United States Air and Radiation EPA420-P-00-002
Environmental Protection June 2000
Agency
oEPA Recognizing the Air Quality
Benefits of Local and State
Land Use Policies and
Projects in the Air Quality
Planning Process
DRAFT
) Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
EPA420-P-00-002
July 2000
Recognizing the Air Quality Benefits of
Local and State Land Use Policies and
Projects in the Air Quality Planning Process
Draft
Transportation and Regional Programs Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE
This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or positions.
It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data which are currently available.
The purpose in the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of
technical information and to inform the public of technical developments which
may form the basis for a final EPA decision, position, or regulatory action.
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary -1-
1.0 Introduction -3-
1.0 What are the goals of this guidance? -3-
1.2 Who might be interested in the issues presented in this guidance?
-3-
1.3 Who will use this guidance? -4-
1.4 How do I know if this guidance is applicable to my community? . -4-
1.5 Why did EPA develop this guidance? -5-
1.6 What are the key concepts discussed in this guidance? -6-
2.0 Linking Land Use and Air Quality -7-
2.1 What is the relationship between land use, transportation, and air
quality? -7-
2.2 Who gets involved in land use decisions? -8-
2.3 What are land use strategies? -9-
2.4 What are land use policies and projects? -10-
2.5 What does EPA mean by giving air quality credit? -11-
2.6 How do land use policies and project translate into air quality credit?
-12-
3.0 Accounting for emissions reductions from land use policies and projects-14-
3.1 What Clean Air Act requirements and EPA policies are relevant in
this guidance? -14-
3.2 How are the SIP process and the conformity process related? .. -15-
3.3 What are the different ways that I can claim credit for a land use
policy or project? -15-
4.0 Including land use policies or projects in the initial baseline forecast of
future emissions in the SIP -17-
4.1 What is the initial baseline forecast of future emissions? -17-
4.2 When is an initial baseline forecast of future emissions made? .-17-
4.3 When can I include a land use policy or project into the initial
baseline forecast of future emissions? -17-
-------
5.0 Including a land use policy or project as a control strategy in the SIP
-18-
5.1 What is a control strategy? -18-
5.2 When do I need to include control strategies in the SIP? -18-
5.3 What are the general requirements for including a land use policy or
project as a control strategy in a SIP? -18-
5.4 What EPA SIP programs and policies would help me to incorporate
land use policies and projects as control strategies? -20-
5.5 How are land use policies and projects related to TCMs? -21-
5.6 How do I know if I should use the EIP guidance to develop and
implement my policy or project? -21-
5.7 How do I know if I should use the VMEP policy to develop and
implement my policy or project? -23-
5.8 What are the advantages and disadvantages of including a land use
policy or project as a control strategy in a SIP? -24-
5.9 What other important information do I need to know about including
a land use policy or project as a control strategy in a SIP?
-25-
6.0 Including land use policies or projects in the conformity determination
without having them in a SIP -26-
6.1 Can I account for the benefits of land use policies or projects in a
conformity determination without having them in a SIP? -26-
6.2 How do I account for the benefit of land use policies or projects in
the conformity determination? -26-
6.3 When is it appropriate to account for the benefits of a land use policy
or project in a conformity determination? -27-
6.4 What are the advantages to only modeling land use policies or
projects in the conformity determination without having them in the
SIP? -27-
7.0 Additional Considerations for Accounting for Land Use Policies or
Projects in the SIP or the Conformity Process -29-
7.1 What happens if I included a land use policy or project in the SIP or
the conformity process, and I now have information that the policy
or project isn't occurring, or isn't getting the reductions I predicted it
would? -29-
7.2 How will the time frame for implementing the land use policy or
project impact how I take credit? -29-
-------
8.0 Guidelines for Quantifying Land Use Policies and Projects -30-
8.1 What is the goal of these guidelines? -30-
8.2 How will EPA assist me with quantification? -30-
8.3 How do land use policies and projects affect air quality? -30-
8.4 How do I quantify the impacts of land use policies and projects on
travel and air quality? -31-
8.5 How does the policy I use affect the method of quantification I will
need to use? -32-
8.6 What general steps must I follow to quantify the benefits of land use
measures for inclusion into a SIP? -35-
8.7 What additional specific quantification requirements must I meet to
include my policy or project as a voluntary measure? -39-
8.8 What additional specific quantification requirements must I meet if I
include my policy in a conformity determination without including it
in the SIP? -39-
8.9 What other important issues should I be aware of in quantifying air
quality benefits?
-40-
8.10 What impacts other than air quality should I consider? -42-
8.11 What other resources are available to assist me with quantification?
-42-
Appendix A Examples of Land Use Policies and Strategies -43-
Appendix B Related Internet Web Sites -46-
Appendix C Related Work Efforts -48-
-48-
Appendix D Glossary of Terms -48-
Appendix E List of Acronyms -53-
Appendix F References to Relevant Policies, Guidance Documents, and General
Information Sources -57-
Appendix G Regional and State Contacts -58-
-------
Executive Summary
Recently states and communities have passed hundreds of ballot initiatives at the state and local
level preserving open space, increasing development around transit, and providing for increased
brownfield redevelopment. Each of these places has had different reasons—economic,
environmental or community goals-for pursuing a chosen development path. In addition, such
decisions can help communities improve their environment by reducing vehicular emissions,
improving water quality, and remediating contaminated lands.
States and communities are interested in accounting for the air quality benefits of their
development choices. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intends that this guidance
be an additional tool to encourage the development of land use policies and projects which
improve livability in general, and air quality in particular. This effort is intended to complement
the efforts of states and local areas, and to provide guidance, flexibility and technical assistance
to areas that wish to implement these measures, and count these measures towards meeting their
air quality goals.
This guidance describes EPA policies and practices regarding the quantification of air quality
benefits of local-, regional-, or state-initiated land use strategies. EPA believes that accounting
for air quality benefits, either in State Implementation Plans (SIPs), or through the conformity
process, is appropriate for land use policies and projects where EPA has assurance that reduced
emissions from transportation sources (cars, trucks, buses, etc.) will result. The guidance
presents the conditions under which the benefits of land use policies and projects could be
included in a SIP or in a conformity determination, and provides guidelines for quantifying the
emissions reductions and meeting EPA reporting criteria. Guidance on quantifying land use
strategies not discussed in this document may be discussed in future documents.
In general, you could account for the air quality benefits of land use policies or projects for
nonattainment and maintenance areas in one of three ways:
1. including the impacts of adopted land use policies or existing land use projects
(built or in the process of being built) in the initial baseline forecast of future
emissions in a SIP,
2. including a land use policy or project as a control strategy in a SIP
3. including a land use policy or project in the modeling done for a conformity
determination, without including it in a SIP
This guidance notes the conditions under which each approach would be appropriate, and
presents the criteria EPA would apply for each approach. In addition, general guidelines for
quantifying land use policies and projects in SIPs are provided.
This guidance is consistent with Section 131 of the Clean Air Act, which states, "Nothing in
this Act constitutes an infringement on the existing authority of counties and cities to plan or
-1-
-------
control land use, and nothing in this Act provides or transfers authority over such land use."
EPA is providing this guidance to give flexibility to state and local governments by expanding
the number of strategies an area can use to meet its air quality planning requirements.
-2-
-------
1.0 Introduction
1.0 What are the goals of this guidance?
The goals of this guidance are to:
• provide background on the purpose of this guidance
• define the terms "land use strategies," "land use policies," and "land use
projects" and to explain their significance to the air quality planning process
• describe the options for accounting for the air quality benefits of land use policies
and projects in the air quality planning process (i.e., state implementation plans
(SIPs), and conformity determinations)
• help you determine which option is best for a chosen land use activity
• help you quantify the air quality impacts of land use changes
1.2 Who might be interested in the issues presented in this
guidance?
Increasingly, communities around the country are grappling with the need to develop and grow
while at the same time assuring environmental protection and health for their citizens. To meet
these needs, communities are beginning to more actively involve government agencies, private
organizations, and citizens in collaborative, cooperative transportation, air quality and land use
planning processes.
This guidance discusses the links between these processes, and is designed to encourage and aid
community-based decision making which results in enhanced environmental protection. While
i:his guidance is primary designed to outline the policy and technical issues related to these
planning processes, the ideas presented here will be of interest to a wide variety of groups,
including:
» Academia
" Citizens
" Community organizations
" Financial Institutions
" Local government agencies
« Private developers
" Regional agencies
•• State agencies
-3-
-------
1.3 Who will use this guidance?
The agencies that have responsibility for quantifying air quality programs will use this guidance:
Air quality agencies - the agencies at the state or local level that prepare air quality plans
(known as State Implementation Plans, or SIPs) will use this guidance for quantifying the air
quality benefits of land use policies and programs in SIPs.
Metropolitan planning organizations - these agencies prepare transportation plans for
metropolitan areas and are responsible for showing these plans "conform" to the goals of the
SIP. They will use this guidance for quantifying the air quality benefits of land use policies and
projects in conformity determinations.
However, to effectively account for the air quality benefits that may be associated with land use
activities, these agencies should seek involvement from a variety of key stakeholders, including
local governments, regional planning agencies, state agencies, individuals, community
organizations and developers. Since each stakeholder plays a significant yet different role in the
transportation and air quality planning processes, communication and consultation is vital to
successfully employing land use as a tool for improving air quality.
1.4 How do I know if this guidance is applicable to my community?
This guidance is most relevant for areas that are designated nonattainment or maintenance areas
for ozone, PM-10, CO, and/or NO2.
Non-attainment area: a geographic region of the United States
that the EPA has designated as not meeting the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for specific air
pollutants
Maintenance areas: an area previously designated non«
attainment, which has since met the national standards and has
These areas are subject to the requirements of the Clean Air Act, and must submit air quality
plans to EPA. These areas must also show that any planned transportation activities are in
harmony with their air quality goals.
While this guidance is designed primarily to help areas achieve their air quality goals to meet
federal standards, staff in attainment areas may also find this document useful as they explore
ways to secure their attainment status in the future.
-4-
-------
1.5 Why did EPA develop this guidance?
Many of EPA's stakeholders have suggested that EPA recognize land use strategies that result in
improvements in local and regional air quality in the air quality planning process, and have said
that they need guidance on how to account for the impacts of these types of strategies. In a
survey conducted by EPA in 19981, staff and managers in state air agencies and regional
planning agencies said that being able to quantify the air quality impacts of land use policies and
projects would:
• encourage dedication of funding for research into the impacts of such policies
educate local and state government officials about land use planning as a tool for
transportation and emissions control
• add support to these kinds of policies in regional and local debates
• get people to start to think about the trade-offs between these and other measures
This guidance document is designed to describe how you can use existing EPA policies and
practices to get air quality credit for certain land use strategies that reduce emissions from
transportation sources (cars, trucks, buses, etc) in your communities. The document also lays
out guidance on quantifying the impacts of land use policies and projects involving infill. EPA
will continue to provide additional guidance on quantifying other types of land use policies and
projects in the future.
Another purpose of this document is to make clear the importance of strong coordination and
cooperation between the many parties that are interested in land use planning and air quality
policy. Many communities are grappling with questions of what kinds of growth patterns best
meet their goals. At the same time, many state air agencies are struggling to identify new ways
to meet the state's air quality goals. And, state transportation planners are attempting to serve
the communities transportation needs while at the same time making sure their projects don't
conflict with existing air quality plans. Since land use patterns can be linked to transportation
patterns, and hence air quality (as it is affected by car and truck emissions), collaboration and
early involvement of the local, state, and regional government agencies in land use planning,
transportation planning, and air quality planning communities, as well as members of the public,
environmental and community action organizations, and the development community, is vital to
ensuring that the wide array of community goals are adequately considered and addressed for
the good of all.
1USEP A, Background Information for Land Use SIP Policy, EPA420-R-98-012, October 1998.
-5-
-------
1.6 What are the key concepts discussed in this guidance?
In this guidance, we consider land use strategies, land use policies, land use projects, and air
quality credit. Brief definitions are provided below; these topics are discussed in greater detail
later in this document
Land Use strategies
Land use strategies, for the purposes of this guidance, are defined as approaches to land
use planning that can alter aspects of the urban environment to improve air quality.
Such strategies may focus on changes to the built environment that result in a decreased
need for cars and trucks as the primary modes of transportation. By reducing the need for
driving (and, therefore, reducing the air pollution generated from driving), certain
patterns of land development can potentially improve air quality.
Land Use Policies
• In this guidance, land use policies are specific policies, programs, or regulations adopted
or operated by government agencies to allow and/or to encourage the implementation of
land use strategies and result in decreased vehicle miles traveled and emissions of air
pollutants.
