APTD-1446
TRANSPORTATION CONTROLS
                      TO  REDUCE
    MOTOR  VEHICLE EMISSIONS
                 IN PITTSBURGH,
                 PENNSYLVANIA
     US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
          Office of Air and Water Programs
       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
       Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

-------
                                          APTD-1446
  TRANSPORTATION CONTROLS


         TO  REDUCE  MOTOR


          VEHICLE  EMISSIONS


IN  PITTSBURGH,  PENNSYLVANIA



                   Prepared by

                  GCA Corporation
                GCA Technology Division
               Bedford, Massachusetts
               Contract No.  68-02-0041
           EPA Project Officer:  Fred Winkler
                   Prepared for

            ENyiBCNMENTAL 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 technical
data of interest to a limited number of readers.  Copies of APTD reports
are available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors
and grantees, and non-profit organizations - as supplies permit - from
the Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711, or may be obtained
for a nominal cost, from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia  22151.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
GCA Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts, in fulfillment of Contract
No. 68-02-0041.  The contents of this report are reproduced herein
as received from GCA Corporation.  The opinions, findings, and conclusions
expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
                        Publication No.  APTD-1446
                                   11

-------
                            Acknowledgements







     Many  Individuals  and  several  organizations  have  been  helpful  in




carrying out  this  study; for  these contributions  the  GCA Technology




Division extends its sincere  gratitude.






     Continued project direction and guidance were given by Mr. Fred




Winkler (Project Officer)  and Mr.  Dave Tamny of the Land Use Planning




Branch, EPA, Durham, North Carolina, and Mr. Israel Milner (Co-Project




Officer) and Mr. Chuck Miesse  of  EPA Region III.






     Many members  of local and state agencies supplied data and critical




analysis to the study.






     Alan M. Voorhees, Inc.,  acted as subcontractors to GCA Technology




Division and supplied major input  to the study, especially in the areas




of traffic data, control strategies,and implementation obstacles.
                                ill

-------
               COMMENT  REGARDING THE  RETROFIT  PROGRAM (STRATEGY No.  4)
      It  has  been called  to  our attention that a  retrofit  program using
 the  catalytic  converter  implies the  use of unleaded  fuel.   There is some
 doubt that cars  of model years 1968-1970, perhaps  1968-1971,  even,  can
 operate  satisfactorily on 91 octane  gasoline.  The data shown below
 indicate that  the exclusion of the 1968-1971  model years  from the vehicle
 age  group to be  retrofitted under the recommended program would  cause a
 loss of  4.6% of  CO emission reduction, leaving a net reduction due  to the
 retrofit program of  3.67..   In other  words, this is the amount  of reduction
 from retrofit  applied  to model years 1972-1974 only, based on the derived
 VAD  for  Allegheny County (see Table  11-15), as of 31 December  1977.   Since
 only about 2.4%  reduction from retrofit is needed to meet the  federal stand-
 ard  for  CO by  31 December 1977, there would remain a "pad" of  some  1.2% which
 would result in  a maximum 8-hour average CO concentration of about  8.9  ppm,
 still 0.1 ppm  to the good.  The obstacles to  the retrofit program are anal-
 ogous to those for the I&M  program,  i.e., regressive burden on those  least
 able  to  pay, etc.
 •ji
 Allegheny County VAD:   Pre-1968  1968-1970   1968-1971  1968-1974   1975-1978
   (as  of 12/31/77)        4.1%       13.6%      22.5%      55.3%      40.6%

 From  Table 6 of  the  paper by Kircher and Armstrong, the average emission
 factor for the 1968-1971 cars is 37  gm/mi,  while the  factor for the  1972-
 1974  cars is 19  gm/mi.  Thus, the weighted reduction realized from the retro-
 fit program  is 44% of the 8.2%,  or 3.6%.   This equates to  the expected ambient
 concentration  (maximum 8-hour average)  of 8.88 ppm.

NOTE:  In the discussion of total net reduction to be realized from  the
       recommended transportation control program (Sections  I and IV), there
       is a source of possible confusion in the method of  numbering  the var-
       ious strategies, due to the fact  that  two different lists  are shown
       in two different sequences.   In order  to avoid this needless  compli-
       cation,  it is suggested that the  strategies  tagged  as "#1" and "#2"
       in the computation in pages  1-12  and  IV-6&7  and in  Table 1-4  be re-
       numbered #2 and #3 to agree  with  the priority  sequence shown  in
       Table  1-7.  Thus,  Strategy #1  will  always  be  Inspection and Maintenance
       (I6M), Strategy #2 will  always be  the  street  improvement program
       Strategy #3 will always  be  the parking  and mass  transit improvements
       program, and  Strategy #4 will  be  the retrofit  program (as  modified
       above).
                                  iv

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section                            Title                           Page

  I           INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY                              1-1

              A.  BACKGROUND                                        1-1
              B.  PURPOSE, SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF STUDY           1-1
              C.  CONTENT OF REPORT                                 1-3
              D.  SUMMARY OF PROBLEM AND REQUIRED TRANSPORTATION    1-6
                  CONTROLS
                  1.  Summary and Review                            1-6
                  2.  Recommended Strategies                        1-11

 II           VERIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM  II-1

              A.  OUTLINE .OF METHODOLOGY                            II-1
                  1.  Methodology for Carbon Monoxide               II-2
                  2.  Discussion of Methodology for Carbon          II-6
                      Monoxide
                  3.  Methodology and Discussion for Oxidants       II-9

              B.  DISCUSSION OF 1971-1972 AIR QUALITY LEVELS        11-11

                  1.  Natural Features                              11-11
                  2.  Instrumentation                               11-20
                  3.  Review and Evaluation of Air Quality Data     11-26

              C.  DISCUSSION OF 1972  AND 1977 VMT                   11-40

              D.  DERIVATION OF 1977  AIR QUALITY LEVELS              11-53
                  1.  Present and  Projected Non-Vehicular  Source     11-53
                      Emissions
                  2.  Assessment  of  the  CO and 0  Problems           11-66
                                                X
              E.  SUMMARY AND RATIONALE  FOR SELECTION  OF MODELING    11-92
                  TECHNIQUES  AND AREAS FOR AVERAGING

                  1.  Determination of Measurements  of CO  and Ox     11-92
                  2.  Conclusions                                    11-97

  III         IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION       III-l
              CONTROL STRATEGIES

              A.  STRATEGY EVALUATION METHODOLOGY                   III-l
              B.  GENERATE ALTERNATIVES                              III-3
              C.  PRELIMINARY SCREENING                              III-4
              D.  IMPACT EVALUATION                                 III-8

                  1.  Technical Effectiveness                       III-8
                  2.  Economic Impact ,                             111-37
                  3.  Non-Economic Impact                           111-37
                  4.  Political Feasibility                         111-40
                  5.  Evaluation Matrix                              111-42

-------
                           TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  (cont.)

   Section                         Title                                Page

      IV          RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PROGRAM AND         IV-1
                  IMPACT  ON AIR QUALITY
                  A.   RECOMMENDED  PROGRAM                                IV-1
                  B.   IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY OF  RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES    IV-6

      V           IMPLEMENTATION OBSTACLES                               V-l

                  A.   INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE                         V-l
                  B.   UPGRADE EXISTING STREETS                           V-3
                  C.   PARKING RATES AND FRINGE  PARKING                   V-4
                  D.   SHORT TERM TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS                    V-5

     VI           SURVEILLANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS                VI-1

                  A.   INTRODUCTION                                       VI-1
                  B.   SURVEILLANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION: CURRENT CON-      VI-1
                      DITIONS
                  C.   INADEQUACIES OF A STATIC  SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM      VI-2

REFERENCES                                                              R-l

APPENDIX A        DAILY MAXIMA OF HOURLY CO CONCENTRATION FOR THE       A-l
                  DOWNTOWN PITTSBURGH ZONE, WITH MONTHLY MAXIMA

APPENDIX B        RUNS OF HIGH HOURLY CO CONCENTRATIONS, PITTSBURGH     B-l
                  ZONE 1  (ppm)

APPENDIX C        POLLUTANT SPECIES                                     C-l

APPENDIX D        1972 AND 1977 VMT                                     D-l

APPENDIX E        VMT ALGORITHM                                         E-l

APPENDIX F        RESULTS OF RETROFIT METHODOLOGY                       F-l

APPENDIX G       DETAILED RANKINGS OF THE NON-ECONOMIC IMPACT FOR      G-l
                 EACH CONTROL STRATEGY
                                     VI

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES

Table                              Title                             Page

 1-1     TOTAL VEHICULAR EMISSIONS IN kg/DAY AND EXPECTED MAXIMUM    1-7
         8-HOUR AVERAGE CO CONCENTRATIONS IN PPM FOR PITTSBURGH,
         ZONE 1

 1-2     TOTAL VEHICULAR HC EMISSIONS IN kg/DAY AND EXPECTED MAXIMUM  1-8
         1-HOUR AVERAGE OXIDANT CONCENTRATIONS IN PPM FOR ALLEGHENY
         COUNTY

 1-3     TOTAL VEHICULAR EMISSIONS, PITTSBURGH, ZONE 1 (kg/day)      1-10

 1-4     PHASE-IN OF REDUCTIONS DUE TO EACH TRANSPORTATION CONTROL   1-14
         STRATEGY IN THE RECOMMENDED PROGRAM

 1-5     VMT'S AND SPD's FOR PITTSBURGH, ZONE 1, WITH STRATEGIES     1-15

 1-6     FRACTION OF TOTAL VEHICLES IN USE - LDV ONLY                1-16

 1-7     RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PROGRAM                  1-17

 II-A    SUMMARY SHEET FOR:  PITTSBURGH                              II-5

 II-1    PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF SURFACE WIND DIRECTION AND SPEED    11-15
         (FROM HOURLY OBSERVATIONS)

 II-2    EMISSION DENSITIES IN THE SPRPC REGION, 1972 and 1977       11-17
         (kg/sq. mi.)

 II-3    HIGHEST AND SECOND HIGHEST 1-HOUR and 8-HOUR AVERAGE CO     11-28
         AND 0. CONCENTRATIONS, PITTSBURGH,  1971-1972

 II-4    HIGHEST RECORDED 8-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS  (CO),        11-33
         PITTSBURGH, ZONE 1.

 II-5    MAXIMUM 1-HOUR OZONE READINGS - ARSENAL HEALTH  CENTER       11-37

 11-6    PITTSBURGH AND ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA;  POINT        11-54
         SOURCES

 II-7    ABSTRACT OF THE 1972 EMISSIONS  INVENTORY FOR ALLEGHENY      11-56
         COUNTY CARBON MONOXIDE

 II-8    ABSTRACT OF THE 1972 EMISSIONS  INVENTORY FOR ALLEGHENY      11-57
         COUNTY HYDROCARBONS

 II-9    MOTOR VEHICLE POPULATION FROM ALLEGHENY COUNTY  1971  &       11-59
         1972 EMISSION INVENTORIES

 11-10   ESTIMATED VEHICULAR EMISSIONS FOR ALLEGHENY COUNTY (in      11-63
         kg/day)
                                    vil

-------
                           LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
                                Title                                 Page
         CO EMISSIONS FOR ZONE 1 (DOWNTOWN PITTSBURGH) FOR 1977       11-75
         (kg/day)
11-12    EMISSION STANDARDS FOR 1973, 1974,  1975 AND 1976 MODEL       11-78
         YEAR VEHICLES
11-13    COMPARISON OF PASSENGER CAR AGE DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN         11-79
         ALLEGHENY COUNTY AND THE SOUTHWEST  PENNSYLVANIA AIR
         QUALITY CONTROL REGION AS OF 1 JULY 1971
11-14    EXTRAPOLATED "NO-STRATEGY" VMT'S FOR ZONE 1, PITTSBURGH      11-80
         (mi/day)
11-15    MOTOR VEHICLE AGE DISTRIBUTION, ALLEGHENY COUNTY AND EN-     11-81
         TIRE SPRPC REGION
11-16    TOTAL VMT'S BY COUNTY FOR THE YEARS 1972 AND 1977 (mi/day)   11-83
11-17    VMT'S USED IN SENSITIVITY TESTS                              11-84
11-18    SUMMARY SHEET FOR PITTSBURGH CARBON MONOXIDE                 11-86
11-19    SUMMARY SHEET FOR PITTSBURGH OXIDANTS                         11-88
11-20    TABLE OF VALUES OF REQUIRED HYDROCARBON EMISSION CONTROL     11-91
         AS A FUNCTION OF PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANT CONCENTRATION
III-l    RATING OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES TECHNICAL EFFECTIVENESS     III-9
III-2    RATING OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES ECONOMIC IMPACT             111-38
III-3    ECONOMIC CRITERIA                                            111-39
III-4    RATING OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES SUMMARY RATING: NON-        111-41
         ECONOMIC IMPACT
III-5    RATING OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES ON BASIS OF POLITICAL       111-43
         CRITERIA
III-6    POLITICAL CRITERIA                                           111-44
III-7    FINAL RATING OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES ALL CRITERIA           111-45
IV-1     PROJECTED VMT REDUCTIONS  FOR 1977 AFTER THE RECOMMENDED       IV-4
         CONTROL PROGRAM IS INSTITUTED
                                  Vlll

-------
                           LIST OF FIGURES

                               Title                               Page

          Predicted Air quality levels -- carbon monoxide,         1-9
          Pittsburgh, Zone 1.

1-2       Implementation schedule for the recommended transpor-    1-18
          tation control program.

II-l      SPRPC and SPAQC regions.                                 11-12

II-2      Zone map, SPRPC region.                                  11-18

II-3      Zone map, city of Pittsburgh.                            11-19

II-4      Taken from the Allegheny County emission inventory       11-21
          for 1972.

II-5      Monthly variation in maximum hourly CO concentration     11-29
          downtown Pittsburgh.  Monthly average also shown.
          (Value plotted is average of two highest readings for
          the month.)

II-6      Diurnal variation in hourly maximum CO readings (down-   11-30
          town Pittsburgh).

II-7      Hourly frequency of daily maximum CO concentration       11-35
          June 1971 to August, 1972.

   -      Distribution of Maximum ozone concentration June -       11-38
          September 1971.
                              2
II-9      VMT density (1000/mi )  vs.  distance from CBD (miles)      11-47
          Pittsburgh 1972,

          VMT density  (1C
          Pittsburgh 1977.
                               2
11-10     VMT density  (1000/mi ) vs.  distance from CBD (miles)     11-48
11-11     1972 and 1977 VMT density (1000/mi2)  vs.  distance from   11-49
          CBD (miles) Pittsburgh.

III-l     Development  of recommended control strategy program      III-2

III-2     Emissions  reduction vs. speed increase.                  111-15

III-3     Percent choice bus transit trips sensitivity analysis.   111-21

III-4     Percent choice rapid transit trips sensitivity analy-    111-23
          sis.

III-5     Isovalue contours, 15-277,  Modal choice variations       111-25
          employment density and travel time ratio.

III-6     Isovalue contours, 15-277=  Modal choice variations       111-25
          employment density and excess time ratio.
                                    IX

-------
                         LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)

Figure                           Title                             Page

III-7     Percent VMT reduction as a function of transit fare      111-27
          reduction for District 1.
                                        2
IV-1      Peak hour VMT density (1000/mi )  vs.  distance from       IV-4
          CBD (miles) Pittsburgh.

VI-1      Implementation schedule  for the recommended transpor-    VT-3
          tation control program.

-------
I.  INTRODUCTION AMD SUMMARY






    A.  BACKGROUND





        States were required  to  submit  implementation plans by January 30,




197^  that  contained control strategies  demonstrating how the national




ambient air  quality standards would be  achieved by 1975.  Many urban




areas could  not achieve  the carbon monoxide and oxidant air quality




standards  by 1975 or even  1977 through  the expected emission reductions




from  the 1975 exhaust systems control.  Major difficulty was encountered




by many states in the formulation of implementation plans that included




transportation control strategies (including, for example, retrofit and




inspection,  gaseous fuel conversions, traffic flow improvements, increased




mass  transit usage, car  pools, motor vehicle restraints, and work schedule




changes.)  Because of the  complex implementation problems associated with




transportation controls, states were granted until February 15, 1973, to




study and  to select a combination of transportation controls that demon-




strated how  the national air quality standards would be achieved and main-




tained by  1977.





    B.  PURPOSE, SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF STUDY





        The  purpose of the study reported on herein was to identify and




develop transportation control strategies that will achieve the carbon




monoxide and oxidant air quality standards required to be met by Pennsyl-




vania in the Pittsburgh urban area by the year 1977.   The results of the




study were to help determine the initial direction that the Commonwealth  of




Pennsylvania should take in selecting feasible and effective transporta-
                                 1-1

-------
 tion controls.   It  was  anticipated  that  the control strategies outlined




 in this  study would be  periodically revised in the coming years.  State




 implementation  plans were  analyzed  to verify and assess the severity




 of the carbon monoxide  and oxidant  pollutant problems, and the most




 promising transportation controls and their likely air quality impact



 were determined.  Major implementation obstacles were noted after discus-



 sions with those agencies  responsible for implementing the controls and,




 finally,  a surveillance review process (January 1973 - December, 1976,



 inclusive)  was  developed for EPA to use  in monitoring implementation pro-




 gress and air quality impact of transportation control strategies.






         It  should be noted that the study was carried out relying on the




 best data and techniques available during the period of the study and




 further,  that a large number of assumptions were made as to the nature




 of future events.   The  1977 air quality predictions were based on extant



 air  quality data  and on predicted stationary source emissions and predic-




 ted  traffic patterns, and  these predicted parameters themselves were based




on anticipated emission control techniques, anticipated growth patterns,




and  the assumed outcome of unresolved legal and political decisions.




 (The opening of key major traffic facilities before 1977 was particularly



sensitive to the outcome of legal and political decisions.)  Further,




the development, ranking and selection of transportation controls were




based on extant and predicted economic,  sociological, institutional and




legal considerations.  Finally, the surveillance process presented in




this report, although showing key checkpoints towards implementation of




the recommended  controls,   is in itself dependent upon the same assumed




pattern of future events.



                                  1-2

-------
         It  should be  emphasized  therefore,  that  to  the  extent  that  the




time-scale  of  the recommended  program permits, the  conclusions and




recommendations  of  this  report should not be  construed  as  a  program which




must be   rigidly followed  until  1977,  but rather it  should be  regarded




first, as a delineation  as to  what  appears  at the present  time to be  a




feasible course  of  action  to attain air  quality  goals,  and secondly,  as




a  framework upon which an  optimum on-going  program  can  be  built as  new




data and techniques become available,  as legal and  political decisions




are made, and  as the  assumptions  as to future events are,  or are not,




validated.






    C.   CONTENT  OF  REPORT





         Section  II  of this report describes how  the  pollutant  concentra-




tion levels  which could  be expected to occur  in  1977 in the Pittsburgh




area were predicted.  These levels  were determined by an adaptation of




the proportional model using motor  vehicle emissions from  traffic patterns




predicted for  1977  together with  predicted non-vehicular emissions for




1977 obtained  from  state agencies.   Comparison of these predicted 1977




air pollutant  concentrations with the  national air quality standards




enabled  the  computation  of the motor vehicle  emissions which would result




in the air quality  standards being  met, and therefore, to what extent,




if any,  reductions  in the  predicted 1977 motor vehicle emissions would




be required.   In order to  determine the pollutant concentration(s) which




was to serve as  the basis  for  the proportional model, an intensive eval-




uation of all  existing meteorological  and air quality data was performed.
                                  1-3

-------
The final determination as to the concentration value used was made in




close cooperation with representatives of local and state agencies and




of EPA.





        Section III describes how candidate control strategies were de-




veloped, evaluated and ranked having regard to technical, legal, insti-




tutional, sociological and economic criteria.  An important feature of




this task was the continuing interaction between, on  one hand, the GCA




study team, and on the other hand, representatives of local and state




environmental planning and transportation agencies,  concerned citizen's




groups, and EPA representatives.





        Section IV presents the rationale for selecting the optimum pack-




age of controls necessary to achieve the required reduction in motor




vehicle emissions and also presents the confirmed effect on air quality.






        Section V deals in detail with the obstacles to the implementa-




tion of the selected strategies.  Since the obstacles to  implementation




were important criteria in the evaluation of the feasibility of candidate




transportation controls, there is considerable discussion on such ob-



stacles in earlier sections.






        Section VT presents the surveillance review  process which will




enable EPA to monitor the implementation progress and air quality impact




of the recommended strategies.  A curve showing predicted air quality




levels for the years 1973 to 1977 and beyond is presented,  based  on the




implementation of the recommended transportation controls.   This  will
                                 1-4

-------
provide a basic indication of the way  in which  air quality  should  improve




as time passes and as controls  are  implemented.  In addition,  important




checkpoints are provided delineating the salient actions which must be




taken in order to implement the  strategies  such as the obtaining of the




necessary financing and legislation.   Further,  important background




assumptions, such as growth rate are identified, and methodologies sup-




plied, to provide verification  that these assumptions are in fact, vali-




dated during the course of the  program.






        It should be noted,however, that the surveillance process thus




provided is of necessity based  on the  problem, and the concomitant trans-




portation controls,as they are  presently perceived.  An equally important




part of any surveillance process is the continuing reassessment of both




the problem itself and the appropriateness of the required controls.   As




was discussed earlier in this Introduction, the present study employed a




whole range of extant data and techniques, and also of assumptions about




the course of future events.  This data base should be continuously re-




viewed as new information becomes available.  Thus, although the key




background parameters are called out in the Surveillance Process, a thorough




and continuing review of all the data, techniques,and assumptions contained




in this report will be required to properly update the problem definition




and appropriate control measures.
                                  1-5

-------
     D.   SUMMARY OF PROBLEM AKD REQUIRED TRANSPORTATION CONTROLS






          1.    Summary and Review






               As a result of our investigation of the Pittsburgh region,




it was found that while the federal standards for both carbon monoxide (CO)




and oxidants (0 ) are being exceeded at the present time, only the CO ends-
               X


sions will constitute a problem by 1977-   This is because, although the



FMVECP together with the planned controls on stationary sources will not,




of themselves, quite achieve the reduction necessary to meet the oxidant




standards by 1977 (Table 1-2), the transportation control strategies which




will be required to achieve the standard for CO by that time will also




satisfy the requirement for reduction of hydrocarbon (HC) emissions s'uffic-




ient to assure a "safe" level of 0  concentrations.
                                  2C





               The specific expected emissions and concentrations are shown



in TablesI-landI-:2.  The small differences noted between the data in the body



of this report (see Tables 11-18 and 11-19) and the data shown here are due




solely to the use of the vehicle age distribution for Allegheny County in



lieu of the distribution for the entire SPRPC Region.   Tables 11-13,11-15 and



11-21 show the differences and the resulting emissions due to these differences.




The model years shown are as of 1971.  The computer program VEHEMI2 auto-



matically shifts the derived age distribution forward or backward in time,



to be compatible with the particular calendar year being investigated.






               Figure 1-1shows the expected air quality levels for CO, first




with no strategies applied and using the SPRPC vehicle age distribution and that




for Allegheny County, then showing the effects of the various strategies.




                                  1-6

-------
                                                 TABLE 1-1

     TOTAL VEHICULAR EMISSIONS IN KG/DAY AND EXPECTED MAXIMUM 8-HOUR AVERAGE CO CONCENTRATIONS

                                      IN PEM FOR PITTSBURGH, ZONE 1
; YEAR
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
j 1975
j 1976
1 1977
j 1978
1 1979
I 1980
• 1981
i 1982
1983
1984
j 1985
! 1986
NO STRATEGIES
CO HC
29,530
28,541
27,111
24 ,654
22,343
19,538
15,992
13,120
10,698
8,897
7,199
5,974
5,278
4,825
4,447
4,404
4,309
4,775
4,325
3,820
3,399
3,012
2,558
2,059
1,704
1,443
1,221
1,034
928
856
791
774
770
759
C0 *
CONC.
	

21.3
19.3
17.5
15.2
12.7
10.6
8.8
7.6
6.4
5.5
5.1
4.8
4.5
4.6
4.5
WITH STRATEGIES
1 AND 2
CO HC




22,119
18,910
15,028
12,207
9,965
8,300
6,730
5,598
4,957
4,540
4,192
4,154
4,067




2,988
2,488
1,947
1,596
1,352
1,145
971
873
806
746
730
726
717
WITH I & M
CO HC






14,352
11,108
9,068
7,553
6,124
5,094
4,511
4,131
3,815
3,780
3,701






1,842
1,424
1,206
1,021
866
779
719
665
651
648
640
WITH
RETROFIT
CO HC






13,764
10,197
8,324
6,934
5,622
4,676
4,141
3,792
3,502
3,470
3,398






1,766
1,307
1,107
937
795
715
660
610
598
595
588
NON-VEH.
CO


2,200
1,940
1,680
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,469
1,520
1,573
1,628
1,685
1,744
1,805
1,868
1,933
TOTAL
EMISS.
CO


29,311
26,594
23,799
20,329
15,183
11,616
9,793
8,454
7,195
6,304
5,826
5,536
5,307
5,338
5,331
NET
CO
CONC.


21.3
19.3
17.3
14.8
11.0
8.4
7.1
6.1
5.2
4.6
4.2
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.9
* Includes non-vehicular emissions - see Column 11

NOTE:  It was assumed that the reductions in HC emissions from strategies 1 and 2 shown for Zone 1 were just
       offset by corresponding increases spread over the rest of the County; i.e., the County-wide total HC
       emissions were not changed as a result of the application of these strategies.  See Table 1-2

-------
00
                                                       TABLE 1-2

                 TOTAL VEHICULAR HC EMISSIONS IN KG/DAY AND EXPECTED MAXIMUM 1-HOUR AVERAGE OXIDANT CONCENTRATIONS

                                               IN PPM FOR ALLEGHENY COUNTY
YEAR
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
WITHOUT
STRATEGIES
124,141
112,553
99,500
88,603
78,588
66,803
53,822
44,593
37,793
31,995
27,124
24,381
22,505
20,817
20,374
20,282
20,020
TOTAL
EMISSIONS


128,320
114,454
101,471
86,718
71,247
59,529
53,252
47,995
43,684
41,521
40,245
39,178
39,378
39,951
40,387
OX
CONG.*


.165
.153
.140
.122
.101
.084
<.080






\ r
<.080
WITH I & M






50,915
39,777
33,712
28,539
24,195
21,748
20,075
18,569
18,173
18,092
17,867
WITH
RETROFIT






48,828
36,516
30,947
26,199
22,211
19,964
18,429
17,046
16,683
16,608
16,402
NON-VEHICULAR
EMISSIONS


28,820
25,851
22,883
19,915
17,425
14,936
15,459
16,000
16,560
17,140
17,740
18,361
19,004
19,669
20,357
TOTAL
EMISSIONS


128,320
114,454
101,471
86,718
66,253
51,452
46,406
42,199
38,771
37,104
36,169
35,407
35,687
36,277
36,759
NET
7. RED. OX
REQD** CONG


55.0 .165
49.5 .153
43.1 .140
33.4 .122
12.8 .095
0.0 <.080








0.0 <.080
        Maximum  observed  1-hour average 03 concentration; includes non-vehicular emissions - see Column 7.
     ** % reduction  in  HC emissions required to reach "safe" rate of 57,744 kg/day (based on 55% red. from .165 Ox cone.)

     NOTE 1:  Strategies  1 and  2 were not applied, since it was assumed that the Zone 1 reductions in hydrocarbons due to
     those strategies would not be realized in the rest of the County; i.e., the total emissions would remain unchanged.
                                                                                                (See Note, Table 1-1).
     NOTE 2:  Oxidant concentrations were derived from the data in Table 11-20, page    ,  and by reading the curve in
              3* **o  CFR 51, "backwards," assuming a "safe" HC emissions rate of 57,744 kg/day from all sources.

-------
I
VD
                                                                Predicted Air Quality Uvela —

                                                                Carbon Monoxide, Pittsburgh, Zone 1
                                                          Allegheny County VAD




                                                                  Ho  Strategy
          1973
1974
1975
1976
1977       1978
  Figure  I-l.
                                                       1979
                                                                                       I960
                                                                   1961
1982
1983

-------
CALENDAR
  YEAR
1970

1971
1972

1973

1974
1975
1976

1977

1978
1979
1980
1981
1982

1983

1984
1985
1986
                      TABLE 1-3


TOTAL VEHICULAR EMISSIONS, PITTSBURGH, ZONE 1 (Kg/day)

           WITHOUT STRATEGIES            WITH STRATEGIES 1 & 2

            REGIONAL VEHICLE
            AGE DISTRIBUTION*
CO
29,845
28,903
27,543
25,179
22,916
20,186
16,705
13,829
11,340
9,474
7,658
6,326
5,551
5,049
4,593
4,535
4,401
HC
4,852
4,416
3,923
3,505
3,113
2,656
2,154
1,794
1,523
1,288
1,084
971
890
815
793
787
771
ALLEGHENY COUNTY
VEHICLE AGE DIST.*
CO
29,530
28,541
27,111
24,654
22,119**
18,910**
15, 208**
12,207**
9,965
8,300
6,730
5,598
4,957
4,540
4,192
4,154
4,067
HC
4,775
4,325
3,820
3,399
2,988**
2,488**
1,947**
1,596**
1,352
1,145
971
873
806
746
730
726
717
     * See Table 11-13, p. 11-58; and Table 11-15, p. 11-60.

    ** Transportation Control Program phased in over the 1974-1977 time period.
 Because of the greater relative number of "new" cars in Allegheny County
 as  compared with the rest of the Region (see Tables 11-13 and 11-15), the completed
 CO  and HC emissions are somewhat lower if the local vehicle age distribu-
 tion  (VAD) is used.  Because of the increasing influence on the total
 vehicle population of late-model "controlled" cars, this differential in
 computed emissions increases with time until about 1978, when the population
 begins to become more homogeneous (see Figure 1-1).  After that time, as  the
 effect of uncontrolled vehicles becomes less important, the differences due
 to  different VAD's become smaller again, ranging from 1% for 1970 up to
 around 5% for 1978 and 1979, then back down to 1% again by 1986.
                                    1-10

-------
While the effects  of  the  individual  strategies  are  broken out,  year  by

year, in Tables  1-1 and 1-2,  only the cumulative effect of the entire strategy

package is shown in the bottom curve in Figure 1-1.


