TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PLAN DEVELOPMENT
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
FEBRUARY 1975
PREPARED
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA
TRW I
TRANSPORT* TION A
ENVIftONMfNTAL
'Off RATIONS
-------
TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PLAN DEVELOPMENT
FOR CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
FEBRUARY 1975
Prepared by
TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATIONS OF TRW, INC.
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, California
Contract No. 68-02-1385
For the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
-------
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
TRW Transportation an'd Environmental Operations in fulfillment of Contract
Number 68-02-1385. The contents of this report are reproduced herein as
received from the contractor. The opinions, findings, and conclusions
are those of TRW and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Mention of company.or product names does not constitute endorse-
ment by the Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1-1
2.0 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.1 The Clark-Mohave Interstate Air Quality Control Region . . . 2-2
3.0 Baseline Air Quality 3-1
3.1 Oxidant 3-1
3.2 Carbon Monoxide 3-5
4.0 EMISSION INVENTORY 4-1
4.1 Baseline Emission Inventory 4-1
4.1.1 Hydrocarbon Reactivity Factors 4-1
4.1.2 Stationary Sources 4-1
4.1.3 Mobile Sources 4-2
4.2 Emission Projections 4-13
4.2.1 Stationary Sources 4-13
4.2.2 Mobile Sources 4-13
4.3 Transportation Data 4417
4.3.1 Travel Characteristics 4-27
4.3.2 Taxi Cab Service 4-30
4.3.3 Public Transit Service 4-30
4.3.4 Parking Facilities 4-31
5.0 THE NEVADA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 5-1
5.1 SIP Control Strategies 5-1
5.2 Comparison of Emission Inventories 5-3
6.0 ADDITIONAL CONTROL STRATEGIES 6-1
6.1 Introduction 6-1
6.2 Hardware Strategies 6-1
6.2.1 LDV Retrofit Devices 6-1
6.2.2 Mandatory Inspection-Maintenance Programs 6-4
6.2.3 Evaporative Emission Control - Service Station
Modification 6-6
6.3 VMT Reduction Strategies 6-12
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Dana
rage
7.0 PROPOSED CONTROL PLAN 7-1
7.1 Phase I Measures 7-2
7.1.1 Hardware Measures 7-2
7.1.2 VMT Reduction Measures 7-5
7.2 Phase II Measures 7-6
8.0 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS 8=1
8.1 Social Impacts ...... 8-1
8.1.1 Improved Transit Services 8-1
8.1.2 Auto Free Zones . . 8-4
8.1.3 Jitney Service 8-9
8.1.4 Hardware Measures 8-11
8.1.5 Summary 8-11
8.2 Economic Impacts 8-12
9.0 PROBLEM AREAS AND IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY 9-1
9.1 Problem Areas 9-1
9.2 Identification of Implementation Responsibility ...... 9-1
10.0 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION 10-1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Air Quality Analysis A-l
APPENDIX B - Vehicle Emission Estimates B-l
APPENDIX C - Aircraft Emissions ...... C-l
APPENDIX D - Delphi Panel D-l
APPENDIX E - Emission Grid E-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3-1 Las Vegas Air Quality Summary . 3-1
3-2 First and Second Highest Observed Oxidant Concentrations. . 3-2
3-3 First and Second Highest 8 Hour Average Carbon Monoxide
Concentrations in Las Vegas 3-5
3-4 Las Vegas Carbon Monoxide Concentrations by Month
(Downtown Sampling Site) 3-6
4-0 Hydrocarbon Reactivity Factors 4-3
4-1 1972 Stationary Source Emission Inventory for Clark County. 4-4
4-2 1973 Stationary Source Emission Projection for Carbon
Monoxide in Clark County . 4-4
4-3 Fuel Combustion Emissions in 1970 for Clark County 4-5
4-4 Baseline Stationary Source Emission Inventory ....... 4-5
4-5 Base Year THC Aircraft Emissions at McCarran International
Airport , 4-7
4-6 Base Year Total Hydrocarbon and Carbon Monoxide Emissions
at Clark County Airports 4-8
4-7 Baseline Emissions from Railroads ........ 4-9
4-8 Baseline Emissions from Motor Vehicles 4-9
4-9 Gasoline Marketed in Clark County, 1972 . 4-10
4-10 Emissions from Gasoline Marketing Operations, 1972. .... 4-10
4-11 Summary Baseline CO and RHC Emissions Inventory 4-11
4-12 Emission Projections for Area Industrial Processes:
Residential, Commercial and Industrial Space Heating;
Solid Waste Disposal 4-14
4-rl3 NEDS Emission Inventory 4-15
4-14 Data for Computation of Projected Civil Aircraft Emissions. 4-21
4-15 Emission Factors for Class 3 Aircraft 4-22
-------
Table Page
4-16 Aircraft Operations Activity for Civilian and Military
Aircraft in Clark County 4-24
4-17 Base Year and Projected Total and Reactive Hydrocarbon and
Carbon Monoxide Emissions at Clark County Airports .... 4-25
4 18 Projected Emissions from Railroads 4-26
4-19 Projected Emissions from Motor Vehicles 4-26
4-20 Projected Emissions from Gasoline Marketing 4-27
4-21 Summary of Projected Emissions for Clark County 4-28
4-22 Trip Mode Distribution in the Las Vegas Valley, 1965. . . . 4-31
4-23 Projected Trip Mode Distribution in the Las Vegas Valley. . 4-32
4-24 Parking Space Inventory of Las Vegas Central Building
District, 1965 Survey (Zones 601, 603, 604, 605, 607, 609,
611, 614) 4-33
5-1 SIP Specified Reductions of CO in Clark County 5-4
5-2 SIP Specified Reductions of HC in Clark County 5-5
5-3 SIP Growth Factors 5-6
5-4 Comparison of Emission Inventories 5-6
6-1 Percentage of Vehicles Able to Use Non-Leaded Gasoline . . 6-2
6-2 Effectiveness of Oxidizing Catalytic Converter Mufflers . . 6-2
6-3 Cost of Oxidizing Catalytic Converter Mufflers 6-3
6-4 Effectiveness of EGR, VSAD and LIAF 6-3
6-5 Emission Inspection I/M Program 6-5
6-6 Engine Parameter I/M Approach 6-6
6-7 Mandatory Maintenance I/M Approach 6-6
6-8 Comparison of Control Effectiveness 6-12
6-9 Organization of Delphi Survey 6-15
6-10 Summary of Delphi Panel Control Measures 6-15
7-1 Summary of Emissions in Clark County 7-2
7-2 Effectiveness of Control Measures 7-2
vi
-------
Page
7"3 Measures0' ^^^ After the ^"" on Phase I Measures
^ FreTzL°sf Cosis'and'ImP^ts'on Retail 'sales'ln G.S/Auto ' ^
........................ 8-8
8-2 Economic Cost of Recommended Control Strategy ....... 8- 13
9-1 Implementation Responsibility ........... g_2
10-1 Implementation Time Schedule .............. 10-2
B-l Vehicle Model Year Distribution for Clark County, 1972. . . B-6
B-2 Vehicle Model Year Distribution for Clark County, 1973. . . B-6
B-3 National Annual Mileage Driven, by Vehicle Age ....... B-6
B-4 Daily VMT (Millions) from Nevada Department of Highways
Model ........................... B-9
B-5 Traffic on Major Highways in Clark County ......... B-9
B-6 VMT on Major Highways in Clark County, Outside Department of
Highway's Model Coverage ................. B-9
B-7 Total Daily VMT (Millions) for Clark County ........ B-10
B-8 Daily VMT (Millions) for LDV in Clark County ........ B-10
B-9 Model Year Distribution of Trucks Registered in Clark County,
1972 ............................ B-10
B-10 Model Year Distribution of Trucks Registered in Clark County,
1973 ............................ B-ll
B-ll Number of Heavy Duty Vehicles Registered in Clark County in
1972 and 1973 ....................... B-ll
B-l 2 Heavy Duty Gasoline Powered Vehicles Exhaust Emission
Factors .......................... B-ll
B-l 3 Heavy Duty Gasoline Powered Vehicles Evaporative and Crank-
case Hydrocarbon Emission Factors ............. B-12
B-l 4 VMT for Heavy Duty Gasoline Powered Vehicles, 1972
B-l 5 VMT for Heavy Duty Gasoline Powered Vehicles, 1973
B-l 6 Daily VMT for Heavy Duty Gasoline Pov/ered Vehicles in Clark
County ........................... B-13
B-17 Heavy Duty Diesel Powered Vehicle Exhaust Emission Factors. B-14
vi i
-------
Table Page
B-18 VMT for Heavy Duty Diesel Powered Vehicles, 1972 B-14
B-19 VMT for Heavy Duty Diesel Powered Vehicles, 1973 B~14
B-20 Daily VMT for Heavy Duty Diesel Powered Trucks in Clark
County B-15
B-21 Motorcycle Emissions in Clark County, 1972 and 1973 .... B~16
B-22 Motorcycle Emissions in Clark County, 1977 and 1982 .... B~16
C-l Emission Factors per Landing - Takeoff Cycle for Aircraft . C-2
C-2 EPA Aircraft Classification C-3
C-3 Emission Factors for Class 3 Aircraft ..... c~4
vm
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure
3-1 Las Vegas Seasonal Pattern for Oxidant in PPM 3-3
3-2 Monthly Average of Oxidant Concentrations by Hour of the Day,
Las Vegas, 1973 3-4
4-1 Summary Baseline CO and RHC Emission Inventory 4-12
4-2 Summary of Projected Emissions for Clark County 4-29
6-1 Trends in Public Transit Patronage in the United States .... 6-18
7-1 Effect of Phase I Control Strategies in CO and RHC Emissions . . 7-8
A-l Las Vegas Cumulative Frequency Distribution for Oxidant, 1973 . . A-4
A-2 Las Vegas Cumulative Frequency Distribution for Oxidant, 1972 . . A-4
A-3 Appendix J of Federal Register (Vol. 36, No. 158) A-5
B-l Nevada Department of Highways Traffic Grid B-8
E-l Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Grid E-2
E-2 TRW Grid E-3
E-3 Carbon Monoxide Emissions (tons/day) for Clark County E_^
E-4 Total Hydrocarbon Emissions (tons/day) for Clark County E_
-------
1.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report presents the results of an analysis of a range of trans-
portation control strategies aimed at reducing air pollution in the Nevada
portion (i.e. Clark County) of the Clark-Mohave-Yuma Interstate Air Quality
Control Region (#013). The pollutants under consideration are carbon
monoxide and photochemical oxidant, primarily ozone. Since ozone is a
secondary pollutant (i.e. it is not emitted directly as a pollutant), its
control is dependent upon the elimination of reactive hydrocarbons which,
along with nitrogen oxides, leads to its formation. The purpose of the
study is threefold:
To compile a baseline and projected emission inventory for
reactive hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.
To evaluate the effectiveness of various transportation
related control measures in reducing emissions.
t Recommend the implementation of various control strategies
required to achieve the national ambient air quality
standards for photochemical oxidant and carbon monoxide in
Clark County.
The target date for attainment of the standards is 1977.
Stationary sources - Presently, stationary source contributions to the
overall problem are much less than mobile sources. However, they do comprise
a significant problem. Unless further control of these sources are imple-
mented, it is very unlikely that ambient air quality standards will be met.
No analysis was carried out on the reductions possible from additional controls
of these sources. The reductions in hydrocarbon emissions from the Texaco and
Cal/Nev PL Terminals stated in Chapter 4 have been assumed possible by the
Clark County District Health Department.
Mobile sources - There are many categories of mobile source emissions;
this report has examined only the most significant categories - in use light
and heavy duty vehicles. However, as motor vehicle controls become increas-
ingly stringent, it will be important to investigate measures to control the
other sources, such as motorcycles, aircraft and railroads. Left uncon-
trolled, they will contribute significant quantities of pollution by 1977.
It must be noted that the federal government has pre-empted state and
local authorities in the area of controls on aircraft.
1-1
-------
1.1 LIMITATIONS'OF THE TRANSPORTATION CONTROL STRATEGY ANALYSIS
To be acceptable, an air pollution control strategy must reduce
emission levels sufficiently to allow for the attainment and maintenance of
national ambient air quality standards. However, such a plan must also
consider the economic factors associated with its adoption, as well as the
social and political changes necessary to accommodate each specific control
measure. The air quality benefits must be balanced against the social and
economic costs of implementation. Limitations in the data and analytical
methods became obvious during the course of the study and care must be taken
in the interpretation and evaluation of the control strategy recommendations.
The proposed strategy must be considered as an initial attempt to quantify
the relationship between transportation processes and the regional air
pollution problem. Further study is needed and warranted before embarking
on controls that are likely to significantly disrupt the lifestyles of Clark
County residents. Several specific areas which need to be confirmed and
validated by future study are listed below.
Emission Factors - The mobile source emission estimates in this study
are based upon the best available emission factors. These emission factors
are being revised in light of in-use and new vehicle testing programs being
conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is highly recommended
that these new factors be utilized as they become available to recompute the
severity of the mobile source generated emissions in the area.
It should also be noted that stationary source estimates also suffer
from inaccuracies in the projection of industrial growth. The change in
emission factors for these sources, including the results from the application
of yet untested control technologies, is yet another source of error.
Traffic Data Projections - Historically, traffic data projections have
not been collected with the intent of using them for estimating motor vehicle
emissions. The data was reworked into the format necessary for emission
calculations. Potential inaccuracies are introduced by this process.
Analytical Technique - The key calculation in control measure assess-
ment is relating emission levels to expected ambient air quality. The use
of proportional rollback for CO and Appendix 0 (of the Federal Register,
Vol. 36, No. 158) for hydrocarbons in this study is at best a rough estimate
1-2
-------
of emission reductions required. , Instead, the use of modeling techniques
which can account for the effects of local meteorological and topographical
features is highly recommended.
1.2 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following summarize the major findings, conclusions and recom-
mendations that have emerged as a result of this study.
Findings:
Photochemical oxidant and carbon monoxide concentrations are
above the national ambient air quality standards a significant
portion of the time.
The geography and meteorology of the Las Vegas Valley contribute
to the severity of the problem and the difficulties of its
elimination.
t Presently, stationary source contributions to the air pollution
problem are much less than those from mobile sources. However,
unless additional controls are applied to stationary sources,
it is highly unlikely that ambient air quality standards will
be met.
t Ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide and oxidant
will not be met by 1975. It will be extremely difficult to
achieve these standards by 1977 without a massive change in
the lifestyles of Clark County residents.
Conclusions:
t Additional controls on stationary sources, aircraft and heavy
duty gasoline powered vehicles will be necessary to achieve
air quality standards.
t As a control measure, gasoline rationing appears to be the
most effective means of significantly reducing VMT.
» The use of vehicles cannot be restrained significantly without
providing some alternative means of transportation.
The implementation of evaporative loss control from gasoline
stations should be instituted as soon as the appropriate
devices become available.
Recommendations (see Chapter 7.0):
It is recommended that Phase I hardware control measures be imple-
mented as rapidly as possible. However, because of time and financial
1-3
-------
constraints, a detailed analysis as to the social, economic and political
ramifications of VMT reduction measures was not made in this report.
Therefore, it is also recommended that such a detailed analysis be per-
formed before the VMT reduction measures are implemented. The final decision
regarding the implementation of the Phase II control measure should be defer-
red until (a) an evaluation of additional controls on stationary sources,
heavy duty gasoline powered motor vehicles and aircraft can be made, and
(b) a careful analysis of the impact of such a Phase II program on the
occupants of the region is done.
1-4
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
The Federal Government has promulgated national ambient air quality
standards for particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydro-
carbons, oxides of nitrogen and photochemical oxidants. Each state has been
required to prepare and submit a plan which provides for the implementation,
maintenance and enforcement of the federal standards within each Air Quality
Control Region of the state.
The original Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal was
approved by EPA since it provided adequate measures to attain ambient air
quality standards for carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidants in the
Nevada portion of the Clark-Mohave-Yuma Interstate Air Quality Control Region
(AQCR 013). In addition to credit taken for emission reductions brought about
by the federal motor vehicle emission standards, the SIP specified reductions
of emissions achievable through a vehicle testing and inspection program,
traffic flow improvements in accordance with provisions of the Las Vegas Valley
Transportation Study and control of aircraft emissions as a result of federally
promulgated standards.
On June 8, 1973, the EPA promulgated rules and regulations which specified
additional requirements related to the development of transportation control
programs by the states. The EPA has requested, on the basis of these new
requirements, that the previously approved carbon monoxide and hydro-
carbon control strategies contained in the SIP be reassessed. Among other
things, the newly published rules and regulations contain and refer to revised
motor vehicle emission factors and revised estimates of the effectiveness of
inspection/maintenance and retrofit programs.
Due to limited resources, the State of Nevada and Clark County air
pollution control agencies expressed a willingness to cooperate in a
program in which the EPA would provide contractual assistance for de-
veloping a comprehensive hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide pollutant emission
In Clark County, the District Health Department (DHD) is the agency
which has the responsibility of air pollution control.
2-1
-------
data base and for evaluating the feasibility and effectiveness of trans-
portation control measures. TRW has been chosen by EPA to conduct such a
study which will:
t Compile a baseline emission inventory and projections for
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide,
Evaluate the effectiveness of various transportation control
related measures in reducing emissions,
Recommend the implementation of various control strategies
required to achieve the national ambient air quality standards
for photochemical oxidants and carbon monoxide in Clark County.
2.1 THE CLARK-MOHAVE INTERSTATE AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGION
The portion of this region which lies in Nevada consists entirely of
Clark County. The 1970 population of the county was 273,288, the majority
of which is concentrated in Las Vegas (125,787), the adjacent community of
North Las Vegas (36,216), nearby Henderson (16,395) and Boulder City (5,223).
The most important industry is tourism, attracted by legalized gambling,
luxurious hotels, lavish shows and a pleasant desert resort climate. Resort
recreational activity is also developing along the Colorado River and Lake
Mead, which forms the southeastern boundary of the county. The economy of
the metropolitan Las Vegas area is diversifying and there is a considerable
amount of industrial and commercial activity which does not depend on
tourism. Large corporations involved in mineral and chemical processing are
well represented in Clark County. The county is also the location of a large
coal burning power plant providing power for the southwest.
Clark County is the site of Nell is Air Force Base, which is located in
the northeast corner of the Las Vegas Valley. The area is served by McCarran
International Airport, one of the busiest airports in the west. Several
smaller airfields are also located in the county.
Las Vegas and the nearby communities lie in a large bowl surrounded by
mountains, the tallest of which is Charleston Peak (11,910 ft) to the north-
west. These topographic features aggrevate atmospheric pollution problems.
Atmospheric inversion conditions exist for about 45% of the year. There are
periods of sustained stagnation lasting several days, occurring most
frequently between November and January. Average maximum and minimum
temperatures in Las Vegas range from 32°F in January to 1C5°F in July.
2-2
-------
3.0 BASELINE AIR QUALITY
Like many other areas in the southwest and California, photochemical
oxidant is the major air pollution problem in the Las Vegas Region, with
carbon monoxide a smaller but significant problem. Table 3-1 shows the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for oxidant and CO along with the
actual readings from air quality data in Las Vegas.
Table 3-1 Las Vegas Air Quality Summary
Pollutant
Oxidant
Carbon Monoxide
Applicable
Federal
Primary
Standard
160 ;jg/m3
(1 hr.max)
10 mg/m
(max. 8 hr
avg)
2nd Highest
Observed
Concentration
3
410jug/m
351 jug/m3
3*
22.4 mg/m
Year
1972
1973
1973
% Rollback
70'1)
54(2)
(1) Based on Figure A-3, Appendix A.
^ (2) Linear rollback assumed.
This is actually the highest reading; see Section 3.2 for an explanation
3.1 OXIDANT
Air quality data for oxidant were available for the years 1970 to the
present at one site near downtown Las Vegas (625 Shadow Lane). Table 3-2 shows
the maximum oxidant values observed during the 1970 to 1973 period. The
observed maxima are compared to statistically predicted maxima for 1972 and
1973 (see Appendix A and Figures A-l and A-2 for details of the statistical
model). Agreement of predicted and observed values is closer during 1973
than during 1972. Although the 1972 predicted 2nd highest oxidant concentra-
tion is higher than the reported 2nd highest value, the observed value does
not appear out of line with historical data in Table 3-2. A 70% rollback is
indicated in Table 3-1 based upon the 410 pg/m3 level. Federal Standards are
interpreted as the level to be exceeded only once per year, and thus the second
highest oxidant concentration in Las Vegas is used for rollback calculation
in Table 3-1.
3-1
-------
Figure 3-1 illustrates the seasonal pattern for oxidant at the District
Health Department. Summer concentrations tend to be higher than those in the
winter, with May through August being the highest months. 1972 appears to
be a high year for oxidant as illustrated by both the yearly average (Fig. 3-1)
and the maximum (Table 3-2). The choice of 1972 as a base year for oxidant is
thus a conservative one. The seasonal pattern and the diurnal variation of
oxidant concentrations (Figure 3-2) illustrate the photochemical nature of
this pollutant.
It should be commented that photochemical oxidant tends to be an area-
wide problem. Since oxidant is a secondary (formed in the atmosphere) pollutant,
some atmospheric dispersion of precursor hydrocarbon has already occurred prior
to oxidant formation. Further, emissions (especially from automobiles) tend to
diffuse. Thus the existence of only one sampling site for oxidant should not
drastically bias the maximum value to be observed in the Las Vegas area.
It has been observed in the Los Angeles and San Diego Air Basins, for
instance, that spatial variations in observed oxidant maxima occur over large
distances. The uncertainties of the oxidant measurement itself are often as
large as these spatial variations. Other pollutants such as CO and parti-
culates, on the other hand, can vary dramatically over short distances as a
reflection of emission sources.
Table 3-2 First and Second Highest Observed Oxidant
Concentrations
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
Date
4/18
10/9
7/3
6/21
3/18
5/24
5/10
6/25
Concentration (jjg/m3)
300
300
478
375
415*
410
438
351
Expected Maximum
(2nd Highest
Current Reading)
(See Appendix A)
540
420
*A reported value of 524 >jg/m3 was apparently incorrect due to
analytical errors.
3-2
-------
co
CO
200..
YEARLY AVE. = 130'
en
MOO.
JAN
,L_^4_--4.^^!_
300 T
oo
en
200--
YEARLY AVE. = 200
100-
t '" »
I f I" "< ..... t
DEC JAN
YEARLY AVE. = .084
TJEC
YEARLY AVE. = 130
1973
JAN
DEC JAN
"t - 1 - . I.M 1'
' "" " "
DEC
Figure 3-1. Las Vegas Seasonal Pattern for Oxidant in jjg/m
(Average of Daily Maximum Hourly Averages by Month)
-------
200
4 am
8 am
12 noon
HOUR
4 pm 8 pm
Figure 3-2.
Monthly Average of Oxidant Concentrations by
Hour of the Day, Las Vegas, 1973
3-4
-------
3.2 CARBON MONOXIDE
CO has been continuously monitored at a site in downtown Las Vegas
only since November of 1973. Additional monitoring for CO was done at
major intersections in the area from October through December of 1973.
Lack of 1972 data requires 1973 to be used as the base year. Table 3-3
lists the observed CO maxima since November 1973, The first high CO concen-
tration is used for rollback calculations since an entire year's data was not
available.
Table 3-3 First and Second Highest 8 Hour Average
Carbon Monoxide Concentrations in Las Vegas-1973
Location
Downtown
(Fire station)
Maryland Parkway
& Desert Inn Road
Date
12/7
11/29
12/5
12/7
8 Hour Average (mg/m )
16.6
16.2
22.4
19.0
(The federal primary standard is 10 mg/m for an 8 hour average.)
T.
Table 3-4 shows the general pattern of CO levels over a 9 month period.
The winter months tend to be higher than spring and summer months, reflect-
ing probably more periods of stagnant air during winter. (A similar pattern
is observed in several California Air Basins). Carbon monoxide, unlike
oxidant, is a primary pollutant, and thus reflects localized emissions and
is subject to local variations. Not surprisingly then, the highest observed
level occurred at a heavily traveled intersection with little wind activity.
The CO levels in Table 3-4 are at rooftop level and are somewhat lower than
at major intersections.
A statistical approach to CO data similar to that for oxidant was not
attempted due to insufficient data. The 22.4 mg/m3..value is. thus used as.an
8 hour maximum. It should be commented that the 1 hour federal CO standards
3-5
-------
of .40 mg/m will also be met by a rollback of the magnitude required to
meet the 8 hour standard of 10 mg/m .
Table 3-4 Las Vegas Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
by Month (Downtown Sampling Site) (mg/nr)
Daily Avg.
1 hour
maximum
8 hour
maximum
NOV
4.4
40
16
1973
DEC
5.4
25
17
JAN
3.9
58
17
FEB*
2.3
39
10
MAR
3.5
16
12
1974
APRIL*
1.5
11
4
MAY*
0.87
8
4
JUNE*
1.9
12
7
Concentrations are not entirely representative since several days during
some months are missing data. The numbers do show the trend referred to
in the text, however.
In view of the high summer oxidant pattern and high winter carbon
monoxide pattern and the dominance of automotive contributions to both
oxidant and CO, it would not be appropriate to apply controls on a
seasonal basis.
3-6
-------
4.0 EMISSION INVENTORY
This section of the report details the sources of information,
methods of calculation and assumptions made in compiling baseline and
projected (1977 and 1982) emission inventories.
4.1 BASELINE EMISSION INVENTORY
Both the Clark County District Health Department (DHD) and EPA
(in the form of the National Emission Data System, or NEDS) have com-
piled comprehensive area and point source emission inventories for the
year 1972. Unfortunately, it was not possible to use these inventories
for both carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. This is because the lack of
1972 air quality data for CO prevented the drawing of any conclusions
relating CO air quality and emissions in 1972. To circumvent this diffi-
culty, the following strategy was adopted: (1) because CO air quality
data is available for 1973, this year was chosen as the baseline year for
CO and 1972 emissions were projected for one year (the method of pro-
jection is explained in Section 4.2.1) and (2) however, since significant-
ly higher oxidant readings occured in 1972 as compared to 1973, 1972 was
selected as the baseline year for hydrocarbon emissions.
4.1.1 Hydrocarbon Reactivity Factors
The reactivity factors used in this study are based on the latest
EPA analysis of smog chamber data (see Table 4-0). They are identical
to the factors used in a recent oxidant contingency plan study (4-18),
except for diesel marketing and power plants burning coal.
4.1.2 Stationary Sources
The following agencies were contacted to obtain a 1972 inventory of
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide:
Agency Source Categories
Clark County DHD t Area sources of industrial processes
t Domestic, commercial and industrial space
heating
Solid Waste disposal
4-1
-------
Agency
EPA (in the form of
NEDS)
Source Categories
Point sources of industrial process
Power plants
One source category not covered by the Clark County DHD and EPA is organic
solvent usage. To estimate hydrocarbon emissions from this source category
(no CO is emitted), the emission factor of 8 Ibs/capita year (4-17) was used.
Table 4-1 illustrates 1972 hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions.
As mentioned in Section 4.1, the 1972 emission figures for hydro-
carbons suffice . In order to arrive at a projected 1973 figure for carbon
monoxide, the following strategy was used:
Source Category
Area sources of industrial
processes
Domestic, commercial and
industrial space heating
Solid waste disposal
9 Point sources of industrial
process
Power plants
Method
The Nevada State Implementation Plan
assumes an 18% growth rate from 1970
to 1975 for these sources, or a 3.6%/
year growth rate. Thus a 3.6% in-
crease from 1972 to 1973 was assumed.
In Section 4.2.1, emission projections
for these sources are done for the
years 1977 and 1982. By linear inte-
polation between 1972 and 1977, 1973
figures were obtained.
The results of this process are shown in Table 4-2.
It was considered desirable to divide space heating emissions into two
categories, domestic and commercial-industrial. Since the only inventory
located which made this breakdown is the one in the 1970 SIP, the following
procedure was adopted - in 1970, domestic fuel combustion contributed 64%
of the total CO fuel combustion emissions and 18% of the total HC fuel com-
bustion emissions, while commercial-industrial fuel combustion contributed
the remainder (Table 4-3). These percentages were assumed to hold true in
1972 and all subsequent years. Table 4-4 illustrates this breakdown, as
well as being a summary baseline emission inventory for CO and HC.
4.1.3 Mobile Sources
Aircraft
The general approach to calculating aircraft emissions is explained in
Appendix C.
4-2
-------
Table 4-0 Hydrocarbon Reactivity Factors
Stationary Sources
Gasoline Marketing
Diesel Marketing
Power Plants - Coal Combustion
Organic Solvents
Other
Motor Vehicles
Light Duty Vehicle Exhaust
Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust
Light and Heavy Duty Vehicle Evaporative
Motorcycles
Diesels
Other Mobile Sources
Jet Aircraft
Piston Aircraft
93%
100%
0%
20%
10%
77%
79%
93%
96% (2-stroke)
86% (4-stroke)
99%
90%
77% exhaust
93% evaporative
Source : Reference 4-8, except for diesel marketing (Reference 4-19)
and power plants - coal combustion (Reference 4-20)
4-3
-------
Table 4-1. 1972 Stationary Source Emission Inventory for
Clark County (tons/year)
Source Category
Industrial Processes
(1) Area
(2) Point
Power Plants
Domestic, Industrial and Commercial
Space Heating
Solid Waste Disposal
Organic Solvent Usage
Total
Total HC
221
2804
631
345
14
1292
5307
CO
-
3008
1066
169
32
-
4275
Does not include the Mohave Power Plant whose emissions have a negliqable effect
on the observed air quality values near Las Vegas.
Based on 8 Ibs/capita-year and a population of 322,915.
Table 4-2. 1973 Stationary Source Emission Projections for
Carbon Monoxide in Clark County (tons/year)
Source Category
CO
Industrial Processes
(1) Area
(2) Point
Power Plants
Domestic, Industrial and Commercial
Space Heating
Solid Waste Disposal
Total
3008
1128
175
33
4334
4-4
-------
Table 4-3. Fuel Combustion Emissions in 1970 for Clark County
(tons/year)
Source Category
Residential
Commercial -Industrial
Total
THC % of Total
43 18
196 82
239 100
CO
105
58
163
% of Total
64
36
100
Source: Nevada State Implementation Plan (1970)
Table 4-4. Baseline Stationary Source Emission Inventory
Source Category
Industrial Processes
(1) Area
(2) Point
Power Plants
Space Heating
(1) Domestic
(2) Commercial -Indus.