Land Use Projects
• In some cases, a government agency, a developer, or a community organization may
wish to develop a parcel of land in a way that could be shown to reduce vehicle travel
and emissions. For example, the city might approve a new development that combines
residential, commercial, and recreational uses within close proximity to each other, thus
reducing the amount of driving necessary for residents to meet various needs. The air
quality impacts of such a land use project could then be considered using this guidance.
Air Quality Credit
Air quality credit is granted by EPA when an area can show that a specific policy or
project will result in a reduction of air pollution from mobile sources. In this guidance,
EPA explains how air quality credit can be received by areas that can show that their
land use policies and projects result in decreased driving and thus, reduced air pollution
from cars.
-6-
-------
2.0 Linking Land Use and Air Quality
2.1 What is the relationship between land use, transportation, and
air quality?
Much has been done to reduce emissions of air pollutants from cars and trucks over the last 25
years. These efforts have focused on the use of technology and tailpipe controls, and have been
quite successful at reducing the emissions of criteria air pollutants (carbon monoxide, lead,
nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide) from transportation sources.
However, since 1952, the number of cars and trucks in the US has more than quadrupled while
the US population has less than doubled.2 Furthermore, the average annual mileage driven by
Americans in 1997 (9,567 miles per year) was almost twice as high as it was in 1970 (4,587
miles per year).3 So, even while emissions rates from individual vehicles have been decreasing,
the number of vehicles on the road and the frequency and length of trips has been increasing.
This is especially true in areas that are currently experiencing high rates of growth in population
and development.
These trends-more cars on the road, people driving more often, and increased trip lengths-are,
in some areas, decreasing the impacts of improved emissions technology. To combat these
trends, state and local government agencies seeking to reduce emissions from cars are
increasingly looking not just at technological strategies, but at strategies to reduce driving.
As local government agencies plan and evaluate the best growth and development strategies to
meet their communities' needs, the impacts of these strategies on air quality should also be
considered. There is evidence4 that some types of development patterns necessitate the use of a
car, while other types can reduce reliance on cars and trucks for transportation. In some cases,
such development patterns can mean shorter and fewer trips, thus reducing vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) by cars and trucks and improving air quality; other development patterns have
the potential to improve or mitigate air quality problems by providing and promoting
alternatives to vehicular travel, such as mass transit, walking, or biking.
'American Automobile Manufacturers Association, World Motor Vehicles Data 1996
Edition, 1998.
1999.
3Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Transportation Energy Data Book. Edition 19, September
4 The Effects of Urban Form on Travel and Emissions: A Review and Synthesis of the
Literature, Draft Report, prepared by Apogee/ Hagler Bailly for the EPA, April 17,1998.
-7-
-------
2.2 Who gets involved in land use decisions?
The land use planning process involves some complex interrelationship between local, regional
and state government agencies. In addition, individuals, community organizations, and
developers play important roles in the process. The roles of local governments, regional
planning agencies, state agencies, individuals, community organizations and developers in the
land use planning process are briefly described below:
• Local governments: generally responsible for, and have authority over, land use
decisions within their borders. They have the authority to issue permits for development
and control where and how development occurs. May include city and county
government bodies.
• Regional planning agencies: play important roles by providing land use and
transportation data and analysis of the regional impacts of alternative land use scenarios,
but have limited influence on land use decisions. May include Councils of Governments
(COGs), which help local governments and the state by preparing land use forecasts,
with input from and coordination with local governments regarding expected uses of
land within their boundaries, that are used in transportation and air quality planning, as
well as economic planning, and/or Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), which
are responsible for regional transportation planning and distribution of state and federal
transportation funding. In some cases, the MPO and the COG are the same agency.
States agencies: while states generally delegate land-use planning to local governments
and have little direct impact on those decisions, numerous state programs governing
taxes, infrastructure funding, highways, and community investment indirectly exert a
strong influence on land-use decision. Many states are beginning to evaluate state-level
policies that pull development away from community centers and are looking at ways
transform those policies into incentives for compact, community-based development.
• Individuals and community organizations: can have a significant impact on the
direction of policy development through community organizing, ballot initiatives,
creation and support of alternative development plans and projects, and participation in
public hearings and comment periods related to specific development proposals.
• Private developers: can propose a variety of development strategies, including those
that can potentially have positive air quality impacts, to local planning bodies; can
partner with communities to design developments that are in keeping with local
economic, social and environmental goals
All of these groups can influence the direction of land development in their communities
through proposing and implementing land use strategies, land use policies and land use projects.
[ An example of a how these groups work together in an actual community will be
-8-
-------
included in a future draft]
2.3 What are land use strategies?
Land use strategies, as defined in this context, are approaches to land use planning that can alter
aspects of the urban environment to improve air quality. Such land use strategies improve air
quality by encouraging or creating alternative transportation modes, such as walking, biking and
using mass transit. By decreasing people's reliance on cars and trucks for transportation, these
strategies ultimately can reduce emissions of pollution from these sources.
Land use strategies generally involve changes to the landscape. For example, a local
government agency might develop a city plan that includes a strategy of developing
concentrated activity centers within the city. This strategy is designed to encourage pedestrian
and transit travel. By creating "nodes" of high-density, mixed use development, this strategy
would change the landscape. As a result, changes in travel patterns are expected, and these
changes will impact air quality by reducing emissions from transportation sources. It is the
emissions-reduction impacts of these actual changes in landscape that are potentially
quantifiable, and are ultimately what will be used to determine whether or not an improvement
in air quality can be demonstrated.
Land use strategies are implemented either indirectly through land use policies, or directly
through individual land use projects, and these policies and projects may lead to air quality
credit.
The types of land use strategies being considered in this guidance either promote the use of
transportation modes other than cars and trucks, or aim to reduce the distances driven by these
vehicles by locating a variety of desired services and resources in close proximity to each other.
Some examples of land use strategies include:
Transit-oriented development (TOD): encouraging moderate- to high-density
development along a regional transit system
• Infill development: any type of new development that occurs within existing built-up
areas (may be urban or suburban); includes brownfield development
Mixed-use development: development that locates complementary land uses such as
housing, retail, office, services, and public facilities within walking distance of each
other
• Neotraditional design/pedestrian-oriented development: a set of land development and
urban design elements with the purpose of creating pedestrian oriented neighborhoods.
These elements provide more travel options and greater convenience and access to
various factors of daily life, such as housing, workplace, shopping and recreation.
• Jobs/housing balance: reducing the disparity between the number of residences and the
number of employment opportunities available within a sub-region
Some of these land use strategies can reduce air pollution by reducing the length, frequency, and
necessity of trips by cars and trucks, while others shift travel modes from automobile travel to
-9-
-------
transit, walking, and/or biking. Note that this is not an exhaustive list; other possible strategies
exist and are being considered in various communities around the country.5
[Examples of actual communities that are employing these kinds of strategies will be
included in a later draft]
2.4 What are land use policies and projects?
Land use policies and projects are the means by which land use strategies are realized.
Land use policies, in the context of this guidance, are specific policies, programs, or actions
that facilitate the steps needed to bring about the desired changes to the landscape that could
reduce driving and improve air quality. In some cases, these policies are actually regulations
requiring certain kinds of development in designated areas, while in other cases, these policies
may be incentives to encourage desired types of development.
There are many different options for land use policies. The types of land use policy tools that
are available differs across levels of government and authority. Local government land use
policies generally fall into three categories:
• zoning regulations
* design controls
• incentive programs
Zoning regulations govern the type and intensity of new development. For example, a local
government can place limits on the maximum density allowed for new developments in an area;
by raising these limits, a change to the zoning regulations can facilitate a change in how the land
is used (high density development) and potentially reduce the need for driving. Zoning has
traditionally been used to segregate different land uses. For example, residential neighborhoods
often are zoned so that office buildings and retail shops cannot be located within the same city
block. The local zoning ordinances may also state that another area far from the can only be
developed as retail, and a different area can be developed as office space. Segregation of activity
centers can lead to more and longer car trips by forcing people to travel by car to get from home
lo work or from home/work to shopping. A local government could lift these restrictions in
certain areas to facilitate mixed use development, thus allowing some people to make more of
their trips by walking, biking or using transit.
Local governments can exercise control over site design by employing design controls through a
design review process, where new projects are brought before a design review board for
approval; this review may include addressing air quality issues. Local governments can also
develop policies governing the design principles involved in development of new subdivisions.
See Appendix A for additional examples of land use strategies
-10-
-------
Local governments may also develop incentive programs, which can offer rewards to developers
who build in desired locations or who include certain design features in new projects. These
rewards may be monetary or non-monetary. For example, some local governments require
developers to pay an "impact fee" to cover the costs of infrastructure improvements; a local
government might, as an incentive, create a policy to waive these fees for developments that
build near transit, or make improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Local
governments can encourage infill development by reducing taxes and fees for building in certain
areas of the city. A non-monetary incentive might be to reduce parking requirements for a new
development that builds near transit. Incentive programs can also be aimed directly at
consumers to facilitate demand for alternative land use types.
Regional and state government agencies can also influence development patterns. These
agencies can develop incentive programs that attempt to attract new development to desired
areas. Regional and state government agencies can also create policies and programs to educate
and encourage local governments to implement certain land use policies. For example, a state
or regional air quality agency could work with a local government and fund a pilot project to
explore the effects of land use policies on air quality, and use the results to promote similar
policies in other cities.
Land use projects are specific developments which aim to meet the goals defined in land use
strategies. For example, a developer could propose a project to develop a tract of previously-
used land within existing city limits by cleaning it up and redeveloping it to include a variety of
residential, commercial, and light industrial uses, with bike paths and mass transit. Depending
on the design specifics, this development project could support the strategies of mixed use
development, infill development, and neotraditional design.
Private developers, on their own or prompted by non-governmental agencies, can develop
projects that incorporate features to reduce vehicle travel, such as mixing retail, housing and
office uses, adding pedestrian and bicycle connections, and ensuring high access to transit. A
developer might, for example, develop a new community under the principles of neotraditional
design or transit-oriented development, not as a function of government policies or incentives,
but because of consumer demand for this type of development.
Land use policies and projects that can be qualified and shown to have a positive effect on air
quality can be included in state air quality and transportation plans and be given air quality
credit.
[Examples of existing policies (local and state) that meet these strategies
2.5 What does EPA mean by giving air quality credit?
When a state air quality agency can quantify and document a reduction in mobile source
emissions due to land use policies or projects, the state air agency can receive credit in their
SIPs and/or transportation agencies can receive credit in conformity determinations for these
-11-
-------
actions. In general, when we use the term "credit," we mean that nonattainment and
maintenance areas can account for the air quality effects of a land use policy or project. Credit
is given for emissions reductions that can be attributed to land use policies or projects.
Due to the complexities involved in both land use policies and emissions trading programs, EPA
is not prepared to present guidance on how to incorporate land use policies into trading
programs. Therefore, in this document, the word "credit" does not refer to tradeable emissions
credits. However, we are continuing to evaluate the feasibility of incorporating land use
strategies into emissions trading, and seek comment on this issue.
2.6 How do land use policies and project translate into air quality
credit?
Emissions of air pollution from automobiles are a function of how many trips people make
using these vehicles, how far they have to drive, and the types of vehicles they drive. The way
land is developed-how residences, jobs, shopping, recreation, and other destinations are situated
within an area—has an impact on the length and number of auto trips that are necessary, which,
in turn, affects emissions. Transportation and air quality planners must estimate future pollution
levels from motor vehicles in their SIPs and conformity processes. (See section 3.1 for
definitions and descriptions of these processes) To calculate the amount of pollution from
motor vehicles, planners would need to consider the ways that land is being used in the area and
the road network that has been developed to support those uses. A very basic outline of this
estimation process is given below.
Areas use either land use models or expert judgement to project where housing and employment
are likely to be located in the future. The future location of housing and employment are inputs
to the transportation modeling process. In this process, an area is divided up into travel analysis
zones. The number of households and employment in a zone affects how much travel will occur
in and between zones. Employment is used to represent not only work activities, but also
shopping, lunch and other types of trips. In some areas, the travel demand model also produces
estimates of trips by mode. Travel demand forecasting models also estimate the number of
vehicular trips that use particular routes in the transportation system and estimates the speeds in
which they operate. Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) is calculated using this output. This data is
directly used to estimate mobile source emissions. Emission rate models are used to estimate
emissions rates for the area, taking into consideration factors such as the mix of vehicles types,
speed, etc. These rates are then applied to the VMT estimates to calculate mobile source
emissions.
-12-
-------
Figure 1. Relationship between land use modeling, transportation
planning and emissions modeling.