          2.   Recommended Strategies


               In  order of preference, the recommended  strategies are:

   STRATEGY                                      AMOUNT OF ROLLBACK  EXPECTED


   Inspection  and  maintenance (affects en-       9% (CO);  10.8% (HC)
      tire Region)

   Traffic flow  improvements  through the         1.4%  (CO & HC)
      upgrading  of existing streets  (affects
      Zone 1 only)

   Increase daily  parking rate by $1.45, use     5.5%  (CO & HC)
      existing parking  space  in fringe areas,
      and improve  short-term  mass transit
      (affects Zone 1 only)

   B-etrofit program (use  of oxidizing catalytic  8.2%  (CO & HC)
      converters)  (affects entire Region)

   The amounts of  rollback shown are taken for each strategy as  though it

   were the only one  to be adopted.   The actual  amounts  expected as a  re-

   sult of the total  program  package are shown below.   The total net roll-

   back is expected to  be 22.2% .  The total rollback of vehicular emissions
   *  Computations of rollback percentages from various baseline values:

                                           REQUIRED              EXPECTED
                                         27111-10965   ,. ,_  27111-10213   ,.  ,„.
   From 1972 vehicular CO emission rate:  - 27111"	 = 59t&/°   "" "27111	 = 62'3'°

                                         29311-12384   c_. ,„  29311-11632   ,.  oro
   From 1972 total CO emission rate:     	29311	 = 5'-''-  	29311	 = 60.3%


   From 1977 vehicular CO emission rate: 13120-10965 = UM  1312,0-10213 . 22  2%
   From 1977 total CO emission rate:        14539    = 14>87°     14539    = 20'0%

                                  1-11

-------
required to meet the federal standard for CO by  1977  is  16.4%  of  the 1977

vehicular emission rate expected as a result of  the EMVECP alone.   The

apparent "pad" of  5.8% in the recommended package of strategies  is re-

lated to an air quality level of 8.4 ppm, only 0.6 ppra below the  federal

standard for CO (see Figure 1-1 and Table 1-1) .
Less 1.4% emission reduction expected from
   traffic flow improvements (2% increase
   in average speed)

Less 5.5% emission reduction expected from
   parking strategies and improvements in
   short-term mass transit (5.5% decrease
   in VMT within Zone 1)

Less 9.0% emission reduction expected from
   regional or state-wide inspection and
   maintenance program

Less 8.2% emission reduction expected from
   regional or state-wide retrofit program
   (oxidizing catalytic converters attached
   to 1968-1974 model year vehicles)

Net expected CO emission rate for Zone 1

Net expected rollback from 1977 "no-
   strategy" rate
                                                 Successive Reductions And
                                                 Resultant Emissions  Rates
1972 CO emissions from motor vehicles, Zone 1
   (the "Baseline" value)

Less expected reduction from FMVECP (51.6% of
   baseline)
1977 vehicular CO emission rate, no strategies   13,120
   184 due to strategy  1
12,936
   711 due to strategy 2
12,225*
 1.100 due to I & M program
11,125*
   912 due to retrofit




10,213* kg/day

  22.2% (62.3% of 1972)
* The slight differences between these values and those shown in Table  1-1
are due to the fact that the "with strategies 1 & 2" column  in  the Table
uses the values generated by the computer programs VEHEMI2 and VEHEMI3,
whereas the listing above only approximates the reduction in emissions
from the 2% increase in average speed in Zone 1.  In any event, the
difference is very small:  on the order of 0.15%.
                                1-12

-------
From Table 1-1 the  e/c  ratio  is  29,311/21.3  =  1376.1;  hence,  the  "safe"

emission  rate from all sources  is  9  x 1376  =  12,384 kg/day.   This  is  the
                           *
rate to be attained by 1977;  assuming that  the  e/c ratio  holds,  it will

just meet the  federal  standard  of 9  ppm CO  for  the maximum 8-hour  average

concentration.  Since  the highest maximum value observed occurred  in the

CBD, and since the  other zones  are expected to  have much lower emission

rates (see Appendix C), the standards should be met by the recommended

program everywhere  within the Region.  The  expected CO emission rate from

non-vehicular  sources  in 1977 is 1,419 kg/day.  Adding this to the figure

derived above  for vehicular emissions gives an  expected total emission rate

of 11,632 kg/day.   This is 6% below  the so-called "safe" value of 12,384

kg/day, which  requires a vehicular emission rate of 10,965 kg/day, and

20% below the no-strategy rate  of 14,539 kg/day from all sources.  The

net vehicular CO emission rate derived above is 6.867. below this "safe"

rate for vehicular emissions  of CO;  combined with the other emissions it

would result  in an ambient CO concentration of  11,632/1376 =8.4 ppm, as

shown in Table 1-1.
 In the absence of any  prior direction on the effective date in 1977 by
which these reductions  were to be attained, and to maintain compatibility
with the other data used  in the computations (VME, derived VAD, etc.)*
the computer program relates everything to 31 December of the calendar
year.  If  it is desired to shift the effective date to some other day -
say, 1 July - then the  VAD may be used as given in Table 11-13 but the VMT's
will have  to be altered by interpolation to account for the desired amount
of temporal shift.  Under these conditions, of course, since the FMVECP
would be operating for  a shorter time, the required emissions reduction
from controls would be  correspondingly higher.
                                 1-13

-------
H
                                                        TABLE 1-4

               PHASE-IN OF REDUCTIONS DUE TO EACH TRANSPORTATION CONTROL  STRATEGY  IN THE RECOMMENDED PROGRAM



                                           1974                  1975                   1976                 1977


      Strategy  1,  Street Improve-     (27%)(2.0%)=0.54%    (70%) (2.0%)-1.40%     (93%)(2.0%)=1.86%    100%=2.0% incr.  avg.
                    ments                                                                                       speed

      Values  of SPD:                  39.21,  19.10, 17.09  39.55, 19.27, 17.24   39.73, 19.35,  17.32  39.78, 19.38,  17.34
                                     (27%)(1.4%)=0.38%    (70%)(1.4%)=0.98%     (93%)(1.4%)=1.30%    100%=1.4% deer,  in
                                                                                                                emissions

      Strategy  2,  Parking &          (10%)(5.5%)=0.55%    (37%)(5.5%)=2.04%     (83%)(5.5%)=4.57%    100%=5.5% deer,  in VMT
        Transit Improvements            (99.45%)VMT?4         (97.96%)VMT75         (95.43%)VMT76       (94.5%)VMT?7

      See Table 1-5  for values  of  VMT and SPD used in the "with strategies" runs.
     After the computer  run using  the  "strategy  1  & 2"  values  was  made,  the reductions for the other two strategies
     were computed  by hand,  assuming  that  50% of  the reductions due to  the I & M and retrofit programs were effective
     in 1976 and 100% of these  reductions were effective in 1977 and following years, as shown below:

     Inspection and Maintenance                                                (50%)(9.0%)=4.5%     100%=9.0% for CO
                                                                                (50%)(10.8%)=5.4%    100% = 10.8% for HC
     Retrofit, controlled vehicles
        only  (1968 - 1974 model years)                                         (50%)(8.2%) =4.1%     100% = 8.2% for both
                                                                                                                 CO & HC

     The expected emissions resulting  from  the application of  the  above  reductions in the manner shown are displayed
     in Tables 1-1 and 1-2.

-------
                                                       TABLE 1-5

                               VME'S AMD SPD'S FOR PITTSBURGH, ZONE  1, WITH STRATEGIES
                                                                                 OFF-PEAK SPEEDS, AVERAGE
YEAR
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
(1987)
(last
CODE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
line not used
V lil>i *«^
LOT
399,772
407,054
414,336
421,619
426,542
427,287
423,201
425,958
432,840
439,721
446,604
453,487
460,368
467,251
474,132
481,014
487,897
(494,778)
in computations)
*W*A4*^ *J^**»**
HDV
20,545
20,919
21,294
21,668
21,921
21,959
21,749
21,891
22,244
22,598
22,952
23,306
23,659
24,012
24,367
24,720
25,073
(25,428)

* *. »»••! v " f r f •"-*
0V
7,704
7,845
7,985
8,125
8,220
8,234
8,155
8,209
8,342
8,475
8,607
8,739
8,873
9,005
9,137
9,271
9,403
(9,535)

TOTAL
428,021
435,818
443,615
451,412
456,683
457,480
453,105
456,058
463,426
470,794
478,163
485,532
492,900
500,268
507,636
515,005
522,373
(529,741)

FREEWAY
39.00
39.00
39.00
39.00
39.21
39.55
39.73
39.78
39.78
39.78
39.78
39.78
39.78
39.78
39.78
39.78
39.78
FSPD -
0.17
ARTERIAL
19.00
19.00
19.00
19.00
19.10
19.27
19.35
19.38
19.38
19.38
19.38
19.38
19.38
19.38
19.38
19.38
19.38
fraction of VMT's
each speed class,
0.13
LOCAL STREETS
17.00
17.00
17.00
17.00
17.09
17.24
17.32
17.34
17.34
17.34
17.34
17.34
17.34
17.34
17.34
17.34
17.34
traveled at
Zone 1:
0.70
The above values were the inputs to the programs VEHEMI2 and VEHEMI3 for the "with strategies11  computer runs.  They
may be compared with the VMT's in the Appendices (see 1977 24-hour VME for Zone 1),  and with those  listed  in Table II-
14, pageH-80. The latter formed the basis for the "no-strategy" computer runs.

-------
                                TABLE 1-6


             FRACTION OF TOTAL VEHICLES IN USE - LDV ONLY

                          (As of 31 December)



AGE (YEARS)        NATION-WIDE        REGION-WIDE        COUNTY-WIPE

     0                0.038              0.030              0.033

     1                 .068               -104               -114

     2                 .117               -124               -133
     3                 .111               .120               -126

     4                 .098               -HI               -113
     5                 .106               .108               .108

     6                 .105               -HO               -107

     7                 .087               .094               -089

     8                 .076               .071               -066

     9                 .059               .050               .045

    10                 .036               .028               .025

    11                 .029               .015               .013

    12                 .016               .009               .007   .

    13+               .054               .026               .021
     The  above  tabulation compares the nation-wide data as given in Table 14
     of the paper by Kircher and Armstrong with those derived from the AM?
     data for the SPRPC Region and Allegheny County, respectively.  The base
     year was 1971-  The "zero years" age group refers to next year's models
     introduced in the fall; in this case, these would be the 1972 models.
     As explained in the text, the computer program
     shifts the selected VAD forward or backward in time from the year 1971,
     assuming that the same VAD holds for the calendar year being studied.
     The successively "younger" vehicle populations are evident as we go
     from the national average to the Regional distribution, then to that
     for Allegheny County by itself.  The importance of this is that the
     greater the mix of "new" cars, the lower the overall rate of emissions
     from the given population.  This is the reason for the apparent dis-
     crepancy between the numbers generated earlier in this study using
     the Regional figures, and those given here which are based on the
     County averages.  Since it is good practice to use local distributions
     whenever possible, the lower emission figures are believed to be more
     nearly correct than those published in the Draft Report.

                                  1-16

-------
                                                  TABLE  1-7
                                     RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PROGRAM
Trans pot tat Ion
Control
Strategy
91 Inspection
& Mainten-
ance
#2 Upgrading
existing
streets
Traffic Flow
Improvements
#3 Increase
daily parking
rate $1.45,
utilize existing
parking spaces
In fringe areas,
and institute
express bus ser-
vice, extend
coverage, decrees
headways & In-
crease running
speed
fit Retrofit
Total Control
Program
Emission
Reduction
CO, HC
07. 16. «
L////X/I
Decrease dally CO evil
sions by n and daily
HC emissions by 10.81
CO, HC
m 16.41
tt \
Decrease dally CO and
HC emissions by 1.4%
CO.HC
ra i«,4i
K/J 1
Decrease CO & HC
emissions by
5.5 percent
CO, HC
n is.**
I////I 1
Decrease CO & HC
emissions by 8.21
CO
OX 241
V///////A \
Decrease daily CO
emissions by 22.21,
HC emissions by
24 %-
Desired reduction
for CO is 16.41,
SOURCE OF EMISSION REDUCTION
Emission
Rate Reduction
Expected to reduce HC
emission rate by 10. 8)1
and daily CO emission
rate by 9.01
Due to 2 percent aver-
age dally speed In-
crease, a 1.41 emission
rate reduction
Ho significant reduc-
tion expected
Expected Co reduce
daily CO & RC emission
rates by 8.21
An 18.51 HC emission
rate reduction and
a 16.71 CO emission
rate reduction
'VHI Reduction
Ho reduction
expected
No reduction
expected
Expected to
reduce VMt by
5.51
Ro reduction
expected
A 5.51 WO re-
duction
Capital Costs
Approximately $38
Million
Minimal capital
cost
Approximately $12
Million
Approximately $34
Million"
Approximately $84
Million
Non-Economic Impact
Program Is adaptable to existing
program. „
State legislation required.
Technology has been developed.
Similar program Implemented.
Mo legislative enactment needed.
No technical Innovation required.
Similar program implemented elsewhere.
No legislative enactment needed.
No significant technical innovation
required.
Program is adaptable to existing progr
State legislation required.*
Technology has been developed.
Program Is Implementable with State
legislation.* Ho significant tech-
nical innovation required.
Sections 834(a) and 850-
                       •Total capital cost of retrofit plus I&M is approximately $72 million for the SPRPC Region.

-------
Incr****

\
601 of



1001 of
IM*
lacraMO
Shore T«r*
Tv«niU
MM


B*sla
Short T«r»
I«9f avti i


2.5% Mod.
Chelc*
UglgUelon
Cavt«tl, Mela-
: Iteration
Hma*i


c«*u»
IHkllcil
ItiidUl

V
/
/
1

tatln









Ml la
Inautlwlaa
301 lf(M-
tlw«B«M








lUtllUtlMI
C**fl*M ,
1001 Iff.e-
tl*n>»


Figure 1-2.  Implementation schedule  for  the  recommended transportation
             control program.
                                     1-18

-------
II-  VERIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM


     A.  OUTLINE OF METHODOLOGY


         The basic procedure employed was to develop, for each city,

pollutant concentration levels which could be expected in 1977 without

the application of transportation controls (the potential 1977 levels).

Pollutant levels were determined by the proportional model using non-

vehicular emissions supplied by state agencies and using vehicular emis-

sions based on traffic data developed during the course of this study.

More sophisticated techniques could hot be employed due to the lack of

suitable extant calibrated diffusion models,  and the short time period

of the contract which precluded the development of a suitable model and

the required inputs.  Comparison of potential 1977 air quality levels with

the appropriate standard gave the allowable motor vehicle emissions in

1977, which in turn formed the basis for the development of transportation

control strategies.


         Emissions from non-vehicular sources were obtained from state

implementation plans updated as required from information supplied by

state agencies.  Emissions from vehicular sources were computed follow-

ing the recommendations given in EPA draft publication An Interim Report

on Motor Vehicle Emission Estimation by David S. Kircher and Donald P-

Armstrong, dated October 1972.  Air quality data for each sensor within
      In this discussion, the word city is used to denote the urban area
covered by the study and is not restricted to the area within the politi-
cal limits of the city.
                                II-l

-------
the city area was reviewed and evaluated in close cooperation with state


and local agencies.  The instrumental method and sensor location  were


studied and records of instrument maintenance and calibration examined so


as to identify questionable readings.  Meteorological records were then


examined and compared with seasonal and diurnal variations in air quality


levels.  Finally the pollutant concentration which would form the basis


for the proportional rollback calculations was decided upon in concert


with state and local agencies and EPA representatives.  The year in which


this concentration level occurred defined the base year for the propor-

                             *
tional rollback calculations.



         Because of the major differences involved,  the detailed method-


ologies for carbon monoxide and oxidants are presented separately below.



         1.  Methodology for Carbon Monoxide^



             Because ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide at any


given location appear to be highly dependent on carbon monoxide emissions


in the near vicinity, it was felt that some justification existed for a


modification of the proportional model.  It was felt that in order to re-


duce ambient CO levels in, for example, a central business district (CBD),


it would be more appropriate to roll back CO emissions in the CBD itself,


rather than the entire air quality region.  The assumption was therefore


made that pollutant concentration in any given zone was directly propor-
      Because the air quality data for Pittsburgh were available for the
period June 1971, to July 1972, and because the "as of" date of the VMT

is December 1971, the fact that the highest 8-hourly maximum occurred in
November 1971 makes all data closely compatible in time.
                                 II-2

-------
tional to the emission  rate of  that  pollutant emission within that  zone.




Accordingly, each city  area was divided  into traffic zones  - about  the




size of the central business district  (CBD) in the center of the city




with increasingly larger  zones  towards the suburban areas.  Where traffic




data was already available for  existing  "traffic districts" the traffic




zones were either the traffic districts  themselves or suitable aggrega-




tions thereof.  Otherwise the traffic zones were based on rectangular




grids.





             An emission  concentration  ratio   (e/c ratio)  was




assigned to each sensor,  the e/c ratio being based on the daily CO emis-




sions (expressed in kg/24 hrs.) for  the  base year within the zone in




which the sensor was located, and the CO concentration value which formed




the basis of the proportional rollback computations.  Based on the e/c




ratios so obtained, the maximum allowable emission  rate  was derived




which corresponded to the national air quality level to be achieved (i.e.,




9 ppm for an 8-hour average).   The emission  rates  for  the   critical




zone were then prepared for years 1977,  etc., based on the predicted




vehicular and non-vehicular emissions for those years.   Vehicular emis-




sions were based on traffic patterns predicted for those years in the




absence of any transportation controls imposed in order to meet national




air quality standards for CO (the "no strategy case").   Non-vehicular




emissions for the years of interest were obtained from state implementa-




tion plans and state agencies,  and take  into account predicted growth




and the predicted control strategies to be applied to those sources.  The




predicted control strategies were generally those which state agencies
                                II-3

-------
considered to be the maximum feasible, and therefore the predicted  non-




vehicular emissions were assumed to be irreducible  for the purposes  of




this study.




             On the assumption that the predicted emission densities  from




non-vehicular sources were to be taken as irreducible, the allowable  emis-




sions from motor vehicles in each zone for the year of interest were  then




determined.  For the purposes of evaluating the effects of candidate




transportation controls, the maximum allowable emission rate for the




year 1977 was expressed as a percentage reduction from the 1977 "no




strategy" emission  rate.    However, as will be seen in following sec-




tions of this report, as each traffic control was developed,  emissions




were recomputed, using the revised VMT's and speeds resulting from the




application of the control measures.





             A typical summary sheet of the output of this  methodology is




shown in Table  II-A.   It should  be  noted  that the term  "with-



out strategy" refers to a transportation strategy, i.e,  one which affects




only vehicle emissions.  The non-vehicular emissions used reflected




both the growth expected in such emissions and also the  effect  of various



control strategies for non-vehicular sources  as predicted by  state agen-



cies.  It should also be noted that total emissions rather  than emission



densities are presented in Table  II-A,  since the summary  refers  to the



rollback in one zone only.
                                 II-4

-------
                               TABLE II-A

                        SUMMARY SHEET FOR: PITTSBURGH

                          DATE:  5 January 1973
 II.  CARBON MONOXIDE

      A.  Zone for which emissions computed

          Zone 1 - the Golden Triangle (downtown Pittsburgh)



      B.  Area:  1.26 sq. miles


      C.  Carbon Monoxide Emissions (kg/24 hr.) and CO levels (ppm)
                                 Pres-   1975      1977
                                 ent    Without   Without
                                 1972   Strategy  Strategy
                                                           1977       1977
                                                           with       with
                                                          Oxidant      CO
                                                          Strategy  Strategy
                                                            Only	Only

Vehicular Emissions
Non- Vehicular Emissions
Total Emissions

CO level (8-hr average)

27,1H
2,200
29,311

21.3

19,538
1,419
20,957

15.2

13,120
1,419
14,539

10.6
*
13,120
1,419
14,539

10.6

10,197
1,419
11,616
**
a.4
**
No special oxidant strategy planned
Federal standard is 9.0 ppm
                             WITHOUT STRATEGIES
 CO level (8-hr average)
                               1978
                                          1979
                              8.8
7.6
            1980
6.4
            1982
Vehicular Emissions
Non-Vehicular Emissions
Total Emissions
10,698
1,469
12,167
8,897
1,520
10,417
7,199
1,573
8,772
5,278
1,685
6,963
5.1
                                 II-5

-------
          2.   Discussion of Methodology for Carbon Monoxide


              a.   Modified Proportional Model Applications


                  Modified proportional model applications and the limita-

 tions of the conventional proportional rollback method have been well docu-

 mented and reviewed  and need not  be discussed further here.  The tech-

 nique used in the present study was  an extension of the conventional roll-

 back technique to the extent  that  it was  assumed first, that the constant

 of proportionality between emissions and  concentration may be derived from

 emissions emanating from the  relatively small area around the sensor (the

 traffic zone), and second,  that this constant of proportionality (the

 emission/concentration ratio)  could  be applied to determine pollutant con-

 centrations  in other zones of comparable  area on the basis of the pollutant

 emissions in those zones.


                  Some justification  of the first assumption can be found, for
                                 2             3
 example, in recent work of Hanna  and Gifford  who demonstrate the dominance of

 urban pollution patterns by the distribution of the local area sources.

 The success of their urban diffusion model, in which concentration is

 simply directly proportional  to the  area  source strength and inversely

 proportional to wind speed, is attributed largely to the relatively uni-

 form distribution of emission within an urban area and the rate at which
       Noel de Nevers.   Rollback Modeling, Basic  and Modified.   Draft Docu-
 ment,  EPA, Durham,  N.C.  (August 1972).

      2
       Hanna, S.R., "A Simple Method of Calculating Dispersion from Urban
Area Sources," J. APCA 21., Ilk-Ill (December 1971)

      Gifford, F.A., "Applications of a Simple Urban Pollution Model,"
(paper presented at the Conference on Urban Environment and Second Con-
ference on Biometeorology of the Amer. Meteor. Soc.,  October 31 - Novem-
ber 2, 1972, Philadelphia, Pa.).


                                II-6

-------
the effect of an area source upon a given receptor decreases with distance.




In the proportional model, meteorological effects, such as wind speed, are




assumed to be duplicated over one-year periods.  The validity of the




second assumption depends, in large part, upon the extent to which




diffusion and transport parameters are uniform from zone to zone ~  a




factor which could not be investigated because of the constraints  of



the program.  Thus, it was felt that, in the absence of a more sophis-



ticated technique, the use of this extension to the proportional model




was justified first, to obtain some assessment as to whether the existing



sensors were located in the hot-spots, and second, to obtain some assurance




that transportation strategies intended to reduce emission densities in




one zone (to the level required to meet ambient standards) did not  increase




emission densities to unacceptable levels in adjacent zones,   in Pittsburgh




it was found that the sensors were, in fact, in the "hot spot" zone and also




that the recommended transportation controls did not increase emissions in




adjacent areas to unacceptable levels.  Thus the final rollbacks were con-




fined to the zone with a sensor within its boundaries and the extensions of



the techniques to other non-sensor zones did not, therefores play a primary




role in the final computations.






                 As might be expected, where an urban area had several



sensors, the emission concentration ratios were widely different and




this served to underline the fundamental  limitations of the technique




employed.  An implicit assumption  in  the  technique employed was that the




air quality in a traffic zone  could be fairly  represented by  one con -
                                 II-7

-------
centration level and that this level depended only upon the average emis-

sion density within that zone.  The two major factors mitigating against

this assumption are

                 (a)  Emission densities are not uniform across
                      even a small traffic zone,

                 (b)  Concentration levels are not uniform across
                      the traffic zone partly because of the lack
                      of uniformity of emission density and partly
                      because the point surface concentrations are
                      affected by micrometeorology and microtopo-
                      graphy as well as emission density.


Considerable judgment had to be used, therefore, both in the derivation

of e/c ratios and in their subsequent use.   In heavily trafficked down-

town areas the variation was judged not to be too great,  so that the

single recorded concentration might reasonably be expected to be repre-

sentative of the zone's air quality and emission density.   However, in

suburban zones having overall low traffic densities,  sensors were often

found to be placed at very localized hot spots,  such  as a  traffic circle,

so that the recorded concentration levels were neither representative

of the overall air quality nor of the overall emission density in the

zone.


                 Accordingly, e/c ratios were generally derived from sen-

sors in the central areas of the cities and applied to suburban areas for

the prediction of 1977 concentration levels.   This procedure gave air

levels which were generally representative of the suburban zone.  How-

ever, it must be realized that control strategies based on this procedure,
                               II-8

-------
 while they  may ensure that the overall air quality in a suburban zone will




 not exceed ambient standards,  do not preclude the occurrence of higher




 concentrations in very localized hot spots such as might occur in the




 immediate vicinity of a major traffic intersection.





              b.  Seasonal and Diurnal Variations





                  The carbon monoxide concentration level chosen as the




basis for the base year e/c ratio in the CBD was the highest valid 8-hour




average observed during the base year 1971-1972.  The one-hour averages




were very much closer to the standard than the 8-hour average, so that




controls required to meet the 8-hour standard would also result in the




1-hour standard being met.  Although seasonal variations in readings




were noted, traffic data were not available on a seasonal basis, so that




vehicle emissions were based on annual average work day traffic data.




              c.  Background Concentrations





                  Background concentration levels of CO were not taken




 into account.   Where a zone was located near a large point  source,  simple




 "worst case" diffusion calculations  were performed to assess  the  effect




 of the point source on the  zone.   In all cases,  it was found  that this



 contribution was  negligible.






          3.  Methodology  and Discussion for  Oxidants





             The  technique  employed  for oxidants was  basically  the  same




 as  has just  been  described  for  CO with  the major  difference that  only




 one,  very much  larger  area, was used  as  the  basis  for the proportional




 rollback.  Because  of  the length  of  time required  for the formation of
                                  II-9

-------
oxidants from hydrocarbon emissions, the relatively small areas used as




the basis for CO could not be justified.  The actual area used in each




city was largely a matter of judgment and the decision was made in con-




cert with state and local officials and EPA.   In general, it was about




the size of the metropolitan area.  For Pittsburgh, Allegheny County was used.






             The reductions in hydrocarbon emissions necessary to achieve




oxidant ambient standards were obtained from  Appendix J,  Federal Register




of August 14, 1971.
                               11-10

-------
     B.  DISCUSSION  OF  1971-1972 AIR QUALITY LEVELS





         1.  Natural Features





             a.  Topography





                 The Southwest Pennsylvania Intrastate Air Quality Control



Region  is  designated in paragraph  81.23  of 40 CFR 81, Federal Register.




Vol. 36, No. 228,  25 November 1971 in  accordance with the provisions of




the Federal Clean  Air Act, as amended  (42 USC 1857 as amended by PL 91-604)




to consist of Allegheny County  (Pittsburgh) and surrounding Armstrong, Beaver,




Butler, Fayette, Greene,  Indiana,  Washington, and Westmoreland Counties  (see




Figure  II-l). Most of the population and activity is concentrated in the City




of Pittsburgh and  suburban Allegheny County. The region lies to the west of




the Allegheny Mountains  of central Pennslyvania and occupies the central




portion of the Allegheny  Plateau, which  extends from southwestern West




Virginia through western  and northern Pennsylvania into central New York.




Several large rivers have cut deep valleys into the plateau, so that the




terrain is characterized  by quite  rugged relief.   The larger valleys,  such




as those of the Ohio, Allegheny, Monongahela and Youghiogheny Rivers, have




steep sides and narrow, winding channels lying some 300 to 500 feet below




the level  of the plateau.  Historically, commerce and industry developed




along the  river valleys,  and the consequences in terms of air pollution




have been apparent for generations.  The City of Pittsburgh was founded




at the point where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers join to form the




Ohio River; today,  the "Point" of the "Golden Triangle" is at the center




of a large metropolitan region containing a major portion of the steel




industry of the United States as well as much other industrial and commer-
                                 11-11

-------
Figure II-l.  SPRPC and SPAQC regions.
                           11-12

-------
cial activity.  The  emanations  from the many  mills and factories are to




a  considerable  extent  trapped by  the walls  of the valleys and thus are not




dispersed as  they would  be  in more  open terrain.  This condition is exacer-




bated under conditions of atmospheric  stability and especially when tem-




perature  inversions  are  experienced,as discussed in the following section.






      b.  Meteorology  and Climatology






           The Allegheny  Plateau,  shielded to  a large extent from the




moderating influence of  the Atlantic Ocean  by the Appalachian Mountains,




is for  the most part under  the  influence of continental polar air masses




traveling from  Canada  by way of the Great Lakes or the Great Plains,




although  during the  summer  months the area  is frequently overrun by




maritime  tropical air  from  the  Gulf of Mexico.  The Pittsburgh area,




lying near the  mean  storm track for much of the year, is subject to




moderately high annual amounts  of precipitation and cloudiness, although




episodes  of slowly moving anticyclonic circulations, the so-called "stagnant




highs", are fairly common,  especially in the  fall and winter months.  Under




these conditions the air becomes very stable, especially at night under




clear skies when radiations 1 cooling gives  rise to pronounced temperature




inversions near the  ground.  The  pollutants  from the numerous steel mills




and other  stationary sources, as well as those from motor vehicles,  tend




to become trapped in the lower  layers of the atmospheric during the late




night and early morning hours, until the increasing input of solar energy




after sunrise can  burn off  the ground fog and clear the air generally




by wiping out the inversion and restoring a more  normal  temperature
                                  11-13

-------
 distribution aloft.   While this condition is certainly not unique to




 the Pittsburgh area,  it is made worse there by the presence of concentrated




 emissions of pollutants in the narrow, deep, and winding valleys which act




 both as physical deterrents to the dispersal of pollutants and as delaying




 agents to the onset of the solar heating effect referred to above.  There




 is an additional effect as well., that of the well-known "mountain and




 valley breeze", which tends to concentrate the colder air near the bottoms




 of the valleys during the hours of darkness, thus increasing still further




 the strength of the temperature inversions which are present on a regional




 basis anyway, and causing a further delay in their break-up during the day.




 All of this gives rise to frequent river fogs and, where concentrations of




 pollutants are present, to potentially severe air pollution episodes.




 One of the best-known of such occurrences, that at Donor a, Pennsylvania,




 took place in 1948 not more than 20 miles from downtown Pittsburgh under




 precisely the conditions outlined above:  stable atmosphere with little or




 no wind, cold weather, night-time hours, concentrated industrial emissions




 in a narrow, winding, steep-walled valley (that of the Monongahela River).






             Next to terrain and atmospheric stability effects, the most



important meteorological parameters for air pollution considerations are the



wind speed and direction.  These three factors, topography, stability  and



wind velocity, are closely interrelated in many ways, but for our purposes




it suffices to emphasize that, while the Pittsburgh area lies in the heart




of the prevailing westerlies of the Temperate Zone (see Table II-l)  the




rough terrain creates wide variations from the mean wind velocity,  in
                                 11-14

-------
                                              TABLE  II-l
     PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF SURFACE WIND DIRECTION AND SPEED (FROM HOURLY OBSERVATIONS)

                            Greater Pittsburgh Airport, 1945-1965



(knots)  1-3  4-6   7-10   11-16   17-21   22-27   28-33   34-40   41-47   48-55   56
                                                                                                          Mean
DirectTbtt^^^
North
NNE
NE
ENE
East
ESE
SE
SSE
South
ssw
sw
wsw
West
WNW
NW
NNW
CALM


0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3

7.8
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.5
1.7
1.4
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.2

24.7
1.6
1.3
1.1
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.4
1.6
2.0
3.4
4.5
2.9
2.6
2.3
1.9

32.9
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.5
1.3
2.7
4.6
2.7
2.6
1.7
1.1

20.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.7
1.5
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.1

4.8
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0

1.3

0.0



0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.



0.


0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.


0.

0



0


0
0
0 0.0 0.0
0 0.0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0


1 0.0 0.0
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.9
4.7
4.3
4.7
3.8
4.4
5.4
9.5
13.5
9.0
8.0
6.0
4.8
7.4
100.0
7.3
6.8
5.2
7.0
6.8
7.6
7.1
7.8
7.0
8.9
10.0
11.4
10.5
10.7
9.4
8.7

8.3
I
l-»
Ol
       Total number of observations was 176,927.

-------
general, the "roughness effect" acts to decrease the mean wind speed due




to frictlonal forces; at the same time, the local wind direction tends




to become channeled along the orientation of the valleys.  The overall




result is to create a tendency for further concentration of pollutants




in the valley areas occupied by industrial and highway sources.



With this combination oi unfavorable influences at work in the Greater Pitts-




burgh area since the middle of the 19th Century, there is little wonder that




a serious air pollution problem has existed for a long time.  Forbes Maga-




zine for 15 November 1972 contains a photograph (p. 36) of Pittsburgh as it




looked thirty years ago, before the clean air campaign took hold.





              One favorable aspect of  the  distribution of industry and




 motor vehicle traffic in the Pittsburgh area  is that,  from the standpoint




 of one who is studying the air pollution  problem there,  the fact that



 population and pollution sources tend to  be concentrated in the valleys




 at least allows him to focus his attention on these  relatively small geo-




 graphical areas.  The 20 zones with the highest emission densities are




 listed in Table II-2.  As can be seen by  referring to Figures II-2 and




 II-3,  they are clustered around the CBD.   Zone 1  is  the  downtown Pitts-




 burgh area, the "Golden Triangle." The zones  contiguous  to Zone 1 are 2,




 9, 14, 16, and 17.  Zones 1-20 are in the City of Pittsburgh.  Zones 21-



 51 compose the rest of Allegheny County.   In  general,  the higher the zone



 number, the farther it is from the "Point", but there are exceptions to



 this.   (It is of some interest to note that the sequence  of highest emis-




 sion densities is not the same for HC as  it is for CO; the  reasons for




 this are not yet fully understood, although non-vehicular sources do play




 a larger part in HC emissions than they do in CO emissions.)   The "zone"




                                 11-16

-------
                             TABLE II-2









     EMISSION DENSITIES IN THE SPRPC REGION, 1972 and 1977 (kg/sq.  mi.)




Showing the 20 highest zones in descending order of CO emission density.

Zone #
1
2
16
3
14
6
9
17
18
11
7
23
50
13
20
21
12
5
8
19
1972
CO
21,859.16
7,929.38
7,373.80
6,437.18
6,230.87
6,016.03
5,957.84
5,207.37
4,071.58
3,214.32
2,803.93
2,498.99
2, 104. 05
2,103.67
1,972.03
1,904-18
1,761.90
1,586.24
1,450.34
1,345.57

SC
3113.65
1159.65
1063.84
925.84
976.34
864.62
836.96
745. 04
592.94
463. 03
390.82
449.39
387.23
297.25
278.33
336.67
255.58
220. 24
198.93
194.73

Zone #
1
16
2
3
14
6
9
17
18
11
7
23
20
50
21
13
44
12
5
8
1977
CO
10,975.53
4,419.27
3,950.94
3,165.03
3,155.99
2,996.99
2,959.80
2,648.50
1,981.63
1,515.73
1,378.30
1,286.98
1,114.95
1,111.17
1,031.89
949.95
804.22
' 804.08
725.99
721.98

HC
1423.70
579.63
523.46
413.77
441.85
391.55
379.86
345.02
261.90
198.56
175.76
197.91
143. 94
173.90
156.67
122.50
126.62
105.93
92.28
90.86
    Source:  computer program VEHEMI2,  "no-strategy" case.
                               11-17

-------
Figure H-2.Zone map, SPRPC region.
              11-18

-------
Figure U-3. Zone map, city of Pittsburgh.

-------
terminology refers to the AMV Districts,  which are aggregates of the




Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission (SPRPC) Traffic




Analysis Zones (see Figures  JI-2 and II-3).






         2.  Instrumentat ion





             a.  Sampling Locations





                 (1) General



                     While we have some data on CO,  total oxidants,  and total




 hydrocarbons (HC)  from five different sites  in the Greater Pittsburgh




 area (See Map, Figure  II-4),  close inspection of  these data  and  consultation




 with personnel of  the Allegheny County Bureau of Air Pollution Control




(BAPC) have revealed that only the  observations from the  three sites dis-




 cussed in detail below were both consistently accurate and of sufficient




 frequency over a significant period of time  to form the  basis for con-




 clusions  regarding the ambient air quality in the region.  No data were




 abstracted from  the other three stations of  the BAPC telemetering network



 (nos.  2,  k,  and  5  in Figure II-4).





