APTD-1V1
TRANSPORTATION CONTROL
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
FOR NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN AREA
I .s I \\IRONMINTAL PROIHT1ON A(,l\(>
Oft in- ut Air .mil W.IUT Pro
Ottui. nt Air Qii.ilit\ PLinnmi4 .nul
Rcsc-.irih I n.inyk P.irk. Nurth ( .imlin.i J 'I
-------
APTD-1371
TRANSPORTATION CONTROL
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
FOR NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN AREA
Prepared by
TRW Transportation and Environmental Operations
7600 Colshire Drive
McLean, Virginia 22101
Contract No. 68-02-0048
EPA Project Officer: Fred Winkler
I
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
December 1972
-------
The APTD (Air Pollution Technical Data) series of reports is issued
by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air
and Water Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, to report tech-
nical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies of
APTD reports are available free of charge to Federal employees, current
contractors and grantees, and non-profit organizations - as supplies
permit from the Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
or may be obtained, for a nominal cost, from the National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
TRW Transportation and Environmental Operations of McLean, Virginia,
in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-0048. The contents of this report
are reproduced herein as received from the TRW Transportation and
Environmental Operations. The opinions, findings, and conclusions
expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. APTD-1371
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
2.H LIMITATIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION CONTROL STRATEGY ANALYSIS. 2-1
2.1 Air Quality Monitoring 2-1
2.2 Emission Factors 2-2
2.3 Cold-Start Emissions 2-2
2.4 Traffic Data and Projections 2-3
2.5 Analytic Techniques Used * 2-3
2.6 Effects of Control Measures 2-4
3.0 SUMMARY 3-1
3.1 Air Quality 3-1
3.2 Emission Reductions Required 3-1
3.3 Strategy Considerations 3-2
3.3.1 Control Measures 3-2
3.3.2 Data Base 3-3
4.0 PROGRAM PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION 4-1
4.1 Regional Description 4-1
4.2 New York Air Quality Problems 4-3
4.2.1 Air Quality Network 4-3
4.2.2 Estimated Emission Reductions Needed 4-5
4.3 Purpose of Study 4-5
4.3.1 Control Strategy Development 4-6
4.3.2 Control Strategy Implementation 4-C
5.0 CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT1 5-1
5.1 Emission Estimates 5-1
5.1.1 Methodology 5-1
5.1.2 Baseline (1970) Emissions 5-6
5.1.3 Future (1975, 1977, 1984) Emissions G-17
5.2 Summary of Control Measures 5-17
5.2.1 Selection of Control Measures 5-17
5.2.2 Impacts of Control Measures on Transportation. . 5-21
m
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
5.2.3 Emission Reduction Potential , . , . 5-22
5.3 Proposed Control Strategy 5-23
5.3.1 Control Measure Definition 5-23
5.3.2 Air Quality Impacts of Control Measures . , . 5-25
5.3.3 Social and Economic IMpacts 5-27
5.3.4 Determination of Obstacles to Implementation
of Control Measures 5-37
6.0 CONTROL STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION 6-1
6.1 Procedure and Time Schedule 6-1
6.2 Agency Involvement 6-2
6.3 Legal Authority 6-4
6.4 Surveillance Check Points 6-4
6.4.1 Legal Authority Check Points 6-4
6.4.2 Air Quality Check Points 6-4
6.4.3 Transportation Check Points G-6
6.4.4 Control Measure Implementation Check Points. . 6-6
APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY AND EMISSION DATA BASE A-l
APPENDIX B TRANSPORTATION DATA BASE B-l
APPENDIX C jATA DOCUMENTATION LIST C-l
APPENDIX D AUTOMOBILE AIR POLLUTION QUESTIONNAIRE D-l
APPENDIX E LIST OF CONTROL MEASURES COMPILED BY NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF AIR RESOURCES E-l
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number Title Page
4-1 Air Quality Data and Rollback Estimates 4-1
5-1 Modal Traffic Distribution in Downtown
CBD as Percentages of Total VMT 5-2
5-2 Modal Traffic Distributions in Midtown
CBD as Percentages of Total VMT 5-3
5-3 Modal Traffic Distributions of Bronx,
Kings, and Queens Counties as Percentages
of Total VMT 5-4
5-4 New York City Emission Factors 5-5
*
5-b Air Pollutant Emission Estimates for the
"Worst" Square Mile in Different Areas
of New York City 5-7
5-6 Mobile Source, Stationary Source, and Total
Emissions of Air Pollutants in the New
York City Area 5-3
5-7 Estimated Percentage Emission Reductions for
Carbon Monoxide in the "Hot Spots" of New
York City 5-18
5-8 Estimated Percentage Emission Reductions for
Hydrocarbons in the "Hot Spots" of New York
City 5-19
5-9 Estimated Percentage Emission Reductions for
Oxides of Nitrogen in the "Hot Spots" of
New York City 5-20
5-10 Assumed Vehicle Emission Reductions for
Hardware Control Measures 5-24
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Nucber Title
4-1 New York City Grid 4-2
5-1 Carbon Monoxide Emission Densitites 1n
NYC 1n 1970 5-9
5-2 Carbon Monoxide Emission Densities 1n
NYC in 1977 Assuming Only Federal
Emission Controls 5-10
5-3 Carbon Monoxide Emission Densities 1n
NYC 1n 1977 Assuming Federal Emission
Controls and Full Set of Hardware
Control Measures 5-11
5-4 Hydrocarbon Emission Densities in NYC
in 1970 5-12
5-5 Hydrocarbon Emission Densities in NYC
1n 1977 Assuming Only Federal Emission
Controls 5-13
5-6 Hydrocarbon Emission Densities 1n NYC
1n 1977 Assuming Federal Emission Controls
and Full Set of Hardware Control Measures 5-14
5-7 Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Densities in
NYC In 1970 5-15
5-8 Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Densities in
NYC in 1977 Assuming Federal Emission
Controls 5-16
6-1 Surveillance Check Points 6-5
v1
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Air pollution and congestion problems which plague New York and other
American Cities are one consequence of the historical development of land
use patterns and transportation systems. These two factors have been
closely related. Higher density development on Manhattan clearly reflects
the accessibility afforded by mass transportation. The dispersed low
density housing of the region's urban fringe, which has undergone phenomenal
growth since 1945, is automobile oriented. The separation of housing,
employment opportunities, commercial, educational and recreational activities
has created an absolute reliance upon mechanized transportation.
Due to the relatively high pollution emissions from the internal
combustion engine pollution control strategies focus on these mobile as
well as fixed sources.
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 made provision for the setting of
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS's) for several pollutants, among
them the automobile-related ones carbon monoxide (CO), photochemical oxidants
(Ox), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX). Subsequently, in April 1971, such standards
were promulgated by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). All
states and territories of the United States were to submit air quality
implementation plans for meeting these standards by July 1, 1975. However,
the State of New York requested, and was granted, an extension of the dead-
line for mobile-source pollutants to July 1, 1977. As a result, New York
must submit, by February 15, 1973, a definitive, detailed air quality
implementation plan containing suitable transportation control measures for
achieving compliance with the subject Standards in 1977.
Because the New York City Department of Air Resources (NYCDAR) has a
great deal of experience in air pollution control, transportation problems,
and,other related areas, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation chose to rely heavily on the city organization for the plan
preparation. In addition, because of the time and manpower restrictions
1-1
-------
involved, EPA contracted with TRW Inc., to provide technical assistance
to the state and city in the preparation of the plan. This report documents
the extent of this assistance.
1-2
-------
2.0 LIMITATIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION CONTROL STRATEGY ANALYSIS
A basic requirement to be met by any acceptable air pollution control
strategy is that emission levels following implementation of the strategy
be consistent with the attainment and maintenance of National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. Satisfaction of this requirement depends upon a
detailed knowledge of current air quality levels and a quantification of
the pollutant emissions in the region. Additionally, a practical transporta-
tion control strategy must consider the economic factors associated with
its adoption and also the social and political changes necessary to
accomodate each specific control measure. Thus, the air quality benefits
of any action must be balanced against the social and economic dislocations
caused by its implementation. Long-term regional transportation goals and
policies must be balanced against the need to achieve specific degrees of
emission reduction by 1977. Limitations in the data available and in the
analytic method used became obvious during the course of this study, and
care must be taken in the interpretation and evaluation of the control
strategy recommendations contained in this report. Several specific areas
in which the present study needs to be confirmed and validated by future
study are listed below.
2.1 AIR QUALITY MONITORING
Two basic areas of concern appear in connection with air quality data
available for this project. First and most importantly, ambient monitoring
at only a few points generally fails to give an adequate appreciation of the
regional character of the air pollution problem. It is impossible to deter-
mine whether a particular monitor is being adversely affected by local sources which
cause unrealistically high readings in terms of the regional problem, or,
conversely, whether there are areas of maximum ambient pollution left unmonitored.
The only solution to this problem lies in increasing the number and geographical
spread of ambient monitors. Data from the extended monitoring network should
be used to constantly evaluate and update the control measures presented in
this document. The second problem concerning the use of air quality monitoring
data lies in the statistical manipulations and projections used to determine
2-1
-------
the required level of reduction for the attainment of standards. Basing an
extensive control program on measurements obtained in one or two hours per
year may lead to the imposition of unduly strict control measures. The
trend of ambient measurements during the period before the target year of
1977 must be carefully watched and used to adjust control measures according
to observed ambient conditions. Further, specific high measurements obviously
due to adverse meteorological conditions may be considered as episode control
situations and may not require the imposition of long-term transportation
controls for their solution.
2.2 EMISSION FACTORS
The mobile source emission estimates developed as part of this study
were based upon the best available emission factors. These emission factors
were obtained both from EPA^1' and from NYCDAfr2* 3', and are continually
being updated as better data become available. It is highly recommended
that the new emission factors be utilized as they become available to
recompute and redefine the severity of the mobile source generated emis-
sions in the region. Finally, the emission factors used in the study
relate speed to the emission only on the basis of the integrated driving
cycle. This has prevented the accurate assessment of changes in emissions
due to improved traffic flow characteristics in core, center city areas.
2.3 COLD-START EMISSIONS
Preliminary data have shown that the emissions generated during the
first few minutes of vehicle operation represent a large and increasing
JD.S. Kircher and D.P. Armstrong, "An Interim Report on Motor Vehicle
Emission Estimation" (Draft), Environmental Protection Agency, October
(2\
'"Proposed Plan for Meeting Federal Air Quality Standards Relating to
Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen Oxides, and Oxidants in New York
City," New York City Department of Air Resources, January 1972.
^Personal Communication with Michael P. Walsh, NYCDAR, October 10, 1972.
2-2
-------
portion of the total emissions during any individual vehicle trip. An
implication of this fact is, that to actually reduce mobile source emis-
sions, it may be necessary to effect a reduction in total vehicle trips
rather than merely reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled. Unfor-
tunately, the data relating to this phenomenon were not sufficiently
developed to be used in the analysis presented in this study. Another
implication of high level cold-start emissions for the control strategy
might be in the control of large parking facilities as stationary sources.
Again, it has not been possible to quantitatively describe the effect of
this type measure on the regional air pollution problem in this report.
2.4 TRAFFIC DATA AND PROJECTIONS
Traffic data and traffic projections have not historically been
collected with a view to the estimation of motor vehicle air pollution
emissions. This fact has necessitated the reworking of traffic data
including vehicle flows, speeds, and modal mixes into the format necessary
for emission calculations. Certain assumptions and potential inaccuracies
have been introduced by this process. Further, the trends and projections
in vehicle growth have been prepared by various agencies and often little
unanimity has been found concerning appropriate growth rates. These data
in certain cases require that a close watch be maintained both on traffic
changes and ambient air quality during the period between now and full strategy
implementation so that any deviations from the expected vehicle emission
rates can be determined and appropriate adjustments made in the control
strategy. It should be noted that stationary source emission projections
also suffer from inaccuracies in the projection of industrial growth and
in the application of as yet untested control technologies to control of
these stationary sources.
2.5 ANALYTIC TECHNIQUES USED
The key analytic calculation performed in this study is the relation
between emission rates and ambient air quality. Due to the time restraints
it was not possible to utilize sophisticated mathematical modeling techniques
in the development of this relation between emissions and air quality, and
simpler static modeling techniques cannot be used in systems having the
2-3
-------
complexity of the New York City atmosphere. Hence, control strategy reduc-
tions were based on proportional rollback techniques relating existing
emissions and air quality on a proportional basis. The use of modeling is
highly recommended since it will both include the effects of local
meteorological and topographical features and indicate, in a way that
rollback estimation cannot, the geographical extent of the regional air
pollution problem. Such modeling and simulation exercises using models
currently under development should be carried out during the years between
now and 1977 and should be used to modify, if required, the control strategy
recommended in this document.
2.6 EFFECTS OF CONTROL MEASURES
It was not possible to precisely quantify the emission reduction effect
of some of the control measures considered in this document. For example,
the effect of inspection and maintenance program depends strongly upon the
exact test procedure used, maintenance recommendations, the quality and
availability of trained mechanics and a host of other factors which were
impossible to define exactly during this study. Similarly, mass transit
improvements can be expected to reduce vehicle miles traveled within the
region. The extent of this reduction is unknown until specific data con-
cerning the economic elasticity of the various travel demands, the modal
split of trips within the region, and many other factors have been care-
fully evaluated.
It is strongly recommended that programs be instituted to provide
additional data and to apply more sophisticated analytic techniques in the
areas listed above. Work must begin upon the implementation of the required
regional control measures in the immediate future. However, final implemen-
tation and enforcement should be dependent upon data collected during
calendar years 1973, 1974, and even 1975. Full consideration must be given
to the political, jurisdictional, and social impact of all control actions.
The control measures presented in this document must be considered as an
initial attempt to quantify the relationship between transportation processes
and the regional air pollution problem. The further study indicated should
be used to modify this baseline effort. The air pollution implications of
2-4
-------
the transportation process are very complex and a modification of this
process can potentially effect significant changes in the social and econom-
ic character of the metropolitan region.
2-5
-------
3.0 SUMMARY
3.1 AIR QUALITY
At one or more points within the boundaries of New York City, the
NAAQS's for CO, Ox, and NOX are exceeded. The detailed air quality analysis
is found in Section 4.0 and Appendix A, but the principal features are:
CO The highest levels are observed in the downtown and midtown
sections of Manhattan where maximum eight-hour concentra-
tions of 45 ppm (parts-per-million) and 32 ppm, respectively,
have been recorded. The maximum eight-hour standard is 9 ppm.
Ox - The general New York area appears to have maximum one-hour,
oxidant levels of about 0.18 ppm, compared with a national
standard of 0.08 ppm.
NOX - Congested areas have maximum one-hour NOX levels of about
0.08 ppm, while other areas are approximately half that
value. The standard is 0.05 ppm.annual average.
It should be noted that photochemical oxidants, unlike CO and NOX
are not emitted djrectly by motor vehicles. Hydrocarbons (HC), which are
emitted by motor vehicles, undergo a complex system of reactions to produce
/
Ox. It is assumed in this report, as has been assumed in most other work
of this kind, that atmospheric levels of Ox are proportional to hydrocar-
bon emission rates. Therefore, Ox levels can be controlled by reducing
hydrocarbon emissions.
3.2 EMISSION REDUCTIONS NEEDED
/.
The required emission reductions for transportation-related pollu-
tants are presented in detail in Section 4.0. For the most-critical areas,
the estimated percentages by which 1970 emissions must be lowered to meet
the national air quality standards are as follows:
CO - downtown - 80% redaction
midtown - 72% reduction
3-1
-------
Ox - 56% reduction of HC
NOX 38% reduction in congested areas
0% reduction elsewhere
3.3 STRATEGY CONSIDERATIONS
3.3.1 Control Measures
A descriptive list of transportation control measures being con-
sidered by NYCDAR is presented in Appendix E. However, for the following
reasons, it was not possible to make quantitative estimates of the air
quality impacts of each measure:
The relation between the control measures and the resulting
emission reductions was undefined in most cases.
t Cost and time considerations prevented detailed analysis of all
the measures.
However, four control measures considered to have good potential
for emission reduction were studied in detail:
Vehicle Turnover - replacement of older vehicles, some of which
are pre-emission-control, by newer vehicles has a great effect,
particularly in Manhattan.
Retrofit Program for Heavy-Duty Vehicles because of the large
percentage of travel accounted for by this vehicle class in some
New York areas, installation of control devices would have great
effect.
Inspection/Maintenance of Taxis - in lower Manhattan, because
of the high degree of taxi travel, this program offers good
potential.
Inspection/Maintenance of Personal Vehicles for NYC as a whole,
the personal automobile is the principal emission source, and
preventing (or slowing) deterioration of the associated control
devices is an effective control measure.
3-2
-------
The detailed analysis of the effects of these control measures on
air quality is found in Section 5.0. In addition, a recently completed
document prepared by TRW for EPA offers additional information on the
effectiveness of traffic flow improvements' .
3.3.2 Data Base
Detailed discussions of the air quality and emissions data base are
in Appendix A, while the transportation data base is presented in Appendix
B.
3.3.2.1 Air Quality and Emissions Data
These data were taken from the New York City Implementation Plan
(Section 1.0, Reference 2) or were obtained directly from NYCDAR personnel,
Some emission factors were obtained from EPA (Section 2.0, Reference 1).
3.3.2.2 Transportation Data
i
These data were obtained from the Tri-State Regional Planning
Commission, the New York City Planning Commission and the Port of New York
Authority.
"Prediction of the Effects of Transportation Controls on Air Quality
in Major Metropolitan Areas," prepared for Environmental Protection
Agency by Transportation and Environmental Operations of TRW Inc.,
20 November 1972.
3-3
-------
4.0 PROGRAM PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION
4.1 REGIONAL DESCRIPTION
The Tri-State Regional Planning Commission has been designated by the
federal government as the official planning agency for New York, New Jersey,
Connecticut Tri-State Region. The Commission is also a central supporting
resource for subregional and local planning.
The Commission's reports contain the following facts.
"The region consists of 28 counties with more than 18 million
residents and 8,000 square miles of land area. Almost one-
tenth of the nation lives and works within a 60 mile radius
of Times Square. Nearly half of the. population lives on the
central-»iost five percent of the land. The nation's most dense
concentration of housing occurs on Manhattan where at one
location 150,000 persons live in a single square mile of land.
The region's work places are even more concentrated than its
population. Nearly one-third of the labor force travels each
weekday to the nine square-mile area south of Central Park in
Manhattan. No more than ten percent of these, arriving and
departing in the peak hour, can use the type mode of travel
to work used elsewhere in the nation the automobile. The
4.5 million autos garaged and cared for within the region
travel 100 million miles per day."0)
The computer model used for the New York area made use of a four-hundred
square mile grid network shown as Figure 4-1. Although this grid included
parts of New Jersey, only those sections of Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn,
and Queens shown on the figure were subjected to a detailed analysis. The
study area includes the most critical parts of the city from the standpoint
of transportation-related pollutant emissions.
"Tri-State Transportation 1985 an interim plan," Tri-State Transportation
Commission, May 1966.
4-1
-------
Figure 4-1 New York City Grid.
(1 square 1 square mile)
4-2
-------
4.2 NEW YORK AIR QUALITY PROBLEMS
New York air quality and the emission reductions required to meet the
national ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 4-1. Again,
it should be stated that these data are based on limited analyses at only a
few monitoring sites. The sampling network should be considerably expanded
so that the improvement in air quality can be monitored during implementation
of the control strategy. In this way, changes in the plan can be made if the
air quality data indicate a deviation from the current projections.
4.2.1 Air Quality Network
The sampling stations from which the data of Table 4-1 were obtained
are:
t CO downtown Manhattan on Canal Street; midtown on the 59th Street
Bridge approach; and East Harlem on 121st Street.
Ox - only one station, located at the Cooper Union Engineering
building above 9th Street in downtown Manhattan.
NOX sampling sites not documented at this time. (Data were ob-
tained by telephone from NYCDAR.)
The sampling network clearly needs expansion, particularly for Ox and NOX, if
the chosen control strategy is to be properly monitored. The following ad-
ditions could be useful:
CO T the CBD's of boroughs other than Manhattan are virtually
unmonitored at this time. Possibly a mobile unit could be used
to determine where other stations are needed.
Ox - because oxidants do not necessarily form at the areas of
maximum hydrocarbon emissions, Ox should be monitored away from
the congested areas. A program is currently underway in Nassau
County to define the nature of the NYC area Ox problems, if such
exist.
NOX oxides of nitrogen can create local problems and also par-
ticipate in the formation of Ox, an area problem. Monitoring
stations are needed in some of the central business districts to
find whether local problems are occurring.
4-3
-------
TABLE 4-1
AIR QUALITY DATA AND ROLLBACK ESTIMATES*
-P.
Pollutant
CO
CO
CO
Ox
NOX
»x
Sampling
Location
Downtown
(Canal St. P.O.)
Mldtown (Grand
Central Area)
Rest of NYC
(East Harlen)
General Area
Mldtown &
Downtown
Rest of NYC
1-1
Standard
35
35
35
0.08
0.05**
0.05**
HOUR MAXI
Actual
85
65
21
0.18
0,08**
0.04**
MUM
Rollback %
59
35
0
56
38
0
8-
Standard
9
9
9
_
WUR MAXI
Actual
45
32
9.5
__
MUM
Rollback %
80
72
5.6
mm mm
Concentrations are parts per million (vol./vol.).
**Annual Average.
-------
4.2.2 Estimated Emission Reductions Needed
Because of the time and money limitations of this study, an air
quality model having sufficient sophistication to describe the New York City
airshed could not be developed. In lieu of such a model, a simple propor-
tional model was used to describe the relation between air quality and
emissions. The details are given in Appendix A. Where pollutant concen-
trations based on different averaging times yield different rollback (emission
reduction) percentages, the more-conservative, numerically larger, reduction
should be used. Under this constraint, the needed emission reductions are as
follows:
t CO - (based on maximum 8-hour level)
Downtown 80%
Midtown - 72%
Non-CBD 5.6%
HC (based on maximum 1-hour Ox reading)
Entire Area - 56%
NOX- (based on maximum 1-hour level)
CBD 38%
Non-CBD 0%
It must be emphasized that the air quality data base is very limited
and these rollbacks should be confirmed or disallowed by more extensive moni-
toring.
4.3 PURPOSE OF STUDY
The present study is intended to provide a technical basis for the develop-
ment of a comprehensive transportation control strategy to enable the New York
City metropolitan area to meet the ambient air quality standards of motor
vehicle-related air pollutants by July of 1977. The program is divided into
two task areas, control strategy development and control strategy implementation,
the individual tasks of which are listed in the remainder of this section.
4-5
-------
4.3.1 Control Strategy Development
Development of Air Quality Data Base
Development of Transportation Data Base
a Development of Emissions Data Base
Definition of Control Measures
a Development of Control Measure Impact Data
Determination of Obstacles to Implementation of Control Measures
4.3.2 Control Strategy Implementation
Timetable for Implementation
* Agency Involvement
Legal Authority (State and city preferred to handle this themselves.)
0 Surveillance Check Points
4-6
-------
5.0 CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
5.1 EMISSION ESTIMATES
5.1.1 Methodology
Motor vehicle emission estimates are basically the products of two
numbers: (1) vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and (2) emission factors
(emission rates expressed in grams of pollutant per mile traveled). The
emission factors are functions of several variables:
Modal Mix
Age Distributions of Vehicles
Vehicle Speeds
Types of Emission Controls
The detailed computational methods used to develop emission factors
in New York are given in Appendix A, but briefly, the steps involved are
as follows:
1. The most important modal contributors to total annual VMT for
three major areas of New York were determined from transportation
data. Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 show the modal distributions for
the areas chosen for analysis.
2. Emission factors were computed for the important motor vehicle
modes in each of these areas.
3. An overall emission factor for each analysis area was then de-
veloped by multiplying the emission factor for each mode by the
fraction of total VMT accounted for by each mode and summing these
products. These emission factors, unconnected for speed, are
given in Table 5-4.
VMT data and speed data for each mile square section of the New York
grid (Figure 4-1) were determined by procedures discussed in Appendix B.
The motor vehicle emissions in each square mile were determined by taking
the products of the VMT, the pertinent emission factor, and a speed adjust-
ment factor (Reference 2-1) for each section.
5-1
-------
TABLE 5-1
I10DAL TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION IN DOWNTOWN CBD
AS PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL VMT*
Year
1970
1975
1977
Auto
32.2
36.4
37.9
Bus
(D)
3.3
3.1
3.0
Bus
(G)
___
Taxi
(M-F)
14.1
15.2
15.6
Taxi
(H-NF)
6.5
7.0
7.2
Taxi
(N-11)
1.1
1.2
1.2
Truck
(D)
7.1
6.1
5.6
Truck
(G)
35.7
31.1
29.4
*Based on data in the New York City Implementation Plan,
January 1972.
Abbreviations:
D = Diesel
G = Gasoline
M-F Fleet Medallion
M-NF Non-Fleet Medallion
N-M Non-Medallion
5-2
-------
TABLE 5-2
MODAL TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTIONS IN MIDTOWN CBD
AS PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL VMT*
Year
1970
1975
1977
Auto
18.0
19.6
20.2
Bus
(D)
2.4
2.1
2.1
Bus
(G)
Taxi
(M-F)
38.1
39.5
39.9
Taxi
(M-NF)
17.7
18.2
18.4
Taxi
(N-M)
2.9
3.0 '
3.1
Truck
(D)
3.5
2.9
2.6
Truck
(G)
17.4
14.7
13.7
Abbreviations: D = diesel M-NF
G gasoline NM
M-F fleet medallion
non-fleet medallion
non-medallion
*Based on data from NYC Implementation Plan, January 1972.
5-3
-------
TABLE 5-3
MODAL TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTIONS OF BRONX, KINGS AND
QUEENS COUNTIES AS PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL VMT*
Year
1970
1975
1977
Auto
89.4
91.1
91.6
Bus
(D)
1.0
0.9
0.8
Bus
(6)
0.1
0.1
0.1
Taxi
(M-F)
Taxi
(M-NF)
Taxi
(NM)
Truck
(D)
1.6
1.3
1.2
Truck
(G)
7.9
6.6
6.2
Abbreviations: D diesel M-NF
G = gasoline NM
M-F fleet medallion
non-fleet medallion
non-medallion
*Based on data from NYC Implementation, January 1972.
5-4
-------
Table 5-4. NEW YORK CITY EMISSION FACTORS* (grams/mile)
en
tn
Case
1970-Baseline
1975-Uncontrolled
1977-Uncontrolled
1984-Uncontrolled
1977-Measure A
1977-Measure B
1977-Measure C
1977-Measures A,B,C,
(Combined)
DOWNTOWN
CO
89.6
57.8
44.4
22.8
28.2
44.2
43.7
27.3
HC
17.3
12.7
9.81
7.04
6.29
9.78
9.70
6.15
NOX
11.9
9.79
8.48
7.05
8.48
8.48
8.48
8.48
MIDTOWN
CO
73.1
35.5
25.6
13.6
18.1
25.2
25.1
17.2
HC
12.3
7.29
5.36
3.34
3.73
5.29
5.29
3.59
NOx
9.44
6.43
5.11
4.09
5.11
5.11
5.11
5.11
REST OF NYC
CO
71.8
46.3
31.7
9.22
28.3
31.7
29.3
25.9
HC
12. G
6.64
3.63
2.15
2.87
3.63
3.42
2.66
NOx
5.06
4.95
3.54
2.21
3.54
3.54
3.54
3.54
*Uncorrected for speed. See Appendix A for details.
Abbreviations:
A = control measure A (retrofit and inspection/maintenance of heavy-duty vehicles)
B = control measure B (Inspection/maintenance of ta*is)
C = control measure C (Inspection/maintenance of personal cars)
-------
Stationary source emissions were available only on a county-wide
basis, and they were apportioned to the grid areas by using the VMT for
each grid as an apportioning factor. Data were available for 1970 and
1977, but the projections for 1984 were based on 1977 data for lack of
better information.
5.1.2 Baseline (1970) Emissions
The methodology of the preceding paragraphs was used to determine CO,
HC, and NOX emissions in the New York area for several cases, including 1970
as a baseline case. The results are given in Table 5-5 for the grids showing
the maximum emission densities in several critical areas of New York. These
'"worst" grids are in the following locations:
Grid (75) this grid includes the intersection of the Prospect
and the Brooklyn-Queens Expressways, in Brooklyn.
Grid (134) this grid includes the eastern part of the downtown
Manhattan central business district (CBD).
Grid (193) this area lies around Rockefeller Center in midtown
Manhattan.
Grid (195) the Long Island Expressway approach to the Queens-
Mi dtown Tunnel passes through this grid in west Queens.
Grid (315) - this grid contains the intersection of the Cross
Bronx Expressway and the Grand Concourse in the Bronx.
For the primary pollutants, CO and NOX, these grids are of primary
importance since these gaseous emissions can create highly-localized air
quality problems at the sites of maximum emission density. However, photo-
chemical oxidants require a few hours for their formation from hydrocarbons
and NOX, so that an area-wide problem normally results. In this case, it
is considered preferable to analyze the problem in terms of area emissions,
such as the data of Table 5-6. A better look at area-wide emissions is pro-
vided by study of the emission density grid maps, Figures 5-1 through 5-8;.