Output of land
use model or
expert judgement
Location of
population and
employment
Output of travel
demand model
Volume of
traffic and
speed of traffic
on each road
Output of motor
vehicle emissions
model
Emissions rates
for motor
vehicles
emissions
Land use policies and projects that result in people making fewer and/or shorter auto trips can
have a positive effect on air quality. The ease or difficulty of quantifying the impacts of these
policies and projects will depend heavily on the type of model you use, the capabilities of that
model, and the type of policy or project you are examining.
-13-
-------
3.0 Accounting for emissions reductions from
land use policies and projects
3.1 What Clean Air Act requirements and EPA policies are relevant
in this guidance?
The Clean Air Act directs state air quality agencies to prepare air quality plans (called State
Implementation Plans, or SIPs) for nonattainment and maintenance areas. SIPs include
estimates of future air quality and plans to attain appropriate air quality standards. The area's
metropolitan planning organization and, subsequently, the U.S. Department of Transportation,
are also required to show that the area's planned transportation activities are consistent with (or
"conform" to) the purpose of the SIP; this process is known as the transportation conformity
process. A general description of the characteristics and requirements of these processes
follows.
State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
A state's air quality agency (generally a branch of the state's environmental protection, natural
resources, or public health department) prepares SIPs with input from the state's Department of
Transportation, the state's major sources of emissions, and members of the public.
States are directed to submit SIPs for their nonattainment and maintenance areas. There are
several kinds of SIPs that are required under different circumstances. The ones that are relevant
to this guidance are control strategy SIPs (15% plans, rate-of-progress plans, and attainment
plans) and maintenance plans. The control strategy SIPs must include an initial baseline
forecast of the area's future emissions — that is, emissions in the year(s) addressed by the SIP
that will result if no additional control measures are implemented other than what is required by
law. The SIP also must include a description of specific programs (or "control strategies") that
will be used to achieve the needed emission reductions in the area, and calculate future
emissions that result when the control strategies are considered. The area must adopt enough
control strategies to show that it will:
» meet the standards in the future attainment year (shown in SIPs called "attainment
demonstrations");
-or-
" continue to meet the standard after attainment is reached (shown in SIPs called
"maintenance plans").
Ozone areas have additional SIP requirements. Before attainment is reached, an ozone area
must:
" make progress in meeting the ozone standards (shown in SIPs called "15% plans," and
-14-
-------
"rate-of-progress plans");
EPA developed two special SIP policies which allow for inclusion of specific types of measures;
they are defined in the Economic Incentive Program (EIP) guidance and the Voluntary Mobile
Source Emissions Reduction Programs (VMEP) policy. These types of SIP programs are
further described later in this document.
The total allowable emissions in a SIP is the amount of emissions the area can have, and still
achieve the goal of the SIP (progress, attainment, or maintenance). The portion of the total
allowable emissions that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use is called the motor
vehicle emissions budget, referred to hereafter as "the budget." The SIPs described above —
15% plans, rate-of-progress plans, attainment demonstrations, and maintenance plans — almost
always contain budgets. Motor vehicle emissions must stay within these budgets.
The conformity process
The transportation conformity process links transportation and air quality planning. The
conformity process is designed to make sure that new investments in transportation
infrastructure do not worsen air quality or interfere with the "purpose" of the SIP. To show that
transportation activities conform, the MPO, and subsequently the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) must show that the area's future emissions from the transportation sector
meet the budgets in the SIP (in cases where an area does not yet have a SIP in place, a different
type of test is used). The estimate of future emissions done for the conformity determination
includes all planned non-exempt transportation projects.
3.2 How are the SIP process and the conformity process related?
The conformity process ensures consistency between the SIP and the transportation planning
process. Specifically, the process makes sure that the emissions resulting from transportation
projects are consistent with those allocated to transportation in the SIP.
In order for states to comply with the conformity regulation, extensive coordination and
cooperation among multiple agencies~EPA, the MPOs, offices of DOT (the Federal Highways
Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and state and local
transportation and air quality agencies-must occur. This coordination and consultation process
Is as interagency consultation. Interagency consultation is a formal process to establish
procedures for consultation between these agencies. The SIP must establish interagency
consultation procedures for all of the agencies involved. In addition, proactive efforts to
encourage early and continuing public participation in decision making are required.
3.3 What are the different ways that I can claim credit for a land use
policy or project?
-15-
-------
There are three basic ways of accounting for the effects of land use policies or projects in
nonattainment and maintenance areas:
A. including the impacts of existing land use policies or projects in the initial baseline
forecast of future emissions in a SIP;
B. including a land use policy or project as a control strategy in a SIP; and
C. including a land use policy or project as a control strategy in a conformity determination
without including it in the SIP.
These three options are discussed in detail in sections 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0.
-16-
-------
4.0 Including land use policies or projects in the
initial baseline forecast of future emissions in
the SIP
4.1 What is the initial baseline forecast of future emissions?
The initial baseline forecast of future emissions is the level of emissions in the future forecast
year that will result if no additional control measures are implemented other than what is
required by law. It is the baseline level of emissions before any additional explicit measures are
taken to improve air quality. This forecast accounts for the impacts of policies that are already
adopted and transportation projects that have already been built or will be completed by the
forecast year. It also includes effects of Federal regulations or programs that will come into
effect by the forecast year (for example, new vehicle emission standards).
4.2 When is an initial baseline forecast of future emissions made?
This initial baseline forecast of future emissions is made when an area prepares a SIP.
Therefore, an area that is not in the process of developing a SIP would not consider this option.
4.3 When can I include a land use policy or project into the initial
baseline forecast of future emissions?
It is appropriate to include land use policies and projects into the initial baseline forecast only if
they have already been adopted and are actually going to occur or have occurred.
You could include a land use policy in the initial baseline forecast of future emissions only if it
has already been adopted by the implementing agency. For example, if a city government has
adopted a new zoning code which requires or allows for new development within the city limits
to be mixed use, the effects of that law should be included in the baseline forecast. However, if
the zoning code is only proposed and not yet adopted, it could not be included in the baseline.
You could include a land use project in the initial baseline forecast of future emissions only if it
has already been built, or is under construction at the time the forecast is done. All the land uses
that currently exist would be included in the initial baseline forecast. If a project is planned for
but hasn't been committed to (e.g., construction has not begun), it could not be included in the
baseline.
What is described in this section is not a new policy. When your area calculates its baseline,
you are supposed to estimate emissions based on the land use and transportation network that
exists, or is most likely to exist based on the best available information.
-17-
-------
5.0 Including a land use policy or project as a
control strategy in the SIP
5.1 What is a control strategy?
A control strategy is a specific strategy used by non-attainment areas and maintenance areas. By
reducing ambient air pollutant levels, control strategies satisfy Clean Air Act
requirements-either by attaining the standards, demonstrating reasonable progress towards
attainment, or maintaining the standard. A land use policy or project that can be shown to
reduce emissions can be considered a control strategy.
5.2 When do I need to include control strategies in the SIP?
If you are in the initial stages of preparing your SIP, you can include land use measures with all
of your other control measures which reduce emissions. If you have already submitted a SIP,
but discover that you need additional reductions, you can do a SIP revision or a stand-alone land
use SIP to account for a control strategy or a group of strategies.
5.3 What are the general requirements for including a land use
policy or project as a control strategy in a SIP?
To include a land use policy or project in a SIP,
it must be consistent with the purpose of the SIP
• it must not interfere with other requirements of the Clean Air Act, and
resulting emission reductions must be:
1. Quantifiable: the emission reductions can be reliably calculated,
and the calculations can be replicated
2. Surplus: reductions are not otherwise relied on in air quality
programs included in your SIP or SIP related
requirements, or other applicable requirements
3. Enforceable: actions required to achieve emissions reductions
are independently verifiable, program violations
are defined, and those liable for violations can be
identified, and penalties can be applied where
applicable
4. Permanent: emission reduction occurs throughout the life of
the measure, and for as long as it is relied upon in
the SIP
5. Adequately Supported: the State or responsible party must demonstrate
adequate personnel and program resources to
-18-
-------
implement the program
For land use measures, you will generally meet these requirements by providing the following
information to EPA:
• a complete description of the land use policy or project and its estimated emission
reduction benefits;
• evidence that the land use policy or project was properly adopted by a jurisdiction with
legal authority to commit to and execute the measure;
evidence that funding has been (or will be) obligated to implement the land use policy or
project;
• evidence that all necessary approvals have been obtained from all appropriate
government entities (including state highway departments if applicable);
• evidence that a complete schedule to plan, implement, and enforce the land use policy or
project has been adopted by the implementing agency or agencies6; and
a description of the monitoring program to assess the measure's effectiveness and to
allow for necessary in-place corrections or alterations.
These requirements may vary slightly depending on the particular policy used to implement a
program. If you have questions regarding these requirements, consult with your regional EPA
office.
Land use policies or projects implemented under the VMEP policy may not need to meet all
these requirements. Check with your EPA Regional Office to determine if this requirement is
applicable to your policy/project. See section 5.7 on the VMEP for more details.
-19-
-------
5.4 What EPA SIP programs and policies would help me to
incorporate land use policies and projects as control
strategies?
There are several SIP programs/policies that could help you incorporate land use policies and
projects as control strategies in a SIP. The Clean Air Act (1990 amendments) specifically
identifies two types of measures and programs which could relate to land use policies and
projects7:
• Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) - defined in Section 108(f),
Economic Incentive Programs (EIPs) - defined in Section 182 (g)(4), and
In addition, there are cases where the Voluntary Mobile Source Emissions Reductions Programs
policy could apply to land use policies and projects.
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are actions to adjust traffic patterns or reduce vehicle
use to reduce air pollutant emissions. Some examples of TCMs include ride-share programs,
high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and transit lines. Section 108(f)(l)(A) provides sixteen examples
of TCMs, but other transportation-related measures which reduce emissions or concentrations of
air pollutants from transportation sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or
congestion conditions can also be TCMs. Note that vehicle technology-based or fuel-based
measures are not TCMs.
TCMs may be included in a SIP if needed to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. In areas
where TCMs are included in the SIP, the State or the MPO must make sure that all TCMs are
funded in a manner consistent with the SIP's implementation schedule. The conformity process
is designed to ensure timely implementation of TCMs, thus reinforcing the link between SIPs
and the transportation planning process.
Economic Incentive Programs are programs that encourage emissions reductions though market-
based incentives. However, as stated in the Clean Air Act, any program which includes
incentives and requirements to reduce vehicle emissions and vehicle miles traveled in the area
can be considered an EIP. EPA first issued the Economic Incentive Program (EIP) rules in
1994. The 1994 rules established requirements for EIPs specifically mandated by the Clean Air
Act, and served as guidance for discretionary EIPs. EPA is currently developing new Economic
Incentive Program Guidance to apply to discretionary economic incentive programs - those not
specifically mandated by the Clean Air Act (The September 1999 draft version of this guidance
is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/innostra.html).
In addition to the Clean Air Act-defined programs, in 1997, EPA released the Voluntary Mobile
These programs are not mutually exclusive. Transportation Control Measures can be
included in a SIP as Economic Incentive Programs.
-20-
-------
Source Emissions Reductions Programs Policy. The purpose of this policy was to provide
added flexibility for state and local governments interested in developing voluntary programs
and including them in their SIPs. This policy, also known as the "Voluntary Measures Policy"
or VMEP policy, relies on the voluntary actions of individuals or businesses to achieve
emissions reductions. Because these actions are voluntary, they are not directly enforceable
against the party taking the action.
If you decide to include your land use policies or projects as control strategies in a SIP, there are
different reasons why you might want to use one of these policy options. The following
sections will help you determine which option is best for you.
5.5 How are land use policies and projects related to TCMs?
TCMs are supportive and complementary to land use policies and projects. A land use measure
could include or be supported by transportation projects that are TCMs. These transportation
project TCMs may be eligible for funding under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ) program. The CMAQ program was created to provide federal money for
transportation projects that reduce emissions in nonattainment and maintenance areas. CMAQ
funds have been used for transportation projects that eliminate stop and go traffic conditions,
but also for projects that enhance transit, and projects that encourage alternatives to driving
alone. The transportation funding act, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, has
earmarked $8.1 billion for the CMAQ program over the life of the act. If the transportation
project TCMs that meet the CMAQ criteria are included in the SIP, CMAQ funding may be
secured.8 hi September of 1990, EPA provided a TCM guidance document entitled
"Transportation Control Measure: State Implementation Plan Guidance" which may be
beneficial to review.
5.6 How do I know if I should use the EIP guidance to develop and
implement my policy or project?
The current draft of EPA's Economic Incentive Program (EIP) Guidance contains very detailed
guidance for market- based programs. The guidance describes four categories of EIPs: trading
programs, financial mechanisms, public information programs, and clean air investment funds.