                   (2) Downtown Pittsburgh  (Zone 1)





                      The sensor is located  on the Forbes St. (southwest)





 side of the Allegheny County Court House, about 15 feet  above the street




 level and  20 feet  in from the curb.  Its position below  a window of the




 Court House  is about 50  feet from Grant Street.  The recorder and other




 instrumentation  are in a room of the Court House adjacent to the sensor




 location.  Situated on the  southeast side of the Golden  Triangle, in the
                              11-20

-------
BUREAU OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
TELEMETERING AIR MONITORING
STATION MAP

1  HAZELWOOD
2  LIBERTY BOROUGH - CLAIRTON
3  GLASSPORT
4  SPRINGDALE
5  LOGANS FERRY HEIGHTS
6  BELLEVUE
7  DOWNTOWN
       ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
        Figure II-4.
Taken from the Allegheny County Emission
Inventory for 1972.

-------
very heart of downtown Pittsburgh, this location is well suited to give




a true representation of the concentrations of CO and HC pollutants to be




expected from the heavy vehicular traffic to which it is exposed.  Given




the general experience in most urban areas that practically all of the CO




emissions (on the order of 90 - 95%) come from the internal combustion




engine and that the vast preponderance (75 - 80%) of HC emissions also




come from gasoline-fueled engines, this site is almost ideally located




for purposes of a study of transportation-related air pollution.   This




is all the more true since, as will be discussed later, there is only one




major point source located within Zone 1, the downtown area, and it contri-




butes only about 0.2 ppm to the ambient concentration of CO.  Since the




sensing device is located on the wall of a high building there is a physical




restriction of the sampling process:  it is exposed to air from only one-




half of the possible directions.  On the other hand,  the "roughness" con-




cept as discussed in the preceding section with respect to the effects of




terrain and underlying surface is equally applicable to urban areas with




their many tall buildings and narrow, canyon-like streets.   Indeed, the




study of the eddy motions of all scales related to turbulence induced by




urban built-up areas is a highly complex area of specialization in its




own right and can only be acknowledged in passing here, important as it



is in air pollution meteorology.






             (3)  Bellevue  (Zone 30)





                 The  sensor  for this  site   (No.  6  in  Figure II-4)  is




positioned on top of  a camper-type  trailer  semipermanently  parked  on  the



north bank of the Ohio River on a high bluff  about 200 feet above  the
                                  11-22

-------
water level and  30  feet  in  from the river bank below. The site is off of




Ohio River Blvd.  in the  Borough of Bellevue, about 4 miles downstream (north-




west) of  the  Golden Triangle.   The height of the  sensor above the ground




is  20 feet; it  is about  100 feet from the roadside, behind a steel fence




which separates  it  from  a gasoline service  station.  There is a possibility




of  some interference from the  HC fumes emanating  from the adjacent gas




station,  which  is only some 40 feet away.   Because of its high elevation




and nearness  to  a major  highway artery,  the readings from this site




should  prove  to  be  representative of  the surrounding area as far as motor




vehicular pollutants are concerned.






          (4)   Arsenal Health  Center  (Zone  2)






               This is under the jurisdiction of  the Allegheny County




Health  Department,  the parent  organization  of the BAFC.  The complex of




buildings is  located at  the corner of 39th  Street and Penn Avenue, in the




Lawrenceville section of Pittsburgh near the Allegheny River.  While this




site is some  three  miles from  the downtown  area,  it is still well within




the built-up  and highly  industrialized area characterizing the city proper.




As  a matter of fact,  it  is  situated not  far from  several large point




sources (tank farms and  the like) which  are located along the south bank




of  the  Allegheny within  a mile of the Center.  It is also located near a




major arterial highway,  but not close enough to be exposed to high con-




centrations of exhaust emissions  from motor vehicles.  This site was




used only for measurements  of  ozone concentrations in this study, and its




precise location with respect  to  the  various sources is therefore not a
                                    11-23

-------
critical matter as long as it lies generally downwind from them, since




in the case of oxidants we are concerned more with the area-wide picture




than with particular zones within the area.  The sensing instrument was




located 20 feet above the ground.









             b.  Type of Instrumentation





                 (1)  Downtown Pittsburgh





                      The instrument used for the detection and measurement of




CO concentrations is an MSA Lira non-dispersive infrared analyzer.   It has a



25 cu ft/hr flow rate and a refrigerator to remove moisture.   Sampling is




continuous and is recorded at three minute intervals and telemetered to




the Arsenal Health Center (see above).   The room where the instruments are



located is presently undergoing remodeling and they are covered with plastic




sheets to prevent excessive dust from interfering with their operation.



The effectiveness of these measures could not be assessed.  It is expected




that the instruments will be moved to a new location within the Court



House, possibly on the Grant Street side.  If this does occur, a new




exposure will create some minor discontinuity in the records, but the




effect, if any, on the overall efficiency of the BAPC operation should



prove to be only slight.






               A Mast instrument for measuring total oxidants was also




installed in the equipment room; however, it had been shut down because




of the danger to the historical site (the Old County Court House itself)




represented by the hydrogen tank associated with the Mast instrument.  In
                                    11-24

-------
any event, the data from this and other oxidant-measuring instruments at




other sites in the Pittsburgh area were not usable because they lay out-




side the range of possible values as oxidants are usually measured and



reported for purposes of air pollution control.





                 (2)  Bellevue





                      The same type of CO analyzer was installed at this site;



the MSA Lira with refrigerant  dryer  to  remove  moisture from the air stream.




As  in  the downtown  location, sampling is  continuous and the results are




telemetered to the Arsenal Health Center  at three minute intervals for




data reduction.  This instrument was down for  parts at the time of our visit




and had been so since 1 September 1972; it should be back in operation




"shortly".  The operating  personnel  had some difficulties with the air




conditioner during  the year  that the installation was in operation.  During




the summer months the trailer  housing the recorder and other instrumentation




gets very hot,  and  the failure of the air conditioning produced some bad




data.   This station commenced  operation in August, 1971, and the first




full month's data are for September  of  that year.  Thus, because of the




shortness  of the record, the data from  the Bellevue site must be used




with some  caution.   The CO data  appear  to be within reasonable limits, but



those  for  total oxidants and total hydrocarbons, like the corresponding




data from the  downtown site and  elsewhere, were not in useable form.  In




the case of the Bellevue site  the possibility  of interference from the




nearby  gas  station has  already been  mentioned  (for HC measurements).
                                  11-25

-------
                 (3)  Arsenal Health Center




                      The reference method for determination of ozone  con-



centrations, instrumental chemilumineecence, was used in the special study



made by EPA and other agencies during the summer of 1971 to assist those



cities which did not possess an adequate capability for monitoring oxidant



levels.  No information is available to us on the details of the equipment



used or the level of the staff expertise.  However, some additional infor-



mation is included in the following section on the air quality data it-



self (see Section IIB 3c).




         3.  Review and Evaluation of Air Quality Data




             a.  General




                 Some general comments on the regularity,  validity, and re-



liability of the available data have already been made in the preceding sec-



tions.  As stated previously, the CO data were uniformly good,  with only one or



two "far-out" observations recorded.  On the other hand, the 0  and HC data
                                                              X


from the stations listed below were not available in useful form because the



results tabulated were "out of range" for the expected values of "HC cor-



rected for methane" and "oxidants as ozone," respectively.   The several



tables of these data are not reproduced in this report,  since they do not



add anything of value and are quite voluminous.   In any event,  they are



already available to the various interested agencies.   Some of the possible



reasons for the results appearing in this form have been treated in the



section on instrumentation.
                                  11-26

-------
Type of
Pollutant
Carbon. Monoxide (CO)
"Oxidants" and "total
oxidants" (Ox)
Ozone
"Total hydrocar-
bons" (HC)
Name of
Station
Downtown
Bellevue
Bellevue
Glassport
Hazelwood
Arsenal
Downtown
Bellevue
Ref. No.,
Figure II-4
7
6
6
3
1
"Central"
7
6
Period of
Record
Mar 71-Aug 72
Apr 71-Aug 72*
Apr 71-Aug 72*
Apr 71-Aug 72
Apr 71-Mar 72
Jun 71-Sep 71**
Apr 71-Feb 72
Oct 71-Oct 71
 (No data from the Logan's Ferry,  South Allegheny (Liberty),  or  Springdale
  stations.)
 *
  The trailer-mounted instruments  were originally set  up  at  the  Arsenal
  Health Center (39th St. and Penn Ave.) and were moved out  to the  present
  site in Bellevue in August, 1971.
 **
   These data were taken by the EPA-M1TRE Summer  Study project  (see below).
          b.   CO Data


              An analysis of the usable CO data from the  two  sites  described

 in Section HB 2a,  above,  for the periods shown in Section 3A  yielded  the  re-

 sults  summarized in Table  II-3.  The curves  in Figures II-5  and  II-6 show

 the seasonal and diurnal variations  in maximum intensities.  Complete

 tables of maximum 1-hour CO concentrations are included  as Appendix A.


              As can be seen,  both the 1-  and 8-hour average  concentrations

of CO  in downtown Pittsburgh have exceeded the approved national stand-

ards.  The highest recorded 1-hour average concentration of CO as meas-

ured at the sensing device for  Zone  1  (AMV District 1) is 44.2 ppm and

the second highest is 38.6 ppm  for the period of record.   The required

reduction of 20.8 percent from  the highest reading can easily be attained
                                     11-27

-------
                                                     TABLE  II-3
NS
00
Averaging
Station Zone Period
Downtown 1

Bellevue 30

If the Federal
Summary of Data
Arsenal 2
1-hour
8-hour
1-hour
8-hour
standard could be
for Ozone for the
1-hour
Highest
ppm Date
44.2
21.3
37.3
20.6
met by
Period
0.165
1 Oct 71
18 Nov 71
14 Sep 71
29 Feb 72
2nd Federal
Highest Standard
ppm Date ppm
38.6
21.2
35.3
20.0
3 Nov 71 35.0
2 Oct 71 9.0
15 Dec 71 35.0
24 Feb 72 9.0
Reduction
Required*
(%)
20.8 9.3
57,8 57.6
6.2 1.0
56.3 55.0
neglecting non-vehicular emissions.
1 June - 30
28 Jun 71
(1200)
September 1971:
0.155
28 Jun 71 0.08
(1300)
51.5 48.4

-------
          0



         II


         3«


         14
I
to
zz


20
                                                                                            JUNC
                   Figure II-5.  Monthly  variation in maximum hourly CO concentration downtown
                                 Pittsburgh.  Monthly average also shown.   (Value plotted is
                                 average  of two highest  readings  for the month.)

-------
LO
O
            00  01  02  03  04  05  06  07  08  09  10  II   12   13   14   IS   16   17   16   19  20  21   Z2  23  24
                   Figure  II-6.   Diurnal variation in hourly maximum CO readings  (downtown
                                  Pittsburgh).

-------
as a result of  the  operation of  the  presently authorized  and  required




Federal  program for control  of emissions  from motor  vehicles.  Even  though




the presence  of emissions  from non-vehicular  sources would  act to  prevent




the desired standard from  being  achieved  if this  amount of  reduction were




just barely reached, there is sufficient  leeway in the expected results




of the Federal  program,  as will  be shown  later, to insure that the 1-hour




standard can  be met. The  problem arises  when we  look at  the  8-hour




averages:  the  highest recorded  thus  far  at the Zone 1 site is 21.3  ppm




and the  next  highest is  21.2 ppm (see Table  II-3  above).   These




are more than twice as large as  the Federal standard and require a reduc-




tion in  vehicular emissions  (under the same assumption of negligible non-




vehicular emissions) of  57.8 percent  and  57.6  percent, respectively.




These are not attainable through the  present  Federal program; thus, a




transportation  control plan  for  the downtown  area must be instituted in




order to bring  the  level of  CO concentration  down to the standard by




1977.  It must  be emphasized here that the above reduction percentages




are not  the actual  figures required to attain  the standards.  As will be




shown in a later section,  the non-vehicular emissions cannot be neglected




and the  reduction percentages must be figured  based  on total emissions,




not just vehicular  ones.





         Since  the  control strategy required to reduce high 8-hour CO




concentrations may  depend  on the time of day or the  season of the year




when they occur most often,  the  data were analyzed to determine,  if




possible, the patterns of  interest.   The 1-hour averages were directly




available from the  raw data  (see Appendix A),  but the 8-hour values had
                                 11-31

-------
 to be computed from the  1-hour  data.  The method used was to scan the



 raw data for "runs" of high hourly  values, then add successive overlapping




 8-hour series to obtain  the candidates  for highest 8-hour average con-




 centrations.  As can be  seen  from the table below (Table II-4), this tech-




 nique produced several values which were nearly the same.  Thus, conclu-




 sions as to time of maximum 8-hour  concentration are apt to be based on




 somewhat shaky ground if it turns out that the high values are more or




 less randomly distributed through the day and through the year.  More-




 over, with only one year's record available for analysis, it is not




 really valid to assume that it  is typical of the long-term period in




 which we are interested  (out  to at  least 1977). With these caveats  in




 mind,  we can state,  at least  tentatively, that the diurnal cycle of CO con-




 centration seems  to be displaced in Pittsburgh from the early morning or




 nighttime maximum usually found elsewhere (see Figure II-6).  Based on




 these  limited  data,  the maxima at both sites appear in the late morning




 hours;  similarly, whereas the common experience in most areas has been




 that  the  highest  concentrations of  CO occur generally in the late fall




 and winter months,  it appears from  these data that the annual maximum can




 be found  in  the early fall in and around Pittsburgh (Figure II-5).  The




 reasons  for  this  apparent departure from the distribution to be expected




 on the basis of previous experience are not immediately apparent; it may




be that additional data from  future months and years, especially if the




 instrumentation and technical staff are maintained at a high level of




 efficiency, will enable us to ascertain the true patterns of annual and




diurnal variation.  About all that can be said with any degree of confi-
                                11-32

-------
                                TABLE I1-4


HIGHEST RECORDED 8-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS (CO), PITTSBURGH, ZONE 1
                                                      8-HOUR AVB.
         DATE                   HOURS              CONCENTRATION  (PPM)
18 Nov 1971
2-3 Oct 1971
29 Feb - 1 Mar 1972
14-15 Dec. 1971

1 Oct 1971
17-18 Nov 1971
18 Aug 1971
07-14
20-03
18-01
18-01
19-02
08-15
17-24
07-14

21.27
21.2
20.9
20.4
20.4
20.4
19.8
18.7

  HIGHEST RECORDED 8-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS (CO), BELLEVUE, ZONE 30
                                                     8-HOUR AVG.
         DATE                   HOURS              CONCENTRATION  (PPM)
29 Feb-1 Mar 1972
24 Feb 1972
14-15 Dec 1971

19-02
11-18
17-24
18-01
20.6
20.0
19.1
19.1
                                    11-33

-------
dence at this time is that there is a greater frequency of high  8-hour




average concentrations of CO  in the late afternoon and evening (1800  to




0200 hrs) than at other times, although even this generality  is  based on




extremely limited data.





                 An interesting picture is presented by the histogram in




Figure II-7, which displays the number of daily maxima of hourly readings




of CO concentration in Zone 1, by hour.  The morning and evening rush hour




traffic shows up clearly and several secondary features also appear.  This




is an excellent example of the way in which the driving habits and life




styles of a city's residents are faithfully reflected in the diurnal var-




iation in the concentrations of its atmospheric pollutants.   Without




stretching the point too far, one could deduce something about the times




of day when most Pittsburghers go to work (between 0700 and 0900),  when




the ladies do their shopping or meet friends for lunch (around 1100),  when



the people who work in the downtown area go home for  supper (1600 to 1800),




when they go out to eat or to a movie,  perhaps  (2000  to 2100), and when




they return home again (2300 to 2400).   Even the relative  shape of the




frequencies is preserved:   one can  equate  the "early  shift" (0700)  to  the



early quitting time (1600),  and so  on.






             c.   Oxidant Data





                 As stated earlier,  the  oxidant  data  obtained  from the




BAPC were found not to be useful for the present study.  Fortunately,  a




special study was carried out during the summer  of  1971 by the EPA and sev-




eral of the State and local  agencies with  the assistance of  the MITSE  Corp-
                                   11-34

-------
LJ
Ul
          70
          60
         I
         t-
3

1,0
a
a

 30
o
z
          20
          10
                 19
                      11
                             o
                                                  35
                                                         32
                                                     23
                                                                                  40
                                                                              25
                                                                          13
                                                               11  11 11
                                                                                       29
                                                                                               14
                                                                                                   19
                                                                                                               26
                                                                                                          23
                                              1 - 1
                                                              1 - 1
                                                                               i    I	J	1	L
             00
                01  02    03 04   05  06   07   08  09   10   II   12  13   14   15  16  17   18  19   20  21  22   23   24  25
                                                       t- TIME
                            Figure II-7.  Hourly frequency of daily maximum  CO concentration

                                           June,  1971 to August, 1972.

-------
oration to determine concentrations of ozone  (0.)  in cities  lacking  &




capability to monitor ozone adequately but large enough to pose  a  puta-




tive oxidant problem.  Fortunately again, Pittsburgh was among the 33




cities included in this study.  As stated previously, the site selected




in Pittsburgh was well located with respect to the greatest ambient con-




centrations of hydrocarbons, in that it lies some 3 miles to the north-




east of the downtown area.  As shown in the computer printout of vehicular




emissions of HC for 1972 and 1977 (see Appendix C), the downtown area




(Zone 1) has by far the greatest output per unit area of HC (and CO)  from




motor vehicles.  Given the strong prevalence of westerly to southwesterly




winds in the Pittsburgh area (Table H-l),  it  is  at once  apparent that the



Arsenal was an excellent choice.







          Ambient  ozone  concentrations were measured continuously,  using




 the reference  method  (chemiluminescence) as prescribed by the EPA  in  40




 CFR 50, Appendix  D, Federal Register. Vol. 36, No. 228, 25 November  1971,




 pp. 22392-22394.  Hourly  average values of 0~ concentration were recorded




 and collected  by  the EPA; these data were validated by cross-reference to



 weekly summary data.  In  this manner, obvious errors in hourly data were



 removed and  a  good set  of data  was made available  to the various agencies




 for their use  in  preparing the  Implementation Plans for submission to the




 EPA.   Since  the original data sheets contain a great deal of information




 not pertinent  to  the present study, only the daily maxima and hourly  fre-




 quency of highest readings  are  reproduced  in Table II-5  and  Figure II-8A,




 below.  The  last  line in Table  II-3, above, summarizes the most  important
                                   11-36

-------
                              TABLE II-5
         MAXIMUM 1-HOUR OZONE READINGS  - ARSENAL HEALTH CENTER
 Period of Record:  1 June - 30 September 1971. Method:  Chemiluminescence
 Monthly highs and  2nd highs are underlined.

Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Aye*;
June
.070
.045
.055
.090
.085
.095
.055
.055
.040
.065
.085
.045
.070
.065
.030
.055
.075
.050
.055
.085
.060
.065
.080
.075
.095
.065
.090
.165***
.105
.070
.071
July
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
.085
.100
.090
.100
.070
.050
.050
.070
.070
.075
.080
.025
.050
.065
.050
.075
.105
.075
.045
.095
.075
.055
.065
.035
(ND)
(ND)
.069
Aug.
.055
.040
.020
.020
.045
.080
.110
.100
.120
.085
.060
.080
.135
.095
(ND)
.055
.080
.105
.075
.055
.070
.055
,045
.045
.070
.035
.040
.050
.085
.080
.145
.U7T
Sept.
.075
.060
.045
.050
.070
.050
.040
.055
.090
.095
.030
.020
.030
.025
.060
.025
.020
.020
.015
.020
.030
.030
.030
.030
.040
.015
.025
.035
.040
.035
.040
Time
June
16,18
18-19
18-19
12
14-15
15
13
12-13
15
17
14,16
16
13-14
18
14-16
17-18
16
15
14-16
16
14
16-17
14-15
17
15
15
16-17
12
15
12
of daily high
July
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
(ND)
16,19-
20
15
13
17-18
15
17-18
17-18
19
20
19
14
19-20
14
14-15
18
16
15,19
13,19
13
19
00*
17-18
14
00,06
(ND)
(ND)
Aug
17
13
13-14
16-17
12-13
16
17-18
14
15
13-14
18
17-18
17
15
(ND)
15-18
15-16
16
15
15
15
14
17
15-18
14
16
15
14
17
18
15
reading
Sept
14-16
13-14
13-14
16-17
12-13
14-15
14-15
16
12-14
13
18
04,22-
23
18
17-18
15,17-
18
00*
13
14-18
14
11-14
14
13-15
18-19
14-17
15-16
04-06
14-15
13-16
14-16
14,17
Frequency
Hr. #
01 0
02 0
03 0
04 2
05 1
06 2
07 0
08 0
09 0
10 0
11 1
12 8
13 20
14 35
15 36
16 25
17 24
18 22
19 0
20 2
21 0
22 1
23 1
24* 3
Times
Ex **
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
12
15
15
16
13
11
10
4
1
0
0
0
TOTAL: 105 times
*00 hrs = 24 hrs
**No. of times the
std. of 0.08 ppm
has been exceeded.
JUN: 36/701=5.14%
JUL: 24/512-4.69%
AUG: 37/696=5.32%
 is second
this one.
highest reading, 0.
155, occurred
 11-37
the hour following  SEP:8/720=1.11%
                    AVG: 105/2629-3.99

-------
I
LO
*£
1 °
V
§3*
JS
3 30
TJ

O
«25
2
c
1)
o 20
u
o
"o 15
X
u
S 10
Ex
5
~ 0

	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	


1


	 1 	 1 	 1 1 1
»e 3v
_ Distribution of Maximum Ozone Concentration

June - September 1971










_


-

t *)
~~\ 0 0 0 i i 1 i i 0 0 0 0 _


















•••







20







8
	 1









25
	 _. 24
i 	













•

-


.
1 2Z
1









l''i 	 1_

_



-


™

3
0 rn o '
, 1 , IJLJ , 1 _L_
cT    00  01  02   03   04   05  06  07   08    09   10  11    12   13   14   15   16   17  18    19   20  21    22  23    24  01
TJ
•8     	
                                                        Tine of Occurence    Figure  II-8A..
        20
      I

                                                                                                          Li _
                                                                                 ,11111  '  i   i
          00   01  02   03   04   05   06   07   08   09   10  11    12  13   14   15    16  17   18   19  20   21    22  23   24   01
                                                           Time of Occurence Figure II-8B.

-------
findings needed to form a basis for the determination of the amount of



"rollback" required to meet the Federal standard.





                 The data clearly show both the expected summer-time



seasonal maximum and the commonly observed diurnal maximum beginning in the late



morning to early afternoon.  Figure II-8B depicts the number of times that



the Federal standard for oxidants has been exceeded during the four-month



period.  The corresponding data for CO were not available at the time of



preparation of this report.  Here also the summer-time maximum is clearly



visible, both as regards absolute maximum values and frequency of measure-



ments exceeding the standard.  It is felt that, given the care with which



these data were generated, even though only one season is represented,  they



form an adequate basis for forming conclusions as to the likelihood of



Pittsburgh's experiencing an oxidant problem within the next few years.



In particular, since we are concerned in the case of photochemical oxidants



with an area-wide average concentration rather than a localized one, the



approach used here seems to be the best that could be devised for the



present purpose.  As will be discussed at greater length in a later sec-



tion, the situation in Pittsburgh, based on the information in the bottom



line of Table II-3, appears to be that no serious oxidant problem can be



expected to persist once the Federal program and the strategiea for reduc-



tion of CO emissions have been instituted.






                 Of the 33 cities included in the Summer Study, Pittsburgh



ranked fourth in highest level of 0, concentration measured and fifth in
                                 11-39

-------
the number of times that the standard was exceeded.  In absolute terms,

the highest concentration recorded anywhere during the study was 0.190

ppm (at Corpus Christi, Texas, Dayton, Ohio, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin),

not too far above Pittsburgh's 0.165, while the standard was exceeded

no less than 168 times in Dayton, 156 times in Toledo, Ohio, 112 times

in Columbus, Ohio, 110 times in Rochester, New York, and 105 times in

Pittsburgh.


     C.  DISCUSSION OF 1972 AND 1977 VMT


         The following methodology describes resources, assumptions and

analysis techniques used to calculate the data needed to estimate vehicle

emissions for the Southwestern Pennsylvania Region.  This region is de-

fined to include the City of Pittsburgh and the Counties of Allegheny,

Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Washington and Westmoreland.  This region cov-

ers approximately 4,500 square miles of land and has a present population

of approximately 2.6 million people.  In order to facilitate the analysis,

the region was divided into 72 districts.  Figures II-2 and II-3 delineate

the district boundaries.   The data required to estimate vehicle emissions

by district include:


         (1)  Vehicle miles of travel (VMT ) by time period
              where the time periods are Peak Hour, Peak
              Twelve Hour, and Daily.

         (2)  Age distribution by vehicle type where the
              vehicle types are classified Light Duty Gas,
      VMT is defined as the number of vehicles  travelling on a given
segment of roadway multiplied by the length of  that roadway.
                                   11-40

-------
              Heavy Duty Gas, and Heavy Duty Non-Gas.  Light
              duty vehicle  is defined  as a vehicle weighing
              less than 6,000 pounds.

          (3)  Percent of VMT generated on each type of highway
              facility where the facility types are classified
              Freeway, Arterial and Local.

          (4)  Average vehicular speed by facility type by time
              period.

          (5)  Percent of VMT generated by type of vehicle.
         The base  information needed to calculate the required data listed

above was collected  from different sources which are specified in this

report.  The methods used to estimate each of the five sets of data needed

are described  in the ensuing paragraphs in the  identical order that they

are listed.  The major contributor of data is the Southwestern Pennsyl-

vania Regional Planning Commission.  The data supplied by the Commission

was reviewed by the Consultant and found to be  the best available data

which would satisfy the study's requirements.


         It is assumed that some additions to the existing transportation

system will be made by 1977.  Highway improvements falling into this cate-

gory are the completion of 1-79.  Short range transit improvements con-

tributing to a modal split increase of 5 percent for trips destined to

the CBD were also  assumed.


         The data  base used in estimating 1972  and 1977 vehicle miles of

travel by district for the Southwestern Pennsylvania region was derived

from traffic assignments simulated by the Southwestern Pennsylvania

Regional Planning Commission, SPRPC.  1967 was used as the base year,
                                    11-41

-------
and the trip generation, distribution, modal split and assignment models

were calibrated to survey data.  The models were then applied to regional

input totals for the projection year 2000, and the result was a 2000,

Cycle I, traffic assignment.  The links in the highway network were then

identified with one of the 968 SPRPC zones in the region.  The Inter-

zonal VMT was then calculated by zone by summing the VMT for all the

links in each zone by the following equation:

                                  N
                          VMT. =  2  D. ADT.
where :

     VMT.  =  Daily Interzonal VMT for zone i

     D.    =  Length of link j

     ADT.  =  Simulated daily traffic for link j

     N     =  Number of links in zone i


The next step was to aggregate the zones into districts.   This aggrega-

tion of zones into districts was based on:

     (1)  Topology

     (2)  Meteorology

     (3)  Political Jurisdiction

     (4)  Similar VMT Density

     (5)  A Minimum District Area of  One Square  Mile


         The aggregation reduced the  968 SPRPC zones  to  72 districts  with

      ranging from 1.21 to 513.30 square miles with an average district
                                 11-42
areas

-------
area of approximately  63 square miles.  The  interzonal  VMT  for all zones




in a district were summed  for  1967 and 2000.  At this point, reasonable




estimates of interzonal VMT by district were known  for  1967 and 2000.






         In order to arrive at 1972  and 1977 estimates  of interzonal VMT




by district, methods of interpolating the  1967 and  2000 interzonal VMT




data were analyzed.  The first method used SPRPC zonal  population equiv-




alents for each district to apportion county VMT increases  between 1967




and 2000 to district increases.  This method underestimated VMT growths




for districts containing high  volume transportation facilities and for




districts with modest  population-employment growths and a high percentage



of through trips.  Similar results occurred when a  population plus growth




factor was used.  Appendix E details the algorithm  used  and describes its




inadequacies.






         The method selected to estimate 1972 and 1977  interzonal VMT by




district from 1967 and 2000 data was to linearly interpolate the data by




district.  This method assumes a constant  annual growth  in VMT for each




district and unlike the first  method, it does not severely underestimate




growths for districts  with high volume transportation facilities or a



high percentage of through trips.  At the  same time it does not under-



estimate VMT increases for districts which experience large population and




employment growths from 1967 to 2000.  These growths are inherently ac-




counted for in the trip generation model.  Overall, the  linear interpola-




tion of VMT by district reflects transportation demand and  supply changes




for each district.  The following equations were utilized.
                                   11-43

-------
                « ^2000  ' j ^1967) X 35 " AVMTj

                j VMTlg?2  - j VMT196?  + AVMT.J


                J VMT197?  = j VMTig72  + ATM!.,



where:

     j         =  District being analyzed

     j VMT2000 =  Interzonal VKT for district j for 2000

     j VMT1967 *•  Interzonal VMT for district j for 1967

     j VMTig72 -  Interzonal VMT for district j for 1972

     j VMT1977 =  Interzonal VMT for district j for 1977

     AWT.     =  Five year interzonal YMI growth for district j.


         Upon completion of the interpolation, interzonal VMT for 1972

and 1977 by district were known.


         A factor was then applied to the interzonal VMT for all dis-

tricts in a county in order to include VMT generated by intrazonal trips.

The number of intrazonal trips was derived from SPRPC's base year assign-
                                                               i
ment.  Based on the data available, the estimation of intrazonal VMT

was calculated on the county level.  The number of intrazonal trips

multiplied by average trip length resulted in intrazonal VMT.  The intra-

zonal VMT for the county was then added to the base year interzonal VMT

previously calculated.  The ratio of total VMT to interzonal VMT was then

calculated.  The appropriate county ratio was then applied to the 1972

and 1977 interzonal district VMT's in order to arrive at total VMT by

district for 1972 and 1977.  These ratios varied from 1.0056 to 1.0520.
                                  11-44

-------
After reviewing traffic  counts  in different locations  throughout  the




region,  it was  estimated that 75 percent of the daily  VMT occurred  dur-




ing the  peak 12-hours  of the day and that 10 percent of the daily VMT




occurred during the peak hour.   These factors were  applied to the dis-




trict VMT totals and the result was  the completion  of  estimating  VMT by




district for all three time periods  for 1972 and 1977.   The methodolo-




gies  for the four remaining sets of  required data follow in the next




paragraph in the same  order as  they  were listed.






          The age distribution of passenger cars and trucks in operation




by county as of July 1,  1971, was received from R.  L.  Polk.   The  per-




cents of VMT traveled  in each district via freeway,  arterial,  and local




facilities were summarized from SFRPC's base year highway assignment.



District peak hour and off-peak hour speeds for each of the  three facility



types were similarly derived from the base year assignment.   The  VMT esti-




mates for heavy duty gas and heavy duty non-gas vehicles  were  derived from




1967 base year  data.   The VMT traveled by heavy duty gas  and  non-gas



vehicles were estimated  by county.   The VMT generated  by  these types of




vehicles by  county were  based on the mean truck trip length  for the region,



and on the heavy duty  truck trip ends produced and  attracted  in each county.



The mean truck  trip length multiplied by the number  of  truck  trips  in the



county resulted in Truck VMT.  The VMT estimated for heavy duty gas and




non-gas  vehicles  for the base year for each county  were then divided by




the total base  year county VMT  estimates,  and the resulting percentages




were applied to 1972 and 1977 VMT estimates.
                                     11-45

-------
         Appendix D summarizes the results of the analysis just des-




cribed.  Vehicle miles of travel are listed by district for 1972 and




1977 by facility and vehicle type for each time period analyzed.  Also




listed are average vehicle speeds by facility type, district and time




period.






         Figures II-9 and 11-10 show the district VMT densities as a




function of their distances from the CBD for 1972 and 1977, respectively.




Also shown in each figure is a non-linear approximation of the function.




Figure 11-11 compares the 1972 and 1977 non-linear approximations.






         In further elucidation of the VMT question, the following infor-




mation is reproduced from the Annual Report Issue (September,  1971) of




the SPRPC Reports with the kind permission of Mr.  Robert Kochanowski of




the SPRPC Staff.






                          TRANSPORTATION PLANNING





     Transportation planning activities during the past year have been




primarily in technical work preparatory to the development of  the trans-




portation plan.  This work is a necessary and important part  of the




transportation planning process.   The major work activities follow;





Accuracy Checks





     During the past year a series of accuracy checks  were completed on




data from various SPRPC surveys.   The purpose of this  job  was  to establish




the validity of the data collected as a basis from which to forecast




future activities and travel in the region.   Included  among these were
                                   11-46

-------
 1000-
  100
tN_
 si
 III
 Q
     0   1   2   3  45  6   78   9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19
                            DISTANCE FROM CBD (MILES)

                                            2
       Figure II-9.   VMT density  (lOOO/mi ) vs.  distance from CBD
                       (miles) Pittsburgh 1972.
                                    11-47

-------
1000-r
 100
03

111
a
  10-
    0   1   2   34   5   6   78   9  10  11  12  13  14  15   16  17  18  19

                           DISTANCE FROM CBD (MILES)
      Figure  11-10.  VMT density (1000/mi  )  vs.  distance  from CBD

                      (miles)  Pittsburgh 1977.
                                11-48

-------
 1000-
 100-
CO
ill
Q
  10'
          1972 APPROXIMATION
                             1977 APPROX MATION
                                      10
                            DISTANCE FROM CBD (MILES)
                                                      15
                                                                     19
 Figure 11-11.
1972 and  1977 VMT density (1000/mi  )  vs.
from CBD  (miles) Pittsburgh.
                                                             distance
                                11-49

-------
checks of employment, dwelling units, population and automobiles avail-




able.  One of the most significant checks is called the Screenline Check.