Solid Waste Disposal
Organic Solvent Usage
Total
Total HC (1972)
tons/year
221
2804
631
62
283
14
1292
5307
tons/day
0.6
7.7
1.7
0.2
0.8
0.04
3.5
14.5
Reactive HC (1972)
tons/day
0.06
7.0
0.09
0.02
0.08
-
0.7
8.0
CO (1973)
tons/yr
-
3008
1128
112
63
33
-
4344
tons /day
-
8.2
3.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
-
11.9
4-5
-------
The Clark County Department of Aviation (4-1) and McCarran
International Airport (4-2) were the sources of information for the number
of aircraft operations at McCarran in 1972. For the North Las Vegas Air
Terminal, 1972 aircraft operations information was obtained from the Federal
Aviation Administration (4-3) and the North Las Vegas Air Terminal (4-4).
For Nell is Air Force Base, information was obtained from personnel at the
base (4-5). (Emissions from approximately 8 small general aviation airfields
in Clark County were ignored because the magnitude of their contributions was
considered insignificant as compared to McCarran, North Las Vegas, and Nellis.)
The data provided a description of each airport in terms of air carrier,
general aviation and military activity and also an identification of aircraft
types within these activity classes for the period of January through
December of 1972.
In order to compute emissions generated by the various aircraft at these
airports, each aircraft type was classified (in the scope of this report)
according to the EPA aircraft classification system (see Appendix C). The
EPA emission factors were then applied directly to the aircraft activities
within each classification.
The baseline year for hydrocarbon emission calculations is 1972, while
1973 is the carbon monoxide baseline year. To obtain 1973 aircraft activity,
the 1972 figures were projected for one year, using the commercial, general
aviation and military aircraft operations growth factors contained in the
State Implementation Plan. The application of this projection technique is
discussed in detail in Section 4.2.2.
Total hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emissions for the respective
1972 and 1973 base years were computed by using the operation activity for
each aircraft class at each airport, and emission factors from the revision
of EPA document AP-42 (4-6). The procedure for calculation is given by
IM -
F = *
tBY
A PEerM poutantlsslofactor (
(365 gg) (2HOO ) (
4-6
-------
Table 4-5 Base Year THC Aircraft Emissions at McCarran
International Airport
Aircraft Class
1
1
2
3
3
3
4
4
5
6
7
7
7
11
12
12
/
Total Operations
in 1972
(Thousands)
1.25
1.26
24.55
2.1.98
14.99
18.40
5.48
1.56
4.76
0.05
70.58
18.00
1.40
24.21
1.07
0.20
Number
of Engines
3
4
4
2
3
4
2
4
1
2
1
2
4
1
2
4
Engine LTO
Cycles*
^Thousands)
1.88
2.52
49.10
21.98
22.49
36.80
5.48
3.12
2.38
0.05
35.29
18.00
2.80
12.11
1.07
0.40
Total =
1972 THC
Emission
(Tons/ Day)
.03
.04
2.77
0.11
0.11
0.19
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.002
0.17
0.03
0.01
3.53
*LTO Cycles = °Per^tions x Number of Engines
4-7
-------
Table 4-6 Base Year Total Hydrocarbon and Carbon Monoxide
Emissions at Clark County Airports
Airport
McCarran International
Ai rport
Total
North Las Vegas
Air Terminal
Total
Nell is Air Force
Total
All Airports Total
Aircraft
Class
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11
12
5
7
9
1
9
10
11
12
THC (Tons/Day)
1972
0.07
2.77
0.41
0.03
0.01
-
0.03
0.16
0.04
3.52
0.01
0.04
-
0.05
_
-
-
0.91
0.01
0.92
4.5
RHC (Tons/Day)
1972
0.06
2.49
0.37
0.02
0.01
-
0.02
0.14
0.03
3.14
0.01
0.03
_
0.04
_
-
-
0.82
0.01
0.83 '
4.0
CO (Tons/Day)
1973
0.23
3.28
1.95
0.08
0.05
-
0.97
0.25
0.30
7.17
0.03
1.39
0.02
1.44
_
-
-
1.39
0.08
1.47
JO.l
4-8
-------
where ED.. is the base year emission in tons/day for a specified aircraft
or
class, A is the operations activity for the specified aircraft class in
operations per year, and N is the number of engines for the specified aircraft
class. Table 4-5 shows a sample calculation for McCarran International Air-
port for the base year 1972 hydrocarbon emissions. From the example it can be
seen that all Class 1, 3, 4, 7, and 12 aircraft do not possess the same number
of engines (see Appendix C for aircraft classification). Hence, Class 1, 3,
4, 7, and 12 have been segregated by aircraft engine number to account for the
total number of "engine LTOs."
Table 4-6 shows the base year hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions
for each airport and for each aircraft class at each airport in Clark County.
Railroads
The State Implementation Plan attributed 275 tons/year of carbon monoxide
and 382 tons/year of hydrocarbons to railroad emissions in 1970. Using a
3.6% per year growth rate (4-9), the baseline emissions from railroads are
shown in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7. Baseline Emissions from Railroads
THC (1972) -
RHC (1972) -
CO (1973) -
tons/year
410
406
306
tons/day
1.12
1.1
0.84
Motor Vehicles
Baseline emissions for light duty vehicles, heavy duty gasoline and
diesel powered vehicles and motorcycles were calculated by the method
discussed in Appendix B. The results are shown in Table 4-8.
Table 4-8. Baseline Emissions from Motor Vehicles (tons/day)
Light Duty Vehicles
Heavy Duty Vehicles
Gasoline Powered
Diesel Powered
Motorcycles
THC (1972)
22.0
6.1
0.2
0.8
RHC (1972J
18.4
5.1
0.19
0.74
CO (1973)
110.8
33.7
1.4
2.9
4-9
-------
Gasoline Marketing
The total number of gallons of gasoline marketed in Clark County in
1972 is shown in Table 4-9. To obtain emissions, it is assumed that all
service station storage tanks are equipped with submerged fill pipes, in
accordance with Section 20 of the District Health Department (DHD) regu-
lations (4-10). Emissions from gasoline marketing are shown in Table 4-10.
Table 4-9. Gasoline Marketed in Clark County, 1972
Sales by Service Stations
Federal Sales
Railroads
Miscellaneous
Total
Gallons
176,091,171
2,478,351*
17,801*
87,491*
178,674,814
These figures are 55% of statewide figures (55% of Nevada's
population lives in Clark County).
Source: State of Nevada, Department of Highways, Accounting
and Finance Division
Table 4-10. Emissions from Gasoline Marketing Operations, 1972
Point of Emission
Service station tank
(submerged fill)
Filling automobile ta
Total
THC Emission Factor*
(lbs/103 gallons)
7
ik 12
Gallons
Throughput
178,674,814
178,674,814
Emissions (tons/day)
THC RHC
1.7 1.6
2.9 2.7
4.6 4.3
Source: Reference 4-11
4-10
-------
Table 4-11.
Summary Baseline CO and RHC Emission
Inventory (tons/day)
Stationary Sources
1. Industrial Processes
a) Area
b) Point
2. Power Plants
3. Space Heating
a) Domestic
b) Industrial and Commercial
4. Solid Waste Disposal
5. Organic Solvent Usage
Total, Stationary Sources
Mobile Sources
1. Light Duty Vehicles
2. Heavy Duty Gasoline Powered Vehicles
3. Heavy Duty Diesel Powered Vehicles
4. Motorcycles
a) Two stroke
b) Four stroke
5. Aircraft
6. Railroads
7. Gasoline Marketing
Total , Mobile Sources
Grand Total
RHC (1972)
0.06
7.0
0.09
0.02
0.08
-
0.7
8.0
18.4
5.1
0.2
0.48
0.26
4.0
1.1
4.3
33.8
41.8
CO (1973)
-
8.2
3.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
-
11.9
110.8
33.7
1.4
0.9
2.2
10.1
0.84
-
159.7
171.8
4-11
-------
1 Stationary Sources
2 Light Duty Vehicles
3 Heavy Duty Vehicles
4 Motorcycles
5 Aircraft
6 Railroads
7 Gasoline Marketing
50-,-
40--
30-.
20--
10--
0-L
RHC
(1972)
200 _
160- -
120- -
80- -
40--
Ol
1
CO
(1973)
Figure 4-1.
Summary Baseline CO and RHC Emission
Inventory (tons/day).
4-12
-------
4.2 EMISSION PROJECTIONS
The two projection years are 1977 and 1982. It must be recognized
that many factors, among which are changes in the economy, availability of
energy supplies and the introduction of new technologies in control equip-
ment have not and cannot be accounted for in the scope of this report.
The projections made are based on the limited nature of information
available.
4.2.1 Stationary Sources
In the source categories of area source industrial processes, domestic,
commercial and institutional space heating and solid waste disposal, a 3.6%
per year growth rate from 1972 to 1975 and a 4% per year growth rate from
1975 through 1982 was used. These rates were obtained from the State Imple-
mentation Plan which assumed an 18% increase in emissions from 1970 to 1975
(or 3.6% per year) and an 8% increase from 1975 to 1977 (or 4% per year). The
4% growth rate was assumed to be accurate throucih 1982. As for organic solvent
usage, the same growth rates were assumed. Table 4-12 shows the emissions
from these sources in 1977 and 1982.
As for power plants and point sources of industrial processes, the expert
opinion of personnel at the DHD was solicited to determine what growth factors
were applicable. These factors and projections are contained in Table 4-13.
4.2.2 Mobile Sources
Aircraft
The equations and data used for projecting aircraft emissions to 1977 and
1982 are shown in Table 4-14. The first data column in the table provides
estimates (4-7) of engine life for turbines (15 years) and pistons (20 years).
The second column lists the equations derived for estimating future emissions
from known base year emissions (EnY)> growth rate (G) and emission reductions (R)
EBY is expressed in terms of tons/day of pollutant from the indicated aircraft
class. 6 is the fraction increase of base year emissions, except when used in
calculating Eg2, the emissions for 1982, where E is the synthetic base year;
and growth is expressed as a fraction increase in emissions from 1978.
A synthetic base year is used due to proposed emission regulations for engines
produced after January 1, 1979.
4-13
-------
Table 4-12. Emission Projections for Area Industrial Processes:
Residential, Commercial and Industrial Space Heating;
Solid Waste Disposal
Source Category
Industrial Process
(1) Area
Space Heating
(1) Residential
(2) Commercial -
Industrial
Solid Waste Disposal
Organic Solvent Usage
Total
1977
THC RHC CO
tons/ tons/ tons/
day day day
0.7 0.07 -
0.2 0.02 0.4
0.9 0.09 0.2
.05 0.01 0.1
4.2 0.8
5.2 1.0 0.7
1982
THC RHC CO
tons/ tons/ tons/
day day day
0.9 0.09 -
0.2 0.02 0.45
1.1 0.1 0.25
0.07 0.01 0.13
5.8 1.2
6.7 1-4 0.8
Similarly, emission reduction is expressed as a fraction decrease of base year
emissions for the indicated projection year. The reduction is based on 1978
emissions for calculating projected 1982 emissions. The derivation of values for
G and R will be discussed later.
The equations used for Aircraft Class 1 and Classes 4 through 12 are
identical. Emissions in 1977, and 1978 are calculated by simply applying the
appropriate growth factor to the base year emissions for each class. Here, 1978
emissions are calculated only for use in projecting 1982 emissions. The expression
for Egp differs from the preceding equations in the table because of
federal aircraft emission regulations which affect all new engines produced after
1 January 1979 (4-8). This expression contains essentially three terms and
was derived as follows:
4-14
-------
Table 4-13. NEDS Emission Inventory - Total and Reactive Hydrocarbon Emissions (Tons/Year)
UTM Coordinates (KM)
Description of Source
Mohave Generating Station
Mohave Generating Station
Shell Oil Company
Flintkote Apex
Flintkote Apex
Flintkote Apex
Flintkote Apex
Flintkote Blue
Nevada Power Company
Unit #1
Unit #3
Unit #4
Unit #2
Nevada Power Company
Nevada Power Company
Nevada Power Company
Nevada Power Company
Stauffer Chemical
Johns Manville
Cal-Nev P/L Terminal
Cal-Nev P/L Terminal
Cal-Nev P/L Terminal
Cal-Nev P/L Terminal
Cal-Nev P/L Terminal
Cal-Nev P/L Terminal
Cal-Nev P/L Terminal
Cal-Nev P/L Terminal
Cal-Nev P/L Terminal
Cal-Nev P/L Terminal
Cal-Nev P/L Terminal
Cal-Nev P/L Terminal
Cal-Nev P/L Terminal
Horizontal
720.
720.
666.
687.
687.
687.
687.
645.
711.
675.
675.
675.
676.
679.
691.
675.
675.
675.
675.
675.
675.
675.
675.
675.
675.
675.
675.
675.
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
3
6
8
8
8
9
5
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Vertical
3,890.2
3,890.0
3,995.0
4,025.4
4,025.4
4,025.4
4,025.4
3,991.2
4,095.5
3,995.2
3,995.2
3,995.2
3,990.2
3,990.2
4,010.8
4,012.9
4,012.9
4,012.9
4,012.9
4,012.9
4,012.9
4,012.9
4,012.9
4,012.9
4,012.9
4,012.9
4,012.9
4,012.9
1972 (Base)
THC
224
224
309
9
9
10
10
2
42
0
0
52
51
92
81
89
62
1
146
624
26
920
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
RHC
0
0
278
0.9
0
0.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.1
9.2
8.1
8.9
6.2
0.1
146
624
24.2
855.6
24.2
24.2
24.2
24.2
24.2
24.2
24.2
24.2
24.2
IHC
294
294
30.
9
9
10
10
2
47.
21
0
58.
51
92
81
89
62
1
161.
68.
28.
101.
28.
28.
28.
28.
28.
28.
28.
28.
28.
1977
7
3
5
2
8
6
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
RHC
0
0
27.6
0.9
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5:1
9.2
8.1
8.9
6.2
0.1
161.2
68.8
26.6
94.6
26.6
26.6
26.6
26.6
26.6
26.6
26.6
26.6
26.6
1982 Reactivity
THC
336
336
33.9
9
9
10
10
2
50.4
50.4
43.7
62.4
51
92
81
89
62
1
171.1
72
30.4
107.9
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
. 30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
RHC
0
0
30.5
0.9
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.1
9.2
8.1
8.9
6.2
0.1
171.1
72
28.3
100.3
28.3
28.3
28.3
28.3
28.3
28.3
28.3
28.3
28.3
Factor
0
0
0.9
0.1
0
0.1
0
0
Q
o-
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1
1
.93
.93
.93
.93
.93
.93
.93
.93
.93
.93
.93
Comments
See CO projections
See CO projections
Aircraft Bulk Terminal Loading
Station - Growth of 2% per year -
90% evaporative controls by 1977
Constant (lime manufacturing)
Constant (natural gas fuel combustion]
Constant (lime manufacturing)
Constant (natural gas combustion)
Constant (natural gas combustion)
See CO projections
See CO projections
See CO projections
See CO projections
See CO projections
See CO projections
See CO projections
See CO projections
See CO projections
See CO projections
Storage loss of dlesel fuel, no
additional controls, 25! per year
growth rate
Diesel fuel working loss, 2% per year
growth rate, 90* control in 1977
Gasoline storage loss, no controls,
2% per year growth rate
Gasoline working loss, 901 control in
1973, 2% per year growth rate
Storage loss, no controls, 2% per yea-
growth rate
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
-------
Table 4-13. NEDS Emission Inventory - Total and Reactive Hydrocarbon Emissions (Tons/Year) (Continued)
CTl
Description of Source
Cal-Nev P/L Terminal
Cal-Nev P/L Terminal
Cal-Nev P/L Terminal
Cal-Nev P/L Terminal
Cal-Nev P/L Terminal
Cal-Nev P/L Terminal
Texaco, Inc.
Texaco, Inc.
Texaco, Inc.
Texaco, Inc.
Texaco, Inc.
Texaco, Inc.
Nevada Rock and Sand
Nevada Rock and Sand
UTM Coordinates (KM)
Horizontal Vertical
675.
675.
675.
675.
675.
675.
675.
675.
675.
675.
675.
675.
§77.
677.
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
4,012.
4,012.
4,012.
4,012.
4,012.
4,012.
4,012.
4,012.
4,012.
4,012.
4,012.
4,012.
4, COO.
4,000.
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
1972 (Base)
THC
26
26
26
26
26
26
31
53
21
115
21
35
5
5
RHC
24
24
24
24
24
24
31
53
19
107
19
32
0
0
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.5
.5
.6
.5
1977
THC
28.6
28.6
28.6
28.6
28.6
28.6
34.2
5B.4
26.7
14.7
26.7
44.6
5
5
RHC
26.6
26.6
26.6
26.6
26.6
26.6
34.2
58.4
24.8
13.7
24.8
41.5
O'.S
0
1982 Reactivity
THC RRT Factor
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
30.4
36.3
62
30.9
17
30.9
51.6
5
5
28.3
28.3
28.3
28.3
28.3
28.3
36.3
62
28.7
15.8
28.7
47.9
0.5
0
.93 .
.93
.93
.93
.93
.93
1.0
1.0
.93
.93
.93
.93
.1
0
Comments
Storage Loss, no controls, 2% per year
growth rate
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above (diesel fuel)
Same as above (diesel fuel)
Gasoline storage loss, 5% per year
growth rate, no controls
90% control by 1973, 5% per year
growth rate, gasoline storage
Petroleum products storage, 5% per
year growth rate
Same as above
No growth
No growth (natural gas combustion)
-------
Table 4-13. NEDS Emission Inventory - Carbon Monoxide Emissions (Tons/Year) (Continued)
I
~J
-acriptlon of Source
Mohave Generating Station
Mohave Generating Station
Flintkote Blue
Nevada Power Company
Unit #1
Unit #3
Unit #4
Unit #2
Nevada Power Company
Nevada Power Company
Nevada Power Company
Nevada Power Company
Stauffer Chemical
Johns Manville
Titanium Metals
UTM Coordinates (KM)
Horizontal Vertical 1972 (base) 1973 1977
720.0
711.6
675.8
679.5
691.3
680.4
3,890.2
720.0 3,890.0
645.3 3,991.2
711.6 4,059.5
4,059.5
3,995.2
3,990.2
4,010.8
3,990.3
747
140
175
1
1
3
3000
794
186
1
980
747 794 980
4 44
143.5 157.5
84
229.5
1
675.8
675.8
676.9
3,995.2
3,995.2
3,990.2
1 1 1
1 11
1 1 1
1 1
3 3
3000 3000
1982
1120.5
1120.5
4
168
168
145.6
262.5
1
1
1
1
1
3
3000
Comments
Presently at 603! generating capacity,
projected 90% generating capacity
by 1980 and holding at 90% through
1982. Fuel is bituminous coal.
Same as above
Constant through 1982, no growth and
no controls
Presently at 75% generating capacity,
projected 90% generating capacity
by 1980 and holding constant at 90%
through 1982. Fuel is bituminous
coal.
To be installed. Will be at 30% .
generating capacity in 1976 and 90%
capacity by 1980 and holding
constant thereafter
To be installed, will be at 30%
generating capacity by 1978 and 90%
capacity by 1983.
Same as Unit #1
At 75% capacity, no growth expected,
turbine units to be added but these
units have negligible CO and HC
emissions. Fuel is residual oil.
At capacity, no growth. Fuel is
residual oil.
At capacity, no growth. Fuel is
natural gas.
At capacity, no growth. Fuel is
residual oil. Turbine units to be
added, but these units have
negligible HC and CO emissions.
No growth anticipated. (Wat'l gas comb)
No growth anticipated.
No growth, no controls.
-------
1. 2. 3.
1982 Emissions = 1978 emissions + emissions increase - emissions reduction
due to growth in due to engine
operations replacement
Term 1: 1978 Emissions = E, as previously calculated
Term 2: Emissions increase due to growth in operations = G X (1-R) XE
(Note: Since this growth occurs after the proposed emission
regulations come into effect, the growth must be
modified by the application of an appropriately reduced
emission rate, ergo the (1-R) factor.)
1982 1978
Term 3: Emissions reduction due to engine replacement = R X (l3C"-"'3/0) x r
= R X ( £ ) x E78
where L is the life of the engine. The fraction 4/L represents the fraction
of the aircraft engines of a particular class in 1978 which will be replaced
with new engines by 1982. This fraction effects a proportionate reduction in
emissions, since the replacement engines must comply with the 1 January 1979
emission standards.
Thus, the emissions equation for 1982 reduces to the following:
E82 = E78 (1 + G (1'R) " R ( U ) >
Classes 2 and 3 are special cases as one may observe from Table 4-14,
because of burner can retrofit programs which effectively reduce hydrocarbon
and carbon monoxide emissions. These programs affect emissions in 1977 and
the respective emission equations must show this.
For Class 2, the retrofit program is assumed (4-7) to be planned for the
three-year period from 1975 through 1977. It is estimated to have the
following effect on emission factors (4-7):
4-18
-------
THC CO
Pre-retrofit 41 Ib/engine/LTO 47.4 Ib/engine/LTO
Post-retrofit 25 Ib/engine/LTO 43.0 Ib/engine/LTO
The equations used for estimating 1977 and 1978 emissions were derived
as follows, taking the projection year 1977 for the purpose of
illustration.
1. 2. 3.
1977 emissions = base year + emissions increase due - emissions reduction due
emissions to growth in to portion of retrofit
operations program complete by
mid-1977
Term 1: Base year emissions = EBY
Term 2: Emissions increase due to growth in operations = G X EgY
Term 3: Emissions reduction due to portion of retrofit program complete
by mid-1977 =
R X (1+G) X EBY
Where:
R is the appropriate reduction factor for 1977 (discussed later in
this text).
Thus,
E?7 = EBY + (G X EBY) - R X (1+G) X EBY
= EBY (1+G) (1-R)
Emissions for 1978 are calculated similarly.
For Class 3 aircraft, similar logic leads to identical equations,
this time because the retrofit program (as described previously in this
text) was at a near state of completion in the base year, 1972. Thus the
effective reduction in emissions from the base year to 1977 or 1978
depends on the base year selected.
' 4-19
-------
Emission reductions are shown in Table 4-14 for each base year,
each projected year, each pollutant, and each aircraft class. Emission
reductions effective in 1977 and 1978 result from the burner can
retrofit programs involving Class 2 and Class 3 aircraft, described
earlier in the text. All Class 2 aircraft had the same (pre-retrofit)
emission factor, regardless whether the base year was 1972 or 1973.
However, the future emission factor depends on the projected year, since
the retrofit program is planned for 1975 through 1977. Thus, since the
pre-retrofit total hydrocarbon emission factor for Class 2 aircraft was
41 Ib/engine/LTO and the post-retrofit emission factor will be 25 Ib/engine/LTO,
the average emission factor in 1977 will be:
41 Ib/engine/LTO - 5/6 x (41 - 25) Ib/engine/LTO
and the reduction factor R will be:
5/6 x(414^ 25) = 0.33 (in other words 33%).
Reductions for 1978 were calculated similarly and appear in Table 4-14.
For Class 3 aircraft, the reduction depends on the base year, since the
burner can retrofit program was carried out through 1972. The emission
factors for Class 3 aircraft are shown in Table 4-15 for four possible base
years. Thus, since the post-retrofit total hydrocarbon emission factor is
(as was indicated earlier) 3.5 Ib/engine/LTO, and the 1970 emission factor
was 4.7 Ib/engine/LTO, the reduction R for 1977, and 1978 (i.e., any year
after the retrofit program was completed but before new standards come
into effect) is:
4.7 Ib/engine/LTO - 3.5 Ib/engine/LTO n ?,
4.7 Ib/engine/LTO ~ u> D
Emission reductions for all classes of aircraft between 1978 and
1982 are a result of the proposed federal emission standards, to be
effective on new turbine and piston aircraft engines starting 1 January 1979.
The emissions from each new engine (i.e., each engine manufactured on or
after 1 January 1979( will be lower than the emissions from its older (i.e.,
pre-1979) counterpart by the estimated (4-7) reduction values shown in
Table 4-14.
4-20
-------
Table 4-14. Data for Computation of Projected Civil Aircraft Emissions
Emission Reductions
Engine u-
Aircraft Life, L Emission Equations
Class
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
alt
Jumbo Jet
Long Range Jet
Medium Range Jet
Air Carrier
Turboprop
Business Jet
General Aviation
Turboprop
General Aviation
Piston Transport
Helicopter3
Military Transport
Military Jet
Military Piston
is assumed that all
(Yr)
15
15
15
15
15
15
20
20
15
15
15
20
have
E (Tons/Yr)
E77
E78
L82.
E77
E
"-7O
E78
L82
E77
E
7ft
E
L82
(See
(See
(See
(See
(See
(See
(See
(See
(See
" pBY
11 BY
= E78
~ t-nw
- pBY
C-nv
- EBY
b78
~ t-DV
= EBY
RV
= E
L78
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
(1+G)
(1+G) 4
(1+G (1-R) -R (1) )
(1+G) (1-R)
(1+G) (1-R) 4
(1+G (1-R) - R (i) )
(1+G) (1-R)
(1+G) (1-R) 4
(1+G) (1-R) - R (i) )
1)
1)
D
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
, R (Fraction of
B.Y.:1972 1973 1978
0
0
-
0.33
0.39
-
0.05
0.05
-
(See
(See
(See
0
0
-
-
(See
(See
(See
(See
0
0
-
0.33
0.39
-
0.00
0.00
-
Class
Class
Class
0
0
-
-
Class
Class
Class
Class
_
_
0.70
^_
_
0.70
_
.
0.70
1)
1)
1)
_
-
0.50
_
1)
1)
1)
7)
B.Y. Emissions)
CO
1972 1973 1978
0
0
-
0.077
0.093
-
0.03
0.03
- .
(See
(See
(See
0
0
-
_
(See
(See
(See
(See
0
0
0.077
0.093
0.00
0.00
-
Class
Class
Class
0
0
-
-
Class
Class
Class
Class
_
_
0.60
_
_
0.60
_
_
0.60
1)
1)
1)
_
_
0.50
:
i)
i)
i)
7)
turbine engines.
ro
-------
Table 4-15. Emission Factors for Class 3 Aircraft
Pollutant
THC
CO
1969
4.9
20.0
(Units
1970
4.7
19.5
in Ib/engine/LTO)
1971
4.2
18.5
1972
3.7
17.5
1973
3.5
17.0
Table 4-16 shows the listed general aviation, air carriers and military
operations activities for each airport and for each aircraft class at these
airports. Also shown are the activity growth factors from the designated base
years (1972 for HC, 1973 for CO) for each aircraft class in 1977, 1978 and
1982. The growth factors, which were derived from the State Implementation
Plan are indicative of a 3% (air carrier), 3% (general aviation) and -1%
(military) yearly growth for each respective aircraft category. The growth
factor for 1982 was computed on the basis of growth from projected 1978
activity. The 1978 base was used to accommodate the format for emissions pro-
jections dictated by the equations in Table 4-14.
Because of more recent information received from EPA, emissions from
Nellis AFB were increased by 40% over the projected values predicted by the
SIP. This is due to the Air Force's demonstration project known as the Con-
tinental Operations Range. Table 4-17 shows the projected hydrocarbon and carbon
monoxide emissions for each aircraft class and airport. This table was
generated by computations according to the equations specified in Table 4-14
and using the growth factors G (see Table 4-16). An example of such a
computation is illustrated below.
Consider the projected hydrocarbon emissions at McCarran International
Airport for Class 2 aircraft in 1977. According to Table 4-14, the expected
emissions in 1977 will be:
E7? = EBY (1+G) (1-R)
where
EBY = Class 2 aircraft emissions in the base year (1977)
= 2.77 tons/day (from Table 4-5)
4-22
-------
Substituting,
In 1982,
where
Thus,
and
'82
growth in fraction increase of base year
0.1S (from Table 4-16).
expected emission reductions in fraction of base year emissions
0.33 (from Table 4-14)
E77 = 2.77 (1+ 0.15 ) (1 - 0.33)
= 2.1 tons/day
E82 = E78
engine life time
15 years (from Table 4-14)
growth factor in fraction increase of 1978 emissions
0.12 (Table 4-16)
emission reduction in fraction of 1978 emissions
0.70 (from Table 4-14)
E7R = ERV (1+6) (1-R)
78
-BY
2.77 (1 + 0.18 ) (1- 0.39)
1.99 tons/day
E«o = 1.99 [1 + 0.12 (1 - 0.7) -
=1.69 tons/day
4 (0.7)
~~T5
Railroads
A growth rate of 3.6% per year from 1972 through 1975 and a 4% per year
growth rate from 1975 through 1982 was assumed. The State Implementation Plan
assumed an 18% growth rate from 1970 to 1975 (or 3.6% per year) and an 8% growth
rate from 1975 through 1977 (or 4% per year) for railroads. The 4% per year
growth rate was assumed to hold true through 1982. Table 4-18 shows the
projected emissions.
4-23
-------
Table 4-16 Aircraft Operations Activity for Civilian and Military Aircraft in Clark County
Airport
McCarran
International
Airport
N. Las Vegas
Air Terminal
Nell is
Air Force Base
Air-
craft
Class
1
1
2
3
3
3
4
4
5
6
7
7
7
11
12
12
5
7
7
9
1
9
10
11
11
12
Number
of
Engines
3
4
4
2
3
4
2
4
1
2
1
2
4
1
2
4
1
1
2
1
4
1
4
1
2
4
Total Operations
in Rase Year
(Thousands)
1972 1973
1.25
1.26
24.55
21.98
14.99
18.40
5.48
1.56
4.76
0.05
70.58
18.00
1.10
24.21
1.07
.20
2.60
139.35
7.38
4.34
0.024
0.72
0.10
26.40
54.04
0.20
1.29
1.30
25.29
22.64
15.44
18.95
5.64
1.61
4.90
0.05
72.69
18.54
1.44
23.97
1.06
.20
2.68
143.53
7.60
4.47
0.024
0.72
0.102
26.14
53.50
0.20
Operations
per Year
(Thousands]
1977
1.44
-1.45
28.23
25.28
17.24
21.16
6.3
1.79
5.51
0.06
81.82
20.87
1.62
23.02
1.02
.19
3.02
161.55
8.55
5.03
0.022
0.68
0.10
25.10
26.40
0.19
Growth Factor
from Base Year
1972 1973
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
Operations
per Year
(Thousands)
1978
1.48
1.49
28.99
25.94
17.69
21.71
6.47
1.84
5.68
0.06
84.27
21.49
1.67
22.79
1.01
.19
3.11
166.39
8.81
5.19
0.022
0.68
0.10
24.84
50.86
0.19
Growth Factor
from Base Year
1972 1973
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
-0.06
-0.06
-0.06
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
-0.06
-0.06
-0.06
-0.06
-0.06
-0.06
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15.