Generally, land use policies and projects accounted for under the EIP would fall under the
category of financial mechanisms, although it may be possible to address them as trading
programs as well. However, due to the complexities involved in both land use policies and
emissions trading programs, EPA is not prepared to present guidance on how to incorporate land
use policies into emissions trading programs at this time; we are continuing to evaluate the
8 For more information on CMAQ funding, contact your State Department of Transportation
or visit the website at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaq.htm.
-21-
-------
feasibility of incorporating land use strategies into emissions trading, and seek comment on this
issue.
An example of an EIP land use policy would be a program that offers some type of monetary
reward or incentive to developers. This incentive could be in many forms, including tax breaks,
grants, or a fee structure. Alternatively, incentives could also be offered to home buyers or
companies moving into areas where development is desired. These monetary incentives could
be offered by local, regional, state or federal government agencies, or perhaps even by non-
governmental agencies. An EIP land use policy could also work by offering non-monetary
incentives, such as density bonuses, relief from impact mitigation, or a streamlined permitting
process for sustainable development.
If your policy or project has a strong economic incentive component, such as including a fee
structure for new development, you will probably need to include it as an EIP. However, as
stated in the Clean Air Act, any program which includes incentives and requirements to reduce
vehicle emissions and vehicle miles traveled in the area can be considered an EIP. EIP
programs share a very important characteristic with land use policies and projects because they
often do not directly control emissions or emission rates. They can achieve reductions
indirectly, either through offering incentives to reduce emissions, or through a policy which
indirectly impacts the emissions source. For this reason, you may find the EIP guidance helpful
as you develop your policy or project.
The current draft EIP guidance provides specific details on how to ensure that incentive
programs meet the basic criteria of quantifiable, enforceable, surplus, permanent, and adequately
supported as discussed above. In particular, the EIP guidance provides specific instruction on
creating and implementing an EIP;
• including features to measure and track the results of the program
• evaluating results of the program;
including reconciliation procedures in the event that the EIP does not meet its predicted
emission reduction goals;
ensuring the program meets SIP requirements for completeness and approvability; and
ensuring public participation.
If you wish to use the EIP guidance to credit a land use policy, you should contact the
appropriate EPA contact for your region. Since the EIP guidance is currently being redrafted,
your regional EPA contact can assist you in determining if your program will meet the EIP
requirements.
-22-
-------
-23-
-------
Crediting innovation and Experimentation:
Accounting for Land U$e fn a SIP using the Voluntary Mobile
Source Emissions Reduction Programs Policy
The Voluntary Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Programs policy, also known as the
VMEP guidance or the "voluntary measures policy", was signed October 27,1997. This
policy reflects a major change in how EPA has historically dealt with voluntary measures.
The policy allows 3% of the total reductions needed for attainment in your area to be from
voluntary mobile source emissions reduction programs. It provides added flexibility for state
and local governments interested in receiving credit in SIPs for voluntary measures by
streamlining the process of SIP inclusion of programs with voluntary actions,
VMEPs rely on the voluntary actions of individuals or businesses to achieve emissions
reductions. These actions are not directly enforceable against the party taking the action. In
other words, the party taking the action is not held responsible if they fail to take the action.
In addition, the party can not use the action to offset any other emission reduction
requirement. The State must commit to remedy any emissions reduction shortfall in a timely
manner if the VMEP program does not achieve projected emission reductions. All emission
reductions are credited to the state3 to meet any Clean Air Act requirement, such as an
attainment demonstration, or maintenance demonstration
5.7 How do I know if I should use the VMEP policy to develop and
implement my policy or project?
The VMEP policy allows for more innovation than most other EPA SIP programs. It is the
appropriate policy to use for many newer programs that lack proven results. In addition, by not
requiring that the State directly enforce against a party implementing a measure, businesses and
individuals may be more willing to try newer policies and programs.11 For these reasons, the
VMEP may be the appropriate policy to credit many land use policies and land use projects,
which have not traditionally been used for to generate air quality credit.
The definition of enforceable for voluntary measures is different than for other SIP programs.
Voluntary measures are not enforceable against the source, but the State is responsible for
11 "State" means a state, local agency, tribe, or other entity that has the authority to submit an
implementation plan to EPA for approval under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
-24-
-------
assuring that the emission reductions credited in the SIP must occur. The state must make an
enforceable commitment to monitor, assess and report on the emission reductions resulting from
the voluntary measures and to remedy any shortfalls from forecasted emission reductions in a
timely manner.
In general, for voluntary measures, a state must submit a SIP to EPA which:
1. identifies and describes the voluntary program;
2. contains projections of emission reductions attributable to the program, along with
relevant technical support documentation;
3. commits to monitor, evaluate, and report the resulting emissions effect of the voluntary
measure;
4. commits to remedy in a timely manner any SIP credit shortfall if the voluntary program
does not achieve projected emission reductions; and
5. meets all other requirements for SIP revisions.
Due to the innovative nature of voluntary measures, EPA's inexperience in quantifying them,
and the inability to enforce these measures against individual sources, EPA has set a limit on the
amount of emission reductions allowed in a voluntary measures program. This limit is set at
three percent of the total projected future year emissions reductions required to attain the
appropriate standard from all sources (stationary, area and mobile combined).
For some policies and projected, as you gain more knowledge about their impacts and are better
able to quantify them, the three percent cap on voluntary measures may eventually be limiting.
For this reason, if an emission reduction strategy can meet the EIP requirements, a State may
prefer to ask for the strategy to be approved as an EIP. Some strategies might be originally
approved under the voluntary measures policy and later, after program evaluations have been
completed, be able to be approved as a regular EIP.
5.8 What are the advantages and disadvantages of including a land
use policy or project as a control strategy in a SIP?
Including a land use policy or project in a SIP can help you meet your air quality goals by giving
you credit for emission reductions that you need to show attainment, demonstrate progress, or
demonstrate maintenance. This may be an especially appealing option to areas that are having
difficulty attaining, and are seeking all viable options for emissions reductions.
You may also want to have land use policies or projects in a SIP to ensure that they are fully
committed to and funded. This may be important for governments agencies wishing to pursue
new land use policies and projects-including them in the SIP could be a strong incentive to
make sure they happen in a timely fashion.
Some land use policies and projects may require ten or more years before having any significant
-25-
-------
impact on emissions from motor vehicle sources. Because some SIPs (e.g., attainment SIPs)
generally have shorter time frames than that, in some cases, the air quality benefits of a land use
policy or project may not be realized in the time frame covered by the SIP in place when the
policy or project is adopted. However, with careful planning, the benefits of a policy or project
begun in the attainment planning period could be included in a future maintenance planning
period.
5.9 What other important information do I need to know about
including a land use policy or project as a control strategy in a
SIP?
When determining the air quality benefits of control measures, you may quantify the benefits of
several strategies together, or you may choose to model the benefits separately. How you
choose to model the benefits could affect how or when you would choose to implement the
measure. This means you could
• model the benefits of land use policies with other control strategies cited in your SIP,
and quantify the overall impacts of all control strategies,
• model the benefits of several land use policies and projects together as package, or
quantify the impacts of a land use policy or project separately to determine the impact of
that strategy alone.
In any case, you will need to describe the land use policy or project and how it will reduce
emissions. General guidance on quantification is provided in section 8.0.
-26-
-------
6.0 Including land use policies or projects in the
conformity determination without having them in
a SIP
6.1 Can I account for the benefits of land use policies or projects in
a conformity determination without having them in a SIP?
Land use policies and projects do not have to be included in a SIP. You can account for the
benefit of a land use policy or project in a conformity determination without including it in any
way in a SIP. An area may benefit through only including land use policies and projects in the
regional analysis done for a conformity determination. However, any land use policy or project
you choose to include in a SIP should be accounted for in the conformity determination, as long
as it is still scheduled to occur.
5.2 How do I account for the benefit of land use policies or projects
in the conformity determination?
In a conformity determination, as in a SIP, forecasts of future emissions must be made. If your
area uses a travel demand model for conformity, then the effects of land use policies and
projects should be included all together in the modeling of the transportation network, in the
same way as described for the SIP.12 Even if you modeled projects and policies individually for
the SIP, it wouldn't be necessary to do so in the conformity determination. In general, it would
be more appropriate to incorporate the benefit of land use policies and projects together in the
estimates of future emissions made for the conformity determination. These estimates of future
emissions are directly compared to the SIP budgets (if no adequate budgets exist, then different
tests would apply, as described in the conformity rule).
Land use policies and projects that are not "regionally significant" don't have to be modeled
with a travel demand model.13 In cases where it is not possible to model the effects of land use
policies and projects using a travel demand model, the emissions reductions could be quantified
in your conformity determination using another technique. If a land use policy or project that is
The conformity rule states that serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas and serious
CO nonattainment areas with an urbanized area population over 200,000 must use a travel demand model for
their regional emissions analysis. In addition, any area whose already using a travel demand model must also use
it for conformity.
' "Regionally significant" is a term defined in the conformity rule that applies to transportation
projects. It is any transportation project that is on a facility that serves regional transportation need (such as
access to and from the area outside of the region, major planned developments such as new retail malls, sports
complexes, etc.). The concept of regionally significance is applicable to land use policies and projects as well.
For example, a large transit-oriented development that includes retail, employment, and housing would be
regionally significant. A small land use project of 10 apartment units might not be regionally significant.
-27-
-------
not regionally significant was included in the SIP, you would use the same modeling technique
for conformity determination.
There are some areas that don't have travel demand models, hi these areas, the emissions
reductions associated with land use policies and projects could be quantified in your conformity
determination using another technique, regardless of whether they are regionally significant.
An emissions analysis done for a conformity determination must use the latest planning
assumptions (see section 93.110 of the conformity rule at 62 FR 43809). This requirement
means that the planning assumptions for conformity determination must be derived from the
MPO's most recent estimates of current and future population, employment, travel and
congestion.
6.3 When is it appropriate to account for the benefits of a land use
policy or project in a conformity determination?
Unlike a SIP, conformity determinations are made on a regular basis, and must be updated at
least every three years. The conformity determination must use the latest existing information
regarding the effectiveness of measures. The conformity determination must reflect what is
truly planned at the time the determination is made. Therefore, if you have information that a
measure is not occurring, you can not include it in the conformity determination, even if it has
been used in the SIP or in past conformity determinations. You can only include land use
policies or projects in a conformity determination if they have already occurred, are actually
occurring, or if you can demonstrate that you are certain that they will occur (e.g., you have an
enforceable commitment for to ensure their implementation). See §93.122(a) of the conformity
rule (62 FR 43813). EPA recognizes that in some metropolitan areas or states, there are bodies
with special authorities related to land use implementation. EPA and DOT will work with areas
to determine what type of commitment is necessary for a land use policy or project to be
included in a conformity determination.
6.4 What are the advantages to only modeling land use policies or
projects in the conformity determination without having them in
the SIP?
First, conformity determinations offer more opportunities to account for land use policies or
projects as they happen. Conformity must be redetermined at least every three years, and in
practice it's often redetermined annually. In contrast, SIPs are generally prepared at a single
time. (Revisions can be made to a SIP at a later date, and you may be required to monitor
programs and evaluate programs and make corrections.)
Second, a conformity determination looks at the effects of the land use and transportation
system 20 years into the future, because it must examine the 20 year life of the transportation
-28-
-------
plan. This is in contrast to SIPs: attainment demonstrations only look as far as the attainment
date, which is at most 7 years in the future; maintenance plans require maintenance of the
standards for a time period of 10 years. It may take more than 10 years for land use policies or
projects to have an impact on travel decisions and therefore air quality; the conformity
determination looks at a time frame in which you can see their effects.
Third, an MPO might prefer to have effects of land use policies or projects in a conformity
determination that haven't been accounted for in the SIP. These reductions are then "surplus" to
the SIP and could be used to offset the emission-creating effects of other projects in the
transportation plan.
Last, another advantage of including land use policies and projects in conformity rather than in a
SIP is the ease of accommodating changes in the land use policy or project. If the features of the
land use policy or project produces fewer emissions than originally thought, or if the policy or
project becomes delayed, the change would simply need to be reflected in the next conformity
determination. You wouldn't have the problem of having to make up a SIP "shortfall"-- that is,
you would not have to revisit your SIP to make up the emissions reductions. You would only
need to be sure that the policy or project is correctly reflected in the next conformity
determination.
-29-
-------
7.0 Additional Considerations for Accounting for
Land Use Policies or Projects in the SIP or the
Conformity Process
7.1 What happens if I included a land use policy or project in the
SIP or the conformity process, and I now have information that
the policy or project isn't occurring, or isn't getting the
reductions I predicted it would?