5-6
-------
Table 5-5. AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR THE "WORST" SQUARE MILES
IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF NEW YORK CITY (tons/year)
PA^A
1970-U
1975-U
1977-U
1984-U
1977-A
1977-B
1977-C
1977- AH
Allowable
Downtown (134)
CO
20,730
13,998
10,804
6,123
6,931
10,755
10,638
6,716
4,146
HC
4,870
3,765
3,029
2,483
2,149
3,020
3,003
2,114
NA
NOX
9,019
5,267
4,962
4,729
4,962
4,962
4,962
4,962
5,592
Midtown (193)
CO
9,751
4,452
3,236
1,910
2,317
3,188
3,174
2,207
2,730
HC
2,053
1,228
981
828
773
972
972
755
NA
NOX
4,381
2,297
2,142
2,051
2,142
2,142
2,142
2,142
2,716
Bronx (315)
CO
5,667
3,679
2,614
964
2,355
2,614
2,430
2,171
5,350
HC
1,149
643
436
332
376
436
418
358
NA
NOX
1,381
1,372
1,271
1,184
1 ,271
1,271
1,271
1,271
MS
Brooklyn (75)
CO
8,462
5,825
4,159
1,569
3,752
4,159
3,871
3,464
7,988
HC
2,813
2,111
1,791
1,630
1,698
1,791
1,765
1,672
NA
NOX
2,533
2,537
2,392
2,267
2,392
2,392
2,392
2,392
MS
Queens (195)
CO
10,915
7,412
5,218
1,813
4,682
5,218
4,840
4,304
10,304
HC
2,700
1,761
1,334
1,121
1,210
1,334
1,300
1,176
NA
NUX
3,431
3,438
3,234
3,055
3,234
3,234
3,234
3,234
MS
(7)
Abbreviations: U = uncontrolled (vehicle turnover alone).
A = control measure A (retrofit and inspection/maintenance of heavy-duty vehicles).
B = control measure B (inspection/maintenance of taxis).
C = control measure C (inspection/maintenance of personal cars).
All = all of the control measures.
NA = not applicable, HC is treated on an area-wide basis (see Table 5-6).
MS = currently meets standards.
-------
Table 5-6. 110BILE SOURCE, STATIONARY SOURCE, AND TOTAL EMISSIONS OF
AIR POLLUTANTS IN THE NEW YORK CITY AREA (tons/year)
Case
1970-U
1975-U
1977-U
1984-U
1977-A
1977-B
1977-C
1977-A11
A1 1 owabl e
Carbon Monoxide
Mobile
1,175,864
788,981
554,697
198,609
473,461
553,947
517,943
435,957
NA
Stationary
97,445
90,491
90,491
90,491
90,491
90,491
90,491
90,491
NA
Total
1,273,309
879,472
645,188
289,100
563,952
644,438
608.434
526,448
NA
Hydrocarbons
Mobile
217,875
123,010
76,530
51 ,932
57,721
76,391
73,065
54,117
54,117
Stationary
98.278
95,336
95,336
95,336
95,336
95,336
95,336
95,336
84,990
Total
316.153
218,346
171,866
147,268
153,057
171,727
168,401
149,453
139,107
Nitrogen Oxides
Mobile
93,216
91 ,254
68.223
48,766
68.223
68,223
68,223
68,223
NA
Stationary
239,399
201.187
201,187
201.187
201,187
201,187
201,187
201,187
NA
Total
332,615
292,441
269,410
249,952
269,410
269,410
269,410
201 ,187
NA
Abbreviations!
U = uncontrolled (vehicle turnover alone).
A = control measure A (retrofit and Inspection/maintenance of heavy-duty vehicles).
B = control measure B (inspection/maintenance of taxis).
C = control measure C (inspection/maintenance of personal cars).
All = all of the control measures.
NA - not applicable, CO and NOX are treated as local problems (see Table 5-5).
-------
LEGEND
Figure 5-1. CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION
DENSITIES IN NYC IN 1970
(1 square = 1 square mile)
DARK = -10000 tons/year
MEDIUM = 4001 - 10000 tons/year
WHITE = 0 - 1000 tons/year
5-r-
-------
LEGEND
Figure 5-2. CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION DENSITIES IN NYC
IN 1977 ASSUMING ONLY FEDERAL EMISSION CONTROLS
(1 square - 1 square mile)
WHITE = 0 - iQOQ tons/year
MEDIUM = 4001 - 10000 tons/year
DARK = >10000 tons/year
5-10
-------
LEGEND
Figure 5-3. CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION DENSITIES IN NYC
IN 1977 ASSUMING FEDERAL EMISSION CONTROLS AND
FULL SET OF HARDWARE CONTROL MEASURES
(1 square = 1 square mile)
WHITE = 0 - 1000 tons/year
MEDIUM = 4001 - 10000 tons/year
DARK = >10000 tons/year
5-11
-------
Figure 5-". :!YDROCARBON EMISSION DENSITIES IN NYC
IN 1970
(1 square = 1 square mile)
WHITE =0-1200 tons/year
LEGEND MEDIUM =1201 - 2400 tons/year
DARK = >2400 tons/year
5-12
-------
Figure 5-5. HYDROCARBON EMISSION DENSITIES IN NYC
IN 1977 ASSUMING ONLY FEDERAL EMISSION
CONTROLS
(1 square = 1 square mile)
LEGEND
WHITE =0-1200 tons/year
MEDIUM =1201 - 2400 tons/year
DARK = -2400 tons/year
5-13
-------
LEGEND
Figure 5-6. HYDROCARBON EMISSION DENSITIES IN NYC
IN 1977 ASSUMING FEDERAL EMISSION CONTROLS
AND FULL SET OF HARDWARE CONTROL MEASURES
(1 square = 1 square mile)
WHITE - 0 - 1200 tons/year
MEDIUM =1201 - ?400 tons/year
DARK = 2400 tons/year
5-14
-------
LEGEND
Figure 5-7. OXIDES OF NITROGEN EMISSION DENSITIES IN NYC
in 1970
( 1 square = 1 square mile)
WHITE =0-1200 tons/year
MEDIUM =1201 - 2400 tons/year
DARK = >2400 tons/year
5-15
-------
LEGEND
Figure 5-8. OXIDES OF NITROGEN EMISSION DENSITIES IN
NYC in 1977 ASSUMING FEDERAL EMISSION CONTROLS
(1 square = 1 square mile)
WHITE =0-1200 tons/year
.'CDIUM = 1201 - 2400 tons/year
DARK = >2400 tons/year
NOTE: Hone of the hardware control measures are assumed to affect
oxides of nitrogen emissions
5-16
-------
5.1.3 Future (1975. 1977. 1984) Emissions
Using transportation projections found in Reference 2 of Section 2.0,
Tri-State Regional Planning Commission VMT projections, and emission factors
based on References 1 and 2 of Section 2.0, emission projections for 1975,
1977, and 1984 were made assuming only vehicle turnover as a control measure.
These data are found in Tables 5-5 and 5-6, labeled 1975-U, 1977-U, and
1984-U. The latter table is of particular interest, because it documents the
increasing importance of stationary sources in later years, especially sta-
tionary sources of HC, and NOX. The use of transportation controls other than
vehicle turnover solely to control oxidants and/or NOX would be questionable
policy.
Estimated emission reduction percentages for these later years, using
1970 emissions as a baseline, are tabulated in Tables 5-7, 5-8, and 5-9 for
the grids of maximum emission density. The data indicate the following:
CO vehicle turnover will have a large impact within the next
seven years, and most areas of New York City could meet the stan-
dards in 1977, the major exception being the downtown CBD, where
the primary emission source (trucks) is relatively uncontrolled.
HC vehicle turnover and relatively minor stationary source con-
trols will reduce New York area emissions by about 46 percent by
1977 compared with an estimated reduction requirement of 56 per-
cent so further controls are indicated.
9 NOX vehicle turnover coupled with some planned reductions by
stationary sources should enable all parts of the city to meet
the standard by 1977.
5.2 SUMMARY OF CONTROL MEASURES
5.2.1 Selection of Control Measures
The choice of transportation control measures for New York was based
principally upon a study of the modal split data of Tables 5-1> 5-2, and 5-3,
together with a knowledge of the emission factors of the modal components
(References 1 and 2, Section 2.0). Additional information on the citizen
acceptability of transportation control measures was obtained from the results of
a survey of New York City area residents summarized in Appendix D. The measures
considered and the reasons for their being studied follow:
5-17
-------
Table 5-7. ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR CARBON
MONOXIDE IN THE "HOT SPOTS" OF NEW YORK CITY
Area (Grid)
Oowntown(134)
M1dtQHd(193)
Bronx (315)
Brooklyn(75)
Queens (195)
Reduction
. Needed
80
72
5.6
5.6
5.6
1975-Vehicle
Turnover Alone
32
54
35
31
32
1977-Vehicle
Turnover Alone
48
67
54
51
52
1984-Vehicle
Turnover Alone
70
80
83
81
83
1977-Control
Measure A
67
76
58
56
57
1977-Control
Measure B
48
67
54
51
52
1977-Control
Measure C
49
67
57
54
56
1977-A11
Control Measures
68
77
62
59
60
U1
03
-------
Table 5-8. ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR HYDROCARBONS
IN THE "HOT SPOTS" OF NEW YORK CITY
Area(GHd)
Downtom(134)
Mtdtown(193)
Bronx (315)
Brook lyn( 75)
Queens (195).
Reduction
Needed*
56
56
56
56
56
1975- Vehicle
Turnover Alone
23
40
-44
25
35
1977- Vehicle
Turnover Alone
37
52
62
36
51
1984-Vehicle
Turnover Alone
44
57
71
42
58
1977-Control
Measure A
56
62
67
40
55
1977-Control
Measure 3
38
53
62
36
51
1977-Control
Measure C
38
53
64
37
52
1977-A11
Control Measures
57
63
69
40
56
Based on photochemical oxldant level.
NOTE: As stated In the text Ox/HC Is considered as a regional or area problem and this table Is Intended
only as an Indication of those boroughs for which further HC emissions reduction controls would be
most effective.
-------
Table 5-9. ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR OXIDES OF NITROGEN
IN THE "HOT SPOTS" OF NEW YORK CITY
Area (Grid)
i)owntown(134}
.Udtown (193)
Bronx (315)
Broofc1yn(75)
Queens (195)
deduction
Heeded
38
38
0
0
0
1976-Vehlcle
Turnover Alone
42
48
1
0
0
1977-Vehicle
Turnover Alone
4b
51
8
6
6
1984-Vehlcle
Turnover Alone
-------
t Retrofit of Heavy-Duty Vehicles - because this vehicle class,
particularly trucks, is relatively uncontrolled and constitutes
a large fraction of lower Manhattan traffic, a retrofit program
can be used to advantage.
Inspection/Maintenance of Taxis - although taxis have very high
replacement rates (few are more than three years old) and are
kept in relatively good states of tune, they account for such a
high percentage of total VMT in such areas as the midtown CBD
that an inspection program can have significant impact.
Inspection/Maintenance of Private Automobiles - in the New York
area as a whole, the private automobile is the principal motor
vehicle emission s.ource and cannot be ignored. ,In addition, the
survey (Appendix D) indicates that New York City residents are
in favor of an inspection/maintenance program for air quality
improvement.
VMT Reductions - some of the grids showing extremely high emission
densities (such as 134-downtown and 193-midtown) could profit by
reduced traffic volume and the better traffic flow which results.
This requires further study.
Flow Improvements - although not included as a specific control
measure, flow improvements resulting from on-going highway con-
struction coupled with vehicle restraints should help to reduce
emissions.
Stationary Source Reductions - this measure consists chiefly of
rigid enforcement of existing regulations for HC emissions.
5.2.2 Impacts of Control Measures on Transportation
The retrofit and inspection programs will have economic effects on
private vehicle, taxi, and truck operators, but should have little effect on
the modal patterns. Some older vehicl'es will probably be taken out of ser-
vice earlier than would otherwise be the case. Economically, the trucking
industry will bear the greatest cost.
-------
A VMT reduction control measure will cause modal shifts, the nature
of which depend on which motor vehicle classes are most highly controlled.
For lower Manhattan, the private automobile is a possible candidate for re-
ductions. Such measures as the banning of private autos from congested areas
would have a direct effect by reducing total VMT and an indirect effect by
causing flow improvements in the remaining traffic. Private vehicle VMT re-
duction would shift traffic to other modes such as taxis or, preferably, to
mass transit facilities. A measure this drastic has far-reaching consequences
and should be studied in depth before any plans for implementation are
seriously considered.
5.2.3 Emission Reduction Potential
The emission reduction potentials of the control measures are detailed
in Section 5,3, but are briefly summarized below:
Control Measure
Retrofit Program
Taxi Inspection
Auto Inspection
VMT Reduction
Vehicle Turnover
Flow Improvement
Stationary Sources
Reduction Potential
Lower Manhattan
Excellent
Good
Fair
Good
Excellent
Good
Poor
Rest of NYC
Good
Poor
Good
Fair
Excellent
Fair
Good
5-22
-------
5.3 PROPOSED CONTROL STRATEGY
The control strategy developed for use in New York City is presented
in the following paragraphs. In some cases, such as the hardware-based
control measures, the emission reduction potentials could be quantified.
However, for others such as very localized traffic flow improvements, a
lack of detailed traffic data prevented a quantitative assessment of the
actual emission control potential. The latter class of control is used only
in downtown Manhattan where some additional reduction in CO emissions
(beyond that obtained by vehicle turnover and the hardware measures) is
needed to reach the standard. It should also be noted,that in estimating
the emission reductions of CO and HC required to meet the respective CO
and Ox federal standards, the highest measured ambient levels of CO and Ox
were utilized for the rollback calculations. This is more stringent than
the Federal EPA requirements, which allow the use of the second highest
measured values.
5.3.1 Control Measure Definition
The expected vehicle emission reduction percentages for the "hardware"
control measures, i.e. retrofit and inspection programs, are tabulated in
Table 5-10. The specific control packages are described below:
Retrofit Package this will consist of engine modifications (re-
tarded spark, etc.) and a catalytic converter. NOX controls might
be incorporated but these were not included in emission calculations.
A twice yearly inspection will be used to insure compliance.
t Inspection/Maintenance a loaded emission test will be made on taxis
three times per year and on private automobiles once annually.
It appears that only the area of downtown Manhattan around the Canal
Street Post Office might require VMT reductions. However, the biggest
emission source in this area (trucks, even after being retrofitted) is not
considered suitable for VMT reduction, because of the potential economic harm
which might result. Possible methods for obtaining the estimated additional
emission reduction after application of the hardware control measures include
the following:
5-23
-------
TABLE 5-10
ASSUMED VEHICLE EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR HARDWARE CONTROL MEASURES
Control Measure
A Retrofit of Heavy-
Duty, Gasoline-Powered
I Vehicles
CO
50
Emission Reduction
HC
50
NOs
B Inspection/Maintenance
of Taxis
C - Inspection/Maintenance
of Private Cars
10
10
12
12
5-24
-------
Uniform VMT Reduction If VMT of all modes were reduced
uniformly, a reduction in vehicular traffic of about 39
percent would be necessary to obtain the incremental
reduction. It should be noted that Deduction of automobile
traffic alone by 1QO percent would not accomplish this task.
t Truck Restrictions Alone Truck and other heavy-duty gasoline-
powered vehicle VMT would need to be reduced almost 56 percent.
This would require drastic changes in goods-handling procedures,
which probably could not be implemented by 1977.
Pragmatic Flow Improvement/VMT Reduction Approach The high
CO levels recorded at the Canal Street sampling station are
due in large part to the terrible congestion problems on
this artery. For this reason, the downtown CBD'is quite
affected by general traffic flow improvements such as the on-
going TOPICS program and the new westside highway construction.
These programs should be augmented by strict enforcement of
parking regulations and the anti-cruising ordinance for taxis.
At this time, because of the limited data available for this report and
the local nature of the problem in downtown Manhattan, the last approach offers
the most promise for successful implementation. The other alternatives are
quite drastic and would more than likely arouse heated opposition from the
affected parties. The questionnaire survey (Appendix D) supports these
contentions and suggests that New Yorkers are strongly in favor of even
rather drastic flow improvement measures (Question 7) but tend to oppose
the stringent restrictions needed for substantial VMT reductions (Question 4a).
For these reasons, the extreme VMT reduction control measures should be
considered only as contingency solutions.
5.3.2 Air quality Impacts of Control Measures
The techniques described in th;e initial sections of this report were
utilized to estimate emissions and the emission reduction percentages (1970
baseline) obtained by application of four hardware control measures by 1977:
Vehicle Turnover
t Heavy-Duty Vehicle Retrofit and Inspection
Taxi Inspection/Maintenance
Private Automobile Inspection/Maintenance
5-25
-------
The results are tabulated with the previous estimates in Tables 5-5 and 5-C
for emissions and Tables 5-7, 5-8, and 5-9 for reduction percentages. The
conclusions drawn from these results are in the following paragraphs.
5.3.2.1 CO Emission Controls
Apparently, the hardware control measures alone could enable all
areas of New York City, except for part of the downtown Manhattan CBD, to
meet the ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide in 1977. Because
of the conservative rollback estimates used for this analysis, there is a
good chance that even this area will meet the standards with no additional
controls. Furthermore, TOPICS improvements will improve traffic flow and
help reduce CO emissions on a short-term basis. The additional help from
strict enforcement of existing parking regulations and reduced taxi cruising
will give more assurance of meeting the standard.
5.3.2.2 HC Emission Controls
The very preliminary Ox air quality data available for New York
indicate that a 56 percent reduction in hydrocarbon emissions from 1970
levels is needed area-wide to meet the Ox air quality standard. The emission
estimates for 1977, with the hardware controls in effect, show a projected
emission reduction of 53 percent. Within the accuracy of the air quality,
emission factor and traffic data sets, there is no significant statistical
difference between these numbers. iJevertheless, because the projections
indicate that stationary sources will be responsible for almost two- thirds
of the 1977 hydrocarbon emissions (assuming implementation of the hardware
control measures) and most of these sources fail to meet existing NYC
standards, the transportation controls should be augmented by rigid enforce-
ment of the existing hydrocarbon emission regulations.
5.3.2.3 NOx Emission Controls
..................................... ,
Like the Ox data, air quality data for NOX are quite limited. The
emission projections for 1977 imply that vehicle turnover will enable New
York to meet the NQX air quality standards with no further reductions needed.
Nevertheless, the situation should be analyzed more thoroughly during imple-
mentation of the plan to insure that the standard will be met.
-------
5.3.3 Social and Economic Impacts
Literally hundreds of potential measures to reduce mobile source
emissions have been identified. The New York City Department of Air
Resources is considering 31 measures in various combinations. See
Appendix E. For each strategy the Department has noted their preliminary
evaluation of: Time to Implement; Institutional Feasibility; Implementing
Agent; Legal Authority; Action Required and Enforcement. At this time the
City and State have committed themselves to three primary strategies. The
majority of the required emissions reduction would occur as a result of
these strategies. However, additional reduction would be necessary to
achieve Federal standards by 1977. Though they would account for only a
small percentage of the total reduction, they would create the greatest
social and economic impact. They would also be the most difficult to
quantify in terms of cost, benefits and impact upon regional air quality.
These strategies which are needed to accomplish the smallest incremental
air quality benefits often involve high costs, severe impacts and necessi-
tate the greatest degree of cooperation and coordination among public
agencies, private groups and the general public.
The following is a brief commentary on the social and economic
implications of each of six strategy packages as outlined by the New York
City Department of Air Resources. The survey results contained in
Appendix D indicates that the public is very sensitive to economic measures
and that they prefer bus and car pool express lanes and prohibition of
parking and traffic in the central business districts. The most unaccept-
able measures would be gas rationing^ high registration fees and freeway
ramp tolls.
The core of the Implementation Plan would be the vehicle controls
of Strategy Package A. Both the City and the State have made cost estimates
for these measures and the Consultant has estimated the reduction potential
of each. For other strategies the key question is
Who pays in time, money and effort for the implementation of air
pollution Strategies? Each creates an impact to the degree to which it
changes the daily life style of individuals and in proportion to the number
of people affected.
5-27
-------
Dollar costs are only one component of the cost equation. Social
and environmental costs are also involved. Considering only dollar costs,
however, the following types of expenditures should be more thoroughly
developed for each strategy:
Research studies
Continuous monitoring
Preparation of plans and programs
Capital costs for equipment, buildings, land, etc.
Manpower
Maintenance
Operations
Enforcement
The cost of implementing many programs could be greatly Increased
due to litigation or the sluggishness of funding agencies. When con-
struction delays result, the cost may increase as much as one-half to one
percent per month.
5.3.3.1 Strategy Package A
Reducing emissions at the source involves a multi-faceted program
affecting both old and new vehicles. Federal motor vehicle emission
controls and changes in vehicle engine design will reduce emissions from
new vehicles. Vehicle manufacturers are the responsible agent, and they
pass along the cost of this effort to the car buyer. Vehicle inspection/
maintenance can significantly reduce emissions by ensuring all in-use
motor vehicles are in proper working order, particularly their emission
control devices. The required programs are administered by the state.
The operating costs are passed directly to the user but start-up costs may
be subsidized by state or Federal agencies utilizing tax revenues. Retro-
fit programs can reduce emissions from in-use pre-1975 vehicles by
installation of emission control devices. In this case, the state generally
assumes the responsibility for the administration of the necessary programs.
The costs are passed on directly to the user or may be subsidized by state
agencies utilizing tax revenues.
5-28
-------
An Inspection and maintenance program for taxi cabs, which account
for a high percent of the total VMT in Manhattan, is a necessary element
of the implementation plan. Cost of the program would eventually be passed
on to the users. The livery industry, representing both unions and manage-
ment, provides an organized structure through which to work and costs are
directly related to the source of pollution and the users who benefit from
the taxi service.
5,3.3.2 Strategy Package B
Strategy package B control measures would reduce VMT by disin-
centives for parking, auto use and auto ownership within high pollution
areas. It would also attempt to improve traffic flow which would increase
speed and decrease pollution.
The impact of many of the control strategies cannot be assessed
by themselves in quantitative terms. In many instances, they constitute
segments of multi-faceted comprehensive programs which can contribute to
reductions in vehicle travel.
Each strategy which restricts movement in an area, during a certain
period of time, or of a particular type of vehicle, will represent a cost
factor which must be borne by those who change their established pattern
of operation. This emphasizes the importance of understanding the nature
of transportation shifts which will result from each strategy. Though it
is sometimes overemphasized, accessibility is an important factor in
establishing individual opportunity and economic values. Alternatives
could then be provided to meet the transportation needs resulting from the
changes.
Once critical zones have been established (and this alone will
require more accurate and reliable documentation), the nature of vehicle
trips and a specific trip ends must be determined in order to effectively
structure a course of action which will reduce the VMT. To establish
"reasonable" constraints and to provide realistic transit options to serve
5-29
-------
the important exchange of goods, services and ideas within the critical
zones while achieving the desired reductions, the following information
would be required:
For each vehicle type (taxis, light duty trucks, heavy duty
trucks, buses, mass transit, private automobile) the number
of riders by time of day, number of cold starts, the critical
hours, the age of the vehicles, and the origin and destina-
tion of trips. For the private automobile, a distinction
between those utilized by doctors, diplomats, or other fleet
operations such as the police department. Information
relative to whether private automobile trips are made by
first, second or third cars and the average trip length,
speed and duration of stay within the critical area.
The use of police power to enforce control strategies will be a
major cost. There are also institutional problems of bringing about an
effective enforcement program. For instance, the City of New York has
recently established a policy of enforcing the law which prohibits blocking
an intersection. Very often the law if not enforced. The enforcement of
parking restrictions is complicated by the immunity of M.D. and diplomatic
cars.
Enforcement requires the addition of more manpower or the reallo-
cation of manpower priorities. Both involve a policy commitment by city
or state officials. Many of the enforcement requirements would necessitate
the purchase of new vehicles for surveillance, towing, etc. The towing of
a violator's car could involve an administrative cost to the city and
possibly for operation of ,a towing service and the storage of impounded
vehicles. In some cities, vehicles are ticketed and locked in place,
making the vehicle immobile until such time as a tow truck arrives.
Enforcement also creates cost to set up, operate, and staff the necessary
courtroom facilities.
The city's zoning regulations and parking policies have an impact
on new construction, trip generation and consequently, emissions. Where
5-30
-------
parking is provided at the edge of congested zones or at suburban park
and ride facilities there are costs of acquiring land, grading, paving,
lighting, fencing, landscaping, security, snow removal, maintenance and
operation. A rule of thumb for the cost of constructing at grade parking
space would be six to eight hundred dollars and twenty-five to thirty-five
hundred dollars per space for parking structures, exclusive of land. A
critical cost factor will be land acquisition. Where persons or businesses
are displaced due to property acquisition or hardships resulting from the
implementation of control strategies, costs will be incurred. Where
Federal funds are involved, all such relocation activities would be subject
to the benefits of the Uniform Relocation Act.
Vehicle-free zones are often the most complicated vehicle
restrictive measures. The complexity of impact evaluation increases almost
exponentially with the size of the area and intensity of use. Each of the
factors previously recommended for study in critical zones would constitute
a starting point for the evaluation of an auto-free zone. Such measures
could also result in land use conversions beyond the target area in
response to changes in established transportation patterns and accessi-
bility.
Other more severe strategies restricting use of the private auto-
mobile could be recommended. These could be costly and subject to attack
if considered on the basis of the travel forecasts and air monitoring data
made available for use in this study. It is the consultant's opinion that
costly and controversial strategies which would have a major impact on the
economic and social character of the region should not be recommended.
They would not be defensible until a more comprehensive network of
continuous monitoring stations can be established to first determine the
actual impact of more acceptable strategies.
Measures to achieve.improved traffic flow fall into two categories:
construction of new major facilities and operational improvements on
existing facilities. Major facilities additions (construction of new
freeways, tollways, expressways and major arterial linkages) normally
result in sharp increases in travel speed of vehicle trips in the affected
5-31
-------
corridors. This Increase in travel speed can mean a significant reduction
in pollutants. However, because these new or improved facilities produce
major changes in accessibility they tend to activate latent travel demand,
with a resulting increase in vehicle miles traveled. This would eventually
cancel the emission reduction gains.
Because of the lead time involved in implementing such facilities,
only those projects currently under construction or in the late stages of
design and planning need be considered for impact on the 1975-77 air
quality levels. Because latent travel activation is largely an incremental
long-term effect, it can be ignored for the short-term air quality planning.
Operational flow improvements on existing facilities are the object of
numerous continuing programs undertaken and funded through Federal, state
and local jurisdiction and are typified by the TOPICS program (Traffic
Operations Program to Increase Capacity and Safety), a Federal state -
local cooperative venture. Traffic flow improvements on existing facilities
entail only marginal changes in travel speed and accessibility, and usually
do not introduce the complicating factor of latent travel demand activation.
They would be more reasonably justified on the basis of increased safety
and efficiency of movement rather than on reductions in air pollution.
Within the context of existing information it is not possible to accurately
determine the distributional effects of improving traffic flow efficiency
in one location upon air pollution control for the entire region. Lubri-
cating the traffic distribution system in one location, it may create
bottlenecks or slowups elsewhere. This would result in a degradation of
the air quality at locations beyond the "hot spots" receiving attention at
the location of the primary improvement. The impact of operation improve-
ments tends to decay over time as a result of normal traffic growth.
Work hour staggering is already widespread enough to produce an
extended peak congestion period. The chief advantage of additional
staggering may be to reduce transit crowding in a specific area, thereby,
attracting some patronage from other vehicles. This strategy also has the
disadvantage of requiring widespread coordinated effort by many private
individuals and firms. This alone, in a complex and diverse society such
5-32
-------
as New York City, is an extremely difficult short-term organizational
task.
Staggering of business hours has secondary cost implications.
Client service is a qualitative factor and by extending the work day for
some employees could require extending the work day of other service
employees even though they may be operating at less than the normal work
load. Switchboard operators, printing and reproduction rooms, and
secretarial services are examples. Groups as different as the corporate
management and the janitors' union would play an important part in
determining the details of such a measure.
5.3.3.3 Strategy Package C
Restrictions of auto use should be coupled with the provision of
realistic options for satisfying the trip purpose. The most widely
acclaimed and logical answer is an improvement of transit and car pooling.
Ways of improving both the system and its use are critical ongoing functions
of responsible public agencies. New ways should be continually explored
to promote these objectives. The time frame, however, within which new
vehicles, new transit systems, and even some operational improvements can
be made extends beyond 1977. It has taken more than twenty years of
planning to get the Washington transit system under way and it will take
at least two more for it to become operational.
The greatest reduction in transit patronage has occurred in the
a.m. peak hour. Strategies to counter this trend should be investigated
and must consider the role of taxicabs".
Improvement of transit could create costs related to:
a. New graphics at bus stops and in transit stations to
explain the system.
b. An educational program to help people understand how to use
the system and to effectively market transit services.
c. Programs to facilitate transfers between systems operated
by different authorities. This will involve planning and
administrative costs.
5-33
-------
d. Remodeling of stations could involve replacement of surfaces
to make them more vandal-proof or surface changes to
brighten them up. It could also involve major reconstruction
with the addition of stores and public display areas.
e. Some of the measures would alter the toll structure for
bridges and tunnels to finance transit. They could produce
an impact on the toll revenue bonds through which many of
these facilities have been financed.
f. Studies, closely coordinated with the Transit Authority,
should be initiated to determine the most effective method
of increasing revenues in transit patronage.
g. Some measures under consideration would eliminate or vary
the fares during part of the day or in certain zones.
Studies should be made to determine the impact of joyriding
or increased use by derelicts and potential impacts upon
the patronage and cost of operation, maintenance and security.
h. Cost of installing and operating escalators.
i. Cost of installing, operating and maintaining various
intensities and types of lighting.
j. The presence of a city policeman or transit authority
security guard is a reassuring factor for most people.