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
Operations
per Year
(Thousands)
1982
1.63
1.64
31.92
28.57
19.49
23.92
7.12
2.03
6.39
0.07
94.85
24.19
1.88
21.90
.97
.18
3.50
187.28
9.91
5.84
0.02
0.66
0.10
23.88
48.88
0.18
Growth Factor
from Base Year
1978
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
I
ro
Figures do not include aircraft operations due to the Air Force's Continental Operations
Range project
-------
Table 4-17
Base Year and Projected Total and Reactive Hydrocarbon and Carbon Monoxide Emissions at
Clark County Airports a
Airport
i-'lcCarran
International
Ai rport
TOTAL
N. Las Vegas
Air Terminal
TOTAL
Nellis
Air Force Base
TOTAL
ALL AIRPORTS TOTAL
Aircraft
Class
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11
12
5
7
9
1
9
10
11
12
THC
(Tons/Day)
1972 1977 1982
0.07 0.08 0.07
2.77 1.99 1.69
0.41 0.45 0.39
0.03 0.04 0.03
0.01 0.01 0.01
0.03 0.04 0.03
0.16 0.22 0.17
0.04 0.06 0.04
3.52 2.89 2.43
0.01 0.01 0.01
0.04 0.05 0.05
0.05 0.06 0.06
0.91 1 22 0.97
0.01 0.01 0.01
0.92 1.23 0.98
4.5 4.2 3.5
CO
(Tons/Day)
1973 1977 1982
0.29 0.32 o.29
3.28 3.39 3J2
1.95 2.18 1.99
0.08 0.09 o.08
0.05 0.06 0.06
0.97 1.09 0.99
0.25 0.33 0.28
0.30 0.4 0.32
7.17 7.86 7.13
0.03 0.03 0.03
1.39 1.56 1.55
0.02 0.02 0.02
1.44 1.61 1.6
1.39 1.88 1.58
0.08 0.11 0.08
1.47 1.99 1.66
10.1 11.5 10.4
RHC
(Tons/Day)
1972 1977 1982
0.06 0.07 0.06
2.49 1.79 1.52
0.37 0.41 0.35
0.02 0.03 0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01
0.02 0.03 0.02
0.14 0.20 0.15
0.03 0.06 0.04
3.14 2.6 2.17
0.01 0.01 0.01
0.03 0.04 0.04
0.04 0.05 0.05
0.82 1.09 0.87
0.01 0.01 0.01
0.83 1.10 0.88
4.0 3.8 3.1
PO
en
Figures account for the Air Force's Continental Operations Range project
-------
Motor Vehicles
Projected emissions from light duty vehicles, heavy duty gasoline and
diesel powered vehicles and motorcycles were calculated by the method
indicated in Appendix B. Table 4-19 illustrates the results.
Gasoline Marketing
The rate of growth in gasoline marketing from 1972 to 1977 and 1982
was assumed equal to the growth rate in VMT between these years (see
Appendix B). Table 4-20 shows the projected number of gallons of gasoline
marketed in 1977 and 1982, as well as emissions.
Table 4-18. Projected Emissions from Railroads
THC
RHC
CO
1977
(Tons/Day)
1.4
1.38
0.9
1982
(Tons/Day)
1.6
1.58
1.2
Table 4-19. Projected Emissions from Motor Vehicles (Tons/Day)
Light Duty Vehicles
Heavy Duty Vehicles
Gasoline Powered
Diesel Powered
Motorcycles
RHC
9.2
5.4
0.26
0.96
1977
CO
70.9
36.0
1.6
4.1
1982
RHC
3.8
5.8
0.33
1.2
CO
24.8
43.6
2.0
5.2
4-26
-------
Table 4-20. Projected Emissions from Gasoline Marketing
Year
1977
1982
Gallons of Gasoline Marketed
244,784,495
305,533,932
THC Emission Factor*
(lbs/103 gallons)
19**
19**
Emissions (Tons/Day)
THC RHC
6.4 5.9
7.9 7.4
*Source: Reference 4-11
**Combined service station tanks and automobile tanks emissions.
4.3 TRANSPORTATION DATA
4.3.1 Travel Characteristics
The Las Vegas Valley Transportation Study (LVVTS) of 1970 derived
information gathered by interviews concerning the travel characteristics
of residents and visitors in the Las Vegas region^ Based on pre 1970 data,
this study indicated that:
The average resident trip length was 9.52 minutes or
alternatively 3.77 miles.
The average vehicular speed was 24 mph.
The average occupancy was 2.10 persons/trip.
Tables 4-22 and 4-23 summarize the number of trips by mode and type. The
projections in Table 4-23were made assuming 1) government trips will reduce
because governments will regionalize, 2) commercial home delivery trips
will lessen because of the shoppers' increased mobility, 3) the citywide
economy will continue to improve, 4) the birth rate will decline. An
interesting fact brought out by the LVVTS was that hotel-motel trips accounted
for 2.86 vehicle trips/occupied room/24 hour period, or a total of 44,390 trips,
which exceeds both external and taxi trips combined.
The projections of travel characteristics contained in the LVVTS were based
on a set of population projections which have since been revised downwards
by the Regional Planning Council. The new projections are: 421,300 in
1980, 563,000 in 1990 and 700,000 in 2000.
4-27
-------
Table 4-21. Summary of Projected Emissions for Clark County
(tons/day)
Stationary Sources
1. Industrial Processes
a) Area
b) Point
2. Power Plants
3. Space Heating
a) Domestic
b) Industrial and Commercial
4. Solid Waste Disposal
5. Organic Solvent Usage
Total, Stationary Sources
Mobile Sources
1. Light Duty Vehicles
2. Heavy Duty Gasoline Powered Vehicles
3. Heavy Duty Diesel Powered Vehicles
4. Motorcycles
a) Two stroke
b) Four stroke
5. Aircraft
6. Railroads
7. Gasoline Marketing
Total, Mobile Sources
Grand Total
1977
RHC
0.07
2.7
0.085
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.8
3.75
9.2
5.4
0.26
0.66
0.30
3.8
1.38
5.9
26.9
30.65
cpi
-
8.2
3.99
0.4
0.2
0.1
-
12.9
70.9
36.0
1.6
1.15
2.99
11.5
0.9
-
125
137.9
1982
RHC
0.09
2.9
0.085
0.02
0.1
0.01
1.2
4.3
3.8
5.8
0.33
0.84
0.37
3.1
1.58
7.4
23.2
27.5
CO
-
8.2
5.1
0.45
0.25
0.13
-
14.1
24.8
43.6
2.0
1.45
3.77
10.4
1.2
-
87.2
101.3
Does not include the Mohave Power Plant
4-28
-------
1 Stationary Sources
2 Light Duty Vehicles
3 Heavy Duty Vehicles
4 Motorcycles
5 A1rcraft
5 Railroads
7 Gasoline Marketing
40 T
160 _
30..
I
I\J
ID
20..
10 ..
0-L
7
6
5
4
3
2
t
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1977
RHC
1982
120-
80-
/I A
*HJ -
0
5
a
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
1977
CO
Figure 4-2. Summary of Projected Emissions for Clark County (tons/day)
1982
-------
A study conducted by the City of North Las Vegas C4-12) in 1974
indicated that 80% of the residents in that city drove to work in auto-
mobiles, while 15% were automobile riders and only 5% used other modes
(walking, bicycle, bus, motorcycle). These figures were considered
representative of the entire Las Vegas area (4-13):
4.3.2 Taxi Cab Service
There are presently 11 cab companies operating in the Las Vegas area,
with a total of 283 vehicles (4-14). The average trip length is approxi-
mately 3 miles and the annual average number of trips is 4 million. The
Nevada Taxi Authority regulates the number of cabs, rate structures, safety
standards and colors.
4.3.3 Public Transit Service
Only one company, the Las Vegas Transit System, Inc., provides intra-
city service in Las Vegas. The size of the bus fleet is 25, with 21
operating during peak periods. The company provides 9 routes which are
basically circular in nature and the fleet travels approximately 3300 miles
per day (4-15). The fare structure is
Adult cash fare $ .50
Adult token fare (6 tokens) .... 2.40
Adult commuter card fare (20 rides). 6.70
Children under 13 years of age ... .15
Children under 6 years of age with
paying adult passenger free
Transfers free
In 1965, less than 1.3% of all resident person trips were made via public
transit (4-22). in 1972, the average weekday passenger trips totaled
8,000 and average peak hour passenger trips totaled 1,000 (4-21).
The company switched to an east-west routing of lines in September of
1974. . This expansion was estimated to provide transit to,approximately
75,000 more residents (4-15). However, in January of 1975, the Las Vegas
Transit System Inc. petitioned to switch from this east -west routing to a
modified radial system because the anticipated increase in ridership did
not occur.
4-30
-------
4.3.4 Parking Facilities
The LVVTS placed the total number of parking spaces in the central
business district of Las Vegas at 10,516 in 1965 (Table 4-24). Off street
parking included both public (4,822 spaces) and private (3,434 spaces)
facilities, while on street parking consisted of 1,137 metered and
1,113 unmetered spaces. In 1973, metered on street sites totaled 1,169
spaces and unmetered sites, 1,709 (4-16). The LVVTS predicted a deficit of
parking spaces as follows:
Year
1980
1990
2000
Population
563,000
700,000
1,000,000
Number of Spaces Needed
18,500
21,100
30,200
Table 4-22. Trip Mode Distribution in the Las Vegas Valley, 1965
Type of Trip
Resident (Work-Home-Based)
Resident (Socio-Recreation-
Home-Based)
Resident (Shopping-Home-Based)
Resident (Otber4Home-Based)
Resident (Non-Home-Based)
Motel Patron
Taxi
Commercial Pickup
External Cars
Government Cars
External Trucks
Government Trucks
Commercial Trucks
Total
Vehicle
Trips
105,926
78,074
94,708
96,701
78,933
44,390
12,940
47,676
22,955
7,332
2,215
1,129
14,391
607,370 1
*Special busses - Motel, Airport Limousi
**Total Public Transit
***Total All Bus Passengers
Person
Trips
140,882
222,511
194,151
277,532
156,287
112,307
25,104
54,351
62.897
8,652
3,566
2,111
16,981
,277,310
ne, Tours,
Persons/
Vehicles
1.33
2.85
2.05
2.87
1.98
2.53
1.94
1.14
2.74
1.18
1.61
1.87
1.18
etc.
Persons
Bus
2,060
516
651
12,834
504
17,233*
16,565**
33,798***
Source: Las Vegas Valley Transportation Study
4-31
-------
Table 4-23. Projected Trip Mode Distribution in the
Las Vegas Valley
Type of Trip
Resident.; (Work-Home-Based) '
Resident (Socio-Recreation-
Home-Based)
Resident (Shopping-Home-Based)
Resident (Other-Home-Based)
Resident (Non-Home-Based)
Motel
Taxi
Commercial Pickup
External Cars
Government Cars
External Trucks
Government Trucks
Commercial Trucks
Total Vehicle Trips
Population
1965
105,926
78,074
94,708
96,701
78,933
44,390
12,940
47,676
22,955
7,332
2,215
1,129
14,391
607,370
232,100:
1970
151,620
109,382
137,406
134,619
106,577
53,283
20,504
46,683
25,415
9,817
2,506
1,607
20,409
819,828
315,638
1980
260,159
204,497
245,768
245,363
191,158
95,446
36,827
82,672
45,676
17,421
4,399
2,929
36,828
1,409,143
563,000
1990
323,219
285,503
307,271
306,420
240,525
120,878
50,486
102,697
58,387
18,699
5,913
2,830
55,931
1,878,759
697,475
2000
459.784
376,856
441 ,241
440,261
345,085
195,058
72,418
147,540
83,168
29,794
8,359
3,254
79,883
2,602,702
996,008
4-32
-------
Table 4-24 Parking Space Inventory of Las Vegas Central Business
District 1965 Survey (Zones 601, 603, 604, 605, 607,
609, 611, 614)
Type of Parking
Curb
12 Minute Metered
24 Minute Metered
30 Minute Metered
1 Hour Metered
2 Hour Metered
Total Metered
12 Minute
1 Hour
2 Hour
Unlimited
Total Unmetered
Total Curb
Off Street
Public
Municipal
Commercial
Private
Patron
Tenant
Employee
Covered Parking
Total Off Street
Grand Total Parking Spaces
Number of
19
9
14
944
156
1137
1
328
80
704
1113
2250
1053
3779
2589
85
760
1244
8266
10,516
Spaces Percent of Total
0.2
-
0.1
9.0
1.5
10.8
_
3.1
0.8
6.7
10.6
21.4
10.0
35.9
24.6
0.9
7.2
(not included in Brand Total)
78.6
100.0
Source; Las Vegas Valley Transportation Study
4-33
-------
REFERENCES
4-1 Clark County Department of Aviation, McCarran International
Airport, 1972.
4-2 Private communication with various personnel at the McCarran
International Airport Control Tower, August 1974.
4-3 Federal Aviation Administration Airport Record Form #5010-1 (7-70).
4-4 Private communication with the North Las Vegas Airport Manager's
Office, August 1974.
4-5 Private communication with the office of the 57th Civil Engineering
Squadron at Nellis Air Force Base, August 1974.
4-6 "Aircraft" - Revision to AP-42, Environmental Protection Agency, 1973.
4-7 Private communication with Mr. Robert Sampson, EPA, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
May 1973.
4-8 Federal Register, EPA, December 1972.
4-9 Nevada State Implementation Plan, 1970.
4-10 Richard Ida, Clark County DHD, private communication, August 1974.
4-11 "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors," EPA, Office of Air and
Water Programs, April 1973.
4-12 City of North Las Vegas, Labor Supply Profile, Community Analysis and
Evaluation Program, February 1974.
4-13 Franklin J. Bills, City of North Las Vegas, Community Analysis and
Evaluation Program Director, private communication, February 1974.
4-14 Manual Cortez, Director, Nevada Taxi Authority, private communication,
February 1974.
4-15 Gary Ballinger, Las Vegas Transit System, Inc., private communication,
April 1974.
4-16 Robert Kenneston, Traffic Control Supervisor, City of Las Vegas,
private communication, February 1974.
4-17 Guide for Compiling a Comprehensive Emission Inventory, EPA, Publication
No. APTD 1135, March 1973.
4-18 "Episode Contingency Plan Development for the Metropolitan Los Angeles
Air Quality Control Region," TRW, Inc., December 1973.
4-19 B. Demitriades, EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, private
communication, October 1974.
4-20 M. Goldberg, EPA, Region IX, private communication, October 1974.
4-21 W. Flaxa, Nevada Department of Highways Las Vegas, private
communication, February 1974.
4-22 The Las Vegas Valley Transportation Study.
4-34 -
-------
5.0 THE NEVADA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) detailed the control
strategies which the state felt necessary in Clark County to meet the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for oxidants and carbon monoxide.
The strategies enumerated in the SIP can be summarized as follows:
A reduction in light and heavy duty vehicle and aircraft
emissions due to increasingly stringent federal emission
standards.
A reduction in LDV emissions as the result of a mandatory
inspection-maintenance program to be started in 1974 and
a catalytic muffler and crankcase ventilation retrofit
program for all LDV of model years 1966 through 1974.
A reduction in vehicle emissions because of improved
traffic flow resulting from a road building program
discussed in the Las Vegas Valley Transportation Study.
Tables 5-1 and 5-2 illustrate the reductions in emissions obtained in 1975
and 1977 by applying these control measures. Table 5-3 contains the growth
factors used in the SIP to project emissions from the base year of 1970.
5.1 SIP CONTROL STRATEGIES
This section briefly summarizes the expected emission reductions
specified in the SIP by instituting various control strategies.
Gasoline Driven Light Duty Vehicles
Despite increased automobile usage and automobile population pro-
jections, future federal emission standards will result in the following
reductions in HC and CO emissions, as calculated by using Appendix I,
Figure 2 of the August 14, 1971 Federal Register:
CO : 27% from 1970 to 1975
46% from 1970 to 1977
HC : 38% from 1970 to 1975
57% from 1970 to 1977
Diesel Driven Heavy Duty Vehicles
Beginning with the 1973 model year, federal emission standards were
expected to reduce HC and CO, despite a 1% per year growth rate in HDV
5-1
-------
population and an estimated lifetime of 10 years for diesel vehicles.
Resulting reductions were calculated to be:
CO : 16% from 1970 to 1975
18% from 1970 to 1977
HC : 2% from 1970 to 1975
3% from 1970 to 1977
Aircraft
For piston driven general aviation and turbine powered commercial
aircraft, federal emission standards were estimated to have a dramatic
effect in emissions by the year 1977:
Piston driven general aviation - CO : 11% increase from 1970 to 1975
46% decrease from 1970 to 1977
HC : 12% increase from 1970 to 1975
45% decrease from 1970 to 1977
Turbine powered commercial - CO : 79% decrease from 1970 to 1975
79% decrease from 1970 to 1977
HC : 79% decrease from 1970 to 1975
79% decrease from 1970 to 1975
79% decrease from 1970 to 1977
As for military aircraft, which operate primarily out of Nellis Air Force
Base, a switch to Turbine A fuel and anticipated decreases in defense funding
were expected to reduce HC emissions by 22% from 1970 to 1975 and 27% from
1970 to 1977.
Traffic Flow Control
Improved traffic flow resulting from an ongoing road building program
was expected to reduce CO by 20% and HC by 16% in 1973 from 1970 vehicle
related emissions levels. These reductions were obtained as the result of an
analysis of average speeds and VMT on different links of the building program.
Mandatory Inspection Maintenance Program
A mandatory inspection-maintenance program for all gasoline driven LDV
is to be instituted by 1974 and enforced by 1975 to require such vehicles to
5-2
-------
submit to an annual check of emission control devices and a test of engine
performance. Certifications of compliance by official state designated
garages, service stations or new car dealerships will be required on a vary-
ing date base for each car registered or usually garaged in Clark County.
It was anticipated that such a program would result in the following emission
reductions after the application of federal motor vehicle emission standards.
CO : 20% in 1975
20% in 1977
HC : 30% in 1975
30% in 1977
Catalytic Muffler and Crankcase Ventilation Retrofit Program
This control measure would entail the mandatory retrofit of all 1966
through 1974 model year LDV starting in 1975 and ending by 1977. A minimum
of 53% reduction in CO emissions was expected.
Point and Area Source Regulations
Clark County emission control regulations require the elimination of
hydrocarbon losses'from large gasoline and oil storage areas through the
application of pressurized-sealed systems, use of floating roof tanks and/or
installation of vapor recovery systems. These measures were expected to
reduce HC emissions by 99%.
Application of regulations controlling service station operating
methods and gasoline storage tanks was expected to reduce HC emissions from
gasoline marketing sources by 90%.
5.2 COMPARISON OF EMISSION INVENTORIES
Table 5-4 compares the emission inventories (for carbon monoxide and
total hydrocarbons) which were (a) presented in the SIP and (b) developed
in the course of this study. A more detailed breakdown of emissions by
source category was not possible due to the format employed in the SIP. As
can be noted, there are significant differences in the two inventories.
Because the SIP did not detail its method of emission estimation, it is not
possible, in the scope of this report, to examine the specific causes of
the differences. However, the following factors may have played a role in
5-3
-------
Table 5-1 SIP Specified Reductions of CO in Clark County (tons/yr)
Emission
Source
Motor Vehicle
GaSQline
Diesel
Ai rcraf t
Piston
Turbine
All Others
Total
Existing
1970
Emissions
135,953
10,775
808
307
12,170
160,013
Emissions After the Application of Control Measure #:
(see below)
1 & 2
1975 1977
99,667
8,997
900
64
12,859
122,487
73,864
8,782
435
66
12,995
96,142
1 ,2 & 3
1975 1977
79,734
8,997
900
64
12,859
102,554
59,091
8,782
435
66
12,995
81,369
1,2,3 & 4
1975 1977
60,272
8,997
900
64
12,859
83,092
36,426
8,782
435
66
12,995
58,704
1,2 & 5
1975 1977
78,342
7,100
900
64
12,859
100,323
65,000
7,710
435
66
12,995
85,306
1,2,3 & 5
1975 1977
62.99H
7,100
900
64
12,859
83,523
52,000
7,710
435
66
12,995
73,006
en
(1) Federal motor vehicle emission limitations
(2) Federal aircraft emission limitations
(3) Inspection-testing certification program
(4) Retrofit program
(5) Las Vegas study - 21% reduction through traffic flow control in 1973
Emissions required to achieve NAAQS = 78, 886 tons/year
-------
Table 5-2 SIP Specified Reductions of HC in Clark County (tons/year)
Emission Source
Fuel Storage
Diesel Vehicles
Gasoline Vehicles
Military Aircraft
Commercial Aircraft
General Aviation
Gasoline Marketing
Other
Total
1970
Emissions
15,819
2,155
23,331
2,033
390
33
1,619
1,954
47,334
1970 with
Application
of County
Regulations
225
2,155
23,331
2,033
390
33
162
1 ,954
30,283
Emissions After the Application of Control Measure #
(see below)
1
1975b 1977°
248
2,114
14,395
1,584
82
37
115
2,308
20,883
257
2,101
10,149
1,491
83
18
123
2,466
16,688
2
1975b 1977C
248
1,780
12,100
1,584
82
37
115
2,308
18,254
257
1,770
8,590
1,491
83
18
123
2,466
14,798
3
1975 1977
248
2,114
11,515
1,584
82
37
115
2,308
18,003
257
2,101
8,729
1,491
83
18
123
2,466
15,268
4
1975 1977
248
2,114
9,080
1,584
82
37
115
2,308
15,568
257
2,101
4,680
1,491
83
18
123
2,466
11,219
en
i
en
(1) After Federal motor vehicle and aircraft limitations
(2) Measure #1 plus Las Vegas Study, which assumes a 16% motor vehicle emission reduction through
traffic flow improvements in 1973
(3) Measure #1 plus Automobile Inspection Program
(4) Measure #1 plus Automobile Retrofit Program
a = Elimination of HC emissions from large gasoline and oil storage facilities and a reduction of 90%
in emissions from gasoline service stations
b = Includes estimated growth to 1975
c = Includes estimated growth to 1977
Emissions required to achieve NAAQS = 17,561 tons/year
-------
Table 5-3. SIP Growth Factors
Source
1975
1977
Automobiles
Diesel Vehicles
Commercial Aircraft
Military Aircraft
General Aviation
Fuel Storage
Gasoline Marketing
Other
1.1
1.05
1.15
0.95
1.10
1.18
1.18
1.18
1.14
1.07
1.21
0.93
1.14
1.26
1.26
1.26
Table 5-4 Comparison of Emission Inventories a
(tons/year)
Source Category
Motor Vehicles
Ai rcraf t
Gasoline Marketing
All Others
Total
SIP
Total
HC CO
25,486
2,456
1,619
17,773
47,334
146,728
1,115
12,170
160,013
TRW
Total
HC CO
10,621.5 c
1,642.5
1,679
5,717 b
19,660
54, 312. c
3,686.5
4,650 b
62,648.5
Baseyear for the SIP is 1970; baseyear for TRW is 1972 for total HC
and 1973 for CO.
Does not include the Mohave Power Plant
Includes motorcycles
5-6
-------
the resulting variations:
The methodology for calculating motor vehicle emissions has been
greatly modified in the past five years. Factors such as local
vehicle age distributions and a wider range of speed correction
factors are accounted for in the present method, whereas they
were not when the SIP was written.
Both motor vehicle and aircraft emission factors have been revised
substantially. For example, the EPA approved carbon monoxide
emission factor for LDV is approximately three times greater in
1970 as compared to 1974.
Controls may have been applied to various stationary sources.
5-7
-------
6.0 ADDITIONAL CONTROL STRATEGIES
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to examine control strategies other than
those proposed in the SIP and to reevaluate the emission reduction effec-
tiveness of several strategies enumerated in the SIP, in light of more
current research. The strategies may be divided into two general categories,
hardware measures such as light duty vehicle retrofit devices and VMT reduc-
tion measures, such as carpools. All costs are in terms of 1972 dollars.
6.2 HARDWARE STRATEGIES
The measures under consideration are
t LDV retrofit devices
Mandatory inspection-maintenance (I/M) programs for LDV
t Gasoline vapor recovery systems at service stations
6.2.1 LDV Retrofit Devices
Retrofit is defined as an application of any device or system that
may be added on to a motor vehicle, and/or any modification or adjustment
beyond that of regular maintenance which could be made to reduce
vehicular emissions. There are three primary emission sources in motor
vehicles which can be potentially controlled by various retrofit
procedures. For vehicles without emission controls, crankcase venting
typically contributes about 20% of the total hydrocarbon emissions from
the vehicle. Another 20% of the total hydrocarbon emission typically
results from evaporative losses from the carburetor and fuel tank system.
Exhaust emissions typically account for the remaining 60% of the hydro-
carbon emissions, and 100% of the carbon monoxide emissions.
Crankcase emission systems have been installed in automobiles for
some time, therefore crankcase emission retrofit devices will not be
considered. Evaporative emission control systems are more recent on
new cars; however there are no available retrofit systems for this
emission category. For this reason, retrofit devices to control
evaporative emissions will not be considered either.
6-1
-------
Catalytic muffler retrofit - Because catalytic mufflers require the
equipped vehicle to use a non leaded gasoline, not all light duty vehicles
of model years 1966 through 1974 can be retrofitted. Unfortunately, no
figures for Clark County on the number of model year 1966 through 1974
LDV capable of performing adequately on non leaded gasoline could be
located. The decision was reached to assume that figures valid for the
State of California would also be valid for Nevada (Table 6-1). The
effectiveness of catalytic mufflers in reducing HC and CO emissions is
shown in Table 6-2, while the cost figures are illustrated in Table 6-3.
Table 6-1. Percentage of Vehicles Able to Use Non-Leaded
Gasoline
Model Year Percentage of Model Year
1966-1970 20
1971-1974 75
Source: Reference 6-3
Table 6-2. Effectiveness of Oxidizing Catalytic Converter
Mufflers
Percentage Reduction
Vehicle Type HC_ CO
Controlled (1968 model year and later) 50 50
Precontrolled (pre 1968 model year) 68 63
Source: Reference 6-2
6-2
-------
Table 6-3. Cost of Oxidizing Catalytic Converter Mufflers
Cost of catalytic muffler $150*
Cost of replacing catalyst $ 15 - $20**
Average lifetime 50,000 miles**
*Source: Reference 6-3
**Source: Reference 6-1
Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), Vacuum Spark Advance Disconnect
(VSAD) and Lean Idle Fuel Adjustment (LIAF) - The EGR is a system which
introduces exhaust gas from the exhaust pipe through a EGR valve and back
into the intake manifold. A speed control allows for approximately
15% of the exhaust gas to be recirculated to the intake manifold
whenever the vehicle speed exceeds 26 MPH and shuts off recirculation
whenever the speed drops below approximately 12 MPH. A deceleration
switch is also provided to stop recirculation whenever the accelerator
pedal is released. The VSAD device disconnects the vacuum spark
advance except when a thermostat switch senses when the car is tending
to overheat. In that case, the advance is reconnected until the
engine cools down. The LIAF requires tuning for a low idle engine rpm
with a high air to fuel ratio, normally 14 to 1. The EGR and VSAD
retrofit are applicable to most domestic cars after the 1955 model year
while LIAF can be applied to all domestic cars not equipped with exhaust
control devices. Expected emission reductions and costs are shown in
Table 6-4.
Table 6-4. Effectiveness of EGR, VSAD and LIAF
Percent Reduction*
Retrofit Option HC_ Cp_ Installed Cost**
Precontrolled Vehicles
(pre 1968 model year)
(Continued on next page)
6-3
-------
Percent Reduction*
Retrofit Option H£ CO Installed Cost**
LIAF plus VSAD 25 9 $45
EGR plus VSAD 12 31 $35
*Source: Reference 6-2
**Source: Reference 6-1
Gaseous Fuel Conversion - This is a special case of vehicle
retrofit. Within the near future, only three types of gaseous fuels
can be seriously considered as alternatives to gasoline for powering
motor vehicles: liquified petroleum gas (LPG), compressed natural
gas (CNG) and liquified natural gas (LNG). These fuels are inherently
clean burning and produce fewer hydrocarbons than gasoline, owing to
their lower molecular weight and carbon content. Modification to
gaseous fuels requires the installation of a special carburetor,
special tank (pressure tanks for LPG and CNG , cryogenic tanks for LNG),
pressure regulating devices, shutoff valves and fuel lines. This is
generally regarded as a simple conversion, although more sophisticated
modifications like exhaust gas recirculation and catalytic converters
can also be added for further reductions. For simple conversion the
cost of modifying an in-use vehicle to CNG or LPG ranges from $350 to
$500, while conversion to LNG may cost from $800 to $1000.
6.2.2 Mandatory Inspection-Maintenance Programs
There are basically three categories of I/M programs:
Emission Inspection Approach - each vehicle is subjected
to an emissions test and the results are compared with a
set of in-use vehicle emission standards. Vehicles with
emissions in excess of the standards are considered to
have failed, and are required to have maintenance per-
formed. An emissions retest may be required after the
maintenance to ensure that the failed vehicle has been
brought into compliance with the emission standards.
t Engine Parameter Inspection Approach - each vehicle is
subjected to a sequence of diagnostic tests which seek
to evaluate the mechanical condition of various emission
related vehicle systems and determine if malfunctions or
6-4
-------
maladjustments are present. Vehicles showing measure-
ments outside accepted tolerance ranges are considered
to have failed, and are required to have corrective
maintenance performed. This approach bypasses the
question of each vehicle's emission levels, although in
some cases emission measurements may be made to evaluate
the state of certain vehicle systems.