You wouldn't be able to include the land use policy or project in the next conformity
determination, because the conformity determination must reflect the reality of what is actually
occurring. If the conformity determination's estimates of future emissions are greater than the
motor vehicle emissions budget(s) in the SIP, then you will need to adjust the transportation
plan or add other control strategies to achieve the same emission reductions as the land use
policy or project which was planned but didn't occur. This is why it is important that you are
confident that the land use policies or projects you are claiming credit for will occur, or have
already occurred.
In addition to conformity, there are processes to be aware of on the SIP side. If you included a
land use policy or project in a SIP but now it is not occurring, you may not meet the goal of the
SIP: further progress, attainment, or maintenance of the standard. EPA may issue a non-
implementation finding. If the land use policy or project has been implemented but is not
getting the reductions that you anticipated, EPA may issue a SIP call, which means that the state
air quality agency will have to reevaluate the programs in the SIP and resubmit it to EPA.
7.2 How will the time frame for implementing the land use policy or
project impact how I take credit?
Areas which are designated nonattainment have a defined period of time to reach their air
quality goals. Depending on the land use policy or project you are implementing, you may find
that the benefits won't occur until after you are required to attain. In such cases, you may find
that it is to your benefit to take credit for the policy or project in a maintenance plan. The
maintenance period is 20 years, covered by two 10-year maintenance plan (the second is
submitted 8 years after the first). Alternatively, you may chose to take credit for the policy or
project a conformity determinations, which involves a 20 year transportation plan.
-30-
-------
8.0 Guidelines for Quantifying Land Use Policies and
Projects
8.1 What is the goal of these guidelines?
The primary goal of these guidelines is to outline the general requirements required for
quantifying the air quality benefits of land use policies and programs for inclusion into a State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This chapter of the guidance is written primarily for the technical
staff at air quality and transportation agencies who are responsible for different aspects of SIP
development and transportation air quality modeling. Because of the inherent interactions
between land use, transportation and air quality, it is very important that staff from the air
quality and transportation agencies work together to identify appropriate projects and policies,
and to select the models and methodologies to estimate the benefits. Throughout this chapter,
"you" refers to those staff.
In general the quantification for a SIP submittal shares many common aspects with
transportation planning and the conformity process. While these guidelines may provide some
useful information, you should follow the requirements outlined in the Department of
Transportation's metropolitan planning regulations (23 CFR 450) and EPA's conformity rule
(40 CFR Parts 51 and 93) when doing transportation planning or conformity.
8.2 How will EPA assist me with quantification?
EPA intends to develop methodology options and examples for individual types of land use
policies and projects to assist you in addressing quantification issues specific to those policies
and projects. The first of these guidance documents will be on quantifying the benefits of infill
development for SIP purposes, and an EPA study on infill development is being released in
concurrence with this guidance. It is expected that this study will be the basis for EPA's
guidance on infill quantification. EPA will continue to develop quantification methodologies,
and will release other policy-specific guidance documents over time. Staff in your EPA regional
office will work with you to ensure that the quantification of your policy or project will meet all
the requirements for inclusion in the SIP or conformity determination.
13.3 How do land use policies and projects affect air quality?
Land use policies and projects can affect air quality by influencing how or how much people
travel by altering:
the way land is developed - how residences, jobs, shopping, recreation, and other
destinations are situated within an area, or
•• the way people access those destinations - walking, biking, transit, private automobile
-31-
-------
These factors can have an impact on the length and number of auto trips that are necessary,
which, in turn, would affect emissions from mobile sources, and this would impact air quality.
To include a land use policy or project in a SIP or a conformity determination, you will need to
quantify these air quality effects. EPA has outlined the general steps you will need to undergo
to quantify these impacts in SIPs in sections 8.4 through 8.6.
8.4 How do I quantify the impacts of land use policies and projects
on travel and air quality?
If your land use policy or project would likely change where housing and/or employment will be
located in the future, these changes could impact the transportation systems and air quality in
your area. The agencies responsible for transportation planning and air quality planning have
general procedures in place for quantifying the impacts of policies and other control strategies.
'Wherever possible, you should generally use these same procedures to quantify the impacts of
land use policies and projects, though the procedures can vary slightly for individual policies
and projects.
There are three general steps in quantifying the air quality or emissions impacts of land use
policies and projects. These are:
1. Estimating the policy's/ project's impacts on location of housing and employment;
2. Estimating the impact of housing and employment on travel activity; and
'.}. Estimating the impact of travel activity on emissions of air pollutants.
To assess the impacts of your land use policy and project on transportation and air quality, you
must first predict where housing and employment will be located, both before and after the
policy is implemented. Several areas use land use models to estimate future land use
development, but many use expert judgement. While EPA will certainly recognize the use of
land use models, we recognize that they can be expensive and difficult to run, and therefore may
not be practical to run for individual policies or projects. In these cases, alternative methods of
quantification may be used; EPA will provide examples of such methodologies in future
jjuidance documents.14
Next, you must estimate the impact of these changes on travel activity-that is, the number of
trips people take, the length of the trips, and to some extent, the mode of travel used. In
metropolitan areas, the agencies responsible for transportation planning use a four-step travel
demand model to estimate future travel demand. In the four step modeling process, an area is
EPA will be releasing an draft document outlining several methodologies for estimating
the air quality impacts of infill developments shortly after this draft is released.
-32-
-------
divided up into travel analysis zones. The number of people that will live in a zone and the
number of jobs that will locate in a zone in some future year affects how much traffic will go
from each zone to every other zone. The transportation model (or travel demand model)
determines the routes that traffic will most likely travel (more complex models include
estimates of how many trips will be made using transit). Using these models, planners can
determine how many cars are likely to travel on each road (traffic volumes), and, based on that,
their average speeds.
Generally, you should use the same procedures to estimate the changes in travel demand
resulting from land use policies and projects. However, there may be some circumstances where
this is not feasible. For example, some land use policies and projects affect small areas, or
include very specific design changes-these are known as microscale land use polices and
projects.15 Specific examples include neighborhood design projects such as improved
sidewalks, bicycle facilities, narrow streets and greater street connectivity. Transportation
models generally are not equipped to estimate the effects of these types of policies, and you may
need to use off-model sketch planning techniques.
After you have calculated the changes in travel activity, you must then calculate the impact on
vehicle emissions. The EPA requires that you use the latest version of the MOBILE model to
calculate vehicle emissions, with the exception of California, where the EMFAC model is used.
Guidance on using the MOBILE model is available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models.htm.
For vehicles and/or equipment not represented in these emission models you should use
reputable data from actual testing programs or other EPA recommended models, .(e.g.
alternative fueled vehicles are not modeled in MOBILE). If you believe you need to use a
method in addition to MOBILE or EMFAC because the model will not adequately address your
situation, you should check with your EPA regional office.
You also need to be aware that the use of software packages and models alone does not produce
reasonable results. You must estimate, calibrate, and verify the models for your particular area.
8.5 How does the policy I use affect the method of quantification I
will need to use?
As mentioned previously, the three main steps in quantifying the mobile source air quality
benefits resulting from land use policies and projects center around the way land is developed
and the resulting travel activity effects and consequent emission reductions. Several factors will
influence which methodology you use to quantify land development patterns and travel activity
effects in the SIP. These are:
l5For a reference source on quantifying microscale land use measures see the FHWA report
"Data Collection and Modeling Requirements for Assessing Transportation Impacts of Micro-Scale
Design, DTFH61-95-C-00168."
-33-
-------
1. What does the quantification need to demonstrate?
2. What is the scale of the land use measure being quantified?
3. What tools, resources, and staff expertise do I have available to quantify the land use
measure?
Factor 1: What does the quantification need to demonstrate?
In order to explicitly credit a policy or project (or a set of policies or projects), you must be able
to attribute specific benefits to those measures. However, there may be policies or projects
which are worth implementing, but where you are unable to quantify with enough certainty the
associated emission reductions. The accuracy of quantification can be broken down into three
categories:
• Directionally beneficial - You can demonstrate that measures have a positive effect on
air quality, but are unable to determine the extent of emission reductions, or even the
relative magnitude of reductions.
• General estimates, or "sketchplanning" estimates - You are able to determine the
relative magnitude of emission reductions. This level of quantification can be
particularly useful if you are comparing two or more policies or projects to determine the
appropriate one(s) to implement. In some cases, sketch planning techniques may be
acceptable for SIPs In particular, sketch planning may be appropriate for smaller scale
projects where the travel activity effects are not expected to be regionally significant, or
for projects where more traditional modeling is not feasible. The appropriateness of
using sketch planning techniques for SIP modeling should be determined on a case by
case basis in consultation with the applicable EPA region.
• SIP/ quality estimates - You are able to determine with reasonable certainty the
approximate emission reductions associated with a policy or project. Generally, you
should use a regional four step transportation modeling process, calibrated and verified
for your area, and ensure that air quality and transportation staff are working together to
ensure that proper methodologies and assumptions are being used. You can then account
for a specific amount of emission reductions in a SIP (Note that the requirements for
quantifying the benefits under the voluntary measures policy may be different than for
other SIP measures. This is explained more fully in section 8.7.)
You do not necessarily need to perform SIP quality quantification for the quantification to be
useful. You may determine for some reason that you do not want or need to explicitly include a
measure in the air quality planning process, or simply, you may be trying something new, which
you cannot quantify with relative certainty.
If you determine that a measure is directionally beneficial, you may decide it is worth
-34-
-------
implementing. You may find that you are able to more accurately quantify the benefits of the
policy or project after you have had some experience implementing it. Many areas have
included measures in their air quality planning, without explicitly crediting them, as measures
which will assist in meeting or maintaining air quality standards.
Sketch planning efforts can be very useful in helping you identify the policies or projects you
want to implement. These efforts are likely to require fewer resources and less time than would
be required to perform a SIP quality estimate for each policy or project.
SIP quality estimates are estimates that meet the legal requirements for inclusion of the policy or
project in a SIP (Sketch planning may be used for SIP credit in some cases.) This can be done
in the baseline determination, as a standard SIP submission, or may be included under the
somewhat more flexible VMEP program. In general, if a policy or project is included in a SIP,
it is also included in a conformity determination, although to be included in a conformity
determination it need not be a part of the SIP. See section 6.0 for the discussion of when it is
appropriate to account for the benefits of a land use policy or project in a conformity
determination.
Factor 2: What is the scale of the land use measure being
quantified?
The scale of the land use measure you want to quantify will influence the number and types of
quantification methodologies or tools that are available for use. For example, if you are
quantifying a project that involves the construction of transit-oriented developments centered
around a new light rail line, you should be able to project population growth around these
centers using a land use model or expert judgement, and calculate the resultant travel activity
effects in a four-step modeling process. However, if you want to quantify the impact of adding
sidewalks and passthroughs on "Main Street between 1st and 3rd Streets," a four-step model
process will be too coarse to account for these changes. Instead, you may have to conduct a
different type of analysis, such as before and after traffic counts or some equivalent measure, to
determine the effects of this development on pedestrian/vehicle traffic patterns. (For a reference
source on quantifying microscale land use measures see the FHWA report "Data Collection and
Modeling Requirements for Assessing Transportation Impacts of Micro-Scale Design, DTFH61-
95-C-00168).
Factor 3: What tools, resources and staff expertise do I have
available to quantify the land use measure?
EPA is aware that there is a wide disparity in land use and travel demand forecasting
capabilities in the various metropolitan areas across the United States. In the study, "Evaluation
-35-
-------
of Modeling Tools for Assessing Land Use Policies and Strategies (EPA420-R-97-007, August
1997), 12 of 25 areas studied used a land use model, while the rest relied on expert judgement.
The use of land use models can be costly and time consuming but can add some degree of
confidence in the resulting travel activity effects and associated emission reductions.
In contrast, in metropolitan areas, transportation planning agencies consistently use a four-step
travel demand model to estimate future travel demand, though the specific model used varies .
Generally, you should use the same four-step model to estimate the changes in travel demand
resulting from land use policies and projects.
Given that even the best land use modeling is an imprecise art, EPA recommends that all land
use emission estimates be treated conservatively, and those relying only on expert judgement
even more so. Ultimately air quality attainment is demonstrated by air quality monitoring.
Overestimated benefits can lead to difficulty in meeting attainment.
8.6 What general steps must I follow to quantify the benefits of
land use measures for inclusion into a SIP?