It is also very costly. The hours during which patronage
is low and stations relatively unused often require the
strongest security measures. This places the cost per
rider of such services very high.
k. One technique to generate transit patronage is to build
park and ride facilities in outlying areas. This could
help reduce pollution concentrations but will not eliminate
the emissions from cold starts. The net result is to
redistribute the pollution in a more decentralized fashion
beyond the downtown areas. The exact extent to which
utilization of peripheral parking facilities could be
stimulated by restrictions imposed within the core area
cannot be determined without more sophisticated economic
analyses than are possible under this study. The exact
extent to which use of peripheral parking facilities could
be effective can only be determined by actual demonstration
and detailed trip distribution and sensitivity analyses.
5.3.3.4 Strategy Packages D and E
Package D contains short-term goods movement strategies. The
New York City Department of Air Resources is in the process of preparing
these control measures. Since they would affect many economic issues,
they will undoubtedly receive close scrutiny by public officials, labor
and management. When the measures are refined and comments have been
5-34
-------
received from local interest groups who are familiar with the complexity
and details of the situation, the social and economic implications could
be properly studied. Studies should analyze potential transportation
costs due to longer trip lengths, and the man hours required to deliver,
receive, store, and protect goods delivered during off hours. For instance,
if trucks were required to make deliveries during the evening hours,
employers may have to pay overtime to keep workers on hand to handle the
merchandise being delivered. This may not efficiently utilize their time.
Some goods must be delivered during the morning rush hours so
that they may be sold during the day. Product quality oY* usefulness may
be impaired by changing delivery hours. It could also require businessmen
to build or buy new storage facilities. In other cases, highway-oriented
commercial enterprises such as parking garages and drive-in service
establishments may suffer economic losses due to changes in traffic
patterns.
Package E, Capital Construction, relates projects which would not
be completed until after 1977. However, an analysis could be made of city
and state budgets to determine the projects and programs which could
contribute to the improvement of air quality. Perhaps some spin-off
benefits from ongoing programs could make a contribution to the State's
plan. For instance, in May of 1966 a report of the Tri-State Regional
Planning Commission estimated that between 1966 and 1975 the cost of public
transportation improvements would be between 1.3 and 2.08 billion dollars.
To what extent has this projection been realized and what impact may they
have on mobile emissions?
1
The extent to which Federal agencies will fund transit improve-
ments for new transit cars, buses, mini-buses, etc., is yet to be
determined.
5.3.3.5 Strategy Package F - Long-Range Planning
It may be possible in the long term to alter relationships
between land use and transportation systems if planning is integrated
5-35
-------
among all on-going functions of government. Although we cannot expect
significant changes in the intensity, distribution, pattern, or types of
land use in existing built up areas over the next five years sufficient
to influence air quality, planning efforts could be intensified to create
more rational and efficient patterns of growth. The region may thus be able
to avoid repeating, compounding, and enlarging existing problems. Considera-
tion of air pollution must be integrated into a more comprehensive framework.
To modify the perceived needs of individuals and grounds and to
bring about fundamental changes in the alternatives available {i.e., transit
versus highway) is a long-term process. This makes it more important to
begin immediately to explore and evaluate alternatives. This process could
begin with a concerted educational program, designed to encourage public
officials, special interest groups and individual citizens to consider
our collective future in an urban industrialized society. This is an
intellectual, philosophical and long-term view of the task. This fundamental
role of education should be cultivated at every level of society. To have
this level of involvement an understandable and realistic appraisal is
needed of the relative cost and benefits ~ social, political, and cultural
as well as economic of alternative commitments of public resources.
Utilizing quantitative analysis where possible, the impact of alternative
land use development on transportation, utilities, and public services
should be compared to the required investment of both public and private
resources and the anticipated returns charted over a time. Perhaps one
consequence in New York would be the establishment of development policies
which would favor or restrict new construction and redevelopment based upon
the carrying capacity of the landscape, the ability of local government to
provide utilities and services and the efficiency of land use, energy,
consumption, and transportation systems.
Studies could be prepared of the impacts of alternative land use patterns
such as: The World Trade Center; Chicago's John Hancock Building; Co-Op-City;
White Plains, New York; Reston, Virginia; Columbia, Maryland; Levittown,'
New York.
5-36
-------
5.3.4 Determination of Obstacles to Implementationof Control Measures
This report is to lay out strategies which are comprised of control
measures, suitable to the character of the New York Metropolitan Region,
which would achieve air quality standards set by the Environmental Protection
Agency for the year 1977. The purpose of the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Council on Environmental Quality is to promote the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. The Act contains a cosmic view
of environmental imperatives which should be reflected in national policy
and also establishes a mechanism for implementing these lofty purposes.
~ *
To comply with the spirit of the Policy Act while pursuing specification
standards requires a wise and critical perspective. The Act relates to a
relatively new subject and is very new compared to other legislation with
impacts of a similar magnitude. The Act is a skeleton which is being
fleshed out daily in our courts, the actions of public officials, and the
market place of public opinion. Though farsighted individuals have long
recognized the seriousness of environmental degradation even prior to the
industrial revolution, it is only recently that this growing awareness in
our society has manifest itself in legislative action. As a result, much
of the data, tools, systems, and methodologies are inadequate to provide
the necessary evidence to warrant some of the costly, high impact, and
controversial public actions which would theoretically improve environmental
quality. This is not to argue for an abdication of the responsibility to
act forcefully. It is to point up the need to: overcome the limitations set
out in Section 2.0; set realistic priorities for action; and to establish a
comprehensive approach to the preservation and regeneration of environmental
quality. Both individual opportunities and social well being are related
to the degree that this purpose is realized.
5-37
-------
C.O CONTROL STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
6.1 PROCEDURE AND TIME SCHEDULE
The detailed procedures and schedules for implementation of several
control measures, as developed by the New York City Department of Air
Resources, are given in Appendix E, This information provided the
primary basis for development of the following outline for this phase
of the program:
Vehicle Turnover
Implementing Agency: Federal EPA, no local action needed.
Time to Implement: Currently and continuously underway.
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Retrofit and Inspection Program
Implementing Agencies: New York State Department of Transportation
with guidance of State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Time to Implement: (assuming legal authority by July 1973)
Initiation January 1, 1974
Completion January 1975
Taxi Inspection Program (a legal authority now exists)
Implementing Agency: New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission.
Time to Implement: Can be begun four months after administrative
approval.
Personal Automobile Inspection Program
(Legal authority now exists- Section 301 of N.Y. State Vehicle
& Traffic Law)
Implementing Agency: State Department of Motor Vehicles with
guidance from State Department of
Environmental Conservation and NYCDAR.
Time to Implement: Construction Start January 1974.
Inspection Begin January 1975.
Flow Improvements (Legal authority now exists)
Implementing Agencies: NYC Police Department and Traffic Department.
Time to Implement: Can begin immediately and be implemented within
six months.
t Stationary Source Controls (HC) (Legal authority exists)
Implementing Agency: NYCDAR
Time to Implement: Can begin immediately.
fo-l
-------
6.2 AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
Each control strategy could have complex implications for the allocation
and management agency resources and manpower. The secondary costs and impacts
are more difficult to predict and quantify.
To develop, evaluate, modify, and implement an effective package of
interrelated strategies on an interstate basis requires an integration of
these activities with the on-going governmental functions of the region.
The long-term administrative structure and mechanisms to insure air quality
are not yet determined.
Cooperation and coordination will be required among existing public
agencies to comply with the 1977 Federal standards. Ho single agency has
the authority or resources to accomplish this themselves. Programs, however,
which are budgeted or underway could also help to furnish short-term
emissions reduction in addition to the three primary strategies.
There are three levels of inter-agency involvement:
Detailed agreements to implement the three primary control
strategies.
Analyses of the budgets, special projects, and on-going
programs of each public agency to determine the contri-
butions which they could make to the improvement of air
quality.
Coordination of programs, manpower, funds, equipment and
other resources to implement secondary control measures.
This will require additional quantification of costs and
benefits in order to justify the necessary level of inter-
agency involvement. Each agency is already burdened with
its own responsibilities.
Inter-agency involvement related to the following traffic flow, transporta-
tion and land use factors, could influence mobile source emissions:
Parking policies
Zoni ng
Development plans and policies, for fringe
as well as central business districts.
b-2
-------
Enforcement of laws relating to the blocking
of intersections, double and illegal parking
Security for persons and property utilizing
public transportation
Proposed transit equipment, service or operating
improvement and changes
§ Construction, improvement, or operational changes
in freeways or city arterials, including TOPICS projects
City fleet operations
City working hours
Bridge and tunnel tolls
Grant-in-aid programs
t Demonstration projects'
Public education programs
In a preliminary draft, the New York City Department of Air Resources
(NYCDAR) has listed 31 control measures. See Appendix E. Though the
strongest committment is to only three vehicle emission control measures,
additional reductions may be required from implementation of other measures.
The NYCDAR has identified the following agencies as being primarily responsible
for the implementation of various strategies. Other governmental agencies
would be less directly affected, but are not listed here. This list indicates
the potential dimension of inter-agency involvement.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
New York State
State Legislature
Department of Motor Vehicles
Department of Transportation
Department of Environmental Conservation
New York City
Taxi and Limousine Commission
Department of Air Resources
Traffic Department
Consumer Affairs
Transportation Administration
Bureau of the Budget
Goods Movement Technical Committee
City Council
Police Department
Metropolitan Transit Authority
6-3
-------
Private Bus Operators
Port of New York Authority
Support needed from Mayor's office, Tri-State Regional Planning
Commission, and the NYC Department of City Planning
6.3 LEGAL AUTHORITY
At the initial meeting on this task order, it was decided that the legal
procedures would be developed by the New York State and City agencies.
6.4 SURVEILLANCE CHECK POINTS
Except for the need to acquire legal authority for the heavy-duty
vehicle retrofit program and funding of all programs by the end of 1973,
the following surveillance check points are only recommendations and afford
considerable latitude in accordance with the preferences of the agencies
involved. Figure 6-1 summarizes the check points.
6.4.1 Legal Authority Check Points
At the request of the State and City agencies, these data are being
developed by the agency personnel. However, the following check points do
appear necessary if the air quality goals are to be met:
July 1973 - legal authority bills in legislature.
t December 1973 necessary legal authority available.
C.4.2 Air Qualify Check Points
To properly monitor the effects of the control measure implementation,
the expanded monitoring system discussed in Section 4.2 should be in operation
by January 1, 1974. Afterwards, summary reports of the data obtained should
be prepared and evaluated every six months to find whether revisions in
the strategy might be required. The responsible agencies are as follows:
Data Acquisition - UYCDAR
Summary Report - NYCDAR
Contact - NYCDAR
6-4
-------
Figure 6-1. SURVEILLANCE CHECK POINTS
o>
01
PHASE I - Initiation
A. Legislation
B. Funding
C. Monitoring Networks
1. Air Quality
2. Transportation
PHASE II - Monitoring
A. Control Measures
B. Air Quality
C. Transportation
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
July Dec Jan March July Sept Jan March July Sept Jan March July Sept Jan July
t
O
C
Or
-------
6.4.3 TransportationCheckPoints
In order to determine important changes in traffic patterns as they
occur, the State Department of Environmental Conservation and NYCDAR should
maintain a liaison with such agencies as the Tri-State Regional Planning
Commission, the Transportation Planning Division of the New York City
Planning Commission and the Port of New York Authority, Summary reports of the
inputs from these agencies should be prepared every six months and evaluated
together with the air quality reports. These agencies routinely prepare
summary reports and in some cases the existing report procedure will be
satisfactory. In other cases, only small schedule changes could be
required. Responsible agencies are as follows:
Data Acquisition - agencies are listed in text.
Summary Reports ilYCDAR
Contact NYCDAR
6.4.4 Control Measure Implementation Check Points
The degree of implementation of the control measures should be summarized
and evaluated every six months to insure compliance with the overall control
strategy. This could best be done by requiring the implementing agencies
to make status reports to the State and City air pollution control agencies.
The agencies involved are listed below:
t Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program
Summary Reports State Departments of Motor Vehicles and Transportation
Contact - IlYCDAR
Personal Automobile Inspection
Summary Reports - State Department of Motor Vehicles
Contact - State Department of Motor Vehicles
Taxi Inspection
Summary Reports Taxi and Limousine Commission
Contact - Taxi and Limousine Commission
6-6
-------
Traffic Flow Improvements
Summary Reports NYC Traffic Department
Contact NYC Traffic Department
Stationary Source Control
Summary Reports NYCDAR
Contact - NYCDAR
6-7
-------
APPENDIX A
AIR QUALITY AND EMISSIONS DATA BASE
-------
APPENDIX A
AIR QUALITY AND EMISSIONS DATA BASE
A.I AIR QUALITY DATA BASE
The air quality data upon which the NYC transportation control strategy
development has been based were presented and discussed in some detail in
Section 4.0. The text of the following material describes the locations of
the monitors more precisely and discusses the proportional model used to
estimate any necessary emission reductions.
A J.I Locations of Air Quality Monitors
The site descriptions of the monitors used for air quality data are
as follows:
1. Laboratory - 170 East 121 Street, Manhattan
This station is located in East Harlen between 3rd and
Lexington Avenues on Sylvan Place. It is on a side street
which does not have much traffic, although Lexington and
3rd Avenues have fairly heavy traffic. The probes are
located approximately 15 feet above the street {35 feet
above sea level) on Sylvan Place. CO and NOX data from
this station are considered to represent non-CBD areas
of NYC.
2. Laboratory - 51 Astor Place, Manhattan
This station is on the sixth floor of the Cooper Union
Engineering building in lower Manhattan. The oxidant
probe is approximately 65 feet above street level hanging
out a window on the 9th street side of the building.
3. 59th Street Bridge, Manhattan
This station is at the Queensborough Bridge Plaza on the
Manhattan side of the bridge, on an island separating the
Manhattan and Queens bound traffic. The probe is at the
height of 5 feet and facing towards the Manhattan-bound
traffic. Because of the proximity of the probe both to
the ground and the traffic lanes and the low probability
of human occupancy of the site for more than brief periods,
this location is not considered to be an optimum one for CO.
4. Post Office - 350 Canal Street. Manhattan
This station is in lower Manhattan at Canal and Church
Streets. Canal,Street is the major cross-Manhattan street
rouste in the City, with the Holland Tunnel at its west
end and the Manhattan Bridge at its east end. The probe
A-l
-------
hangs out a window on the south side of Canal Street at
a height of 8 feet above street level. Data from this
station were used for rollback estimates in the downtown
Manhattan area.
5. Post Office - 110 East 45th Street. Manhattan
This station is in midtown Manhattan in the Grand Central
Station area. The Post Office is on the south side of
45th Street between Lexington and Vanderbilt Avenues.
Forty-fifth Street is a major cross-town traffic route.
The height of the probe is 5 feet above street level.
Data from this location would be expected to be more
representative of midtown Manhattan CO concentrations than
station #3. However, to provide a safety factor, the
higher CO levels of the latter station were used for the
study.
A.I.2 The Proportional Air Quality Model
A simple proportional model was used to determine the source emissions
reduction required to achieve air quality standards. The proportional
model is based on the assumption that the reduction in air quality concen-
tration levels is directly proportional to emission reductions.
Calculations are as follows:
Percentage Reduction R - (* 'gtf^j
-------
The rollback calculation then becomes:
R Cmax - Std
R x
A. 2 CALCULATION OF EMISSION FACTORS
The method of computing emission factors for motor vehicles in NYC
was briefly described in Section 5.0, and this discussion augments that
ma ten al .
1. Study of the modal distributions for New York City
(Section 5.0 and Reference 1, below) indicated that
three areas of New York required emission factors
specific to those areas:
The Downtown Area - shown as Area 1 of Figure A-l.
The Midtown Area shown as Area 2 of Figure A-l.
t The Rest of NYC - the remainder of Manhattan, the
Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn shown on the figure.
2. The modes to be incorporated in the overall emission
factors are listed below:
Downtown - personal automobiles, buses (diesel and
gasoline), cabs (fleet medallion, non-fleet medallion,
and non-medallion), and trucks (diesel and gasoline).
Midtown the same modes as downtown.
Rest of NYC - all automobiles, buses (diesel and
gasoline), and trucks (diesel and gasoline).
3. Emission factors for private automobiles were calculated
following Kircher(2) using the equation below:
= , 4^fo ci di mi si
enp
i=n-12
(^"Proposed Plan for Meeting Federal Air Quality Standards Relating to
Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen Oxides, and Oxidants in New
York City," NYCDAR, January 1972.
D.S. Kircher and D.P. Armstrong, "AN Interim Report on Motor Vehicle
Emission Estimation," Environmental Protection Agency, October 1972.
A-3
-------
LEGEND
Figure A-l. ANALYSIS AREAS FOR NEW YORK CITY
DARK = MIDTOWN
LIGHT = DOWNTOWN
WHITE = REST OF NYC GRID
A-4
-------
where
"np
emission factor in grams per vehicle mile for
calendar year n and pollutant p
G.J = the 1975 Federal test procedure emission rate for
pollutant p (grams/mile) for the ith model year, at low
mileage
d.j the control vehicle pollutant p emission deterioration
factor for the i "> model year at calendar year n
mi = the weighted annual travel of the ih model year during
calendar year n (The determination of tMs variable
involves the use of the vehicle model year distribution.)
s- the weighted speed adjustment factor for the i**1 model
year vehicles.
c-j is based on a recent study of light duty vehicle exhaust emission rates
in six cities, d.., deterioration factor accounts for the aging or
deterioration of emission control devices, m^, weighted annual mileage
is determined as follows:
VxD
mi ' 2~TTD
V fraction of each model year vehicle in use
on December 31 of year
D = average miles driven of each model year vehicle
s., speed adjustment factor, varies inversely with average route speed.
s. is greater than one below about 20 m.p.h. and less than one above
20 m.p.h. For New York City, si was calculated for each grid square from
Tri-State Planning Commission speed data and applied over all modes at the
same time.
Age distribution data were taken from Reference 1. The age distributions
were assumed to be the same for later years as they were in 1970.
4. Non-fleet medallion cab and non-medallion cab emission factors
were calculated in the same way as private automobiles, but
the deterioration factors were based on mileage data in Reference 1
A-5
-------
assuming that one year Is equivalent to 10,000 vehicle miles
of travel. However, Mr. ilike Walsh of NYCDAR provided TRW
with the results of a recent series of tests on Manhattan
fleet medallion cabs. The data are found below:
Model Number Average Emissions (gm/mi)
Year Tested Mileage CO HC NO*
117 60,476 50.6 3.38 7.87
44 23,105 37.6 2.69 9.21
69 79,180 58.5 3.78 7.22
4 148,906 58.5 3.97 4.27
The deterioration factors were not used for determining
the weighted emission factors for the latter class of
cabs since they were inserted implicitly in the test
program. For later years, no test data were available
so the calculations were made by use of the same methodology
as was used for non-fleet cabs, i.e., the federal emission
factors were used with deterioration factors based on mileage.
5. Bus and truck emission factors were taken directly from the
New York City Implementation Plan VU using the basic emission
factors, uncorrected for speed. Using the light duty vehicle
speed adjustment factors for heavy duty gasoline and diesel
vehicles contributes some error, but this is believed to be
negligible. However, the lack of speed adjustment factors for
these classes and the limitations of the computer program left
no other choice.
6. The overall emission factors for each of the three areas were
calculated by taking the sums of the modal emission factors
weighted by the fractions of total VMT of the individual
modes. These fractional VMT contributions are determined
by dividing the VMT percentages of Tables 5-1 through 5-3
by 100 percent. The overall emission factors are given in
Table 5-4.
7. Because of the vast number of calculations required for
computation of a single emission factor, it is not feasible
to show them. However, the basic modal emission factors
are listed in Tables A-l and A-2. When applying a control
measure to a particular vehicle mode, the measure must be
applied to the modal emission factor weighted by VMT. After
the application, the weighted sums of the other modal emission
factors must be added to obtain the new overall emission factor.
A-6
-------
TABLE A-l
BASIC CO MODAL EMISSION FACTORS FOR DOWNTOWN
AND MIDTOWN MANHATTAN (gm./mi.)
Mode
Personal Automobiles
Bus Diesel
Bus Gasoline
Taxi FM
Taxi NFM
Taxi NM
Truck Diesel
Truck Gasoline
1970
60.3
34.1
158.0
54.4
61.1
70.3
34.1
152.1
1975
34.5
34.1
158.0
7.6
26.3
39.1
34.1
124.4
1977
18.8
34.1
158.0
5.9
*
11.1
23.6
34.1
109.8
References
1,2
2
2
2
1,2
1,2
2
2
Abbreviations: FM=fleet medallion, NFM=non-fleet medallion NM=non-medallion
A-7
-------
TABLE A-2
BASIC CO MODAL EMISSION FACTORS FOR UPTOWN
MANHATTAN AND OTHER BOROUGHS (gm./mi.)
Mode
Automobiles All
Bus Diesel
Bus Gasoline
Truck Diesel
Truck Gasoline
1970
65.9
34.1
158.0
27.8
152.1
1975
40.9
34.1
158.0
27.8
124.4
1977
26.5
34.1
158.0
27.8
109.8
References
1,2
2
2
2
2
A-8
-------
TABLE A-3
BASIC HC MODAL EMISSION FACTORS FOR DOWNTOWN
AND MIDTOWN MANHATTAN (gm./mi.)
Mode
Personal Automobiles
Bus Diesel
Bus Gasoline
Taxi FM
Taxi NFM
Taxi NM
Truck Diesel
Truck - Gasoline
1970
9.75
19.3
31 .C
6.08
9, .05
11.0
17.7
30.1
1975
6.97
19.3
31.6
1.30
3.17
4.45
17.7
25.7
1977
2.44
19.3
31.6
0.93.
1.54
3.05
17.7
23.9
References
1,2
2
2
2
1,2
1,2
2
2
A-9
-------
TABLE A-4
BASIC HC MODAL EMISSION FACTORS FOR UPTOWN
MANHATTAN AND OTHER BOROUGHS (gm./m1.)
Mode
Automobiles All
Bus Diesel
Bus Gasoline
Truck Diesel
Truck Gasoline
1970
10-. 8
19.3
31.6
17.7
30.1
1975
4.95
19.3
31.6
17.7
25.7
1977
1.92
19.3
31.6
17.7
23.9
References
1,2
2
2
2
2
A-10
-------
TABLE A-5
BASIC NOX MODAL EMISSION FACTORS FOR DOWNTOWN
AND MIDTOWN MANHATTAN (gm./mi.)
Mode
Personal Automobiles
Bus Diesel
Bus Gasoline
Taxi FM
Taxi NFM
Taxi NM
Truck Diesel
Truck Gasoline
1970
3.92
66.2
9.6
7.45
4.10
3.61
60.9
7.7
1975
3.14
66.2
9.6
2.35
3.02
3.51
60.9
7.3
1977
2.02
66.2
9.6 .
1.05
1.81
2.73
60.9
7.05
References
1,2
2
2
2
1,2
1,2
2
2
A-ll
-------
TABLE A-6
BASIC NOX MODAL EMISSION FACTORS FOR UPTOWN
MANHATTAN AND OTHER BOROUGHS (gm./mi.)
Mode
Automobiles - All
Bus Diesel
Bus Gasoline
Truck - Diesel
Truck - Gasoline
1970
3.71
66.2
9,6
60.9
7.7
1975
3.36
66.2
9.6
60.9
7.3
1977
2.02
66.2
9.6
60.9
7.05
References
1,2
2
2
2
2
A-12
-------
APPENDIX B
TRANSPORTATION DATA BASE
-------
DATA BASE AND METHODOLOGY
B.I TRANSPORTATION DATA
B.l.l Basic Data
Basic data were provided by a number of cooperating agencies,
especially the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, the Transportation
Planning Division of the New York City Planning Commission and the Port
of New York Authority. Specifically, the following key items were
obtained from the Tri-State Transportation Commission:'
Vehicle miles traveled for 1970-1977 for each of
127 analysis areas
By type of roadway
Average operating speeds
Estimated speeds for 1977
Average volume per lane
Vehicle registrations
Model for highway needs evaluation
t Hourly vehicular traffic by type
Flow and volume maps of the region
The New York City Planning Commission provided the following
additional inputs:
Traffic Department vehicle counts from the
Annual Cordon Survey for 1965-1971.
Tunnel and river counts for 1965-1971.
Twenty-four hour counts by one-hour sequences
for major corridors.
t Vehicle population for New York City, 1965-1971.
B-l
-------
B.I.2 Disaggregation of New York City Data
In New York City, the initial VMT data provided information classified
into only three "Analysis Areas" for all of the Borough of Manhattan. (Data
for all the Tri-State analysis areas in both 1970 and 1977 follows this
narrative.)
In order to develop data which would more accurately reflect variations
in the concentration of VMT, Tri-State provided 1963 VMT data broken down
into square-mile units. This provided a basis for disaggregating the three
Analysis Areas covering Manhattan into approximately 30 areas. Similar
disaggregations were possible for the other Analysis Areas including
Manhattan, rfronx, Brooklyn, and Queens Counties in New York and Hudson and
Bergen Counties in New Jersey.
Calculation of Manhattan VMT based on these revised square mile data
indicated a total of 5,668,820 VMT in 1963 (based on 1964-1965 24-hour
weekday traffic counts). This compared to 6,035,850 VMT for 1970 and
6,402,877 VMT for 1977 projections shown by the Tri-State printouts.
Conversations with Tri-State indicated that the 1963 square mile VMT of 5.67
million was consistent with their 1970 and 1977 forecasts for Manhattan
and were advised that no adjustments would be required in the VMT printouts
for 1970 and 1977. The VMT projections for 1984 were made on a gross
basis by analysis area through the use of a set of adjustable parameters
in the computer program. The VMT growth rates assumed were as follows:
0 Analysis area 1/Downtown Manhattan - 0.83 percent per year.
Analysis area 2/Midtown Manhattan - 0.69 percent per year.
Rest of grid - 1.15 percent per year.
These percentages were based on the projected growth rate between 1970
and 1977.
B-2
-------
A final step in the disaggregation process involved the distribution
of 1970, 1977, and 1984 VMT into a square mile distribution. Because no
square mile data were available to the project for the period after 1963,
the 1970, 1977, and 1984 VMT were distributed on the same percentage basis
as the 1963 VMT square mile data. Though this introduced error in the
distribution of VMT for the later years, Tri-State advised that the error
was relatively small -- e.g., the relative VMT was not substantially
different between 1963 and 1970. Unfortunately, the errors introduced
had to be accepted since no alternative data were available and all analysis
for New York would have had to be eliminated. However, it is quite
obvious that land uses have changed in Manhattan since 1963 and some
differences in VMT distributions have undoubtedly occurred.
The specific methodology used is enumerated below:
1. The percentage distribution of VMT by square miles was
calculated for each Analysis Area to be included in
the model. This included a 400 square mile region
covering New York and New Jersey.
2. The percentage contribution of each square mile to the
total VMT in each Analysis Area was calculated for
1963 and then applied to 1970 and 1977 VMT for each
Analysis Area.
3. The use of 1963 VMT percentage distributions per square
mile for the 1970 VMT clearly does not incorporate changes
in land uses and trip-making since 1963. The application
of 1963 square mile distributions to 1977 data, of course,
further compounds the error. However, the error will be
somewhat confined in view of the fact that the VMT
projections by Analysis Aneas for 1970 and 1977 themselves
take into account the shifts in land use and travel. In
Analysis Areas 4 through 7 (The Bronx), VMT between 1970
and 1977 increased by about 4.51 percent (from 5.45 to 5.70
million). This total is disaggregated (by Tri-State) into
each of the separate Analysis Areas 4 through 7 and each
Analysis Area has a different rate of growth (reflecting
the difference in the projected travel expected). The VMT
for 1970 and 1977 may be considered reliable in that they
reflected by the assumptions and conclusions postulated by
the regional transportation planning agency. As previously
stated, 1984 VMT projections were made only on a oross
basis.
B-3
-------
New error is introduced when the 1963 percentage distributions
of VMT per square mile are applied to each of the Analysis
Areas. However, without data on changes in land use, floor
space or some other variable related to trip-making, there
was no way to correct the error.
B.I .3 Stationary Sources
County data were available for New York giving the 1970 and 1977
emissions for each pollutant due to stationary sources from Mr. David
Kircher of EPA. These county totals were apportioned to the grid areas
using the VMT for each grid as an apportioning factor.
B-4
-------
fC
-------
C AA
VMT - EXP
VMT - ART
VMT - LOG
VMT - TOTAL
00
1 1
1 2
I »
I 999
4
5
6
7
2 999
8
9
10
H
J2
13
14
15
4 <>«>9
5 16
5 17
5 18
* <)99
1203399.
550652.
611240.
2365291.
1064677.
694113.
617056.
461704.
2637548.
900072.
10767.
701998.
666473.
2279310.
463051.
1869780.
1601030.
1764774.
5896634.
321323.
185235.
257448*
764006.
1271025.
698931.
450516.
2420471.
660920.
232475.
521127.
326190.
1960711.
1274479.
757924.
783128.
1075666.
3691196.
134362.
1693090.
1513167.
1656752.
4997390.
240989.
533089.
264543.
1058620.
2 BO 559.
1H1526.
86377.
548462.
356146.
130445.
2334t>9.
177199.
3i no.
42JV4B3.
13455579.
669143.
708130.
2375622.
*
*
->99
14144789.
14328386.
6370946.
34644160.
-------
C AA
.VMT -
VMT - ART
VMT - LOC
VHT - TOTAL
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
p
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
?
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
a
8-
8
11
a
a
e
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
1?
12
t S
It
J 2
\?
5 .'