Mandatory Maintenance Approach - each vehicle, independent
of its emission levels or mechanical condition, is required
to have specific maintenance operations performed at
required intervals. Thus, the inspection phase is simply
eliminated; and the appropriate maintenance is explicitly
specified for each type of vehicle and identical for all
vehicles of that type, rather than being whatever main-
tenance is necessary to achieve compliance with an
emissions standard or to ensure that specific vehicle
pass diagnostic checks.
The expected reduction in emissions and costs of each approach are
shown in Tables 6-5, 6-6, and 6-7.
Table 6-5. Emission Inspection I/M Program
Loaded emission test*
Percent initial failure rate
Emission reductions (percent)
HC
CO
Idle mode test*
Percent initial failure rate
Emission reduction (percent)
HC
CO
Anticipated inspection cost/vehicle**:
Average repair cost/serviced vehicle**
10
8
4
10
6
3
$1.
:$28
20
11
7
20
8
6
25
.50
30
13
9
30
10
8
40
14
11
40
11
9
50
15
12
50
11
10
*Source:
**Source:
Reference 6-2
Reference 6-1
6-5
-------
Table 6-6. Engine Parameter I/M Approach
Vehicle Type
Pre-controlled
1966-1970 controlled
1971 NOV controlled
/\
Anticipated inspection cost/vehicle: $ 7.50
Average repair cost/serviced vehic1e:$22.00
Failure Rate (percent) HC
Percent Reduction
95
95
95
10
14
2
CO
6
7
7
Source: Reference 6-1
Table 6-7. Mandatory Maintenance I/M Approach
Vehicle Type
Pre 1966 model year
Anticipated inspection cost/vehicle: None
Average repair cost/serviced vehicle: $55.00
Percent Reduction
HC_ CO
15 11
Source: Reference 6-1.
6.2.3 Evaporative Emission Control - Service Station Modification
One approach to controlling evaporative losses from the filling
of underground storage tanks is to use some type of vapor recovery
or mechanical trap system.
The Standard Oil Company of California has been experimenting
with a mechanical trap (vapor return) system to be used during the
filling of service station underground storage tanks (6-4). In such
a system, vapors displaced from the underground tanks are returned to
the-delivery truck during the filling operation. Cost estimates for
retrofitting service stations with such a system varied from $900 to
$2000 per station, with a most probable figure of $1300 per station
(6-5). The system as tested consists of a "T" connection to the
underground vapor line, valves, and a three inch diameter line (to be
carried on the delivery truck). The cost is almost entirely due to
6-6
-------
labor costs incurred in excavation to gain access to the underground
line, T-connector fitting, tank purging and the subsequent repair of
the ground surface. In terms of efficiency, the tests revealed that
an approximately 94% vapor recovery is entirely feasible.
Recently the American Petroleum Institute sponsored a study of
methods available for evaporative emission control between the service
station and the automobile. Of the techniques which are primarily
service station oriented, "Controlled methods would avoid about 71%
of vapor emission immediately upon completion of the service station
conversion. The vapor emission avoided would progressively increase
over a period of about 10 years to about 94% to 98% depending on the
particular method considered" (6-6). The variation in the percentage
effectiveness over time is dependent upon the development of a safe
vapor tight filling nozzle and a matching standardized automotive fill
pipe.
Although many alternatives are available, only three of the most
promising techniques are discussed. The descriptions, and cost
estimates for these methods are presented:
Case 3 - Vapor Displacement to Underground Storage with No
Recovery of Excess Vapors
This control scheme is based on displacing vapor from the vehicle
fuel tank to the storage tank from which the fuel was pumped.
This is accomplished by making a tight seal at the interface between
the fill nozzle and the fuel nozzle and the fuel tank fill pipe.
The fill nozzle is designed such that there is a space around the
nozzle through which the displaced vapors can be directed to a
vapor return line. This line directs the vapors displaced from
the vehicle fuel tank back to the underground storage tank from
which the fuel is pumped. The volume of the vapors displaced
equals the volume of the fuel pumped from the storage tank. The
vehicle fuel tank vapor in the underground storage tank is
displaced back to the fuel supply truck at each delivery... . Any
excess vapors generated at the service station due to temperature
conditions is vented to the atmosphere (6-6).
Only Cases 3, 4 and 5 of Reference 6-6 are discussed
6-7
-------
Case 4 - Vapor Displacement to Underground Storage with
Recovery of Excess Vapors by Refrigeration
This control scheme is based on displacing vehicle fuel tank
vapors during refueling back to the storage tank from which
the fuel was pumped. This is accomplished by making a tight
seal at the interface between the fill nozzle and the fuel tank
fill pipe. The fill nozzle is designed such that there is a
space around the nozzle through which the displaced vapors can
be directed to a vapor return line. This line directs the vapors
displaced from the vehicle fuel tank back to the underground
storage tank from which the fuel was pumped. The volume of the
vapor displaced equals the volume of the fuel pumped into the
vehicle fuel tank. The vapor in the underground storage tanks is
displaced back to the fuel supply truck at each delivery... .
any excess vapors generated at the service station due to tem-
perature conditions are vented to a two-stage vapor compression
system with intermediate cooling and final condensation by
refrigeration. Condensed vapors consisting of propane and
heavier hydrocarbons are returned to the underground storage
tanks. The refrigeration unit is of 1.0 ton capacity at -10°F,
and it is started and stopped on suction pressure sensing in a
vapor holder.(6-6)
Case 5 - Vapor Displacement to Underground Storage with
Recovery of Excess Vapors by Activated Carbon Adsorption
This control scheme is based on displacing vehicle fuel tank
vapors during refueling back to the storage tank from which the
fuel was pumped. This is accomplished by making a tight seal at
the interface between the fill nozzle and the fuel tank fill pipe.
The fill nozzle is designed such that there is space in the nozzle
through which the displaced vapors can be directed to a vapor
return line. This line directs the vapors displaced from the
vehicle fuel tank back to the underground storage tank from which
the fuel was pumped. The volume of the vapors displaced equals
the volume of the fuel pumped into the vehicle fuel tank... .
Any excess vapors generated at the service station due to tem-
perature conditions are vented to an activated carbon adsorption
unit. All of the hydrocarbons are adsorbed in this unit. The
activated carbon unit consists of four transportable canisters
containing 25 pounds of activated carbon each. These canisters
are regenerated about four times per month during the summer and
considerably less during the rest of the year. The canisters
are regenerated at the fuel supply terminal and their contained
vapors are covered in the terminal vapor recovery system. The
canisters are hauled to and from the supply terminal on trucks
fitted specifically for this purpose (6-6).
A study was recently conducted in San Diego, California, to
evaluate the effectiveness, safety and reliability of various vapor
recovery systems (6-11). Preliminary results of the study indicate
6-8
-------
that the overall efficiency of "Case 3" systems ranges from 70% to 88%,
while the "Case 4" system has a potential efficiency of at least 90%.
One of the major causes of the relatively lower efficiencies of the
"Case 3" method resulted from hydrocarbon losses between the automobile
gas tank filler neck and the gasoline pump nozzle, despite a rubber
seal between the two. The phrase "a potential efficiency of at least
90%" was used for "Case 4" methods of recovery because this figure
was a calculated (i.e. on paper) and not a measured one, since many
of the tested units were prototypes which malfunctioned during the
testing period. There was insufficient information gathered by the
study to draw any conclusions concerning the safety and reliability
of either system, but it was felt that safety and reliability questions
could be resolved with further testing and evaluation.
The costs (6-6) for each case were estimated as follows:
Case 3 - Vapor Displacement to Underground Storage with No Recovery
of Excess Vapors
Capital Installed Cost to Service Station
The capital costs show breakout for new and revamp stations.
Capital Installed Cost Per Station
Material Labor*
Piping and fittings (screwed) $ 418 $1,438
(6) tight fill nozzles at $40 each.
($12 of this cost is for the tight
seal vapor return feature).
(6) combination fill and vapor return
hoses at $15 each.
($6 of this cost is for the vapor return
hose). 330 78
$ 748 $1,516
Contingency at 20% material, 10% labor 150 151
$ 898 $1,667
Concrete removal and repair and tank purging 2,500
$ 898 $4,167
New station cost - $898 + $1,667 = $2,565
Revamp station cost = $898 + $4,167 = $5,065
*Labor costs at $16/hour.
6-9
-------
Operating Costs to Service Station
Incremental additional replacement cost of the tight seal vapor
return portion of the fill nozzles and the vapor return portion
of the hoses at $30/year.
Case 4 - Vapor Displacement to Underground Storage with Recovery
of Excess Vapors by Refrigeration
Capital Installed Cost to Service Station
The capital costs show breakout for new and revamp stations.
Capital Installed Cost Per Station
Material Labor*
Piping and fittings (screwed) $ 883 $1,896
(6) tight fill nozzles at $40 each.
($12 of this cost is for the tight seal vapor
return feature).
(6) combination fill and vapor return hoses
at $15 each.
($6 of this cost is for the vapor return
hose). 330 78
Condensation-refrigeration package unit 5.000 500
$6,213 $2,474
Contingency at 20% material, 10% labor 1,243 247
$7,456 $2,721
Concrete removal, repair, and tank purging 2,500
$7,456 $5,221
New station cost = $7,456 + 2,721 = $10,177
Revamp station cost = $7,456 + $5,221 = $12,677
*Labor costs at $16/hour.
Operating Costs to Service Station
Incremental additional replacement cost of the tight seal vapor
return portion of the fill nozzles and the vapor return portion
of the hoses at $30/year.
*Cooling water at 3 gpm at $0.20/M gallons, say $28/year.
Power Supply for 3 HP motor at $0.03/KWH, say $63/year.
Maintenance and inspection cost, use 6%/year installed;
equipment cost = $-0,159 x 0.03/year = $609/year.
*Water is used only when equipment is in operation.
6-10
-------
Case 5 - Vapor Displacement to Underground Storage with Recovery
of Excess Vapors by Activated Carbon Adsorption
Capital Installed Cost to Service Station
The capital costs show breakdown for new and revamp station.
Capital Installed Cost Per Station
Material Labor
Piping and fittings (screwed) $ 638 $2,096
(6) tight fill nozzles at $40 each.
($12 of this cost is for the tight seal vapor
return feature).
(6) combination fill and vapor return hoses
at $15 each.
($6 of this cost is for the vapor return hose). 330 78
(8) carbon canisters at $80 each 640 32
Regeneration facilities** 25 ]_2
$ 1,633 " $2,218
Contingency at 20% material, 10% labor 327 222
$ 1,960 $2,440
Concrete removal, repair, and tank purging 2,500
$ 1,960 $4,940
New station cost = $1,960 + $2,440 = $4,400
Revamp station cost = $1,960 + $4,940 = $6,900
*Labor costs at $16/hour.
**Regeneration facilities for 167 stations.
Operating Costs to Service Station/Regeneration Terminal
Incremental additional replacement cost of the tight seal vapor
return portion of the fill nozzles and the vapor return portion
of the hoses at $30/year. Power supply for 5 HP vacuum pump
motor at $0.03/KWH, say $l/year.
Table 6-8 compares, for hardware controls, the percent reduction in
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emissions assumed possible in the SIP
and those assumed possible in this report.
6-11
-------
Table 6-8. Comparison of Control Effectiveness
Control Measure
Mandatory Inspection -
Maintenance
LIAF plus VSADb
Catalytic Muffler
Pre 1968 model years
1968 and later model
years
Hydrocarbon
SIP
20%
N/A
N/A
N/A
TRW Report
6 - ma
25%
68%
50%
Carbon Monoxide
SIP
25 - 30%
N/A
53%
53%
TRW Report
3 - 10%a
9%
63%
50%
Emission inspection approach using an idle mode test.
For pre 1968 model year vehicles.
N/A - not available
6.3 VMT REDUCTION STRATEGIES
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of various VMT reduction
strategies, it was originally hoped that some sort of public opinion
survey could be conducted to solicit public response to the situation
and an evaluation of transportation alternatives. Upon further
evaluation, this portion of the study was deleted for several reasons:
1) it was decided that it would not be cost effective to conduct the
Market Facts air pollution survey used in numerous other cities, e.g.,
6-12
-------
Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Francisco, 2) a recent survey conducted locally
by Franklin Bills in North Las Vegas (6-7) provided some of the desired
information, and 3) contrary to TRW's original hopes, the Transportation
Committee of the Citizens' Advisory Council decided not to offer voluntary
services to conduct a brief telephone survey of local residents' attitudes,
and time and financial constraints prohibited TRW from conducting such an
extensive survey.
The means to solicit local community input into the evaluation
of transporation control alternatives was the Delphi technique - a
structured and controlled questionnnaire with feedback - of Las Vegas
planners. A good general description of Delphi is given by Dal key:
(6-12)
"In general, the Delphi procedures have three features: 1)
anonymity 2) controlled feedback, and 3) statistical group response.
Anonymity effected by the use of questionnaires ... is a way of
reducing the effect of dominant individuals. Controlled feedback -
conducting the exercise in a sequence of rounds between which a
summary of the results of the previous round are communicated
to the participants - is a device for reducing noise. Use of
statistical definition of the group response is a way of reducing
group pressure for conformity; at the end of the exercise there
may still be a significant spread of individual opinions.
Probably more important, the statistical group response is a
device to assure that the opinion of every member of the group
is represented in the final response."
It should be emphasized that the results of the questionnaire were
intended only to serve as an indicator of local thinking on potentfal
control measures to be implemented. One point which needs to be raised
concerning the limitation of interpreting the results is that while
every attempt was made to seek "balanced" representation within the
group, it is virtually impossible to avoid individual view points
that the group was "stacked" with planners, or government officials,
or some other group.
Despite all the difficulties, sufficient consensus was reached
by the group on a number of issues that it was generally felt the
exercise was very useful. Fourteen individuals, each representing
different area groups, were invited to participate in the half day
session of questions and answers. Eleven actually showed for what
6-13
-------
proved to be an extremely valuable session. The individuals and
organizations represented who participated and the results of the
Delphi Panel are presented in Appendix D.
Organizationally, the structure of the survey was aimed at
addressing three issues with regard to VMT reduction strategies:
Overall attractiveness - from a shopping list of measures,
the participants were asked to select the measures viewed
to be "most attractive" in terms of implementability,
effectiveness, minimum socio-economic impact and public
acceptance. This phase of the exercise was completed
first, since it was felt regardless of how effective a
particular measure might be, if it were not implementable
and acceptable, it would never receive serious planning
consideration.
Implementation obstacles - once it was determined which
control measures were viewed as the most attractive, an
assessment of the most critical implementation obstacles
was solicited. The respondents were asked to consider
the relative importance of six potential implementation
obstacles - lack of funding, existing governmental
structure, lack of enabling legislation, inadequate state-
of-the-art technology, public acceptance and a lack of
precedences or a hesitancy to be innovative.
Effectiveness - a number of specific and general objec-
tives were cited and the respondents were asked to assess
(by rank ordering) the relative effectiveness of the
control measures for achieving the various objectives.
Since the objectives dealt with the need for auto travel
and growth issues, inferences can be drawn regarding
the air qualtiy implications of these measures.
Table 6-9 presents a summary of the chronological sequencing of
issues addressed by the questionnaire. In addition to the actual survey
form, a supplemental set of miscellaneous "fact sheets" were provided
to each participant. The intent of the handout was merely to provide
backup information to the respondents to assist them in their decisions.
6-14
-------
Table 6-9 Organization of Delphi Survey
Round Number Attractiveness Effectiveness Comments
Round One
Additional
Round One
Round Two
Round Three
Round Four
First Iteration
Second Iteration
Third Iteration
Final Iteration First
Iteration
Second
Iteration
Preliminary screening of
most attractive measures.
Final selection of most
attractive measures.
Ranking of overall attrac-
tiveness for measures
identified as most
attractive.
Final ranking of overall
attractiveness of measures
and first estimate of
effectiveness.
Reconsideration of
effectiveness ratings
based on feeback of
group results (means and
distribution). Reasons
requested for extreme
views.
Based on feedback and
reasons for extreme
answers, a final consid-
eration of effectiveness.
Also, a request for
confidence rating of
individual responses.
As a result of the Delphi Panel, the measures shown in Table 6-10
were chosen for further consideration.
Round Five
Final1
Iteration
Table 6-10 Summary of Delphi Panel Control Measures
Control
Supplemental jitney service, mini-bus
for heavily traveled routes and/or
tourist traffic
Expansion of present transit service-
more buses, more frequent service
Subsidized lower mass transit fares
(10 - 25* fare)
# of Persons
Participating
x = 8051
s = 6343
x
s
X
s
6793
3930
6351
7355
% VMT Reduction
x = 4.86
S = 3.76
x
s
X
s
5.23
3.72
4.97
5.62
6-15
-------
# of Persons
Control Participating % VMT Reduction
Park and ride facilities along with x = 1700 x = 1.67
s = 1290 s = 1.33
Auto-free zones x = 5971 x = 2.76
s = 5944 s = 2.24
Employee carpool incentives x = 2793 x = 2.25
s = 2664 s = 1.40
One measure not considered by the members of the Delphi Panel but
which would be extremely effective in reducing VMT is the limitation
of gasoline consumed. Gasoline rationing was implemented during World
War II as a conservation measure. Many who were involved in the
program viewed it as a necessary evil and although the rationing
system had its shortcomings, it was effective in conserving gasoline
and significantly reducing VMT. As seen in Figure 6-1, it was also
a very effective measure in increasing transit patronage. Gas rationing
during the war, although a severe measure, appears to be the only
measure implemented during the last 50 years which has been able to
effect reduced auto use and induce increased transit ridership.
However, such a program would have serious implications for the present
life style of Clark County residents and requires, before it can be
seriously advocated a more detailed evaluation than can be performed
within the scope of this report.
As a control strategy, rationing does have some features which
make it attractive:
Interim control strategy - of the measures considered,
it has a high adaptability for use as a seasonal control
strategy.
Not irreversible - properly designed and administered,
rationing could be very flexible; unlike strategies
such as retrofit devices, this control can be easily
and quickly lifted.
Mid course corrections possible - the degree of control
necessary can be changed easily to adjust for changing
conditions and circumstances.
6-16
-------
Not technology dependent - does not rely on non-existent
or unproven technology.
Induces other programs effectively, e.g., car pooling
and public transit.
Conservation oriented - aimed at prevention rather than
cure.
Precedent and experience available - the program has
been instituted before; hopefully the pitfalls of the
World War II experience can be anticipated and minimized.
Despite the features of a gas rationing program as a control
strategy, there are at least an equal number of real obstacles and
problems which can be anticipated should any attempts be made to
implement and enforce such a program. It is these issues which must
be adequately addressed and studied before a gasoline rationing
program can be recommended. Among the difficulties to be encountered
are:
t Administrative problems - the World War II program
appears to have encountered significant administrative
problems.
Institutional constraints - it is unlikely many institu-
tions will support a massive rationing program.
Enforcement problems - black markets- bootlegging and
counterfeiting of coupons were all widespread practices
during the War; these problems would probably pose even
more of a problem today.
Micro-economic implications - any massive rationing
program will significantly affect the economy of the region
affected; these effects are difficult to assess accurately
but would be major.
t Lack of alternative modes of travel - it has yet to be
determined how much additional travel can be handled
either by the present transit system or by a projected
increase in levels of transit service.
t Public acceptibility - it is doubtful much public support
could be mustered for a gasoline rationing program.
Legal status - it is unclear if the legal authority to
implement such a program exists.
6-17
-------
to
o
XI
c
T3
01
H
W
O
01
00
a
Q)
0)
to
ta
CM
to
M
n)
to
OJ
-------
References
6-1 Control Strategies for In-Use Vehicles. EPA, Office of Air and
Water Programs, Mobile Source Pollution Control Program, Washington,
D.C., November 1972.
6-2 40 CFR 51, 1973 (draft).
6-3 Federal Register, Vol.38, No. 217, November 12, 1973.
6-4 Lieferman, M.W., -and Presten, J.E., "Control of Hydrocarbon Vapor
Losses During the Marketing of Gasoline at Service Stations,"
Standard Oil Company of California, June 15, 1972.
6-5 J.E. Preston, private communication.
6-6 Refinery Management Services Co., Cost Effectiveness of Methods to
Control Vehicle Refueling Emissions for American Petroleum
Institute, January, 1973.
6-7 Labor Supply Profile, An Analysis of the Numbers and Characteristics
of that Portion of the Southern Nevada Labor Pool which Resides in
North Las Vegas, Community Analysis and Evaluation Program, Franklin
J. Bills, Director, City of North Las Vegas, February 1974.
6-8 Las Vegas Valley Urban Transportation Study, State of Nevada -
Department of Highways, Planning Survey Division, 1970.
6-9 W. Flaxa, Nevada Department of Highways, private communication,
February 1974.
6-10 R. Kenneston, Las Vegas Traffic Control Supervisor, private communi-
cation, February 1974.
6-11 Memo from Frank Panarisi, Administrator, Health Care Agency, to the
San Diego County Board of Supervisors, August 14, 1974.
6-12 Dalhey, N.C., "The Delphi Method: An Experimental Study for Group
Opinion," The Rand Corporation, RM-5888-PR, April 1969.
6-19
-------
7.0 PROPOSED CONTROL PLAN
The relationship between air pollutant emissions and ambient air
quality is still not well understood, despite major efforts to develop both
sophisticated analytical and statistical models (7-1, 7-2, 7-3). The
inaccuracies in the ability to predict air quality result from many factors,
among which are:
Uncertainties in the emission inventories,
Limited air quality data,
The representativeness of test cycles to actual driving
patterns,
t The uncertainties of the real effectiveness of various
control strategies.
The control strategy recommendations presented are based upon propor-
tional rollback for CO and Appendix J (of the Federal Register, Vol. 36,
No. 158) for HC. The validity of these techniques as applied to the Las
Vegas situation is questionable and consequently does not serve as an
adequate basis on which to implement severe control measures.
Full implementation of the control measures outlined should allow
attainment of the air quality standards by 1977 and maintenance through
1982. Implementation of Phase I measures can be justified on the basis of
air quality improvements at reasonable costs. The impact of implementing
Phase II control measures is staggering. This study has neither the time
nor data base to fully evaluate the social, political and economic ramifi-
cations of such a measure. Hence, it cannot be recommended at this time
although it would, in all likelihood, result in the desired goal.
The control measures outlined are not new and have been proposed
elsewhere; no "magic" solution was found and only incremental improvements
can be expected from each strategy.
As discussed in Section 3.0, the air quality data for Clark County
indicates that a 70% reduction of 1972 reactive hydrocarbon emissions and
a 54% reduction of 1973 carbon monoxide emissions are needed in order to
achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Table 7-1 provides a
7-1
-------
summary of baseline, 1977 and 1982 emissions of reactive hydrocarbons and
carbon monoxide, as well as indicating the reductions necessary to achieve
the air quality standards.
Table 7-1. Summary of Emissions in Clark County
(tons/day)
Stationary Sources
Mobile Sources
Total
1972
RHC
1973
CO
RHC
1977
CO
1
RHC
982
CO
8.0
33.8
41.8
11.9
159.7
171.8
3.75
26.9
30.65
12.9
125
137.9
4.3
23.2
27.5
14.1
87.2
101.3
Permissible emissions: RHC = 12.5 tons/day
CO = 79.0 tons/day
Percentage reduction of 1977 RHC emissions required to achieve standards = 59%
Percentage reduction of 1982 RHC emissions required to achieve standards = 77%
Percentage reduction of 1977 CO emissions required to achieve standards = 55%
Percentage reduction of 1982 CO emissions required to achieve standards = 22%
7.1 PHASE I MEASURES
7.1.1 Hardware Measures
This section details the hardware measures recommended to reduce
emissions. Included are measures required by the SIP which are reevaluated
as to their potential for decreasing emissions. Table 7-2 shows the
percent emission reductions used in formulating the proposed control plan.
It is" important to note, however, that the actual (i.e. tons/day) emission
reductions reported in this section for vehicle oriented controls are
given on a stacked basis.
7-2
-------
Table 7-2. Effectiveness of Control Measures
Percent Reduction of
Measure CO Emissions RHC Emissions
Mandatory Inspection/Maintenance 10* 11*
Pre-1968 Model Year Retrofit 9 25
(LIAF plus VSAD)
Oxidizing Catalytic Muffler Retrofit
Pre-1968 Model Years 68 63
1968 and Later Model Years 50 50
Gasoline Evaporative Loss Controls
"Case 3" method - 80
"Case 4 or 5" method - 90
*
Assumes a 50% initial failure rate of vehicles tested.
Mandatory Inspection/Maintenance
In an attempt to derive the full benefit for both new and used car
emission controls, it is recommended that a mandatory annual inspection/
maintenance program be established utilizing an idle emissions test. Such
a program can be instituted through official state designated garages,
service stations or new car dealerships. Reductions i,n emissions expected
from such a program are:
1977 (tons/day) 1982 (tons/day)
RHC 0.66 0.31
CO 7.2 2.5
Pre-1968 Retrofit Devices
A lean idle air-fuel adjustment plus a vacuum spark advance disconnect
system (LIAF plus VSAD) is recommended for light duty 1955 through 1965
model year vehicles. Implementation of this measure along with mandatory
inspection/maintenance, should reduce emissions by the following quantities:
7-3
-------
1977 (tons/day) 1982 (tons/day)
RHC 0.86 0.41
CO 7.8 2.6
Oxidizing Catalytic Converter Muffler Retrofit
It is recommended that light duty vehicle exhaust emissions be con-
trolled by means of catalytic muffler retrofits on 1966 through 1974 model
year vehicles. Data indicates that large emission reductions are possible
with these mufflers. Because vehicles equipped with such devices are
required to use non-leaded gasoline, the question arises as to the availa-
bility of this grade of gasoline. However, conversations with knowledgeable
personnel at several oil companies have indicated that there should be no
problems in supplying adequate quantities of lead free gasoline (7-4). Based
on the number of retrofittable vehicles and the expected emission reductions
discussed in Section 6.2.1, the decrease in emissions which can be expected
(in conjunction with mandatory I/M and pre-1968 retrofit devices) if the
program is to be completed by 1977 are:
1977 (tons/day) 1982 (tons/day)
RHC 2.36 0.81
CO 24.4 7.4
Gasoline Evaporative Loss Controls
It is recommended that controls be required to either prevent or
capture gasoline vapor emissions resulting from normal gasoline handling
and transfer operations. Control systems for certain transfer operations
are presently available and should be installed as quickly as possible.
The need for control of these vapor losses becomes increasingly evident as
motor vehicle exhaust hydrocarbon emissions are more stringently controlled,
and as the percentage of hydrocarbon evaporative emissions from normal
gasoline handling and transfer operations increases significantly.
Since controls have already been implemented at bulk terminals (see
Section 4.2.1) and for transfer of gasoline from tank trucks into service
station storage tanks (see Section 4.1.3), it is recommended that the
following controls be implemented for the transfer of gasoline from service
station storage tanks to vehicle tanks:
7-4
-------
A vapor balance recovery system ("Case 3" in Section 6.2.3)
should be installed at all gasoline service stations by 1977.
Installation of secondary vapor recovery systems ("Case 4"
or "Case 5" in Section 6.2.3) at all gasoline service stations
by 1980.
The reasoning behind this two stage approach is to assure that the
safety and reliability of the secondary systems is verified before they are
required but in the meantime to provide for a gasoline vapor recovery system
which is less efficient but fairly safe and reliable. The 1980 deadline was
selected to insure adequate lead time for testing, production and installa-
tion of secondary systems. The reductions in emissions expected by
instituting this measure are:
1977 (tons/day) 1982 (tons/day)
RHC 4.7 6.7
7.1.2 VMT Reduction Measures
On the basis of the Delphi Panel results (Section 6.3), the following
measures were selected because of their potential in decreasing VMT:
Measure % Reduction in VMT
A) Supplemental jitney service, etc. 4.86
B) Expansion of present transit service 5.23
C) Subsidized lower mass transit fares 4.97
D) Auto free zones . 2.76
However, because of the lack of confidence displayed by the Delphi Panel as
to the percent reduction in VMT achievable (see Appendix D), it was decided,
upon consultation with EPA, to use the following figures which were adopted
from a previous study done for the Los Angeles region (7-5):
7-5
-------
Measure % Reduction in VMT
A) Supplemental jitney service, etc.* 2.1*
B) Expansion of present transit service 3.0
C) Subsidized lower mass transit fares 2.0
D) Auto free zones 0.6
The % reduction in VMT for this measure was not available from Reference
7-5. Upon consultation with the EPA project officer, the % reduction for
supplemental jitney service was determined as follows:
/ % reduction in VMT for Measures B + C + D for Los Angeles \
\% reduction in VMT for Measures B + C + D from Delphi Panel /
[i Rfi°/ /which is the % reduction in VMT due to jitney\ _ 5.6 ,
+ 'OD/0 \ service as specified by the Delphi Panel /J 12.96 x
= 2.1%
By instituting these strategies in addition to the automobile hardware
measures, the expected emission reductions are:
1977 (tons/day) 1982 (tons/day)
RHC 2.9 1.0
CO 27.9 8.7
Figure 7-1 illustrates the impacts of Phase I controls.
7.2 PHASE II MEASURES
The total reduction in emissions achieved by Phase I measures are
summarized below:
1977 (tons/day) 1982 (tons/day)
Measure RHC CO RHC CO
A) Mandatory Inspection/ 0.66 7.2 0.31 2.5
Maintenance
B) Pre 1968 Retrofit plus 0.86 7.8 0.41 2.6
Measure A
C) Oxidizing Catalytic Muffler 2.36 24.4 0.81 7.4
plus Measures A and B
7-6
-------
1977 (tons/day) 1982 (tons/day)
Measure (Continued) RHC ClD RHC C0_
D) ; VMT reduction measures 2.90 27.9 1.0 8.7
plus Measures A,B, and C
E) Gasoline Evaporative Loss 4.7 - 6.7
Controls
Total 7.6 27.9 7.7 8.7
The emissions remaining after institution of Phase I measures are:
1977 (tons/day) 1982 (tons/day)
RHC 23.1 19.8
CO 110.4 92.6
In order to attain the national standards for oxidant and carbon monoxide
by 1977 and to maintain the standards through 1982, the following additional
reductions are required (see Figure 7-1 and Table 7-3):
1977 (tons/day) 1982 (tons/day)
RHC 10.6 7.3
CO 30.5 12.7
For both 1977 and 1982, the limiting pollutant (i.e., the one requiring the
most reduction) is RHC. The percentage reductions required are:
1077. 10.6 tons/day _
1977' 23:1 tons/day "
23 tons/day =
19.8 tons/day
These reductions can be achieved through the implementation of a massive
program to significantly reduce the vehicle miles traveled within the Las
Vegas Valley, hence eliminating major sources of hydrocarbon and carbon mon-
oxide emissions. This can probably be done most effectively by rationing the
gasoline supply. Rationing can be accomplished either by limiting the supply
to the actual consumers from the gasoline service station or from the refinery
to the service station. Gasoline rationing is not a recommended method of
achieving VMT reduction because of the inherent social and economic impacts.