The first step in quantifying the effects of any land use measure is to make sure that you have
accurately characterized the SIP emissions baseline. The SIP baseline reflects expected future
emissions due only to conditions as they are at the time of the analysis. This includes land use
policies and projects that already exist or are underway. The emissions baseline includes
information such as: assumptions about the regions land use mix, zoning, travel demand,
population, and growth estimates. Whether you are including a land use measure in a completely
new baseline estimate or are revising the existing baseline estimate to incorporate a new land
use measure you will need to follow the steps below to quantify and incorporate the land use
measure into your baseline.
If you are taking credit for the land use measure as an explicit control measure in your SIP you
will need to compare the existing baseline with the new measure added to the existing baseline.
In some cases, the adoption of the new land use measure may necessitate you construct a
hypothetical baseline to accurately decide whether a project is good for air quality and to
determine actual benefits. This distinction is best illustrated with an example:
A city decides to promote infill as a land use strategy and decides to redevelop
an old brownfield site within the city. It is likely that people who move to the
newly renovated brownfield site would have otherwise settled somewhere else in
the city's metropolitan area. You may therefore be able to assume that some or
all of this growth is replacing growth that is assumed in your SIP baseline. (If it
were all additional growth, the new development would actually increase
emissions as compared to the baseline.) However, because the project is
occurring in a portion of the region, it may not be possible to compare the project
directly to the SIP baseline. You can however, construct a baseline for the level
-36-
-------
of growth related to the project which approximates the conditions represented in
the SIP baseline. You will need to demonstrate that it is reasonable to assume
that a project or policy is replacing growth that is assumed in the SIP baseline.
By comparing the two new scenarios you may make a determination if overall
the brownfield site redevelopment is good for air quality and to what magnitude,
i.e. is concentrating population in the brownfield redevelopment plan better for
the region's air quality than spreading people out according to the baseline's
expected population distribution?
For a reference tool on constructing a hypothetical baseline see the EPA document on
quantifying the air quality benefits of infill development.16
There are six general steps you should follow to quantify land use policies and projects in a SIP.
They are:
1. Completely describe the land use policy or project
2. Describe how employment and housing and other infrastructure are affected by the
measure
3. Describe how you determined the travel activity effects arising from the land use policy
or project
4. Determine the confidence you have in estimate of travel activity effects and apply an
applicable discount factor use appropriately conservative estimates.
:5. Determine the emissions reduction associated with the travel activity effects
6. Demonstrate that the emissions reductions are surplus
Step 1: Completely describe the land use policy or project
J
You should describe the land use policy or project as completely as is reasonably possible. You
should describe what the policy or project is, the actual physical changes that will result,
population effects, zoning, density, the goals of the land use policy or project, travel activity
effects and emission reduction potential. If you are taking credit for your land use policy or
project as a control strategy, you will need to meet all of the specific documentation
requirements specified in section 6.
16EPA will be releasing a draft document outlining several methodologies for
estimating the air quality impacts of infill developments shortly after this draft is
released. EPA will use this document to draft guidance on quantifying SIP benefits
for infill projects.
-37-
-------
Step 2: Describe how employment and housing and other
infrastructure are affected by the policy or project
You should include in your analysis, an economic forecast, employment location, and household
location, as well as any other pertinent infrastructure information. You should use accepted land
use models. Check with your Regional EPA or DOT office for assistance in determining a
model appropriate to your area. Many areas use expert judgement to estimate future land use
and/or to determine the assumptions that underlay modeling. EPA will accept the use of expert
judgement for SIP credit, however you may want to use conservative estimates reflective of the
confidence you have in the assumptions.
Step 3: Describe how you determined the travel activity effects
arising from the land use policy or project
You should describe your methodology as completely as is reasonably possible. Information
normally used in transportation planning analysis or conformity analysis should be utilized
where they exist so that all assumptions are consistent. If you decide to, or are using a model,
you may want to consult with your local regional EPA or DOT office as to which models are
commonly used or applicable to your circumstances.
EPA and DOT have been conducting research in order to assist states and cities to quantify the
omission benefits associated with land use measures. You may find the following resources
useful:
Evaluation of Modeling Tools for Assessing Land Use Policies and Strategies, EPA420-
R-97-0007
Comparing Methodologies to Assess Transportation and Air Quality Impacts of
Brownfields and Infill Development - (OP--ICF draft document)
» Air Quality Impacts of Regional Land Use Policies (EPA-UC Davis Sacramento
Study-draft report)
• Data Collection and Modeling Requirements for Assessing Transportation Impacts of
Microscale Design (FHWA-KPMG Peat Marwick LLP draft report)
• Projecting Land-Use Change: An Evaluation of Models for Assessing the Effects of
-38-
-------
Community Growth and Change on Land Use Patterns-(ORD-draft; not available until
December 2000)
NCHRP 423 Land Use Impacts of Transportation
TCRP Report 48- Integrated Urban Models for simulation of Transit and Land Use
policies:(1999) References, National Academy Press 1999. Sponsored by the Federal
transit Administration (FTA)
TMIP- Urban Design, Telecommuting, and Travel Forecasting- Conference Proceedings
-DOT-T-96-09, Final Report, Feb, 1995
TMIP- Land Use Modeling Conference Proceedings
TMIP- Land Use Compendium - DOT-T-99-03, July 1998
TMIP- Land Use Forecasting Studies
II Step 4: Determine the confidence you have in the travel activity effects
Many factors can influence the accuracy and/or quality of your predictions of travel activity
effects. For example, some Factors influencing the confidence you have in your estimate
include:
• analysis zone size The smaller the zone, the better able the
model can predict interactions.
• socioeconomic and travel data quality The more detailed your data, the more
accurately you can characterize the impacts
of your policy/project
the age of your data. The older the data, the less confidence you
should have in your results.
EPA recommends that you consider the confidence you have in your estimates when taking
credit for a policy or project in the SIP, and that you use reasonably conservative estimates of
the benefits.
Step 5: Determine the emissions reductions associated with the
travel activity effects
-39-
-------
You should always use the EPA or California approved emission factors that appear in the
MOBILE model or the EMFAC model if the land use measure is in California. For vehicles
and/or equipment (e.g. alternative fueled vehicles) not represented in these emission models you
should use reputable data from actual testing programs.
You should always use the best data available when running the MOBILE or EMFAC model.
Local data should be used when available..
Step 6: Demonstrate that the emission reductions are surplus
You must make sure that your quantification methodology only counts reductions that are
surplus. Emission reductions used to meet air quality attainment requirements are surplus as
long as they are not otherwise relied on in air quality-related programs related to your SIP, SIP-
related requirements, or Federal rules that focus on reducing criteria pollutants or their
precursors.
You will need to coordinate closely with other program offices in your air quality planning
section to insure against inadvertent double-counting (i.e. taking credit for reductions that have
already been credited or assumed elsewhere.) For land use policies and projects, you need to pay
special attention to the transportation planning and SIP baseline to insure that the reductions are
above and beyond the existing baseline land use assumptions.
8.7 What additional specific quantification requirements must I
meet to include my policy or project as a voluntary measure?
The Voluntary Measures Policy was crafted in part to allow new and innovative programs with
less established quantification methodologies to be included in a SIP. See the section on
voluntary measures for a more complete description of the policy. (The voluntary measures
websites is located at: http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/tfaqvolm.htm. This does not eliminate
the need to use the most advanced quantification techniques when they exist or are practical to
use, however. If you can use existing land use models and travel demand models, i.e. the four-
step process, you should do so. For measures that do not lend themselves to quantification by
the four step process you can use other logical methodologies to quantify the emission benefits.
The Voluntary Measures Policy should generally be used for non-traditional quantification
efforts. (There may be some exceptions to this, which should be handled on a case by case
basis.) At such time that emission benefits are proven to be reasonable and accurate, these
methodologies may "graduate" into being allowable for traditional SIP measures. It should be
noted that programs under the voluntary measures policy can be no more than 3% of the total
reductions needed for attainment in your area.
-40-
-------
8.8 What additional specific quantification requirements must I
meet if I include my policy in a conformity determination
without including it in the SIP?
For a conformity determination, we recommend that you incorporate the benefit of land use
policies and projects together with all of your other control strategies to estimate future
emissions. These estimates of future emissions are directly compared to the SIP motor vehicle
emission budgets (if no adequate budgets exist, then different tests would apply, as described in
the transportation conformity rule, 40 CFR parts 51 and 93).
Also, when performing a conformity determination, you should follow the requirements
outlined in the Department of Transportation's metropolitan planning regulations (23 CFR 450)
and EPA's conformity rule (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93) when doing transportation planning or
conformity.
Land use policies and projects that are not regionally significant don't have to be modeled with
a travel demand model.17 In fact, it may not be possible to model the effects of some land use
policies and projects using a travel demand model, and if that is the case, then the emissions
reductions could be quantified in your conformity determination using another technique.
8.9 What other important issues should I be aware of in quantifying
air quality benefits?
There are a number of additional issues you should consider when quantifying the air quality
benefits of land use policies and projects. These include:
The synergistic or antagonistic interactions between policies and projects
• Deciding whether to quantify the benefits of policies and projects individually, or with
other policies and projects.
Ensuring your estimates are conservative enough, and the potential consequences of not
being conservative.
The effect of the scale of your project can have on the uncertainty associated with your
estimate of emissions reductions.
Accounting for interactions between policies and projects
"Regionally significant" is a term defined in the conformity rule that applies to transportation
projects. It is any transportation project that is on a facility that serves regional transportation need
(such as access to and from the area outside of the region, major planned developments such as
new retail malls, sports complexes, etc.). The concept of regionally significance is applicable to
land use policies and projects as well. For example, a large transit-oriented development that
includes retail, employment, and housing would be regionally significant. A small land use project
of 10 apartment units might not be regionally significant.
-41-
-------
Relationships between land use and travel are complex. Land use policies and projects may
interact with each other, either enhancing the emissions reductions they achieve, or in some
cases diminishing the beneficial effects. You will need to consider the potential interactions of
a policy or project with other control strategies when you are quantifying the effects.
Quantifying policies and projects individually or as a group
You may quantify the benefits of land use policies and projects as part of a group of control
strategies or quantify the impacts on a land use policy or project separate from the other control
strategies to determine the impact of that strategy alone. The quantification procedures are
somewhat different for quantifying a group of control strategies as opposed to quantifying an
individual policy or project.
Calculating the benefit of control strategies together can result in fewer modeling steps. If you
model several strategies together, you will need to calculate a baseline without the projects and
policies, and compare that to a calculation of the emissions with all of the policies and projects.
Quantifying the effects of policies and projects together will likely better capture the interactions
and synergies produced by several land use policies or projects.
If you model strategies individually, you will need to run a separate calculation for each project.
In order to take into account the interactive effects described above, whenever feasible, you
should run the model accounting for previously modeled policies and projects in your baseline.
That is, you should estimate the benefits of policies and projects in a series, continuously
building on previous policies and projects.
By determining the explicit amount of emissions reduced by a single land use policy or project,
you can determine the air quality benefits of that control strategy and the cost effectiveness of
pursuing it. This will allow you to compare several control strategy options in terms of
emissions reductions and cost-effectiveness. In addition, by going through the process of
calculating the benefits of the measure, you are likely to gain more insight into how the measure
is working. Calculating a specific benefit for the measure can also help explain the
effectiveness of the measure to the public. This can be particularly important if indicating its
effectiveness is needed for it to be adopted.
Using conservative estimates
Throughout this chapter, we outlined several places where you should make conservative
estimates. Modeling the air quality impacts of land use policies and projects is an inherently
uncertain process, and it is important that you are confident in the emissions benefits that you
account for in a SIP or conformity determination. If you overestimate the reductions for policies
and projects, you ultimately may not meet the air quality standards. If a land use policy or
project does not result in the expected emission benefits, you will have to find new reductions
to make up for the shortfall.
-42-
-------
Taking into account the scale of the project or policy
Land use and transportation models are likely to more accurately predict the benefits of a project
or policy when it's impact is large in scale. For projects with larger impacts, the law of averages
will tend to even out outlying discrepancies, whereas projects and policies with smaller impacts
will be more effected by individual variation. You need to be aware that for very small projects
and policies, the inherent errors in the modeling can even be greater than the modeled benefits
of the project. The scale of the project can therefore greatly impact the confidence levels of the
modeling, and therefore the amount of credit you claim.
8.10 What impacts other than air quality should I consider?
Land use policies and projects will have multiple environmental and economic effects. You will
likely implement a policy or project because of a number of benefits, including improvements
in air quality. For example, you may implement policies and projects to preserve open space,
or provide for increased brownfield redevelopment. These policies and projects can reduce
vehicular emissions, but also can improve water quality or help you remediate contaminated
lands. In some cases, however, a policy or project might have a positive effect on air quality but
a negative effect on another factor. You should always consider these effects when you are
quantifying the impacts of policies and projects.