This check establishes the accuracy of the trip data by making a traffic




assignment of all vehicle trips reported in the travel surveys and com-




paring the assigned traffic volumes on major bridges in the region with




traffic counts taken at these same locations.  The results of these var-




ious accuracy checks have established that the base year survey informa-




tion meets the required quality standards and can be used for transporta-




tion planning.





Highway and Transit Networks





     One of the most important tools in the transportation planning pro-




cess is traffic assignment.  By using traffic assignment,  future highway




and transit trips can be assigned to proposed networks and the assigned




volumes evaluated to determine the user demand characteristics of pro-




posed systems.  But before traffic assignments can be used with confidence




to test future systems, the base year highway and transit  networks  must




simulate existing traffic volumes.  This is  accomplished by coding the




existing networks in a form acceptable for computer application and then




assigning existing highway and transit trips from the travel surveys.




Minor adjustments are then made to the existing network until the desired




degree of simulation accuracy is achieved.





Trip Generation Models





     Trip generation is the process of developing mathematical relation-




ships between the amount of travel produced  (going) and attracted (coming)
                                    11-50

-------
 in each traffic zone of the region, and the factors which are most di-




rectly related to the reasons for this travel.  Equations are developed




 with base year data and are then used to forecast travel for the year




 2000.





 Trip Distribution Models





      Trip distribution is the process of linking up the person trip pro-




 ductions and attractions that are developed for each zone in trip gen-




 eration to produce tables to trip movements from zone to zone.   The model




 used for trip distribution at SPRPC is called the Gravity Model and it




 operates on the general principle that trips between two zones  are di-




Mectly proportional to the size of the zones and inversely proportional to




 some function of the travel time between them.






 Modal Split Models





      When the steps of trip generation and trip distribution have produced




 a table of future travel, the next question that must be answered is which




 transportation modes will these people choose?  The modal split model is




 developed to answer this question and to determine what percent of per-




 sons will ride transit in the planning year.  At SPRPC the modal split




 model work has been divided into two parts.  The first part is  the de-




 velopment of a model to predict captive transit ridership.   (A  captive




 transit trip is a transit trip made by a person who did hot have the




 choice to go by auto at the time his trip was made.)   The captive model




 predicts the number of captive transit trips by relating them to such




 factors as auto ownership,  density of development and the level of transit
                                     11-51

-------
service available as represented by accessibility to desired destina-




tions.  The second part of the SPRPC modal split work is the choice




model (for persons who have the opportunity to choose between transit




and auto).  The transit trips predicted by the captive and choice modal




split models will then be assigned to coded future transit systems for




testing and evaluation.





TOPICS Planning





     SPRPC has contracted with the City of Pittsburgh and PennDOT to




undertake a TOPICS planning program for the City of Pittsburgh,  TOPICS




being a federal highway program that is designed to improve the  capacity




and safety of existing arterial streets in urban, areas.   SPRPC's staff




have been working with the City of Pittsburgh's staff in developing a




series of recommendations for short range improvements on city streets




and state roads within the City.   These will be published in the form of




an early action report.  In addition,  a second phase of  TOPICS planning




involves the adaption and adjustment of a model which will be used to




evaluate such possible improvements as one-way street systems within the




Golden Triangle or the impacts of  major new traffic  generators on traffic



patterns.  (End of quoted material.)
                                 11-52

-------
 D.   DERIVATION OF  1977 AIR QUALITY LEVELS





     l'   Present aad Protected Non-Vehicular Source Emissions



         a.   Poinr Sources





             All data used in this section were based on information contained



 in Pennsylvania's Implementation Plan,  the  Allegheny County Emissions




 Inventories  for 1971  and  1972,  and  the  results  of meetings and discussions




with personnel of the Allegheny County  Health Department BAPC and the




SPRPC.





        A summary of  the  available  data on  point sources in and around




Pittsburgh is presented  in Table II-6.  Although this information is frag-



mentary, it  supposedly  includes all major point sources within the County




and to that  extent  may be taken as  at least an  indication of the distribu-




tion of non-vehicular emissions of  CO and HC in that area of 745 square




miles.  The  "Zone"  column again refers  to the AMV Distric.ts which are




shown in Figures  H-2  and  II-3.  Details  of  plans for control of industrial




emissions, other  than those included in the tabulation of the "major point



sources", and the number  of new industrial  installations to be built dur-




ing the period of interest, are not known at this time, although a very



general indication  of growth rates  is included  in the IBM Study prepared



for the EPA  in February,  1972  (see  references).  According to this docu-



ment, point  sources (primarily  industrial sources) in the Pittsburgh area




are expected to "grow" at  a negative rate of 7.7 percent, or about -1.54




percent per year, for the  period 1970 to 1975.  Area sources (incineration,




residential, and  others,  including  transportation), on the other hand, are




expected to grow  at a rate of 1.1 percent,  or about 0.22 percent per year,
                                    11-53

-------
                              TABLE II-6

                PITTSBURGH AND ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                            POINT SOURCES

Definition of a "Major Point Source" = emissions of > 25 T/yr (62 kg/day),
All units are kg/day.
Zone
1
5
9
10
14
15
16
24
25
30
31
34
35
38
40
44
50
Totals:
ro- 73

o,. 20
CO
248.

323

934

149

2,277


1,337
36,585

482
31,316
124
73,775
,775 - 47
73,775
,822 - 14
1912
HC
5 124
2,833
162
944
467
945

944
1,629
596
398
2,287
5,120
944
870
2,112
447
20,822
COT


CO
248.5

323

	

149

2,277


1,337
35,806

482
6,959
6
47,587
1972 to 1977
1 QT) «-_ 1 OT7
1977
HC
124
2,833
162
944
	
945

944
1,628
596
398
2,287
1,144
945
870
L24
447
14,391


         20,822
                                 11-54

-------
over the five-year period.  Other  references, however,  give much more




sanguine estimates of  future growth  rates  in the various categories of




industrial and commercial enterprise;  for  example, the  Implementation




Plan gives growth factors for  various  industries ranging from l.l to over




7 percent.  In this study an average overall growth factor of 3.5 percent




per year was assumed for long-range  planning purposes,  effective over




the period 1977-1987.  The values  computed for  1972 and 1977 incorporate




the effects of the EMVECP and  the  growth incorporated in the vehicle-miles-




traveled (VMT) data; this growth  in  VMT amounts to 1.5  percent per




year for Pittsburgh and 2.8 percent  for Allegheny County, between




1972 and 1977.









         b.  Area Sources





             Point and area sources  are combined in the summary tabulations




given below.  These data, taken from the 1972 Allegheny County Emissions




Inventory (hereafter referred  to as  "the Inventory"), are presented in



Tables II-7 and II-8 for CO and HC,  respectively.  A considerable difference




exists between the data in the Inventory and those computed by the computer




program prepared at GCA Corporation.  The  following comparison of the




data from the 1972 Emission Inventory for Allegheny County and the output



of the VEHEMI2 computer program is made for the purpose of trying to re-




solve the discrepancy  between the  emissions reported in the Inventory and




those computed for the present study.





        Based on the emission factor of 2000 Ib CO generated for every




1000 gallons of fuel burned,  the 1972 Emission Inventory prepared by the
                                     11-55

-------
                      TABLE II-7
ABSTRACT OF THE 1972 EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR ALLEGHENY COUNTY
                    CARBON MONOXIDE
Motor
Passenger cars
Commercial vehicles
(trucks)
Buses (diesel-fueled)
Tractor-trailers
Total vehicular

Total transportation
Total non-transport
Total, all sources


Vehicular sources :
Non-vehicular
sources : 1


Conversion factor:
Vehicles
Tons/yr kg /day
592,000 1,467,359
285,000 706,414

2,500 6,197
11,800 29,248
891,300 2,209,218
28,812 71,415

920,112 2,280,633
37,659 93,343
957,771 2,373,976


93%
77.


L007.


907.1846 kg = 1 ton,
366 day = 1 year (in 1972),
2.4786 ton/yr = 1















kg /day















Other Sources

RR engines
River boats
Aircraft
Total
Tons /yr
710
200
27.902
28,812
kg /day
1,760
496
69.159
71,415
Industrial Sources:
Metallurgical
Cement mfg.
Asphalt pits.
Food prod.
Printing
Petroleum &
Coal Prod.
Chemical prod
Rubber Prod.
Stone, clay,

& glass
prod.
Non-ferrous
metal
Metal fabri-
cation
Gasoline in-
dustry
Dry cleaning
Paints & var-
nishes
Total indus-
trial
Power gener-
ating
Space Heatng.
Solid waste
disposal
Total
Total non-
vehicular
Total, non-
transport
(none)
(none)
(none)
7
(none)

7
. 30,000
4
4



7

13
(none)
(none)

(none)

30,042

2,336
4,628
653

7.617
66,471
-28.812
37,659




17

17
74,359
10
10



17

32



_

74,463

5,790
11,471
1.619

18.880
164,758
-71.415
93,343

                            11-56

-------
                          TABLE  II-8

ABSTRACT OP THE 1972 EMISSION INVENTORY FOR ALLEGHENY COUNTY
                          HYDROCARBONS
Motor

Private cars
Commercial vehicles
(trucks)
Buses
Truck-tractors
Total vehicular

Total transportation
Total non-transport
Total, all sources


Vehicular sources:
Vehicles Other Sources
Tons/yr kg /day
88,000 218,121
45,000 111,539

495 1,227
2,360 5,850
135,855 336,737
9,904 24,549
145,759 361,285
28,574 70,825

174,333 432,110


78%
Non-vehicular sources: 227,















1007
J.WU/O













RR Engines
River boats
Aircraft
Total
Industrial Sources:

Metallurgical
Cement mfg.
Asphalt plants
Food Prod.
Printing
Petroleum & coal
production
Chemical prod.
Rubber prod.
Stone, clay, &
glass prod.
Non-ferrous metal
Metal fabric.
Gasoline Industry
Dry cleaning
Paints, etc.
Total industrial
Power generating
Space heating
Solid waste dis-
posal
Total
Total non-vehicular

Total non-transport
tons/yr
505
140
9,259
9,904

(none)
97
(negligible)
16
500

14
2,600
8

12
228
50
14,170
1,700
5,855
25,250
839
2,325

160
3,324
38,478
-9,904
28,574
kg /day
1,252
347
22.950
24,549


240
40
1,239

35
6,444
20

30
565
124
35,122
4,214
14.512
62,586
2,080
5,763

397
8,239
95,374
-24,549
70,825
                              11-57

-------
Allegheny County Bureau of Air  Pollution Control (BAPC)  gives total emis-




sions  of CO from vehicular sources  (passenger cars,  trucks,  buses, and




tractor-trailers) for the  year  1972  as  891,300 tons/yr (2,209,218 kg/day).




This  is  3 2/3  times  the output  of the VEHEMI2 computer program for Alle-




gheny  County (including the city of  Pittsburgh)  for  1972:   603,590 kg/day.




Since  these two  values  purport  to represent  the  same quantity,  it was




important for  the purposes of the present study  to try to  resolve the  ap-




parent discrepancy.




             The first  thing noted was  that  the  vehicle  populations




used differed  by some 204,275   —   according to the Inventory




there  were 842,100 vehicles in  the four categories of highway motor




vehicles registered  and operating in Allegheny County in 1971,




whereas  the  information  used  in this  Report   gives  a   value




of only  637,826  for  the  two  categories  they used  for  the year 1971  (see




Table II-9).  The ratio  GCA/Inventory,  then  is 637,826/842,100 = 0.7574.  For




passenger  cars only,  the ratio  for 1971 is 571714/702500 = 0.8138.  Assuming




the same  rate of  annual  growth  as used  in the  Inventory, 2.5 percent, we




get an LDV  population of 586,007 for 1972.  The GCA/Inv ratio is  586.007/




720,000 = 0.8139.  The next thing that became apparent was that  the average




annual VMT/car numbers used in  the two documents were also quite  different:



whereas the BAPC  staff had assumed a figure of about  10,000 miles per car




year (a check of their computations  indicates an actual value of  9950, at




12 mi/gal average mileage), the VMT "s provided by the subcontractor indi-




cate an average annual travel of only about 8480 miles per car.   This is




a further proportionality factor of  0.8480.  These two factors may be
                                    11-58

-------
                               TABLE II-9
   MOTOR VEHICLE POPULATION FROM ALLEGHENY COUNTY 1971 & 1972 EMISSION
                                INVENTORIES
  Passenger cars and station wagons
  Commercial vehicles (trucks)
      (gasoline-fueled)
  Buses (diesel-fueled)
  Truck tractors (diesel-fueled)
        Total highway vehicles*
                                            1970
      21,84
     35,600
               1971
         1972
    682,000   702,500  720,000
     97,600   99,700   102,500
 2,100    2,100
37.8QO   40,000
    81/.384   842,100  864,600
The Emission Inventories also include motorcycles and dealer registra-
tions, which are not included in the data furnished to us by the sub-
contractor.  These have therefore been omitted from the above tabulation.
         MOTOR VEHICLE POPULATION, FROM A.M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES,  INC.
                     "In operation" as of 1 July 1971
    Allegheny County
    Armstrong County
    Beaver County
    Butler County
    Washington County
    Westmoreland  County
        Totals for SPRPC Region:
Passenger
Cars
571,714
31,498
77,497
51,549
83,876
142,650

Trucks
66,112
7,683
11,830
12,410
15,519
24,342

Total
637,826
39,181
89,327
63,959
99,395
166,992
958,784
137,896
1,096,680
                                   11-59

-------
checked by comparing  the total VMT's:   13578293/19672131  =  0.6902;




0.8138 x 0.848 = 0.6902.  Finally,  the  emissions  index  computed by the




program VEHEMI3 is 40.25 gat/mi  (for the LDV's only), while the  emission




factor of 2  Ib CO/gal fuel burned is equivalent to  75.22 gm/mi,  giving a




factor of 0.5351.  The product of these three factors is 0.3693.   The




ratio of emissions is, for passenger cars only, 557863/1479752 = 0.3770.




(The 1,479,752 kg/day is based on the recomputed  value  of  597,000  tons/yr




of CO instead of the 592,000 given  in the Inventory.)   There is thus  an




unexplained  residual differential which amounts to only some 2.047. of  the




emissions ratio.  Given the many imponderables and assumptions that went




into these numbers, it is felt that this close a  result may be considered




as having accounted for the observed difference in the  two sets of calcu-




lated emissions.





        For  the HC emissions the results are dependent upon the same three




factors:  of these, only the emission index and the emission factor are




new:  6.68 gm/mi from the VEHEMI3 program and 11.095 gm/mi from the Inven-




tory, respectively, giving a ratio of 0.602.  The product of this value and




the VMT ratio of 0.69 is 0.4156; this compares with the emissions ratio of




92556/218263, or 0.4241.  The remaining difference amounts to only about




2.01 percent of the emissions ratio, a result quite close to that obtained




for the CO emissions.





        The  other  vehicle categories were not investigated in this manner,




partly because of  the uncertainties  in the ways  in which they were defined




in the two documents  (this  report and the Inventory),  and partly because
                                      11-60

-------
 the LDV category (passenger cars) is not only better defined but accounts

 for no less than 95.6 percent of all the VMT's for the year according

 to this study.  Again, the situation is more complicated in the Inventory,

 since the trucks are handled on an average mileage basis (45 mi/day, or a
                    g
 total of 1,688 x 10  VMT/yr),  while the diesel-fueled vehicles (buses and trac-

 tor trailers)  are handled on the basis of average fuel consumption for the year

 with no mileage figures given. However, the VMT's for the HDV category in the

 present study (supposedly the group which corresponds to the "commercial vehi-

 cles" category in the Inventory) are only about l/10th of the VMT's as calculated

 from the data given on page 16 of the Inventory.   This large difference is only

 partially accounted for  by the vehicle  population  assumptions made  in  the

 two  studies:   66,112 trucks  in Allegheny County as of  1 July 1971 was

 the  basis  for  the figure used  in our  computer runs, while the Inventory

 gives  a figure of 99,700 trucks  for 1971, a ratio of 0.6631.  Applying this

 same ratio to  the 1972 estimated number of trucks from the Inventory,  102,500,

 we would have  had a corresponding value of 67,968 trucks for our computer

 input  value for  the 1972  computations.   The obvious problem here, of course,

 is the  very large discrepancy  in the  average miles per truck assumed in

 the  two instances.  Whereas the  Inventory study uses the figure of 45 mi/day

 for  trucks  (gasoline-fueled),  the data  used in this report imply a figure of

 only about  6.63 mi/day/truck if  the HDV value of VMT is used, or 9.156

mi/day/truck if the total  of HDV + 0V is used.  This brings to light a

minor  problem  in the data supplied to GCA:  while there are three cate-

 gories  of  vehicles  used  as the basis  for the VMT's, only two groups  of
                                      11-61

-------
vehicles are broken out in the vehicle population  figures.  Thus,




another possible source of confusion and error creeps  in.






        The various factors  and  parameters used  in the above  discussion




are  included in the tables which appear below  (Tables  11-12  through  11-16).





        To sum up  the  stationary, or rather  the  non-vehicular source  sit-




uation, it appears that only about  7 percent of  the total CO  emissions




come from sources  other than vehicular (defined  for the  purposes  of this




report as passenger cars, commercial trucks  and  tractor-trailers,  and




buses), while about 22 percent of the total HC emissions come from the



non-vehicular sources.  These figures are used  in a  later  part  of




the  report to derive the most probable values of emissions from non-vehicular




sources in later years.  A discussion of the rationale behind this procedure




is perhaps superfluous in light  of  the paucity of  data mentioned  previously




and  the absence of any really viable alternative.   Several methods of




modifying these ratios were  imnestigated; among them being the application



of the ratios between  the CO and HC emissions for  Zone 1 for  the  successive




years (see Table 11-10) and those for the entire County, the  percent reduc-




tion figures for the point sources  for the 1972-1977 period,  and  other  such




derived information.  After much thought and several hand calculations,



it was decided to use  the Inventory ratios essentially as given and to




use  the planned reductions of CO and HC from the major point  sources




as an estimate of the  amounts of reduced CO and HC  emissions,  respec-




tively,  to be expected from non-vehicular sources  over the next five  years.




The downward trend in  industrial emissions of CO between the  1971 and 1972
                                  11-62

-------
                   TABLE  11-10 (see  also Figure 11-12)

        ESTIMATED VEHICULAR EMISSIONS  FOR ALLEGHENY COUNTY (in kg/day)
  Zone 1 only  (computed)
                   Totals for all of Allegheny County
                             (estimated)
Calendar
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
Total
CO
29844.63
28903.25
27542.52
25179.25
22915.87
20185.92
16704.66
13829.16
11339.56
9473.62
7657.86
6325.90
5551.40
5048.9?
4593.02
4535.49
4401.01
Total
HC
4851.98
4415.93
3923.19
3505.03
3113.12
2656.35
2154.04
1793.87
1522.78
1288.19
1083.60
971.03
889.88
814.60
793.34
786.61
770.84
Total
CO
642027.11
627540.28
603589.96*
557013.76
511777.70
455160.66
380325.58
317949.66*
263294.33
222171.62
181409.99
151388.02
134224.72
123348.97
113393.90
113169.40
110996.47
Z../TC
l
-------
            PITTSBURGH  ZOME I ONLT
        LINEAR INCREASE INVMT , CONSTANT SPEED
Figure II-9.   FMVECP only - no strategy.
                          11-64

-------
Inventories was at the rate  of  6.4  percent  per year, which would give a




total reduction of 32 percent over  the  five year  period.  This compares




well with the 35.5 percent reduction  employed in  the calculations sum-




marized in Table  11-18  below.   There  was a small  increase of about  2.8  per-




cent in HC emissions from industrial  sources between the  two  inventories




which does not bear out  the  three  year reduction of 30.9 percent used in



the HC calculations  (Table 11-19).  The many uncertainties inherent in the




planning process make any given value of predicted ambient concentrations



as good as any other (within limits,  of course).  Thus, the forecast val-




ues of CO and HC reductions  to  be expected  as a result of planned con-




trols on stationary sources  were  used as given, with no attempt to second-




guess the sources of the estimates.






        As for the question  of  the  uniformity of  distribution of the



various pollutants over  the  County, the previous  discussion on the ter-




rain features and the concentrated  industrial activity in the valleys




would indicate that we cannot consider  the  emanations from stationary




sources to be sufficiently well mixed over  a period of several hours to




assume that we can consider  point sources in the  aggregate as a single




area source, at least for directly  vehicle-related substances such as




CO.  In the case of 0 ,  where we  are  concerned not so much with the




immediate emanations of  HC as with  their photochemical products a few




hours later, we must take into  account  the  effects of wind velocity and



atmospheric stability as discussed  in the section on meteorology (Section




II B 1 b).   This, of course, is  the  reason for selecting a site at
                                  11-65

-------
 some  distance downwind  from the  principal source  of HC  emissions;  in this

 case,  the downtown district (Zone  1).  Thus, while we are  completely

 justified in limiting our attention to Zone  1  for the CO problem,  we must

 consider a much  larger  area - at least all of  Allegheny County  and per-

 haps  the entire  SPAQCR  (nine counties) or the  SPRPC region (six counties).

 As will be seen, we elected to concentrate our attention on Allegheny

 County in addressing ourselves to  the problem  of  photochemical  oxidants.

 This was done for two reasons:  because the County has  by  far the  great-

 est concentrations of gaseous pollutants of all types,  including hydro-

 carbons, and because good information was available on  a county-wide

 basis  for emission rates of the various pollutants.


         2.   Assessment of  the CO and 0  Problems
             ^1^^M^£*W^^^V^IM««aillllll*

             a.   Implementation Plan Assessment


                 According  to Pennsylvania's  Implementation Plan:


              "Oxidant  concentrations  presently exceed the  standard
              in the Allegheny County  area.   The  Federal Motor Vehicle
              Emissions  Control Program  (FMVECP)  and the stationary
              source control regulations  for  hydrocarbons will achieve
              the oxidant  standard  in Allegheny County by 1977."

              (From the  Addendum  to Pennsylvania's Implementation
              Plan - undated).



                 As  it  happens,  the present  study does  not  bear  out the

above statement.   Based  on our  calculations, it  appears that the  trans-

portation control strategies which  must  be  adopted in order to bring
                                   11-66

-------
the CO emissions down to a level where the Federal standard can be

reached will, together with the planned reductions of HC emissions from

non-vehicular sources, bring the total HC emissions in Allegheny County

below the level at which the oxidants standard can be met.  This should

be accomplished by 1977, according to our calculations (see the computa-

tion sheet for HC emissions, below).  The FMVECP and stationary source

controls by themselves, however, will not quite do the job, falling 3

percent short of the required reduction.


                 Since the 0  problem is a "non-problem" as far as we can
                            X

tell at this time, it remains to deal with the CO emissions rate,  which does

pose a definite problem, as we shall see.  Having established that only

Zone 1 is of concern in the case of CO emission density (Appendix C),

it remains to determine the ratio of emissions to concentrations,  use

that to compute the so-called "safe" emission rate, and compare that

with the expected "no-strategy" rate of emissions in 1977 to find  the

additional amount of reduction of emissions which will be required to

achieve the Federal standard for ambient concentrations of CO.  This

procedure is developed in the following section; for now, we wish  to

review the analysis described in the Implementation Plan and try to

determine whether it is a realistic portrayal of the CO problem in the

Pittsburgh area.  Here, another quote may be of value; this time,  taken

from the Control Strategy Evaluation, Summary, page II-l:


         "Air Quality data indicate that the carbon monoxide
         standard is presently being exceeded in the Alle-
         gheny County area.  The Federal Motor Vehicle Emis-
         sion Control Program (FMVECP) will reduce the
         present 8-hour maximum concentration from 24 mg/m
                                     11-67

-------
              (21 ppm) to 18 mg/Tn3  (15.7 ppm) by 1975 aad to  less
              than the standard value of 10 mg/m3  (8.7 ppm) by
              1979.  Since 88% of the CO emissions come from  motor
              vehicles, stationary  source control would not have
              a significant impact  on air quality."


                  In  this  instance,  as  in the  previous  case, we  cannot agree

 completely with the  statements  from the Implementation Plan.  As  is shown in

 the  computation sheet  for CO  (Table II-A), and  as was stated  earlier in this

 report,  the  standard is exceeded by the maximum observed 8-hour average con-

 centration by some 58  percent and the FMVECP will not, by itself, reduce

 this to  the  required level by 1977-  Our investigation, moreover, indicates

 that the program will  by 1975 reduce CO emissions from motor  vehicles  in

 the  downtown Pittsburgh area (Zone  1) by about  26.7 percent of  the  1972

 value, resulting  in an ambient concentration  (assuming that the present

 emission to  concentration ratio holds) of 15.5  ppm, in excellent agreement

 with the Implementation Plan.  Furthermore, we  find, as shown below, that the

 unassisted Federal program could not reduce the total CO emissions  to  a level

 below the standard before 1979, although it comes very close  in 1978.   As

 for  the  last statement, the percentage of CO emissions attributed to non-

 vehicular sources depends to a large  extent on the manner in which these

 sources  are defined.  For example,  in the Inventory we find that sources

 are  grouped under the headings of "mobile," "industrial processes," "power

 generation," "domestic, industrial, and commercial space heating,"  and

 "solid waste disposal"; it turns out that "mobile" includes all forms  of

 transportation,  whereas we are concerned in the present study only  with

highway transport:  cars,  trucks and buses.  This is the reason for our
                                  11-68

-------
going to a category called  "vehicular" as opposed  to "non-vehicular"  (i.e.,




all others, including other types of  transport as  well  as the stationary




sources).  In a letter to Mr. Ruckelshaus dated  5  May 1972, Governor Shapp




stated that "8670 of the CO  emissions  in Allegheny  County  are generated




by mobile sources."  This is, of course, in good agreement with the figure




of 88% given above for "motor vehicles".  However,  if we look only at the




"vehicular" category as defined by GCA for this  study, we find that only




77, of the total CO comes from "non-vehicular" sources (see Table II-7).




But if we check the 1971 Inventory (on which the statements quoted above




were presumably based), we  find that  no less than  96.2% of all CO emissions




in 1971 came from "mobile"  sources, leaving only 3.8% as the contribution




from all of the stationary  sources.   If we try to  resolve the seeming




discrepancy between the Governor's statement and that of the Inventory we




find that "mobile sources"  in this instance apparently meant just cars



and trucks — even so, these two categories alone  account for 92.4% of



all the CO emitted in the County during 1971, while passenger cars




alone contributed only 64.67. of the total.  It is  really difficult to




find a combination of sources which add up to either 86% or 88% of the




total emissions — some 828,647 tons  or 847,918 tons, respectively, for




the year 1971. In the end, we decided to stay with the actual numbers from



the Inventory as far as the ratio of  vehicular to  non-vehicular sources




was concerned, although, as we have already seen,  the absolute values could




not be used.
                                   11-69

-------
          Perhaps  the most  important  difference  between the  findings  of




 the  Implementation Flan and the results of our study is that the station-




ary  (or, as we have it, the non-vehicular) sources Cannot be ignored.




Difficult as it may be to derive reasonable figures for future values of




emissions from these sources, we found that they must be taken into account




for  both CO and HC estimates if the standard is to be achieved.  Realist-




ically, one might say that if these emissions are only 7% of the total




(for CO), they cannot make much difference in the final result.  True




enough, yet a small difference in the estimate for the year 1977 makes




all  the difference in the attainment of the standards for both CO and HC




emissions, as is shown in Tables 11-18 and 11-19.





         Before leaving this review of the Implementation Plan it would




be well to mention a minor discrepancy which, if it were not resolved,




would nevertheless have an appreciable effect on the computations of




amount of "rollback" required to meet the Federal standards.  I refer




to the "Additions and Clarifications to Pennsylvania's Implementation




Plan" dated 4 May 1972 which accompanied the letter from Governor Shapp




to Mr. Ruckelshaus, cited above.  In particular, it was noted that in




section 51.14, Control Strategy for CO. the maximum 8-hour concentrations




for  CO in Allegheny County for the period November 1971-February 1972




are  given as:
28 ppm
23 ppm
23 ppm
25 ppm
20 ppm
20 ppm
17 Nov
18 Nov
6 Dec
14 Dec
27 Dec
29 Feb
1700-2400
0900-1600
1700-2400
1700-2400
0900-1600
1700-2400
                                  11-70

-------
The raw data were carefully  searched  for  both  1-hour  and  8-hour maximum




values of both CO and HC  emissions; while the  HC  data were not available




in useable  form, the CO data were  apparently quite  accurate  - at  least




they were consistently within  "reasonable" limits.  The technique for




deriving the 8-hour maxima from  the tabulated  1-hour  high values of CO




concentrations was explained earlier.   Careful scrutiny of all the avail-




able data from the Downtown  and  Bellevue  sites failed to  reveal any values




as high as  the highest ones  reported  in the referenced document.  The 8-



hour concentrations corresponding  to  those reported above are:







                                 Downtown    Bellevue      Implementation Plan




            17 Nov   1700-2400      19.8      (bad data)         28.0




            18 Nov   0900-1600      18.7         "     "           23.0



            6 Dec   1700-2400    (hourly data not avlbl)        23.0




            14 Dec   1700-2400      19.8         19.1             25.0




            27 Dec   0900-1600    (hourly data not avlbl)        20.0




            29 Feb   1700-2400      20.4         19.9             20.0




(All of the above data are in  parts per million by volume - ppm).










         It is, of course, possible that  the 8-hour maxima reported in the




Implementation Plan were  derived from stations other  than the two on which




our data are based, or that  data from other years are available to those




who derived the information  incorporated  in the Plan.   It was noted,  how-




ever, that  the figures given in the Plan  for the three dates in December
                                    11-71

-------
correspond to hourly maxima, and that the second number for the month  of




November corresponds to the hourly maximum for the preceding day  (17




November).  The first value as given in the plan could not be accounted




for at all, and the last one was in agreement with our findings.  While




this discussion should perhaps have been included in the section  on air




quality data, it was felt that in our review of the Implementation Plan




this was perhaps the most significant area for study since, as we have




seen, there was quite good agreement in almost all other areas.






             The review conducted for this Report indicates that addi-




tional information of potential value should be worked up and made avail-




able to EPA.  As an example, if we examine not just the highest values




for each month, but the second, third,  fourth, and fifth highest, we find




a significant correlation between the data for Bellevue and those for




the Downtown site, with advection from the direction of Bellevue to down-




town along the Ohio River valley quite  apparent on some days.   The sig-



nificance of a quantification of this effect would be,  of course, that a




much better idea of the so-called "background" value of CO would be forth-




coming and consequently a more accurate "rollback" number could be gen-




erated.   In terms of economics this could be quite significant in that a



possibly unnecessary reduction of emissions  could be avoided and the cost




associated with this "overkill" could be obviated.  It  should be emphasized




that this is only a tentative finding and requires much more study and




analysis  before it can be accepted as factual.
                                     11-72

-------
                  CORRELATION BETWEEN OBSERVED HIGH VALUES OF 8-HOUR CO CONCENTRATION AND METEOROLOGICAL
                                  PARAMETERS OF SIGNIFICANCE IN AIR POLLUTION EPISODES


  The dates and  times  of high 8-hour concentratL ons of CO in the Pittsburgh area are shown in Table II-4, page
  and in Appendix B.   In an effort  to determine the reasons for the apparent difference in the hourly data for
  Pittsburgh as  opposed to  the common experience  in other locations (see discussion on page    and Tables in
  Appendix A, also Figures  II-5 and II-7,  pages    and   , respectively),  an analysis of the 1-hourly data was
  attempted to try to  discover whether any meteorological  phenomena  could be found to account for this situation.
  No significant correlations were  apparent, however.  The 8-hour  data were then examined in a similar manner, with
  the following  results.
                                                        AIR POLLUTION METEOROLOGICAL PARAMETERS
i
•-j
       DATE
   18 Aug 71

   1 Oct 71

M  2-3  Oct 71
   17-18 Nov 71
   14-15 Dec 71

   29 Feb -
     1 Mar 72
   24 Feb 72
   (Bellevue)
TIME

03-17
05-22

14-06



17-17


15-05


15-05
11-24
INVERSION
Pronounced
Moderate
Weak to
Moderate
Moderate
to Strong
Moderate
Weak
Weak
TIME OF
BREAK
0930
0930
1000
1000,
1130
2000,

-------
             b.  Current Assessment





                 (1)  General





                      This section contains a review of the methodology




employed in the analysis of the existing and future situations as regards




both ambient concentrations and emission rates in the Pittsburgh area, and




of the results of the efforts to determine the likely situation in the




target year, 1977.  Also reviewed in this section are some of the more




important factors involved in developing the bases for the strategy recom-




mendations, although a review of the strategies themselves belongs to a




succeeding section.