These adverse impacts have not been fully evaluated.
7-7
-------
180-j-
170--
160--
150-'
140"
130--
120--
no--
100 --
90--
80--
CO
oo
5^ 70--
60--
50--
40--
30--
20--
10--"
(1)
(3)
CO EMISSIONS
(1) NO CONTROLS
(2) LDV HARDWARE COMTROLS
(3) WT REDUCTION KFASURCS SPECIFIED
EY DELPHI PANEL
-- ALLOWABLE CO EMISSIONS
RHC-EMISSIOTB
(2)
(3
(1) NO CONTROLS
(2) LDV HARDWARE CONTROLS
(3) W REDUCTION MEASURES
SPECIFIED BY DELPHI PANEL
CD GAS STATION VAPOR RECOVERY
ALLOWABLE RHC EMISSIONS
1972 1973
1977
1982
Figure 7-1 Effect of Phase I Control Strateqies on CO and RHC Emissions
7-8
-------
Table 7-3. Summary of Emissions After the Application of Phase I Measures (tons/day)
Source Category
Stationary
Mobile
1) Light Duty Vehicles
2) Heavy Duty Gasoline
Powered Vehicles
3) Heavy Duty Diesel
Powered Vehicles
4) Motorcycles
5) Aircraft
6) Railroads
7) Gasoline Marketing
Total, Mobile
Grand Total
Allowable Emissions: RHC = 12.5 tons/day
CO = 79.9 tons/day
RHC
No
Controls
3.75
9.2
5.4
0.26
0.96
3.8
1.38
5.9
26.9
30.65
1977
After
Phase I
3.75
6.3
5.4
0.26
0.96
3.8
1.38
1.2
19.3
23.1
CO
No
Controls
12.9
70.9
36.0
1.6
4.54
11.5
0.9
-
125.0
137.9
After
Phase I
12.9
43.0
36.0
156
4.54
11.5
0.9
-
97.5
110.4
RHC
No
Controls
4.3
3.8
5.8
0.33
1.21
3.1
1.58
7.4
23.2
27.5
1982
After
Phase I
4.3
2.8
5.8
0.33
1.21
3.1
1.58
0.7
15.5
19.8
CO
No
Controls
14.1
24.8
43.6
2.0
5.22
10.4
1.2
-
87.2
101.3
After
Phase I
14.1
16.1
43.6
2.0
5.22
10.4
1.2
-
78.5
92.6
-------
REFERENCES
7-1. Eschenroeder, A. Q., and J. R. Martinez, Further Development of the
Photochemical Smog Model for the Los Angeles Basin, General Research
Corporation, CR-1-191, March 1971.
7-2. Systems Application Inc., Development of a Simulation Model for
Estimating Ground Level Concentrations of Photochemical Pollutants,
Beverly Hills, California, January 1973.
7-3. Trijonis, J. C., An Economic Air Pollution Control Model Application:
Photochemical Smog in Los Angeles County in 1975, Ph.D. Thesis,
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, 1972.
7-4. Private communication with personnel in the research departments of
several oil companies, April 1974.
7-5. TRW, Inc., "Transportation Control Strategy Development for the
Metropolitan Los Angeles Region," January 1973.
7-10
-------
8.0 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
8.1 SOCIAL IMPACTS
Social impacts are non-monetary costs attributable to the imposition
of a set of constraints. These impacts are generally measured by the loss
of time, opportunity, and/or inconvenience. The magnitude of the impacts
is primarily a function of age, race, and income level. Measures which are
intended to influence, control or restrict the ownership and use of motor
vehicles will, in general, result in social impacts. In a similar and
related manner, measures which affect personal mobility, mode choice
decisions, and regional access also induce social costs. To date, because
of the very nature of social impacts, it has been difficult to quantitatively
evaluate them. For example, only a limited amount of research has been
devoted to estimating foregone or lost opportunity costs with respect to not
making a trip.
This section presents an overview of the types of social impacts
which are likely to result from the implementation of the transportation
control measures being contemplated.
8.1.1 Improved Transit Services
Improving transit services is implicitly or explicitly the goal of every
transit authority in operation today. In many cases, however, public transit
systems have found it necessary to lower the level of transit service due to
financial difficulties. When and Where this has occurred, a major portion of
the problem can generally be traced to the dependence on the private auto for
satisfying the largest share of the trip making needs of the region. The im-
portance of the private automobile to the American way of life cannot be over-
emphasized. Its emergence as the dominant, and in many cases, sole source of
urban travel has had a major impact on the role of public transit in our cities.
It should be noted that the Las Vegas Valley Transportation Study Policy
Committee is preparing a short range mass transit plan and development pro-
gram (funded by UMTA) for the Regional Planning Council. Scheduled to be
released in February of 1975, this plan should, if adopted by the Regional
Planning Council, provide for increased transit service in the Las Vegas Valley,
8-1
-------
Impact of Lowered Fares
Among the most crucial aspects of transit service is the fare structure.
As a VMT reduction measure, increasing transit ridership through a lowered
fare incentive has some practical limitations. For example, while fare free
transit is certainly a topic of interest, it raises serious questions re-
garding financing the transit operations.
Viewed in terms of the organizational paradigm, financing requirements
are the key input for implementation of this measure. The principle perfor-
mance output is increased transit usage. As a consequential impact, it is
hoped that auto use and overall VMT will be reduced and air quality improved.
Experience has shown that fare changes impact other aspects of transit
operations in addition to changes in ridership levels. These changes can be
considered concomitant outputs of the program. For example, significant in-
creases in transit ridership lower existing levels of service. To accommodate
the new passengers, longer and more frequent stops are required, increasing
overall travel times. To achieve the equivalent level of service experienced
before a fare reduction, generally requires additional buses and more frequent
scheduling of service (i.e. reduced headways). Both measures increase the
transit system's operating costs.
Another probable concomitant impact of lowered fares is latent trip de-
mand, especially from certain underprivileged population segments. In this
regard, it is important to remember that increased transit patronage results
from more than a simple private auto to transit shift or even previously
unmet travel demand. Shifts from all other modes are likely to occur -- car-
pooling, walking, bicycling. In Los Angeles, for example, implementation of
a Mini-bus Project (with a subsidized 10 cent fare) to reduce private auto
use in the congested CBD has not been overly successful. Even though rider-
ship levels on the buses have been acceptable, it has been found "most of the
daytime passengers who have taken advantage of the service have been diverted
from the pedestrian mode rather than the automobile mode." (8-1)
In addition to the direct performance output of lowered fares, i.e.
increased transit usage, a host of concomitant and consequential impacts
are also likely. In an analysis of the impacts resulting from a fare
8-2
-------
increase and service reduction on San Francisco's Muni, Lee (8-2) identified
several important impact areas. These included impacts on:
t The Transportation System - In reducing service, the
majority of mode shifts are from transit to automo-
biles. The increased auto usage aggrevates congestion
for both public and private transportation. Furthermore,
reduced service lowers the quality of BART's feeder network,
which impacts BART's attractiveness.
0 The City Fisc - Increased traffic volumes mean more
traffic control, accidents and emergency services, etc.
Such increases force the City budget to support services
to auto users even more than is presently done.
Jobs - Service reductions impact the jobs of some
dependent on its present level of service, as well as
those who actually work for Muni itself.
t Efficiency - It is argued that a more balanced trans-
portation system offers improved transportation
efficiency; if so, service reductions and fare reductions
aggrevate an already unbalanced system.
Equity - Reduction in Muni services has an unfavorable
equity impact, since those impacted the most are likely
to be low income captive riders.
By inference, it is assumed that lowering fares and improving transit
service will, in most cases, result directionally in impacts opposite of
those cited by Lee.
In summary, an obvious result of lowered fares is to expand the
opportunities for transit services to a broader population segment. This
is especially true for special groups such as the young, poor, and elderly.
For users of transit, lowered fares increases their real income. Thus,
the socio-economic impacts of this measure can be viewed as largely
positive. In that lowered fares increases transit use and reduces auto
use, thereby leading to an overall transportation system which is more
balanced and less automobile dependent, the impact is also favorable.
8-3
-------
Impact of Improved "Levels of Service
Improvements in the levels of transit service can be accomplished
in a number of ways, including increasing the breadth of service, frequency
of service, and travel speeds. To be effective as a VMT reduction measure,
the improvement in transit service must be sufficient to induce a large
number of auto drivers to shift their mode of travel.
The overall low levels of transit ridership experienced today testify
to the perceived advantage most auto riders place on their mode of travel.
In addition, the fact that operating and out-of-pocket expenses for auto
trips generally exceed transit fares indicate the willingness of individuals
to pay for the high levels of service offered by private autos.
It has been concluded in studies that, to be effective as a VMT
reduction measure, transit service must significantly decrease the travel
time advantage now experienced by private autos to make it more competitive
as an alternative mode. In a manner analogous to lowering fares, the
service levels offered are intimately related to the financial viability of
the transit system. Thus, an important direct input for this control measure
is careful planning and most probably, additional funding should deficits be
incurred.
8.1.2 Auto Free Zones
The auto free zone has been used, in the past, as a means to revitalize
central business districts. With the growing concern with the urban environ-
ment, the auto free zone also appears to offer an opportunity to reduce auto
emissions and undesirable noise levels in congested areas. Over one hundred
cities in Europe and Japan and about twenty-four cities in the United States
have implemented auto free zones with varying degrees of success. The most
evident and immediate effect is to enhance the esthetic quality of the area
affected. In some long term applications, special walkways, landscaping, and
other pedestrian-oriented structures have been provided in an effort to
attract pedestrian traffic.
8-4
-------
As a transportation control measure, auto free zones offer the most
relief to regions with severe carbon monoxide problems. By essentially
eliminating all vehicular emissions from the plagued areas, no local
accumulation of carbon monoxide is possible. However, depending on
parking and transit availability in the peripheral areas of the auto free
zone, higher emissions in these areas are possible. The spatial and/or
temporal redistribution of carbon monoxide emissions should in almost all
cases, significantly reduce the nature of the problem.
It is much less certain what the impact of auto free zones is on
urban areas experiencing photochemical oxidant problems. Again, it is
largely a function of the types and quality of accessibility made available
to the area's users. Redistributing the overall emissions once experienced
in the region to all the peripheral areas would not significantly affect
oxidant concentrations. A real potential output of such a program would be
a change in time, location, or level of oxidant experienced. The lack of
empirical data precludes any definitive statements with regard to technical
effectiveness.
The success of auto free zones is a function of many factors including
local attitude and objectives, geography and climate, topology of streets,
the availability of public transportation and the existing levels of. air
quality.
Impacts of the auto free zones will be felt by the commercial interests
within and surrounding the area and property owners in the area. In fact,
these groups have often shown the greatest resistance prior to actual
implementation of pedestrial malls. Other impacts are felt by travelers who
must maneuver around the closed-off area, cannot find parking spaces, or
encounter increased congestion in the areas around the mall.
Implementing auto free zones on a scale large enough to deal with the
problems of the urban environment requires the following inputs:(8-3)
Traffic Circulation Design - Displaced traffic must be
accommodated on surrounding streets; changes in traffic
signalized may be required.
8-5
-------
Provision of Adequate Parking Facilities - Especially
if public transportation modes are inadequate; new
spaces must be allocated so as to provide adequate
capacity, minimize walking distances, minimize con-
gestion, and provide adequate accessibility.
f Provision of Public Transit Access - To the area and,
Tf applicable, within the area.
Provision for Truck and Freight Distribution.
Provision for Police and Fire Protection and Utilities.
It is apparent from the input requirements of this type of control
measure that careful detailed planning on an area by area basis is critical
to the overall success of the program. Numerous specific regional
characteristics must be carefully evaluated and weighed prior to implemen-
tation to ensure the desired air pollution reductions. A careful design of
auto free zones with the above principles in mind will serve to reduce the
social cost of inconveniences and enhance the proclivity for pedestrianism
rather than auto travel.
Because of its dependence upon the tourist industry, Las Vegas presents
a situation different from many other cities. Heavy concentrations of
vehicular traffic can be found along the famed Strip and to a lesser degree,
the CBD. The visitor depends on the automobile to journey from one night spot
to another and casinos and hotels are oriented towards providing parking for
their customers. In contrast to other metropolitan centers, many establish-
ments operate almost on a 24 hour basis. The impact of instituting an auto-
free zone along the Strip would be staggering. Lacking an adequate and
convenient substitute for the personal automobile, hotels and casinos would
experience a drop in patronage, the end effect of which may be the loss of
jobs by local residents. As for the CBD, there would be a lesser problem for
the visitor (because the major attractions are fairly close together). But
difficulties would arise with the residents, as there is presently inadequate
transit service to service the home to work trip. In addition, there would
remain problems with peripheral parking on the edge of the auto free zone.
8-6
-------
Impact on Retail Sales
The effectiveness of auto free zones in increasing retail sales
volumes is partially a function of the willingness of pedestrians to walk.
This in turn is a function of the attractiveness of the area, the kinds and
mix of shops, and the amenities available for workers, e.g., benches, tables,
restaurants.
Studies have found that "people generally refuse to walk more than
800 feet between parked car and destination and that the average nonstop
trip distance ranges from 400 to 600 feet per person."(8-4) However, if
the area is attractive, shoppers will walk much greater distances, e.g.,
shoppers on Fifth Avenue in New York City or the Champs Elyees may walk a
mi 1 e.
Data for evaluating the potential of the mall concept for stimulating
economic growth is not readily available for those malls that were planned
into a town's creation (as in Germany) or temporary implementations.
Temporary demonstration projects do not give valid grounds for evaluation
because certain potential effects of the auto free zone are sensitive to
the permanency of the project. However, data for existing, small scale
permanent applications are available.
Some measures for assessing the impact on commercial activity are:
gross change in retail sales
value of new construction added
changes in vacancy rates
changes in tax base (dollars of assessed evaluations)
A summary of the impacts on retail sales in several United States auto
free zones is shown in Table 8-1.(8-6)
Similarly, in Europe and Japan, a positive effect on retail sales was
experienced with the implementation of auto free zones. In Vienna shop
owners reported a 25 percent to 50 percent increase in business in the first
week after the traffic ban went into effect. In Norwick all but two shops
8-7
-------
Table 8-1. Summary of Costs and Impacts on Retail
Sales in U. S. Auto Free Zones
Area Project Cost Percent
Location (Blocks) ($Thousands) Business Increase
Atchison, Kansas 5.5, 330 25
Fulton Mall - Fresno, Calif. 6 1,600 20
Burdick Mall - Kalamazoo, Mich. 3 114 15
Lincoln Road Mall - Miami Beach, Fla. 8 600
Nicollet Mill - Minneapolis, Minn. 8 3,875 up to 14
Pomona Mall - Pomona, Calif. 5 586 16
Westminister Mall - Providence, R.I. 4 530 up to 35
Source: Barton-Aschman (1972)
in the exclusion area did more business, some experiencing an increase in sales
of 10 percent or more. In Essen the increase in trade has been reported to be
between 15 percent and 35 percent depending on the type of shop; in Rouen,
between 10 percent and 15 percent. In Tokyo, of 574 shops surveyed, 21 percent
showed an increase in sales, 60 percent no change, and 19 percent a decrease;
74 percent of the merchants interviewed pronounced themselves in favor of the
scheme. The popularity of vehicle exclusion among shopkeepers has been
graphically demonstrated in the City of Florence: "Some shopkeepers on the
first traffic street on the south of the zone went on strike to press demands
that the car ban be expanded to include their street."(8-5)
Summary
The auto free zone can serve as a focal point of civic pride to the
citizens of a city, by providing an attractive entertaining setting for social
interaction. It can serve as a public forum for community activities. In
Europe, the auto free zone has been used as a tool to rehabilitate or save
areas of historic interest. This enhances the city's cultural assets for the
enjoyment of residents and tourists alike.
8-8
-------
Auto free zones in the U.S. and Europe have generally "enhanced the
drawing power of commercial and retail establishments."(8-6) They have
become magnets for people and became new centers for relaxation and enter-
tainment as well as for shopping. Preliminary indications are that land
values may increase in and surrounding a successful auto free zone and land
area related to recreation' (and tourism) may expand. With competent traffic
design, a mall will result in minimal traffic disruption around the area.
Although the cost of implementing auto free zones can be substantial,
these costs are frequently offset by increased business activity within the
zone. Once instituted, most of the socio-economic impacts of this control
measure are favorable.
8.1.3 Jitnev Service
Jitney service has not received overwhelming support in this country in
the past, although as fuel prices rise and availability decreases, such
transportation modes may be expected to be revitalized. Basically, a jitney
service is described as a situation where vehicles run along prescribed routes
at frequent intervals. A sample route structure is shown in the figure below:
Jitney Y
A Street
B Street
Jitney X
1st .Street 2nd Street
8-9
-------
Jitney X runs a continuous looping path in the east-west direction along
streets A and B. Jitney Y runs a similarly continuous looping path in the
north-south direction along 1st and 2nd Streets. If the metropolitan area
is covered by routes of this type, one may have access to any part of the
area by taking any combination of X and Y oriented jitneys. In the special
case of Las Vegas, the institution of jitney service would be ideal along
the Strip, especially during the peak periods between shows at the various
hotels. In addition, the effectiveness of the service would be enhanced if
it were instituted in conjunction with designating Las Vegas Blvd. as auto
free zone. Jitney vehicles may be of any type from ordinary passenger cars
to vans or mini-buses.
The jitney service concept is a key element of the short range
transportation plan being developed for Los Angeles by the Southern
California Association of Governments, with service being initiated along
several routes earlier this year.
The jitney service may be considered to result in no significant social
or economic cost since it will be self-supporting. If anything, the
institutionalization of jitney service in Las Vegas may be considered a form
of transit improvement which will benefit those residents who do not have
access to a private automobile.
8-10
-------
8.1.4 Hardware Measures
Because auto-oriented controls tend to place the burden of the control
cost on the individual owner, the issue of fairness is raised, since such
measures are highly regressive and tend to discriminate against lower in-
come groups. Regulations which require expensive retrofit devices and
inspection/maintenance checks impose heavy burdens on those least able to
absorb the high capital, testing and repair costs.
Equitably internalizing the costs of air pollution control has been
the subject of numerous research efforts. A number of methods have been
prepared for financing control costs. As the dates approach for implement-
ing many of the controls, it will be necessary to experiment with novel
financing schemes. The literature is abundant in approaches which attempt
to equitably allocate costs among polluters. What is missing are documented
case studies of novel approaches which have actually been attempted. Illus-
trative of recent proposals for reducing air pollution while remaining
sensitive to lower income groups are the following examples (8-7):
Uniform-Payment-Per-Vehicle-Mile-Driver - simply stated,
this scheme takes the total annualized regional costs and
divides by the annual...vehicle miles driven...
t Uniform-Payment-Per-Vehicle - in this case, the total
annualized regional costs is divided by the number of
light duty vehicles in the basin. Each vehicle owner
then pays an identical amount per vehicle. Payment
could be made by a uniform increase in vehicle
registration fees.
0 Income-Proportional - payment of the control strategy is
made on a scale that is directly proportional to income.
For this scheme, everyone in the region - not just those
owning vehicles - is responsible for financing the
additional controls.
8.1.5 Summary
The social impacts associated with implementing the proposed
transportation control measures will be significant. Many impacts
identified will be of a positive nature, e.g., improved mobility and
accessibility for deprived population groups, more efficient energy
utilization. Other impacts, however, are likely to have negative social
8-11
-------
impacts, e.g., placing additional burdens or regressive measures on
smaller population segments.
Critical to minimizing the social impacts will be the time schedules
used for implementation of the various controls. Schedules which allow
for personal adjustments to the imposed constraints will probably result
in orderly transition.
8.2 Economic Impacts
The economic impacts of the recommended transportation control plan
are summarized in Table 8-2. Costs are reported in 1972 dollars and have
not been annualized due to the current uncertainty in future interest rates
and the generally unstable nature of national and international economic
situation.
Expenses connected with vehicle oriented controls are to be absorbed
by the individual automobile owners, unless one of the more novel approaches
suggested in Section 8.1.4 is adopted. Since the number and type of
inspection/maintenance has yet to be determined, no cost figures are
available. The expenditures necessary for service station vapor recovery
systems will be passed on to the consumer, but the actual price increase
per gallon should be small. The impact of auto-free zones along the Strip
and in the CBD are extremely difficult to assess and cannot be extrapolated
from the experiences of other cities (Section 8.1.2) due to the unique
character of Las Vegas. Jitney service should be self supporting and may
turn out to be a potential source of revenue, if the service is provided
by the private sector. It is suggested that the costs of transit service
improvements and fare subsidies be financed through gasoline tax revenues,
since such a scheme is geared towards having those that generate the
pollution (i.e. private automobile owners) "pay as you go." It should be
noted that the recipients of the dollar outlays are the local users of the
transit system.
The reference documents used did not specify a base year for the costs
but since they were prepared in 1972, it is assumed 1972 dollars were
used.
8-12
-------
Table 8-2. Economic Cost of Recommended Control Strategy
Total Cost
Control Measure # of Units Cost per Unit Initial Annual
Gasoline Marketing
(1) Phase I (balance system)
(a) Revamp old stations 970 $5,100 $4,947,000 $ 29,-lOD
(b) New stations N/A 2,600 N/A ' N/A
(2) Phase II (secondary system)
(a) Revamp old stations 970 $12,200 $11,834,000 $ 620,800
(b) New stations N/A 9,700 N/A N/A
Inspection/Maintenance (all LDV)b 171,600 $ 30 N/A $5,148,000
LIAF plus VSAD (pre-1968 L£V)C 79,119 $ 45 $3,560,355 0
Catalytic Mufflerd
(1) 1966-1970 model year LDV 14,213 $ 150 $2,131,950 0
(2) 1971-1974 model year LDV 35,725 $ 150 $5,358,750 0
Jitney N/A N/A N/A N/A
Transit Fare Subsidy N/A N/A N/A N/A
Auto Free Zones N/A N/A N/A N/A
Increased Transit N/A N/A N/A N/A
aThe number of units given is the number of service stations in Clark County in
1973 (from Richard Ida, Clark County DHD ). No information is available con-
cerning the number of new stations planned in the future.
The number of units given is the number of LDV registered in Clark County as
of June, 1973 (from R. L. Polk and Company). The initial cost of setting up
inspection stations is not known since the number and type of station has yet
to be determined. The cost per unit is for vehicles that fail the inspection.
°The number of units given is the number of pre 1968 model year LDV registered
in.Clark County as of June 1973 (from R. L. Polk and Company).
The number of units given is the number of 1968-1971 model year LDV registered
in Clark County as of June 1973 (from R. L. Polk and Company) and which are
capable of using unleaded gasoline.
N/A = not available
8-13 .
-------
REFERENCES
8-1. Bellomo, S. J., R. B. Dial, and A. M. Voorhees, "Factors, Trends and
Guidelines Related to Trip Length," National Cooperative Highway
Research Program Report 89, 1970.
8-2. Federal Highway Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation,
"Nationwide Personal Transportation Study - Annual Miles of Automobile
Travel, Report No. 2," April, 1970.
8-3. Institute of Traffic Engineers, "Traffic Planning and Other Considera-
tions for Pedestrians," October, 1966.
8-4. Owen, W., "The Accessible City," Brookings Institute, 1972.
8-5. Orski, K. C., "Car Free Zones and Traffic Restraints: Tools of
Environmental Management," Highway Research Record No. 406, pp 37-45
(1972).
8-6. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., "Action Plan for Improvements in
Transportation Systems in Large U. S. Metropolitan Areas - Auto Free
Zones - A Methodology for Their Planning and Implementation," U. S.
Department of Transportation Report No. DOT-05-10192, July, 1972.
8-7. Mikolowsky, W. T., "The Motor Vehicle Emission and Cost Model (HOVEC)
Model Description and Illustrative Applications - Additional Controls
for Mobile Sources in Report No. WN-8142-SD, Santa Monica, California,
February, 1973.
8-14
-------
9.0 PROBLEM AREAS AND IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY
9.1 PROBLEM AREAS
One problem area lies in the fact that the only major public transpor-
tation in the Las Vegas Valley is the Las Vegas Transit System, Inc. (LVTS)
which is owned by the Tanner-Grey Company of Las Angeles. The LVTS has been
operating at a deficit or at best, a breakeven point, for many years. In
order to increase transit service (even beyond the expansion presently
planned for the LVTS) and to subsidize fares, public monies would have to be
funneled to this privately owned corporation. At best, the general public
has shown an extreme reluctance to subsidize private enterprise. The alter-
natives are for local authorities to purchase the transit system or to per-
mit the present operation to flounder and gradually become bankrupt, thus
leaving the area without any means of public transportation.
Another area of potential difficulty lies in the institution of the
inspection-maintenance program. In 1974 the used car dealers in Nevada
filed a court suit challenging the constitutionality of the statutes authori-
zing I/M on the grounds that they are the only sellers of used vehicles
required to provide certificates of compliance. (In all other cases, the
purchasers of used vehicles are required to provide certification that the
vehicles are equipped with required control devices). The court dismissed
the suit but the used car dealers have filed a motion for a new trial. As
of the end of November 1974, no action has yet been taken on the motion.
9.2 IDENTIFICATION OF IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY
Table 9-1 gives the agency responsible for the implementation of each
of the control measures recommended in this study. Vehicle oriented con-
trols should require no additional enabling legislation, as they are
authorized under Section 445.630 of the Nevada Revised Statues (NRS). As
for gasoline marketing vapor recovery systems, Article 9.1 of the Nevada Air
Quality regulation should be adequate (9-1). Except for the transit fare
subsidy, transportation system controls do not involve the requirement for
major enabling legislation, only the appropriate division of local city and
county governments to implement or modify regulations and to impose, where
necessary, procedural constraints and encouragements. The transit fare
9-1
-------
subsidy, however, would necessitate the passage of state legislation to
permit the expenditure of gasoline tax revenues.
As for manpower requirements, the commitments specified in the SIP for
the Clark County District Health Department should be sufficient, since all
vehicle oriented hardware control measures (except for catalytic muffler
retrofit) recommended in this study were also contained in the SIP. (These
manpower commitments have yet to be realized due to funding difficulties).
The installation of gasoline vapor recovery units, however, may necessitate
more inspectors to ensure compliance. Transportation control measures
should not require substantial additional full time manpower commitments
from local and state officials. Rather, they can be dealt with through
cooperation between existing personnel at the responsible agencies through
a low level of effort but on a long term basis. Additional funding (which
has yet to be provided) will b# required to evaluate the impact of VMT
reduction measures.
\
Table 9-1 Implementation Responsibility
Measure
Responsible Agency
Implementing
Agency
Gasoline Marketing
Vapor Recovery
Inspect!on/Mai ntenance
LIAF plus VSAD
Catalytic Muffler
Retrofit
Jitney
Transit Fare Subsidy
Auto Free Zones
Increased Transit
Service
State Government
State Government
State Government
State Government
State Taxi Authority
County/City Government
State Government
County/City Government
Las Vegas Transit System, Inc.
State/County/City Government
County Government
County Government
County Government
County Government
County/City Gov't
N/A
County/City Gov't
Las Vegas Transit
System, Inc.
N/A = not available
9-2
-------
REFERENCES
9-1. M. Feiertag, Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada, private
communication, November 1974.
9-3
-------
10.0 STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
The proposed time schedule for implementation of the control strategy
is given in Table 10-1. As the table indicates, all gasoline marketing
facilities should have a Phase I balance system installed by 1977. The
starting date for Phase II secondary systems is tentative, pending evalua-
tion of the safety arid reliability of such systems (see Section 6.2.3).
Schedules for retrofit and inspection/maintenance programs are the same as
those proposed in the original SIP. No time table is given for jitney
service, auto free zones and increased transit service because of planning
requirements (such as permits for jitneys and choice of auto free zones).
Likewise, no schedule is shown for a transit fare subsidy because of the
necessity of legislative approval (passage of legislation permitting the
use of gasoline tax revenues for fare subsidies).
Phase I measures are not projected to decrease emissions enough to
meet the 1977 target date. It will be necessary, in 1976, to reevaluate
the data to determine whether Phase II and/or other measures will be re-
quired to attain the national standards.
10-1
-------
Table 10-1 Implementation Time Schedule
1
Phase I
Gasoline Marketing
Phase I
Phase II
Catalytic Muffler Retrofit
Pre-1968 Model Year Retrofit
Inspection/Maintenance
Phase II (if warrented)
Gasoline Rationing
19
'5 197
^
A
^
^
i
6 19
^
77 197
(
8 1979
19
80 19S
1 1982
1 ^
j
This time table assumes the acceptance of the measures by the responsible agencies. The dates shown are
those needed if 1977 and 1982 are the target dates for implementation of the measures.
-------
APPENDIX A
A-l A LOG-NORMAL MODEL FOR AIR POLLUTANT DATA1
Many air pollutants can be described as log-normally distributed over
a year's period. A plot of frequency of occurrence vs. concentration often
shows a distribution weighted at the high end. When the log of concentration
is used in such a plot, the distribution approximates a normal or Guassian
curve. Two parameters are needed to define such a distribution; M , the
geometric mean, and S , the geometric standard deviation. These are
defined as follows:
1/N
V
N
II c "
L
Lc,-i J
= exp
In
C1 >
c,-!
Sg = exp
1/2
(In
c. - in
(1)
(2)
where c. is the concentration of the individual measurements.