8.11 What other resources are available to assist me with
quantification?
Other resources that will be made available in the near future that may be useful include:
[We request comment on the applicability of these and other tools.]
Smart Growth Index
A GIS-based sketch-level planning tool for evaluating alternative growth, land use, and
transportation scenarios for communities and regions (draft)
TRANSIMS
The Transportation Analysis and Simulation System (TRANSIMS) is an advanced urban
tranportaition/ air quality analysis and forecasting model designed to be used by local
planning agencies to simulate the movement of vehicles and people for an entire
metropolitan region, (draft)
Projecting Land-Use Change: An Evaluation of Models for Assessing the Effects of Community
Growth and Change on Land Use Patterns
The EPA Office of Research and Development has developed an evaluation of land-use
change models in order to improve its ability to assess and mitigate future risk to
-43-
-------
ecological systems, human health, and quality of live. The document identifies and
evaluates 25 different modeling tools (draft available in Fall, 2000)
-44-
-------
Appendix A Examples of Land Use Policies and Strategies
Some examples of Land Use Strategies include:
• Concentrated activity centers:
Strong downtowns:
Mixed use development:
Infill and densification:
Increased density near transit stations:
Increased density near transit corridors:
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities:
Interconnected street network:
Encourage pedestrian and transit travel by
creating "nodes" of high density mixed
development, that can be more easily linked
by a transit network.
Encourage pedestrian and transit travel by
making the central business district a
special kind of concentrated activity center,
that can be the focal point for a regional
transit system.
Encourage pedestrian and transit travel by
locating a variety of compatible land uses
within walking distance of each other.
Encourage pedestrian and transit travel by
locating new development in already
developed areas, so that activities are closer
together.
Encourage transit travel by increasing
development density within walking
distance (0.25 to 0.50 miles) of high
capacity transit stations, and incorporate
direct pedestrian access.
Encourage transit travel by increasing
development density within walking
distance (0.25 to 0.50 miles) of a high
capacity transit corridor.
Encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel by
increasing sidewalks, paths, crosswalks,
protection from fast vehicular traffic,
pedestrian-activated traffic signals, and
shading.
Encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel by
providing more direct routes between
-45-
-------
locations. Also, alleviate traffic congestion
by providing multiple routes between
origins and destinations.
• Strategic parking facilities: Encourage non-automobile modes of transit
by limiting the parking supply, and
encourage carpooling by reserving parking
close to buildings for carpools and
vanpools.
Some examples of Land Use Polices include:
I. Encourage focused higher density by
A. allowing transfer of unused development density
capacity in outlying areas to permit development
density above maximum limits near central areas
and transit (zoning/regulations and non-monetary
incentives);
B. allowing increased density for residential, retail, and employment
generating uses in central areas and around transit (zoning/regulations and
non-monetary incentives);
C. setting minimum densities for residential, retail, and employment
generating uses in central areas and around transit (zoning/regulations);
D. requiring no net decrease in residential density for redevelopment
(zoning/regulations);
E. stating densities in terms of square feet of land per dwelling unit, rather
than minimum lot size, to encourage clustering (zoning/regulations);
F. granting incentives (e.g., reduced parking requirements, accelerated
permit processing, infrastructure upgrades) for development that focuses
on existing urban areas and infill (non-monetary incentives);
G. adjusting development impact fee structures or giving tax breaks to
encourage infill and increased density development near transit and
activity centers, and to discourage outlying development (monetary
incentives).
II. Encourage mixed-use zones by
A. Allowing mixed use, which is now prohibited in many places
(zoning/regulations);
B. requiring mixed uses, with certain percentages of residential, public, and
commercial uses in target areas (zoning/regulations);
C. using fine-grained zoning to achieve mixed use while insuring residential
zones are buffered from heavy industrial zones with light industrial and
commercial zones (zoning/regulations);
D. using mixed-use overlay zoning, to add a second use to an area that is
primarily in another use, e.g., commercial corridors along major arterials
-46-
-------
in a primarily residential area (zoning/regulations);
E. granting incentives (e.g., reduced parking requirements, accelerated
permit processing, infrastructure upgrades) for development that locates
transit- or pedestrian-oriented amenities, like housing or child care near
commercial uses and pedestrian-oriented design (non-monetary
incentives);
F. adjusting development impact fee structures or giving tax breaks to
encourage mixed use (monetary incentives).
in. Encourage pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and carpooling activity by
A. requiring connected, narrower streets with trees and sidewalks in new
development (zoning/regulations);
B. requiring bicycle lanes and transit stops on larger streets in new
development (zoning/regulations);
C. requiring traffic-calming devices in new development, e.g., textured
paving at crossings, frequent intersections with pedestrian-activated
traffic signals, and traffic circles (zoning/regulations);
D. reducing requirements for setbacks and minimum lot sizes to create a
stronger connection between buildings and sidewalks (zoning/regulations
and non-monetary incentives);
E. requiring pedestrian scale signs in pedestrian and transit-oriented areas
(zoning/regulations);
F. reducing minimum parking requirements near transit hubs and for
projects providing features that encourage pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
activity (zoning/regulations and non-monetary incentives);
G. setting parking maximums in transit- and pedestrian-oriented areas
(zoning/regulations);
H. requiring preferential parking for carpools (zoning/regulations).
-47-
-------
Appendix B Related Internet Web Sites
Smart Growth Network
http://www.smartgrowth.org
Transportation Action Network
http://www.transact.org
Sustainable Communities Network
http://www.sustainable.org
Growth Management Institute
http://www.grnionline.org
U.S. Department of Energy, Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development
http://www.sustainable.doe.gov
The U.S. Conference of Mayors, Joint Center for Sustainable Communities
http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/sustainable/sj-7.htm
National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices
http://www.nga.org/Center/Activities/SmartGrowth.asp
Presidents Council on Sustainable Development
http://www.whitehouse.gov/PCSD/
National Trust for Historic Preservation
http://www.nthp.org
Planners Web: Sprawl Resource Guide
http://www.plannersweb.com/sprawl.html
Center for Neighborhood Technology
littp://www.cnt.org
Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program
http://www.lcd.state.or.us/issues/tgmweb/about/index.htm
BUILDER Online, July 1998 special report on Sprawl
][ittp://builder.hw.net/monthly/1998/jul/covstory/sprawl4.htx
City of Austin, Smart Growth Initiative
http://www.ci.aiistin.tx.us/doorstep/98/! 0/smartgrow.htm#anchor 1055467
-48-
-------
New Jersey Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan
http://www.state.nj.us/pinelands/cmp.htm
Smart Growth in Maryland
http://www.op.state.md.us/smartgrowth/
-49-
-------
Appendix C Related Work Efforts
[Note: all of the documents cited below will be available on EPA's website at
http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqsusd.htm for the final release of this guidance document]
Comparing Methodologies to Assess Transportation and Air Quality
Impacts of Brownfields and Infill Development
This work, performed by ICF consulting under contract with the EPA Office of Policy,
describes four possible methodologies for including the emissions reductions produced by
brownfields redevelopment and infill development in State Implementation Plans (SIPs). Each
methodology examined here is a different answer to the question: if the infill development for
which emissions credit is being claimed had not been built, where would the development —the
"growth increment"—have gone instead?
Methodology 1: Growth would have gone to a single "typical" greenfield site
Methodology 2: Growth would have gone to the fastest-growing parts of the region
Methodology 3: Growth would have been distributed through the region, in amounts determined
by the local land use model
Methodology 4: Growth would have been distributed through the region, in amounts
proportional to the distribution of all other growth.
The draft report details the steps taken to quantify the impacts of an infill development in
Atlanta, Georgia, and compares this infill site to growth scenarios if the infill site was not
developed. This draft report is being released for public comment in June, 2000 for 60 days and
is intended to serve as the basis of EPA guidance on quantifying infill for air quality credit in
SIPs.
A Methodology to Establish SIP Creditability of Infill Development
This work was conducted by Apogee/Hagler Bailly and Criterion under EPA's Office of Policy
(OP), which preceded the work by ICF mentioned above. Preliminary work performed is
described in a draft report entitled The Transportation and Environmental Impacts of Infill
versus Greenfield Development: A Comparative Case Study Analysis. This study uses regional
travel demand modeling to compare the travel and emissions impacts between a hypothetical
development located on an infill site and on a greenfield site. Models were run for three case
studies, in San Diego, California; Montgomery County, Maryland; and West Palm Beach,
Florida. Each case study consisted of modeling a hypothetical large development as if it were
located on an actual infill site, and then modeling the same development as if it were on an
actual greenfield site. The development size remains the same in both locations, but the
density and street patterns are consistent with the surrounding urban form at each location. In
-50-
-------
each case, the MPO travel demand model was used to simulate the travel impacts of the
development. Environmental impacts (including NOx and CO2 emissions) and energy use
were estimated using a GIS-based model called INDEX.
All three case studies show that locating the development on the infill site results in lower
vehicle use and lower vehicle emissions. VMT per capita at the infill sites was roughly half
that at the greenfield sites. NOx emissions were 27 percent to 42 percent lower at the infill
sites, even though congestion at one infill site was higher than the greenfield site. It should be
noted that the INDEX model uses simplified per-mile and per-trip emissions factors, not the
standard vehicle emissions models.
Transportation Impacts of Micro Scale Urban Design Elements:
Data Collection and Modeling Needs
This 1998 joint DOT (FHWA)/EPA (OMS and OP) funded project will bring together current
knowledge and recent research concerning the ability to appropriately reflect the transportation
impacts of various micro-scale urban design elements (e.g., sidewalk width, building setback,
street grid type, etc.). A report from the contractor conducting the study, Parsons
Brinckerhoff, should be available in late 1999. The report will explain procedures to estimate
how land use development strategies and site design elements affect travel behavior and will
give examples from selected MPO experience. Particularly useful for MPOs will be a product
that will relate specific urban design changes to auto ownership, trip generation (or tour or
activity generation), and mode choice for use in current travel demand models.
Air Quality Impacts of Regional Land Use Policies
This 1998 joint OP/OMS-funded grant to Robert Johnston at the University of California,
Davis will produce a document for policy makers at the national, state, and metropolitan levels
that illustrates the air quality benefits or deficits of regional policy scenarios that affect land
use development patterns. Policies that affect land use directly, such as removing density caps
on zoning around rail stations, and indirectly, such as travel pricing or transit investment, will
be simulated. A suite of models is under development that utilizes earlier work done in the
Sacramento metropolitan area. Numerous scenarios will be evaluated and compared to the
expected baseline out to the year 2015. Scenarios having strong effects on region-wide
accessibility and affecting demand for travel or land significantly (e.g., new road capacity,
major region-wide transit capacity expansion, or strong travel and parking pricing policies)
•will be evaluated. In addition, plans call for evaluation of scenarios that include land market
pricing corrections, such as incentives for infill development, and land development fees for
raw land projects at the urban edge and beyond.
The simulations of land use, transit, and travel pricing scenarios for the Sacramento region
using the regional MPO's travel demand model are complete. Part two of the project is
underway. This will evaluate the best two or three scenarios, using two urban models that
represent land development and travel, MEPLAN and an improved TRANUS. These results
-51-
-------
will give differences that take into account land use pricing and give indications of the
magnitude of land use price differentials for the various outcomes. Results will be compared
to the less resource intensive modeling technique previously used.
The Effects of Urban Form on Travel and Emissions: A Review and
Synthesis of the Literature
This is an ongoing contract with Apogee/Hagler Bailly under EPA's Office of Policy (OP).
The draft report offers a thorough summary of recent research on the effect of land use on
travel behavior. Studies fall into two general categories. Empirical studies compare data
collected from actual communities and try to distinguish how various land use factors lead to
different travel patterns. Simulation studies use computer models to examine the impact of
hypothetical land use patterns on travel and emissions.
The report concludes that changes in land use can reduce region-wide vehicle use and
emissions over a period of several decades. Using simulation models, several studies have
convincingly shown that modifying future development patterns in ways that make them less
dependent on automobile use will reduce VMT and emissions. The reduction in emissions
comes from shorter trip lengths and shifts to transit, bicycling, and walking modes. While
computer modeling has improved greatly in recent years, it is still subject to some serious
limitations. Zonal size generally precludes modeling the impact of micro-scale design
features, for example.
The report documents how numerous empirical studies have shown relationships between
specific land use factors and components of travel demand. For example, compact clusters of
mixed-use development are correlated with reduced trip lengths. Similarly, higher density
communities of mixed land use are associated with higher shares of travel by transit, bicycling
and walking. The report acknowledges the methodological flaws that limit the conclusions
that can be drawn from empirical studies. Some, for example, do not control for factors like
income when comparing neighborhoods. A more fundamental flaw is the fact that cross-
sectional studies, by nature, cannot establish causality.