19
20
21
22
23
24
999
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
999
35
36
37
3ft
39
40
41
42
999
43
44
45
46
999
47
48
999
49
50
51
52
53
54
999
55
r>6
S7
58
59
60
>'!'!
311874.
862661.
584042.
726178.
1437790.
818502.
4741045.
480917.
966502.
1722749.
1306602.
850136.
210747.
980633.
638766.
319649.
640689.
8117384.
881109.
,1831998.
1153368.
0.
820448.
522740.
706485.
243977.
6160123.
SW4797.
633280.
85746.
257891.
1571712.
253502.
321334.
574836.
514590.
117723.
439761.
121377.
170756.
183381.
1547585.
78336.
838490.
454VJ5.
409 V>i.
1192542.
1283471.
20C2967.
918647.
1778119.
529092.
7704837.
741344.
1035508.
1076983.
16197U.
904309.
78777.
1737930.
464721.
209472.
551608,
8419902.
671380.
H07940.
851588.
198728.
747786.
402758.
702850.
281573.
4964599.
523665.
607795.
200018.
2313)2.
1562808.
558593.
340588.
899181.
510072.
593899.
1193906.
590283.
798735.
285125.
3972017.
638797.
894384,
447G41.
592363.
657373.
1070041.
392109.
964431.
335618.
4031932.
412118.
626054.
717635.
676668.
492416.
49537.
86C532.
224656.
271301.
4653988.
400669.
634497.
436981.
92573.
374647.
233555.
384908.
155647.
2713473.
242335.
309210.
some.
128555.
760788.
292944.
196378.
489322.
312998.
290986.
640056.
303616.
413303.
159319.
2120275.
306422.
<.72S78.
9.
2096779.
2803506.
3657051.
2036934.
42C0341.
1683212.
16477823.
1634378.
2628065.
3517369.
3S03P02.
224686?.
339061.
357H69B.
1328343.
651975.
1463598.
21191312.
1953158.
3574437.
?441937.
29U02.
1942H81.
6747:.'l.
VH'JM I,
4; iH
-------
S C AA VMT - EXP VMT - ART VMT - LOC VMT - TOTAL
2 99 999 25721280. 3161190$. 17045696. 74578784.
CD
-------
10
AA
3 13 61
3 13 62
3 13 63
3 13 999
- exp
VMT - ART
VMT_- UOC
14 64
14 65
14 66
14 67
3 14 999
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
15 66
15 69
15 70
15 71
15 72
15 999
3 16 73
3 16 74
3 16 75
3 16 999
3 17- 76-
3 17 77
3 17 78
3 17 79
3 17 60
3 17 999
3 18 81
3 18 82
3 10 63
3 16 84
3 18 999
3 19 65
3 19 66
3 19 67
3 19 999
20 66
20 69
20 90
20 91
20 92
?0 93
20 999
21 94
21 95
21 96
97
Sfl
?1
i\
/I 100
676196.
993429.
245646.
1915471.
1486125.
763272.
240602.
221008.
2711005.
1692943.
661326.
1246607.
37Z305.
640451.
4613630.
1326090.
279415.
1.
1607504.
1451022.
665162.
640008.
1-79961.
1.
2936152.
455672.
226477.
. _ _ ! _ 970697.
116281.
1773325.
631644.
1048736.
.... 1.
1920382.
2236472.
394339.
459180.
757872.
467485.
383702.
4699046.
' 405227.
... ... 0.
212105.
302B92.
726243.
213227.
42.9003.
656932.
706699.
135114.
1502744.
1147601.
934609.
804660.
569939.
3457026.
1400528.
707129.
1339717.
1026407.
416597.
4692377.
1066991.
546431.
600331.
2433753.
1047467.
791196.
624606.
593357.
662060.
3716886.
621.671.
552119.
997443.
645437.
3016670.
664599.
747271.
1477956.
2909627.
1435426.
918631.
560310.
676672.
457327.
569604.
4658169.
911934.
541770.
2<.3e*9.
M>6267.
76n312.
3<«l'f>tl .
580604.
299756.
314905.
65666.
660329.
476466.
442166.
381643.
260179.
1580452.
6*3437.
432889.
736066.
533556.
209261.
___ 2595226.
613632.
267243.
372357.
1273231.
526291.
405559.
341014.
305721.
307369.
_..._ 1865953.
378045.
292263.
527946.
327508.
1525661.
350031.
33877S.
663146.
1371952.
724704.
479932.
284091.
309712.
214o92.
311563.
2324693.
4d3t48.
2<>C047.
11-0658.
24U706.
431700.
!7UW-i>.
281613.
VMT - TOTAL
1634683.
2017033.
4*6629.
4096545.
3110192.
2140247.
1426925.
1071126.
7748490.
3976908.
1601344.
3322390.
1934269.
1266326.
12301239.
3028714. .
1113086.
1172669.
5314491.
3024760.
1861919.
1605031.
1079038.
969430.
8540998.
1655387.
1072859.
2496186.
1091226.
6315656.
1666275.
21T4765.
2161106, *
6202166.
4396606.
1792902.
1323581.
1744456.
1139504.
1264869.
11681918.
1800609.
601817.
5566C2.
1307(165.
*
*
*
*
*
7401).
-------
' 2 !>4/">₯»».
>»(,< if
C AA
VMT - 6XP
VMT - ARt
VMT - IOC
VMT - TOTAL
3 22 10?
3 22 10)
3 22 104
3 22 999
863575.
1.
510046.
1393623.
721103.
1125290.
1599265.
344565S.
406324.
533603.
657164.
1797091.
2011002.
1658894.
2966479.
6636375.
3 99 999
26317696.
34318616,
17247024.
77663600.
00
I
-------
.AA.
r VMT - ART VMT. - LOG , . VMT - TOTAL
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
co *
T 4
~* 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
23 105
23 106
23 107
23 108
23 109
23 999
24 110
24 111
24 112
24 999
25 113
25 999
26 114
26 115
26 116
26 117
26 118
26 119
26 120
26 999
27 121
27 122
27 123
27 999
28 124
28 125
29 126
28 127
28 999
363135.
308682.
455230.
.299433.
900428.
"" '"" 2326908.
144303.
372507.
997209.
... 1514018.
347329.
347329.
762156.
845679.
430159.
255577.
575452.
59645.
1088761.
. 4017627.
333647.
1038339.
234723.
16067QB.
303499.
284892.
35382B.
1.
942219.
368122.
348800.
657440.
412675.
644615.
2451649.
543906.
334380.
827344.
1705629.
519247.
519247*
690717.
583258.
632856.
468665.
676322.
239844.
591567.
3883227.
889222.
1529153.
441979.
2860352.
302975.
275880.
646484.
767721.
1993060.
212448.
181667.
350009.
220160.
353964.
1318247.
273762.
195496.
464138.
933396.
268759.
268759.
370982.
275418.
324729.
242844.
338462.
115531.
305583.
1973548.
457326.
853535.
253850.
1564711.
187308.
165940.
358143.
35 B 02 5.
1069416.
963705.
839150.
1462679.
932268.
1899007.
6096808.
961971.
9C2382.
2288691.
4153044.
1135335.
U35335.
1823855.
1704355.
1387744.
967087;
1590237.
415221.
1985912.
9874409.
1680195.
3421028.
930552.
6031775.
793782.
726713.
1358455.
1125747.
4004696.
4 99 999
10754808.
13413164.
7128076.
31296032.
-------
S C AA VH1 - EXP VHT - ART VHT - LOC VHT - TOTAL
9 99 999 76936560. 93672160. 47791760. 218602576.
CO
INS
-------
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF HIGHWAY NETWORK
HIGHWAY EVALUATION FOR THE YEAR 1977 BASED ON FIXED SUPPLY 1 USING PROJECTION 1
TIMt VALUFO AT 2.50 DOLLARS PER HOUR.
BASED ON INTEREST RATE OF 10 PERCENT AND ECONOMIC LIFE OF 25 YEARS.
CONST. COST FACTOR IS 1.300
EXP ACC COST IS 1470. ART ACC COST IS 1250.
RELOCATION COST IS 10000. PER HH. VEHOP COST FACTOR IS I.00
ADJUSTMENTS SPOEXP SPDART SPOLOC ACCEXP ACCAL
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MAINT COST PER NILE IS 33000.
VMT EQUATION VMT* 0. * 64.3 *VTE**0.74 *2.Tie**( 1.6 *FE/FO*
FIELO>-< 0 NOT IN RANGE
FIELD 0 NOT IN RANGE
-------
C AA . . EXPHY SPEED ARTERL SPEED LOCAL SPEED SPEFD
111 36.10 10.60 9.13 13.25 * *
1 1 2 36.36 13.26 7.13 15.34 * *
1 1 3 42.09 16.50 8.31 21. "»9 * *
1 1 999 37.5* '" 12.11 6.05 15.09 * *
124 39.73 15.73 8.74 18.63 * *
125 44.13 19.14 10.79 26.«5 * *
126 40.89 17.67 10.46 20.50 * *
1 7 7 43.44 19.46 11.15 22.28 *
1 2 999 41.58 17.14 9.86 20.81 *
I 3 6 38.22 14.91 8.T4 15.73 * *
139 38.65 14.67 9.46 1?.70 * *
1 3 10 41.57 17.18 9.40 18.<1 * *
1 3 11 41.88 18.20 10.22 1H.C3 » *
1 3 999 40.25 " 16.13 ""' 9.40 16.T7 * *
1 «. 12 47.52 23.14 12.75 30.73 *
1 4 I? 39.47 15.73 9.55 10,Jl » *
1 4 14 41.88 17.92 10.62 20.22 * *
I 4 !«, 41.23 17.92 10.71 20.P3 * .. »
1 4 499 " 41.27 " " 17.21 " "" 10.32 ~~~ 19.75 * *
I \> 16 46.62 23.61 13.20 26.57 * *
1 5 17 45.38 20.83 11.90 18.77 * *
I 5 18 47.54 24.20 14.05 24.42 * *
1 5 499 .... 46.61 22.26 12.73 22.12 ... * *
1 91999 40.74 """ 16.04 " 9.57 lfl.28 » *
-------
S C AA ... EXPWY SPEED ARTERL .SPEED LOCAL. SPEED SPEED
Z 6 19 43.27 19.74 12.19 18.04
2 6 20 41.69 18.02 10.89 18.38
2 6 21 _ 43.45 18.21 11.25 16.73
2 6 22 45.93 24.58 14.45 25.36
2 6 23 43.87 19.46 11.10 19.73
2 6 24 46.58 22.22 12.22 24.45
2 6 999 _ .. 44.10 , . 19.55 _ 11.60 19.40
2 7 25 47.69 24.25 13.67 _ 23.10
2 7 26 " 45.53 21.31 12.50 21.92
2 7 27 * 47.42 23.66 13.50 26.06
2 7 28 46.64 23.77 14.00 23.95
2 7 29 46.89 23.97 13.94 24.64
2 7 30 50.42 27.53 16.38 33.69
2 7 31 _ 48.73 __ 27.34 16.24 26.18
2 7 32 51.06 30.03 17.54 " 32.56
2 7 33 53.07 31.83 _ 18.42 33.83
2 7 34 52.47 31.92 18.70 33.26
2 7 999 . 48.09 25.04 _ 14.48 25.64
2 8 35 _ 43.85 , 19.20 10.86 21.24
2 8 36 - - - 44.46 """ 20.18 " " 11.38 23.53
2 8 37 45.73 22.37 12.70 _ ' 24.99
2 8 36. 52.46 31.99 19.68 ' ' 26.69
2 8 39 _ . 46.46 23.85 13.91 25.58
2 8 40 51.06 29.53 17.36 31.05
2 8 41 48.24 26.02 . 15.34__ _ 26.88
2 8 42 - - " 52.20 " " "31.40 18.69 ~ """31.00
,28 999 _ 46.06 23.08 13.20 24.96
01 2 9 43 46.62 24.27 __ 14.00 26.34
2 9 44 48.11 25.76 14.80 26.89
2 9 45 i _ 46.61 _ 26.17 15.30 24.85
2 9 46 52.86 32.25 19.11 32.90
Z 9999 . 48.15 ._. 26,05 15.15 27.27
2 10 47 . 51.98 31.50 19.21 29.19
2 10 48 . 53.63 33.15 19.73 32.73
2 10999 . _ ... _ 52.$9 32.11 19.41 . 30.64
2 11 49 50.41 28.60 17.15 28.89
2 11 50 " 50.80 30.33 18.79 26.82
2 11 51 _ _ 47.18 24.34 15.16 22.60
2 11 52 53.92 33.87 20.99 29.74
2 11 53 _ 51.18 29.79 18.45 26.31
2 11 54 55.90 36.75 22.39 34.58
2 11 999 _ 50.38 28.69 17.66 26.42
2 12 55 51.44 30.93 18.97 26.70
2 12 56 ~ 51.89 31.17 18.49 31.32
2 12 57 _ . 53.43 .. 32.85 19.72 32.63
2 12 58 51.48 30.40 18.28 29.04
2 \?. b9 49.31 28.02 16.64 28.15
? 12 bO «9.fcO 28.Ol 16.69 27.19
2 12
-------
C AA EXPHY SPEED ARTERL SPEED LOCAL SPEED SPEED
2 99 999 47.35 24.18 14.24 24.41
00
en
-------
S C..AA ___ _ ...GXPHV SPEED ARTE«L SPEED . .LOCAL SPEED SPEED
3 13 61 41.03 18.08 10.7? 20.21 * * *
3 13 62 41.72 18.06 10.51 21.69 * *
3 13 63 _ _ _ 44.84 20.10 _ 10.56 24.24 * *
3 13 999 ' " "~ - 41.85 " " " 18.23 " .10.61 21.31 * *
3 14 64 "" 39.85 " 16.34 ~ 9.40 19.66 * *
3 14 65 43.07 _ 19.43 10.77 20.02 * *
3 14 66 44.28 22.13 13.38 20.29 * *
3 14 67 _ 44.83 _^ 21.50 12.36 19.79 _ * __ *
3 14 999 " 41.47 " "~ 19.08 "' """ 11.06 19.89 * *
3 15 68 " 41.50 17.64 10.11 20.65 * *
3 15 69 44.02 18.89 10.86 19.51 * *
3 15 70 42.87 18.57 10.79 19.61 * *
3 15 71 _, 45.09 21.48 _ 12.97 19.88 * *
3 15 72 ~ "' 49.26 " 26.89 " " 15.20 29.96 * *
3 15 999 43.37 19.39 11.25 20.71 * *
3 16 73 42.79 18.06 10.13 19.95 * *
3 16 74 " 45.05 21.56 12.78 20.60 * *
3 16 75 _ 50.21 29.10 _ 18.13 24.41 * *
3 16 999 43.17 21.53 ~~ 12.30 20.94 * *
3 17 76 " ~ " 46.76 24.26 " 14.11 27.13 " * *
3 17 77 , 47.32 25.01 14.61 25.35 * *
3 17 78 " 48.67 26.30 15.27 27.11 *
3 17 79 ' 50.36 29.05 17.80 __ _ 26.21 * _ *
3 17 80 " "" 51.37 30.73 19.05 25.73 * *
3 17999 ....._ 47.50 26.46 15.63 26.44 _.. * *
3 IB 81 40.75 17.95 10.60 17.87 * *
3 18 82 ... 42.23 17.98 11.48 17.42 * *
3 18 83 _ 43.83 20.31 _ 11.86 21.56 _ * _ *
3 18 84 43.96 19.33 11.94 17.18 * *
3 18 999 . 42.80 18.98 11.47 18.94 * *
3 19 85 47.31 24.95 14.47 26.97 * *
3 19 86 49.13 27.58 16.00 30.88, » *
3 19 67 _ : 46.75 _ _ 24.93 15.93 21.15 _ * *
3 19 999 48.32 25.57 15.55 25.65 * *
3 20 88 " -'- 44.31 ' 21.12 12.30 24.79 * *
3 20 89 45.09 21.75 13.20 20.53 « *
3 20 90 46.49 24.46 14.40 24.82 * *
3 20 91 45.09 22.72 13.17 24.88 * *
3 20 92 49.63 26.25 16.35 29.41 * *
3 20 93 47.59 25.52 15.35 24.97 * *
3 20 999 " " "45.45 22.95 13.52 24.42 * *
3 ?l 94 45.78 22.56 11.72 21.30 * *
.3 ?) 95 . 46.42 22.3I> 14.09 18.78 * *
3 21 96 52,5k 33.02 19.59 33.M * *
J 2) 97 46.25 22.47 1^.91) 20./.9 * *
3 ?l Va 47.76 24.6?. 14.10 24.91* * «
1 '1 «»<> 00.36 29.14 17.?6 ?7.'»0 * *
;i ;-i i«r» SI.ZH vt./,<> jr.'t7 ;'.>! * *
-------
40.83
-------
C AA
EXPHY SPEED
ARTERL SPEED
LOCAL SPEED
SPEED
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ta 4
L 4
«J 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
23 105
23 106
23 107
23 108
23 109
23 999
24 110
24 111
24 112
24 999
25 113
25 999
26 114
26 115
26 116
26 117
26 118
26 119
26 120
26 999
27 121
27 122
27 123
27 999
28 124
28 125
?8 126
28 127
28 999
44.22
49.12
43.20
50.03
45. 84
45.93
49.16
46.50
43.70
44.64
47.52
47.52
45.45
43.61
46.05
47.76
" 48.49
51.76
o 47.29
46.23
- 46.06
46.57
51.43
47.53
52.17
51.29
48.41
49.62
50.44
20.78
27.91
19.36
28.62 "
22.51
22.67
27.51
23.10
19.56
22.28
25.30
25.30
22>59
20.08
23.77
26.17
27.03
32.16
24.38
24.13
26.55
23.64
29.82
25.32
30.87
29.95
26.02
. . 28.55
28.17
12.39
16.81
11.54
17.13
12.98
13.40
16,77
13.43
11.22
12.92
14.94
14.94
13.36
11.25
14.25
16.03
16.05
19.88
14.06
14.22
16.56
14.35
18.12
15.48
18.48
17.98
15.84
18.16
17.34
21.89
28.36
19.55
26.03
25.14
23.70
24.65
24.36
21.50
22.75
24.78
24.76
24.30
23.37
23.62
25.18
27.43
28.79
28.78
25.54
24.70
23.36
27.87
24.33
30.81
30.28
24.60
24.17
26.50
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
99 999
46.53
24.39
14.54
24.62'
-------
C AA EXPWV SPEED ARTERL SPEED LOCAL SPEED SPEED
99 999 45.00 21.66 12.9? 22.47
00
l
ro
O
-------
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF HIGHWAY NETWORK ........
HIGHWAY EVALUATION FOR THE YEAR 1977 BASED ON FIXED SUPPLY I USING PROJECTION 1
TIME VALUED AT 2.50 DOLLARS PER HOUR.
BASED ON INTEREST RATE OF 10 PERCENT AND ECONOMIC LIFE OF 25 VEARS.
CONST. COST FACTOR IS 1.300
6XP ACC COST IS 1470. ART ACC COST IS 1250.
RELOCATION COST IS 10000. PER HH.. . .VCHOP COST. FACTOR JS .J...OO.
ADJUSTMENTS SPOEXP SPOART SPOLOC ACCEXP ACCAL
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MA1NT COST PER MILE IS 33000.
V«T EQUATION WMT- ' 0. * 64.3 *VTE**O.T4 *2.718**I 1.6 *FE/FO«
FIELD Q NOT IN RANGE
FIELD 0 NOT IN RANGE
us
p
-------
C AA
VMf -
VMT - ART
VMf - IOC
VH1 - TOTAL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
? »
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 999
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
2 999
3 8
3 9
3 10
3 11
3 999
4 12
4 U
4 14
4 15
4 999
5 16
5 17
5 16
5 999
1251087.
572086.
2437815!
1034752.
628348.
598577.
436175.
2697849.
867928.
10493.
675820.
669005.
2223245.
387376.
1824695.
1775075.
1624632.
5615777.
170747.
36961.
17145.
224053.
1324823.
725381.
452949.
2503152.
892576.
229885.
490«75.
2B7155.
19C0448.
1279444.
729314.
754167.
1072510.
37H5434.
101806.
1609873.
1478812.
1697U6.
4887617.
232656.
55.8232.
325097.
1115984.
286102.
180209.
86926.
561136.
362636.
1241?!.
152567.
855009.
330116.
37C074.
505323.
175<;737.
797732.
»>4o870.
2514709.
104126.
2697H1.
157077.
530984.
2862012.
1485677.
5502105.
2289965.
982355.
1305136.
87SH96.
5453351.
1SOOOM.
776H421.
427H1?8.
40^1620.
4166629.
13018109.
507529.
R64974.
499M9.
1R71P22.
1 99 999
13199539.
14192675.
6221574.
33613T76.
-------
C AA
y«T -. EXP_ , VMT - ART.
VMT - LOG
VMT - TOTAL
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
B
8
a
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
1?
19
20
21
22
23
24
999
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
999
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
999
43
44
45
46
999
47
48
99?
49
SO
51
52
53
54
999
55
56
57
58
59
294092.
834646.
548434.
489762,
1385575.
698318.
_ _ 4250826.
440011.
650122.
1336023.
556203.
495987.
157342.
._ . 719222. ,
22529.
222467.
459990ll
836816.
1645973.
1019527.
0.
659599.
295114.
571749.
154732.
5183506.
481594.
539244.
66023.
235888.
1322748.
201897.
251624.
453521.
417981.
88765.
373499.
100354.
140940.
149461.
1270998.
63299.
6478S3.
195692.
170B97.
120072.
40JH41.
1601A5*.
1103070.
1242154.
1860201.
878220.
1714126.
522671.
7320441.
666718.
1073226.
986133.
1388272.
733704.
46328.
1274414.
525428.
205377.
702725.
7602322.
619958.
935471.
734671.
155449.
543592.
385792.
501263.
215306.
4091500.
414241.
506262.
148236.
199963.
1270700.
396064.
251449.
647513,
363566.
393380.
911490.
460937.
572490.
216709.
2918570.
456800.
647650.
365551.
560450.
570572.
4«703l.
552502.
636373.
1004529.
373124.
949288.
327343.
3843156.
367876.
629413.
657964.
736381.
387082.
33252.
604897.
237890.
119950.
316112.
4090811.
374784.
54B38B.
364550.
72864.
274903.
2L9688.
265821.
122310.
2263305.
175235.
251321.
55860.
112517.
594934.
217131.
147019.
364149.
238289.
200671.
505398.
244694.
304833.
127390.
1621272.
223204.
33)660.
22SB67.
300 162.
277414.
462365.
' 1949664.
2713176.
3413165.
1741105.
4048990.
1548332.
15414432.
1474606.
2352761.
2980121.
2680857.
1616773.
236921.
2598534.
785848.
547794.
1018838.
16293051.
1831558.
3129833.
2118747.
228314.
1476094.
900594.
1358833.
492348.
11538319.
1071070.
1298827.
270119.
548368.
3188383.
. 815092.
650091. .
1465183.
1019836.
682816.
1790387.
805985. "
1018262.
493560.
5810845. .
743303.
1629163.
787309.
1057509.
96 80'.> 8.
«.93»S79.
+
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
,
*
*
*
*
«
*
* __
"*" ~" ~
*
*
*
* --
* - -
V
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* '
*
*
*
*
-------
5 C AA VHT - EXP VHT - ART . VMT - LOC VHT - TOTH
2 99 999 18683328. 27359056. 14606296. 606*8720.
C3
32
-------
C AA
VHT - EXP
VMT - ART
VMT - LOC
VHT - TOTAL
£
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
i
13
13
13
13
14
1 4
14
14
14
15
15
IS
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
16
18
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
?l
?1
."A
61
62
63
999
64
65
66
67
999
68
69
70
71
72
999
73
74
75
999
76
77
78
79
60
999
81
82
63
84
999
as
86
87
999
88
89
90
91
92
93
999
94
95
96
97
98
'l't
1 f>0
663655.
867378.
151558.
1682589.
1174166.
557050.
0.
67405.
1798620.
1430529.
592603.
700885.
277152.
0.
3001168.
1090024.
0.
1.
1090024.
" ~ ' 793954.
95833.
-506 159.
0.
1.
1395945.
431347.
209459.
422749.
114936.
1178490.
568697.
8b»215.
..._ 1.
1433912.
1917140.
318348.
111892.
596735.
328359.
314038.
3588509.
343623.
... 0.
0.
9H644.
393255.
0.
17il24o.
631364.
678760.
151192.
1461335.
1231629.
1035859.
773095.
606184.
3646764.
1251123.
604797.
1502898.
783513.
632410.
4774 f40.
1059581.
573587.
583226.
2216393.
871824.
788336.
496351.
508172.
474311.
3138993.
778232.
495744.
12C6303.
615930.
3096208.
606283.
505663.
950010.
2061956.
1336592.
660656.
58R341.
568394.
304079.
368423.
3626431.
687704.
.. . 4C2143.
276124.
6311 13.
7? /4a9.
31 M..40.
4 >, M.
283490.
311558.
75035.
670083.
535277.
494015.
346664.
284061.
1660015.
603861.
361060.
788213.
413389.
285492.
2472013.
599817.
267822.
274795.
1142433.
438937.
381485.
277729.
241181.
222993.
1562321.
356226.
267510.
6064Z8.
313415.
1545580.
305399.
220539.
439660.
965598.
674565.
356809.
272664.
253780.
127266.
191023.
1876325.
373464.
I9ri242 .
1 1'.032.
miza.
3rt/' I Tl.
1 4 . r. 1 11 .
* <. n ).
1576529.
1857695.
377784.
3614008.
2941074.
2086924.
1119756.
957649.
7105405.
3285514.
1578460.
2991097.
1474QS4.
917902.
10247927.
274V423.
8414O9.
858022.
4448853.
2104715.
1265655.
1280238.
749354.
697305.
6097265.
1567807.
972713.
2235481.
1044261.
582C282.
1480360.
1591418*
13B9671.
4461469.
3928298.
1335812.
973118.
14209C9.
759704.
873464.
9291324.
1404791.
59H 1d5.
3*0156.
10*0 JOS.
1 S C.' ? H y H .
4'.XJ£F.
:1 .' . . ' ; .
*
*
*
«
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
tf
*
* .
. _
*
*
»
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
^
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
»
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
' ' -'
*
»
*
*
*
*
*
*
,
*
*
*
*
»
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-------
CO
11.-/i U J\i,
VKT - EXP
VMT - ART
VMT - LOC
VMT - TOTAt
3 22 102
3 22 103
3 22 104
3 22 999
706167.
0.
423096.
1129283.
472615.
762187.
1196795.
2431S96.
269123.
366516.
671036.
1306674.
1447925.
1178703.
2290926.
4867556.
3 99 999
17312304.
30437024.
15067070.
62816400.
-------
C 4A
VMT - EXP
VMT - ART
VMT - LOC
VMr - TOTAL
CD
4
4
t,
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
23 105
23 106
23 10?
23 108
23 109
23 999
24 110
24 111
24 112
24 999
25 113
25 999
26 114
26 115
26 116
26 117
26 118
26 119
26 120
26 999
27 121
27 122 " "
27 123
27 999
2B 124
28 125
28 126
28 127
28 999
335171.
264167.
422936.
0.
740676.
1762969.
128692.
333805,
617299.
1079995.
193692.
193692.
660039.
712724.
352712.
206154.
508200.
49658.
'> 826959.
3316441.
142911.
748304.
199033.
1090247.
32892.
163922.
302333.
1.
499148.
341773.
267716.
587335.
459105.
590987.
2246913.
452660.
283094.
914278.
1650231.
446421.
448421.
536333.
570753.
505074.
323116.
548798.
169871.
462040.
3115982.
643785.
1207563.
346826.
2198173.
.399651.
206568.
500102.
533079.
1639398.
190997.
143899.
316919.
216402.
32B491.
1197807.
231390.
170956.
497694.
900041.
229246.
229246.
294460.
272881.
263344.
174666.
279310.
83420.
246175.
1614256.
324200.
685301.
208853.
1218353.
202978.
127100.
286810.
253353.
870239.
867941.
675802.
1328290*
675507.
1660153.
5207691.
813143.
787855.
2029271.
3630269.
871358.
871358.
1490832.
1556357.
1121130.
703936.
1336309.
302949.
1535175.
6046687.
1110896.
2641169.
754712.
4506776.
635521.
497590.
1089245.
786432.
3006787.
*
*
__ _ _
*
4 99 999
7942490. .11299117. 6029940. 25271552. *
-------
S C AA VHT - EXP VHT - ART VMT - LOC VMT - TOTAL
9 49 9<»
-------
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF HIGHWAY NETWORK
HIGHWAY EVALUATION FOR THE YEAR 1970 BASED ON FIXED SUPPLY 1 USING PROJECTION 1
TIKE VALUED AT 2.SO DOLLARS PER HOUR.
BASED ON INTEREST RATE OF 10 PERCENT AND ECONOMIC LIFE Of 25 YEARS.
CONST. COST FACTOR IS 1.300
fXP ACC COST IS 1470. ART ACC COST IS 1250.
RELOCATION COST IS 10000. PER HH. VEHOP COST FACTOR IS 1.00
ADJUSTMENTS SPOEKP SPOAftT SPOLOC ACCEXP ACCAi.
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MAI NT COST PER MILE IS 33OOO.