                      The two factors which form the basis for the de-




velopment of projected values of emissions  and emission  densities as




given in Appendix C - that is, the parameters which are varied under the




control of the computer program which generates the emission values on




a zone-by-zone basis, are the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per car per




year, and the mix of vehicle speeds for the highway facilities found in




each zone.   Repeated runs were made on the computer to asses" the effect




of each change in these parameters.   As would be expected, the emissions




varied in a linear fashion with VMT's but in a non-linear manner with




speed.  A partial matrix constructed of values generated during these




sensitivity tests is included below as Table 11-11.







                      To recapitulate the procedure followed in deriving the




county-wide data for years other than those for which computer runs
                                   11-74

-------
                                                                    TABLE il-ll

                                  CO LnlSSIOKS FOR ZONE 1 (DOIVTOUS PITTSBURGH) FOR 1477 (kg/d.y)    Arc* > 1.26 «<|. «1.

                                 	VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED PEE BAY	
                             rcd.,    red,,          ^ rtd.,  V red..
                             h.wi.  total     , 7J*  veh.*m.  total
                             nly      «.     2'4     only     «,.
                                                                       7. red.,  7 red,,           7 red.»  7 «d.
                                                                       veh.en.  total     r«27"   weh.ea.  tottl
                                                                        oaly     «.      5'TO      only     e.
                                                                     vth.n,   COMI
                                                                      only     «•.
                                                                                               .1,       «.
SPIi*"   vi-h.


SPfi *   v^-h.
i.i     tie.

SPB +   w-h.
2.1"     tut.
SPD ^
 i.n
v,.h.
tot.
          1392 •)
          l52iH
                                     13336     3.6
                                     14755

                                     13285     3.9
                                     14704J
3.2

       13205
3.6    U624
                                 12810
                                 14249*
                                                            12061      7.0
                                                            14280*
       12560     9.2
6.6    13»J9*
                                                                                                                                                     ll«»      U.I
                                                                                                                                             $.3
                                                                                                                           11768    14.»              tOMI      31.*
                                                                                                                           """*	"•'      '"»"*	


SPD 4
1.5
 SPFI -
 3.0
                   44610      S.O
                   58904               3.8
                                             45395      3.3            45107     3-9
                                             59689              2.5    59401               3.0
                                                                                        43992
                                                                                        58276
                                            6.3             43040     8.)
                                                     4.S    37134*
                                                                                                                                                      J»J7J     ]».>
                                                                                                                                              5.4      >»**»
                                                                                                                   41470    11.6
                                                                                                                   5i764»            ».»
                                                                                14704  -(.125)14704 • 12866 - 302 k«/t- values;   CO:   vehicular  **i»5ion5  ?nly,  1977:   13,829  kg/d*y, Zone  1 only.  R«<]
-------
were made (1972 and 1977), and in obtaining the relationships between

vehicular and non-vehicular emissions, CO and HC emissions for a given

area and year, and expected future values of emission reductions from

non-vehicular sources, the following summary may be of assistance.
             GIVEN QUANTITIES:

             a.  Federal standards for CO and Ox
                 All-source emissions, CO and HC.
                 (NOTE:  modified to be compatible
                 with results of computer pro-
                 gram. )

                 VMT's for years 1972 and 1977
                 (totals by zone for the SPAQCR
                 less Fayette,  Greene, and Indi-
                 ana Counties); % VMT by vehicle
                 type.
             d.
SPDC & FSPD values by highway
facility type for each zone
of 72 zones.
NOTE: SPDC = peak and off-peak
speeds in mph; FSPD = fraction
of total VMT to each speed class.

Zonal areas (sq. mi., for each of
72 zones)
Age distribution of motor
vehicles for each of 6 counties
in SPRPC Region, 2 categories
only (LDV = passenger car; HDV =
truck).
                                     Source:

                                   40 CFR 50, 25 Nov 71
                                   (p. 22385) (see also
                                   Table 11-12)

                                   Emissions Inventory
                                   (see Section HD1  and
                                   Tables II-7 and II- 8)


                                   AMV Assoc., Inc.
                                   (see Appendix D)
AMV Assoc., Inc.
(see Appendix D)
                                                   AMV Assoc.,  Inc.
                                                    (Appendix D)

                                                   AMV Assoc,,  Inc.
                                                    (Table  11-13)
                Average annual miles driven        Table 14, Kircher & Armstrong
                per LDV by model year (vehicle age).
            h.  Average annual miles driven per
                HDV by model year (vehicle age).
                                   Table 20, K & A.
                Emission factors (gm/rai), 1975     K & A; Table 6, Table 17,
                Federal test procedure emission    Tables 8 & 9, Figs 2 & 3
                rates (gm/mi) by model year, deter-  & Table B-2, Tables  15
                ioration factors, weighted speed        & B-3, and Fig. 1.
                adjustment factors by model year,
                                  11-76

-------
j.
evaporative and crankcase emis-
sion rates by model year, and
emission factor geographic area
(Area V for Pittsburgh).

Ambient concentrations of CO and
V
                                               Source;
DERIVED QUANTITIES;

a.  Partial VMT's by Zone  for each
    vehicle type  (LDV, HDV, and 0V)
    for 1972 and  1977.

b.  Partial VMT's by vehicle type for
    all years, 1970-1986 (except 1972
    and 1977), Zone 1 only.

c.  Adjusted vehicle age distribution
    for 1/2-year  adjustment (1 July
    to 31 December), LDV's and HDV's
    for Allegheny County and entire
    SPKPC Region.

d.  % of total vehicle population by
    model year (vehicle age), Alle-
    gheny County and SPRPC Region.

e.  Emissions of CO and HC by vehicle
    type and zone.
f.  Emission densities by vehicle
    type for each zone, CO and HC.

g.  Total emissions of CO and HC,
    by zone, for 1972 and 1977.

h.  Sensitivity analyses for VMT and
    SPDC variations, Zone 1 only,
    for 1977.
Air quality data
i.  CO .and HC emission indices by
    vehicle age for calendar years
    1972 & 1977, Zone 1 only.

j.  Total emissions of CO and HC, 1972
    and 1977, by counties (City of Pitts-
    burgh = 20 zones, Allegheny County =
    31 zones, other 5 counties = 21 zones).
                                       Hand computations
                                       Straight-line
                                       interpolation
                                       (Table 11-14)

                                       Hand computations
                                       (Table 11-15 and
                                       Figure 11-10)
                                       Hand computations
                                       (Table 11-15
                                       Computer program
                                       VEHEMI2 and hand
                                       calculations (these
                                       agreed within 0.87,).

                                       VEHEMI2
                                       (Appendix C)

                                       VEHEMI2
                                       (Appendix C)

                                       VEHEMI2
                                       (Tables 11-11 and
                                       11-17)

                                       VEHEMI3
                                       (Appendix C)


                                       Hand computations
                                         (Table 11-16)
                     11-77

-------
                               TABLE 11-12

 From 40 CFR 85,  "New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines - Con-
 trol of Air Pollution," Federal Register, vol.  37, No.  221, Part II,
 15 November 1972,  pp. 24249-24320.
                  LDV

 Emission standards  for 1973 model  year vehicles:

 A.   Exhaust:
                                            HDV
     (1)  HC:   3.4  gm/VMT
     (2)  CO:   39.0 gm/VMT
     (3)  N0x:   3.0  gm/VMT

 B.   Evaporative:

     (1)  HC:   2 gm/test
 C.   Crankcase:  0.0

 Emission standards for 1974 model year
   vehicles:   (same as for 1973)

 Emission standards for 1975 model year
   vehicles :
A.  Exhaust:

    (1)  HC:
    (2)  CO:
    (3) NO  :
     0.41 gm/VMT
     3.4 gm/VMT
     3.1 gm/VMT
B.  Evaporative:

    (1)  HC:  2 gm/test

C.  Crankcase:  0.0

Emission standards for 1976 model year
   vehicles: (same as for 1975, except)
A.  Exhaust
    CD
    (2)
HC:
CO:
0.41 gm/VMT
3.4 gm/VMT
    (3) NO :   0.40 gm/VMT
                                    HC:   275  pptn
                                    CO:   1.5% (by volume)
                                    Crankcase:   0.0
                                     1974 model  year  vehicles:

                                     HC + NO   (as NO,,):  16 gm/bhph
                                           X       *£
                                     CO                :   40 gm/bhph
                                    Crankcase:  0.0
                               0V  (Diesel)

                               1974 model year vehicles:
                               HC + NO (as NO,):  16 gm/bhph
                               CO     x        :  40 gm/bhph
                                    LEV (low-emission vehicle)

                                    (1)  HC:  3 gm/VMT

                                    (2)  CO:  28 gm/VMT

                                    (3) NO :  3.1 gm/VMT
                                          X
                                    11-78

-------
                               TABLE  11-13

COMPARISON  OF  PASSENGER CAR AGE  DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN ALLEGHENY COUNTY AND
 THE SOUTHWEST PENNSYLVANIA AIR  QUALITY CONTROL REGION AS  OF  1 JULY 1971
Model    Allegheny County              SW Pennsylvania RPCR
Year     (incl.  Pittsburgh)   % Total       (6 Counties)         % of Total
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
1956
< 1956
50,731
78,011
72,736
70,052
58,466
63,280
57,875
43,353
31,199
19,915
8,637
5,678
2,413
1,279
1,747
1,302
5.040
8.9
13.7
12.7
12.2
10.2
11.1
10.1
7.6
5.5
3.5
1.5
1.0
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.9
76,687
121,833
115,079
113,417
97,465
108,010
101,389
78,010
57,445
37,419
16,282
11,401
4,899
2,467
3,606
2,641
10,734
8.0
12.7
12.0
11.8
10.2
11.3
10.6
8.1
6.0
3.9
1.7
1.2
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.3
1.1
TOTALS:      571,714*        100.0           958,784             100.0
 This  figure  represents  59.6%  of  the  passenger cars "in operation" in the
SPRPC  Region  as  of  1  July  1971.
There  were  also  137,896  trucks in operation  in the six counties making up the
Southwestern  Pennsylvania RPCR as of  1 July  1971, for a total number of vehi-
cles = 1,096,080, 87.4%  passenger cars and 12.6% trucks.  For Allegheny County
alone,  there  was a  marked  difference  in  these proportions: of the 637,826
vehicles  in operation there  as of 1 July 1971, only 66,112 or 10.4% were
trucks.   These made up only  47-9% of  the trucks in the entire region, showing
the far greater  numbers  of trucks operating  in rural areas in proportion to the
total  numbers of vehicles.   It was also  noted that trucks tend to be kept in
service somewhat longer  than cars:  cars of  model years 1958 and older made
up only 1.8%  of  the total, while  trucks  of the same vintage made up 12.7% of
their  total.
A slight  shift in the  age distribution toward older cars is noted in the out-
lying  areas.  There are  more "new" cars  ( <4 yrs old) in the metropolitan
Pittsburgh  area, and  fewer "old"  cars (> 5 yrs old), than there are in the
Southwest Penn. AQCR  as  a whole.   1967 is the nodal year for the calendar
year 1971;  cars older  than that are more numerous in the outlying areas,
while  cars  newer than  the 1967 model  year are relatively more common in the
city.   Thus,  for 1977, the 1973 model year would be the nodal year used.
                                    11-79

-------
                              TABLE  11-14

      EXTRAPOLATED "NO-STRATEGY" VMT'S  FOR ZONE  I,  PITTSBURGH
                                (mi/day)
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
(1987)
Code
13
L4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
39
30
LDV
(.934) •
399,772
407,054
414,336
421,619
428,901
436,185
443,467
450,749
458,032
465,314
472,597
479,880
487,162
494,445
501,727
509,010
516,293
(523,575)
HDV
(.048)
20,545
20,919
21,294
21,668
22,042
22,41
22,791
23,165
23,539
23,913
24,288
24,662
25,036
25,410
25,785
26,159
26,533
(26,908)
0V
(.018)
7,704
7,845
7,985
8,125
8,266
8,406
8,546
8,687
8,827
8,968
9,108
9,248
9,389
9,529
9,669
9,810
9,950
(10,090)
TOTALS
428,021
435,818
443,615
451,412
459,209
467,007
474,804
482,601
490,398
498,195
505,993
513,790
521,587
529,384
537,181
544,979
552,776
(560,573)
Note:  The last line is not usable in the computer program VEHEMI2 as it
       is presently constituted.
  A(VMl)/yr = 7797.2 ~ 1.758% (VMT)
                                   72'
                                    11-80

-------
                               TABLE 11-15

 MOTOR VEHICLE AGE DISTRIBUTION, ALLEGHENY COUNTY AND ENTIRE SPRPC REGION
                          (as of 31 December 1971)

 Derived for the VEHEMI2 program from figures supplied by AMV Assoc.,  Inc.
Passenger Cars
Model Allegheny
Year
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959 and
earlier
Totals:
Totals,
original
AMV data
% Diff.:
County
18,770
64,371
75,374
71,394
64,259
60,873
60,578
50,614
37,276
25,557
14,276
7,158
4,046
11,781

566,327
571,714


0.9
% of
total
3.3
11.4
13.3
12.6
11.3
10.8
10.7
8.9
6.6
4.5
2.5
1.3
0.7
2.1

100.0




SPRPC
Region
28,374
99,260
118,456
114,248
105,441
102,738
104,700
89,700
67,727
47,432
26,851
13,841
8,150
24,347

951,265
958,784


0.8
% of
total
3.0
10.4
12.4
12.0
11.1
10.8
11.0
9.4
7.1
5.0
2.8
1.5
0.9
2.6

100.0




Trucks
Allegheny
County
2,014
6,616
8,141
7,530
6,048
5,594
5,310
4,525
3,517
2,670
2,103
1,812
1,522
8,621

66,023
66,112


0.1
% of
total
^^^MM«
3.1
10.0
12.3
11.4
9.2
8.5
8.0
6.9
5.3
4.0
3.2
2.7
2.3
13.1

100.0




SPRPC
Region
3,785
12,588
15,732
14,704
12,058
11,350
10,791
9,330
7,399
5,648
4,514
4,019
3,484
22,617

138,019
137,896


0.1
% of
total
^•••••MMMM
2.7
9.1
11.4
10.7
8.7
8.2
7.8
6.8
5.4
4.1
3.3
2.9
2.5
16.4

100.0




The above age distributions  for the two vehicle categories were created
by an averaging procedure, as  shown graphically in Figure 11-13. The neces-
sity for shifting the  initial  age curve forward in time by six months to
achieve compatibility with the VMT data gives rise to a small inaccuracy,
as can be seen by comparing  the shape of the original distribution to that of
the derived one.  As shown in  the table above, the differences in total vehicle
population are very small -- less than 1% in every case.  In light of the
many other assumptions which have had to be made during the course of this
study, some of which undoubtedly contribute much larger errors to the final
results, and since any other approach would have required much more time and
labor, this distribution was the one selected for use with the computer pro-
gram which computes emissions.

                                      11-81

-------
I
oo
            an     n      TO
                                       M      «7
                                                                        6J      U
                                                           MODEL YEAR (« of JULY I9TI1
                                                                                                          M ••«•*• inn
                                   Figure 11-10.  Derivation of  vehicle age distribution  (for
                                                   use with VMT data in VEHEMI2).

-------
                                                      TABLE 11-16

                              TOTAL VMT'S BY COUNTY FOR THE YEARS  1972 AND  1977  (mi/day)

                                      1972                                              1977
                                                            % OF                                              % OF
     DISTRICT #      Lpy'S      HPV'S    OV'S      TOTALS   TOTAL     LDV'S    HDV'S     OV'S       TOTALS    TOTAL

     1   City  of
     Pittsburgh     3,458,169   177,722   66,646    3,702,537    13.4   3,713,750  190,857    71,571   3,976,178*  12.5

     2   Rest  of
     County        10,120,124   272,949  104,981   10,498,054    38.0  11,745,900  316,798   121,845  12,184,543   38.2
    Allegheny
      County       13,578,293  450,671  171,627  14,200,591   51.4  15,459,650  507,655   193,416   16,160,721** 50.7

    3  Butler
      County        2,086,405   34,133   12,800   2,133,338    7.7   2,398,682   39,242    14,716    2,452,640    7.7

    4  Armstrong
S     County        1,029,916   44,779   17,475   1,092,170    3.9   1,220,602   53,070    20,710    1,294,382    4.0
i
25   5  Westmore-                                                                                    *
      land County   4,931,992  138,280   51,215   5,121,487   18.5   5,765,001  161,636    59,865    5,986,502   18.8

    6  Washington
      City          3,015,601   62,049   24,820   3,102,470   11.2   3,587,162   73,810    29,524    3,690,496   11.6

     7  Beaver
      County        1,905,955   80,675   30,253   2,016,883    7.3   2,185,843   92,522    34,696    2,313,061    7.2

     TOTALS-SPRPC  26,548,162  810,587  308,190  27,666,939  100.0  30,616,940  927,935   352,927   31,897,802  100.0

     *  7.4% growth = 1.487./year
    **  13.87.  growth = 2.767./year

     A  small  redistribution  of VME's is noted between the City of Pittsburgh and the rest of Allegheny  County.   A
     slightly larger percentage of VMC's is present in the County in 1977 as compared to 1972.  Similarly,  there is a
      little more activity  in the counties of Westmoreland and Washington, and a little less in Allegheny County as a
     whole, in 1977 as  compared to 1972.  Since the general idea is to get the vehicles  out of the city, these small
     differences are in the  right direction to spread the pollution around more evenly.   There is ample leeway in the
     other  zones and districts to allow for a small amount of dispersion of exhaust emissions to  the outlying areas; this
     will not violate either the letter or the spirit of the EPA regulations directing the maintenance  of existing
     air  quality levels in those areas where the air quality is already better than the  federal standards.

-------
LDV:
HDV:
0V :
414,336 450,749
21,294 23,165
7,985 8,687
419,196
21,543
8,079
                                TABLE 11-17
                      VMX'S USED IN SENSITIVITY TESTS
         WITHOUT STRATEGIES      WITH THE STRATEGY PACKAGES DEFINED BELOW

          1972      1977         1977, Pkg 1   1977.  Pkg 2   1977. Pkg 3

                                                 377,276       439,883

                                                  19,389        22,606

                                                   7,271         8.477

 TOTAL:  443,615   482,601         448,818       403,936       470,966


       The average "off-peak" speeds corresponding to the above VME's,
 categorized by type of highway  facility, are as follows (in mph):

 Fwy:     39.         39.              39.            43.      40.2 40.6  39.58  39.78

 Art:     19.         19.              19.            21.      19-6 19.8  19-28  19.38

 Lcl:     17.         17.              17.            19.      17.5 17.7  17.26  17.34

 ("Fwy" = Freeway,  "Art" = Arterial,  "Lcl" = Local Street)


       The entries  in Table 11-11 are the computed emissions of CO and HC
 in Zone 1 and Allegheny County,  respectively,  which  would result from the
 application of the several strategy packages as  defined below.

       Package 1 consists of a  7% reduction in  VMT with  no change in  the
 average speeds.

       Package 2 entails  a further  10% reduction  of VMT  from that used in pkg
 1,  above,  for a net reduction  of 16.3% from the  baseline ("no-strategy")
 value  for  1977,  coupled with a 10% increase in each  of  the three average
 speed  categories.

       Package 3 assumes  a 2.4% decrease  in VME with  four different sets of
 speeds:  increases  of 3.0%,  4.0%,  1.5% and 2.0%  over the baseline values
 of  39,  19,  and 17.

       The  first combination was  to be achieved through  a program of  increasing
 parking costs,  increasing transit  service,  and using existing  park areas for
 fringe parking.  The  second package was  used only for sensitivity analysis.
 The third  program  consisted  of a 12.5% rollback  from the 1977  "no-strategy"
 emission rate  attributable  to  an inspection  and  maintenance program,  plus
 an  additional  3.4%  reduction in  emissions  due  to the reduction in VMT as
 shown above.   The increases  in average speeds  on the various highway  facilities
were presumed  to arise as a result of the  reduced VME's.


                                      11-84

-------
                  (2)  CO Problem





                     With  the  caveats  and  assumptions outlined above, we



can now proceed to  a discussion of  the specific  findings and results of




our study and analysis  of  the  air pollution  situation in Pittsburgh as re-




gards CO and QX emissions  and  concentrations, both  present and expected



in future years.





                     With  respect to the CO  problem, the following tabula-




tion presents the situation as  of now  (see Table 11-18, below).  The data




are self-explanatory; however,  a word  on the assumptions and methodology




employed to achieve them should be  included.  The vehicular emissions data




come directly from  the  computer program VEHEMI2  (see Appendix C for a




complete listing of these  data).  The  assumptions and methodology




inherent  in this   program have been   discussed  in the  general intro-




duction to this Report.     The non-vehicular emissions  were  derived,



as explained previously, by applying the 7.0% of total CO emissions due




to non-vehicular  sources in the Inventory  to the computed value of




vehicular emissions.  The  35.5% reduction  in non-vehicular emissions be-




tween 1972 and 1975 came from  the point source data we collected during




our visits to Pittsburgh.  Since we had no definitive information on




planned reductions  beyond  1975,  the same level was assumed for 1977.




Beyond that year, the annual growth rate of  3.5% was assumed to take over,




as far as non-vehicular emissions are  concerned.  The successive ambient




levels of CO concentrations expected were computed using the e/c ratio




(e.g., 21605/1396 = 15.5,  etc.).  The  final  result is that in order to




achieve the federal standard of  9 ppm  per  maximum  8-hr, average by  1977,  we
                                   11-85

-------
                                TABLE 11-18

                       SUMMARY SHEET FOR PITTSBURGH
                              CARBON MONOXIDE
 Emissions computed for Zone 1 (downtown Pittsburgh) only.  Area = 1.26 sq. ml.
 All emission rates are in Kg/day, and all concentration levels are in ppm.
 Vehicular Emissions
 Non-Vehicular Emissions
 Total Emissions
                            27,543
                             2,200
                            29,743

e/c Ratio:  29743/21.3 = 1396.4
                                 1977      1977
                                (with QJJ   (with CO
Present     1975       1977     strategy   strategy
(1972)    (without strategies)  only)*     only
           20,186     13,829    13,829

            1,419      1,419     1,419
           21,605     15,248    15,248
 * No separate 0  strategy is planned - see Summary Sheet for Oxidants)

** 57.8% rollback in total emissions - 59.5% rollback in vehicular emissions
 required to meet federal standards.
 CO Ambient Level             21.3       15.5
  (maximum 8-hour average concentration)
                                                   10.9
                                 10.9
 9.0
(fed,  std.)
 Background CO Level
                            2-4 ppm, based on emissions of known point sources
                            in the Zone and an allowance for advection of CO
                            from adjacent zones.
 Estimates for future years (without strategies):


 Vehicular Emissions
                        *
 Non-Vehicular Emissions
 Total Emissions

 * Assumed overall annual growth rate for industry in the Pittsburgh area = 3.5%.

                              9.2        7.9        6.6       5.7       5.2
1978
11,340
1,469
12,809
1979
9,474
1,520
10,994
1980
7,656
1,573
9,229
1981
6,326
1,628
7,954
1982
5,551
1,685
7,236
CO Ambient Level
 (maximum 8-hour average)
Background CO Level
                             2 ppm, (allowance made for some improvement in
                             control of emissions from non-vehicular sources
                             outside the Zone).
                                      11-86

-------
need to reduce the vehicular CO emissions  from the present 27,543 kg/day




to 11,145 kg/day; this represents a reduction ("rollback") of 59.57..  Since




the federal program  (the FMVECP) will achieve a reduction of 49.8% all




by itself (under the assumptions outlined  above), this leaves another




9.7% of the 1972 emission rate to be achieved.  Another way of stating the




requirement is that we need to reduce CO emissions from motor vehicles




an additional 19.4% of the 1977 rate which will be achieved without any




transportation strategies.  Obviously, it  makes a lot of difference what




base year one uses in stating the percent  reduction required to achieve




a standard.  As it turns out, it also makes a difference whether one




includes emissions from other sources in his calculations of reduction




required.  Even though such sources contribute only 7.0% of the total CO




emissions (according to our assumptions),  they are not being reduced at




as fast a rate as are the emissions from motor vehicles;  this disparity must




be compensated for by "over-correcting"'the vehicular emissions,  so that




the actual ambient concentrations, which come from all sources, will reach




the desired level.






         (3)   0  Problem






               The Summary Sheet for oxidants (Table 11-19) is also self-




explanatory.  As before, the top line, vehicular emissions,  comes directly




from the zone-by-zone computations of the  computer program VEHEM12 which,




in turn, is based on and follows exactly the procedure set forth  in the




paper by Klrcher and Armstrong.   The non-vehicular emissions are  based on




the ratio between vehicular and non-vehicular emissions in the 1972
                                  11-87

-------
                                TABLE  II-19
                      SUMMARY SHEET  FOR PITTSBURGH
                                 OXIDANTS
 Emissions  computed  for  all of  Allegheny County.  Area  =  745.4 sq.  mi.
 All  emission  rates  are  in kg/day,  and all  concentration  levels are in  ppm.

Vehicular Emissions
Non -Vehicular Emissions
Total Emissions
Percent Reduction
from 1972 emission
rate (tot. emissions)
Oxidant level (max.
1-hr, average)
Present
(1972)
102,179
28,820
131,000
0.0


0.165

1977 1977
(with Ox (with CO
1975 1977 Strategy Strategy
(without strategies) only) only)
69,374
19,915
89,289
31.8


0.124

46,935
14,936
61,871
52.8


0.087

(44,014) 43,
(14,936) 14,
(58,950) 57,
(55.0) 55
(no Ox strategy
planned)
0.080** < 0

034*
936
970
.7


.080

**
 57.9% reduction in vehicular emissions  only
 Federal standard
(amounts in parentheses are those required to just meet the federal standard)
Estimates for future
Vehicular Emissions
V
Non-Vehicular Emis-
years (without strategies) :
1978 1979 1980
39,879
15,459
33,766
16,000
28,430
16,560
1981
2i,500
17,140
1982
23,391
17,740
   sions
 Total Emissions
 Oxidant level (max.
   1-hr, average)
                        55,338    49,766   44,990     42,640      41,131
                        (all  levels  are  below the federal standard of 0.08 ppm)
  Assumed ratio of Zone 1 emissions to total County emissions = 3,8%  (see
  Table 11-10).
W
  Assumed same growth factor as for CO calculations; i.e., 3.5% per year.
                                    11-88

-------
Emissions Inventory:  according  to  that document,  77.9% of  the total HC




emissions in Allegheny County  in 1972  came  from  sources we  define  in this




Report as "vehicular"; thus, we  have applied  the same  proportion to the




computed HC emissions from the three categories  of motor vehicles  (LDV,




HDV, and 0V); 22.1% of the total gives the  value 28,820 kg/day.   Now,




following the same procedure as  for the CO  emissions,   we noted that




according to the point source  information given to us  in Pittsburgh, a




30.9% reduction in HC emissions  from these  stationary  sources is planned be-




tween now and 1975 (Table II-6).  In the ease of hydrocarbons, however, there




was additional information given to us verbally to the effect that an addi-




tional 25% reduction was planned between 1975 and  1977-  This gives a total




reduction of 48.27. based on the  1972 emissions of  28,820 kg/day.  The




accuracy of the forecast figure  for non-vehicular  emissions  is of  some



importance, since it turns out that, with the amount of reduction assumed,




the federal program and the amount  of  rollback required to meet the CO




standard will just meet the standard for oxidants with no special strategy




required for oxidants by themselves.   Based on that assumption, the numbers




in parentheses show the nominal  values for  vehicular and total emissions




which will just attain the 55% reduction in HC emissions required to meet




the standard for oxidants.  As can be  seen, the next column of figures




doesn't beat these values by very much.  The oxidant problem is somewhat




peculiar in that oxidants, unlike CO and hydrocarbons, are secondary




pollutants, i.e., they are formed in the atmosphere as the result of an




extremely complicated series of  photochemical reactions which require




some period of time (on the order of a few  hours, ordinarily) to generate




the irritating and harmful products - ozone  and the other oxidizing
                                   11-89

-------
agents - lumped together as "total oxidants".  Because of the time delay



implicit in the generation of oxidants resulting from photochemical reactions



in the atmosphere, it is necessary to consider larger areas than are of



interest in studying the CO problem.  Moreover, it is not possible to



measure the oxidizing agents directly under test conditions as is commonly



done with CO and the other "primary" pollutants which are generated



directly as a result of the combustion of gasoline in an internal combustion



engine.  This difficulty has been handled up to now by recognizing the



close relationship between the amounts and types of hydrocarbons coming



out the tail pipe and the amount of photochemical oxidants appearing some-



where downstream later on.   This admittedly imperfect procedure has the



advantage of being fairly straightforward computationally (the basis for



the HC-0  relationship being the curve in Appendix J of  40 CFR 51).  To
        tS.



facilitate computation and help to insure uniformity of  results, I made a



tabulation of this relationship by exercising the closest possible care



in reading off the values of required hydrocarbon emission control as



functions of the observed photochemical oxidant concentration (maximum



1-hour average).  A copy of this is attached as Table 11-20.   As stated  in



an earlier section, it was necessary to make some sort of assumption as



the basis for deriving the HC emission rates for the whole of Allegheny



County for the "off-years" (years other than 1972 and 1977);  the one



selected was that the relationship between the Zone 1 emissions and those



for all of Allegheny County for the two years for which  computed values



were available would also hold for all the other years falling»within the



purview of this study.  Table  11-10 shows the details of  this derivation-
                                   11-90

-------
                                 TABLE 11-20

     TABLE OF VALUES OF REQUIRED HYDROCARBON EMISSION CONTROL AS A FUNCTION OF
                       PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANT CONCENTRATION

(From Appendix J, 42 CFR  51,  federal Register, vol. 36, no. 228
                  25 Hovember 1971, p. 22413)
Maximum Measured 1-hour Photochemical       Reduction in Hydrocarbon Emissions
Oxidant Concentration           (ppm)       Required to Achieve National  Stan-
\
0.080
.085
.090
.095
100
.105
.110
.115
.120
.125
.130
.135
.140
.145
.150
.155
.160
.165
.170
.175
.180
.185
.190
.195
. 200
.210
.220
.230
.240
.250
.260
.270
.280
.290
.300

0
4
8
13
18
22
26
29
32
35
38
41
43
46
48
51
53
55
57
59
60
62
63
65
67
69
73
76
79
82
85
88
91
95
98
                                        11-91

-------
 It should be emphasized that a constant ratio was not assumed; rather, it



 was assumed that the rate of change in the ratio as measured over the five



 year period 1972 - 1977 (i.e., 0.0035% per year,  decreasing with time)



 was applicable to all the years 1970 - 1986.   Since this  assumption resulted



 in a function which follows  closely the curve shown in Figure  11-12  for  the



 computed Zone 1 values, it was felt that this was probably the most logical



 course to take,  given the lack of  time or manpower to compute the large



 number of VMT's,  SPD's, and  FSPD's  needed to  compute the  county-Wide values



 more accurately (that is,  directly  from the computer program).
    E.  SUMMARY AND RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF MODELING TECHNIQUES

        AND AREAS FOR AVERAGING
         1.  Determination of Measurements of CO and 0
            It has been determined from the measurements of CO and 0
                                                                    x
that:
             (a)  The present ambient concentrations of CO and HC in Pitts-



burgh and Allegheny County, respectively, do exceed the federal standards



to be attained by the year 1977.




             (b)  The amount of rollback required in each case has been


determined.




             (c)  The federal program (FMVECP) will not, of and by itself,



or in combination with the stationary source controls planned in the



Pittsburgh area, achieve that amount of reduction in expected emissions.
                                  11-92

-------
      It therefore becomes necessary to consider other measures for the




 reduction of emissions from vehicular sources in the Region.   Following




 the dichotomy presented in the pertinent federal regulations  with respect




 to sources (40 CFR 51, as amended), two types of reduction measures or



 strategies may be considered:






          (a)   Those which have their effect more or less uniformly over




 an entire Air Quality Control Region or a major subregion such as a county,



 and





          (b)   Those which affect directly only small,  localized zones or



 districts.







     As shown in Appendix C,  we have determined,  at  least  for  the "no




 strategy" case,  precisely which zones within the  SPRPC Region  make  the




 largest contributions to  the  maximum concentration levels which  exceed




 the standards.   We have seen  that,  for  reasons  of economy of effort, a simple




 proportional or  "rollback" model was used  to derive  the relationships




 between future emission rates and ambient  concentrations  (air  quality levels).




As  we have also  seen,  the meteorological and emissions data were  not of




 sufficient fineness  of mesh to permit the  use of diffusion techniques for




 each of the  72 zones  chosen by the  subcontractor to  represent  the Region.