Air pollutant data can be handled in a graphical fashion using the
log-normal assumption. Plots of observed pollutant values vs. cummulative
frequency are made on log-probability paper (see Figures A-l and A-2). The
equation for the best fit line drawn through the points is:
In c. = In M + zln S
*7 . v
(3)
or
ci = Mg sg
(4)
where z is the number of standard deviations that c^ occurs from the
geometric mean. One standard deviation would occur at 84% (or 16%).
M is then estimated from c^ at 50%. It follows that:
A-l
-------
In c84% = lnMg + (1) In Sg (5)
Or Sa =
g
The maximum expected valuer's calculated as follows. In N measure-
ments are made per year, a z value for (1-1/N) in percent is taken from a
normal error table. Then:
Mg Sg z
Alternatively, C may be read from the log-probability graph at (1-1/N)%.
IJtuX
The log-normal model may also be used to estimate the number or percent
of days which a pollutant is expected to exceed a standard. The percent may
be read directly from a log-normal plot or calculated from equation (4)
using c^ as the concentration to be exceeded. M and S are known so that
a z value can be calculated, followed by obtaining the percent from a normal
error table.
A. 2 RELATIONSHIP OF LOG-NORMAL DATA TO AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
2
A log-normal model of air pollutant data may be related to ambient air
standards with a few simplifying assumptions. First, it is assumed that
emissions are approximately constant during the year so that variations in
air pollutant levels are primarily due to meteorology. Further, anthro-
pogenic contributions to air pollution are predominant. Finally, the nature
of the particular pollutant does not change as emissions are reduced (i.e.
composition changes due to slower reaction kinetics, or the relative contri-
bution of dust to total particulate matter). It follows that emission
reduction will be accompanied by a proportional reduction in the geometric
(and arithmetic) mean and that the geometric deviation will be essentially
unchanged. On the other hand, a change in meteorology could change both
the geometric mean and standard deviation. If S remains unchanged as
emissions are reduced, equation 4 can be applied to the "lower" geometric
mean to estimate the percent of the time which a given standard might be
exceeded.
*This value is interpreted as that to be exceeded once per year.
A- 2
-------
An alternative to the above "linear rollback" approach for oxidant
3
has been established by the Environmental Protection Agency. Figure A-3
shows a curve derived from a correlation of early morning non-methane
hydrocarbon concentrations with maximum daily oxidant values for several
U. S. cities. The "worst case" is assured for the percent reduction required
in order to meet the 0.08 ppm 1 hour federal oxidant standard. The 85% roll-
back calculation in Table 2.1 is taken from this curve. The rollback for
carbon monoxide in Table 2.1 is assumed to be linear.
A-3
-------
.8
.6
*^
Q.
0.
= 1.44
M = .048
.2
1973
1 Q Figure A-l.
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY (%)
.6-
.4-
.2"
.10-
I -08
.06
.04
.02
.01
M = .070
1972
.1 .05 .512 10 20 40 60 80 98 99.9 99.99
Figure A-2. Las Vegas Cumulative Frequency Distribution for Oxidant
A-4
-------
Maximum Measured 1-Hour Photochemical
Oxidant Concentration, ppm
CO
g-3
H 4J B^S
CO CO >
CO -U
H iH C
e « a
W C T3
O -H
C -H X
O *J O
J3 CO
O CD O
O > -H
n co 6
"O -H Q)
H O O
4J ,fi
C P-i
O 'O
H Q) H
4J M O
U -H >4-l
1> Q> -
100
80 _
60
20 _
0
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Note: No Hydrocarbon or photochemical
Oxidant Background Assumed
I I I I I I I
150 200 250
350 400 450 500 550 600
Maximum Measured 1-Hour Photochemical
Oxidant Concentration, ;ig/m3
Figure A-3. Appendix J of Federal Register (Vol.36, No. 158)
A-5
-------
REFERENCES
1. Larsen, R.I., "A Mathematical Model for Relating Air Quality
Measurements to Air Quality Standards, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Pub #AP-89, November 1971.
2. Larsen, R.I. et al, "A Method for Calculating Precursor Reduction
Needed to Achieve an Oxidant Air Quality Standard, U. S. EPA APTD
Series, August 1972.
3. Federal Register, Volume 36, No. 158, August 14, 1971.
A-6
-------
APPENDIX B
VEHICLE EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
B.I INTRODUCTION
Data concerning both present (1970) and projected (1980) vehicle
miles traveled were provided by the State of Nevada Division of Highways.
This data was generated through the use of origin-destination surveys and
the standard series of UMTA (Urban Mass Transportation Association) traffic
models. Unfortunately, due to difficulties experienced by the Division of
Highways, both the 1970 and the 1980 daily trip demands were allocated to
the projected 1980 highway network. Although total 1970 daily VMT should
not be significantly affected, distribution problems will occur (it is
likely that in many of the fringe areas around the metropolitan area, VMT
will appear where no streets presently exist).
The trip purposes accounted for in this modeling process are listed
below:
1. home to work tri ps
2. home to recreation trips
3. home to shopping trips
4. home to miscellaneous trips
5. resident non-home based trips
6. taxi trips
7. motel based auto trips
8. commercial pick-up trips
9. external auto trips
10. government auto trips
11. external large trucks
12. government large trucks
13. commercial large trucks
The last five trip purposes are for external or "through" trips.
The modeling process consists of dividing the metropolitan area into
traffic analysis zones and then allocating the trip demand information for
the various purposes on a zone to zone basis, resulting in a trip table.
The trips are then allocated to the coded highway network. Average speeds
B-l
-------
resulting on the network are varied in order to accommodate the trip
demand, and hence the speeds reported are fictitious.
The VMT reported represents a combined VMT including light duty
vehicles, heavy duty vehicles, diesel trucks, and motorcycles. These
components were separated out using the following percentage breakdown:
Vehicle Type % VMT
Light duty vehicles 87.0
Heavy duty vehicles 9.0
Diesels 1.5
Motorcycles 2.5
The VMT data for 1970 and 1980 were handled in two different ways.
First, for the purposes of emission inventory development, the total daily
VMT for each of those years was taken and used as reference points for
estimating both the baseyear VMT and the projected 1977 and 1982 VMT.
Second, the Air Pollution Control Division of the Clark County Department
of Health requested that a gridded inventory be developed. A separate
software package developed by TRW was used to allocate the VMT as well as
the other components of the inventory onto a one kilometer UTM (Universal
Transverse Mercator) grid covering the Las Vegas Metropolitan area. In
both cases, the standard EPA sanctioned method of vehicle emissions com-
putations was used. No information was readily available to estimate the
fractions of the total VMT attributable to local (i.e. resident) and tourist
traffic. To calculate vehicle emissions, it was assumed that all VMT was
due to local traffic and thus applicable Nevada emission factors were used.
It must be recognized that the projected (1080) vehicle miles
traveled does not account for the effect of possible energy shortages
in the future and this may tend to overestimate VMT. Also unaccounted
for are changes in the national and international economic situation
which might influence the sale of newer (and less polluting) automobiles.
B-2
-------
B.2 ESTIMATION METHOD
Emissions from motor vehicles were investigated by considering
separately the contribution from: light duty vehicles, heavy duty gasoline
powered vehicles, heavy duty diesel powered vehicles and motorcycles.
Emissions were estimated by determining the annual mileage by model year of
the region's vehicle population, the overall mileage traveled by vehicles in
the region and then applying appropriate emission factors which are
attributable to the various vehicle age classifications.
The calculation of light and heavy duty gasoline powered vehicle
exhaust emission factors for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons can be
expressed mathematically as:
n+1
<"!>
-------
n+1
fn = L (hj) (m1n)
n i=n-12 n in
f = the combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission
factor for calendar year n.
h. = the combined evaporative and crankcase emissions rate for
the i;th_ model year (available from Reference B-2),
m. = the weighted annual travel of the ith_ model year during
calendar year n.
A light duty vehicle is defined as any motor vehicle either
designated primarily for transportation of property and
rated at 6,000 Ibs gross vehicle weight or less or designated
primarily for transportation of persons and having a capacity
of 12 persons or less. A heavy duty vehicle is any vehicle
which exceeds the above specifications.
The deterioration factor is the ratio of the pollutant p
exhaust emission factor at x miles to the pollutant p
exhaust emission factor at 4000 miles.
The weighted annual mileage factor is determined by the
following formula:
(D.)
m. =
in n
E (V
i=n-12
where,
V. = fraction of total vehicles in use with age i (in years)
(determined from vehicle registration data for Clark
County),
D. = average miles driven by a vehicle of age i (available from
Reference B-2).
To calculate the emissions from light and heavy duty vehicles for a given
year, the VMT for that year is multiplied times the emission factor for the
appropriate pollutant.
Additional controls to reduce vehicle emissions below the baseline
emission profile are investigated by adjusting the appropriate mathematical
functions which reflect the type of proposed control. For example, the
B-4
-------
effect of a catalytic muffler retrofit on used light duty vehicles is
determined by adjusting the emission and deterioration factors for those
models to be retrofitted, and by carrying out the series of summations in
the computer model.
The following sections describe the requirements for manipulation of
regional data preparatory to input to the computer model. Emissions are
calculated separately for light duty vehicles, heavy duty gasoline powered
vehicles, heavy duty diesel vehicles and motorcycles.
B.3 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES
Emissions from light duty vehicles were computed according to the
;
methodology discussed above. This necessitated the determination of 1)
weighted annual travel by model year, 2) average vehicle speed in the
region, 3) emission factors by model year, 4) deterioration rates for
emission factors by model year, and 5) total VMT.
Weighted Annual Travel
To determine the weighted annual travel of various model year vehicles
in Clark County, the following vehicle distributions were utilized:
1) Passenger car model year distribution
2) Annual mileage distribution by vehicle model year.
The passenger car model year distribution was obtained from data supplied
by R. L. Polk and Company (Tables B-l and B-2). This data lists registered
passenger cars by model year as of July 1, 1972 and July 1, 1973 and does
not include pickups or light trucks. It is assumed that this distribution
reflects very closely the true distribution by model year of passenger cars
traveling in Clark County, although it is recognized that trips by cars
registered outside the county may have some influence.
The annual mileage of various model year vehicles are not available
for Clark County, so national figures were used instead (Table B-3).
The weighted annual travel of the different model year light duty
vehicles was calculated by multiplying the vehicle model year distribution
by the model year annual vehicle mileage.
B-5
-------
Table B-l. Vehicle Model Year Distribution for
Clark County, 1972
Percentage
Model Year
1972
8.1
1971
8.9
1970
. 9.2
1969
10
1968
9.1
1967
7.9
1966
8.6
1965
8.5
^1964
9.7
Total number of registered vehicles: 151,875.
Source: R. L. Polk and Company.
Table B-2. Vehicle Model Year Distribution for
Clark County, 1973
Percentage
Model Year
1973
9.1
1972
10.4
1971
8.3
1970
8.6
1969
9.2
1968
8.3
1967
7.3
1966
7.9
1965
7.7
*1964
23.2
Total number of registered vehicles: 171,600
Source: R. L. Polk and Company
Table B-3. National Average Annual Mileage Driven,
by Vehicle Age
Vehicle Age
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Average Annual Miles Driven
7,850*
15,900
14,000
13,100
12,200
11,300
10,300
9,400
8,500
7,600
6,700
*Adjusted to reflect the fact that Polk data is for July 1st
of 1972 and 1973.
Source: Reference B-2.
Average Vehicle Speed
The average vehicle speed was obtained from the Nevada Department of
Highways.
Emission and Deterioration Factors
These factors were obtained from Reference B-2.
B-6
-------
VMT
From the Nevada Department of Highways computerized model of traffic
flow in Clark County, 1970 and projected 1980 VMT figures for individual
surface streets and freeways were made available to TRH (Table B-4). Unfor-
tunately, the model does not cover the entire county (see Figure B-l for the
extent of the model's road network coverage).* In order to account for the
"uncovered" portions of the county, the following procedure was used: Traffic
count data for 1972 and 1973 were obtained from the Department of Highways for
all the major freeways leading into Las Vegas (Table B-5). By multiplying the
number of vehicles times the length (in miles) of these freeways outside, the
model network, VMT figures were obtained (Table B-6). This procedure, however,
Assumes that vehicles are not likely to turn off these major
highways from the time they enter Clark County until they
reach the point when they are accounted for by the model.
Assumes that VMT on roads other than these highways is neg-
ligible and presumes that all vehicular traffic on these
highways is non county resident generated (this is based on
the fact that the Department of Highway's model covers 90%
of Clark County's population).
t Assumes that motorcycle traffic on these major highways is
negligible.
VMT figures for 1972, 1973 and 1977 within the Department of Highway's
model were obtained by extrapolation from 1980 (Table B-4).
To obtain 1977 and 1982 VMT for the "uncovered" portion of the county,
the following procedure was used: In 1972, the ratio
VMT in the "uncovered" portion of the county = n -13
VMT in the Department of Highway's model
It was assumed that this ratio would be the same in 1977 and 1982. Thus, in
1977 and 1982, the VMT in the "uncovered" portion of the county would be 557,966
and 703,684, respectively. Table B-7 illustrates the total VMT for the county
in 1972, 1973, 1977 and 1982.
Light duty vehicle VMT for 1972, 1973, 1977 and 1982 is obtained by sub-
tracting the VMT due to heavy duty gasoline and diesel powered vehicles and
motorcycles (see Sections B.4 and B.5) and is presented in Table B -8.
Nevada Department of Highways, UTM grid coordinates: 641,400 m.E to 688,000
m.E; 3,976,300 m.N to 4',023,000 m.N.TRW UTM grid coordinates: 650,000 m.E to
700,000 m.E; 3,980,000 m.N to 4,020,000 m.N.
B-7
-------
Nevada Department of Highways Grid (approximate)
TRW Grid (approximate)
UTAH
enderson
-4C
Bouf\teX City
Figure B-l
B-8
-------
Table B-4. Daily VMT (Millions) from Nevada Department of
Highway Model
VMT
1970
2.72
1972*
3.17
1973*
3.39
1977*
4.29
1980
4.96
1982**
5.41
* = linear interpolation
** = extrapolation
Table B-5. Traffic on the Major Highways in Clark County
Average Daily Traffic -
Highway
Interstate 15 North (Salt Lake City)
U.S. 95 North (Reno - Tonopah)
U.S. 95 South (Searchlight)
U.S. 95 South (Kingman)
Interstate 15 South (Los Angeles)
1972
4800
1150
600
3440
10,140
Both Directions
1973
4749
2425
760
3760
10,840
Table B-6. VMT on the Major Highways in Clark County, Outside
Department of Highway's Model Coverage
Highway
Interstate 15 North
U.S. 95 North
Average
Daily Traffic
1972 1973
4800
1150
U.S. 95 South (Search- 600
light)
U.S. 95 South (Kingman) 3440
Interstate 15 South 10140
Total
4749
2425
760
3760
10840
Length (Miles) of
Highway Outside
Department of
Highway's Model
Daily VMT
1972 1973
65
20
47
3
5
312,000
23,000
28,200
10,320
50,700
308,685
48,500
35,720
11,280
54,200
424,220 458,385
B-9
-------
Table B-7. Total Daily VMT (Millions) for
Clark County
VMT
1972
3.58
1973
3.83
1977
4.84
1980
5.6
1982
6.11
Table B-8. Daily VMT (Millions) for LDV in
Clark County
VMT
1972
3.2
1973
3.38
1977
4.34
1982
5.47
B.4 HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES
Information concerning the total number of heavy duty vehicles (HDV)
registered in Clark County is presented in Tables B-9 and B-10. From this
data, it is necessary to obtain the number and model year distribution of
heavy duty diesel and gasoline powered vehicles. The procedure by which
this was accomplished is as follows:
In the years 1965 through 1972, 40% of all the trucks
sold in the nation were heavy duty, of which 14% were
diesel powered (B-l).
On the basis of this sales data, it is assumed that 40%
of all the trucks registered in Clark County are heavy
duty and 5.6% (14% of 40%) of all the trucks registered
are diesel powered.
As for the model year distributions, it is assumed that
the figures in Tables B-9 and B-10 are also applicable for
heavy duty vehicles.
Table B-ll shows the number of heavy duty diesel and gasoline powered vehicles
in Clark County in 1972 and 1973 as calculated from the above assumptions.
Table B-9. Model Year Distribution of Trucks
Registered in Clark County, 1972
Percent
1972
9.3
1971
7.4
1970
9.1
1969
9.0
1968
6.8
1967
5.5
1966
5.9
1965
5.9
<1964
41.1
Total number of registered trucks: 35,649 (as of July 1, 1972).
Source: R. L. Polk and Company.
B-10
-------
Table B-10.' Model Year Distribution of Trucks
Registered in Clark County, 1973
Percent
1973
9.1
1972
11.7
1971
7.6
1970
8
1969
7.9
1968
6
1967
5
1966
5.2
1965
5.1
^1964
29.4
Total number of registered trucks: 42,585 (as of July 1, 1973).
Source: R. L. Polk and Company.
Table B-ll
Gasoline Powered
Diesel Powered
Number of Heavy Duty Vehicles Registered
in Clark County in 1972 and 1973
1972
12,263
1,999
1973
14,649
2,385
B.4.1 Heavy Duty Gasoline Powered Vehicle Emissions
Heavy duty gasoline powered vehicle emissions are calculated by using
the same procedure as that for light duty vehicles.
Emission and Deterioration Factors
Emission factors are given in Tables B-12 and B-13. The deterioration
factor for all model years is equal to 1 (B-2).
Table B-12,
Model Year
Pre 1970
1970 - 1973
Post 1973
.Source: Reference B-2.
Heavy Duty Gasoline Powered Vehicles
Exhaust Emissions Factors
HC (grams/mile)
140
140
130
CO (grains/mile)
17
16
13
B-ll
-------
Table B-13. Heavy Duty Gasoline Powered Vehicles
Evaporative and Crankcase Hydrocarbon
Emission Factors
Model Year
Pre 1968
1968 and later
HC (grams/mile)
8.2
3.0
Source: Reference B-2.
VMT
The daily VMT in 1972 and 1973 by heavy duty gasoline powered vehicles
are shown in Tables B-14 and B-15.
Table B-14. VMT for Heavy Duty Gasoline Powered
Vehicles, 1972
Model Year
1972
^1971
Total
(B)
Vehicle Model Total
Distribution* Vehicles
.093
.907
1140
11,123
12,263
(C)
VMT per
Vehicle**
7500
10,000
B x C
Yearly VMT Daily VMT
8,550,000
111,230,000
119,780,000
23,425
304,740
328,165
*Source: Table B-8.
**Source: Reference B-l
Table B-15. VMT for Heavy Duty Gasoline Powered
Vehicles, 1973
Model Year
1973 .091
§1972 .909
Total
*Source: Table B-9.
**Source: Reference B-l
le Model Total VMT per
Jistribution* Vehicles Vehicle** Yearly VMT
1333
13,316
14,649
7500
10,000
B-12
9,997,500
133,160,000
143,157,500
Daily VMT
27,390
364,822
392,212
-------
To calculate VMT for 1977 and 1982, the following procedure was
used: In 1972, the ratio
VMT by heavy duty gasoline powered trucks in Clark County ..
total VMT in Clark County
This ratio is assumed to remain constant in 1977 and 1982. Since total VMT
in Clark County in 1977 and 1982 was calculated in Section B.3, heavy duty
gasoline powered vehicle VMT for these years can be calculated and are shown
in Table B-16.
Table B-16. Daily VHT for Heavy Duty Gasoline Powered
Vehicles in Clark County
1972 1973 1977 1982
VMT 328,165 392,212 436,501 550,498
Average Speeds
Average speed figures were obtained from the Department of Highways.
B.4.2 Heavy Duty Diesel Powered Vehicles
Emissions resulting from the operation of heavy duty diesel powered
vehicles are calculated in a similar manner as gasoline powered heavy duty
vehicles.
Emission factors are available from Reference B-2 and are presented in
Table B-17. The effect of deterioration on exhaust emissions from diesel
vehicles is considered negligible.
VMT in 1972 and 1973 is calculated as shown in Table B-18 and B-19.
B-13
-------
Table. IW17. Heavy Duty Diesel Powered Vehicle Exhaust
Emission Factors
HC: 3.4 grams/mile
CO: 20.4 grams/mile
Source: Reference B-2.
Model Year
1972
Si 971
Table B-18. VMT for Heavy Duty Diesel Powered Vehicles,
1972
Vehicle Model Total VMT per
Distribution* Vehicles Vehicle** Yearly VMT Daily VMT
.093
.907
186 7500 1,395,000 3822
1813 10,000 18,130,000 49,671
Total
1999
19,525,000 53,493
Source: Table B-4.
Source: Reference B-l.
Model Year
Table B-li. VMT for Heavy Duty Diesel Powered Vehicles,
1973
Vehicle Model Total VMT per
Distribution* Vehicles Vehicle** Yearly VMT Daily VMT
1973
^1972
.091
.909
Total
217
2,168
2885
7500
10,000
1,627,500
21,680,000
4459
59,397
23,307,500 63,856
*Source: Table B-18.
**Source: Reference B-l.
As for VMT in 1977 and 1982, the procedure outlined for heavy duty
gasoline powered trucks was .used (Table B-20).
Average speed figures were available from the Department of Highways.
B-14
-------
Table B-20. Daily VMT for Heavy Duty Diesel Powered
Trucks in Clark County
1972
53,443
1973
63,856
1977
72,865
1982
91,138
VMT
B.5. MOTORCYCLES
Motorcycle emissions are calculated by multiplying an emission factor
(grams/mile) times the VMT attributed to motorcycles in the year of interest.
Exhaust, crankcase and evaporative emission factors were obtained from
Reference B-2 and combined together, since it was known that the rigor of
maintaining separate computations for each category would have a minor effect
on the outcome of hydrocarbon emissions, and have no effect on CO (crankcase
and evaporative losses represent hydrocarbon emissions only). This is true
in the case of hydrocarbon emissions because the crankcase and evaporative
emissions are relatively small in comparison to exhaust emissions. Since
exhaust emissions from motorcycles are uncontrolled, and no controls are
scheduled, the effect of deterioration on exhaust emissions was considered
negligible.
VMT figures for 1972 and 1973 were obtained as follows:
t The miles driven per year was estimated to be the same
for all models at 4,000.(B-3)
Two stroke motorcycles were assumed to constitute 1/3
of the total registered motorcycles, while 4 stroke
motorcycles constitute 2/3.(Total number of registered
motorcycles was obtained from the Department of Motor
Vehicles.)
VMT was calculated by multiplying the number of registered
motorcycles times 4000 miles per year.
VMT for 1977 and 1982 was calculated by the same method used for heavy
duty vehicles.
Table B-21 illustrates the emissions from motorcycles in 1972, and 1973;
Table B-22 shows emissions for 1977 and 1982.
B-15
-------
Table B-21. Motorcycle Emissions in Clark County, 1972 and 1973
Year
1972
1973
Miles
Motorcycle Motorcycle per
Type Population Year
Two stroke
Four stroke
Two stroke
Four stroke
2672
5404
2635
5271
4000
4000
4000
4000
Total Miles
10,688
21,616
10,540
21 ,084
,000
,000
,000
,000
Emissions
Factor
(gm/mi)
HC CO THC
16.
3.
16.
3.
36
86
36
86
.27
33
27
33
0.5
0.3
0.49
0.29
Emissions
(tons/day)
RHC CO
0.48
0.26
0.47
0.25
0.9
2.2
0.88
2.1
Year
1977
1982
Table B-22. Motorcycle Emissions in Clark County, 1977 and 1982
Motorcycle Type Daily VMT
Two stroke
Four stroke
Two stroke
Four stroke
38,800
82,450
48,933
103,983
Emissions (tons/day)
THC RHC CO
0.69
0.35
0.66
0.30
0.88 0.84
0.44 0.38
1.15
2.99
1.45
3.77
B-16
-------
REFERENCES
B-l 1973 Motor Truck Facts. Motor Vehicle Manufacturer's Association.
B-2 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. EPA, April 1973.
B-17
-------
APPENDIX C
AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS
General Approach
The basic equation used for calculating aircraft emissions of total
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide for a specific aircraft class is as
follows:
Emissions of a specific pollutant =
emission factor for number of engines on number of LTD
the aircraft class aircraft in the class cycles performed by
the aircraft class
4
Emission factors are documented by the EPA (C-2) in terms of pounds of
pollutant emitted per engine per Landing Takeoff (LTO) cycle and are
presented in Table C-l. If types of aircraft within a class have different
numbers of engines, an average number for the class may be used, or the LTO
for the class may be segregated according to engine number.
The number of LTO cycles performed by each type of aircraft within a
region must be known or estimated for the base year associated with that
region. The aircraft classes designated by EPA are shown in Table C-2.
One special case of base year emission calculations differs from EPA
emission factor documentation. This special case involves Aircraft Class 3
only, and results from the fact that aircraft in this class (primarily
Boeing 727's, 737's, and Douglas DC-9's) underwent a burner-can retrofit pro-
gram from 1970 to 1972. Although the object of this program was to reduce
the exhaust smoke from these aircraft, additional effects were the reduction
of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions. The emission factors before
and after the program were as follows (C-l):
THC CO
Pre-retrofit 4.9 Ib/engine/LTO 20.0 Ib/engine/LTO
Post-retrofit 3.5 Ib/engine/LTO 17.0 Ib/engine/LTO
C-l
-------
Table C-l. Emission Factors per Landing-Takeoff Cycle
for Aircraft (Lbs/Engine and Kg/Engine)
Total Hydrocarbons Carbon Monoxide
Aircraft Class Lb Kg Lb Kg ,
1 12.2 5.5 46.8 21.2
2 41.2 18.7 47.4 21.5
3 4.9a 2.2a 20.Oa 9.0a
4 2.9 1.3 6.6 3.0
5 3.6 1.6 15.8 7.17
6 1.1 .5 3.1 1.4
7 0.40 .18 12.2 5.5
8 40.7 18.5 304.0 138.0
9 .52 .24 5.7 2.6
10 2.7 1.2 5.7 2.6
11 9.93 4.5 15.1 6.85
12 20.4 9.3 152.0 69.0
aThis value describes emissions prior to burner can retrofit.
Source: "Aircraft" - Revision to AP-42, Environmental Protection Agency,
1973.
C-2
-------
Table C-2. EPA Aircraft Classification
Aircraft
Class
Number
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Aircraft
Class
Name
Jumbo Jet
Long Range Jet
Medium Range Jet
A1r Carrier
Turboprop
Business Jet
General Aviation
Turboprop
General Aviation
Piston
Piston Transport
Helicopter
Military Transport
Military Jet
Military Piston
Example Aircraft
and Number of
Events
Boeing 747 (4)
Lockheed L-1011 (3)
McDonald Douglas DC-10
(3)
Boeing 707 (4)
McDonald Douglas DC-8
(4)
Boeing 737, 727
McDonald Douglas DC-9
(2)
Convair 580 (2)
Electra L-188 (4)
Fairchild Hiller
FH-227 (2)
Lockheed Jetstar (2)
Cessna 210 (1)
Piper 32-300 (1)
Douglas DC-6 (4)
CONV ' 440 (2)
Sikorsky S-61 (2)
Vertol 107 (2)
Lockhead (C-130)
(4)
Engines Most
Commonly Used
Pratt & Witney
JT-9D
Pratt & Witney
JT-3D
Pratt & Witney
JT-8D
Allison 501 -Dl 3
General Electric
CJ610
Pratt & Witney
JT-12A
Pratt & Witney
PT-6A
Teledyne-Contin-
ental 0-200
Lycoming 0-320
Pratt & Witney
R-2800
General Electric
CT-58
Al listen T56A7
(T-PROP)
General Electric
J-79
Continental J-69
Curtiss-Wright
R-1820
Source: "Aircraft" - Revision to AP-42, Environmental Protection Agency,
1973.
C-3
-------
It was assumed, for simplicity, that the program proceeded at a constant
rate through the three year period. Thus, in mid-year 1970, for example,
the program was 1/6 complete, and the average emission factors for this
base year were:
THC: 4.9 Ib/engine/LTO - 1/6 x (4.9 - 3.5) Ib/engine/LTO = 4.7 Ib/engine/LTO
CO: 20.0 - 1/6 x (20.0 - 17.0) = 19.5
The emission factors for the base years 1969-1973 are given in Table C-3
for Class 3 aircraft. In this report the base years of concern are 1972
and 1973.
Table C-3. Emission Factors for Class 3 Aircraft
Pollutant
THC
CO
1969
4.9
20.0
(Units:
1970
4.7
19.5
Ib/engine/LTO)
1971
4.2
18.5
1972
3.7
17.5
1973
3.5
17.0
C-4
-------
REFERENCES
C-l. Private communication with Mr. Robert Sampson, EPA, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, May 1973.
C-2. "Aircraft" - Revision to AP-42, EPA, 1973.
C-5
-------
APPENDIX D
Results of Delphi Panel of Las Vegas Planners
Introduction - As noted in Section 6.3, a Delphi panel was conducted
to solicit local inputs into evaluating transportation control alter-
natives. The session was conducted in the Board Room at the Clark
County - District Health Department on Thursday, March 28, 1974. The
responses solicited were twofold in nature: an assessment of which
control alternatives were the most "attractive" in terms of being realis-
tically viable options for Las Vegas and secondly, an estimate of the
relative effectiveness of the control measures selected, given they were
adopted and implemented in the region.
The individuals and organizations represented who showed up for the
session are listed below.
Participants of the Las Vegas Delphi Panel
Participant Affiliation
Bruce Arkell State Planning, Governor's Office
Gary Ballinger Las Vegas Transit
Franklin Bills Community Analysis and Evaluation, City of
North Las Vegas
William Flaxa Nevada Department of Highways
Bob Gordon City Planning, City of Henderson
Thomas Graham Community Development, City of Las Vegas
Dr. R. Guild Gray Burrows, Smith and Company
Robert Hanzel Regional Planning Council
Robert Kenneston Traffic Control, City of Las Vegas
Mary Kozlowski Citizens Advisory Committee
Dr. Bernie Malamud University of Nevada
The form of the actual Delphi questionnaire is attached. In addition
to the questionnaire, each panel member was also given a "sample"
questionnaire, filled out so as to illustrate to each respondent the
D-l
-------
format of the answers to be submitted; a "Supplement to Las Vegas Delphi
Panel Miscellaneous Fact Sheets" was also given to each panel member,
presenting factual summaries of relevant demographic and transportation
data. The actual inquiries were conducted in six rounds, between each of
which the results of the previous round were manually tabulated and fed
back to the panel prior to initiating the next round. The design of the
survey was to solicit "programmed" responses. Conceptually, the six
rounds of interrogation were organized as follows:
Organization of Delphi Survey
Round Number
Round One
Additional
Round One
Round Two
Round Three
Round Four
Round Five
Attractiveness
First Iteration
Second Iteration
Third Iteration
Final Iteration First Iteration
Effectiveness Comments
Preliminary screening
of most attractive
measures
Final selection of
most attractive
measures
Ranking of overall
attractiveness for
measures identified
as most attractive
Final ranking of over-
all attractiveness of
measures and first
estimate of effective-
ness
Reconsideration of
effectiveness ratings
based on feedback of
group results (means
and distribution).