_i
VMT EQUATION \/MT- 0. * **.3 *VTE**0.7« *2.718**< 1.6 *F/FO«
FIELD 0 NOT IN RANGE
03
rg " FIELD o NOT IN RANGE"
-------
AA
EXPHY SPEED
ARTERL SPEED
LOCAL SPEED
SPEED
Co-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 999
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
2 999
3 8
3 9
3 10
3 11
3 999
4 12
£ | 4
I 13
4 14
4 15
4 999
5 16
5 17
5 18
5 9SI9
35.67
35. 87
42.04
37.14
39.56
44.28
41.38
44.22
41.71
38.70
39.03
41.92
41,86
40.57
48.60
39.85
42.08
41.19
41.45
46.98
45.64
48.20
46.84
10.25
12.90
16.45
11.75
15.70
19.67
16.25
20.50
17.36
15.34
15.34
17.51
18.23
16.49
24.44
16.22
18.15
17.91
17.48
24.74
21.20
25.13
22.93
5.04
7.02
8.29
5.96
8.76
11.24
10.76
11.69
10.00
B.91
9.61
9.52
10.23
9.52
13.3?
9.78
10.74
10.81
10.49
13.97
12.33
15.16
13.38
12.94
15.00
21.99
14.76
16.41
26.61
21.25
23.73
21.CO
16.09
13.02
i e. :i 6
18.09
16.56
32.15
18.66
20.47
19.61
19.68
24.77
17.64
21.11
20.09
*
*
*
*
*
*
1 99 999
40.56
16.12
9.66
16.17
-------
C AA _ EXPWY SPEED ARTERL SPEED LOCAL SPEED SPEED
2 6 19
2 6 20
2 6 21
2 6 22
2 6 23
2 6 24
2 6 999
2 7 25
2 7 26
2 7 27
2 7 28
2 7 29
2 7 30
2 7 31
2 7 32
2 7 33
2 7 34
2 7 999
2 8 35
2 d 36
2 B 37
2 8 38
2 B 39
2 8 40
7 2 8 41
CO 2 8 42
2 8 999
2 9 43
2 9 44
2 9 45
2 9 46
2 9 999
2 10 47
2 10 48
2 10 999
2 11 49
2 11 50
2 11 51
2 11 52
2 11 53
2 11 54
2 11 999
2 12 55
2 12 E6
2 12 r»7
2 12 58
2 12 59
2 12 60
? 12 'J90
43.91
42.08
44.05
46.48
44.19
46.81
44.38
48.41
" 45.84
48.09
48.08
48.51
52.54
50.78
51.34
53.43
52.36 ~'"~
48.62
44.31
45.40
46.72
53.86
48.40
51.67
50.12
53.70
46.87
48.42
49.25
48.87
53.54
49.63
53.90
55.14
_ 54.58
52.07
53.28
48.74
55.36
52.85
57.27
51.99
53.36
53.60
54.90
52.60
50.77
50.51
5?.ofl
20.32
18.42
18.77
25.66
19.81
22.54
20.07
24.88
21.50
24.51
25.31
25.99
30.32
29.89
31.22
32.37
32.46 ~
26.30
19.68
21.20
23.48
33.68
25.98
30.47
28.23
33.22
24.16
26.32
27.05
28.36
33.12
27.75
33.79
35.10
34.29 __
30.61
33.05
26.05
35.5*
31.83
38.47
30.60
33.22
33.60
34.60
31.70
30.00
29.21
31.52
12.46
11.01
11.50
15.13
11.24
12.43
11.83
13.90
12.89
14.09
15.13
15.06
17.92
17.45
18.78
18.80
19.58
15.26
11.08
11.65
13.17
20.60
14.97
18.18
16.53
19.83
13.70
14.96
15.37
16.26
19.61
15.97
20.54
20.80
20.64
18.25
20.33
16.02
21.98
19.56
23.45
18.72
20.26
19.80
21.01
19.30
18.19
17. S5
1-9.03
18.51
18.71
17.16
25.08
20.01
24.03
19.62
23.65
20.63
25.98
23.30
25.20
37.14
28.41
26.25
32.43
26.96
25.00
21.75
24.71
26.23
28.01
27.94
29.57
29.25
31.70
25.92
20.64
28.18
26.98
33.89
29.07
31.30
34.58:
32.68 _ ...
30.94
29.13
24.13
31.11
28.10
36.09
28.15
28.64
33.82
31.64
28.26
26.42
2T.C9
21.10
-------
S C AA EXPWV SPEED _ ARTERL SPEED LOCAL SPEED SPEED
2 99 499 47.61 25.00 14.67
00
4,
N
-------
C *A ... ;__. EXPWV SPEED. __ARTEW. SPEED LOCAL SPEED SPEED
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
CO
7
.Mi
/.I
10.90
10.78
10.82
10.83
9.59
10.84
14.13
12.64
11.19
10.62
11.26
11.09
13. 82
15.68
11.84
10.39
13.40
19.34
12.43
15.23
15.33
15.89
19.07
20.37
16.48
10.81
11.91
12.23
12.07
11.78
15.17
16.97 ""'
17.62
16.62
12.84 "
14.33
15.31
13.87
17.95
16.97
14.23
14.67
15.06
21.10
13.53
14.74
18.74
\.^8
:'.'. 7
*
*
*
*
*
*
«
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* "" '
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
, *
*
~ 4
*
*
* "
*
*
^ . .
*
*
*
. " d "
*
*
»
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
»
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
»
+
-------
S C AA EXPkfV SPEED ._. ARTERL SPEED LOCAL SPEPQ SPEED
1 22 102 49.53 27.33 15.89 29.86 * *
3 22 103 46.01 25.07 16.13 21.36 * *
3 22 104 46.19 22.14 14.14 20.70 * *
3 22 999 48.22 " 23.90 15.0* 22.96 * *
3 99 999 . 44.78 22.39 13.31 21.82 * *
O3
-------
Co
CO
01
s
4
4
ft
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
c
I
23
23
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
25
25
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
'
27
27
27
27
28
26
28
28
28
AA
105
106
107
104
109
999
110
111
112
999
113
999
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
999
121
122
123
999
124
125
126
127
999
EXPMY SPEED
ARTERL SPEED
LOCAL SPEED
SPEED
45.04
50.63
43.89
50.44
46.38
46.07
50.12
47.36
" 43.46 "~
45.33
48.37
46.37
46.96
43.66
' " 47.38
49.94
49.60
53.78
46.34
*7.23
50.13
48.01
52.60
49.06
52.16
52.98
49.84
51.96
50.96
21.60
29.63
20.00
26.85
23.20
23.50
26.54
23.99
19.36
22.05
26.26
26.26
24.28
20.34
25.22 "
28.60
28.25
34.66
25.65
25.17
29.11
25.22
31.16
27.10
30.56
32.02
27.65
31.02
29.91
12.78
17.77
11.79
17.93
13.42
13.64
17.29
13.84
11.54
13.07
15.58
15.56
14.24
11.47
15.00
17.32
16.66
21.34
14.75
14.75
18.21
15.24
18.84
16.49
19.10
19.33
16.69
19.56
18.38
22.72
30.23
20.14
24.14
25.16
23.63
25.55
25.25
19.42
21.67
24.34
24.34
26.24
22.84
24.90 ' - '
27.59
28.79
31.12
29.63
26.52
25.96
24.36
29.03
25,43
26.11
30.87
26.35
26.09
26.88
*
4 99 999
47.18
25.26
15.05
24.86
-------
& C AA .' EXPMY SPEED.. ARTERL SPEED (.OCAL SPEED SPEED
9 99 999 44.95 22.02 13.22 22.17
CD
I
-------
APPENDIX C
DATA DOCUMENTATION LIST
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
l.Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, Interim Technical Report, 4304-1201,
East River Crossings and The Doubling of Tolls, July 1972, 17 pgs.
2. Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, Interim Technical Report. 4243-1520,
Motor Vehicle Registrations 1970. June 1971, 26 pgs. - 2 cps.
3. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York City
Metropolitan Area Air Quality Implementation Plan. Revised May 1972, 195 pgs.
4. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Motor Vehicle
Emissions Control: A Plan for Action, November 30, 1971, 114 pgs.
5. New York State Department"of Environmental Conservation, The Economic and
Technological Feasibility of Requiring Air Contaminant Emission Control
SystemsonUsedMotor Vehicles, A Report to the Legislature, February 1, 1972,
45 pgs.
6. Tri-State Transportation Commission, Streets and Highways: A Regional Report,
January 1968, 44 pgs.
7. Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, Regional Profile Subway Riders and
Manhattan Autos. October 1971, Vol. 1 No. 14, 8 pgs. - 2 cps.
3. Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, Regional Transit 1990, (the revised
and updated regional plan and program), April 1972, 13 pgs.
9. Tri-State Transportation Commission, Regional Development Guide: J"echm'cal
Perspectives, November 1969, 54 pgs.
10.Tri-State Transportation Commission, Tri-State TransportaMgn^)985L An Interim
'Plan, May 1966, 39 pgs.
n Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, Interim Technical Report. 4305-1205
'Motor Vehicle Registrations 1971, June 1972, 13 pgs.
12 Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, Interim Technical Report. 4324-1205,
'Vehicular River Crossings: 1971 (within the Tri-State Region), AugustT1972,
13 pgs.
13.TRW Inc., Prediction of the Effects of Transportation Controls on Air Quality
in Major Metropoli
November 20, 1972.
in Major Metropolitan Areas. Report to Federal Environmental Protection Agency,
mbe
14.D.S. Klrcher and D.P. Armstrong, An Interim Report on Motor Vehicle Emission
Estimation. Draft Report, Environmental Protection Agency, October 1972.
C-l
-------
APPENDIX D
AUTOMOBILE AIR POLLUTION QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
_________^ FIGURE
CONSUMER MAIl PANEIS
P
323 SOUTH FRANKLIN STREET - CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60606
(2-C796)
Dear Panel Member,
Today, I am sending you a questionnaire which I consider both exciting and
interesting. Hopefully, you will too. This questionnaire deals with the impor.
tant problem of air pollution caused by automobiles.
As you know, autos are a major source of air pollution especially in metro-
politan areas. You probably have read in newspapers or magazines that auto
manufacturers are being required to make changes in their cars that will
reduce the amount of pollutants coming out of cars. This will be particularly
true for cars manufactured in 1975 and thereafter.
Many pollution experts believe, however, that despite these new federal regu-
lations on auto air pollution, other ways will have to be found to further reduce
pollution caused by cars. The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain your
reaction to these new auto pollution control ideas being suggested by the
experts. In answering some questions, you will probably have to consult
other members of your family to get their ideas and reactions. I am sorry
if this is inconvenient, but I am sure you will agree that the importance of
solving pollution problems is worth making every reasonable effort.
As always, please check each of your answers after you have completed the
questionnaire. Then return it to me in the enclosed postage-paid envelope.
If you have any additional comments, please write them on the lines pro-
vided in Question 11.
Cordially,
D-l
-------
FIGURE (CONT'D
Jb.
Ic.
4b.
4e.
CONSUMER MAIl PANEIS
at MMW nuu« BIHII CM***. fttM
(2-C796)
AUTO AIR POLLUTION QUESTIONNAIRE
AH autos in idc in 1^7} an put emission control equipment which might ceil $200 on your car? ("X" BEi-OWJ
How wuulU you fret about this lav if the coat WAS reduced by government tubsidy to about $SO?
("X" UELOW)
Fcrling
a rd 1-iw;
Oil JZOO 2. Ceil S40
Very much in favor of law .
Somewhat in favor of law. . .
Somewhat against law , , . . ,
Very much against law . . . .
LJ«
B
(1?)
D4
Even cars properly equipped with cmrmsion control equipment might still pollute the air if the equip-
ment was not properly maintained. Haw would you feel about a Jaw requiring periodic inspection of
the emission control system to assare that it was working properly? C'X" ONE ONLY)
Very much in ..j Somewhat in p,^ Somewhat .. Very much «
favor of law favor of la* against la.w^ againtt lav^
Assuming you had to have your car Inspected at least once a year, what would you consider a
reasonable cost (or the inspection? (WRITE IN AMOUNT)
13
a
H-16
Open
* 20
Assuming you liad to have your car Inspected at least once a year, where do you think the inspection
ihouUI be made' ("X" ONE ONLY)
At stale-opt rated inspection centers .Ol At some ether place (Specify):
"" rn
AI local service stations or garage* *I_|J
Even if all autus were equipped with properly maintained
mission control system*, som* cities might stilt have auto
air pollution problem* due to th* large number of cara
either on ihr streets at the same time or concentrated In
particular areas. Listed below are *«v*tal possible way*
to redue- pelluiion under one or both of these conditions. I
Please tell me how you feel about each of theae proposals. J
<"X" ONE ON EACH LINE) I
»
b.
c.
d.
e.
I.
I.
b.
I.
i.
Prnpos.il: I
Very high ($$00) registration fee per auto
Very high ($500) registration fee per auto but only
Prohibit traffic and parking in central buiinet* dtitrlcti
A tax on all day parking in central business districts . .
A tax on parking in central builnef « districts regardlen
of whether a person parked only one hour or all day
Tolls on exit ramps of major freeways and exprctiwayi
Tolls on exit ramps of major frccwayt and expressways
Restriction* on non-essential auto travel during limes
of high pollution by Issuance of special license
Turn tome existing lanes Into "bus only" and "cat pool
only" lanes en major expressways and streets. ...
1
/
i-
£ i
1
ni
i_i*
DI
rit
LJ*
Dl
DI
DI
Dl
Dl
Dl
D!
Which of the ort.DO.ala listed above would b* the most acrefrtable?
To
IB
i
ri2
u_ I*
nz
D2
D2
02
Ql
Dz
D*
0*
(Give
(Give
Me ThirPlan Is: I
/ ^1
1 1
"ll
D»
nt
DJ
OJ
Qj
D3
D'
D3
I>«ttfr4
Lolleri
i!
L!
1
BA
<
a<
a<
D4
Q4
D*
D<
a*
I
/'/
f > /
ns
LJ*
a*
LJ*
as
as
as
DS
as
Os
as
22
ZJ
24
2S
2«
27
28
24
10
Zl
Zl
D-2
-------
FIGUrxti (CONT'D.1
!'*«< * IZ.C79M
QUESTIONS 5-8 ASK FOR INFORMATION HELAT'S-C TO OTIfER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.
CONSULT THEM, IF NECESSARY, FOK TI«F. ANaWEKS.
5a. How often do the various members of your household travel by public transportation} (Tor ex-
ample, by bus, subway, or commuter train.)
Children
Husband Wife (Over 16 Yean Old)
Three or more times a week . . . .Ql - -Ql * *ID'
One cr two times a week . QZ . . ,QZ . . .QZ
Onee every Uuee months Q4 . . ,D« . . .D<
Never. ., .Qi . Q5 . . ,Qs
Sb. Plcagc rate each household member' . reason for using public transportation, (Rate the most
important reason "1", Ihr next malt important "2". the next "3", etc. It a household member
never uses public transportation, "X" the "never use" box at the bottom of the list.)
5c. Please rate each household member's reasons for traveling by auto. Follow the same procedure
as In Question ib. (WRITE IN DELOW UNDER JSc)
Sb. Public Transportation 5c. Aulr* Transportation
Children . , Children
(Over 16 ' (Over 16
Reasons: Husband Wife Years Old) Husband Wife Year. Old)
a. Cheaper (38) (39) MO) ... HI) I4Z)
b. Faster (44) (45) (46) . . . (47) (48)
c. More comfortable (501 ($1) (92) . , , 153) (54)
e. Less congested (42) (63] (64) ... (64) (66)
f. M»r« available (68) (69) (TO) . . . (71) |7Z)
g« More flexible (1 can come
and go as I please) . . . (IS) (16) <17) ... (IS) (19) __
h. More relaxing (able to
i. Need ear during the day . ..... (Not Applicable) [Z41 »5) _ _
J. I do not have a driver's
lie*n«» r27) 128) J291 ... . . (Net Avolicablc) *»<
K. Car Is not available when
i >»»! 4* f301 1311 I3Z) ..... (Hot ADDlicabie) «
t. Other (Specify):
(33) (M) (35) .. . (36) ... (37) .
.Mil
.(«>
.<«*
-{A1> (74-78
,(67) open)
.(73»79(3UO
Cd. Z
^»> D»p.
t-J4
(26)
(3S)
m. Never use ("X" Box) . . . Ql Cft O* <3») D» DZ D» (««>)
Sd. Again, congulting other member! of your household, please rate in order of effectiveness which item*
below you feel would be most effective In encouraging the use of public transporation: (Rate the most
effective item a "1", the next most effective "2", the next "3", etc.)
Children
Items: Husband Wife (Over It Years Old)
Parking facilities at »top. or stations (56) (57) (S«)
Shelters against bad weather at (top*
Better security to assure personal
»f,ty T - . T «ZI «3I (til
More conveniently located stops
w ,»V,« . , , 1*5* '«» «"
Other (Specify): (71-7* open)
Iff) (*») (TO) 7«ET2*0
D-3
-------
FIGURE (CONT'D.
(2-C796) |>.g, J
la. How would you or other household members feel about traveling to am) from work in a car pool? '
("X" ONE ONLY) Dup.
Very interested Ql 1-H
Somewhat interested, . . .Qz
Not at all intended . . . .Q3
Already In car ]>ool. , . . .Q4
Do not travel to and from M_
work by car* ..«.
ob. If It became neee»ary to restrict the number of cart on expressways and streets In order to
reduce pollution and car pools became necessary, how difficult do you think it would be to get
into one an existing one or organize one amongst your friendi. neighbor! and/or work associates.
("X" ONE ONLY)
Extremely difficult Dl
Very difficult Qz K
Somewhat difficult Qj
Somewhat easy ...... »O^
Very easy.
Extremely
Already in car pool ... ,Q7
Extremely caay ...... .11*
7. One of the major causes o-f areas of high pollution Is traffic
congestion. Pollution could be reduced if traffic congestion
and stop-anrf.go traffic was reduced. Lilted below are
several ideas for reducing traffic congestion. Please tell
me how effective you think rich of these ideaa would be in
reducing congestion and pollution. ("X" ONE BOX FOR
EACH IDEA)
Idea:
a. Prohibit parking, loading and unloading on busy streets Dl DZ D* D* '
b. Inereasc the number of one-way streets. ....... f~ll f~\2 (")> Q4 IB
c. Establlsli reversible lanes on busy streets to be used p-i. r-i* Pli PU 1^
during rush hours. .......«........* ^^
a. Prohibit turns at busy Intersections during rush hour* . Ql Q2 D> D* 20
e. Widen major streets Dl O* D» D-» 21
1. Widen major streets at intersection) only D> DZ O^ D* zz
g. Provide pedestrian underpasses and/or overpasses ... Ql Q& Q3 Q4 23
h. Improve timing of traffic signal D' DZ D> D* M
{. Increase tho number and frequency of radio traffic re-
ports Dl Qz Qj D« 25
j. Tarn come existing lanes Into Hbua only" and "car pool
only" lanes on expressways and busy streets ... * Pll f"T2 Q]3 Q4 26
Your Ideas (Please List):
D> QZ Q3 D* >'
Since traffic congestion Is most severe at times when people are going to or comic? from work.
one alternative for reducing congestion would be to have people start and stop work at different
times of the day. That is. some people would start work at 5:00 AM and quit at 2:00'FM, others
would work from 7:00 AM to 4 sOO PM. others from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM. etc. How do you feel about
this Idea? ("X" ONE ONLY)
Very much in favor
Somewhat in favor ...
Indifferent D> 28
Somewhat opposed ...
Very much opposed ...
(PLEASE CONTINUE ON THE NEXT PACE)
D-4
-------
9d.
lOa.
lOb.
II.
FIGURE
I'ngc '
9a.
9b,
9e.
U-C796)
Please record the moriel year el each car owned In your household, (WRITE IN BELOW
UNDER Oa|
]>lrase estimate the number of miles each car was driven In the last year.
(WRITE IN NUMUEIt OF MILES UNDER Ob BELOW)
For each car, please estimate what pircrntagr of last year's mileage wss accounted for by
driving outside your local metropolitan area. (For example, vacation, business trips,
short weekend trips, etc.)
10b. Nationwide
Dl
R* MS|
If you have any views or comments regarding any question or idea., pleas* record them:
H6-78 open)
Thank you for your help. Please cheek your answers and then return the questionnaire to me in the
enclosed postage-paid envelope.
D-u
-------
1. All autos made in 1975 and thereafter will be equipped with emmision control devices to reduce air
pollution. If in 1975 you owned a car built before that year, '-ow would you feel about a law re-
quiring you to put emission control equipment which might cost $200 on your car? ("X" BELOW)
2. How would you feel about this law if the coat was reduced by government subsidy to about $50?
("X" BELOW)
(130 R) (160 K)
Feeling Toward Law: 1. Cost $200 2. Cost $50
Very much in favor of law. . 13. 8% 64. 4%
Somewhat in favor of law. . . 28. 5 19. 4
Somewhat against law 19.2 8. 1
Very much against law 38. 5 8. 1
3a. Even cars properly equipped with enunision control equipment might still pollute the air if the equip-
ment was not properly maintained, How would you feel about a law requiring periodic inspection of
the emission control system to assure that it was working properly? ("X" ONE ONLY)
Very much in Somewhat in Somewhat Very much
favor of law favor of law against.law against law
72. 0% 19. 5% 3. 7% 4. 8%
3b. Assuming you had to have your car inspected at least once a year, what would you consider a
reasonable cost for the inspection? (WRITE IN AMOUNT)
$ 7.80 (mean)
D-6
-------
3c. Assuming you h.-id to have ycrar car inspected at least once a year, where do you think the inspection
should be made? ("X" ONE ONLY)
(162 R)
At state-operated inspection centers 45. 1%
At city-operated inspection centers 9. 9
At local service stations or garages 39. 5
At some other place (Specify): 5. 5
Some respondents thought the federal gove-rnment sh'ould be involved
in vehicle inspection. Several thought a form of licensed inspection
centers or garages could provide this service.
D-7
-------
To Me This Plan Is;
I . | 1 fc I 13"
II / ° ~l 3 I 3
Even if all aulos were equipped with properly maintained / n> I ul*^!>tf"°/ °*
emission control systems, some cities might glill have auto I Q, /«?"' |*<«»,£f/pCjj/ o
air pollution problems due to the large number of cars j g I'*''* l^ *° 5*1 «S*/ U
cither on the streets at the same time or concentrated in 1 o 1 5; S, I-H -2 O I C O 1 g
particular areas. Listed below are several possible ways / "S ifio |J2 £* rt I O rt 1 ^
to reduce pollution under one or both of these conditions. I >> / O u I ** ** 1 |5 1 **»
Please tell me how you feel about each of these proposals. / « 1 W *** 1 «£ *f 1 £
("X" ONE ON EACH LINE) 1^1 II I >
«t.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g-
h.
i.
j-
Proposal +2 Vl 6 C
Ca.s online rationing 3. Z 2. 5 5. 1
Very high ($500) registration fee per auto . 1.3 4. 4 4. 4
Very high ($500) registration fee per auto
but only for the second, third, etc. ,
auto , 7. 7 11.5 6. 4
Prohibit traffic and parking in central ^
business districts 36. 7 29- 1 7. 0
A tax on all day parking in central busi- A
A tax on parking in central business dis-
tricts regardless of whether «t person
parked only one hour or all day ........ 15. 1 Z5. 0 9. 9
Tolls on exit ramps of major freeways
Tolls on exit ramps of major freeways
and expressways but only when traffic
was heavy ... 7. 7 9»7 7. 1
Restrictions on non-essential auto travel
during times of high pollution by
issuance of special license plates or
Turn some existing lanes into "bus only"
and "car pool only" lanes on major ^
expressways and streets 46. 8 23. 1 6. 9
> -'. -:
A
11.4 7^7.8
7. 6 82. 3
A
14.8 59.6
15.2 12.0
11.9 22.6
A
13.2 36.8
A
10.9 65.0
12.9 62.6
15.8 36.1
9.4 13.8
A Indicates the weighted mean for each answer.
D-8
-------
4b. Which of the proposals listed above would be the moat acceptable? (Give Letter:) j - 41. 1%
' d - 35. 8%
4c. Which would bo most unacceptable? (Give Letter:) b - 49. 7%
~~a38. 7%
QUESTIONS 5-8 ASK FOR INFORMATION RELATNG TO OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.
CONSULT THEM, IF NECESSARY, FOR THE ANSWERS.
5a. How often do the various members of your household travel by public transportation? (For ex-
ample, by bus, subway, or commuter train.) jgg p\
(141 R) (163 R) Children
Husband Wife (Over 16 Years Old)
Three or more times a week . 29. 8% 24. 5% 24. 2%
One or two times a. week 6. 4 9. 7 o. 3
Once a month 3.4 15.7 2.1
Once every three months .... 14. 2 12.8 5.3
Never 39-7 37.3 21.1
No household member 6.5 41.0
D-9
-------
5b. Please rate each, household member's reason for using public transportation. (Rate the moat
important reason "1", the next most important "2", the next "3", etc. If a household member
never uses public transportation, "X" the "never use" box at the bottom of the list.) See attached
5c. Pleaoe rate each household member's rea-sons for traveling by auto. Follow the same procedure
as in Question 5b. (WRITE IN BELOW UNDER 5^) See attached
{56 R)
5b. public Transportation
(132 R)
Reasons Husband
a Cheaper 9
D Faster 10
c. More comfortable . . 3
d. Safer for passenger. 2
e. Less congested 6
f. More available 8
g. More flexible (1 can
come and go as
h. More relaxing (able
to read while
traveling) 7
i. Need car during the
day. . .. » NOT
j. I do not have a
driver's license . . 1
k. Car is not available
when I need it .... 4
1. Other (Specify):
Children
(163 R) (Over 16
Wife Years OldJ
9 7
10 6
1 2
3 3
4 1
8 9
6 5
2 3
APPLICABLE - a
5 9
7 7
*.» tti-**tt « _ i e £ / 1 o *» £ 1 / 1 £. 2 ?A/R£
(56 R)
5c. Auto Transportation
Children"
(132 R) (163 R) (Over 16
Husband Wife Years Olc
42 2
867
555
1 1 1
23 3
78 6
678
NOT APPLICABLE - -
344
- - NOT APPLICABLE - -
NOT APPLICABLE - -
QI /!»> te./ie.t 17/56
D-TO
-------
Among the various "other" reasons for use of
public transportation three additional items stood
out:
1. Convenience
2. Non-availability and cost of parking
3. Many respondents not owning a car.
5c The only other reason stated for using the private
auto was that many places are not accessible
via public transportation.
D-n
-------
5d. Again, consulting other members of your household, please rate in order of effectiveness which items
below you feel would be most effective in encouraging the use of public transporation. (Kate the most
effective Horn a "1", the next most effective "2", the next "3", etc.)
Ranking of individual opinions
Items;
Cleaner and newer vehicles. .
Faster travel
Air-conditioned vehicles ....
More frequent service ......
Lower fares
Parking facilities at stops or
stations
Shelters against bad weather
at stops or stations
Better security to assure
personal safety
More conveniently located
stops and stations
Husband
7
8
4
9
8
6
3
7
6
Children
(Over 16 Years Old)
6
8
4
9
Other (Specify):
Various suggestions for improving the amenity level of public
transportation were put forward, but the only agreement seemed
to. be the need to reduce crowding.
D-12
-------
6a. How would you or other household members feel about traveling to and from work in & car oool?
("X" ONE ONLY) ^
(159R)
Very interested 17. 6
-------
7. One of the major causes of areas of high pollution is traffic
congestion. Pollution could be reduced if traffic congestion
and atop-and-go traffic was reduced. Listed below are
several ideas for reducing traffic congestion. Please tell
me how effective you think each of these ideas would be in
reducing congestion and pollution. ("X" .ONE BOX FOR
EACH IDEA)
Idea:
a. Prohibit parking, loading and unloading i
on busy streets 61.0 . 29.2 8.5 1.3
b. Increase the number of one-way streets .... 24. 8 46. 4 25. 5 3. 3
c. Establish reversible lanes o-.t busy streets .
to be used during rush hours 32.9 38.8- 16.5 11.8
d. Prohibit turns at busy intersections during i
rush hours 44. 0 36.7 11.3 8.0
e. Widen major streets 45.4 35.5 11.9 7.2
f. Widen major streets at intersections only .. 16.8 46.3 23.5 13.4
g. Provide pedestrian underpasses and/or .
overpasses 53.2 32.5 13.0 1.3
h. Improve timing of traffic signals 55.6 30.5 12.6 1.3
i. Increase the number and frequency of
radio traffic reports 23. 0 45. 9 29. 7 1.4
j. Turn some existing lanes into "bus only"
?nd "car pool only" lanes on express- ^
ways and busy streets 41.3 39.4 16.7 2.6
Your ideas (Please List):
(See attached)
A - Indicates the weighted mean for each answer.
D-H
-------
7. Among the many ideas suggested several patterns developed.
The most frequent ideas tended to fall under one of the
three following categories:
1. Control of traffic flow (active or passive).
2. A limitation on vehicle freedom.
3. Improvements needed,
(e. g. mass transportation and technological)
The order of these three categories also reflects the
magnitude of responses for each idea.
' »
Under control of traffic much emphasis was on forms of active
control e. g. police enforcement of laws and direction of
traffic, versus more passive controls such as left turn
lanes, staggered lights , and through traffic lanes. Only a
couple of respondents considered economic controls on
traffic, such as higher tolls.
The need for improvements in mass transportation e. g.
more frequent service,cheaper, etc. , and a secondary
interest in technological improvements dominated, the
improvements category.
D-15
-------
8. Since traffic congestion is most severe at times when people are going to or coming from work,
one alternative for reducing congestion would be to have people start and stop work at different
timcB of the day. That is, some people would start work at 5:00 AM and quit at 2:00 PM, others
would work from 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM. others from 10:00 AM to 7;00 PM. etc. How do you feel about
this idea? ("X" ONE ONLY) V
Very much in favor 43. 7%
Somewhat in favor 26. 6
Indifferent 10. 1
Somewhat opposed 10.1
Very much opposed 9. 5
9a. Please record the model year of each car owned in your household. (WRITE IN BELOW
UNDER 9a)
9b. Please estimate the number of miles each car was driven in the last year.