Evaluation of Modeling Tools for Assessing Land Use Policies and
Strategies
This complementary effort was done for the EPA Transportation and Market Incentives Group
by Systems Application International (SAT). Its final report was issued in August 1997. The
work was intended to assess how regional land use forecasting models are able to incorporate
specific land use policies. The report evaluates three commercial land use models:
DRAM/EMPAL, MEPLAN, and TRANUS. Each model was evaluated in terms of how well it
could account for policies designed to (1) increase development densities, (2) increase land use
mixing, and (3) modify design elements and infrastructure to encourage alternative travel
modes. The specific policies used to achieve these goals were summarized as zoning,
monetary incentives (such as subsidies to developers to build in targeted areas), and non-
-52-
-------
monetary incentives (such as reduced parking requirements).
The study concludes that DRAM/EMPAL, because it does not easily represent costs, cannot
model the impact of any of the three types of policies. MEPLAN and TRANUS do include
representations of development costs, and therefore can at least partially model zoning policies
as well as monetary and non-monetary incentives. The report points out that all the models are
seriously constrained by zonal size, however. They are usually run using zones the size of
several census tracts, or a single census tract at the smallest. As a typical urban census tract is
roughly one square mile, a model built on zones of this size could possibly detect an increase
in density within a half-mile of a transit station or transit corridor; it could not detect smaller-
scale land use changes. If the zonal system uses aggregations of census tracts, even transit
station-area densities could not be resolved.
Green Development with the National Association of Home Builders
Research Center
Past research has demonstrated that the location of new development has a strong correlation
with its environmental impact. For example, far-flung residential subdivisions will generate
more air pollution than "close-in" mixed use communities.
Beyond the location of development (far-flung versus close-in), research demonstrates that
various development practices and techniques on the development site can mitigate
environmental impacts. For example, proximity to transit, reduction in street width, grid
lay-out for streets, construction of sidewalks and pathways, and co-location of diverse land
uses (e.g., residential and commercial) will all improve community walkability and help
reduce reliance on SOVs. TMIG's cooperative agreement with the NAHB Research Center
will generate a compendium of various development practices and techniques that create a
range of environmental benefits. The "guidebook" will provide information on various green
development techniques and will lay-out the steps for developing local, community-based
green development programs. The development guide is being refined through a partnership
with the Denver Home Builders Association, which is currently creating a "Green Developers
Program" for local builders.
U.S. EPA Inventory and Evaluation of 25 Land-Use Change Models
Many potential clients for land-use change models, such as city and county planners, community
groups, and environmental agencies, need better information on the features, strengths, and
limitations of various model packages. Because of this growing need, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a selective inventory and evaluation of 25 leading land-
use change models currently in use or under development. Partners in scoping this effort
Included the U.S. Departments of Transportation and Interior, the academic and consulting
communities, and multiple program offices across EPA.
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) initiated the land-use change models
-53-
-------
evaluation in order to improve its ability to assess and mitigate future risk to ecological systems,
human health, and quality of life. Land-use change is perhaps the most significant source of
adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial environments today. Through its Regional
Vulnerability Assessment and other initiatives, ORD is considering land-use change models at
nested spatial scales in order to target ecological resources and socioeconomic issues for
community-based protection efforts. The strategic evaluation of leading models achieves the
following ORD objectives:
1) identify models that are immediately available for application at multi-county and watershed
scales in rural and urban areas;
2) evaluate model frameworks for their ability to support alternative algorithms currently under
development within ORD; and
3) assess the suite of inventoried models for gaps and weaknesses that ORD may seek to address
through in-house research and external research grants.
Target user groups for the land-use change models evaluation are:
a) Community planners and citizens who are seeking tools to analyze future land-use scenarios;
b) EPA program office and regional staff who support communities with smart-growth planning
tools and information; and
c) ORD modelers and research planners who are currently assessing land-use models and gaps
in the state of the science.
The inventory is scheduled for completion in hardcopy format by September 30,2000. An
interactive internet version will be available in 2001. Work is also underway to develop a
related inventory of models that project the environmental impacts of land-use change. For
more information, please contact Laura Jackson at jackson.laura@epa.gov or (919) 541-3088.
-54-
-------
Appendix D Glossary of Terms
Air quality credits
The documented reductions in mobile source emissions due to land use policies or projects that nonattainment and
maintenance areas can use in their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) or conformity determinations.
Attainment demonstration
An area considered to have air quality that meets or exceeds the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
health standards used in the Clean Air Act. An area may be an attainment area for one pollutant and a non-
attainment area for others.
Baseline
The level of emissions before any explicit measures are taken to improve air quality.
Brownfields
Abandoned, idled or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is
complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.
Conformity
Process to assess the compliance of any transportation plan, program or project with air quality control plans. The
conformity process is defined by the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Control strategy
These are specific strategies for controlling the emissions of and reducing ambient levels of pollutants in order to
satisfy CAA requirements for demonstrations of reasonable further progress and attainment.
Criteria pollutants
Criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), paniculate matter
(PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
Economic Incentive Program (E1P)
Strategies that encourage emissions reductions through market based incentives.
Infill development
A type of land use strategy. Specifically any type of new development that occurs within existing built-up areas
(may be urban or suburban); includes brownfield development.
Initial baseline forecast
The initial baseline forecast of future emissions is the level of emissions in the future that will result if no
additional control measures are implemented other than what is required by law.
-55-
-------
Jobs/housing balance l
A type of land use strategy. Changes that reduce the disparity between the number of residences and the number
of employment opportunities available within a sub-region.
Land use policy
Specific policies, programs or regulations adopted or operated by government agencies to allow and/or to
encourage the implementation of land use strategies and result in decreased vehicle miles traveled and emissions of
air pollutants.
Land use project
Specific developments which aim to meet the goals defined in land use strategies.
Land use strategy
Strategies/changes that alter aspects of the urban environment to improve air quality.
Maintenance area
.Any geographic region of the United States previously designated nonattainment pursuant to the CAA
Amendments of 1990 and subsequently redesignated to attainment subject to the requirement to develop a
maintenance plan.
Mixed use development
A type of land use strategy. Development that locates complementary land uses such as housing, retail, office,
services and public facilities within walking distance of each other.
Mobile sources
Motor vehicles, nonroad equipment (e.g., construction equipment, lawnmowers, boats, locomotives, etc.), and
•their fuels.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
Standards for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. NAAQS have been set for the
:>ix criteria pollutants.
.Neotraditional development
A type of land use strategy. Specifically a set of land development and urban design elements with the purpose of
creating pedestrian oriented neighborhoods.
New Source Review
Air pollution permits are required for businesses that build new pollution sources or make significant changes to
existing pollution sources. These are sometimes referred to as "preconstruction" or "new source review" permits.
These permits are required to ensure that large new emissions do not cause significant health or environmental
ihreats and that new pollution sources are well-controlled.
-56-
-------
Nodes of high density, mixed use development
A concentrated area or central area of various types of developments.
Non attainment area
Any geographic region of the United States which has been designated as nonattainment for any pollutant for
which a national ambient air quality standard exists.
Regionally significant
A term which has been defined in federal transportation planning regulations as a transportation project that is on a
facility which serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside of the region, major
activity centers in the region, major planned developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes, etc. or
transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves) and would normally be included in the modeling of
a metropolitan area's transportation network, including at a minimum all principal arterial highways and all fixed
guideway transit facilities that offer an alternative to regional highway travel.
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
State air quality plans required by The Clean Air Act for nonattainment and maintenance areas. The plans are
prepared by state air quality agencies and include estimates of future air quality and plans to attain appropriate air
quality standards.
Transit oriented development
A type of land use strategy. This development encourages moderate to high density development along a regional
transit system.
Transportation control measure (TCM)
The term "transportation control measure" encompasses elements of both transportation system management
(TSM) and "transportation demand management" (TDM). Transportation system management generally refers to
the use of low capital intensive transportation improvements to increase the efficiency of transportation facilities
and services. These can include carpool programs, parking management, traffic flow improvements, high
occupancy vehicle lanes, and park and ride lots. TDM generally refers to policies, programs and actions that are
directed towards decreasing the use of single occupant vehicles. TDM also can include activities to encourage
shifting or spreading peak travel periods. In practice, there is considerable overlap among these concepts and
TCM, TSM and TDM are often used interchangeably.
Travel analysis zone
Level of geographic detail used in most transportation planning applications to summarize socioeconomic
characteristics anc travel data. TAZs vary in size depending on density and homogeneity of and land uses, and are
defined by local agencies.
Travel demand model
In the field of transportation there is a standard set of planning methods and models that are called the four-step
process or the Urban Transportation Planning System (UTPS for short). This set of models and procedures is used
•co forecast travel demand for future transportation systems and it plays a central role in the evaluation of alternative
•transportation plans and policies.
-57-
-------
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
A standard area wide measure of travel activity. Most conventional VMT calculation is to multiply average length
of trip by the total number of trips.
Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs (VMEP)
Voluntary emission reduction programs that rely on the actions of individuals or other parties for achieving
emissions reductions. The VMEP Policy is intended to provide an incentive for states, localities and the public to
voluntarily reduce air pollution in their communities.
-58-
-------
Appendix E List of Acronyms
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program
CO Carbon Monoxide
COG Council of Governments
KIP Economic Incentive Program
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
NOj Nitrogen Dioxide
P M-10 Paniculate Matter (10 micrometers or less)
SIP State Implementation Plan
T CM Transportation Control Measure
TOD Transit-oriented development
VMEP Voluntary Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Programs
VMT vehicle miles traveled
-59-
-------
Appendix F References to Relevant Policies, Guidance Documents,
and General Information Sources
Granting Air Quality Credit Land Use Measures: Policy Options
EPA420-P-99-028
http://wwAv.epa.gov/oms/tansp/taqsusd.htrn
Background Information for Land Use SIP Policy, October 1998
EPA420-R-98-012
http://wvw.epa.gov/oms/1ransp/traqsusd.htrn
Evaluation of Modeling Tools for Assessing Land Use Policies and Strategies, October 1997
EPA420-R-97-007
http://wmv.epa.gov/oms/tansp/ttaqsusd.htm
Voluntary Emission Reduction Programs Guidance, October 24, 1997
http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/Vmweb/vmpoldoc.htm
Economic Incentive Program Guidance
(to be posted soon)
http://www.epa.gov/oms/tansp/traqmkti.htm
Conformity Rule and supplemental documentation
http://www.epa.gov/oms/tansp/traqconf.htm
-60-
-------
Appendix G Regional and State Contacts
Below is a listing of organizations that may be contacted in order to find out what agencies are responsible for the
conformity and/or State Implementation Planning process in any given geographic area.
For State or Local Air Agencies
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators/Association of
Local Air Pollution Control Officials
444 North Capitol St. N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: 202-624-7864
For Metropolitan Planning Organizations or Councils of Government
National Association of Regional Councils
1700KSt. N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Telephone: 202-457-0710
For Transit Agencies
American Public Transportation Association
1201 New York Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20005
Telephone: 202-898-4000
For State Departments of Transportation
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
444 N. Capitol St. N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: 202-624-5800
For Environmental Protection Agency Contacts
Questions on transportation conformity or a current listing of non-attainment and maintenance areas
should be directed to:
EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality
2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, Ml 48105
Telephone: 734-214-4441
www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm
Far EPA Regional Offices - Transportation Planning Contact *
-61-
-------
Region 1: Boston, MA
617-918-1665 (R1,CT)
617-918-1668 (MA, ME, VT, NH)
:Regionll:NewYork,NY
212-637-3901 (NJ, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Island)
212-637-3804 (NY)
Region 111: Philadelphia, PA
215-814-2183 (DC, MD, VA)
215-814-2184 (DE, PA, WV)
Region IV: Atlanta, GA
404-562-9026 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN)
Region V: Chicago, 1L
312-353-8656(11, OH)
312-353-4366 (IN)
312-353-6680 (Ml, MM, Wl)
Region VI: Dallas, TX
214-665-7247 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX)
Region Vll: Kansas City, KS
913-551-7651 (1A, KS, MO, NE)
Region Vlll: Denver, CO
303-312-6446 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY)
Region IX: San Francisco, CA
415-744-1247 (AZ, NV, CA)
415-744-1231 (CA)
415-744-1153 (CA)
Region X: Seattle, WA
206-553-1463 (AK, ID, OR, WA)
*I'lease note: This list is current as of publication date. For the most current list, visit EPA's web site at:
www.epa. gov/epahome/1 ocate2.htm
or the TRAQ web site at: www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/contacts.htm
-62-
------- |