The subcontractor selected these zones  on  the bases  of similarity of




 terrain and  exposure  to the prevailing  meteorological elements, population




and traffic  density,  and  type of highway facilities  present within each




zone.   Our review disclosed no reason to change any  of the zone selections




aade by  the  subcontractor  (see maps,  Figures  II-2 and II-3).
                                    11-93

-------
      Since the downtown Pittsburgh district  (Zone  1) was the only area




where CO emissions constituted a serious problem,  the method chosen was




to establish the present ratio of emissions  to concentration (e/c ratio),




then, using that as the relationship between emissions and expected ambient




concentrations in future years, to calculate the amount of rollback required




to meet the federal standard by 1977.  This, in turn, led to the determina-




tion  of the "safe" emission rate from all sources of CO which would, assuming




the 1972 e/c ratio was valid for 1977, result in the desired level of




concentration of CO in Zone 1.






      In the case of the oxidants problem, the area  chosen was all of




Allegheny County.  The basic reason  for this selection has already been




given:  the physical and chemical nature of  generation of photochemical




oxidants is such that the immediate, direct, localized emanations from




the tailpipe are not of paramount concern; rather,  it is the secondary




contaminants arising from the complex photochemical reactions occurring




in the atmosphere over an appreciable period of time (several hours) that




is the problem in this case.  Since the ambient air in which these pollutants




are being generated is moving itself under the influence of meteorological




elements as discussed above, a much larger region is required for study




and evaluation.   As stated above,  the ideal positioning for an oxidant-




measuring site is some three to five hours (5 to 15 miles)  downwind of




the principal  source  of HC emanations (usually the downtown area, as in




this  case).  We  have  seen  that,  partly due to fortuitous  circumstances,
                                    11-94

-------
the site from which the measurements  of  ozone were made during the summer




of 1971 in Pittsburgh was very well suited  to its purpose.  As with CO,




albeit on a much  larger geographical  scale, the  single sampling site




was deemed adequate for the  present purpose since it represents the great-




est ambient concentration to be  expected within  the entire SPRPC Region.




The three additional counties which,  with the six counties making up the




SPRPC Region, compose the SPAQCR, were surveyed  briefly in the early




stages of the present study.  The conclusion reached was that, while there




are a few point sources, some of considerable magnitude, located within




these counties  (e.g., the large  power plant near Indiana, Pennsylvania),




the ambient concentrations of CO and  HC  at no point approach critical




levels affecting  any appreciable population groups.  The terrain, meteor-




ology, and population and vehicle densities are  similar to those in the




adjacent counties  included within the SPRPC Region (Washington, Westmore-




land, and Armstrong, respectively) and further study of these three




counties was deemed both unnecessary  and inappropriate in view of the




terms of the present contract which is couched in terms of cities rather




than AQCR's.






             It was apparent that the observed concentrations of CO do




not follow the distributions in  space and time commonly observed else-




where; i.e., for CO, the greatest 8-hour concentrations elsewhere usually




tend to be grouped in the evening or  nighttime hours during periods of




limited atmospheric dispersion (low mixing, or high stability conditions),




typically during the fall and winter  months, while, as we have seen,
                                   11-95

-------
 the  situation  in  Pittsburgh  seems  to  be  quite different.   The highest



 0 concentrations tend  to  occur  in the late morning or early afternoon



 during the  season of  greatest  insolation (June,  July and  August,  usually),



 following high emanations  of HC  during the  early morning  hours.   The



 fact that this disparity between the  time of maximum expected concentra-



 tions of CO and 0  exists  dictates  that  certain  strategies will be more
                  x


 effective in reducing one  of the two  pollutants  than they will be on the



 other;   indeed, it is possible that some measures  taken to alleviate,



 say, the CO problem could  actually  e-xacerbate the  0  situation, or vice
                                                    X


 versa.    This constitutes an additional constraint on the choice of



 strategies,  whether applied  to a small neighborhood,  an area as large  as



 a traffic analysis zone or one of our  larger  air pollution analysis



 zones,  a whole county, or  the entire SPRPC  Region.   Given the amount



 and  kinds of meteorological  and  air quality data available to us  at  this



 time,  the terrain and vehicle density  in the  various  portions of  the



 Region,  and  the physical nature  of the two  pollutants  studied in  this



 Report,  it  is  felt  that the methodology and area sizes  selected are  optimum



 for  the  present purposes.






             Two  important things to keep in mind  are:  (1)  it is  the  VMT's



 (vehicle miles  traveled), not the number of cars,  that  are of importance



 in the above discussion; (2) it  is not the absolute tonnage  of CO  or HC



 emissions that  is  important in making comparisons  between, say, the




Allegheny County BAPC's emission figures and those  generated  from the



 SPRPC's VMT figures, but rather the ratios between vehicular  and  non-
                                 11-96

-------
vehicular emissions, between successive  yearly emission data, between




CO and HC emission rates, and  so  on.  As long as we are consistent in




our choice of baseline figures, we  are interested at this stage primarily




in determining the percentage  reduction  required  (the  "rollback") rather




than the absolute values of the tons  per year or kilograms per day of




CO, HC, or any other pollutant.   As has  been repeatedly pointed out, we




dp need much better information on  the actual amounts  of the various




pollutants being introduced into  Pittsburgh's air.  To meet the 15 Febru-




ary 1973 deadline imposed by Federal  law; however, the ratios, not the




absolute values, are what is needed,  and these have been pretty well




determined.






         2.  Conelus ions





             As far as the extent and severity of the CO and 0  problem
                                                              X



is concerned, it may be stated in summing up this part of the Report




that there ia a definite CO problem,  that some sort of transportation




strategy will be required to meet the Federal standards by the target




date, and that if this is done, no  separate oxidant problem will exist




in Allegheny County by the year 1977; i.e., the Federal standards for




photochemical oxidants should  be  met.
                                   11-97

-------
      IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION CONTROL STRATEGIES






      A.  STRATEGY EVALUATION METHODOLOGY






          This process describes the process used to evaluate the various




alternative strategies for the reduction of emissions.






          The general methodology used in the evaluation of the alternative




Strategies is illustrated in Figure III-l.  As indicated on this figure,




the major steps in the process are:






          •  Generate Alternatives — A listing of all alternative




             strategies  to be considered, regardless of any con-




             straints.






          •  Preliminary Screening — Certain alternatives appearing




             to be immediately infeasible are eliminated from fur-




             ther consideration.






          •  Impact Evaluation — This set of rankings is the basis




             for the selection of a recommended control strategy.




             Major elements  of the evaluation process are:






             (1)  Technical  Effectiveness:  Each alternative measure




                  is examined to determine  the extent to which it is




                  effective  in eliminating  emissions.




             (2)  Economic Cost:  This state of the analysis assesses




                  the cost of the various emission reduction measures




                  in "traditional" economic terms.
                                     III-l

-------

Generate
Alternatives
k
f

Preliminary
Screening
|
F
                                      Impact Evaluation:

                                        Technical Effective-
                                           ness of Strategy
                                        Economic Impact
                                        Non-Economic
                                           Impact
                                        Political Feasi-
                                           bility
Recommended
   Strategy
   Program
Figure I1I-1.  Development  of Recommended Control Strategy Program.

-------
             (3)  Non-Economic Cost:  In addition to economic costs,

                  various other impacts of the alternative emission

                  control strategies are considered.  These impacts

                  include social, administrative, legal and technical

                  impact.

             (4)  Political Feasibility:  The political feasibility of

                  the various strategies is also examined as a separate

                  impact.


          •  Recommended Program — based on the results of evaluation

             matrix, a recommended program of control strategies was

             developed.


      B.  GENERATE ALTERNATIVES


          A basic list of all candidate strategies was compiled and classi-

fied according to the manner in which the strategies contributed to the

objective of reducing emissions.  This list is presented below:


          Reduce Emission Rate

             Traffic Flow Improvements
                  Upgrade Existing Streets
                  Loading Zone
                  Metering
                  Information Systems

             Source Control
                  Retrofit
                  Inspection
                  Fuel Conversions
                  Idling Controls
                                    III-3

-------
          Reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel

             Reduce Travel Demand
                  Four-Day Week
                  Communications Substitute for Travel
                  Episode Specific Controls
                  Traffic Flow Restrictions
                  Motor Vehicle Use Restraint

             Increase Transit Use
                  Short-term Transit Improvements
                  Long-term Transit Improvements
                  Transit Fares
                  Tolls
                  Parking Taxes and Charges
                  Parking Restrictions, Modification of Supply
                  Vehicle-free Zones
                  Reserved Bus Lanes
                  Increase Fuel Tax
                  Episode Specific Controls

             Increase Occupancy
                  Car Pools
                  Tolls
                  Metering
                  Episode Specific Controls
                  Vehicle-free Zones
                  Parking Taxes and Charges
             Shift Travel Patterns
                  Staggered Hours
                  Fringe Parking
                  Night Goods Delivery
                  Location of Government Offices
                  Zoning and Parking
                  Through-traffic Bypass
      C.  PRELIMINARY SCREENING


          A preliminary screening of the preceding list indicated several

alternatives that appear to be immediately infeasible.   The following

alternatives fell into this category,  and were eliminated from further

considerations.
                                    III-4

-------
           1.   Idling Controls







               On the basis of current information, it has not been estab-




 lished that this strategy yields sufficient emission reductions to justify




 the serious enforcement problems its use would necessitate.






           2.   Communications Substitutes for Travel






               The long range outlook for such technology indicates that




 considerable amounts of personal travel will be replaced by  communications




 (without travel).  However, the point where this will result in measurable




 decreases in VMT is beyond the time frame of this analysis.






           3.   Episode Specific Controls






               Despite considerable local interest in this measure,  it was




 held  to be inappropriate at this time for the attainment of  the desired




 1977  emissions rollback objectives.   As more precise information is devel-




 oped  concerning the frequency with which air quality standards are  exceeded,




 the effectiveness of episode specific controls should be re-evaluated.






           4.   Motor Vehicle Use  Restraint and Traffic Flow Restrictions






               The experience in  various cities where motor vehicle  use




 restraints have been employed indicated that such restraints are feasible




 only  if  a  number of conditions are  met.   A major  prerequisite for a suc-




 cessful  vehicle-free zone  is the provision of transit service at a  level




which furnishes  an  attractive alternative to the  use of  the private




automobile.  Another important precondition for the  success of vehicle-free
                                    III-5

-------
 zones  appears  to  be  enthusiasm on  the  part  of  employers,  employees,  insti-




 tutions  and  commercial  establishments  in  the affected  areas.   An additional




 apparent prerequisite of  success for vehicle-free  zones  is  the undertaking




 of  comprehensive  planning by  the responsible jurisdiction,  and the support




 of  downtown  merchants.






              None of these conditions appears to  be met  at present  in  the




 Pittsburgh area,  and it is highly  unlikely  that this climate will alter




 significantly before 1977.  It  is  not  likely that  transit service will be




 improved  to  a level  such  that  it could be considered an attractive alter-




 native to automobile use  by 1977.  It  should be noted that  this does not




 imply  that no transit improvements and related increases  in ridership will




 be  obtained; it is implied, however, that improvements sufficient to per-




 mit the  implementation of vehicle-free zones will  not be forthcoming.




 Furthermore, there is no  reason to believe  that employers, employees,




 institutions and  the business community will accept major vehicle restraints.




Within the last decade,  the CBD area has enjoyed a very substantial increase




 in office floor area and employment.  CBD retail activity has not only held




 its own, but has actually expanded in the past few years.  Both the gains




 in employment and retail activity have taken place simultaneously with




 increases in the percentage of trips to the CBD by automobile.  Given the




 lack of attractive transit alternatives, it does not appear reasonable




 that CBD employers, employees and retail interests would accept the major




de-emphasis of automobile trips that is implied by the institution of




vehicle-free zones.  Incidents such as the recent parking strike, which
                                     III-6

-------
involuntarily created a vehicle-free zone in the entire Triangle,  rein-




forced much of the downtown community's wariness of this approach.






           5.   Long-term Transit Improvements






               It does not now appear that any rapid transit  system or  seg-




ment  thereof  will be operational by 1977.  Even if the  legal status of the




now-stalled Early Action transit program was clarified,  and  implementation




of  this  plan  started immediately,  it is not expected that the  rapid transit




mileage  stipulated in this plan would be operational by 1977.   It  is further-




more  likely that the legal resolution of the Early Action plan will require




considerable  more time, thus delaying even further the  implementation  of




any major  transit improvements therein.   It seems safe,  therefore,  to




assume that implementation,  if any,  of these plans will be delayed  to  well




beyond 1977.






           6.   Bypass for Through-traffic






               Litigation involving many aspects of the  freeway and  express-




way system in the near vicinity of the Triangle is increasing  the  likeli-




hood  that  these  improvements will  not be operational by  1977.   Furthermore,




it  is almost  certain th ».t no facility,  as yet unplanned,  will  contribute



substantially to the reduction of  through-traffic in the  Triangle by 1977.




It  furthermore does  not appear to  be reasonable to expect that  substantial




alleviation of through-traffic in  the Triangle  can be accomplished by




further utilization  of existing surface  streets,  since  this  alternative




has undoubtedly  been exhausted over  the  years of  traffic  increase  in the




Triangle.
                                     III-7

-------
       D.   IMPACT  EVALUATION


           This  stage  of  the  analysis  is  the  heart  of  the evaluation process.

 In this  evaluation, the  total  impact  of  the  various control alternatives

 is broken up  into a spectrum of  sub-impacts.  Criteria  relevant  to each of

 these  sub-impacts are derived  and applied.   Based  on  the application of

 such criteria,  an overall  ranking of  the alternatives is developed.


           The following  sections describe the major elements  in  the

 evaluation procedure.
                                                                   »

           1.  Technical  Effectiveness


              Table III-l  ranks each  control strategy from  one through

 five in each  of three categories.  The three categories  are:  1) effective

 reduction  of  the  rate of emissions in grams per vehicle mile; 2) effective

 reduction  of  vehicle miles of  travel  (VMT) in the analysis  area; and 3} ef-

 fective geographical or  temporal shift of vehicle miles  of  travel for the

 area analyzed.


              The rankings for each criteria are relative, and the degree

 of effectiveness  increases to a maximum value of 5.  Least effective

 strategies would have a ranking of 1.   The final ranking of each control

 strategy represents effectiveness in reducing emissions.  A final ranking

 of 1 represents an expected reduction of VMT or emissions between 0 and 1

percent.   Final rankings 2 through 5 represent 1-4 percent, 5-8 percent,

 9-19 percent,  and 20-100 percent expected VMT or emission reductions,

respectively-
                                    III-8

-------
      TABLE III-1.
RATING OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
   TECHNICAL EFFECTIVENESS
Strategy
Reduce Emission Rate '
Traffic Flow Improvements
Upgrade Existing Streets
Loading Zone
Metering
Information Systems
Source Control
Retrofit
Inspection
Fuel Conversion
Reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel
Reduce Travel Demand
Four Day Week
Increase Transit Use
Short Term Transit Impv.
Transit Fares
Tolls
Parking Taxes and Charges
Parking Restrictions
Vehicle-Free Zone
Reserved Bus Lanes
Increase Fuel Tax
Increase Occupancy
Car Pools
Tolls
Metering
Vehicle -Free Zones
Parking Taxes and Charges
Shift Travel Patterns
Staggered Hours
Fringe Parking
Night Goods Deliveries
Government Offices
Zoning
Rating*
Emiss-
ion Red'n
2
1
2
1
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
5
2
1
1
**
**
**
**
2
2
2
1
2
VMT
Red'n
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
1
5
2
2
1
**
##
#*
**
1
2
2
2
2
Travel
Shift
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
5
1
1
1
**
**
**
**
1
2
2
2
2
Total
2
1
3
1
3
4
2
2
2
3
4
3
2
5
2
2
1
**
**
**
**
2
2
2
2
2
 * Ratings based on findings in this section.
** Strategy rated previously in this table.
                                  III-9

-------
               The evaluation of  each  strategy was  based  upon the  probable




 and  reasonable degree  of  implementation  that could be  accomplished  by 1977




 without  major  expenditures  of capital.   For particular control  strategies,




 the  effectiveness of reducing emissions  is very  sensitive to the  degree




 to which the strategy  is  implemented.  Therefore,  the  rankings  for  those




 control  strategies are not  rigid, e.g.,  increasing parking costs  in the




 CBD  by 50 cents per day would  be less effective  in reducing  emissions  than




 a $1.50  increase.






               It  should be noted that the estimated VMT and  emission reduc-




 tions are applicable on a zonal basis.  Retrofit,  increased  fuel tax, and



 inspection and maintenance estimated reductions are the only figures that




 are  applicable on  a regional basis.  All other control strategy reductions



 are  geographically and temporally specific.   In particular,  the control



 strategies were predominantly analyzed with respect to the CBD.   In order




 to reduce  emissions on a regional basis by more than 5 percent by 1977,




 retrofit  and inspection and maintenance programs should be pursued.






              Presently, it is known that approximately 50 percent of the




vehicle trips in Zone 1 are local trips.     Local trips are defined as




trips which begin or end or begin and end in the zone being analyzed.




The remaining trips which travel in Zone 1 are  defined as through trips.




It is estimated that in 1972, 50 percent of the vehicle miles travelled




in Zone 1 are generated by local trips.   In 1977, there are 241,600 pro-




jected auto person trip ends in Zone 1.   Since  this is approximately the




same number of trip ends as exists in 1972,  the VMT growth from 1972 to
                                  111-10

-------
 1977  is  expected to be caused by through trips.   Under this  assumption


 45 percent  of  total travel in Zone 1 in 1977 will be generated  by local

       52
 trips.    In 1977,  it  is projected that there will be a total of  193,000


 transit  attractions with 30 percent of this total being choice  transit


 users and the  remaining 70 percent being captive  users.  These  projections


 are  used in the following analyses when local and overall  reductions are


 estimated.   The following sections describe each  strategy.



               a.  Retrofit




                  Assuming the same age mix of operating cars that existed


 in 1971  for the Southwestern Pennsylvania region  would  exist in 1977 gives:


         5.4 percent of all operating cars would be pre-1968 models


       39.9 percent of all operating cars would be 1968-1972 models


       22.0 percent of all operating cars would be 1973-1974 models


       61.9 percent of all operating cars would be 1968-1974 models


       32.7 percent of all operating cars would be 1975-1977 models


Appendix F  shows  the contribut ion  of total vehicle miles of travel by each

            *
model year.



                  The  following references to  emission rate reductions


apply to gas powered light duty motor vehicles except motorcycles.  In


estimating  emission reductions for the region  for  1977, the preceding age


mix was  assumed and gas  powered light duty vehicles were estimated to


generate 96  percent of the vehicle travel in the  region.
*See Appendix F for the source of the age mix and vehicle miles of travel

 by model year.
                                   111-11

-------
                   It  is estimated  that  retrofit  of  pre-1968 vehicles (pre-



 controlled vehicles)  could reduce  their emission rate  by 12-68 percent  for



 hydrocarbons,  9-63 percent for  carbon monoxide,  and 0-48 percent  for nitro-



 gen  oxides, depending on  the  the retrofit device used.   This rate reduction



 •would  reduce emissions for the  region in 1977 by approximately 0.28-1.56



 percent  for hydrocarbons, 0.2-1.45 percent for carbon  monoxide, and  0-1.10



 percent  for nitrogen  oxides.    For controlled vehicles with model years



 between  1968 and  1972, exhaust  gas recirculation could reduce  the nitrogen



 oxide  emission rate by 40 percent, which would reduce  the amount  of  nitro-



 gen  oxide emissions for the region by 14.7 percent.  For controlled  vehicles



 with model years between  1968 and  1974, an oxidizing catalytic  converter



 could  reduce the emission rate  of carbon monoxide and  hydrocarbons by 50



 percent, which would  result in  a 31.5 percent reduct on of  carbon monoxide


                                         53
 and  hydrocarbon emissions for the region.     If  the most effective retrofit



 devices were implemented, the 1977 regional emission reductions would be



 33.1 percent for hydrocarbons,  33.0 percent for  carbon monoxide,  and 15.8



 percent for nitrogen oxides.   If one-fourth of the maximum  reductions were



 achieved due to cost,  deterioration, or quality  control, then the estimated



 reductions would be 8.3 percent for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons and



 4.0 percent for nitrogen oxides.





              b.   Inspection and Maintenance






                  The  implementation of an inspection and maintenance



program using a loaded emissions test has  been estimated to  reduce initial



emissions 25 percent for hydrocarbons,  19  percent for  carbon monoxide and
*
 See Appendix F.
                                   111-12

-------
0 percent  for nitrogen oxide.  Assuming twelve month periods between checks




and  a.  Linear deterioration rate will result in an average of 12 percent




reduction  in the rate of emission for hydrocarbon and 10 percent and 0




percent  reductions for carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides,  respectively.




These  average reductions in the rate of emission for each pollutant  are




applicable to gas powered light duty motor vehicles, and since  these




vehicles generate approximately 96 percent of all vehicle travel in  the




region,  emission reductions would be slightly less than the  rate reduc-




tions.






               c.   Fuel Conversion






                   Gaseous fuel conversion from gasoline to liquified




petroleum  gas,  compressed natural gas,  or liquified natural  gas  could




reduce the emission rate of carbon monoxide significantly for light duty




vehicles which  do not meet the stringent Federal standards in 1975.




Although the magnitude of reduction is  significant,  three  constraints




reduce the effectiveness of this control strategy.   The first constraint




is the limited  supply of natural gas or petroleum gas.  As long  as new




deposits of these fuels are not discovered,  the  conversion to these fuels




will be  limited.   The second constraint is  the possible prohibition of




vehicles using  or transporting these gaseous  fuels  through tunnels and




on bridges.   The  last constraint is the problem  of  distributing  the fuel




to consumers.   For  these reasons,  the probable use  of this control strategy




would be confined to  fleets  of vehicles.  The reduction in regional emis-




sions by 1977 would not  be  substantial;  however,   the reduction  of emissions




in small areas  such as  a CBD,  could  be  significant.
                                     111-13

-------
                   It  has  been estimated that in Manhattan,  the conversion


 of fleet taxis  could  reduce  the  emission rate of carbon monoxide by 85.3


 percent initially-     In  Pittsburgh's  CBD,  approximately 5  percent of the


 vehicle trip  ends  are generated  by  taxis.   Since local  travel  is approxi-


 mately half of  the total  travel  in  the CBD,  the travel  generated by taxis


 is approximately 2.5  percent  of  the  total travel.  Based on the  assumptions


 above,  the conversion of  taxis in the  CBD of  Pittsburgh could  reduce  carbon


 monoxide emissions  by 2.1 percent daily.  In  order for  this  plan to work


 properly, it  is  assumed that  these converted  taxis would be  able to use the


 tunnel that must be traveled  when going  to  the  Greater  Pittsburgh Airport


 from  the CBD.



              d.  Upgrading the Existing Streets



                  The  upgrading of the existing street  system by decreasing


 delay  time and increasing agerage vehicle speed by improving the  signal


 system  and the physical characteristics of roadways and  intersections would


 decrease emissions  per vehicle mile for carbon monoxide  and hydrocarbons.


 These improvements  generally  come under TOPICS programs.  Figure  III-2


 depicts  the expected percent  decrease  in carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons


 emission rates expected for average speed increases between 15 and  30


miles per hour.



                  In the core area of Pittsburgh, average speed  increases
                                        *

of 10 percent on the street system affected by TOPICS could be realized


during the peak 12  hour period.  The TOPICS program could have an effect
                                    III-L4

-------
        Note: Applicable for speeds 15-30mph
           30   "40    50    60   70    80
            CHANGE IN SPEED, Percent
Figure III-2.  Emissions Reduction Vs. Speed Increase
                  111-15

-------
 on approximately  20 percent  of  vehicle  travel  during the peak 12 hour




 period,  and  thus  would  have  an  overall  effect  of  increasing speed by 2.0




 percent.






                  Based on these assumptions and Figure  III-2,  the rate




 of carbon monoxide  emissions and hydrocarbon emissions during the 12 hour




 period would decrease by approximately  1.5 percent.  For  a  daily  period,




 carbon monoxide and  hydrocarbon emissions would decrease  approximately



 1.0 percent.  During a  short time period, the  increase in speed on facili-




 ties  is not liable  to attract more users.  If  this did occur,  then the




 decrease  in emissions due to speed increases may be  offset.






              e.  Loading Zones






                  The major advantages of controlling commercial  use of




 on-street loading zones are to increase capacity of  the street and  to




 increase speed.  Emission rate reductions can be estimated  using Figure




 III-2 after an estimated speed increase is determined.  Capacity  increases




 can be estimated through standard highway capacity analysis.  Although




 increasing capacity  is usually desirable in traffic engineering,  it would



be  undesirable in reducing total emissions for a particular area.  The




 impact of this control strategy would also be limited in  that the  controls




would be applied to particular facilities and in most conditions would




affect a small percentage of the total problem.  The expected reduction




in emissions for Pittsburgh a CBD would be less than 1 percent due to




improved controlling of loading zones.
                                    111-16

-------
              f.  Metering






                  The reduction  in  emission rates due to freeway metering




is treated in a manner  similar to the previous  control strategy.  A major




improvement would be the  increase in average  speed by controlling the




density of traffic on the facility.  This  strategy,  if instituted, could




be used to strictly control  the  volume  of  traffic on the facility and




consequently stabilize  or reduce vehicle miles  of travel.  If it is used




for this purpose, alternative transportation  facilities such as a viable




transit alternative must  be  available.  Closing an exit ramp to a CBD to




private automobiles while allowing  buses to freely use it is a strong



example of metering traffic.  The effect in the reduction rate of emissions




can be measured by using  Figure  III-2,  and by estimating an average speed




increase.  The reduction  due to  effective  metering could range from 5 to




8 percent.






              g.  Information Systems






                  This  strategy  is  similar to all traffic flow improvement




strategies in that one  goal  of the  strategy is  to increase average speed




for a portion of the auto users.  By doing so,  Figure III-2 could be




used.  In order to reduce the rate  of emissions by 5 percent or more, the




average speed for the entire day far all vehicles in the area must be



increased by 5 percent  or more.  It is  estimated that a 1 percent decrease




in emissions using this control  strategy is maximum for most systems.
                                     111-17

-------
               h.  Four Day Week






                  The maximum  reduction  in work  trips per day  that  could




 be expected  due  to  the institution  of  the  four day week  is 43  percent.




 This  assumes the  reduction of  present  work trips from ten trips per week




 to eight  trips per  week  spread equally over seven days a week.  A more




 reasonable maximum  reduction in daily  work trips is 20 percent, based on




 spreading the eight trips  equally over five days.    An additional benefit




 realized  by  reducing work  trips is  increased average speeds.   It is esti-




 mated that decreasing work trips by 20 percent during the peak period




 (assuming auto occupancy and modal  split remain constant), would increase




 average speed by  approximately 20 percent  on facilities which were carry-




 ing volumes  near  capacity during the peak period.  This would  reduce




 carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon rates  of emissions by approximately 12




 to 15 percent.  Since work trips comprise approximately one-third of all




 trips for the  region, they contribute at least 33 percent of the vehicle




 miles of  travel.   Therefore,  a 20 percent reduction of work trips per day




 would reduce vehicle miles of  travel by approximately 6.6 percent.   The




 emission  reduction  due to increased speeds would contribute another 0.12 x




 0.20 = 2.4 percent  (the 0.20 represents the  percent of trips occurring




 during the peak periods).  Thus,  a 20 percent reduction in work trips per




 day would cause an approximate 9 percent decrease in emissions






                  Since Pittsburgh's CBD experiences a greater percentage




 of work trips than the regional average,  emissions  produced by local




vehicle trips would be reduced by approximately 12  percent.   It should be
                                     111-18

-------
noted here that overall  auto occupancy and modal  split may decrease but




losses should be  relatively small,  especially for modal  split where a




majority of  transit  useres  are captives.   Even if all workers went to a




four day week by  1977, the  resulting reduction in.emissions anticipated on




particular days could be insignificant if the scheduled  days off were not




spread equally.   For example,  if all employees were on a four day week,




and half were off on Mondays and half on  Fridays, the implication would




be that work trips would be halved  on Mondays and Fridays, and no reduc-




tion in emissions would  result on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.   If




the meteorological conditions  were  unfavorable on a Tuesday, Wednesday,




or Thursday, then the control  strategy would  not  be of any help.  Switching




to a four day week would reduce emissions on  particular  days, but proper




scheduling of the individual's day  off is crucial in reducing emissions




for all days.  Since meteorological conditions are random, the optimal use




of the strategy is to spread the reduction equally over  all days.  Assuming




that 25 percent of the CBD  work force is  on a four day week, and assuming



optimal scheduling,  the  resultant decrease in total emissions would be 1.5




percent.   In Pittsburgh's CBD,  approximately  15 percent  of the workers are




government employees.  If these workers were  on a four day week by 1977,



and optimal  scheduling were implemented,  an overall emission reduction of




0.9 percent would  result.






              i.   Short  Term Transit  Improvements






                  The basic  short term improvement that  can be accomplished




is the reduction of  transit  travel  time.  The modal split model developed
                                     111-19

-------
by  SPRPC  for  the  region  is  divided  into two parts.   The first part esti-




mates  captive transit  users.   The travel time  was not  found to appreciably




affect captive modal split.  For this  reason,  short  term transit  improve-




ments  measured in transit travel time  reduction were not assumed  to affect




captive modal split.   The second part  of the model estimates choice transit




usage, which  was  found to be sensitive to transit travel time reduction.




The estimation of choice transit usage was  further divided  into two




equations.




                   The  first equation estimates choice  transit usage for




those  trips made  exclusively on buses  in mixed traffic.   In this  case, modal




split  varies  inversely with the excess  travel  time ratio.   As can be seen




in  Figure III-3,  the excess travel  time  ratio does not  affect choice modal




split  unless  the  ratio is less than 0.5.  This ratio is  difficult to




achieve during a  short time period.   The  transit system headways  would need




to  be  decreased significantly, transfers would have  to be reduced,  and




coverage would have to be extended so as  to practically  provide door-to-




door service.






                  For example, let's assume a user's trip takes 40 minutes




by  transit and 25 minutes by automobile.  Furthermore, assume the transit




trip time is  comprised of 6 minutes walking, 6 minutes waiting, one transfer




which  is penalized 9 minutes and 19 minutes running  time.   Let  the highway




trip be comprised of 10 minutes terminal  time and 15 minutes  running time.




Then the existing excess time ratio is  (6  +  6  +   9)/10 = 2.1.   In order




to have a significant  increase in usage,  the excess  transit time  must be
                                     111-20

-------
   50?
0>
o
00

i—i


H

H
H

W

a
o
K
U
   40
    30
20
    10
   -10
                                                         Constant = -0.593

                                                       O Mean Data Point

                                                       GJ 2 Standard Deviations from Mean
                                                                                       1	L
                     1              2               3          ^45	



                                          EXCESS TIME RATIO



                      Figure III-3.  Percent Choice Bus Transit Trips Sensitivity Analysis

-------
reduced from 21 minutes to  5 minutes.  To  do  this,  the  transfer  must  be




eliminated so that excess time would now be 21  -  9  =  12 minutes.   If  the




waiting time is reduced by  half to 3 minutes, then  the  headways  on the




bus routes must be halved also.  This means doubling  the number  of buses




which are servicing the area.  This would  now bring the excess time to




12 - 3 = 9 minutes.  To reduce the excess  time  to 5 minutes for  transit,




the bus stop must be moved  4 minutes closer to  the  user's home.  Since




the original total walking  time was 6 minutes (0.1  hour), the approximate




total distance the user walked was 0.1 hr  x 3 mph = 0.3 miles.  Hence,




reducing walking time to 2  minutes would result in  reducing the  total




distance walked from 0.3 miles to 0.1 mile.  The implications are  clear




from this example that in order to increase modal split for choice  bus




users significantly, large  investments must be made in  the transit  system.






                  The second equation estimates choice  transit usage for




those trips where a rapid transit mode is  used.   In this case, Figure III-4




shows that the model is sensitive to travel time ratios approaching unity.




The model was calibrated for trips originating in South Hills and destined




for the CBD.   These trips were served by trolleys on predominantly  exclu-




sive rights of way.  In 1967, approximately 9 percent of all choice transit




trips to the CBD were made  on the trolleys.  Sensitivity analysis  showed




that for representative data, choice modal split for rapid transit  users




could be doubled by increasing the running speed from 15 to 30 mph, while




keeping other inputs constant.   Reducing the headway from 8 to 2 minutes




could further increase modal split by an additional 10 percent.
                                     111-22

-------
H
M
H
NJ
U)
                                                                      Constant=6. 824
                                             2               3              4

                                                  TRAVEL TIME RATIO
                              Figure III-4.  Percent Choice Rapid Transit Trips Sensitivity Analysis.

-------
Figure  III-5 and  III-6  relate  travel  time  ratios  and  employment  density



to modal  split.