(WRITE IN NUMBER OF MILES UNDER 9b BELOW)
9c. For each car, please estimate what percentage of last year's mileage w?s accounted for by
driving outside your local metropolitan area. (For example, vacation, business trips,
short weekend trips, etc.) (WRITE IN BELOW UNDER 9c)
9b. 9c.
9a. Last Year's Percentage of Mileage
Model Year Mileage Outside Local. Area
Car #1 (126 R) 1969 12,019 33%
Car #2 (55 R) 1967 9,708 22
Car #3 ( 7 R) 1970 8, 166 38
Car #4 (2 R) No model 5,750 23
(1967 or 1970)
D-16
-------
9d. How many licensed drivers are there in your household? (WRITE IN)
Number of Licensed Drivers: 1-75 (157 R)
9c. If better public transportation were available, would you consider disposing of any of the
cars you own?
Yes 10.1%
Maybe 10.1 9f. How many? (WRITE IN) * °5 cars
No 79. 9
lOa. Overall, how serious a problem do you think auto air pollution is in your city? ("X" ONE BOX
UNDER lOa BEUOW)
lOb. Overall, how serious a problem do you think auto air pollution is nationwide? ("X" ONE BOX
UNDER lOb BELOW)
(160 R) (154 R)
lOa. City lOb. Nationwide
Very serious problem 48- 8% 42- 9*
Serious problem 26.9 42.2
Slightly serious problem... 17.4 14. 3
No problem at all 6. 9 0. 6
D-17
-------
11. If you have any views or comments regarding any question or idea, please record them:
Central City Comments:
The range of suggestions was quite broad. Two more frequently
mentioned topics were mass transportation and the need for
technological innovations.
Need for stricter control of vehicles was mentioned particularly with
reference to trucks and buses. Some limitation in free access to the
city by all vehicles was suggested in several responses. The use of
peripheral parking areas being another suggestion.
A note of pessimism regarding future legislation was voiced by several
respondents regarding the influence of lobbys and special interest
groups.
Suburban Comments:
The respondents from outside the city proper also showed a great concern
for limiting pollution. Most favored strict regulation, some suggesting
state inspections, large fines, and strong enforcement of existing laws.
Frequently the blame for pollution was passed to other polluters such
as trucks, buses, factories suggesting that many respondents don't
believe that private autos are a major factor in contributing to the
pollution problem. Many seemed to put their faith in the "potential"
technological innovations possible in pollution control.
A need for increased efficiency, speed, and personal safety on public
transportation was pointed out. The trend of the comments was for
stronger enforcement and control of pollution standards and licensing
requirements. Lacking from the comments was more than one
respondent suggesting that private vehicles freedom of access to the
city should be in any way limited.
D-18
-------
APPENDIX E
LIST OF CONTROL MEASURES COMPILED BY
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIR RESOURCES
-------
Strategy ffl: Vehicle Turnover Reliance on Federal New Car Emission Standards
Discussion: Federal light duty vehicle emission standards for new cars are
becoming increasingly more stringent; by 1975 carbon monoxide and
hydrocarbon emission levels are to be reduced by 90% compared with
1970 levels, while by 1976 oxides of nitrogen emissions are to be
reduced by 90% from 1971 levels. Thus, the replacement of existing,
relatively high-polluting vehicles by newer, lower-polluting vehicles
through normal attrition will gradually reduce the average emission
rate of the passenger car population.
Goal: Reduce average air pollutant emission rate of vehicle population.
Emissions Reduction Potential: If the emission control systems of vehicles in
use are maintained so as to effect continued
emission rates within the new car standards, the
average carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emission
rates for the passenger car population should
decrease yearly about 6.5 percent of uncontrolled
(1967) levels, until about 1980. The correspon-
ding nitrogen oxide emission rates should decrease
at about half this rate until 1975 and at about
7.5 percent of 196? rates per year thereafter
until 1980.
Projected Impact on Air Quality: In the absence of strategies altering total
vehicle miles travelled, average operating
speed, and vehicle mode mix, vehicle turnover
would produce the following air quality improve-
ments by 1977 (compared with 1970): CO - 40%;
HC - 25%; NOjj - 157.
Time to Implement: This turnover is already underway as owners discard old
vehicles and purchase newer ones at the rate of approximately
10% per year.
Location Affected: Vehicle turnover will reduce emission rates throughout the
metropolitan area of greater importance than the area-wide
changes, however, is the impact on New York City's CBD's.
There is evidence that present vehicle emission control
systems do not work well in driving situations like those In
Manhattan. Thus, this strategy may be less effective in the
CBD's where ambient levels of vehicle-related pollutants are
greatest.
Technical Feasibility:
The effectiveness of this strategy depends on maintenance
of the emission control systems of vehicles in use. Estab-
lishment of annual emissions inspection of registered
vehicles would assure continued performance of emission
controls. In the absence of such a system the effectiveness
of this strategy would be dependent on surveillance programs
by EPA. To date they do not have funding or staff adequate
for a surveillance program.
E-l
-------
- 2 -
Institutional Feasibility: Implementation is dependent only upon Federal EPA
enforcing the mandate of the Clean Air Act of 1970
and refusing to grant extensions to the auto manu-
facturers for compliance with emission standards.
Implementing Agent: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Legal Authority: Clean Air Act.
Action Required: Provide technical backup to USEPA efforts.
Enforcement: Procedures are prescribed for USEPA in Sections 203, 204, 2O5, 206,
207 and 208 of the Clean Air Act.
Relationship to Other Strategies: Effectiveness of this strategy will be greatly
enhanced by periodic emissions inspections
(strategies #3 and #5).
Expected Costs to Implement: No direct costs; indirect costs only to the extent
required to provide technical backup to Federal
enforcement efforts.
Studies Required: None
Implementation Schedule: None
E-2
-------
#2-1
Strategy #2. Heavy Duty Vehicle Retrofit
Discussion: Regulation of emission levels from new vehicles over 6,000 pounds
gross vehicle weight (GVW) has lagged far behind efforts to control
light duty vehicle emissions.
The first action to regulate such vehicles was the promulgation on
September 8, 1972 of standards for vehicles over 6,000 pounds GVW
powered by diesel or gasoline engines. The emission standards apply
first to 1974 model year vehicles.
As a result of the absence of emission rate limitations coupled with
inefficient operating characteristics these vehicles are a major
pollution source in midtown and downtown Manhattan and in the CBD's
of the other boroughs. They will constitute an even greater percentage
of the pollution problem in future years as light duty vehicles are
better controlled. In order to significantly reduce these emissions,
retrofitting of emission controls is essential.
Goal: Reduce average emission rate of commercial vehicle population.
Emissions Reduction Potential:
It should be possible to reduce emission rates for
CO, HC and NOX from gasoline-powered vehicles by
50% of their present, uncontrolled values.
Projected Impact on Air Quality: The effect on air quality will vary with location
in the city. The impact would be greatest in
CBD's where truck use is heaviest in particular
downtown Manhattan, Bronx and Queens. In such
areas projected air quality improvements are:
CO - 25%; HC - 20%; NOX - 5%. Borough-wide pro-
jected improvements are: Manhattan: CO - 12%,
HC - 10%, NOX - 2%; Bronx: CO - 5%, HC 4%,
NOx - 2%; Brooklyn: CO - 7%, HC 5%, NO* - 3%;
Queens: CO - 8%, HC - 6%, NOx - 3%; Richmond:
CO - 15%, HC - 12%, NOX - 5%.
Time to Implement:
Location Affected:
By January 1, 1974, jthe retrofit device or devices should be
selected and implementation can begin. Full implementation
should be completed by January, 1975.
The primary impact of this strategy will be felt in the CBD's
where'motor vehicle pollution is most severe, since these areas
are where truck activity is concentrated. (SEE: "Projected
Impact")
Technical Feasibility: Since no emission controls have been employed on this class
of vehicles to date the potential for emission reduction is
great. Development studies must be pursued, however, to
demonstrate device effectiveness. The Bureau of Motor
Vehicle Pollution Control of the New York City Department
of Air Resources is currently engaged in such a study. It
£-3
-------
#2-2
appears necessary that & general restriction of lead in
gasoline will also be required to minimize deterioration
of retrofit devices.
Institutional Feasibility: Any retrofit program is dependent on periodic inspec-
tion and maintenance since controls will not generally
compensate for engine malfunction. There may be
trucking industry opposition to imposition of combined
inspection and retrofit requirements. We must also
provide a mechanism for retrofitting those trucks not
registered in NYC but which do business in NYC. Many
such vehicles cross over from New Jersey daily. Suit-
able arrangements must be made with the State of New
Jersey and the Port of New York Authority,
Implementing Agent: The state Departments of Motor Vehicles and Transportation are
now responsible for safety inspection of trucks. They would
also be responsible for emissions inspection and presumably for
retrofit requirements, with technical guidance from the State
Department of Environmental Conservation.
Legal Authority: Authority for annual inspection of all vehicles now exists.
Legislation is being proposed to amend the State Vehicle and
Traffic Law to require more frequent inspections as required by
greater mileage accumulation by commercial vehicles. Authority
for requiring retrofitting is a separate issue and is also being
sought through amendment of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Action Required: State legislation must amend law to provide for mandatory retro-
fitting and more frequent inspection of commercial vehicles.
Arrarigements must be made with the Port of New York Authority
(probably also in the form of legislation) to impose the strategy
on vehicles entering the State at NYC river crossings. The NYC
Bureau of Motor Vehicle Pollution Control must prove effectiveness
of retrofit technology. To insure cooperation of commercial
interests a mechanism must be set up in the form of educational
programs for fleet owners and mechanics and general public infor-
mation effort.
Enforcement: Vehicles equipped with retrofit emission controls would be appropriately
marked. The New York City Police Department would issue tickets to
drivers of trucks not bearing the sticker. Vehicles registered in the
city would be denied re-registration without a retrofit sticker. The
Port of New*York Authority would charge a daily use fee of $25.00 for
a vehicle not retrofitted which passes through a tunnel or over a
bridge to the city.
Relationship to Other Strategies: Implementation would be greatly facilitated by
Strategy #4, Emissions Inspection of Heavy Duty
Vehicles.
E-4
-------
#2 - 3
Expected Costs to Implement: Direct costs of bookkeeping involved in issuance of
stickers: $150,000 per year; enforcement efforts:
$100,000 per year; education programs: $100,000 per
year; revenue from fines and daily permits: $500,000
per year. Indirect costs include an initial cost of
$100 and an annual maintenance cost of $40 per vehicle.
Studies Required: Completion of device evaluation by Bureau of Motor Vehicle Pol-
lution Control.
Implementation Schedule: By July, 1973 have legislation to authorize implementation.
By January, 1974 devices should be evaluated and approved.
By January, 1975 installation should be required and enforce-
ment begun. , *
E-5
-------
Strategy #3: Thrice-yearly Emissions Inspection of All Livery Vehicles
Discussion: All combustion engines and all known emission control
devices for these engines require periodic maintenance,
and the only way to ensure that it is performed is to
inspect the vehicles on a periodic basis. Furthermore,
vehicle fuel economy and drivabilitj tend to improve as
emission control devices deteriorate and there is a builtin
tendency to either allow deterioration to take place or to
deliberately disconnect these devices. Therefore periodic
inspection is essential to assure continued functioning of
control devices.
Efforts to control livery vehicles are particularly
important for the Manhattan Midtown CBD where they
represent about 70% of annual vehicle miles travelled.
Goal: To insure livery vehicles comply with federal exhaust emission
standards.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement:
Location Affected:
After administrative approval inspection facilities
can be readied in four months. .Effectiveness will
be gradual and dependent upon upgrading of mechanics
which would require extensive training programs.
Will have its major effect in Midtown Manhattan where
taxicab mileage is highest and motor vehicle pollu-
tion is very severe.
Technical Feasibility:
The Taxi and Limousine Commission in cooperation
with the NYC Department of Air Resources, have
designed a centralized safety, emission, noise
and meter inspection facility with a capacity
sufficient for all livery activities. A suitable
building has been obtained for the facility
(it has been leased by the City with an option
to buy) and can be ready for operation within ,
six months of project approval.
E-G
-------
- 2 -
Institutional Feasibility: The livery service industry is opposed to
outside control and has, so far, been
successful in delaying implementation of
this program. The recent Board of Estimate
decision to reject the current proposal for
a central inspection facility (the least
costly design) is one indication of the
problems to be faced in implementing this
control strategy.
Implementing Agent: NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission
Legal Authority: Exists
Action Required: Must secure funding. The Taxi and Limousine Commission
with the assistance of the Mayor's office will resubmit
another proposal to the Board of Estimate and to the
City Council for their consideration. The T & LC must
prepare a series of designs to show the comparative
costs of centralized versus de-centralized facilities
and they and the NYC EPA must "sell" this program to
those City officials, that have previously opposed
such a program. At the same time the City and the
State DEC must meet with all livery service interests
to discuss the issues. Of particular importance here
is the preparation and distribution of a document
describing the need for an emissions test facility,
the benefits available to the industry and to the City
and the projected costs.
Enforcement: Responsibility of the Taxi and Limousine Commission with
periodic facility checks by the City's Bureau of Motor
Vehicle Pollution Control.
Relationship to Other Strategies: Independent
Expected Cost:
Studies Required:
Implementstion Schedule:
E-7
-------
Strategy #4: Heavy Duty Vehicle Emission Inspection
Discussion: Engine deterioration results in severe increases in the
emission rates of vehicles in use. Periodic emissions
inspection identifies those vehicles which need maintenance
to minimize emission rates. Inspection standards would be
set according to vehicle age and size and would recognize
three additional categories.
(a) 1974 and later model vehicles would be inspected to
assure continued compliance with federal standards
applicable when new and for the "useful life" of the
vehicle.
(b) Retrofitted vehicles would oe inspected to determine
presence of approved control device and compliance
with emission standards.
(c) Vehicles for which retrofit was not mandated would
have to meet emission standards established as con-
sistent with reasonable maintenance of vehicles in
the size, engine type, and age class.
Because the high mileage accumulation typical of commercial
vehicles causes an annual emissions contribution out of
proportion to their number, emissions inspection should be
required twice yearly.
Goal: Insure that the commercial vehicle population complies with
Federal emission standards where they exist and with reasonable
minimum levels in the absence of applicable Federal regulations.
Emissions Reduction Potential: As a strategy distinct from mandatory
retrofitting inspection would reduce the
commercial vehicle population average
emission rate for CO and HC by 5 to
from present levels.
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
City-wide air quality improvements would
be 1 to 2% for CO and HC and CBD
improvements up to 5% for CO and
somewhat less for HC.
Time to Implement:
Location Affected:
A year will be required to develop inspection
procedures and the legal authority. Construction
of facilities and program start-up would require a
year. Inspection should begin in January 1975.
Will have maximum effect on the total emission
levels and air quality in CBD's throughout the City.
E-8
-------
- 2 -
Technical Feasibility: Appropriate test cycles and emission rate
standards must be developed, but this will not
be a difficult or lengthy process.
Institutional Feasibility: Although this strategy is consistent with
present safety inspection policies of the
State Departments of Motor Vehicles and
Transportation, and the Public Service
Commission, there are indications that the
state legislature may not adopt the program
because of the fiscal situation and possible
political opposition. Trucking interests,
including not only unions and drivers but
also shippers and receivers, may be expected
to oppose this legislation.
There is a major institutional loophole in
the strategy in that a large number of trucks
registered in New Jersey do business in NYC.
Present law requires NYS registration for
any vehicle which carries goods between two
points both in the state, but enforcement is
very difficult. This potential loophole can
be closed by a sticker system as proposed
under strategy #2, Heavy Duty Vehicle Retrofit,
or by a reciprocal law in New Jersey.
Implementing Agent: State Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Service
Coranission.
Legal Authority: Legislation is being sought to expand the present
safety inspection requirements to cover ^missions and
at more frequent (twice-annual) intervals.
Action Required: The State Legislature must amend the Vehicle and
Traffic Law and the Public Service Law to require
emissions inspections and twice-yearly inspections.
A cooperative or reciprocal law must be established
in New Jersey. The USEPA must develop emissions test
procedures for medium (6000 to 16000 pounds, GVW) and
heavy (over 16000 pounds GVW) duty vehicles. The NYC
Bure.au of Motor Vehicle Pollution Control can provide
technical assistance on this matter.
Enforcement: The responsibility belongs to the State Department of
Motor Vehicles and the State Public Service Commission
through their powers to issue inspection stickers pre-
requisite to registration.
E-9
-------
- 3 -
Relationship to Other Strategies: This strategy would support strategy
#2, Heavy Duty Vehicle Retrofit.
Expected Costs to Implement: Direct costs to set up and run an emissions
inspection program for heavy duty vehicles
registered in NYC are estimated to be:
capital construction $1 million; annual
operation $500,000.
Indirect costs based on increased main-
tenance costs to vehicle owners are
impossible to calculate and would be at
least partially offset by improved operating
efficiency of the vehicles.
Studies Required: Test procedure development by federal EPA and by NYC
Bureau of Motor Vehicle Pollution Control. Emissions
survey to establish standards by state Department of
Environmental Conservation by NYC BMVPC.
Implementation Schedule: By July, 1973, legislative authority to conduct
emissions inspections twice-yearly, and start
of emissions survey of heavy duty vehicles. By
January 1974 begin construction of facility,
purchase of equipment and hiring of personnel.
January 1975 begin inspections.
E-10
-------
Sa-1
Strategy ttSa; Passenger Vehicle Emission Inspection
Discussion: The use of private passenger vehicles is much lesser than that of
commercial vehicles in the congested central business districts where
automotive emissions are most significant. The "city-wide" pattern of
usage of these vehicles, however, cannot permit these sources to be
ignored. Passenger cars should comp'.y with the appropriate Federal
new car certification standards. Since these increasingly stringent
standards have resulted in more compleJt control systems, proper mainte-
nance and adjustments are of great importance. An annual emissions
inspection is the surest method to assure this maintenance and to avoid
excessive emissions.
Goal: Ensure that passenger vehicles comply with Federal emission standards.
Emissions Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
If the passenger vehicles are not maintained so as
to effect continued emission rates within the new
car standards, the anticipated yearly decreases in
exhaust emissions resulting from normal vehicle
turnover should be expected to be reduced by one-
half.
In the absence of strategies altering total vehicl
miles travelled, average operating speed, and
vehicle mode mix, and assuming normal vehicle turr
over emissions inspection would assure the impact
attributed to Strategy #1 , vehicle turnover. In
the absence of this strategy, those improvements
by 1977 would be cut by about half to: CO - 20%,
HC - 13%, NOx - 8%.
Time to Implement: Given approval by the legislature by July, 1973, construction oi
the system could be completed by July of 1974 and the inspectioi
system could be fully functioned" by January, 1975. However,
effectiveness is dependent upon the ability of service industry
to respond by training mechanics and technicians. Though this
effort already has been started voluntarily by the industry, it
will probably take two years to reach full effectiveness.
Location Affected: The impact would be area-wide but would be greatest primarily i
non-CBD areas where passenger cars represent a large part of to
vehicle miles travelled.
Technical Feasibility:
Equipment is readily available and there is enough experier
in this field to determine an appropriate quick test proce-
dure. Since emissions testing would be an expensive progre
it would be advantageous to establish inspection stations t.
testing could be done on an assembly line basis rather thar
by service stations or garages.
£-11
-------
5a-2
Institutional Feasibility: State legislature is apparently opposed for budgeting
reasons. The auto clubs may be opposed. The State
Departments of Motor Vehicles and Environmental Conser-
vation favor setting up a system.
Implementing Agent: State Department of Motor Vehicles with technical guidance of
State Department of Environmental Conservation and New York
City of Air Resources.
Legal Authority: Authority for enforcing emissions standards at periodic safety
inspection now exists. Authority to establish system of stations
on a franchise basis is being sought through amendment of the State
Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Action Required: Passage of enabling legislation for franchise operation. Securing
of capital to construct system. The Clean Air Act states that
Federal support may be provided for up to 2/3's the cost of
constructing and operating the system. Pressure should be brought
to bear on Congress to authorize expenditure of funds to support
the New York State program. This requires State/Federal lobbying
by the New York City Division of Air Resources and the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Enforcement: State Department of Motor Vehicles with assistance from New York City
Police Department in metropolitan area.
Relationship to Other Strategies: This strategy is important for the effectiveness
of Strategy #1, Vehicle Turnover.
Expected Costs to Implement: Direct Costs; It is estimated that 64 testing lanes
are needed to test all light duty passenger vehicles
in New York City. Capital construction costs would be
$8.3 million; annual operating co.sts would be $4.5
million. The per vehicle inspection cost would be
about $3.00.
Indirect Costs; If it is assumed that 475,000 passenger
vehicles fail the inspection in 1975 (approx. failure
rate 33%) and are repaired at an average cost of $20 per
vehicle, the total cost to vehicle owners would be $9.5
million. Some of this expenditure would be offset by
improved operating efficiency.
Studies Required: Establishment of vehicle population emissions baseline upon which
standards for older vehicles will be based (1972 and later model
vehicles are warranted to meet federal standards).
Implementation Schedule: By July, 1973 passage of legislation for franchise operation.
By January, 1974 begin construction. January, 1975 begin
emissions inspection prerequisite to re-registration.
E-12
-------
Strategy 5b: Mechanic Training
Discussion: All strategies aimed at control of vehicle emission rates are dependent
on the capability of the automotive service industry to provide necessary
maintenance of the vehicle populations affected. The industry is
presently overloaded and mechanics generally do not know how and are not
motivated to repair or tune engines for emissions reduction. It is thus
essential that special programs be undertaken to train and motivate the
service industry.
Goal: To achieve minimum emission rates from vehicles in use.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Without adequate mechanic training none of the other
vehicle emission control-strategies will achieve their
projected emissions reductions. Thus, without this
strategy the reductions from these other strategies
will be about one-half that given.
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Similarly, without mechanic training, air quality
improvements of the other strategies will be cut
to about one-half.
Time to Implement: Preparation of training materials and programs will require six
months. Training can then begin immediately and the present
mechanic population can be exposed to the program to a greater
or lesser extent within two years. Thereafter this will become
a regular part of the mechanic's training.
Location Affected: Entire area.
Technical Feasibility: Development of optimum teaching techniques will require some
experience.
Institutional Feasibility: There may be some opposition from older mechanics who are
required to undergo training or who may be displaced by
others trained in school.
Implementing Agent: New York City Division of Air Resources and New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation.
Legal Authority: None required unless certification of mechanics is instituted.
This possibility is being investigated.
Action Required: Preparation of text and film materials, hiring of instructors, and
scheduling of training programs.
Enforcement: The market place will enforce this strategy as vehicle owners, forced
to meet emission standards, seek mechanics trained (and possibly
certified) for emission system repairs.
Relationship to Other Strategies: This strategy is crucial for the success of ail
the other vehicle emission control strategies.
E-13
-------
5b-2
Expected Costs to Implement: Direct costs for materials $100,000 initially; for
instructors $100,000 per year.
Studies Required: None
Implementation Schedule: Prepare materials and hire and train instructors by
July, 1973; July, 1973, begin retraining and training
programs; January, 1975 phase-out retraining.
E-14
-------
Strategy 5c: Diesel Bus Maintenance and Inspection
Discussion: Improperly maintained diesel buses emit significant
amounts of smoke and foul smelling gases. In fact,
the great majority of citizen complaints about mobile
source emissions concern buses. The most effective
means of reducing smoke and oder from these vehicles
is an effective maintenance program enforced through
mandatory inspections.
Goal: Reduce smoke and odor from diesel buses.
Emission Reduction Potential: Noxious smoke and odors from diesel
buses can be largely eliminated by
a program of effective maintenance.
t
Projected Impact on Air Quality: Minimal on an areawide basis but
very substantial in terms of per-
ceived improvement.
Time to Implement: Improved maintenance can be initiated immediately;
inspection procedures will not be available until
1974.
Location Affected: Will affect all areas of the city which are people-
congested because it is here that bus use is most
dense,
Technical Feasibility: With proper training of fleet mechanics, proper
repair and adjustment should ba routine.
Institutional Feasibility: No difficulty. MTA presently has authority.
Implementing Agent: Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Legal Authority: MTA has the authority.
Action Required: Convince MTA to adopt such a program.
Enforcement: MTA
Relationship to Other Strategies: Independent.
E-15
-------
Strategy #6 - Strict enforcement of existing traffic regulations
Discussion: Many laws now exist which would, if properly enforced,
would reduce congestion. Also, there are regulations
authorizing bus priorities on certain avenues in
Manhattan. These laws include prohibition of taxi
cruising, entering full intersections, making
forbidden turns, etc.
Goal: To insure that existing traffic regulations are enforced,
in order to ease the flow of traffic.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement: Immediately for moving violations. Intersection
and parking control requires additional staff,
which could probably be deployed within 6 months.
Location Affected: Moving Violations: whole city. Parking Violations
and Intersection Control: at first, congested
CBD areas in all five boroughs, then the whole
city if required.
Technical Feasibility: No problems.
Institutional Feasibility: Would require more traffic manpower.
Creation of a paraprofessional traffic
enforcement group would virtually be
a necessity, since street crime is the
current focus of police wbrk.
Implementing Agent: Police Department, with support from the Mayor.
N.Y.C. Traffic Department should be included.
Legal Authority: Since statutes are existing, new authority is
not required.
Action Required: Contact must be made with the Department of Traffic
and the Police Department, in order to set up
enforcement implementation schedule.
Enforcement: Police superiors must take responsible charge of their
men and paraprofessionals, if any. NYS D.E.C. dnd NYC
D.A.R. wzll make periodic checks.
Relationship to Other Strategies:
7. Banning all Cars in CBD 11. Regulating Vehicle Mix
8. Parking Reduction 12. Motor Vehicle User Fees
9. Through-Movement Streets 23. Consolidation
10. Exclusive Bus Lanes 25. After-Hours Goods Delivery
E-16
-------
Strategy #6 - continued
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Costs:
Indirect costs:
Studies Required: None
Implementation Schedule:
E-17
-------
Strategy #7 - Banning of private automobiles from the central
business districts of Manhattan during the work day.
Discussion: There can be no talk of genuine environmental concern
without introducing this most fundamental method of
motor vehicle pollution control. Removing the source
of emissions and freeing congestion for essential
vehicles so that each of them pollutes less is clearly
the most fundamental control strategy. The removal of
the 15% of the vehicle population comprised of private
cars will greatly facilitate flow of more essential
vehicles, such as emergency vehicles, buses, and trucks.
Goal: To reduce vehicle congestion in CBD's.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement:
Location Affected:
Ninety days' warning should be sufficient.
Additional time might be necessary should
the opposition seek injunctive relief.
The area of Manhattan south of 61st Street,
with the following exceptions: (1) the FDR
Drive; (2) the West Side Highway; (3) a well-
defined minimum path between the Midtown Tun-
nel and the FDR Drive, the Lincoln and Holland
Tunnels to the West Side Highway, and the 59th
Street Bridge to the FDR Drive.
Technical Feasibility:
Initially large congestion, especially
around Manhattan Island, is expected. It
is also expected that sufficient trip dim-
inution will occur so that congestion will
not remain unbearable for long. It is felt
that traffic patterns will readjust to min-
imize stress, and that traffic will there-
fore proceed in an orderly fashion to avoid
Manhattan.
Institutional Feasibility:
Strong opposition expected from Brooklyn
and Queens Borough Presidents, American
Automobile Association (Auto. Clubf of
N.Y.), and operators of gasoline stations
and parking garages in Manhattan. Demon-
stration of advantages may assuage Boro
Presidents; documentation of costs df
autos to non-drivers will probably be
essential to blunt the force of the AAA.
Compensation under eminent domain will be
required to satisfy businesses dependent
E-18
-------
Strategy #7 - continued
Institutional Feasibility: on automobile servicing. Negotiation
required for MD's, DPL's, FC's. City
vehicles that are not emergency vehicles
(fire, police, etc.) would be included
in the ban.
Implementing Agent: Mayor's Office and Department of Traffic.
Legal Authority: Exists.
Action Required: Technical committee must be designated from EPA,
EDA, TAD (Traffic Dept. and Planning Office), CPC,
and Mayor's Office, Committee will prepare imple-
mentation work program for" submission to Mayor.
Committee will also plan alternate routing strategic
for cars and devise information dissemination plan
for alerting drivers to public transit options.
Compensate by instituting additional express bus
routes. Prepare rebuttal to opposition; if necessar
institute injunctive reiief (prior to filing). Majc
public information job required.
Enforcement: Department of Traffic,
Relationship to Other Strategies:
16 Enforcement til Regulating Vehicle Mix
#8 Parking Reduction (contingency) f!2 Motor Vehicle User Fees
i9 Through-Movement Streets if2 5 After-Hours Goods
(contingency) Delivery (contingency)
131 University Liaison
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Costs:
Indirect Costs:
Studies Required: Demonstration project would be more promising
than a study.
Implementation Schedule:
E-19
-------
Strategy 18 - Reduction in the /cumber of parking spaces in CBD's,
either by fiat or by punitive taxation (example: 100
percent parking tax). Elimination of all on-street
parking in CBD during business hours, and incentives
to garage operators to abandon existing off-street lots
of critical locations. Freeze on granting new permits
to operate off-street lots. Concomitant effort to
develop city-wide parking policy with approval of all
concerned agencies is absolutely essential to success
of this control strategy.
