
137.39
118.90
136.30
55140
75.69
39.61
39.48
25.99
161.92
133.92
114.37
244.23
87.90
5* .09
13.81
30.43
471.92
266.45
184.54
202.41
148.69
107.18
36.25
-23.53
12. *4
8.40
331.65
270.48
133.12
122.55
133.04
171.63
72.35
76.01
5.03
7.27
320.11
182.77
111.93
1J4 . 1 1
321.65
100.57
11*. 35
23.43
35.27
195.27
781.33
19* .22
197.95
141.17
109.40
53.93
43.91
15.51
60.93
HEAVY
EMISSIONS
346.64
85.71
544.37
1213.54
244.06
467.54
848,00
452.43
264.35
219.80
769.61
644.98
2*0.00
723.94
678 , 70
728.49
1327.78
301. n
3*1.64
422.62
529.77
782.28
446.21
9B8.49
975.03
288.95
700.86
613.65
693.09
717.39
818.13
443.13
833.79
4lV.39
461.90
167.13
500.78
642.06
494.46
395.68
652.35
467.89
1142.30
I3?.'o5
2*7."
325.95
323.00
692.21
729.07
1076.27
566.46
577.89
179.01
661.21
162.44
208.12
312.86
533.55
417.05
183.06
EMISSION
DENSITY
(KSM/SO.MII
919.53
304.11
I07!l7
°2.55
19, 68
93.99
23.99
£08. »9
112.97
98.13
113.01
45.31
62.41
33.11
32.67
21.70
130.25
109.09
92.78
199.36
72.44
97.TT7
47.80
11.42
25.21
381.15
233.35
147.91
165.2*
122.07
29J98
19.60
10.59
7.02
267.90
107.26
99.67
107.12
139.25
59.19
4.21
6.03
257.04
147.49
90.48
"tUV./lT
262.20
83,23
96.96
19.40
29.19
157.03
623.79
160. *3
163,87
114.60
89.30
44.46
35,95
12.71
49.40
OTHER
EMISSIONS EMISSION
DENSITY
IKGMI (KGM/SO.MI)
10.61 19.15
7.95 6.98
2.16 1.34
14.54
32. »f
6.76
11.34
22.73
TO.9-4 - -
7.44
6.35
22.99
7.59
20.7'
21.31
2". 41
41.34
9.05
10.32
13.47
21.02
12.76
27Ul
8.45
20.77
15.06
17.24
16.48
21. *9
12.34
-27'. 47 -
23.86
12.82
13.34
5.24
12.27
11.89
9.46
15.61
11.92
30.98
19.74
7.43
4.05
6.72
7.94
7.98
1 J.U8
19.26
21.46
29.52
16.72
16,99
4.24
14.67
4.15
6.14
7.99
14.86
15.30
11.39
5.01
1024.25
2.87
2.24
0.54
2.28
0.64
s;o«
3.18
2.8*
3.37
1.23
1.79-
1.04
0.96
0.68
3.09
2.64
2.36
5.36 '
2.07
1.35
0.33
0.75
9.35
5.81
3.40
4.42
3.40
o!e&
0.60
0.31
0.22
6.56
5.01
2.59
2.36
2.56
3.55
1.60
1.75
0.13
0.18
6.00
3.59
2.24
6.91
2.45
2.66
0.57
0.96
3.72
13.84
4.10
4.83
2.93
2.38
1.28
0.9*
0.35
1.32
TOTAL
EMISSIONS EMISSION
DENSITY
(KGMI IKGM75JJ-.HT1
1162.31 2098.03
787.28 698. «0~"
193.67 120.29
rj-ST.Tl 573.87
1225.75 241.76
2730.09 I*?. 72
548.33 44.22
1058.62 212.37
1909.02 53.78
"T024.55
593,29
492.49
1720.80
629.94
1622.71
1511.97
1630.36
2959.80
865.12
956.54
1196.31
1760.75
1000.45
2187.74
646.90
1567.69
1388.51
1566.98
1628.87
1*41.96
995.20
1741.54
1869.03
931.32
1034.93
372.3*
1133.24
1457. bl
1120.05
896.56
1478.15
1056.47
2569.71
1584.20
524.70
301.84
653.13
737. "7
730.58
im.ri
1999.64
1631.90
2419.44
1267,36
1293.28
405.85
1504.09
366.79
465.66
706.25
1254.75
1196.02
937.76
411.47
*6497.00
472.15
253.54
219.96
252.69
101.93
139. P9
73.75
73.11
48.36
295.26
244.64
209.51
449.17
162.41
107.24
25.57
56.39
862.43
527.60
335.85
372.11
274.16
198.16
66.99
43.72
23.74
15.65
606.01
492. '40-
242.96
223.58
242.72
314.42
133.15
9l37
13.48
583.15
333. P5
204.69
2S7730-
590.77
186.24
217.97
43.40
65,32
356.01
1418.95
363.16
366.66
258.70
90.30
201.08
99.67
80. B4
20.57
111.25
C-5
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA ' ReP°« No- nrvrr. .,.. 2-
SHEET ARID- 1443
. Title and Subtitle
Transportation Controls to Reduce Motor Vehicle
Emissions in Baltimore, Maryland.