                  By  increasing  running  speed  100 percent,  and by  reducing



headways  significantly, the maximum modal  split increase would be  0.15



for  rapid transit choice users.  This would decrease  local  vehicle miles



of travel by 25 percent and total  travel by 11 percent  in the CBD.   If



this  transit service  increase  affected 33  percent  of  the trips attracted



to the  CBD by 1977, than a 3.67  percent decrease  in total travel would



result.





              j.  Transit Fares





                  The effect of  changing the transit  fare on transit


                                                        58
usage can be estimated based in  the following equation:





                        % A M.S. = -0.33(7o T.F.)





where:



       % M.S.  = Percent change in transit usage or modal split



       7. T.F.  = Percent change in transit fare.





                  The reliability of this equation has been verified under



different conditions.   As an example of its use, if the present transit



fare is 40 cents and it is to be reduced by 100 percent, then the percent



increase  in transit usage would be 33 percent.   If the  initial modal split



were 50 percent, then modal split would be 58.2 percent after the  fare  is
                                    111-24

-------
        Legend:
        XX%:  Modal Choice
               Variation
                         0-8    1-0    1-2    14    1-6
                          TRAVEL TIME RATIO
      Figure III-5.  Isovalue Contours, 15-27%   Modal Choice Variations
                Employment Density and Travel Time Ratio
600
              0-4
0-6
0-8    1-0    1-2    1-4    1-6

EXCESS TIME RATIO
      Figure m-6.  Isovalue Contours, 15-27%   Modal Choice Variations
               Employment Density and Excess Time Ratio

                                      111-25

-------
 reduced..  Based  on  data  from Atlanta,  a  12  percent  increase  in transit



 patronage was  experienced  during  the peak periods,  and  a  30  percent  increase


                                       59
 was  experienced  during the base period.     Assuming that  the peak  period



 increase was due to persons  switching  from  the automobile mode to  transit,



 and  that the base period increase was  due to new  ridership would indicate



 that approximately  44 percent of the ridership increase was  diverted from



 automobiles.





                  For 1977 in Pittsburgh's  CBD, daily transit  attractions



 will be approximately 193,000.  Therefore,  a 100 percent  reduction in



 transit fare would  increase daily transit attractions to  256,000, of which



 approximately  28,000 would have been diverted from automobiles.  This in-



 crease in ridership would  decrease local vehicle miles of travel by approx-



 imately 11.6 percent and total travel by 5.2 percent.  Figure  III-7 shows



 VMT  reduction  as  a  function of fare reduction in the CBD.





               k.  Tolls





                  The effect of tolls and road pricing on bridges or



 streets can be useful in persuading automobile users to use transit or to



 car pool.   One method which could be used to measure the effect of tolls



 is to relate the  toll charge to travel time.  It has been estimated that



 for work trips, users value their time at 5 cents per minute.   Therefore,



a toll charge of 25  cents- per trip would  have the effect of increasing



travel time by 5 minutes.  Applying this  revised travel time to the



choice modal split and traffic assignment models would result  in a higher
                                    111-26

-------
o
CD
O


O
O
LU
DC

t-
z
LU
O
DC
LU
0.
5 -
                                                                     11.6
                         PERCENT REDUCTION  IN FARE
    Figure III-7.
              Percent VMT reduction as a  function  of
              transit fare reduction  for  District  I
                             111-27

-------
modal  split  and  lower  volumes  of  through traffic.   The effect of this



increase  in  travel  time  on modal  split  has  already been discussed in the



section on short  term  transit  improvement.   If 50  cent tolls  were insti-



tuted  on  all accesses  to the CBD,  then  the  highway travel  time  would in-



crease by 10 minutes for work  trips.  This  would reduce the travel  time



ratio  significantly for  rapid  transit users.   The  choice modal  split would



increase  by  27 percent for rapid  transit  users.  If rapid  transit were



available to 33 percent  of the CBD attractions, then this  would result in



a  2.1  percent reduction  in local  vehicle  miles  of  travel,  or  approximately



1  percent of total  travel in the  CBD.  An additional reduction  could be



realized  by  the diversion of through trips.  If one  out of every 20  through



vehicle trips were  diverted, the  total vehicle miles  of travel  would be



reduced by an additional  2.75 percent.





              1 .  Parking Time and Charges





                  The effect of parking charge on choice modal  split,



assuming  employment density is held constant, is estimated in the following


          61
equation:





                           M.S. = 0.685 (P.C.)





where:



          M.S. = Change in percent choice transit trips



          P.C. = Change in long term parking cost,  cents/hour
                                    111-28

-------
                  For example,  if  a 9.7  cents  per  hour  increase  in  Long




term parking  cost were  instituted,  then  choice modal  split would  increase




by  6.6 percent.  This would  represent  an 87  cent increase in daily parking




cost, or approximately  $17.50 per  month.   The  existing  average daily rate




is  $2, or $40 per month.  Therefore, an  increase to $57.50 per month could




increase choice modal split  6.6 percent  and  reduce local vehicle miles of




travel in Pittsburgh's  CBD by approximately  5.3 percent, and total vehicle




miles of travel in  the  CBD by 2.4  percent.   A  significant number of these




transit users who used  to park  in  the  CBD  would probably park in fringe




parking areas such  as the stadium  complex, and  then utilize shuttle transit




service to arrive at the CBD.  An  increase in  car  occupancy would also be




experienced,  but due to the  lack of any  reliable data,  this impact is




presently not known.






              m.  Parking Restriction  and  Modifications






                  Restricting on-street parking during peak and off-peak




hours effectively increases  capacity substantially and  increases average




speed.  It is questionable,  however, whether a significant reduction in




emissions would occur due to the probable  increase in traffic volume.   If




a net reduction did occur, its effect would not be substantial unless  the




strategy were applied to many facilities throughout the district.   This




is highly unlikely  in a CBD, since  the probability of having many facili-




ties which still allow  on-street parking,  especially during peak periods,




is low.   Time limit restrictions on parking spaces can significantly




reduce the supply of long term parkers.  Again, this strategy would
                                   111-29

-------
probably  have  limited  effects  in a CUD,  since most  on-street  long term




parking has  already  been  banned.   Figure III-2 can  be  used to estimate




rate  reductions  due  to speed increases.






               n.  Vehicle Free Zones






                  The  effectiveness of reducing emissions  in  the  area




where vehicles are prohibited would be 100 percent.  However,  the effect




of  redistributing the  eliminated  travel  in adjacent zones  could be serious




and roust  be  examined.   This strategy would not  have to be  implemented  for




environmental  reasons  unless emission reductions needed to meet ambient




air quality  standards  were too large to  be met  by less drastic strategies.






               o.  Reserved Bus Lanes






                  The  reduction in vehicle miles of travel and emissions




due to the implementation of reserved bus lanes can be estimated  by deter-




mining the reduction in transit travel time and increased highway speeds.




The SPRPC choice modal  split model for rapid transit usage could  be used




as  discussed earlier.  The model does incorporate increases in transit




operating speed  to estimate corresponding increases in modal split.  Under




existing conditions in several corridors to the CBD, substantial  increases




in  transit usage could be realized by increasing running speed to  30 mph.






                  According to the choice modal split for rapid transit




usage, instituting reserved bus lanes into the CBD could reduce the appro-




priate travel time ratio from approximately 1.7 to 1.08.  This decrease
                                     111-30

-------
 in  travel  time  would  increase transit usage by 0.1435.   If rapid transit




 were  available  to 25  percent of the non-captive trips to the CBD,  then




 local vehicle miles of travel would be reduced by 3.75  percent,  and overall




 travel would be reduced by 1.69 percent in the CBD.






              p.   Increase Fuel Tax






                   The effect of reducing vehicle miles  of travel and  emis-




 sions by increasing fuel tax would not be significant unless  the fuel tax




 were  substantial.   The increase in cost per gallon of gas could  be  trans-




 formed into an  increase in cost to the automobile user  per vehicle  mile




 driven.  For example,  a 25 cent increase in cost per  gallon of gas  could




 be  equated to an additional user cost of 2 cents per  mile.  Thus, if  the




 average trip length is 7.5 miles,  then the added user cost would be 15




 cents.  As has  already been observed,  the impact of a 25  cent fuel  tax




 per gallon of gas  would not substantially reduce automobile travel.   The




 15  cent additional cost per 7.5 mile  work trip  could  be equated  to  a  3




 minute increase in travel time.  A 3  minute travel time increase for  an




 automobile user would  barely affect transit usage according to the  choice




 modal  split model.  This  does  mean, however,  that a fuel  tax of  the magni-




 tude  of 50 cents or more  could be  as  effective  as instituting tolls and




 road pricing, and  this  strategy would  have a  regional effect on  reducing




vehicle miles of travel.   A substantial  fuel  tax would also provide auto-




mobile  users a  greater  incentive to car  pool.
                                    111-31

-------
                   As  was  shown in the discussion of tolls,  a 50 cent  toll


 could  decrease  total  travel  in the CBD by 2.75  percent.   Thus,  under  the


 assumptions  previously  listed,  an 83  cent per gallon increase in fuel tax


 would  be  needed to reduce  travel  by 2,75  percent in the  CBD.




              q.   Car Pools



                   The voluntary use of car pooling  to  increase  automobile


 occupancy has not  been  successful on  a large  scale  basis.  The  most common


 used to promote voluntary  car  pooling is  to gather  information  on origins,


 destinations, starting  and returning  times for possible  users to eventually


 try to match driver travel patterns.   A recent one-day program  in Los


 Angeles was  initiated to promote  car  pooling  and transit usage.  Over  100,000


 handouts  were distributed  to the  public that  informed them of the effort.


 The use of a computer was  offered  to  companies that wished to set up  car


 pools.  Three freeways were monitored  before, during and. after  the program,

                                       f\ 9
 and no measurable  change was recorded.    Although  this program was based


 only on one day, it is probable that voluntary car pooling may  not in


 itself increase  automobile occupancy  significantly.  It  is felt that


 simultaneous programs such as  increased parking costs in the CBD, or road


pricing,  should  be implemented.




              r.   Staggered Hours       ,




                   If  the air quality standards are being exceeded during


the peak hour,   then staggering work hours could reduce emissions greatly


during the peak hour.   Not only would vehicle miles of travel be reduced
                                   111-32

-------
 during the peak hour, but average speeds would increase.  By staggering

 work hours, the vehicle miles of travel during the peak hour could be

 reduced by 20 percent, and average speed could increase by 20 percent.

 This would result in an approximate 12 to 15 percent reduction in emis-

 sions.   However, if the reduction in emissions is needed in the peak 12

 hour period,  then staggering work hours would not reduce vehicle miles

 of travel for the 12 hour period greatly, and the reduction in carbon

 monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions over the period due to peak hour speed

 increases would be approximately 2 to 3 percent.



               s.  Fringe Parking


                   The development of fringe parking is usually implemented
                                                                          r n
 in conjunction with bus service or with a fixed rail rapid  transit  system.

 In either case,  the goal is to gather users at high volume  stations where

 transit vehicles running on frequent headways can transport  the  high volume

 of riders to  concentrated destinations.   The transit service  can  conse-

 quently run on tight headways and minimize  wait time.   The fringe parking

 lot  allows potential users to drive  to or be dropped off  at  these stations

 so that  the user has convenient access to transit.   Fringe parking  in sub-

 urban areas which lack extensive feeder  service due to low population

 densities  and  transit usage affords  a  potential transit user  the opportun-

 ity  to  still utilize the transit system.  Fringe  parking  can  also be

 developed  near  concentrated areas where  emissions need  to be  reduced.

The automobile  user  could  park in the  lot and walk  or  use a shuttle

transit service  into  the dense  area.   This  is applicable  in Pittsburgh,
                                    111-33

-------
 for  example,  in the  stadium complex where parking could be utilized by




 workers  in the  CBD.   It  is  important to note that the district in which




 the  stadium is  located  is not  projected to experience any increase in VMT




 since  it  is assumed  that parkers  formerly traversed  the district  on the




 way  to the CBD.






                  The average  existing  daily parking cost in  Pittsburgh's




 CBD  is $2.  If  fringe parking  were  created at nominal cost, then  based  on




 the  value  of  time already estimated  for work trips,  a $2 savings  per  day




 could  be transformed  into 20 minute  time  savings  per trip.  It  is approx-




 imated that the  average transit travel  time  from  the fringe lot to the  CBD




 would  be 10 minutes.  This would  result in a net  time savings  of  10 minutes.




 The  choice modal split model for  bus  users  is not  sensitive to  transit  travel




 time unless the  excess time ratio is  reduced.  Since the excess time  ratio




 is not reduced by this strategy-  the  choice  modal  split  for bus users  is not




 expected to change.  In 1967,  approximately  9 percent  of all  choice transit




 trips  attracted  to the CBD used rapid transit.  The  choice modal  split




model  for  rapid  transit users  is  sensitive to transit  travel  time.  The




approximate travel time ratio  for rapid transit in 1977  was 1.7.   Due to




the  10 minute travel time reduction estimated, the travel time ratio  for




rapid transit would decrease to 1.4.  The associated  increase  in  choice




modal split for rapid transit  users would be approximately 27 percent.






                  If 33 percent of the  trips attracted  to the CBD  could




use rapid transit in 1977,  then choice  transit usage would increase by




9 percent.   This increase in choice transit  usage would  result in reducing
                                    111-34

-------
 local vehicle miles of travel by 2.1 percent and overall travel by 1



 percent.







               t.   Night Goods Delivery







                   The vehicle miles generated by heavy trucks  in the CBD




 area account for  approximately 7 percent of its total vehicle  miles.   If




 half of these trucks were to be allowed into the CBD only during the night




 or on weekends, then a reduction in emissions of slightly more than  3.5




 percent could result during the peak 12 hour period.   Although the vehicle




 miles of  travel during the day would not be affected,  there would be  a




 redistribution of vehicle miles of travel temporally.   Hence,  implementing




 night goods  delivery could be effective in reducing local VMT  during  the




 12 hour period by 3.5 percent, but would be ineffective in reducing  local




 VME for a 24 hour period.






               u.   Location of Government Offices






                   The location of  government  offices could be  critical




 on a  short term micro analysis basis  or on a  long term large area basis.




 It is known  that  additional public employment  in a  district increases the




 number  of work trips  which then adds  vehicle miles  of  travel to the system.




 In the  CBD,  changes  in vehicle miles  of travel  are  highly related to




 changes in public employment.   The location of  government offices can be




 effective in  controlling the  growth of  vehicle  miles of travel and can




be  used to reduce vehicle  miles of travel  by relocating public office




activities from districts  which have  high  vehicle miles of travel, to
                                    111-35

-------
 ones which  do not.   In Pittsburgh, approximately half  of  all person  trips




 produced  or attracted to  the CBD are work  trips.  This means that approx-




 imately half of  the  vehicle miles of travel generated  by  trips beginning




 or  ending in the CBD are  caused by work  trips.  The maximum reduction  in




 local VMT by relocating all existing public offices in Pittsburgh's  CBD




 over the  next five years  would be approximately 7.5 percent.  Thus,  if




 20  percent  of the public  employees were  relocated outside the CBD by 1977,




 then a 1.5  percent reduction in local VMT  could occur.






              v.  Zoning






                  Zoning  is an important tool in controlling travel within




 the area.   Unlike the strategy of locating government offices, zoning can




 have a sizable impact in  reducing emissions in a short time period.   Trip




 generation  projections have been based in  large part on expected land use




 growth.   In Pittsburgh's CBD, the control of office space, employment




 density,  and commercial use can affect 75 percent of the local trips.  By




 not allowing further employment and commercial development in the CBD over




 the next  five years,vehicle miles of travel could be reduced 2 to 5  percent.




 If the growth were cut in half, a 1 to 2.5 percent reduction could occur.




Another zoning restriction would be to restrict further parking structures




 to be built which would drive parking costs up and increase modal split




and car pooling.
                                   111-36

-------
           2.   Economic Impact


                   This stage of the analysis assesses the cost of  the

various  emission-reduction measures in "traditional" economic  terms.


               Major criteria in the evaluation of. economic cost are:

               (1)   Public capital cost

               (2)   Public operating and maintenance  cost

               (3)   Private capital cost

               (4)   Private operating and maintenance cost

               (5)   Other  public and private  economic costs directly
                    traceable to measure.


                   The  rating of the alternative strategies with respect

to economic cost is  presented in Tables III-2  and  ux-3.


           3-   Non-Economic Impact


               The  alternative emission control strategies were also ranked

on the basis of other  impacts not readily convertible to economic terms.

Four such non-economic  impacts were  examined:  social, administrative,

legal and technical.  The  detailed  ratings and criteria for the four

impacts are listed in Appendix D.  Discussions with representatives of

local agencies were  used to  determine  various rankings.


              Major  criteria  are:

               (1)  (Social)  compatibility with expressed community
                   objectives
                                     111-37

-------
     TABLE III-2.
RATING OF ALTERNATIVE'STRATEGIES
   ECONOMIC IMPACT
Strategy
Reduce Emission Rate
Traffic Flow Improvements
Upgrade Existing Streets
Loading Zone
Metering
Information Systems
Source Control
Retrofit
Inspection
Fuel Conversion
Reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel
Reduce Travel Demand
Four Day Week
Increase Transit Use
Short Term Transit Impv.
Transit Fares
Tolls
Parking Taxes and Charges
Parking Restrictions
Vehicle -Free Zone
Reserved Bus Lanes
Increase Fuel Tax
Increase Occupancy
Car Pools
Tolls
Metering
Vehicle -Free Zones
Parking Taxes and Charges
Shift Travel Patterns
Staggered Hours
Fringe Parking
Night Goods Deliveries
Government Offices
Zoning
Rating
5
2
3
2
2
2
2
5
4
2
3
3
4
1
3
3
4
* *
**
##
**
3
3
2
2
3
Comments

** Strategy rated previously in this table
                                 111-38

-------
           TABLE III-3.   ECONOMIC CRITERIA
Rating
                     Criteria
   5.0
   4.0
   3.0
   2.0
   1.0
Highly cost effective on basis other than emissions
reduction.  Benefit/Cost ratio on basis other than
emissions reduction of greater than 2. 0.

Substantial cost effectiveness on basis other than
emissions reduction.  Benefit/Cost ratio on basis
other than emissions -reduction between 1. 0 and 2. 0.

Ques'tionable cost effectiveness on  basis other than
emissions reduction.  Benefit/Cost ratio assumed to
be in the vicinity of 1. 0

Not cost effective on basis other than emissions r
reduction.  Cost per percentage area wide emissions
roll-back between 0 and $3 million.

Measure generates almost no benefits other than
emissions reduction.  Cost per percentage area
wide emissions roll-back greater than $3 million.

-------
               (2)   (Social)  compatibility with  implied  community
                    objectives

               (3)   (Administrative)  ability  to  administer proposed
                    controls  with existing agencies  and  procedures

               (4)   (Administrative)  ability  to  implement proposed
                    controls  with existing manpower

               (5)   (Legal) difficulty of overcoming  legal obstacles
                    to  the  implementation of  the proposed control
                    strategies

               (6)   (Technical) probability of alternative being
                    operational technically
              The  final ration of the alternative strategies with respect

 to all  four non-economic impacts is presented in Table III-4.


          4.  Political Feasibility


              The political feasibility of the various strategies is

 examined in a separate stage.  It is acknowledged that political feasi-

 bility may appear to be a surrogate measure for other impacts, such as

 economic, social, or institutional impacts.  However, it is stressed

 that, in reality, political feasibility can represent an entirely inde-

 pendent dimension which should be separated from other quantifiable

 impacts.  For example, it is likely and perhaps to be expected that cer-

 tain measures appearing to be highly cost effective in terms of all

 other observable benefits and costs may still be highly infeasible

politically.   Examples of this situation are being furnished currently

 in many states by "no-fault" automobile insurance controversies.   Of

course,  the opposite situation may also prevail; measures that are highly
                                  111-40

-------
        TABLE IJI-4. RATING OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIPS
            SUMMARY RATING: NON-ECONOMIC IMPACT
Strategy
11111 	 — 	 __
Reduce Emission Rate
Traffic Flow Improvements
Upgrade Existing Streets
Loading Zone
Metering
Information Systems
Source Control
Retrofit
Inspection
Fuel Conversion
Reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel
Reduce Travel Demand
Four Day Week
Increase Transit Use
Short Term Transit Impv.
Transit Fares
Tolls
Parking Taxes and Charges
Parking Restrictions,
Vehicle-Free Zone
Reserved Bus Lanes
Increase Fuel Tax
Increase Occupancy
Car Pools
Tolls
Metering
Vehicle -Free Zones
Parking Taxes and Charges
Shift Travel Patterns
Staggered Hours
Fringe Parking
Night Goods Deliveries
Government Offices
Zoning
	 =3======;
_ Individual Ratin
Social
5
4
4
2
3
3
5
5
5
3
4
4
2
4
4
4
#*
#*
**
#*
3
3
3
2
2
Ad mini
strative
4
2
1
2
2
3
2
5
3
3
1
4
3
1
1
5
4
##
##
##
**
4
3
4
4
3
Legal
5
5
2
4
I
2
1
1
5
2
1
5
4
3
3
3
1
#*
##
**
**
1
5
2
3
3
" -^•••^
e! 	
Tech-
nical
5
5
3
2
2
4
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
3
5
4
**
**
*#
**
4
4
3
4
4
Final Rating
Non-
Economic
Rating
4.8
4.5
2.5
2.0
1.8
3.0
2.0
4.0
4.5
3.8
2.5
4.5
4.0
2.0
2.8
4.3
3.3
**
**
**
*#
3.0
3.8
3.0
3.3
3.0
*  From Tables in Appendix G
** Strategy rated previously in this table
                                 111-41

-------
attractive on a total benefit/cost basis may also be politically attrac-




tive.






              Major criteria used in the rating of political feasibility:




              (1)  Degree of endorsement by political leadership




              (2)  Degree of public acceptance






The rating of the alternative strategies with respect to political feasi-




bility is presented in Tables I1I-5 and m-g.






          5,  Evaluation Matrix






              Table III-7 summarizes the ratings obtained with respect




to effectiveness, economic costs, non-economic impacts and political




feasibility.  Also in this table, these ratings are accumulated and the




strategies are ranked on the basis of total rating.






              Note that on this basis,  the strategies of upgrading existing




streets, short term transit improvement, increasing parking charges, imple-




menting fringe parking and requiring inspection and maintenance emerge as




the most attractive control strategies.  The only other strategy achieving




a final rating greater than 3.0 is the  four day week.   The effects from




this strategy depend on voluntary actions,and since the degree to which




it would be implemented in 1977 is not  predictable,  the strategy was not




recommended.   If a significant voluntary effort does occur by 1977, then




the degree to which the recommended program is implemented could be




reduced.
                                  111-42

-------
      TABLE III-5.  RATING OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES ON
                   BASIS OF POLITICAL CRITERIA

Strategy
Reduce Emission Rate
Traffic Flow Improvements
Upgrade Existing Streets
Loading Zone
Metering
Information Systems
Source Control
Retrofit
Inspection
Fuel Conversion
Reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel
Reduce Travel Demand
Four Day Week
Increase Transit Use
Short Term Transit Impv.
Transit Fares
Tolls
Parking Taxes and Charges
Parking Restrictions
Vehicle-Free Zone
Reserved Bus Lanes
Increase Fuel Tax
Increase Occupancy
Car Pools
Tolls
Metering
Vehicle -Free Zones
Parking Taxes and Charges
Shift Travel Patterns
Staggered Hours
Fringe Parking
Night Goods Deliveries
Government Offices
Zoning
1 ••••^a.
•"••^•^•MM
Rating


5
2
2
3
2
4
3

3
4
3
2
4
1
1
4
2
3
3
4
3
1
2

Comments
in j

Underway, well accepted
Minor but very vocal opposition
Inconsistent with CBD goals
No apparent opposition
Believed regressive, costly
Outgrowth of present inspection
No reaction, jurisdiction unclear

Neutral if voluntary
Favored in principle
Mixed positions
Implied opposition, CBD goals
Rates already changing
Opposed without transit
Large latent opposition,
Acceptable in principle
Unlikely; legislative problem
Indifference; considered ineffective
Hesitant to require
Moving in this direction
Acceptable as voluntary measure
Incompatible with CBD goals
Conflict with CBD goals
*  Criteria defined in Table III-6
** Strategy rated previously in this table
                                    111-43

-------
             TABLE III-6. POLITICAL CRITERIA
Rating
                   Criteria
  5.0
  4.0
  3.0
 2.0
 1.0
Actively endorsed by all levels of public officials.
Wide public acceptance.  Previous public accep-
tance of similar measures.

Endorsed by some levels of government officials.
Generally favored by elected officials.  General
public acceptance likely. " Generally favorable
reaction to similar adopted measures.

Position not taken.  Public official reaction mixed
between endorsement and lack of position.  Public
reaction indifferent and/or mixed.

Publicly opposed by some  levels of government
officials. General political endorsement not
probable. Substantial public opposition.  Opposition
to similar adopted measures.

Actively opposed by most levels of government
officials. Wide public opposition.  Widespread
public dissatisfaction with similar measures
previously adopted.
                            111-44

-------
     TABLE IH-7.
FINAL RATING OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
          ALL CRITERIA
Strategy
Reduce Emission Rate
Traffic Flow Improvements
Upgrade Existing Streets
Loading Zone
Metering
Information Systems
Source Control
Retrofit
Inspection
Fuel Conversion
Reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel
Reduce Travel Demand
Four Day Week
Increase Transit Use
Short Term Transit Impv.
Transit Fares
Tolls
Parking Taxes and Charges
Parking Restrictions
Vehicle -Free Zone
Reserved Bus Lanes
Increase Fuel Tax
Increase Occupancy
Car Pools
Tolls
Metering
Vehicle -Free Zones
Parking Taxes and Charges
Shift Travel Patterns
Staggered Hours
Fringe Parking
Night Goods Deliveries
Government Offices

Zoning
Sub-Ratings
Tech.
Effec-
tiveness


2
1
3
1

3
4
2


2

2
3
4
3
2
5
2
2

1
##
**
#*

2
2
2


Econ-
omic*


5
2
3
2

2
2
2


5

4
2
3
3
4
1
3
3

4
##
**
**
**

3
2
2


Non
Econ*


4.8
4.5
2.5
2.0

1.8
3.0
2.0


4.0

4.5
3.8
2.5
4.5
4.0
2.0
2.8
4.3

3.3
**
##
**
**
3f\
. u
3.8
3.0
3.3
3n
• *j

Poli-
tical*


5
2
2
3

2
4
3


3

4
3
2
4
1
1
4
2

3
**
**
**

4
3
1
2

Final
Rating


4.2
2.4
2.6
2.0

2.2
3.2
2.3


3. 5

3,6
2.9
2.8
3.6
2.8
2. 3
3.0
2.8
2rt
. 8
**
**

O Q
£t . U
3.2
2.3
2.1
2r-
. 5

*  Summarized from Tables
** Strategy rated previously in this table
                               111-45

-------
 IV.   RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION CONTROL PROGRAM AND IMPACT OS AIR QUALITY






      A.   RECOMMENDED PROGRAM







          Based on the results of the four ratings developed for each con-




 trol strategy and the 15.9 percent carbon monoxide emission reduction




 required in the Golden Triangle,    Zone  1 for 1977, the following four




 part transportation control program is recommended.






          The first control strategy is the implementation of an inspection




 and  maintenance program which- is estimated to reduce carbon monoxide emis-




 sions by approximately 9 percent.  Although not rated high in the  cost




 ranking,  its effectiveness is reducing CO emissions  in the CBD was sur-




 passed only by creating a vehicle free zone.   This strategy was also




 recommended because it would not only be instrumental in achieving the




 1977 air  quality standards,  but would be vitally needed in the long-term




 air  quality program.   The expected benefits derived  from the significant




 national  investment,which will be incurred when producing and  installing




 vehicle anti-pollution devices,  could be substantially reduced if  these




 devices are allowed to deteriorate,  to be disconnected or to be improperly




 used.  If  this strategy were not implemented,  the consequences of  achieving




 the  1977 air quality standards would be monumental in limiting urban mo-




 bility in  the CBD.   An alternative program to  meet the 1977  standard  in  the




CBD without  inspection and maintenance would require significant transit




 improvement  in terms  of  busways  and  overall travel time reductions which




would  increase  transit usage by  approximately  44  percent,  reduct transit
                                       IV-1

-------
 fares by  100 percent,  increase daily parking costs  in the CBD by $2.34,




 reduce parking demand  by 33 percent, and require the development of exten-




 sive fringe parking.






          The second transportation control strategy in the recommended




 program is to continue aggressively with upgrading the existing street




 system, in the form of the TOPICS program and its probable successor.  A




 12 hour and daily overall speed increase of 2 percent is estimated to




 occur by  1977 due to these traffic flow improvements.   The expected reduc-




 tion in carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions would be approximately




 1.4 percent for the 12 hour and daily periods.






          The third transportation control strategy would be to increase




 long-term parking costs by $1.45 per day.  This 16.1 cent per hour increase




would increase choice modal split by 11 percent.  This results in reducing




 local vehicle miles of travel by 8.4 percent and total travel by 3.8 percent.




The reduction in parking demand would be approximately 8.4 percent less




than the  existing demand.   Since the parking authority presently has con-




trol over approximately 6,000 spaces in the CBD, strong upward pressure




would be exerted on rates at the remaining privately owned facilities,




and these rates would tend to follow the authority's.   Parking demand




elasticity suggests that no revenue loss would  be experienced by private




facility owners.






         Besides increasing transit usage,  a $1.45 increase in the daily




cost would also encourage all day parkers in the CBD to park their cars
                                   IV-2

-------
in the fringe  lots.  This  increase  in parking costs would  reduce VMT in




Zone  1 by  1.7  percent  and  reduce parking demand  in  the CBD by approximately




3.6 percent.   The  two  existing fringe parking areas are  located at the



stadium and  civic  arena  complexes.






         Together,  their existing parking supply would be  adequate to meet




the demand diverted from the  CBD.   Frequent  transit shuttle service could




be implemented to  link the fringe lots to the CBD.  The  creation of fringe




parking lots was not considered at  this point since it was believed that




these high initial cost  projects should be planned with  long range transit




improvements.   It  was  felt that construction of  close-in (1-3 miles) fringe




parking lots could prove to be inconsistent  with the long  term goal of




rapid transit.






         Although  the  total reduction in parking demand  is projected to be




12 percent,  this does  not  imply that  parking supply could be reduced by




12 percent.  The present parking demand-to-supply ratio  is approaching a




value of one.   In  order  to properly and efficiently provide parking for




users, this ratio  should be in the  vicinity  of 0.85.  Therefore, a 12-




percent reduction  in parking  demand would reduce the parking demand-to-




supply ratio to an acceptable level in the CBD and would not necessitate




reducing the parking supply-   Also, the parking  demand reduction would




probably reduce the number of illegal parkers and therefore improve traf-




fic flow.





         The last  transportation control strategy in the recommended pro-




gram is the improvement  of the transit system.   An increase in modal split
                                    IV-3

-------
100
                1977 PEAK HOUR VMT DENSITY BEFORE THE
                PROGRAM IS IMPLEMENTED
             1977 PEAK HOUR
             VMT DENSITY AFTER
             THE PROGRAM IS IMPLEMENTED
                         DISTANCE FROM CBD (MILES)
 Figure  IV-1,   Peak Hour VMT Density  (1000/mi ) vs. Distance from
                CBD (miles)  Pittsburgh.
                                  IV-4

-------
                          TABLE IV-1

               PROJECTED VMT REDUCTIONS FOR 1977
      AFTER THE RECOMMENDED CONTROL PROGRAM IS INSTITUTED
                    (PERCENT  REDUCTION)
 Districts       Daily       Peak  12 Hours       Peak Hour

     1            5.5           7.3                18.3

    2-20          1.5           1.9                 4.9

   21-51           .4            .5                 1.3

   52-72           .08           .11                 .27


Region             .43           .57                1.44
                             IV-5

-------
of 5 percent to the CBD was assumed in the initial determination  of  1977

vehicle miles of travel.  This is based on the assumption of  increased

employment density in the CBD and some non-capital intensive  improvements

in the transit system.  In order to increase modal split over the next

five years, it is recommended that express bus service be instituted to

the CBD and that maximum use of traffic engineering techniques (bus priority

signal systems, one-way streets,  etc.) be pursued.


         Figure IV-1 shows a linear approximation of the 1977 peak hour

VMT density as a function of the    zone's   distance from the CBD before

and after the control program is  instituted.   Table IV-1 summarizes the

approximate 1977 VMT reductions projected after the Recommended Control

Program is implemented.


     B.  IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY OF RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES


         (1)   The reductions expected  from the several strategies are as

follows:

         1972 CO emissions from motor  vehicles,  Zone 1      27,543 kg/day

         Less expected reduction  from  FMVECP  (49.8
           percent of baseline)

         1977 "no strategy" emission rate of  CO,  Zone 1
           only

         Less 1.4 percent  reduction expected  from traffic
           flow improvements
         Less 5.5 percent reduction expected from parking
           strategies  and improvements in short-term mass
           transit
                                   IV-6

-------
         Less  9.0 percent  reduction expected from inspection      1 159
           and maintenance program                              	*	
                                                                  11,716
         Less  8.2 percent  reduction expected from retrofit          951
           program  (oxidizing catalytic converters on 1968-      	
           1974 model  year cars)
                                                                  10,755 kg/day

         (2)   The net  emissions resulting from the above  combination of

strategies represents  a  22.3 percent rollback from the expected  1977 "no

strategy" emission  rate.   Since a reduction of only 19.6  percent from the

1977 vehicular emission  rate is required to meet  the  Federal standards,

the combination of  strategies listed above represents an  "overkill" of

some 2.7 percent.   In  this connection,  it should  be pointed  out  that our

contract and instructions  from the EPA  call for a transportation control

program that will meet the standards for CO and Ox by 1977.  If  it is

deemed advisable, in light of the considerable degree of  uncertainty sur-

rounding all the numbers in this  report,  to try for a level  which will

exceed the standard, then  the above program will  provide  such a cushion.