Discussion: This strategy is a contingency plan to f7, the banning
of all cars from CBD during business hours. However,
there is a further disincentive included for non-
business hours and weekends: there will be fewer places
where one will be able to park his car, since off-street
lots will be reduced in number. This will also provide
a disincentive to own or use a car in Manhattan. .Must
be accompanied by peripheral parking facilities at
transit interchanges, kiss-ride stations, etc.
Goal: To reduce vehicle congestion in CBD's.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement: Extensive litigation from garage operators
expected; however, other implementation times
are minimal. Sixty day warning should be
sufficient with good media coverage.
Location Affected: First phase: All CBD's. Second phase: Entire
city.
Technical Feasibility: No technical problems. Manhattanites who
insist on having cars will have to simply
pay higher garage rates, or store them out-
side of Manhattan where there is more room
for their storage and operation.
Institutional Feasibility: AAA and garage operators will pxofcpbly
complain, along with wealthy businessmen.
Unless litigation ensues, there will pro-
bably be just a lot of hard feeling and
little adverse institutional effect.
Public transportation will, o'f course,
have to be promoted and improved and per-
haps the Transit Authority and the MTA can
see here a golden opportunity to "sell" tb*
transit system to the public,
E-20
-------
Strategy #8 - continued
Implementing Agents:
Consumer' Affairs, Dept. of Traffic, Police
Dept.
Legal Authority:
Action Required:
Dept. of Traffic has authority to control on-street
parking. Consumer Affairs Dept. licenses garages.
City Planning Commission has power to condemn.
TAD and EDA should begin to make liaison with
licensing agency for garages (Consumer Affairs),
and prepare economic and transportation arguments
for minimizing parking (DAR can help on this) TAD,
EDA, EPA, CPC, and other interested agencies must
get together to decide on a city-wide parking
strategy, with all agencies' approval. Requires
major selling effort with substantial documentation
supporting concept.
Enforcement: Police Dept. and Consumer Affairs.
Relationship to Other Strategies:
7. Banning all cars (contingency) 13.
9 . Through movement streets 22 .
11. Regulating vehicle mix 24.
12. Motor vehicle user fees 31.
East River tolls
Staggering hours and days
Terminal design
University Liaison
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Costs:
Indirect Costs:
Studies Required: None
Implementation Schedule:
E-21
-------
Strategy 19 - Designation of certain crosstown streets in Manhattan
for through movement only.
Discussion:
Upgrading certain streets to full-fledged arterials
with limited-access seems to be an acceptable alter-
native to freeways slicing through Midtown. However,
this is another contingency plan for banning all cars
during business hours. Here, however, Saturday and
possible Sunday traffic reductions and improvements
could be substantial. Vehicles could not turn off
until reaching the river. All parking would be pro-
hibited from these preferred acpess streets; truck
deliveries would be schedulized and minimized, with
possible relaxation or restrictions on Sundays.
Goal: To reduce vehicle congestion in CBD's.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement: Six months lead time probably necessary.
Negotiation with goodsmovers most crucial.
Location Affected: Midtown and Downtown Manhattan.
Technical Feasibility:
No technical problems with street design.
Truck deliveries could be commuter-schedulized
by existing programs (Parcel-Post, United
Parcel-type, etc.) or by introducing new
programs.
Institutional Feasibility:
Appears that if congestion is relieved,
vehicle users, including truckers, and
pedestrians will accept this strategy.
Major stumbling block will be negotiations
with consignees, shippers, and truckers,
for goods movement access in these streets.
Perhaps partial condemnation, or a tax on
motor vehicle owners (which favors trucks
over cars), might be an acceptable com-
promise. This strategy will have to handle:
very delicately with goods handlers; Taxi
operators will complain, but there should
be no ensuing litigation.
Implementing Agent: Dept. of Traffic
E-22
-------
Strategy #9 - continued
Legal Authority: Exists...Dept. of Traffic has jurisdiction over
street use.
Action Required: Initial contact with Manuel Carballo and Department
of Traffic required. Immediate contact with EDA,
truckers, shippers, and consignees also required.
United Parcel Service should be contacted for app-
roaches to schedulizinc deliveries by all truck
operators. A major restructuring of traffic must
be proceeded by a new traffic plan describing
changes to be implemented, impact of same, etc.
Enforcement: Police Department
Relationship to Other Strategies:
6. Enforcement 13. East River tolls
7. Banning all cars (contingency) 22. Staggering hours and days
8. Parking reduction 25. After-hours goods delivery
10. Exclusive bus lanes 31. University Liaison
11. Regulating vehicle mix
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Costs:
Indirect Cos--r;:
Studies Required: Before-and~after travel time and speea study.
Implementation Schedule:
a. Negotiate with other City agencies
b. Solicit citizen support
c. Design alternative traffic plan
d. implement, etc.
E-23
-------
Strategy 810 - Expand use of exclusive bus lanes.
Discussion: The exclusive bus lane concept has proven to be
successful on a trial section of tteLIE and U.S.
1-495 just as it has been successful in other parts
of the nation. It is a very practical measure to
slow the rate of abandonment of transit by the
public, which feels that in this age of affluence,
no one should ride the subway more than necessary
(example of Queens). The express bus concept may
cause a decline in conventional service ridership,
but in the end it may keep more people on a public
transportation mode. Exclusive' bus lane's must be
instituted as soon as possible on Queens Blvd.,
Grand Concourse, Eastern Parkway, Ocean Parkway,
Pelham Parkway, etc. for peak-direction buses in
one or two lanes of off-peak traffic. LIE exclusive
bus lane should be extended to city line. Negotia-
tions with Nassau County and the NY State D.O.T.
should be undertaken to extend express bus service
(and the exclusive bus lane) to Nassau. All other
major limited-access arterials should demonstrate
exclusive lane^ principle for peak traffic hours,
especially the Van Wyck Expressway to Kennedy Air-
port, and the Grand Central Parkway to LaGuardia
Airport.
Goal: To reduce use of passenger vehicle in CBD's.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement: Six months to organize traffic patterns for
exclusive lanes; one year to negotiate with
Nassau County and a bus operator for Nassau
express routes.
Locations Affected: All major arterial streets and express highways.
Technical Feasibility: Lane control hardware and buses exist today.
However, city must organize traffic patterns
and facilities in Manhattan to accommodate
additional buses.
E-24
-------
Institutional Feasibility: Plan should have wide popular appeal,
especially if travel time is signifi-
cantly reduced"*xf park-and-ride service
is facilitated. The latter option bears
additional study and comment by the
Transportation Administration.
The support of the Carey Bus Lines Co.
should be solicited on the airport routes.
This may be necessary in order to appease
the taxi industry.
Implementing Agent: NYC Transportation Administration, MTA,
Private Operators of Bus Lines.
*
Legal Authority: Exists - NYC Board of Franchises regulates
operation of buses.
Action Required: Meeting between EPA, Traffic, Highways, and the
various express bus operators (Queens Transit,
Steinway Transit (same management), Triboro Coach,
T.A., etc.). T.A.D. Program must be optimized,
traffic plan developed to accept added buses in
Manhattan (perhaps added bus terminals must be
built), etc.
Enforcement: Dept. of Traffic
Relationship to Other Strategies:
5. Enforcement 16. Free Fare
9. Through Movement Streets 18. No Commuter Discounts
11, Regulating Vehicle Mix 19. Reciprocal Fare Agreements
13. East River Tolls 20. Integration of Bus and
14. Marketing of Transit Subway Services
15. Timetable Simplification 22. Staggering Hours and Days
31. University Liaison
Studies Required: None, but a Before-and-After Ridership Study
would produce very useful data.
Implementation Schedule:
E-25
-------
Strategy 111 - Regulating Vehicle Mix.
Discussion: The plan here is to separate the passenger stream
from the goods stream. This would involve restricting
some streets and/or traffic lanes to all but goods
movement traffic. Other streets might be closed off
to goods movement vehicles for certain parts of the
day. In some areas tunneling might be used to bring
trucks below street level for unloading. This concept
can be expanded to separating out vehicles within the
passenger stream itself. Certain streets and/or lanes
could be designated for bus use only, or for passenger
car use only, for all or part of a day. It is hoped
that vehicles that travel in patterns contrary to
designated patterns will be discouraged from operation.
Goal: To remove as many vehicles from the streets as possible
while expediting the flow of those remaining.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement: Six months to decide which streets are to be
used and to install traffic signs. Injuncitve
resistance will increase the time.
Locations Affected: Initially Manhattan South of 61st St./ parti-
cularly in areas like the Garment District.
With further study this can be'done in the CBD's
of other boroughs.
Technical Feasibility: Initially there will be high levels of con-
gestion on streets near the banned streets.
It is expected that sufficient trip diminution
will occur and traffic patterns will readjust
to relieve the higher congestion level.
Institutional Feasibility: Depending upon the number of streets with
traffic restrictions and the location of
these streets there may be varying/amounts
of opposition from automobile or trucking
interests. However if they can be convince
that tradeoffs (e.g. a street/closed to
trucks will expedite auto flow and a street
closed to autos will expedite truck flow)
will ease the congestion situation, support
instead of opposition may be obtained fro*
these groups.
E-26
-------
Implementing Agent: N.Y.C. Department of Traffic, TAD.
Legal Authority: Exists.
Action Required: TAD does analysis for selection of streets and
lanes and hours of closing; Traffic Department
installs signs. In general, a master traffic
plan will be required because of the need^inter-
grate all previous strategies into a single plan.
Enforcement: Department of Traffic, Police'Department.
Relationship to Other Strategies:
16 Enforcement. #22
17 Banning all cars. #23
#8 Parking reduction. §24
#9 Thru movement streets. #25
#10 Exclusive bus lanes. #26
#12 Motor vehicle user fees. #27
#13 East River tolls.
#14 Marketing of transit. #28
#16 Free fare.
#30
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Costs:
Indirect Costs:
Staggering hours and days.
Consolidation.
Terminal design, etc.
After-hours goods delivery.
Partial Condemnation.
Use of rail for transporting
commodities.
Development of waterfront
facilities.
Special truck design for urban
service.
Studies Required:
A study will have to be done to determine the
streets and/or traffic lanes and their hours
of banning certain vehicles. Traffic flow
measurements should be taken before and after
strategy is implemented.
Implementation Schedule:
E-27
-------
Strategy #12 - Motor vehicle user fees: a fee would be charged
on all private and commercial vehicles operating
in or passing through New York City. All funds
would be earmarked for urban public transit.
Discussion: The purpose of this user fee structure would be to
reduce the number of non-essential vehicles in the
City's CBD's, thereby reducing congestion with its
associated air and noise pollution, and provide
freedom of movement for those vehicles that must
remain in the City. The fee would vary with type
of vehicle, vehicle weight, and whetheror not veh-
icle would be able to park in a CBD or just pass
through. This measure would help insure that motor
vehicles pay a larger share of the costs they in-
flict upon the City.
Goal: Reduce vehicle congestion, VMT, improve alternative transit
modes.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement; Ninety days notice should be sufficient but
extensive litigation from many fact/ofls would
cause long delays. Construction of additional
parking facilities outside CBD's will take
several years.
Location Affected: Entire City; all vehicles (in arijd out of state) .
Technical Feasibility: All vehicles would be assigned a numbered
color-coded window sticker identifying the
type of activity allowed within the City
of New York. Peripheral parking facilities
with connecting bus service must be provided
at key points outside CBD's (e.g. 42nd St.
Port Authority parking facility).
Institutional Feasibility: The strong opposition that will come from
many factions in the City (e.g. vehicle
owners, American Automobile Association,
trucking associations, etci will have to be
overcome. The mechanism for fee collection
will have to be set-up.
E-28
-------
Implementing Agent:
NYC Bureau of the Budget/City Council, State
Legislature, NY State Dept. of Motor Vehicles.
Legal Authority:
Action Required:
Legislation supporting such action must be passed
by State Legislature.
After public notice of procedure, set up the fee
collection apparatus. The NYS Department of Motor
Vehicles could collect the fee at yearly vehicle
registration. The NYC Bureau of the Budget is
currently considering vehicle user fees as a mechan-
ism for generating substantial transit dollars.
Report due by end of 1972. Must develop justifi-
cation to support such action (DAR).
Enforcement: NY State Dept. of Motor Vehicles.
Relationship to Other Strategies:
#6 Enforcement.
#7 Banning all cars.
#8 Parking reduction.
#11 Regulating vehicle mix.
113 East River tolls.
#18 No commuter discounts.
122 Staggering hours and days.
#23 Consolidation.
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Costs:
Indirect Costs:
Studies Required: None.
Implementation Schedule;
E-29
-------
Strategy 113 - Imposition of tolls on all East River bridges and
Harlem River bridges. Toll would be $1 into city,
free away from Manhattan.
Discussion: The Tri-State Regional Planning Commission has discovered
that there is significant diversion of tripmaking from
tolls bridges to free bridges, as a result of the increase
in bridge tolls, in January, 1972. This means more excess
vehicle-miles of travel, resulting in higher pollution.
Furthermore, there is a further pollution increase due
to traffic being diverted in this way from high-quality
limited-access arterials to lower quality arterials.
Tolls are subject to change for carpools, off-peak use,
buses, etc. The exclusive-lane concept for bridge cros-
sings and approach roads might be coordinated with a
variable toll system.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement: One month lead time, plus time required for
construction of bridge plazas (approximately
one year).
Location Affected: All East River Bridges and Harlem River bridges.
Technical Feasibility: No technical problems, other than the problem
of locating the toll plazas and providing for
the additional traffic backlog. (Since only
one side is affected traffic tie-up should be
minimized). It is anticipated that travel on
the newly-tolled bridges will drop substantially
from present levels.
Institutional Feasibility: Everybody is opposed to the measure especi-
ally the Borough Presidents of Queens and
Brooklyn and the Auto Club of New York.
However, earmarking the tolls for mass
transit to the affected boroughs, emphasizir.
service improvements, might sweeten the
appeal of the project.
Implementing Agent: TAD/ MTA.
Legal Authority: Legislation required for some bridgesj ex.ists for
others.
Action Required: Prepare necessary background materials, supporting
documentation, etc., (DAR). TAD must meet with the
Borough Presidents of the affected boroughs, and pre-
pare an alternative traffic plan to accommodate any
proposed changes in traffic flow patterns. State
legislature must act to approve added tolls.
E-30
-------
Enforcement: Once established, self-regulating.
Relationship to Other Strategies:
I8 Parking reduction. 814 Marketing of transit.
19 Thru Movement streets. #18 No commuter discounts.
§10 Exclusive bus lanes. 122 Staggering hours and days,
111 Regulating vehicle mix. #31 Univeristy Lisison.
§12 Motor vehicle user fees.
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Costs:
Indirect Costs:
Studies Required: To measure traffic flow over the bridges before
and after imposition of tolls.
Implementation Schedule:
E-31
-------
Strategy #14 - Marketing Public'Transit System.
Discussion: Promote the marketing of bus, subway, commuter rail,
and intercity non-automobile modes. Point up hidden
direct costs to vehicle owners/ as well as the hassles
involved in driving and parking in congested situations.
This strategy is in keeping with some old policies of
the Transit Authority, e.g. The subway Sun "newsletter"
on old trains announcing special services; running of
extra trains to Shea Stadium on game days; former running
of extra express trains to Rockaway Beach, etc. Chicago
and North Western Railway in Chicago has proven that a
commuter-oriented railroad, which provides excellent,
reliable service at reasonable prices, can succeed and
even make a profit. The goal should not be for transit
to make a profit; it should be to maximize acceptability
and ridership and divert passengers from motor vehicles.
Goal: To divert passengers from automobiles into public transit.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement: Immediately.
Location Affected? Entire Tri-State region.
Technical Feasibility: No technical problems.
Institutional Feasibility: Very high, provided that the T.A. is
willing to suffer possible losses in the
first few years in order to make a larger
profit later. The downgrading of public
transit has been long-standing, and its
image will not be completely repairable
overnight. For the subway and other listed
transit modes, there should be a willingnes;
on the part of management to offer strong
new incentives, such as AMTRAK is trying-
Implementing Agent: !FAD, MTA, and private bus operators.
Legal Authority: None required.
Action Required:
Contact with Leonard Ingalls of TA and with MTA
planners required, EDA and TAD should also be
involved in negotiations. Private-citizens groups
such as I.P.T. should be invited to participate
in designing an advertising strategy, including
E-32
-------
Action Required: preparation of a questionnaire designed to reveal
(con't) preferences people have for public transportation
services. Success will depend on actions taken
by MTA to improve existing physical plant instead
of more glamorous expansion program. Must insist
on such policy changes. Requires support from
Governor's Office. Suggest that State DEC begin
discussions with Rockefeller/Ronan to secure support.
Enforcement: TAD should monitor policy changes and ridership growth.
#13
Relationship to Other Strategies:
Exclusive bus lanes-
Regulating vehicle mix.
East River tolls.
Timetable Simplification,
Free-fare.
Advance fare payment.
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Costs:
Indirect Costs:
#18.
^19.
#20.
-#22
No 'commuter discounts .
Reciprocal fare agreements.
Integration of bus and
subway services.
Transit rehabilitation.
Staggering hours and days/.
University Liaison for researc
Studies Required:
Marketing studies with business schools and
advertising agencies would be desirable.
Implementation Schedule:
E-33
-------
Strategy §15 - Timetable Simplification
Discussion: Rearrangement of transit timetables for easy remembrance
of schedules. Publishing of TA timetables, and making
them available instantly to telephone inquirers. (Tie
in with marketing effort suggested in #14). According
to the evidence presented by the Chicago and North
Western Railway, a Chicago commuter railroad, the public
is willing to sacrifice some headway benefits for stream-
lined schedules. For example, if a train leaves every
ten minutes at a fixed time/ the public might well be
more satisfied than if the headways change over a relat-
ively short period of time, say from every eight minutes
to every eleven minutes over two hours. Every other
major city in America publishes its timetables, either at
bus stops or posted with a well-publicized transit
information number.
Goal: To improve public transit to attract people out of cars.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement: One month preliminary work (writing up timetables
for publication, etc.). Ninety days' intensive
advertising an information number (which should
be separate from main TA business number). Con-
tinuous posting of schedules at subway stations
and major bus stops, with updating as required.
Location Affected: Entire Tri-State region, especially N.Y.C.
Technical Feasibility: No technical problems.
Institutional Feasibility: Precedent seems to be the only bar to
this king of effort, although operating
funds are at a deficit. Suggest obtaining
a demonstration grant from the OMTA for
setting up a model public information pro-
gram for the nation.
Implementing Agent: MTA and private bus operators.
Legal Authority: None required.
Action Required: TAD should immediately contact the TA and follow
up on these recommendations. If the TA reneges,
the case should be taken to the public for comment.
Contact UMTA to solicit interest in program.
E-34
-------
Enforcement: Bureau of Franchises and TAD should follow up.
Relationship to Other Strategies:
£10. Exclusive bus lanes. $19. Reciprocal fare agreements.
114. Marketing of transit, $20. Integration of bus and
subway services,
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Costs:
Indirect Costs:
Studies Required:
Implementation Schedule:
E-35
-------
Strategy 116 - Offering a much-reduced or "free" fare on transit
modes to be funded by general revenues, a trans-
portation surtax, and/or auto user fees. Lacking
a "free" fare, a low transfer cost between existing
no-transfer buses and between buses and subways
should be instituted.
Discussion: The free-fare argument has been advanced as a better
way to raise operating revenues, as well as to improve
payment distribution. The riaer is not the only bene-
factor of the transit system, yet by law his fare-box
revenue must meet all operating costs. Public transit
is of vital importance to the business community, which
should help pay transit's bills more directly.
Goal: To increase use of public transit to get people out of the
habit of using cars.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Qualtiy:
Time to Implement: Approximately one year of research and negotia-
tions should be sufficient to implement this
proposal.
Location Affected: All N.Y.C. transit modes in the five boroughs.
Technical Feasibility: No technical problems. Tax witholdings,
if any/ will be made according to existing
procedures.
Institutional Feasibility:
It. is obvious that such a measure represents
a very radical departure from traditional
transit funding practices in New York.
Other cities, such as Atlanta, Seattle,
and cities in the 'San Francisco Bay Area,
have instituted direct transit taxation,
resulting (in the case of Atlanta) in
reduction of actual user fares. Commerce,
California has a bus service entirely free
to the user. Nevertheless, one should
expect opposition from businesses' (including
office buildings and department stores) in
the CBD and other locations well-served by
public transit. Unions would be concerned
about loss of "-jobs for railroad/clerks, etc.
A tax-withholding system, while easily
possible, of financing transit may spur a
"taxpayers' revolt" against paying for a
service some may not use. However, such a
scheme might also get people to leave their
E-36
-------
Institutional Feasibility: cars,on weekends, in order to use a transit
(con't) system they already have paid for.
Implementing Agent: MTA, State legislature, N.Y.C. Budget Bureau.
Legal Authority:
Action Required: Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, TAD, EDA,
Budget, City Planning, and EPA should meet with
MTA to discuss feasibility. Free-fare advocates
such as Robert Abrams should be called in to discuss
implementation and experience of free-fare in
other cities. Citizens groups should be contacted
for support. The combinet.; on o': vehicle user fees
and a transit tax could oi.ily provide sufficient
funds.
Enforcement: MTA
Relationship to Other Strategies: (contingent).
#10. Exclusive bus lanes- #19. Reciprocal fare agreements A
§11. Regulating vehicle mix, #20. Integration of bus and subway
#14 Marketing of transit. services (contingent).
#17. Advanced fare payment #21. Transit rehabilitation.
(contingent). #31. University iaison for research.
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Costs:
Indirect Costs:
Studies Required:
Implementation Schedule:
E-37
-------
Strategy 117 - Initiation of advance payment of fares not only for
commuting services, but for other trips as well.
Example: Extension of validity of MTA 10-trip railroad
tickets from 30 days to one year, and offering of
sales of such tickets by mail.
Discussion: For the T.A. facilities, this would be a contingency
plan for #16 (free-fare). There is no reason that pre-
payment of transit fare is not feasible. People would
tend to ride more to get "their money's worth." Perhaps
some of the social costs could somehow be reimbursed to
the T.A. since added transit ridership would result in
freer movement of traffic, the need for less traffic
police, etc.
Goal: To get people to use public transit instead of automobiles.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement: Ninety-day lead time to set up machinery for
issuance of "passes" and advance-fare payment
receipting.
Location Affected: Entire Tri-state region.
Technical Feasibility: Some additional personnel required for staf-
fing a central receiving and mailing office
for passes. Some of these personnel can be
diverted from token booths, viz. at some of
the busier subway stations in the morning and
evening.
Institutional Feasibility: Good probability of implementation if a
free-fare idea does not develop first. If
fare collection is smoothed out at the
operating end, and centralized in the
front office, a better passenger inventory
control can be kept.
Implementing Agent: MTA
Legal Authori-y: None required.
Action Required: Specific strategies and reduced-fare pass arrange-
ments must be devised. This should be done in/
concert with the EDA, HRA, TA, TAD, and citizen
rider groups.
E-38
-------
Enforcement: Self-enforcing (MTA)
Relationship to Other Strategies:
#14. Marketing of transit.
§16. Free-fare (contingent).
#21. Transit rehabilitation.
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Costs:
Indirect Costs:
Studies Required: MTA feasibility study will probably be required.
Implementation Schedule:
E-39
-------
Strategy S18 - Elimination of commuter discount on Port Authority
trans-Hudson facilities. Earmarking of tolls for
public transportation service.
Discussion: Commuter discounts encourage use of highway facilities
at the time when they are the most congested. The
incremental expense to society to accommodate these
cars at the peak period is exceptionally high. They
should, therefore, pay their own way, and support the
public transportation that forestalls the entire collapse
of the congested highway network.
Goal: To get people to use public transit instead of automobiles.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement: Elimination of discounts may be done immediately.
Earmarking of tolls will required extensive negot-
iation with the P.A. and with the governors of
two states.
Location Affected: Trans-Hudson river crossings (Outerbridge crossing
to George Washington Bridge).
Technical Feasibility: There should be either a reduction in auto
traffic, an increase in revenue for public
transportation, or both. Thus, the output
is better in every way. Certainly no tech-
nical problems.
Institutional Feasibility: The Port Authority has been loath to
curb usage. However, the discount elimin-
ation will be acceptable to the Authority
since it is very likely that the effect
this will have will be to increase P.A.
revenues. The AAA will be opposed, and
there may be some diversion of workers fron
NYC to New Jersey. While this is regrettabl
there will much more likely be a diversion
of some trips to the improved transit
system that will result from the approp-
riation of earmarked funds, which1 is
certainly desirable. Furthermore, any
cars removed from the P.A. facilities in
the peak hours will be functionally desir-
able.
E-40
-------
Implementing Agent: P.A.
Legal Authority: Authority rests in the hands of the P.A., to
be reviewed by the legislatures of New York
and New Jersey.
Action Required: EPA Region II office should approach the Port
Authority as soon as possible. The Clean Air
Act can be used as a lever in negotiation. Bi-
State legislature action required.
Relationship to Other Strategies:
#10. Exclusive bus lanes- £13. East River tolls.
til. Regulating vehicle mix, 814. Marketing of transit..
#12. Motor vehicle user fees.
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Costs:
Indirect Costs:
Studies Required: None required.
Implementation Schedule:
E-41
-------
Strategy #19 - Reciprocal fare agreements between different transit
companies and different divisions of the same company.
Competing transit should be steamlined and rebundant
service eliminated.
Discussion: New York City is one of the few places that does not
have a consistent transfer policy. There is no transfer
provision between bus and subway, between MaBSTOA buses,
or between routes of competing companies. Furthermore,
there ore no reciprocal fare agreements even among the
member operating agencies of the MIA. This lends itself
to excessive fare payment and operation of redundant
service.
Goal: To improve public transit services to get people to use
public transit instead of cars.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement: Six months lead time would probably be required
to implement this plan.
Location Affected: Entire Tri-State region.
Technical Feasibility: No technical problems, although a mechanical
means of fare division might have to be
devised.
Institutional Feasibility: Although private operators and the member
agencies of the MTA have traditionally been
in competition, today the situation is such
that transit modes must work together if
they are not to be outpriced by the auto-
mobile. The machinery for coordinating
within-MTA fares is available. Highway
money will almost certainly have to be
diverted to transit if this plan is to
succeed. Since most transit trips are
round trips in New York, apportionment of
revenues should present no problem1; they
will accrue to the operator of the; first
transportation vehicle.
Implementing Agent: MTA/Private operators.
E-42
-------
Legal Authority:
Action Required: A meeting must be scheduled with all the operators,
including all elements of the MTA, by the City TAD.
If this plan is deemed feasible, a sample list of
reciprocal fare schedules must be prepared immediatelv
by TAD.
Enforcement: Self-regulating/MTA.
Relationship to Other Strategies:
flO. Exclusive bus lanes. #16. Free-fare (contingent),
§14. Marketing of transit. #20. Integration of bus and
#15. Timetable simplification. subway services.
Expected Cost to Implement:
Direct Costs:
Indirect Costs:
Studies Required:
Implementation Schedule:
E-43
-------
Strategy #20 - Integration of bus and subway to form a coordinates
grid or circumferential-radial system to improve
coverage. Facilitation of trip-making within
boroughs.
Discussion: Subway and surface lines have been created in a fairly
random way, based on the vagaries of the original
operating companies. Tirp-making by transit has been
directed at radial trips to Manhattan, except for the
Brooklyn grid bus system. As the cost of operating a
car continues to rise, it is imperative to make intra-
borough travel competitive in service with the car.
Goal: To provide improved inter-borough public transit service
to get people out of cars.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement: Long-range planning necessary for a lasting
improvement. However; a preliminary overhaul
of the transportation system could probably
be put into operation within a year.
Location Affected: New York City/ especially Queens/ S.I., and
the Bronx.
Technical Feasibility: No technical problems. Host of the inter-
gration operation involves simple re-routing.
Institutional Feasibility: The City and the MTA both agree that
the city's trip-making ought to be more
radial in character, in order to enhance
the "special" character of the CBD. How-
ever/ this in no way bears on the fact
that people must make a significant number
of local trips/ which are primarily made
presently by automobile. Also/ long-
distance trips that do not have one end
in the CBD are cumbersome and time-consumin$
Success of this strategy will hinge? on
whether the City Planning Commission/ the
MTA, and Tri-State can be taught this basic
fact. Furthermore, the loss of local trip-
making in the advent of long-distance radial
suburban commuting is sapping the taxable
strength of the city, since the automobile
facilitates abandonment of the city., and in
fact makes the suburbs possible.
E-44
-------
Implementing Agent: MTA
Legal Authority: MTA with Bureau of Franchises coordinating.
Action Required: TAD and MTA must come up with a coordinated transit
plan, in cooperation with Tri-state and the State
DOT. What is ultimately required is a total challenge
to the existing City-MTA-Tri-State theory of con-
tinued super-centralization. The preparation of alter-
native transportation patterns must be augmented by
the preparation of suitable alternative urban land
use plans.
Enforcement: None required.
Relationship to Other Strategies:
#10. Exclusive bus lanes, #19. Reciprocal fare agreements.
#14. Marketing of transit, #21. Transit rehabilitation.
#15. Timetable simplification, #31. University liaison for research
#16. Free-fare.
Expected Cost to Implement:
Direct Costs:
Indirect Costs:
Studies Required:
Implementation Schedule:
E-45
-------
Strategy 121 - Rehabilitation of existing transit system, through
improved maintenance practices, accent on comfort
and service quality, and better schedulization.
Discussion: It is clear that various physical aspects of the transit
system are in such condition as to repulse ridership.