7. Author(s)
Land Use Planning Branch
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
GCA Corporation
GCA Technology Division
Bedford, Massachusetts
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
3. Recipient's Accession No. 1
5. Report Date
December 1972
6.
8. Performing Organization Kept.
No.
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
DU-72-B895
11. Contract/Grant No.
68-02-0041
13. Type of Report & Period
Ffirar" ^W72
Report 12/15/72
14.
is. Supplementary Notes Prepared to assist in the development of transportation control plans
by those State Governments demonstrating that National Ambient Air Quality Standards
cannot be attained by implementing emission standards for stationary sources nnly.
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. 17o. 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. Identifiers /Open-Ended Terms
VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled
Vehicle Mix distribution of motor vehicle population by age group.
LDV - light duty vehicle - less than 6500 Ibs.
HDV - heavy duty vehicle greater than 6500 Ibs.
i7c. COSATI Field/Group Environmental Quality Control of Motor Vehicle Pollutants
18. Availability Statement
-or release to public
19. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
all
22. Price
FORM NTIS-35 (REV. 3-721
USCOMM-OC M052-P72
a" li \
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM NTIS-35 (10-70) (Bibliographic Data Sheet based on COSATI
Guidelines to Format Standards for Scientific and Technical Reports Prepared by or for the Federal Government,
PB-180 600).
1. Report Number. Each individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation selected by the performing
organization or provided by the sponsoring organization. Use uppercase letters and Arabic numerals only. Examples
FASEB-NS-87 and FAA-RD-68-09.
2. Leave blank.
3. Recipient's Accession Number. Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. Title and Subtitle. Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed promi-
nently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more
than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and include subtitle for the specific volume.
5- Report Dote. Kach report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected
(e.g., date of issue, date of approval, date of preparation.
6> Performing Organization Code. Leave blank.
7. Author(s). Give name(s) in conventional order (e.g., John R. Doc, or J.Robert Doe). List author's affiliation if it differs
from the performing organization.
8< Performing Organization Report Number. Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address. Give name, street, city, state, and zip code. List no more than two levels of
an organizational hierarchy. Display the name of the organization exactly as it should appear in Government indexes such
as USGRDR-I.
10. Project/Task/Work Unit Number. Use the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report was prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Number. Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12' Sponsoring Agency Name and Address. Include zip code.
13* Type of Report and Period Covered. Indicate interim, final, etc., and, if applicable, dates covered.
14* Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank.
15. Supplementary Notes. Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with . . .
Translation of . . Presented at conference of ... To be published in . . Supersedes . . . Supplements
16. Abstract. Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report.
If the report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis, (a). Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of Hngineering and Scientific Terms the
proper authorized terms that identify the major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used
as index entries for cataloging.
(b). Identifiers and Open-Ended Terms. Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use
open-ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c). COSATI Field/Group. Field and Group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List.
Since the majority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the primary Field/Group assignments) will be the specific
discipline, area of human endeavor, or type of physical object. The appHcation(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary
Field/Group assignments that will follow the primary posting(s).
18. Distribution Statement. Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Re-
lease unlimited1' Cite any availability to the public, with address and price.
19 & 20. Security Classification. Do not submit classified reports to the National Technical
21. Number of Pages. Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but excluding distribution
list, if any,
22. Price. Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
FORM NTIS-35 (REV. 3-72!
USCOMM-DC 14002-P72
£ U. =.. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1973 746768/4153
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Technical Publications 6
Office of Admmislrati
Research Triangle Park. N (
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
AND FEES PAID
L PROTECTION AGENCV
-PA 335
SPECIAL FOURTH CLASS RATE
BOOK
If you do not desire to continue receiving this technical report
series, please CHECK HERE D , tear off this label, and return
it to the above address. Your name will then be promptly removed
from the appropriate mailing list.
PUBLICATION NO. APTD-1443
------- |