Reasons requested
for extreme views.
Based on feedback and
reasons for extreme
answers, a final
consideration of
effectiveness. Also,
a request for confi-
dence rating of indi-
vidual responses.
Round One - In selecting six "best" measures from a list of eighteen, the
respondents' results were as follows:
Second Iteration
Final Iteration
D-2
-------
Control Measure Votes
C - Supplemental jitneys, ... 9
A - Expansion of present service 8
L - Employee carpool incentives 6
P - Auto-free zones 6
B - Subsidized lower fares 5
D - Demand-response buses 5
0 - Park-n-ride facilities 4
I - Additional registration fees 3
J - Exclusive bus/carpool lanes 3.
K - Computerized/matching carpooling 3
R - Work schedule changes 3
The remaining seven measures received less than three votes and were
eliminated from further consideration. The above eleven measures were
carried from this preliminary screening to the next round for a final
selection of the six "best" measures.
Additional Round One - Each panel member was asked to reconsider his
selection of best measures after being presented the Round One results
and asked to delete from consideration the seven measures receiving less
than three votes. The results of this round are presented.
Control Measure Votes
C - Supplemental Jitney, ... 10
A - Expansion of present service 9
P - Auto free zones 9
B - Subsidized lower fares 7
0 - Park-n-ride facilities 7
L- Employee carpool incentives 6
It is interesting to note that the six top vote-getters were among the top
seven named in the previous round. In fact, the next most frequently named
measure in this round was "D - Demand-response buses" (5 votes). This
would suggest relatively strong agreement among the group on the top six
measures. Given this final selection of "best" measures, all other measures
were eliminated from further consideration.
D-3
-------
Round Two - Having selected six "best" measures, the group was asked to
rank each measure on a relative scale (1-6) on a number of criteria. The
results of this are presented below. The last column, intended to be a
composite ranking of "overall attractiveness" was in reasonable agreement
with the vote tallies for "best" measure. If anything, it should be
considered a reevaluation of the round one selections. Unchanged in this
assessment were the relative ranking of the first, second and last control
measures.
ROUND TWO
RANKING OF "HOST ATTRACTIVE" CONTROL MEASURES
Instructions; (1) Rank the alternatives from 1 (Best) to 6 (Worst)
(2) Please base Judgments on the greater Las Vegas metropolitan region, and
not Just the area where you live and work.
GROUP RESULTS
FOR ROUND ONE
CONTROL MEASURE
Supplemental
j C jitneys. ...
Expansion of
2 A present service
, P Auto-free zones
Subsidized lower
. B fares
Park-n-r1de
5, 0 facilities
Employee carpcol
g_ L Incentives
POTENTIAL
EFFECTIVENESS*
2.64
2.82
3.36
3.27
4.54
4.36
TECHNICAL
FEASIBILITY
3.45
3.73
4.00.
2.B2
3.82
3.18
POLITICAL- INSTITUTIONAL
FEASIBILITY
(INCLUDES ECONOMIC
FEASIBILITY)
3.36
2.82
4.27
4.18
3.45
2.73
MINIMUM
SOCIO-tCONOMIC
IMPACT (I.e. PUBLIC AC-
CEPTANCE/SOCIAL COST)
2.45
2.50
4.09.
3.55
4.55
3.00
OVERALL
'ATTRACTIVENESS"
RANKING**
2.36
2.36
4.27
3.03
4.18
4.73
Effectiveness should be judged from the viewpoint of reducing air pollution primarily and not alleviating transportation
problems.
"Record these results In first column of ROUND THREE (next page) under "My Round Two Answers." Do so In your order of
preference from 1 (Best) to 6 (Worst).
D-4
-------
Round Three - This round attempted to solicit a final attractiveness
ranking and a preliminary estimate of control measure effectiveness.
Effectiveness was requested in terms of the "# of persons participating",
or those poeple who would change their life style and participate in the
program, if implemented, and secondly, in terms of "% VMT reduction", or
an estimate of the overall percentage of vehicle miles travelled which
would be reduced by the program. These results are presented below.
It is interesting to note that the ranking of attractiveness was the
same with the exception of measures "0" and "P". Again, this would indi-
cate good agreement of the group on the overall attractiveness ranking
of the six measures.
.ROUND THRU
RANKING OF OVERAIL "ATTRACTIVENESS" AfiO' "EFFECTIVENESS"
MY ROUND TWO ANSWERS
(OVERALL "ATTRACTIVENESS")
MY :,
RANKING CONTROL MEASURE
(BEST) 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(WORST) 6.
GROUP RESULTS
FOR ROUND TWO
GROUP
RANKING
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
CONTROL
MEASURE
C
A
g
0
p
.
OVERALL
"ATTRACTIVENESS"
- ' RANKING
1. 1-55
2.
2 82
3.
4 4.00
.
3.91
5.
4.81
6.
EFFECTIVENESS
I PERSONS
*
XVMT
PARTICIPATING REDUCTION
X - 8318
S « 7315
X = 6818
S = 38fi8
X F591
S - 7569
X - 2409
S 2691
X 6700
S - 6605
X 4410
S - 8538
4.7
4.1
5.1
3.7
4.2
4.5
1.8
2.2
3.4
3.0
2.9
4.4
*Record these results 1n first 2 columns of ROUND FOUR (next page) under "My Round Three Answers'
D-5
-------
Round Four - After the means and distributions of Round Three were
tabulated, they were graphically displayed for the respondents to re-
consider in developing their Round Four answers. Also, the respondents
were asked to supply reasons for their answer if they persisted in an
extreme view. These reasons were fed back for the group to consider
prior to Round Five.
The most noticable difference in the Round Four answers was the
reduction of noise or distribution of responses received. In every
category, the responses were closer to the means than the previous round,
as indicated by the smaller standard deviations, S. Also, of interest,
is the fact that there were no large deviations in the original means
estimated. This would suggest that most individuals felt reasonably
comfortable wiht their initial estimates and received reinforcement for
their answers from group results. These results are given below.
ROUND FOUR
CONTROL MEASURE "EFFECTIVENESS" RATING
MY ROUND THREE ANSWERS
(EFFECTIVENESS)
I PERSONS
X VMT
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
GROUP RESULTS
FOR ROUND TWO
CONTROL MEASURE
C
A
B
0
. D . ..
L ....
EFFECTIVENESS*
1 PERSONS
PARTICIPATING
X = 7045
S = 5037
X = 6591
S « 2548
X 6636
S 7218
X 1954
S 1150
X > 6300
S = 6147
X = 2455
. S - 1331
t VHT
REDUCTION
4.1
2.8
4.6
3.2
4.1
4.1
1.6
1.1
2.9
2.2
2.1
1.2
*Record these results 1n first 2 columns of ROUND FIVE (next page) under "My Round Four Answers".
D-6
-------
Round Five - In this final round, the group was asked to reconsider in
light of reasons for extreme answers, which were supplied by various
individuals and the results of Round Four. Also, each participant was
asked to give a confidence rating of his (or her) answer for each control
measure. This was intended to provide a weighted answer, which might
in part, account for varying amounts of expertise in the different areas
of interrogation. It was also thought that weighting might reduce the
scatter in the distribution of answers received, i.e., the standard
deviation S.
While the unweighted Round Five answers did result in a further
reduction in the standard deviation, S, of answers received, the weighted
results of Round Five (gotten by weighting each answer by the confidence
ratings received) appear to be inconclusive. In most cases, in fact, the
scatter seems to be greater than noticed with the unweighted answers re-
ceived. The following tables summarize the results of the effectiveness
estimates for Round Five (weighted and unweighted). For comparison
with previous rounds, the results of Rounds 3 and 4 are similarly given.
D-7
-------
ESTIMATES OF EFFECTIVENESS - # PERSONS PARTICIPATING
Control
Measure
C
A
B
0
P
L
Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 5*
X S X S X S X S
8318 7315 7045 5037 7727 4630 8051 6430
6818 3868 6591 2548 6500 2480 6793 3930
6591 7569 6636 7218 6727 7160 6351 7355
2409 2691 1954 1150 1770 1110 1700 1290
6700 6605 6300 6147 6600 6150 5971 5944
4410 8538 2455 1331 2545 1290 2793 2664
ESTIMATES OF EFFECTIVENESS - % VMT REDUCTION
Round 3
% Red
C
A
B
0
P
L
X
4.
5.
4.
1.
3.
2.
7
1
2
8
4
9
S
4.
3.
4.
2.
3.
4.
09
67
46
17
00
37
Round
X
4.41
4.6
4.1
1.6
2.9
2.05
4
S
2.75
3.21
4.12
1.12
2.24
1.22
Round
4
4
4
1
2
2
X
.63
.93
.47
.59
.86
.18
5
S
2.64
2.83
3.92
1.08
1.93
1.16
Round
X
4.86
5.23
4.97
1.67
2.76
2.25
5*
S
3.76
3.72
5.62
1.33
2.24
1.40
D-8
-------
LAS VEGAS DELPHI PANEL
ON
TRANSPORTATION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
REDUCING AIR POLLUTION
MARCH 28, 1974
CONDUCTED BY
TRW I
TRANSPORTATION*
ENVIRONMENTAL
'OPERATIONS
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
-------
ROUND ONE
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF POTENTIAL CONTROL MEASURES
Instructions: Choose the six (6) "best" measures in terms of effectiveness, implementability, socio-economic impacts,
and public acceptance. Indicate in the margin with an "X".
Improved Mass Transit
A. Expansion of present service more buses, more frequent service.
B. Subsidized lowered fares (10-25<£ fare).
C. Supplemental jitneys, mini-buses for heavily traveled routes and/or tourist traffic.
D. Demand-response buses (e.g. Dial-A-Ride, computerized dispatch services).
Parking Controls
E. Elimination of off-street parking.
F. Institute parking surcharge.
G. Close parking lots during peak commute periods.
Economic Disincentives on Auto Usage (Money for Transit)
H. Raise gasoline prices to $1 - 1.50/gallon.
I. Additional registration fee ($100/car/year)
Carpooling Strategies
J. Provide exclusive bus/carpool lanes on freeways during peak commute periods.
K. Provide computerized/matching carpooling programs.
L. Provide employee incentives for carpooling, e.g., best parking spots, time-off.
Limitations on Gasoline Consumption (Rationing)
M. Coupons assigned to registered drivers (for use pj^ resale as proposed by the Federal Energy Office).
N. Reduction in supply at gas station level and no controls on consumer, i.e., first come, first-served.
Other Control Programs
0. Park-n-ride facilities along with bus terminals.
P. Auto-free zones or malls (e.g. Downtown; along the Strip).
Q. Instituting.four (4) day work week (e.g. 10 hours per day)
R. Work schedule changes (e.g. staggered work hours).
-------
A.D Q L I I ELM A L
ROUND ONE
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF POTENTIAL CONTROL MEASURES
Instructions: Choose the six (6) "best" measures in terms of effectiveness, implementability, socio-economic impacts,
and public acceptance. Indicate in the margin with an "X".
Improved Mass Transit
A. Expansion of present service more buses, more frequent service.
B. Subsidized lowered fares (10-25tf fare).
C, Supplemental jitneys, mini-buses for heavily traveled routes and/or tourist traffic.
D. Demand-response buses (e.g. Dial-A-Ride, computerized dispatch services).
Parking Controls
E. Elimination of off-street parking.
F. Institute parking surcharge.
G. Close parking lots during peak commute periods.
Economic Disincentives on Auto Usage (Money for Transit)
H. Raise gasoline prices to $1 - 1.50/gallon.
I. Additional registration fee ($100/car/year)
Carpooling Strategies
J. Provide exclusive bus/carpool lanes on freeways during peak commute periods.
K. Provide computerized/matching carpooling programs.
L. Provide employee incentives for carpooling, e.g., best parking spots, time-off.
Limitations on Gasoline Consumption (Rationing)
M. Coupons assigned to registered drivers (for use or resale as proposed by the Federal Energy Office).
N. Reduction in supply at gas station level and-no controls on consumer, i.e., first come, first-served.
Other Control Programs
0. Park-n-ride facilities along with bus terminals.
P. Auto-free zones or malls (e.g. Downtown; along the Strip).
Q. Instituting four (4) day work week (e.g. 10 hours per day)
R. Work schedule changes (e.g. staggered work hours).
-------
ROUND TWO
RANKING OF "MOST ATTRACTIVE" CONTROL MEASURES
o
I
3.
4.
5.
6.
Instructions; (1) Rank the alternatives from 1 (Best) to 6 (Worst)
(2) Please base judgments on the greater Las Vegas metropolitan region, and
not just the area where you live and work.
GROUP RESULTS
FOR ROUND ONE
CONTROL MEASURE
POLITICAL-INSTITUTIONAL
FEASIBILITY
POTENTIAL TECHNICAL (INCLUDES ECONOMIC
EFFECTIVENESS* FEASIBILITY FEASIBILITY)
MINIMUM
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
IMPACT (i.e.PUBLIC AC
CEPTANCE/SOCIAL COST)
OVERALL
'ATTRACTIVENESS
RANKING**
*Effectiveness should be judged from the viewpoint of reducing air pollution primarily and not alleviating transportation
problems.
**Record these results in first column of ROUND THREE (next page) under "My Round Two Answers." Do so in your order of
preference from 1 (Best) to 6 (Worst).
-------
ROUND THREE
RANKING OF OVERALL "ATTRACTIVENESS" AND "EFFECTIVENESS"
MY ROUND TWO ANSWERS
(OVERALL "ATTRACTIVENESS")
MY
RANKING CONTROL MEASURE
(BEST) 1.
4.
5.
(WORST) 6.
GROUP RESULTS
FOR ROUND TWO
GROUP CONTROL
RANKING MEASURE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
OVERALL
"ATTRACTIVENESS"
RANKING
4.
EFFECTIVENESS*
# PERSONS
PARTICIPATING
%VMT
REDUCTION
*Record these results in first 2 columns of ROUND FOUR (next page) under "My Round Three Answers"
-------
ROUND FOUR
CONTROL MEASURE "EFFECTIVENESS" RATING
D
I
MY ROUND THREE ANSWERS
(EFFECTIVENESS)
# PERSONS % VMT
GROUP RESULTS
FOR ROUND TWO
CONTROL MEASURE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
EFFECTIVENESS*
# PERSONS % VMT
PARTICIPATING REDUCTION
*Record these results in first 2 columns of ROUND FIVE (next page) under "My Round Four Answers",
-------
ROUND FIVE
CONTROL MEASURE "EFFECTIVENESS" RATING
MY ROUND FOUR ANSWERS
(EFFECTIVENESS)
# PERSONS
VMT
a
i
C71
GROUP RESULTS
FOR ROUND THQ
CONTROL MEASURE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
CONFIDENCE
RATING*(l-5)
EFFECTIVENESS
# PERSONS
PARTICIPATING
% VMT
REDUCTION
instructions for Confidence Rating (1-5) - Rate yourself on your overall confidence in the accuracy of
your answers (based on either technical training, knowledge of the field, or experience in field of
interest).
1 - Little confidence in my answer
5 - Strong confidence in my answer
Scale
-------
SUPPLEMENT TO
LAS VEGAS DELPHI PANEL
MISCELLANEOUS "FACT SHEETS"
March 28, 1974
CONDUCTED BY
TRW I
TRANSPORTATION*
'ENVIRONMENTAL
'OPERATIONS
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
D-16
-------
PART I
Selected Statistics for Las Vegas
Miscellaneous Statistics
In 1970, 1 car per 1.8 persons in the Las Vegas Valley. The
figure is up from the 1965 figure of 1 car per 2.2 persons.
Parking - In 1970, 10,516 available parking spaces for both
on and off-street parking; 1,137 street meters; 1,113 curb-
side unmetered spaces.
In 1973, metered streetside spaces increased to 1,169;
unmetered curb spaces rose to 1,709. 21.4% of total avail-
able parking in "on-street". Total off-street parking totals
45.9% of the total parking facilities. 8,266 off-street
spaces in downtown commercial area.
Public Transit - 1965, less than 1.3% of all resident person
trips made via public transit. In 1972, the average weekday
passenger trips totaled 8,000; the average peak hour
passenger trip, 1 ,000.
Existing Traffic Facilities - 25 miles of freeway, 95.1 miles
of minor arterials, 266 miles of collector streets, 550 miles
of local streets comprised Las Vegas in 1970.
Traffic Volume - 1965 VMT = 2,293,000. 1970 VMT =
9.9 VMT/person/day. Estimated 1976 VMT = 2,833,510.
Taxis produced 2.1% of total trips in study area; government
trips accounted for 8,461 trips per day representing 1.4% of
all vehicle trips.
D-17
-------
LAS VEGAS VALLEY URBAN TRANSPORTATION STUDY
o
i
00
TYPE OF TRIP
Resident (Work-Home-Based)
Resident (Socio-Recreation-Home-Based)
Resident (Shopping-Home-Based)
Resident (Other-Home-Based)
Resident (Nonhome-Based)
Motel Patron
Taxi
Other
TOTAL VEHICLES
*Special Busses - Motel, Airport Limousine, Tours, etc.
**Total Public Transits
***Total All Bus Passengers
VEHICLE
TRIPS
(Thousands)
106
me-Based) 78
) 95
97
79
44
13
95
607
PERSON
TRIPS
(Thousands)
141
223
194
278
156
112
25
148
1277
PERSONS/
VEHICLE
1.3
2.9
2.1
2.9
2.0
2.5
1.9
2.0
2.1
PERSONS
BUS
2.0
.5
.7
. 13.0
.5
17.0*
17**
34***
Source: State of Nevada, Department of Highways, "Las Vegas Valley Transportation Study," 1970
-------
LAS VEGAS VALLEY URBAN TRANSPORTATION STUDY
o
Resident (Work-Home-Based)
Resident (Socio-Recreation
Resident (Shopping-Home-Based)
Resident (Other-Home-Based)
Resident (Nonhome-Based)
Motel
Taxi
Other
TOTAL VEHICLE TRIPS
Population
Occupied Dwelling Units
Employed Persons
Pleasure Vehicles
Licensed Drivers
PROJECTION VALUES
VEHICLE TRIPS AND DEMOGRAPHY
1970
152
lome-Based) 109
d) 137
135
107
53
21
105
819
316
96
118
150
176
%
18
13
17
16
13
7
3
13
100%
1980
260
204
246
245
191
95
37
191
1468
563
170
201
278
315
%
18
14
17
17
13
6
3
12
100%
Source: State of Nevada, Department of Highways, "Las Vegas Valley Transportation Study," 19/0.
-------
o
ro
o
PARKING STUDY - LAS VEGAS CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
BASED ON ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
DESCRIPTION TOTAL
*Total Parking Hours Available in 1965 164
Parking Utilized . 44
Surplus 121
Total Parking Hours Utilized in 1970 59
Surplus 105
Total Parking Hours Utilized in 1980 76
Surplus 88
*Total parking hours available have been reduced by 35% to account for turnover
time and late night time when parking is not used.
Source: State of Nevada, Department of Highways, "Las Vegas Valley Transportation
Study," 1970.
-------
NORTH LAS VEGAS EMPLOYED PERSONS
JOURNEY TO WORK
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION BY MODE
City Total
Total Employees Sampled 465
Total Auto Drivers 372
% Auto Drivers 80.00 (80%)
Total Auto Passengers 68
% Auto Passengers 14.62 (15%)
Total Other 25
% Other 5.38 (
Total % 100.00 (100%)
North Las Vegas
Motor Vehicles Available
Total
Households
In Sample
400
None %
34 8.5
1 Motor
Vehicle %
161 40
Per. Household
2 Motor
Vehicles
156
at
39
3 or More
Motor
Vehicles %
49 12
Source: Community Analysis and Evaluation Program, City of North
Las Vegas, "Labor Supply Profile," February, 1974.
D-21
-------
TEN YEAR GROWTH
Southern Nevada Activity Report - Las Vegas Area and Clark County
Statistical Table Showing Economic Trend for 1963 - 1972
BRANCH OF ACTIVITY
AIR TRAVEL - McCARRAN INT'L AIRPORT
Passengers Off and On
EMPLOYMENT TREND
Total Employment
Unemployment
Total Labor Force
Unemployed Percent of Labor
LAS VEGAS CONVENTIONS
Total Attendance
Total Conventions
GAMBLING - Gross Winnings
GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS
Gasoline Consumption (Gals.)
POPULATION
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
Source: Bank of Nevada, "Composite
1972
$ 4,606,644
133,700
9,300
143,000
290,794
385
476,126,720
175,434,320
310,000
75,425
1967
$ 2,848,348
97,900
6,400
104,300
6.1
155,240
251
209,545,715
110,405,441
265,000
62,775
% Change
+ 61.7
+ 36.5
+ 45.3
+ 37.1
+ 87.3
+ 53.3
+127.0
+ 58.9
+ 16.9
+ 20.5
Growth Tabulations 1963 - 1972".
1963
$ 1,444,720
83,750
5,558
89,308
78,872
132
141,013,081
92,911,889
225,000
50,021
% Change
+218.8
+ 59.6
+ 67.3
+ 60.1
+268.6
+191.6
+238.0
+ 88.8
+ 37.7
+ 50.7
o.
ro
ro
-------
PART II
Results of Studies in Other Regions
Selected Results from the "Fourteen Cities Study"
Estimated Automobile VMT Reductions from Traffic Control Measures
Core (%) Region (%)
Baltimore 3.0
Boston 2.9 1.3
Pittsburgh 3.8 .3
Seattle 1.9
Spokane 5.0
Los Angeles 0.6 1.3
Source: GCA Corp. and TRW, Inc., "Transportation Controls to
Reduce Motor Vehicle Emissions in Major Metropolitan
Areas," December, 1972.
Note: With the inclusion of VMT reductions from improved
transit, total regional VMT reductions ranged from
0.4 percent in Pittsburgh to 6.0 percent in Baltimore.
D-23
-------
Table 7.11. Summary of Impacts for Various Control Strategies
in Los Angeles
Strategy Description
Approximate %
VMT Reduction
Much Improved Public Transit
Improved Transit and Tax on Auto Use
Auto Free Zone (e.g., L.A. C.B.D.)
Increased Parking Costs
Four Day Work Week
Exclusive Bus and Carpool Lane
Exclusive Bus and Carpool Land with
3<£/mile tax
Increased Commuter Carpools to Achieve
an Average Automobile Occupancy of
1.5 on Freeways
~ 3
-4 -
. ~0.6
Negligible
~0.6
-3.2
~4.4
Source: Tfv/I, Inc., "Transportation Control Strategy Development
for the Metropolitan Los Angeles Region," January, 1G73.
D-24
-------
Summary of Impacts for VMT Reduction Strategies
in San Francisco, California
Approximate Percent
Strategy Description VMT Reduction
1. Intercept autos entering San Francisco
50 cent added toll
- commute traffic only 0.2
- 24 hour basis . . 0.5
$2 added toll
- commute traffic only 0.6
- 24 hour basis 1.4
t $10 added toll
- commute traffic only 3.0
- 24 hour basis 6.8
Physical constraints (bus and carpool lanes)
- half lanes reserved 3.0
Reduce transit fares
- commute traffic only 2.0
- 24 hour basis 4.5
Parking reductions
- 50 percent CBD reduction 4.0
2. Suburban employer parking restrictions/
subscription bus and carpooling
e 50 percent reduction in auto use, " 2.5
firms 1000+ employees
75 percent reduction in auto use, ' 3.8
firms 1000+ employees
3. Moratoriums on development
t Outside transit service area 0.4
Major generators outside established centers 0.7
4. Traffic disincentives/transit preferential treatment
t Excluding entrance to San Francisco 0.2
5. Free transit fare
Local Service 0.2
Intercity, excluding entering San Francisco 2.0
6. Improved local transit 0.7
7. Gas taxing/pricing
20 percent price increase . 8-12
8. Gas rationing
80 percent current level 13-17
Maximum attainable without gas pricing or rationing « 15
Source: TRW, Inc., "Air Quality Implementation Plan Development
for Critical California Regions: San Francisco Bay
Intrastate AQCR," July, 1973.
D-25
-------
APPENDIX E
This appendix presents the emissions of carbon monoxide (1973 base
year) and total hydrocarbons (1972 base year) on a gridded basis for Clark
County. The portion of Clark County covered by the grids (each grid is
one kilometer by one kilometer in size) is as follows:
UTM coordinates 650,000 meters E. to 700,000 meters E.
UTM coordinates 3,980,000 meters N. to 4,020,000 meters N.
The TRW grid does not include all of Clark County but does include the
Las Vegas Valley, where the majority of sources are located. Consequently
the total emissions of CO and THC presented in this appendix differ from
those in Chapter 4.0.
Emissions from the following sources are included in the gridded
network presented in this Appendix:
All point sources listed in Table 4-13 and whose UTM
coordinates lie within the boundaries of the TRW net-
work (Thus the TRW network does not include emissions
from, for example, the Mohave Power Plant).
The North Las Vegas Air Terminal, McCarran International
Airport and Nell is Air Force Base.
Industrial area sources; domestic, commercial and indus-
trial space heating; solid waste disposal and organic
solvent usage - as specified in Table 4-11. Emissions
from these sources are distributed to each grid in
proportion to the 1970 population residing within
each grid.
Gasoline marketing emissions - distributed to each grid
in proportion to the 1972. VMT in a given grid.
Motor vehicle emissions in the area jointly covered
by the Nevada Department of Highways grid (see
Appendix B, Section B.3) and the TRW network.
See Figures E-l and E-2
E-l
-------
i
ro
4090°°° 620°°° 660
000 700°°° 740°°°
3970
3930
3890
CLARK COUNTY
650°°° 660°°° 670°°° 680°°° 690°°° 700°°°
4020
000
4010
ooo
4000
ooo
3990
ooo
3980
ooo
LAS VEGAS AREA GRID
Figure E-l Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Grid
-------
4020
,000
650°°° 660°°° 690°°° 700°°°
I \ / 1
X= 12345. 678 _? lQ/\ 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
i
OJ
4010
000
3990
°°°
3980'
°°°
Y = 40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Figure E~2 TRW Grid
-------
X
Y 1
2
3
4
c
6
7
E
9
1C
11
12
13
14
If
16
17
18
IS
2C
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
26
29
3C
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
36
J \f
4C
I
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
c.oooo
c.oooo
c.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
c.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
c.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.cooo
0.0000
o.cooo
o.cooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.GOOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0. 0000
0.0000
0.0000
3
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0 .0000
0.0000
.0235
4
0. oOOo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.GOOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0. 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.OOOO
0.0000
0.0000
O.OGOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0. 0000
0. 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
0. 0000
.0663
.0661
5
O.OOGO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
G.OOOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0002
.0003
.0008
.0013
.0014
.0012
.0004
.0011
.0012
.0004
.0009
.0008
0.0000
.0001
0.0000
.0001
0.0000
0.0000
.0001
.0013
.0023
0.0000
o.cooo
1 13 r
.0674
. 1 10 3
6
O.OGOO
0.0000
0.0000
0. 0000
O.GOOO
0.0000
o.oooo
O..GOOO
0.0000
0.0000
G.COOO
o.cooo
O.GOOO
0.0000
.0001
o.ocoo
.0001
.0003
.0022
.0038
.0010
.0042
.0087
.0074
.0083
. 004*)
.0012
.C001
0.0000
.0002
.0005
0.0000
.C1C2
.0012
.0167
.0337
. 1258
. C ft K =
.C374
.0015
7
o.cooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.ocoo
0.0000
.C093
0.0000
.0042
.0000
0.0000
.GOOO
0.0000
.0006
G.OOGO
.0006
.0003
.0021
.0050
o.ocoo
.G009
.0100
o.cooo
.0113
c.cooo
.0012
o.cooc
0.0000
J.OOOO
.0002
.0006
.OC72
.C113
.0589
.C826
.1G57
0617
O.GOGO
.0003
3
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
.013"'
.0001
.0081
.O')02
.0000
.JJ03
0.0000
.0013
0.0000
.0013
. J002
.0110
.0066
0.0000
.0070
.0116
.0632
.0453
.0356
' .0281
.0537
.0760
. J'i34
.0989
.09V2
.1355
.1755
.1327
.1573
.0414
.0005
.0004
0.0000
q
O.COOO
C.OOCO
0.0000
c.oooo
c.ooco
c.ooco
' C.OOCO
.0236
.0015
.0140
.0025
.0034
.0069
f\ ?\ K i,
\j \J C .