The condition of many stations is dirty, poorly-lighted,
and dingy, and old buses wheeze and pollute heavily.
The thrust of this strategy ir to direct primary atten-
tion toward rehabilitation of the existing plant '(coupled
with better operating procedure), prior to engaging in
new capital construction.
Goal: To make public transit more attractive to get people out of
cars.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement: This item represents a major policy decision
involving a rehabilitation program which will
be occurring continuously.
Location Affected: All mass transit systems.
Technical Feasibility: No anticipated technical problems, other
than providing necessary manpower and funding.
Institutional Feasibility: It always looks better to a public that
is accustomed to mediocre service in the
last few years to show them a spanking new
system of transit, rather than an old train
station which is efficient although "down
at the heels." The MTA has sufficient
capital money available for necessary
rehabilitation, provided that new capital
construction is shelved. If necessary,
it would be advisable to approach UMTA,
saying that rehabilitation should be given
the highest priority. Feasibility of this
project is not very good unless the priority
structure of MTA can be drastically altered.
Implementing Agent: MTA, contingent upon receipt of New York City
capital construction funding.
Legal Authority: None required.
E-46
-------
Action Required? City governmental agencies involved must prepare
a unified position and then approach the MTA from
a position of strength. If MTA reneges, UMTA
should be approached, as indicated above. At the
same time, State DEC should approach Governor's
office with same goal.
Enforcement: None required.
Relationship to Other Strategies:
114. Marketing of transit. #20. Integration of bus and subvray
ft!6. Free fare. services.
£17. Advanced fare payment £22. Staggering hours and days.
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Costs:
Indirect Costs:
Studies Required: None Required.
Implementation Schedule:
E-47
-------
Strategy #22 - Encourage widespread staggering of work hours, for
starting work between 8-10 a.m. Current peaking causes
congestion, frustration, and pollution from commuting
trips. Also emphasize 4-day workweek.
Discussion: Staggering work hours and v/ork days has been a plan propose-
for ameliorating transportation problems in the rush hours;
a pilot program in Lower Manhattan has been successful.
Goal: To reduce peaking problem related to transit system; improved
transit envj_ronraent. should attract people out of cars and
into system.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement: Gradual introduction, within a time frame of
about six months to a year.
Location Affected: All City CBD's and other places where there is
locally-generated rush-hour congestion.
Technical Feasibility: Development of a program would required
considerable flexibility and consideration
of everyone's needs. A systems analysis
would be necessary. Port Authority developed
a successful staggered-hours project in
lower Manhattan.
Institutional Feasibility: Many companies seem to be amenable to such
a change, especially for workers who are
lower echelon and who are not in the
task of maintaining outside liaison as part
of the job. Municipal government must
lead off, however, to set example for
others.
Implementing Agent: City of NY, private interests
Legal Authority: None required.
E-48
-------
Action Required: The Port of New York Authority should be consulted
as to the details of its experiment. The Office of
Midtown Planning and Development and the Office of
Lower Manhattan Development, in cooperation with
offices within the E.D.A., would coordinate planning
efforts. Policy decision required regarding action
by City Administration.
Enforcement: None required.
Relationship to Other Strategies:
#8. Parking reduction. $13. East River tolls.
§9. Thru movement streets, #14. .Marketing of transit-
flO. Exclusive bus lanes. 121. Transit rehabilitation,
111. Regulating vehicle mix. #25. After-hours goods delivery.
£12. Motor vehicle user fees. #31. University liaison for
research.
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Costs.
Indirect Costs:
Studies Required: Reference should be directed to previous studies
made by the Port Authority and the Downtown-Lower
Manhattan Association. Many other studies have
been done on this topic in other cities.
Implementation Schedule:
E-49
-------
Interphase of New York City's Goods Movement Programs and Studies
with Goods Movement Control Strategies
Some of the programs and studies listed in the previous table
fall specifically into line with goods movement strategies. Others
are more general in nature and include aspects of many of the control
strategies.
General
1. JFK Land Use Study (TAD, EDA, CPC)
2. HuntsPoint Transportation Study (TAD, EDA, CPC)
3. Westside Highway Goods Movement Study (TAD)
4. Garment Center Study (TAD)
5. Midtown Manhattan Study (TAD)
6. American University Study (TAD)
7. Census of Trucking (TAD)
8. Garbage Movements in NYC (proposed study) (CPC)
9. Job Opportunities in the Goods Movement Industry
(proposed study) (CPC)
10. Unions and Labor Regulations (proposed study) (CPC)
11. Preliminary Goods Movement Study (EPA)
12. EPA Demonstration Project
Strategy 123 - Consolidation of Trucking Activities^
1. MIT Study (TAD)
2. Chelsea Piers Consolidation Facility (EDA)
3. Truck Consolidation Center over 30th St.
Rail Yards (in conceptual stage) (EDA)
4. Consolidation Terminals over Selected Rail Yards Study (CPC)
5. Consolidation Terminals (proposed general study) (CPC)
Strategy #24 - Terminal Design/ etc.
1. Cargo Security Study (TAD)
2. Security of Goods Movement (proposed study) (CPC)
Strategy #25 - After Hours Delivery to Stores and Office Buildings
No specific studies or programs.
Strategy #26 - Partial Condemnation
1. Docking Facility Requirements under the Zoning Regulations
(proposed study) (CPC)
Strategy #27 - Use of Rail for Transporting Commodities
1. Expansion of Brooklyn waterfront rail services (EDA)
2. Study for Industrial Development along route of South Brooklyn
RR (EDA)
3. Promotion of LIRR freight activities (EDA)
4. Staten Island Terminal and Industrial Development (EDA)
5. Waste haulage by railroad (EDA)
6. N.Y. Dock Railway - Bush Terminal
Connection Overland Route Study (CPC)
E-50
-------
Strategy S28 - Development of jJaterfront Facilities
1. Waterborne Goods Movement Study (TAD)
2. Containerport Study (CPC)
Strategy #29 - interstate Commerce Commission/Public Service Commission
1. Rate Structure Study (proposed) (CPC)
Strategy 130 - Special Truck Design for Urban Service^
No specific studies or programs.
Strategy ft 31 - University Liaison for Research
Negotiations are presently occuring between TAD, Goods Movement
Technical Committee and City University.
E-51
-------
Strategy #23 - Consolidation of Trucking Activities
Discussion: On only about one half (54%) of the trips made by
an urban truck is cargo carried. Tools or equip-
ment needed to perform a service are carried on
23% of the trips, and the vehicle is empty on the
remaining 23%. Thousands of operators are involved/
often duplicating services. Seventy percent of all
trucks are single operations and less than 10% are
in fleets of more than 20 trucks. When so many
operators are involved it is difficult if not im-
possible to regulate them and to attempt to make
their movements more efficient. Varying degrees
of consolidation could be attempted - e.g. pooled
delivery system for just one commodity like bread;
consolidation for small geographic area like Co Op
City; consolidation of all deliveries for midtown
Manhattan. Requires the construction of one or
more large freight terminals where goods can be
consolidated for delivery by vehicles operating
with near capacity loads.
Goal: Improve operating efficiency; reduce vehicle miles traveled,
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement: Time will vary depending on the degree of
consolidation sought. A pooled delivery
system for bread would probably be the short-
est in duration to set up and would take 6
months to a year. A new consolidation ter-
minal for midtown Manhattan would take 5 to
8 years to design, build, and optimize.
Location Affected: At first only specific areas, like CBD's for
large groups of commodities. Where only one
commodity is involved it might be done on a
borough wide basis. Eventually consolidated
terminal systems should cover the whole city,
perhaps the whole metropolitan area.
Technical Feasibility: There should be little or no technical
problems, as technology exists but has
not been used to great extent.
E-52
-------
Studies Required:
Implementation Schedule:
E-53-
-------
Strategy #24 - Terminal design and location; material handling;
research into and promotion of new material handling
techniques, and the use of modern management techniques
for more efficient operation. Emphasis would be on
efficient intermodal transfer of goods for most effi-
cient routing.
Discussion: Research into these technical aspects of the goods
movement problem is needed. It will be the careful
design and location of terminals and the use of modern
material handling and management techniques that will
make efforts like consolidation work. New techniques
should be developed. In addition there are some already
existing techniques that are excellent (e.g. piggy back,
containerization) that should be promoted. While it
appears that the use of subways for moving goods on a
general city-wide basis is not feasible, it may be
possible to use them in special cares - e.g. to move
goods from one urban subcenter to another, from one
industrial park to another. Therefore in the long
range view the creation of satellite goods distribution
centers, tied closely with the development of urban
subcenters and industrial parks, will be desirable.
Goal: Consolidate trucking activities and improve their efficiency
to minimize vehicle miles traveled.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement: This is a continuing process of change as new
methods are developed.
Location Affected. Entire city, especially CBD's and industrial
parks.
i i
Technical Feasibility: Research and development is required', although
there is a significant little used technology
available.
Institutional Feasibility: Although there are modern methods of
handling goods available now, incentives
will have to be created to promote their
use.
E-54
-------
Implementing Agent: TAD, CPC, EDA.
Legal Authority: None required.
Action Required:
Contact manufacturers and designers of freight
handling facilities and equipment, and outfits
like United Parcel Service to become familiar
with the technology. Promote its use and further
research. TAD should develop an active program
in this area. Consultants should be hired to
prepare detailed plans.
Enforcement: None required.
Relationship to Other Strategies:
£8 Parking reduction.
fll Regulating vehicle mix.
$23 Consolidation of trucking activities.
125 After hours delivery to stores and offices.
126 Partial condemnation.
130 Special truck design for urban service.
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Costs:
Indirect Costs;:
Studies Required:
E-55
-------
Implementation Schedule:
E-56
-------
Strategy #25 - After hours delivery to .stores and office buildings.
Discussion: After hours delivery would take trucks off the streets
during peak congestion hours. Retailers would be
required to remain open late one or more nights a
week, or night cargo drop facilities (on the idea of
night mail drop facilities) could be created so that
retailer would not have to remain open.
Goal:
Remove trucks from streets during rush hours thereby re-
ducing congestion.
Emission Reduction Potential;
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement:
Location Affected:
Time will vary depending on success of these
new operating procedures. An initial area of
the City will have to be selected for a demon-
stration project to test the feasibility of
after-hours delivery. The cooperation of
shippers delivering to the area and retailers
in the area would have to be obtained. It would
take at least six months to get the desired
cooperation and get the project started. Should
this procedure prove successful it should be
extended to the entire City over a period of
several years. The constructions of night cargo
drop facilities could be underway at the same
time.
Initially cordon trial area in retail section -
of City; eventually whole city.
Technical Feasibility:
Night cargo drop facilities are now being
used by some supermarkets. The facility is
a trailer room, locked from 2 sides, where
the trucker opens up one side of the room at
night and leaves the trailer for unloading
through the other side of the locked room.
Research would also be needed to determine
the minimum sized container that could feas-
ibly be handled with the least possibility
of pjllferage.
E-57
-------
Institutional Feasibility: Most resistance will come from retailers
as they will have to pay for personnel to
cover the additional working hours and
because of the increased chances of pil-
ferage. Hence the cost to the retailer
and to the consumer will increase. How-
ever this offset in two ways: 1) if re-
tailers construct night cargo drop fac-
ilities the continuing cost of additional
personnel would be replaced by the
lower initial cost of the facility/ and
2) the cost to the shipper of the additi-
onal premium for night work paid to the
teamsters should be more than offset by
the time and fuel savings of operating
at other than congestion hours. Little
or no resistance will come from the team-
sters. The combination of delivering at
off peak hours and the construction of
night drop facilities could bring signi-
ficant commodity cost decreases. However
previous experience with night deliveries
has not been successful, largely because
cooperation from retailers and shippers
was voluntary. When projects of this
nature were started they show initial
increased cost which caused some of the
"volunteers" to drop out thereby causing
further problems. This process would
continue until the whole program failed.
It appears likely that Mandatory partici-
pation of retailers and shippers will be
required to make the project succeed but
it may be impossible to force this parti-
cipation .
Implementing Agent: TAD, EDA, CPC.
Legal Authority: As mentioned above it may be necessary to get
mandatory participation in the project and .so
legislation to that effect would be required.
Action Required: Select trial area with assistance from retailers
and major shippers. Develop demonstrati6n project,
Enforcement: TAD, EDA, Police Dept.
E-58
-------
Relationship to Other Strategies:
|6 Enforcement.
#7 Banning all cars (contingent).
19 Thro movement only.
#11 Regulating vehicle mix.
#22 Staggering hours and days.
f23 Consolidation of trucking activities,
424 Terminal design,etc.
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Cost:
Indirect Cost:
Studies Required:
Implementation Schedule ?
E-59
-------
Strategy #26 - Partial condemnationwhere buildings do not have
internal loading dock facilities the City could
condemn the street or below street grade area of
the building's first floor in order to construct
such facilities.
Discussion: Many warehousing blocks and commercial buildings are
ill-equipped to efficiently handle their incoming and
outgoing truck traffic and tonnage and so streets often
become blocked by trucks parking on the streets to load
and unload; and truck drivers spend excessive amounts
of time searching for parking. The construction of
internal loading dock facilities would get the trucks
off the street for loading operations. New buildings
are required by zoning regulations to have these fac-
ilities.
Goal: To get truck loading operations off the streets thereby
reducing congestion.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implements It would probably take 6 months before it is
decided what buildings would be partially con-
demned and to serve the condemnation papers.
As this procedure will almost definitely be
fought in the courts it is impossible to say
when the facilities would actually be constructed.
Location Affected: The CBD's of the five boroughs/ initially the
Garment District and midtown Manhattan.
Technical Feasibility: Many existing buildings are usually deep
(approximately 180 ft.) and often have above
average ceiling height at grade, so conversion
is not physically problematic.
Institutional Feasibility: Feasibility is positive. The New York
City Corporation Counsel has found that
partial condemnation is legal and consti-
tutional. However, it will probably be
fought by building owners.
E-60
-------
Implementing Agent: TAD, CPC.
Legal Authority: The City has the authority to condemn part of a
building.
Action Required: Once it has been decided what buildings are to
be partially condemned, condemnation papers are
served by the Dept. of Buildings. It would then
be up to the Dept. of Buildings to see that work
was done in accordance with the Building Code.
This should be done according to a master plan
for extension to all CBD.'s. The Garment Center
"Study can be used as a pilot project.
Enforcement: None required.
Relationship to Other Strategies:
#11 Regulating vehicle mix.
|24 Terminal design, etc.
125 After hours delivery to stores and offices.
$30 Special truck design for urban service.
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Cost:
Indirect Cost:
Studies Required:
Implementation Schedule
E-61
-------
Strategy #27 - Use of Rail for Transporting Commodities.
Discussion: While it had been generally recognized that transportation
sources were the main contributors of air pollution in
the City, it had not been knovm that trucks themselves
are a major source of air pollution. With this knowledge
it is necessary to reduce the number of trucks on the
streets by improving their operating efficiency and by
the increased use of alternate modes of transportation.
This inefficient movement of goods has resulted in increase
congestion, increased noise and air pollution, increased
energy consumption, and higher commodity costs. Replacing
200 trucks by 1 train, on the other hand, would reduce
congestion, air and noise pollution, and energy consump-
tion, and with more favorable rate structures would re-
duce the cost of commodities. This City, and the nation,
has seen the opposite trend - the replacement of 1 train
by 200 trucks with its negative effects. Much freight
that had been travelling by rail previously is now moving
by truck with the consequence that there are a number
of good rail connections that exist in the New York area
that are underused. Railroads are continually abandoning
rights-of-way. These present trends are environmentally
unsound and have to be reversed.
Goal: Use alternate modes to move goods, where appropriate, thereby
getting trucks off the streets.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Qualtiy:
Time to Implement: This is a program of continuing improvements
that will take several years.
Location Affected: Entire region.
Technical Feasibility: No technical problems. Marketing and im-
proved inter-modal terminal design (see
Strategy if24) will help ensure the success
of this strategy.
Institutional Feasibility: Many groups are involved in this strategy-
regulatory agencies, railroads, industry,
unions, citizens groups, etc. The Inter-
state Commerce Commission a'nd the Public
Service Commission will have to cooperate
to make rail rates more favorable (see
Strategy #29). Negotiations will have to
occur with all railroads serving the Metro-
politan Area to prevent any decrease in
E-62-
-------
Institutional Feasibility:
(Con't)
rail service and to create new linkages
and I services (e.g. overland route from
rapidly growing Brooklyn waterfront area
to railyards in South Brooklyn waterfront
area to railyards in South Bronx near
Hunts Point market). It will have to be
demonstrated to the railroads that these
services can pay off. The City, through
its various agencies, must work to insure
that industry will locate along routes of
good rail access. Stiff resistance will
come from the Teamster's Union if there
is any decrease in trucking jobs. However
support should tcome from rail onions.
Implementing Agent: TAD, EDA.
Legal Authority:
Action Required: The initial step is to set up a liaison with the
Long Island Railroad, the Long Island Railroad
Freight User's Association, and the Penn Central
R»R. with a view towards increasing the scope of
the two railroad^1 services. The Economic Develop-
ment Administration has already made contact with
the LIRR Freight User's Association. Later other
interest groups will be contacted. In general it
will be necessary to investigate the overall pro-
blem, define the issue, and develop a long range
strategy for change. This can be pursued through
the Goods Movement Technical Committee.
Enforcement: None required.
Relationship to Other Strategies:
#11 Regulating vehicle mix.
123 Consolidation of truckingactivities.
#28 Development of waterfront facilities.
f29 ICC/PSC
E-63
-------
Expected Costs to Implement;
Direct Costs:
Indirect Costs:
Studies Required:
Implementation Schedule:
E-64
-------
Strav TY #28 - Development O£ Waterfront Facilities.
Discussion: J at as the rail network has been under-utilized for
treight movement, so has our water system. A revival
°f ?£ Sf°nt °Perati°ns, similar to what is being done
at the Bklyn, waterfront (e.g. car floating, container-
ports, dock railway operations), is needed. In addition
tne location Of alternate ports on Long Island for the
delivery of goods to that area must be investigated.
Goal: Move goods by modes other than trucks, thereby getting trucks
0££ N.y.C. streets, reduce congestion; etc.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement; This is a program of continuing improvements
that will take several years.
Location Affected: Entire region.
Technical Feasibility: Little or no technical problems. A faster
type of water vehicle than the barge may be
required.
Institutional Feasibility: Like the railroad situation, there are
many groups involved here - regulating
.agencies, industry, unions, shiplines,
citizens groups. The primary regulatory
agency involved here is the Federal
Maritime Administration. FMA can suggest
new regulatory approaches and permit
greater operating flexibility in the
maritime industry which would lead to
improved transportation services and re-
duced shipper costs. Industry groups
Will have to be convinced of the viability
Of the waterfront (as in the switch of
American President Lines from a New Jersey
to Brooklyn facility). Negotiations with
unions and shiplines will be needed to
make increased waterfront services economic-
ally feasible. Furthermore, citizen's group
may protest the development of certain
facilities (e.g. the Red Hook Containerport)
E-65
-------
Implementing Agent: TAD, EDA, PA.
Legal Authority:
Action Required: Initially - to promote the development of the
Brooklyn waterfront by working with the various
groups involved. Proposals for other areas of
the City (e.g. Chelsea Piers, Hunts Point) will
be a natural consequence. Work can be done through
the Goods Movement Technical Committee.
Enforcement: None required.
Relationship to Other Strategies:
111 Regulating vehicle mix.
123 Consolidation of trucking activities.
127 Use of rail for transporting commodities
*29 ICC/PSC regulations.
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Costs:
Indirect Costs:
Studies Required:
Implementation Schedule:
E-66
-------
Strategy #29 - Contact Interstate Commerce Commission and the Publi
Service Commission to make them aware of the Region'
goods movement problems, and how it is affected by
their regulatory decisions. Restructure rate tariff
to encourage environmentally sound goods handling
procedures.
Disucssion: The ICC and PSC are responsible for setting rates on
trucks and rail shipments and other related items.
Their decisions in a number of instances {e.g. per-
mitting the granting of discounts to shippers who will
truck goods from New Jersey instead of using rail)
have contributed to the goods movement problem.
Goal: Obtain rate structures reflecting socioeconomic and environ-
mental impact of trucking and that will help to foster use
of alternative modes for moving goods.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement: Contact can be made immediately but when concre-
action by those bodies will occur is unknown.
Location Affected: Entire region; interstate carriers.
Technical Feasibility: No technical problems.
Institutional Feasibility: Because of interest groups representing
the various railroads and truckers, dec.
sions favorable to improving the goods
movement situation will be difficult to
obtain. Truckers will lobby against any
rate changes that favor modes other the.-
truck. A railroad will resist any rate
change that gives better rate division
(i.e., when several railroads have to
handle a freight delivery, the rate for
the shipment is shared by the railroads
involved) to another railroad.
Implementing Agent: Goods Movement Technical Committee.
E-67
-------
Legal Authority:
Action Required: Set up meeting with members of ICC and PSC.
The Goods Movement Technical Committee must
investigate existing rates structures in order
to suggest desired changes.
Enforcement: None required.
Relationship to Other Strategies:
$27 Use of rail for transporting commodities.
#28 Development of waterfront facilities.
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Costs:
Indirect Costs:
Studies Required:
Implementation Schedule:
E-68
-------
Strategy #30 - Special Truck Design for Urban Service
Discussion: New design of trucks can make it easier and quicker
for goods to be delivered. For example. United
Parcel Service trucks are specially designed by them
for ease in loading and unloading. Since many trucks
travel around with an average of only 10% of capacity,
it appears that many businesses should be using smaller
trucks. Thus vehicle owners must be made to justify
the siz-s of their trucks at registration time. This
ties in closely with Strategy #12, Motor Vehicle User
Fees, where the fee would increase with increased
vehicle weight. This kind of fee schedule could en-
courage the use of smaller sized trucks.
*
Goal: Optimize vehicle design to insure efficient operation, reduce
number of vehicles required, and thereby reduce congestion
and VMT.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Qualtiy:
Time to Implement: Once criteria are established for limiting
vehicle size, the procedure could probably
be started within a year. New design of
trucks is a continuing process and has no
specific time for implementation.
Location Affected: All trucks operating in New York City.
Technical Feasibility: No technical problems.
Institutional Feasibility: The auto industry will claim that there
is no market for a specially designed
urban truck and that pursuing such a
project would result in increased ex-
penditures for them. However there is
good precedent for special trucks -
Postal Service, United Parcel Service,
and other trucks for specialized indus-
tries. Truckers will have to be convince:
that the increased cost of a special urb=-
truck would be more than offset by the
savings in time for pickup and deliveries.
Having an operator justify the size of
E-69
-------
Institutional Feasibility: his- truck at registration time will.claim
(Con't) that while they could use a smaller truck
4 days a week, they may have a large ship-
ment on the fifth day, that requires the
larger truck, Furthermore, should it be
determined that an operator is using too
large a truck, it could be a heavy financial
burden to force him to get rid of the truck
right away. Guidelines would have to be
drawn up to determine how soon any operator
should be required to remove this truck
from the City's streets. Legislation
would be needed to permit this registration
procedure. It also has to be decided as
to what agency will be in charge of this
operation as additional staff would be
required.
Implementation Agent: Goods Movement Technical Committee.
Legal Authority: Authority to permit registration review procedure,
Action Required:
Contact truck manufacturers in Detroit to appraise
them of the need and desire for new design in urban
trucks. Seek the assistance of industry for ideas
on what is most appropriate design. Forward speci-
fications to manufacturers. Contact N.Y.S. Dept.
of Motor Vehicles for cooperation in the registration
procedure.
Enforcement: None required.
Relationship to Other Strategies:
fl Vehicle turnover.
#2 Heavy duty vehicle retrofit.
f4 Heavy duty vehicle inspection.
ill Regulating vehicle mix.
f24 Terminal design, etc.
f-26 Partial condemnation.
|31 University liaison.-.
Expected Costs to Implement:
Direct Costs:
Indirect Costs:
E-70
-------
Studies Required:
Implementation Schedule:
E-71
-------
Strategy 131 - Establish a liasion with a local university to
help spur research in goods movement.
Discussion: Inefficient movement is a large urban problem yet it
is poorly understood. Little work on the problem has
been done by anybody, including educational institutions.
By establishing a relationship with a university we
can learn more about the problem and perhaps stimulate
work in other universities. The Federal Department of
Transportation has established a University Research
Program which is designed to increase the contributions
of universities to the solutions of National, State,
and local transportation problems. DOT has designated
a separate fund for giving grants to universities for
research under this program. The City University of
New York has made contact with the N.Y.C. Transportation
Administration to determine what transportation projects
TAD would like to see done. Suggestions for projects
are being submitted to CUNY through the Goods Movement
Technical Committee. A permanent liaison for goods
movement at CUNY could be established through this
program.
Goal: Introduce goods movement problem to the academic community;
solicit assistance in developing suitable control strategies.
Emission Reduction Potential:
Projected Impact on Air Quality:
Time to Implement: Contact with CUNY has already been made and
grants requests are now being prepared by them.
Research on the goods movement problem will be
a continuing process.
Location Affected: Depending on the nature of the research this
strategy could have effects on local, state,
and national levels.
Technical Feasibility: No technical problems.
Administrative Feasibility: CUNY has expressed interest in persuing
the problem. Grants from EPA and DOT
will be needed to finance the studies.
Under the University Research Program
DOT has made available $4 million nation-
wide for research grants in transportation
E-72
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA ' Rel«»" No. 1
SHEET ftnU-IJ/l
"ransportation Control Strategy Development for New York
Metropolitan Area
7. Author(s)
Land Use Planning Branch
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
TRW Transportation and Environmental Operations
7600 Col shire Drive
McLean, Virginia 22101
2. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
3- Recipient's Accession No.
5. Report Date
December 1972
6.
8. Performing Organization Rept.
No.
10. Project/Task/Work Unir No,
DU-72-B895
11. Contract/Gram No.
68-02-0041
13. Type of Report & Period
FinCaT"d 8/|3/72
Report 12/15/72
14.
5. supplementary Notes Prepared to assist in the development of transportation control
plans by those State Governments demonstratinq that National Ambient Air Quality Stan-
dards cannot be attained by implementing emission standards for stationary sources on!
6. Abstracts
The document demonstrates the nature of the Air Quality problem attributed to motor
vehicle operation, the magnitude of the problem and a strategy developed to neutralize
these effects in order that National Ambient air quality standard may be attained and
maintained.
17. Key Voids and Document Analysis. 17o. Descriptors
Motor Vehicle emitted pollutants - air pollutants originating within a motor vehicle
and released to the atmosphere.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Air Quality Standards promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency and published
as a Federal Regulation in the Federal
Register.
ITb. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
VMT - Vehicle Miles Traveled
Vehicle Mix - distribution ofmotor vehicle population by age group.
LDV - light duty vehicle - less than 650Q-lbs.
HDV - heavy duty vehicle - greater than 6500 IDS.
17..COSATIField/Group Environmental Quality Control of Motor Vehicle Pollutants.
18. Availability Statement
For release to public
19.. Security Class (Tl
Report)
20. Security''
"UNCLASSIFIED
all
22. Price
"*9«M NTIMB (REV. a-7II
USCOMM-DC l
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM NTIS-35 (10-70) (Bibliographic Data Sheet based on COSAT1
Guidelines to Format Standards for Scientific and Technical Reports Prepared by or for die Federal Government,
PB-1SO 600).
1. Report Number. Each individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation selected by the performing
organization or provided by the sponsoring organization. Use uppercase letters and Arabic numerals only. Examples
FASEB-NS-87 and FAA-RD-68-09.
2. Leave blank.
3. Recipient's Accession Number. Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. Title and Subtitle. Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed promi-
nently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more
than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and include subtitle for the specific volume.
5- Report Dote, r-.ich report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected
(e.g., date of issue, dace of approval, date of preparation.
6. Performing Organization Code. Leave blank.
7. AuthorCs). Give name(s) in conventional order (e.g., John R. Doc. or J.Robert Doc). List author's affiliation if it differs
from the performing organization.
8. Performing Organization Report Number. Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address. Give name, street, city, state, and zip code. List no more than two levels of
an organizarional hierarchy. Display the name of the organization exactly a.s it should appear in Government indexes such
as USGRDR-I.
10. Proj«cf/To*k/Work Unit Number. Use the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report was prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Number. Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12- Sponsoring Agency Name and Address. Im-ludc zip code.
13- Type of Report and Period Covered. Indicate interim, final, etc., and, if applicable, dates covered.
14. Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank.
15. Supplementary Notes. Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with . . .
Translation of ... Presented at confercnct* of ... To be published in ... Supersedes ... Supplements . . .
16. Abstract. Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report.
If the report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. Key Word* and Document Analysis, (a). Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of Kngineering and Scientific Terms the
proper authorized terms that identify the major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used
as index entries for cataloging.
(b). Identifiers and Open-Ended Terms. Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use
open-ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(e). COSAT1 Field/Group. Field and Croup assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List.
Since the majority of documents are mult {disciplinary in nature, the primary Field/Group assignments) will be the specific
discipline, area of human endeavor, or type of physical object. The application^) will be cross-referenced with secondary
Field/Group assignments that will follow the primary posting(s).
18. Distribution Statement. Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for,1 example "Re-
lease unlimited". Cite any availability to the public, *ith address and price.
19 & 20. Security Classification. Do not submit classified reports to the National Technical
21. Number of Pages. Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but excluding distribution
list, if any.
22. Price. Insert the price set by the National Technical Information .Service or the Government Printing Off ice, if known.
FORM NTIS-3S IHEV. 3-721
USCOMM-OC USSf"
fa V. 9. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. \V73 7«7«0/'"2
------- |