.0150
.0155
.0172
.0204
.0475
.0672
.0676
. la 28
.19C3
.2867
.2050
.2046
.1519
.lies
. 1020
.1077
.C839
.0739
. 09 C9
.07C2
.1036
. 00 13
.0176
. 00 31
O.COCO
.C001
10
0.0000
c.oooo.
c.oooo
O.OOGO
c.cooo
c.oooo
c.oooo
.0109
.0056
.0110
.0004
.0003
.0010
.0005
.0036
.0017
.0043
.0073
.0470
.1607
.0410
.1648
.2173
.2950
.27^2
.2313
.0355
.0645
.0173
.0563
.C4h.l
.0862
. 1491
.1324
.0504
.0526
.0532
.0549
.CG69
.0056
Figure E-3 Carbon Monoxide Emissions (tons/day) for Clark County Total Emissions = 140.8 tons/day
-------
X
Y 1
2
a
4
c
rf
6
7
e
s
1C
11
12
13
1A
15
16
17
IE
19
2C
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3C
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
3E
3S
AC
11
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0099
.0011
.0079
0.0000
0.0000
.0004
.0039
.0009
.0053
.0021
.0524
.0940
.0244
.2158
.1192
.4220
.2220
.2735
.0445
.1541
.1116
.1251
.0693
.1878
.0660
.0303
.0115
.0005
.0021
.0072
.0042
0.0000
12
.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0076
.0056
.0120
.0007
.0004
.0038
.0052
.0019
.0062
.0065
.0843
.2145
.0939
.4503
.2101
.7524
.5494
.6236
.3035
.3974
1.0413
.2852
.1898
.0145
.0155
.0370
.0041
.00^4
.0019
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
13
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0134
.0043
.0150
.0026
.0052
.0084
.0008
.0090
.0034
.0790
.1569
.1487
.5212
.1554
.6903
.3011
.3653
.1865
.2950
.6794
.1813
.0046
.0120
.0217
.0385
.0159
0.0000
.0022
.0022
0.0000
0.0000
14
.0924
.0648
.0130
.0001
. 000 1
.0001
.0000
.0001
.0015
.0346
.0985
.1174
. 1475
. 1715
.1395
. 1711
.3343
.2919
.7306
.7230
.3325
.7512
.1112
.800&
.3832
.4653
.1972
.3351
. 1453
.0152
.0021
.0160
.0244
.0294
.0097
.0070
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
15
.1120
.1332
. 1 82 3
.2251
. 1780
.1632
.2200
.1956
.2053
.1914
.1871
. 1537
.1293
.1374
.1781
.2851
.6351
.5260
1.0221
.8973
.8336
1.3567
.5623
1.2156
.5506
.6233
.4195
.1646
.1072
.0295
.0205
.0250
.0202
.0371
.0093
.0020
.0083
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
16
o.cooo
.0026
.0065
.COS6
.0073
0.0000
.0118
0.0000
. 0210
.0019
.0196
.0117
.0015
.4000
2.4725
.4816
.3464
.1611
. 5426
.8080
.9436
1.6458
1.2032
1.8052
1.2207
. 9728
.6309
.2750
.2167
.0861
.0454
.0266
.0168
.0367
0.0000
O.COOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
17
0.0000
0.0000
.003 9
.C065
.0109
.0073
.00*8
.0044
.0210
0.0000
.0192
.0112
0.0000
.4048
2.4710
.5051
.3322
.3235
.6317
.7745
.5584
1.341=5
1.2166
2.0648
1.3697
1.4237
.8556
.4826
.1971
.0703
.0299
.0226
.0307
.0559
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
13
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0039
.0052
.0124
.0039
.0055
.0099
0.0000
.0098
.0134
.0048
. 4 00 7
.1233
.2564
.4192
.2749
.4616
.5906
.4933
1.1190
.7296
1.6804
1.7350
1.4423
1.4090
.9264
.5451
.1776
.0160
.0189
.0123
.0260
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
19
J.GOOG
0.0000
O.COOO
0.0000
.0058
.0032
.0140
.0030
.0070
0.0000
.0075
.0037
0.0000
.3903
.0322
.1098
.0743
.0681
.2724
.4322
.2223
.6213
.2529
1.2671
.7596
.8023
.5085
.7025
.5226
.3397
.1790
.1487
.0375
.0317
.0217
.0025
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
20
.0000
0.0000
C.OOUO
0.0000
0.0000
.0086
.0026
.0315
.0072
.0130
.0135
.0131
.0137
.0907
.0467
.1632
.10S2
.1185
.2537
.3376
.1509
.5697
.6668
1.3272
1.0779
.7840
.6706
.8392
.7711
.3320
.3613
.1691
.1780
.0744
.0004
C.OOOO
C.OOOO
0.0000
0.0000
C.OOOO
N
Figure E-3 (Continued)
-------
X
Y 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
<;
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IE
19
20
21
22
22
24
25
2t
27
26
29
3C
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
3S
AC
21
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
b.oooo
0.0000
.0151
.0066
.0308
.0040
.0031
.0026
.0015
.0613
.0111
.1040
.0456
.0133
.2363
.2686
.2860
.5535
.5126
.5657
.3363
.1480
.1430
.3028
.3671
.1190
.1562
.2105
.1477
.2022
.0155
.0045
.0042
.0021
0.0000
0.0000
22
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0151
.0042
.0129
.0015
.0009
.0064
.0541
.0310
.1135
. 1038
.1168
.2910
.3249
.4127
.5110
.4033
.4763
.2033
.3523
.1273
.2792
.3106
.2864
. 1390
.2094
.1935
.1448
.0467
.0147
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
23
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0017
.0061
.0071
.0012
.0007
.0036
.0552
.0190
.0751
.0395
.0344
.1904
.3120
.3956
.2941
.3124
.1243
.2304
.2139
.1853
. 1940
.1848
.0993
.2135
.1227
.2332
.2046
.1064
.0574
.0084
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
24
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0093
.0011
.0244
.0140
.0128
.0567
.0128
.0960
.0739
.1056
.393*
.3809
.3868
.1050
.0712
.0272
. 1217
. 1096
.0826
.1253
.0823
.0337
. 04 74
. 10^4
. 1723
. 1747
.0655
.0155
.0311
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
25
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0080
0.0000
.0119
0.0000
0.0000
.0167
.0213
.0140
.0711
.3809
.4760
.6007
.3009
.2126
.2299
.1891
.2189
.2480
.2299
.2740
. 1905
. 1586
.1080
. 1 765
.2244
.230F
.0576
.0651
.0124
.0186
0.0000
0.0000
26
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.cooo
0.0000
o.cooo
0.0000
.0094
0.0000
.0139
.0002
.0516
.0100
.0689
.0226
.2563
.2265
.3034
. 090?
.0229
. C120
.0377
.0182
.0299
. 0149
. 0243
.1129
.0377
.0611
. 1493
.2960
.1085
.C065
.0929
.0383
.0273
.0311
O.COOO
o.ooco
27
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0061
.0042
.0237
.0003
.0603
0.0000
.0493
.3148
.1611
.3585
.0463
.0176
.0084
.0015
.0072
.0074
.0262
.0032
.0122
.1066
.0141
.C5Q5
.0320
.2960
.3700
.0273
.0052
.0092
.C679
O.COOO
.037 3
0.0000
28
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0105
.0124
0.0000
.0611
0.0000
.3736
.1878
.3950
.0343
O.OOOJ
.0028
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooc
0.0000
0.0000
.0166
0.0000
.00T1
0.0000
.118*
.1480
.0371
.0188
.0092
.0158
.0558
.0249
.0125
29
O.OOCO
0.0000
O.COCO
0.0000
O.OOCO
c.ooco
c.oooo
O.OOCO
0.0000
.0105
.0025
.0099
.0738
.3188
. 1789
.2889
.0628
.0007
0.0000
.0028
G.OOCO
0.0000
C.OOCO
0.0000
O.COCO
0.0000
O.OOCO
.0173
0.0000
. 00 74
0.0000
c.ooco
.0444
c.ooco
.0168
. 00 53
.0127
.0565
G.OOOO
.0311
30
0.0000
0.0000
C.OOOO
c.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
c.oooo
c.oooo
0.0000
.0105
.0027
.0124
.4120
.1364
.3256
.0002
.0456
.C001
0.0000
.0005
C.OOOO
0.0000
C.OOOO
c.oooo
c.oooo
c.oooo
c.oooo
.0163
0.0000
.00^0
0.0000
c.oooo
c.oooo
c.oooo
c.oooo
.0063
c.cooo
.C232
.0332
.0312
Figure E-3 (Continued)
-------
X
V 1
2
3
4
E
6
7
8
e
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
IS
2C
21
22
23
24
2?
2t
27
28
2S
3C
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
3S
4C
31
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0656
8.2607
.4994
.1678
.2712
0.0000
0.0000
.0419
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
c.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0045
.0108
.0072
0.0000
c.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
.0015
0.0000
.0080
.0013
.0706
0.0000
32
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.GOOO
.0006
.0055
.0192
.0505
.1778
.4813
.2427
.2406
.0015
0.0000
0.0000
.0349
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.'oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0018
.0008
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0023
.0046
.0374
.0344
33
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0009
.0027
.0450
.0496
.3979
.2891
.2400
.1200
.0135
0.0000
0.0000
.0271
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0040
.0059
.0713
34
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
. 00 1 1
0.0000
.0135
.2514
.0433
.0915
.0690
. 0^25
.0436
.0247
.0111
.0062
0.0000
0.0000
0. 0000
0.0000
0. 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0. 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0. 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0. 0000
0.0000
.0030
.0421
35
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0006
.0128
. 1090
.0150
.0321
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0439
0.0000
.0204
0.0000
O.OGOO
0.0000
o.ooco
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
. 0003
36
0. 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.Clc?
. 1023
.0210
.0274
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.CGOO
0.0000
.0425
.0092
.0076
0.0000
0.0000
o.cooo
0.0000
0.0000
o.cooo
.0.0000
O.OOGO
0.0000
O.GOOO
0.0000
0.0000
G. 0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.OOGO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
u.OOOG
O.GOOO
o.cooo
O.GOOO
37
o.oooc
0.0000
G.OOOC
0.0000
.0910
.1557
.053R
.0436
O.GOOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooc
.0053
O.OOOG
.0022
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.cooo
o.ooco
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooc
c.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.cooo
38
0.0000
o.oooc
u.oooo
.0971
.1365
.0652
.0269
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Q.OOOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
39
0 . 00 00
G.OOCU
o.ooco
.0182
.0010
.CO 63
O.GOCO
G.COCO
c.ooco
O.GOGO
G.COCO
o.coco
0.0000
C.OOCG
O.OOGO
o.ooco
o.ooco
o.ooco
G.COOO
o.ooco
o.ooco
G.OOGO
G.OOCO
0.0000
o.coco
c.ooco
o.ooco
O.GOOO
o.ooco
0.0000
O.COCG
0 . 00 CO
o.ooco
c.ooco
0.0000
G.OOCO
G.GOCO
O.GOCO
o.ooco
0.0000
40
G.OOOO
c.oooo
0.0000
c.oooo
c.oooo
G.OOOO
c.oooo
c.oooo
0.0000
G.OOOO
c.oooo
c.oooo
c.oooo
0.0000
c.oooo
c.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
c.oooo
c.oooo
c.oooo
c.oooo
0.0000
G.GOOO
c.oooo
c.oooo
0.0000
G.OOOO
c.oooo
c.oooo
c.oooo
c.oooo
0.0000
U.OGOO
0.0000
0.0000
c.oooo
c.oooo
G.OOOO
G.OOOO
Figure E-3 (Continued)
-------
m
i
oo
X
Y 1
2
3
4
c
6
7
E
;
1C
11
12
13
14
15
Id
17
IE
is
2G
21
22
23
2*
25
26
27
26
2S
3C
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
36
35
4C
41
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
G.OOOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
c.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
42
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.cooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0082
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.-0000
0.0000
0.0000
43
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.ocoo
0.0000
O.OOOJ
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo-
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
44
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0. 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0. 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0. 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0. 0000
0.0000
0. OOGO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0. 0000
0. OJOO
0.0000
0. 0000
0.0000
0. 0000
45
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
46
0.0000
o.cooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.cooo
0.0000
o.cooo
0.0000
0.0000
o.cooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.ooou
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0. 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.cooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.ocoo
47
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.ooco
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0. COOC
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.cooo
.0083
0.0000
48
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.OOQO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
J.OOOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0003
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0022
0.0000
49
c.ooco
0.0000
c.ooco
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.OOOJ
c.oooo
0.0000
o.ooco
0.0000
o.ooco
0.0000
c.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
o.ooco
o.ooco
0.0000
c.ooco
c.oooo
c.oooo
o.ooco
0 . 00 CO
c.ooco
c.oooo
c.oooo
c.ooco
0.0000
c.oooo
c.coco
c.ooco
c.ooco
C . 00 00
0.0000
c.ooco
c.ooco
c.oooo
o.ooco
C.OOCu
. *i '1
0.0000
0.0000
c.oooo
c.oooo
0.0000
c.oooo
0.0000
c.oooo
c.oooo
c.oooo
c.oooo
c.oooo
c.oooo
0.0000
c.oooo
c.oooo
0.0000
c.oooo
0.0000
c.oooo
c.oooo
0.0003
0.0000
0.0000
c.oooo
c.oooo
0.0000
c.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
c.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
c.oooo
0.0000
c.oooo
c.oooo
c.oooo
N
Figure E-3 (Continued)
-------
X
Y 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
1C
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
72
23
24
25
?6
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
16
37
38
39
40
1
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.ooco
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.ooco
0.0000
0.0000
o.ooco
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
2
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.J009
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.cooo
o.oooc
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
G.OOOO
0.0000
o.oooo-
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
3
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.ooou
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.OOOC
0.0000
0.0000
O.JOOO
0.0000
O.OOJO
0.0000
O.QOUO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.OOOG
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooc
o.oooo
O.OoOO
.0069
4
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.OOoO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
.0201
.0194
5
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0000
.0001
.0002
.0003
.0002
.0002
.0001
.0002
.0002
.0001
.0002
.0025
0.0000
.0000
0.0000
.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0000
.0005
.0005
0.0000
0.0000
.0334
.0171
.0192
6
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooc
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooc
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0000
0.0000
.oooc
.0001
.0004
.0007
.0002
.0009
.0017
.0019
.0015
.0009
.0002
.0000
0.0000
.0000
.0001
o.oooc
.0029
.0003
.0029
.0099
.0369
.0112
.015C
.0004
7
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0029
0.0000
.0007
.0000
0.0000
.0000
0.0000
.0002
0.0000
.0001
.0001
.0004
.0009
0.0000
.0003
.0021
0.0000
.0022
0.0000
.0002
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.OOUO
.0001
.0021
.0020
.0169
.02^2
.0205
.0164
0.0000
.0001
8
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0055
.0000
.0014
.0001
.0000
iOOOO
0.0000
.0004
0.0000
.0002
.0001
.0019
.0013
0.0000
.0013
.0049
.0182
.0116
.0229
.0068
.0123
.0174
.0165
.0220
.0208
.0287
.0468
.0335
.0388
.0118
.0025
.0025
0.0000
9
0.0000
o.cooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0069
.0004
.0026
.0006
.0009
.0015
.0018
.0033
.0033
.0037
.0043
.0089
.0125
.0124
.0363
.0415
.0745
.0556
.0714
.0436
.0265
.0365
.02*1
.0207
.0180
.0293
.0159
.0202
.0050
.0055
.0061
U.OOOO
.0000
10
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0032
.0016
.0019
.0001
.0001
.0002
.0002
.0006
.0028
.0013
.0018
.0089
.0286
.0085
.0424
.0521
.0767
.07tt2
.0950
.0458
. J285
.0080
.0379
.0176
.0245
.0329
.0258
.0118
. .0144
.0143
.0142
.0012
.0010
N
Figure E-4 Total Hydrocarbon Emissions (tons/day); Total Emissions = 46.8 tons/day
-------
X
Y 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
<;
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2S
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
36
39
40
11
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0029
.0002
.0014
o.oopo
0.0000
iOOOl
.0030
.0003
.0016
.0005
.0099
.0176
.0077
.0555
.0450
.1205
.0639
.1028
.0366
.0583
.0440
.0455
.0225
.0466
.0246
.0100
.0140
.0025
.0053
.0036
.0007
0.0000
12
.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0022
.0017
.0021
.0001
.0001
.0011
.0009
.0003
.0018
.0019
.0154
.0484
.0313
.1096
.0543
.2009
.1575
.1860
.0918
.1141
.0755
.0572
.0325
.0072
.0045
.0111
.0031
.0008
.0027
0.0000
0.0000
O.OOOG
13
0.0000
0.0000
O.OOJO
O.uOOO
o.ouoo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0054
.0010
.0026
.0006
.0037
.0014
.0002
.0026
.0009
.0148
.0395
.0563
.1360
.0762
.1394
.0875
.1065
.0700
.0845
.0750
.0321
.QUO 6
.Oltl
.0056
.0090
.0027
0.0000
.0004
.0004
0.0000
0.0000
14
.0191
.0111
.0022
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0004
.0102
.0287
.0262
.0362
.0408
.0354
.0414
.0891
.0777
.1750
.1750
.0585
.1733
.0691
.2231
.1008
.1469
.0632
.0964
.0393
.0036
.0029
.0051
.0057
.0050
.0017
.0012
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
15
.0329
.0390
.0435
.0567
.0427
.0402
.0523
.0457
.0513
.0453
.0450
.0365
.0283
.0341
.0460
.0705
.1630
.1255
.2375
.2196
.2193
.3519
.1073
.3140
.1219
.1738
.0900
.0583
.0354
.0095
.0162
.0043
.0079
.0087
.0017
.0003
.0014
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
16
0.0000
.0006
.001S
.0015
.0014
0.0000
.0020
0.0000
.0062
.0147
.0057
.0057
.0123
.1874
i.2373
.2070
.1016
.0322
.1614
.2343
.2835
.4348
.3038
.4495
.2814
.2766
.1660
.0757
.0628
.0310
.0076
.0046
.0049
.0063
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
17
o.uooo
0.0000
.0011
.0019
.0019
.0014
.0015
.0008
.0062
0.0000
.0033
.0033
o.oooo
.1911
1.2250
i.0593
.0975
.07ao
.1893
.2082
.1496
.3645
.3507
.5762
.3274
.3791
. 1958
.1544
.0808
.0421
.0219
.0062
.0033
.0119
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
18
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0011
.0015
.0022
.0007
.0009
.0029
0.0000
.0017
.0039
.0014
.1875
.0392
.0684
.1061
.0960
.1271
.1649
.1649
.3317
.1987
.4437
.4743
.4040
.3555
.2474
.1372
.0345
.0219
.0032
.0059
.0045
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
19
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0017
.0009
.0024
.0005
.0021
0.0000
.0013
.0011
0.0000
. 1854
.0094
.03o7
.0202
.0193
.0865
.1021
.0718
.1764
.1223
.3791
.2221
.2283
.1861
.2238
.1592
.1307
.0374
.0255
.0086
.0058
.0061
.0004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
20
0.0000
O.UOOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0025
.0000
.0055
.0021
.0025
.0034
.0041
.0043
.0240
.0109
.0360
.0370
.0538
.0683
.1016
.0386
.1581
.2116
.37^8
.2610
.2277
.2145
.2476
.2277
.0777
.1716
.0390
.0334
.0127
.0025
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
N
Figure E-4 (Continued)
-------
m
i
X
V 1
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1£
IS
2C
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2fl
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
3?
36
39
40
21
0.0000
O.OGOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0044
.0017
.0053
.0007
.0005
.0008
.0004
.0179
.0147
.0215
.0113
.0027
.0677
.0633
.0727
.1638
.1332
.1131
.0946
.0530
.0614
.1221
.1486
.0657
.0435
.0618
.0468
.0348
.0028
.0009
.0007
.0004
0.0000
0.0000
22
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0044
.0007
.0022
.0003
.0003
.0019
.0131
.0073
.0239
.0232
.0284
.0763
.0811
.1124
.1505
.0953
.1316
.0593
.0755
.0588
.0916
.0914
.0855
.0414
.0415
.0586
.0317
.0080
.0025
0.0000
0.0000
G.OOOO
0.0000
23
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.JOOO
a. oooo
0.0000
.0005
.0018
.0012
.GOG*:
.0002
.0009
.0147
.0037
.0158
.0103
.0207
.0671
.0747
.1169
.0948
.J890
.041 /
.0/65
.0852
.0603
.0508
.0405
.0474
.0709
.026 I
.0532
.049*
.0266
.0098
.0014
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
24
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0027
.0003
.0043
.0025
.0046
.0166
.0107
.0198
.0155
.0249
.1234
.1175
.0829
.0310
.0274
.0099
.0337
.0475
.0*52
.0611
.0288
.0207
.01 id
.0414
.0406
.0399
.0205
.0026
.0053
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
25
0.0000
p. oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0024
0.0000
.0020
0.0000
0.0000
.0049
.0040
.0033
.0209
.lC7tl
.1530
.1400
.0815
.0502
.0523
.0693
.0528
.0647
.0670
.0715
.0547
.0473
.0413
.0461
.1085
.0567
.0219
.0131
.0021
.0032
0.0000
0.0000
26
0.0000
O.JO DO
o.oooc
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooc
0.0000
0.0000
.0028
0.0000
.0024
.0001
.0152
.0020
.0121
.616S
.0752
.0659
.0544
.0206
.0065
.0033
.0091
.0077
.0055
.0041
.0064
.0364
. 02 1 3
.0249
.0926
. 1800
6.3524
.0134
.016C
.0100
.0074
.0053
0.0000
0.0000
27
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0018
.0012
.2498
.0000
.Olf 7
0.0000
.OOS4
.0924
.0473
.0652
.0320
.0056
.0024
.0003
.0013
.0022
.0048
.0030
.0023
.0310
.0034
.0246
.0134
.1800
.2250
.0080
.0009
.0016
.0199
0.0000
.0064
0.0000
28
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
G.OOOO
.0031
.0021
0.0000
.0179
0.0000
.1035
.0551
.0659
.0060
0.0000
.0005
.0274
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.OOGO
.0049
0.0000
.0012
0.0000
.0720
.0900
.0202
.0055
.0016
.0042
.0164
.0043
.0021
29
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.OOOu
0.0000
0.0000
.0031
.0004
.0017
.021 7
.0935
. 0436
.0495
.0228
.OOU2
O.OOOJ
.0005
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0. 0000
0.0000
o.odoo
.0051
0.0000
.0013
0.0000
0.0000
.0270
0.0000
.0055
.0016
.0022
.0165
0.0000
.0053
30
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.GuOO
0.0000
.0031
.1699
.0021
.1209
.0363
.0677
.0001
.0078
.0000
0.0000
.0001
U.OOOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.004o
0.0000
.0012
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0020
0. 0000
.0078
.0097
.0053
M
Figure E-4 (Continued)
-------
ro
X
y i
2
3
4
5
6
7
£
9
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
31
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0193
.0143
.1497
.0419
.0464
0.0000
0.0000
.0072
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.ooco
o.ooco
0.0000
0.0000
.0013
.0032
.0012
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0123
0.0000
.0023
.0002
.0204
0.0000
32
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
c.oooo
0.0000
.0002
.0016
.0037
.0125
.0528
.1476
.0858
.0652
.0123
0.0000
c.oooo
.0060
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooc
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0005
.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.ooco
0.0000
.0007
.0013
.0107
.0100
33
o.oooo
0.0000
o.uooo
0.0000
0.0000
.0003
.0008
.0097
.0129
.1169
.0962
.0684
.0326
.0263
0.0000
0.0000
.0046
0.0000
O.JOOO
0.0000
0.0000
O.JOOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.JOOO
0.0000
0.0000
O.JOOO
0.0000
0.0000
O.JOOO
0.0000
O.OOJO
O.OOJO
O.JOOO
.0012
.0017
.0205
34
O.OOJO
J.OOOO
O.OOJJ
O.OOJO
J.OOOO
.OJ03
J.OOOJ
.0037
.0738
.0090
.0170
.0182
.0233
. J349
.0066
.0019
.0011
J.OOOO
0.0000
J.OOOO
O.JOJO
J.OOOO
0.0000
O.uJOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
J.OOOO
O.JOJO
O.OOJO
O.OOOJ
J.OOOO
J.OOOO
J.OOOO
J.OOOO
0.0000
J.OOOO
O.UJOO
.0009
.0123
35
o.oouo
0.0000
O.OJUJ
0.0000
0.0000
.0002
.003d
.0318
.0026
.0055
O.OOOJ
0.0000
0.0000
.0129
0.0000
.0035
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.OOJO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.JOOO
0.0000
J.OOOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.OOG1
36
o.oooo
0.0000
O.JJJC
J.OOOC
o.oooc
.0058
. 03 0 C
.0036
.0047
O.JOOO
0.0000
J.OOCO
o.oooc
o.oooc
.0125
.0016
.0013
O.OOJO
O.OJOO
J.OOOU
0.0000
J.OOOO
J.OOOO
J.OOOO
o.oooc
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooc
0.0000
o.oooc
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooc
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.OJOO
o.oooc
0.0000
O.JOOC
37
0.0000
0.0000
O.OOJO
0.0000
.0267
.0457
.0092
.0075
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0016
0.0000
.0004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.JOOO
0.0000
0.0000
O.OJOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.OOOJ
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.JOOO
O.OOJO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.OJOO
0.0000
0.0000
33
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0285
.0401
.0112
.0046
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.OJOO
0.0000
c.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
c.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.OOJO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0,0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
39
O.OOOu
0.0000
0.0000
.0053
.0002
.0011
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.JOOO
0.0000
0.0000
0. 0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo'
0.000.0
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.OOJO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
40
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
J.OOOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooc
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.JOOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.JOOO
0.0000
N
Figure E-4 (Continued)
-------
co
X
Y 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
1C
11
12
13
14
i5
16
17
16
19
?C
2 I
22
23
24
25
26
27
2£
29
3C
3 1
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
0.0000
o.uooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0000
o.uooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.OOGO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.ooco
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
42
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
c.oooo
0.0000
c.oooo
0.0000
G.OOOO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0000
o.oboo
.0027
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
43
0.0000
O.JOJO
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.JOJJ
0.0000
0.0000
O.OOOO
0.0000
J.JJJJ
J.JJOO
0.0000
O.OOOQ
O.OOJO
o.uooo
0.0000
0.0000
J.OJJU
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0000
G.QOOO
j.jjoj
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.OJOO
o.oooc
o.ooou
0.0000
O.OOJO
0.0000
o.oouo
O.OOJO
O.JOUO
O.OOJO
0.0000
44
0.0000
O.OJUO
0.0000
O.JOOO
J.OOOO
O.JJJO
O.GJOJ
J.OOOO
J.OOJO
0.0000
J.OJOO
J.JJOJ
J.OOOO
J.JOOO
O.JOOJ
J.OOJO
J. JOJJ
J.JJJJ
o.oooo
J.JJJO
J.OOOO
J.JOOO
J. JOJO
J.JOOJ
J.JJJJ
O.JOJJ
J.JOOO
J.OOOJ
J.JOJO
J.OOOO
J.JOJO
J.OOJJ
J.OJOJ
J.JOJJ
J.OOOO
J. JJJO
J.JOOJ
J.JOJJ
J.OOJO
0.0000
45
J.OOOJ
O.OJOO
O.OOJO
J.uJJJ
0.0000
O.OJJJ
O.JJOJ
O.OOOJ
0.0000
O.OOOJ
0.0000
J.JOJJ
O.OJJJ
0.0000
0.0000
O.OJJJ
O.JOJJ
J.OOJJ
0.0000
J.JJJJ
J.OJJO
O.OOJO
0.0000
0.0000
J.OJJU
0.0000
0.0000
J.OOOJ
0.0000
J.OOJJ
J.JOOJ
0.0000
J.OOJJ
O.OOJO
O.OOOJ
O.JOOO
J.JJJO
O.OOOJ
O.OOOJ
O.OOJJ
46
J.OJJO
O.JJJJ
o.oooc
J.JJJO
J.JOOO
0.0000
J.JJJO
J.OJO.O
O.JOOO
J.JOOJ
J.JOOJ
J.JJOJ
J.JJJC
0.0000
J.OOOC
O.OOOC
J.JOOJ
J.JOJC
O.JOOC
J.JJJC
O.OJJC
J.JJJO
J.OJOO
0.0000
O.OOJJ
0.000.0
0.0000
c.oooo
.0.0000
J.JOOO
0.0000
J.OOOO
O.JJJJ
o.oooc
J.OOOO
O.OJJJ
J.OOOO
O.JJOJ
o.oooc
0 . JO J 0
47
O.OJOO
J.JOOJ
J. JJOO
J.JJOJ
0.0000
0.0000
J.OJJJ
J.JJJO
O.JJJJ
J.OOOJ
J.OOOO
J.JJOJ
O.JJOJ
0.00.00
O.OJJJ
J.JOJO
J. JJOO
J.JOJO
O.OJJO
J.JOJJ
O.OJJJ
J.JJJJ
O.JJJJ
O.JOJJ
0. JJOO
Q.OOOJ
O.OJJJ
J.JOJO
O.OJJJ
u. JJJJ
J.OOJJ
J.JJJO
u.OOOJ
O.OOJJ
u.OJOJ
J. JJOO
J.OOOO
J.JJJJ
.0026
J.OOOO
46
O.JOOO
O.OJJJ
O.JOOO
O.JOOO
O.OJOO
J.JJOO
J.OJJO
J.JJJJ
J.JJJJ
o.ooou
0.0000
J.OOOO
O.OOJJ
C.OOJJ
O.OOOJ
O.OJOO
0.0000
O.OJOJ
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.OOJJ
O.OJJO
O.OJOJ
O.OJOO
O.JOOO
0.0000
J.JJOO
0.0000
O.JOOO
J.OOOO
0.0000
J.OOOO
C.OOJO
0.0000
.0006
O.OOOJ
4^
0. JJJo
J.JOJJ
O.JOJJ
J.OJJO
O.JJJJ
O.OOJJ
J.JJJO
J.JJJO
O.OOJJ
J.JJOJ
J.OJJJ .
J.JJJJ
J.OJJJ
O.JOOO
O.JJJO
J.JOOJ
O.OOJU
J.JJJJ
J.OJJO
O.JJJJ
O.JJOJ
J.JJJJ
J.UJJJ
O.OOOJ
O.JJJJ
J.OJJJ
O.JOOO
O.JJJO
0.0000
O.JJJJ
O.JOJJ
J.JOOJ
J.OOOO
J.OOOJ
J.JJOO
O.OOJU
O.JOOO
O.JJJO
J.OOOO
J.OOJJ
50
0. JJOO
O.JOOO
J. JOJG
J.JJJO
J.JJJJ
O.JOOO
J.OJOO
J.JJJJ
J.JJJO
J.JJJO
J.JOOO
O.JJJO
U . JjuO
J.OOJJ
u.OJJO
J.OOJO
J. JJJO
J.OJOO
J.OOOO
U. JJJO
O.JJJO
U. JUJJ
O.JOJO
J.OOJO
0. JJOO
O.JOJO
U.OOJO
J.JJJO
J.OJOO
O.JOOO
O.OJJO
O.OOJO
J.JJJO
O.JOOO
O.JOJJ
q.ooju
0.0300
O.JJOJ
J.OJJO
0. JOJO
N
Figure E-4 (Continued )
------- |