         (3)  The above strategies are  not listed in  order of desirability.

The priority listing is as follows:

               (a)   Inspection and  maintenance  (mandatory program):
                    (No decrease  in VMT)                           9.CK,  decrease in
                                                                      CO emission

              (b)   Traffic flow  improvements through  the upgrading
                    of  existing streets  (no decrease in VMT)       1.47= decrease in
                                                                        emissions
              (c)   Increase parking rates,  fringe parking, and
                    improved short-term mass  transit (does
                   decrease VMT)                                  5.5% decrease in
                                                                        emissions
              (d)  Retrofit program - oxidizing catalytic con-
                   verters on  1968  to 1974 model  year cars        8.2% decrease in
                   (no  decrease in VMT)                                  emissions
                                      IV-7

-------
         (4)  The interested reader is referred to the draft amendments to




40 CFR 51, Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Imple-




mentation Plans ~ Transportation Control Measures, the latest version of




which is dated 14 November 1972, for further information on the inspection




and maintenance and retrofit options listed above.
                                     IV-8

-------
 V.   IMPLEMENTATION OBSTACLES







     The following agencies participated in meetings and discussions con-




 cerning implementation obstacles:




                Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission




                Pennsylvania Department of Transportation




                Pittsburgh Department of City Planning




                Pittsburgh Public Parking Authority




                Port Authority of Allegheny County




                Allegheny County Transportation Department






     A.   INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE






         Legislative action on at least a regional basis  is  required for




 the  effective  implementation of an inspection and maintenance program.




 The  most likely form of such action is the adoption of a uniform mainte-




 nance and  inspection measure by all counties  in the SPRPC region, or




 perhaps  in western Pennsylvania.   In the absence  of total regional agree-




 ment to  proceed with a program,  legislation could be adopted by individual




 counties,  and  even by the City of Pittsburgh.   However, exceptions to a




 uniform  regional policy would seriously erode  the effectiveness of the




measure.






         The possibility of State  or even Federal  adoption of an inspection




and maintenance  program is a factor influencing the use of such measures at




a more local level.   Transitional problems  should be anticipated in the




adoption of measures  at a  local or regional level.
                                   V-l

-------
         The  overlaying of a regional inspection and maintenance program




 on the existing inspection mechanisms will require substantial planning




 and legislative effort.






         Technical  procedures  required for  an  inspection and maintenance




 program represent  "off the shelf"  capabilities,  and no  further technical




 development  is  foreseen.   It  is expected that  the  program will function




 as an  extension of the current vehicle  inspection  procedures.   A technical




 implementation  time of one year (from completion of legislative and planning




 activity to  commencement  of inspection) is projected.






         It is anticipated  that the program will  involve  an increased admini-




 strative effort  on a permanent basis.  The incorporation of this additional




 administrative  effort  into the existing state  inspection administrative




 machinery requires careful planning and legislation.  Similarly, allocation




 of the  costs of  additional administration will require detailed planning.




 Uniform legislation throughout the region will be necessary to  initiate




 any additional administrative machinery.






         It is likely that  objections will be made to any  inspection and




maintenance program on the  grounds that its cost to motorists is regres-




 sive with respect  to personal income.  If these objections become serious




enough  to jeopardize the adoption of  the program, then it will be necessary




to devise methods of reducing or eliminating the "user cost" aspect of the




program.  This could be accomplished by additional  fuel  taxes,  local regis-




tration fees, etc., applied to all motorists in the region.
                                     V-2

-------
        Potential  political obstacles involve the generation of support,




 on a  regional  basis,  for problems that are identified on a subregional




 basis.  Another  potential source of political resistance may arise  from




 the out-of-pocket  costs associated with the program.   However,  experience




 with  out-of-pocket costs for safety related automobile equipment indicates




 that  objections  diminish as the control becomes more  widespread.






        The primary economic obstacle is the capital  expenditure required




 to plan and initiate  the measure.  Specific funding sources  (if any) for




 this  type  of program  are not clearly identified.   In  estimating capital




 costs required to  implement an inspection and maintenance  program,  these




 assumptions were made:   A 20-minute inspection time,  60-hour week,  $35,000




 per lane for equipment,  approximately 1.5 million vehicles to test  in  1977,




 $145,000 per lane  for land and building capital costs, and an 80 percent




 utilization factor.   Utilizing the assumptions above,  approximately 210




 lanes would be needed at an approximate capital cost  of  $180,000 per lane.




 The approximate  capital cost for the program would therefore be $38 million.






    B.  UPGRADE  EXISTING STREETS






        It is  expected  that this strategy can be  implemented with little




 resistance.  Legislation has already been provided for this type of program




 and it is expected that  additional programs  will,  in  the near future,  supple-




ment  existing  programs  for the upgrading of  urban streets.  It  is also




 anticipated that Federal allocations for this  type of  improvement program




will  increase  significantly in the near future.
                                      V-3

-------
        Administrative difficulties  in  the  implementation of  future  urban




 street  improvement programs  are  expected  to receive  attention at  the State




 and  Federal  levels.  Significant administrative  capacity  for  this type  of




 program already exists at  the  local  level.






        Street improvement programs  typically are estimated to yield a




 benefit/cost ratio of 2.0  or greater, based on delay and  accident  reductions.




 Since the costs of this program  are  already justified on  a delay  and  acci-




 dent reduction, the cost for emission reductions would be minimal.






     C.  PARKING RATES AND FRINGE PARKING






        The public parking program in Pittsburgh affords opportunities to




 implement some emission control  strategies with a minimum of risk due to




 obstacles that jeopardize other measures.   The Authority has demonstrated




 a capability for aggressive  implementation of programs and a willingness




 to support its programs against various pressures.






        No serious legislative difficulties are foreseen in the imple-




 mentation of the recommended measures of parking rate changes and fringe




 parking.  The legal capability to undertake both of these measures exists




 and has been exercised previously.






        Additional studies  of demand elasticity,  fringe parking availability




and accessibility, and triangle parking rate structure will be required.




Depending on the  scope of these studies, temporary supplementation of the




Parking Authority's planning capability may be required.  Control of the
                                   V-4

-------
 ongoing parking program should not add materially to the Authority's




 responsibilities, however.







         Any effort to contain the parking supply in the Triangle will draw




 opposition on the grounds that such measures conflict with the stated




 ofjectives of maximum physical growth in this area.   Thus, it is important




 that proper attention be given to the infrastructure necessary for  the




 successful diversion of long-term parking from the triangle area (shuttle




 transit,  pedestrian routes, escalators,  etc.).






         The economic impact of the recommended  control strategies will




 require careful analysis.   In particular, the effect on net parking




 revenues  resulting from the proposed rate changes  will need careful  evalu-




 ation.  .A decrease in such revenues,  while relatively small in  comparison




 to the  total costs of other recommended  emission control strategies,  could




 have a  major impact on the operation of  the  Authority,  and  this possibility




 must be explored in depth.






        Vocal opposition from affected parking  facility users can be




 expected  and should be met with  a public relations type  of  program ex-




 plaining  the need for the  measures and the consequences  of  alternative




 measures.






     D.  SHORT TERM TRANSIT  IMPROVEMENTS






        Implementation of  any capital-intensive  transit  improvements  is




 considered  infeasible  due  to  time  limitations and legal  complications.




However,  it  is expected  that  short range  transit improvements with low
                                      V-5

-------
capital  costs  can proceed by  1977.  No legislation or resolution  of  legal




problems is necessary for improvements such as express bus service,  shuttle




service  to parking areas or utilization of traffic engineering  techniques




to  improve bus operations.






         The planning of short range improvements presents some difficulties




and will probably involve a detailed study of alternatives.  Technical




obstacles are minor, since short term operation changes do not represent




a significant departure from existing technology.






         Some political opposition to short term transit improvements is




probable, either on economic grounds or because even short term measures




are closely identified with controversial long range transit issues in




Pittsburgh.  It is possible that this opposition may be reduced by "outside"




funding  of improvements and by careful efforts to dissociate short term




programs  from existing transit proposals.






        The funding of short term transit improvements appears to be a




significant obstacle which is best overcome by careful review of available




capital  improvement programs and timely action toward such funding.  Approx-




imately  16,200 additional transit users are estimated to arrive in District




1 during  the peak hour for 1977.  Assuming a load of 50-70 passengers per




bus would indicate a need for approximately 290 buses.   Assuming $40,000




per bus would result in an $11.6 million capital cost.
                                      V-6

-------
 VI.   SURVEILLANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS






      A.   INTRODUCTION




          This section deals with the establishment of the schedule for




 implementation and surveillance of the recommended control strategy pro-




 gram.  An implementation schedule assuming existing conditions is developed




 first.   Serious potential inadequacies arising from the application of a




 static  program are then identified.  A methodology for overcoming these




 difficulties is suggested, and its application to the recommended air



 quality improvement program is outlined.






      B.   SURVEILLANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION:   CURRENT CONDITIONS






          Figure VI-1 indicates a schedule  for the implementation  of the



 recommended control strategy program (see  Section IV).   Implementation  of




 the program is staged to achieve the target      percent  reduction in




 emissions (see Chapter II).   Projected implementation times  for various




 control  measures represent a schedule designed to meet 1977  air quality




 standards,  with reasonable slack times (10 to 20  percent)  incorporated




 for all  stages of implementation.   Hence,  the schedule is  developed by




 "working backwards" from the 1977  deadline and programming the implementa-




 tion  of  improvements on this basis.






          It should  be noted  that a "crash  program", oriented toward maxi-




mum emission reductions within a minimum time period,  could result  in a




more  condensed  schedule, with nearly simultaneous  undertaking of  control




measures  at  the  outset of  the improvement  in  the  immediate future.  However,
                                      VI-1

-------
 it  should  also  be  recognized  that  this  type  of  programming of emission




 reduction  control  measures would  involve  higher implementation costs,




 reduced  cost/effectiveness and  public acceptance problems  not accounted




 for in the rating  of  strategies that accompanied the  analysis in this




 report.






         The PERT  chart  (Figure VI-1) indicates that,  of the  four major




 strategies recommended in the emissions reduction program,  two are inde-




 pendent  in the  sense  that the critical paths of their  implementation




 processes  are not  a function of the implementation of  other measures.




 Specifically, the  implementation of the arterial street improvement pro-




 gram and the maintenance and inspection programs  are not related  to pro-




 gress on the other recommended  strategies.  However, the recommended




 strategies of parking rates, fringe parking and  short  term  transit  improve-




 ments are  closely  related, and  the critical task  for the implementation




 of  the entire subpackage of improvements  is derived from elements  in the




 implementation phases of each of the various individual strategies.






         The activities and events outlined in  the chart in Figure VI-1




 are discussed in further detail in the section of this report  dealing with




 implementation obstacles.






     C.  INADEQUACIES OF A STATIC SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM






         The PERT approach has  long been established as a useful  tool for




 the planning and execution of complex programs.   Adaptations  of this




methodology have also proven useful in circumstances where only sparse
                                    VI-2

-------
   firking.
   Itio.lt
an at



1001 of
i*t<
Short T*ra
Truult
M«o



taprovti.


».3l Hod*
COKlt
301
IXUtlDf
trottmm

Up t«nt
C1B Itrot





(»Mt 1mm-

Comfltte,
Mlciro-Kod.l













X


CfMBlt 100
KacUtiot Pro

••at 6OX
Total
Str««t plwi




CoHBie SDK
fourc*t

Op«r«t«
for Input*

X
-
™

•



,
/
X
^ /
7



taplMnt
BOX CU
Strxt




Camlt
loot M. /
^ Sourcu
/


c
LegliUtlon
Ceaplvt*, Ad»ia
i*tratloa
Planiud


Co^Ut* /
Ticholc.l
ItudUi

S.
/
/
f

tmttit









B*fl>
lutalUttaii
iOl IttK-
CiVCMM








teiolUttoB
Covplvta,
1001 Iff.c-
t !*•&•••


                   1974

            Figure VI-1.
Implementation schedule for the
recommended  transportation control
program.
                                  VI-3

-------
data is available with respect to activity execution time.  However, two




serious limitations of the PERT approach emerge as the approach  is con-




sidered for the Pittsburgh emissions reduction program:






         *  The PERT process assumes a known objective.  Although




            quantitative variations in the objective can be accom-




            modated under the process, the complete substitution of




            one objective by another objective cannot be systematic-




            ally accommodated by a single PERT process.






         •  The PERT process depends on known activities (i.e., the




            "lines" connecting the event nodes of the PERT network).




            As noted earlier, the PERT process can function with




            nothing more than estimates of the times  required for




            these activities.  However, the PERT process does not




            systematically accommodate the removal of an activity




            entirely,  nor its replacement by other activities.






         It is highly  probable that the objectives of any emission reduc-




tion program will,  by  1977,  vary significantly from objectives now adopted




or adopted in the near future.   At least two significant factors contribute




to this likelihood:






        •   The definition of the problem may change.   As surveil-




            lance devices and techniques are improved,  entirely new




            parameters of air quality  may be defined.   For example,




            it is expected that very localized measurements of air
                                    VI-4

-------
             quality will be routine  in the near future.  The mere




             disaggregation of the geographic area considered as a




             single unit for the measurement of air quality will




             change the nature of any air quality improvement objec-




             tive drastically.  Thus, it is possible that air quality




             may eventually be defined on the basis of areas smaller




             than a conventional city block, rather than on the




             presently used zones of more than a square mile.






          •  The programmed activities may not occur,  and activities




             not programmed at present may be included.  Some  uncer-




             tainty must be assumed along with most activities in the




             implementation program for Pittsburgh.  These uncertain-




             ties arise primarily from the fact that the technical




             effectiveness of most suggested strategies is not accu-




             rately known at this point.   Hence,  the assumption of a




             certain reduction in emissions  as  a  result of the adop-




             tion of a strategy is only an estimate at  this point.




             In addition to uncertainties  concerning technical




             effectiveness,  there are also uncertainties involving




             the political  feasibility of  adopting any  recommended




             measure.






         As  noted earlier,  it  is also possible that air quality  improvements




measures not now considered may  prove  to  be feasible in the future.  Further-




more, it Is also possible that measures not presently  known or considered as




emission control strategies will be  developed by 1977.
                                      VI-5

-------
' REFERENCES

-------
                           LIST OF REFERENCES


  1.   Air Management Services, Department of Public Health, Philadelphia,
      Pennsylvania, Control of Vehicular Air Pollution in a Comprehensive
      Program.  3 November 1972.

  2.   Allegheny County Board of Commissioners, Official Information Mao.
      1971.                                     	

  3.   Allegheny County Bureau of Air Pollution Control (BAPC),  records of
      air quality data for four locations in Allegheny County,  1971-1972.

  4.   BAPC,  Allegheny County Emission Inventory. 1971.

  5.   	,  Allegheny County Emission Inventory. 1972.

  6,   BAPC Staff members, informal communications regarding the Air Quality
      Network in Allegheny County-

  7.   Anonymous,  thesis on automobile emissions in Pittsburgh,  undated, 30 pp.
      plus appendices, tables, and Fig.  1, Map of Allegheny County.

  8.   Anonymous,  "Private Cars Inside City Target of  State  Environmental
      Board,"  Pittsburgh Press,  13 December. 1972.

  9.   Calcagni,  John,  "Preliminary Assessment of the  Oxidant and Carbon
      Monoxide  Problem in Metropolitan Boston1,'  GCA Corporation, Bedford,
      Massachusetts,  24 October 1972.

10.   Commercial  Atlas and Marketing Guide.  Rand McNally and Co., 1956.

11.   Costello, Mary,  "Would Free Mass Transit Tempt  Drivers?"  in Charlotte,
      North  Carolina,  newspaper for 13 December 1972.

12.   U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA),  Guidelines;  Air Quality
      Surveillance  Networks. OAP  Publ. No. AP-98, May 1971.

13.   EPA, Sampling Location Guidelines, November 1971

14.   	, National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards
      (40 CFR 50),  25  November 1971.

15.   	. Requirements  for Preparation. Adoption,  and Submittal of Imple-
     mentation Plans  (40 CFR 51),  25 November 1971,  amended 17 December
      1971 and 30 December 1971.

16    	, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans (40 CFR 52),
      3 February 1972, amended  31 May, 27 July,  22  September, 26 September,
     and 28 October 1972.

-------
 17.   EPA, Air Quality Control  Regions.  Criteria,  and  Control  Techniques
      (40 CFR 81), 25 November  1971.

 18.   	, Control of Air Pollution  from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor
      Vehicle Engines  (40  CFR  85),  25 November  1971,  amended  15 January,
      8  September  (effective 8  October), and 15  November 1972.

 19.   ---, "Ambient Ozone Measurements,  July through September  1971,"
      January, 1972.

 20.   	, Compilation of Air Pollutant  Emission Factors (revised),  OAP
      Publ. No. AP-42, February,  1972.

 21.   	, Evaluating Transportation Controls to Reduce  Motor Vehicle
      Emissions inMajor Metropolitan Areas -- An  Interim Report.  16 March
      1972.

 22.   EPA, Guide for Compiling  a Comprehensive Emission ..Inventory, Publ.  No.
      APTD-1135, June 1972.

 23.   	, "Transportation  Control Strategies for  State  Air Quality  Imple-
      mentation Plans,"  information on  the EPA  Contract for Transportation
      Control Strategies, undated.

 24.   	, minutes of the meeting held in Pittsburgh on  28  September 1972
      on the project to develop transportation control strategies  for
      Pittsburgh, Pa.  Minutes were dated 2 October 1972  and were  addressed
      to Mr. Wassersug from Mr. C. C, Miesse.

 25.   	, 40 CFR 51, Requirements for Preparation. Adoption, and  Submittal
      of Implementation Plans -- Transportation Control  Measures  (Draft),
      14 November 1972.

 26.   	,  Control Strategies for In-Use Vehicles. 29 November  1972.

 27.   Fox,  Raymond D., Development of Transportation Control Strategies
      for State Air Quality Implementation Plans (Proposal), GCA Corporation,
      Bedford, Massachusetts, 7 July 1972.   (Also  Statement  of Work)

 28.   Frohliger, John 0., "Study of the Air Quality in the  East  Street Valley,"
      1 August 1972.

29.  Godin, Gaetan,  et al. "Urban Exposure to Carbon Monoxide," Archives of
     gnyironmental Health, vol. 25,  November 1972, pp.  305-313.

30.  Goode's World Atlas (llth ed=), edited by Edward B. Espenshade, Jr.;
     Chicago, Illinois,  Rand McNally and Co.,  I960.

31.  Graham,  J.  Donald,  P.E.,  Air Pollution Engineer, BAPC, personal
     communication,  6 December 1972.
                                   R-2

-------
32.  Grosset Road Atlas  of  the  United  States.  Canada,  and Mexico.  St. Louis,
     Mo., Diversified Map Corp.,  1972.

33.  Kircher, David  S.,  and Donald  P.  Armstrong,  An  Interim Report  on Motor
     Vehicle Emission Estimation  (draft  EPA paper),  October 1972.

34.  Lynn, David A., "Preliminary Assessment of the  Carbon  Monoxide and
     Oxidant Problem in  the Baltimore  Region," GCA Corporation,  Bedford
     Massachusetts,  5 October 1972.

35.  National Air Pollution Control  Administration (NAPCA), Calculating
     Future Carbon Monoxide Emissions  and  Concentrations from  Urban Traffic
     Data, by Wayne  Ott, John F.  Clarke, and Guntis  Ozolins, June  1967.

36.  NAPCA, Report  for Consultation  on the Metropolitan Pittsburgh  Intra-
     state Air Quality Control  Region,  February 1969.

37.  National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration (NOAA), Environmental
     Data Service, Local Climatological  Data -- Annual Summary with Compara-
     tive Data, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  1971.

38.  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,  The Vehicle Code, PL 58  of  1959, amended
     by PL 590 of 1970 and  PL 154 of 1972  (Sections  834(a)  and 850, approved
     16 June 1972, deal  with emission  control  devices  on motor vehicles).

39.  	f Air Pollution Control Act.  8 January 1960, amended 26 October 1972.

40.  	, Air Quality  Implementation Plan. January 1972,  (several components
     thereof, as follows):

     A.  "Information Concerning  the Implementation  Plan,"  Allegheny County
         Health Department, Bureau  of  Air  Pollution  Control, 18  November 1971.

     B.  Letter, 14  January 1972, to Mr. Ruckelshaus from Mr.  Gilbertson,
         requesting  a two-year  extension for compliance with that  section of
         the law dealing with control  of CO and oxidants in the  Pittsburgh
         region.

     C.  "Control Strategy  Evaluation  for  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania,"
         31 January  1972.

     D.  "Air Basin  Growth  Rate Analysis," prepared  by IBM  for the  EPA,
         23 February 1972.

     E.  "Additions  and  Clarifications  to  Pennsylvania's Implementation
         Plan," 4 May 1972.

     F   Letter, 5 May 1972, to Mr.  Ruckelshaus from Governor  Shapp, stating
         the requirement for transportation control  strategies to  achieve
         the federal standards  for  CO  and  HC by 1977,  and the  plans for same.
                                   R-3

-------
     G.  Letter, 3 July  1972,  to Mr. Triplett  from Mr.  Chleboski,  giving
         additional  information on  the Allegheny  County Air  Pollution
         Control Program as  it relates to  the  Pennsylvania Implementation
         Plan.

     H.  Letter, 1 August  1972, to  Mr. Triplett from Mr.  Chleboski,  stating
         that the Allegheny  County  Air Pollution  Control  Regulations now
         have the force  of law, (in  the form of an Ordinance  by  the Board
         of  Commissioners  of Allegheny County).

     I.  "Addendum to Pennsylvania's Implementation Plan," undated.
                                                  f
     J.  Other correspondence  among various government  agencies, some of
         which was incorporated as  part of the Implementation Plan.


41.  Pittsburgh Regional Planning Association  (PRPA), Prelude to the Future.
     the PRPA Annual Report  for 1968.

42.  PRPA Annual Report  for  1970.

43.  Record, Frank A., "Preliminary Assessment of the Oxidant and  Carbon Mon-
     oxide Problem in Salt Lake City," GCA Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts,
     22 September 1972.

44.  Road Atlas, United  States, Canada, Mexico, Rand McKally and Co.,  1963.

45.  Schuck, E.A.,  et al.  "Relationship of Hydrocarbons to Oxidants  in
     Ambient Atmospheres," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
     (JAPCA), vol.  20, no.  5 (May 1970),  pp. 297-302.

46.  Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning  Commission  (SPRPC),  SPRPC
     Reports. Annual Report Issue,  September 1971

47.  SPRPC, Transportation Planning -- Cycle I (revised 10 July 1972).

48.  SPRPC Staff members,  informal communications regarding the plans  for
     control of emissions  from both vehicular and non-vehicular sources  of
     air pollutants.

49.  Voorhees, Alan M., and Associates, Inc., correspondence with  staff  mem-
     bers on matters  pertaining to traffic data and transportation control
     strategies.

50.  Williams, Jonathan, "Improved Mass Transit Viewed Pollution Cure,"
     Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 14 December 1972.
                                     R-4

-------
51.  Memorandum Report  Recommendations for the Pittsburgh Transportation
     Development  Program.  Alan M.  Voorhees and Associates.   McLean, Vir-
     ginia.  May  1972.   20 pages.

52.  Development  of  Trip Generation Models for the Southwestern  Pennsylvania
     Region.   Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission.
     Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania.   May 1972.   100 pages.

53.  Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Draft.   Transportation
     Control Measures.   October 26, 1972.

54.  Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Draft.   Transportation
     Control Measures.   October 26, 1972.

55.  Evaluating Transportation  Controls to Reduce Major Vehicle  Emissions
     in Major  Metropolitan Areas.   Institute of Public Administration.
     Washington,  D.C.   March 1972.  Pages 2-1-2-24.

56.  Desimone,  V. R.  The 4-Day Work Week and Transportation  (Joint ASCE-
     ASME Transportation Engineering Meeting.   Seattle.   July  26-30, 1971.)
     21 pages.

57.  Modal Split  Model  for Southwestern Pennsylvania.  Southwestern
     Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission.   Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
     April 1972.  53 pages.

58.  Curtin, J. F.   Effect of Fares on Transit Riding,  Highway  Research
     Record.   213:   8-20,  1968.

59.  Atlanta's Reduced  Transit  Fare Experience.   Metropolitan Atlanta
     Rapid Transit Authority.   (Urban Mass Transportation Administration
     UTPS User  Symposium.  July 27-28,  1972.)   6  pages.

60.  The Hampton  Roads  Joint Transportation Study.  Alan  M. Voorhees and
     Associates and  Hammer,  Greene, Siler,  Associates.  McLean, Virginia,
     October 1970.   77  pages.

61.  The Hampton  Roads  Joint Transportation Study.  Alan  M. Voorheea and
     Associates and  Hammer,  Greene, Viler,  Associates. McLean, Virginia.
     October 1970.   77  pages.

62.  Meyers, P.,  J. Walker.   The Effects of "Share A Ride Day" on Los
     Angeles Freeways.   Traffic Engineering.   42(11): 35-37, August 1972.

63.  Deen, T.  B.  A  Study  of Transit Fringe Parking Usage.  Alan M.
     Voorhees and Associates.  Washington,  D.C.   40 pages.

64.  Development  of Trip Distribution Models  for  the Southwestern Penn-
     sylvania Region.   Southwestern Pennsylvania  Regional Planning Comm-
     ission.   Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania.  April 1972.  54  pages.
                                    R-5

-------
65.  An Analysis of Urban Highway Public Transportation Facility Needs.
     U.S. Department of Transportation.  Washington, D.C.  Volume  I.
     January 1972.  92 pages.
66.  Capelie, D. G.  Feasibility and Evaluation Study of Reserved Free-
     way Lanes for Buses and Car Pools.  Alan M. Voorhees and Associates.
     Los Angeles, California.  January 1971.

67.  Goldenberg, M., R. Keith.  The Effect of Land Use Planning and
     Transport Pricing Policies in Express Transit Planning.  Highway
     Research Record.  305:  146-155.  1970.

68.  A Guide for Reducing Automotive Air Pollution.   Alan M. Voorhees
     and Associates, Inc.  Ryckman, Edgarly, Tomlinson and Associates.
     McLean, Virginia.   November 1971.   38 pages.

69.  Bellomo, S. J.  Providing for Air Quality and Urban Mobility.
     (Fifth Annual Summer Meeting Highway Research Board.   Madison.
     July 31-August 2,  1972.)  51 pages.
                                    R-6

-------
APPENDIX A

-------
                                     APPENDIX A

DAILY MAXIMA OF HOURLY CO CONCENTRATION FOR THE DOWNTOWN PITTSBURGH ZONE, WITH MONTHLY MAXIMA

                             (July 1971 to June 1972)

HOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
AVG
MAX

JULY
13
14
12
13
12
13
32
32
20
13
13
13
(se-**)
12
16
19
15
12
11
12
12
13
13
14
6.4
32.2

AUG
12
12
12
11
11
12
21
31
22
34
38
18
19
15
15
13
16
12
12
15
14
18
19
16
8.
37.

SEPT
11
12
4
10
6
15
16
19
17
24
34
20
14
20
13
19
18
13
12
11
11
9
10
10
7.1
34.2

OCT
22
18
13
13
13
13
16
27
24
24
44*
16
15
(-45-)
18
19
23
15
16
22
23
23
23
23
7.S
44.5

NOV
18
11
11
10
9
10
13
20
28
26
34
39**
11
12
7
7
20
17
22
23
23
17
22
15
5.3
. 38.6

DEC
20
16
15
11
It9)
It9)
It9)
Clt9)
(It9)
[It9)
14
14
14
13
13
13
15
16
21
14
23
22
24
25
4.6
24.6

JAN
It9)
It9)
It9)
It9)
It9)
It9)
It9)
11
15
11
21
9
7
7
8
12
16
21
15
19
16
17
16
18
3.6
21.3

FEE
14
10
10
10
10
8
8
11
11
9
11
12
17
22
19
13
17
19
12
17
24
24
25
25
5.6
24.7

MAR
22
17
12
9
9
9
12
18
24
27
23
14
14
16
15
17
19
22
17
18
21
15
12
12
7.5
26.8

APR
15
15
12
11
9
7
9
11
20
14
11
It9)
:it9)
[It9)
[It9)
[U9)
[It9)
Clt9)
(It9)
16
12
13
19
12
8.7
20.0

MAY
16
12
8
8
9
10
15
21
22
14
12
12
20
18
11
14
16
14
10
13
20
16
16
14
6.8
21.5

JUNE
12
10
8
8
9
11
18
23
18
19
17
16
17
17
16
22
19
13
9
10
11
12
16
13
7.2
22.0
MAX FOR
THE HOUR
21.8
18.4
14.6
13.0
13.0
15.1
31.8
32.1
28.4
34.0
44.2*
38.6**
20.0
22.3
19.0
22.0
22.5
22.0
22.0
23,0
24.3
24.3
24.7
24.6


  Two bad data points have been lined out.
  *highest recorded 1-hour observation durinj
  ** second highest reading during the periot
«lt9" m less than 9
; the period
ppm

-------
                                    IABLE A-2


AVERAGE VALUES OF DAILY HIGH READINGS OF CO CONCENTRATION, DOWNTOWK PITTSBURGH,
                  1971-1972, WITH AVERAGE TIME OF OCCURRENCE
HIGH CO OF READINGS
MONTH CONCENTRATION (PPM) OCCURRENCE (HR) FOR THE MONTH
June - 1971
July
August
September
October
November
December
January - 1972
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
14.6
14.0
16.1
15.3
18.1
13.5
11.0
8.8
10.7
13.7
14.8
14.0
12.7
14.1
13.0
1336
1200
1142
1318
1336
1442
1448
1424
1506
1506
1330
1324
1312
1230
1230
20.75 ppm
33.65
34.50
34.65
35.80
35.00
23.85
2C.90
23.30
25.00
21.10
20.85
22.45
27.20
24.15
MONTHLY
AVERAGES
8.24 ppm
6.40
8.09
7.06
7.93
5.34
4.58
3.61
5.57
7.45
8.66
6.79
7.23
8.45
8.38
 The  data  from the  two right-hand cchinms have been plotted  in Figure  TI-5.

 The  "daily high" and "two highest" averages are based on daily maxima only,
 while  the "monthly averages" are based on all hourly readings.

 The  winter minimum is clearly visible in the left-hand and  right-hand columns,
 but  is  somewhat obscured in the nej;c-to-right column.  A tendency toward earlier
 maximum readings during the summer is also noted, with the  smaller daily maxima
 during  the winter months occurring later in the day.
                                       A-2

-------
                                  TABLE A-3

      HIGHEST DAILY MAXIMUM CO CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) BY HOUR, WITH DATES

                       DOWNTOWN PITTSBURGH (ZONE 1)

                Period of Record:  June 1971 to August 1972
HOUR
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
HIGHEST DAILY
MAXIMUM RECORDED
21.5, 1 Kar 72
14.9, 30 Jul 71
16.0, 1 Apr 72
----- (Daily maxima never
occurred at these
-hours)
14.1, 13 Jul 72
20.6, 25 Jul 71
32.1. S Jul 71
26.8. 21 Mar 72
24.2, 27 Sep 71
44.2. 1 Oct 71
38.6. 3 Sov 71
20.8, 22 Jwl 71
35.2. 21 Jul 71
19.5, 26 Apr 72
20.9. 7 Jun 71
23.1. 6 Dec 71
22.1, 29 Mar 72
18.3, 14 Nov 71
15.3, 13 Dec 71
23.2, 2 Oct 71
18.3, 14 Aug 71
23.6. 11 Jul 72
24.7. 23 Feb 72
SECOND
HIGHEST DAILY
MAXIMUM RECORDED
19.9, 15 Dec 71
14.4, 2 Jul 72
10.7, 22 Jan 72


18.3, 6 Jun 72
31.1. 30 Aug 71
22.2, 6 Apr 72
19.8, 1 Sep 71
37.9. 18 Aug 71
17.1, 7 Dec 71
19.5, 30 Apr 72
22.3, 22 Oct 71
15.6, 17 Jul 71
18.9, 9 Sep 71
22.5, 17 Oct 71
20.5. 10 Jan 72
16.8, 21 Oct 71
15.3, 12 Mar 72
23.0, 17 Nov 71
14.3, 19 Aug 72
20.8, 19 Jul 72
24.6. 14 Dec 71
FREQUENCY
OF DAILY
MAXIMUM READING,
BY HOUK*
19
11
2
0
0
1
18
53
35
23
32
11
11
11
13
25
40
29
4
14
19
8
23
26
428 Data Points
* See histogram, Figure II-7.
Underlined values are monthly high or second high readings.
Values underlined twice are the highest and second highest recorded at any time
during the period of record (See also Table II-3.)

                                A-3

-------
APPENDIX B

-------
                         APPENDIX B

RUNS OF HIGH HOURLY CO CONCENTRATIONS, PITTSBURGH, ZONE 1 (ppm)
DATE HOURS
•^•^••••B MMMMMMMMi
18 Aug 71 03-10
04-11
05-12
06-13
07-14
08-15
09-16
10-17

1 Oct 71 05-12
06-13
07-14
08-15
09-16
10-17
11-18
12-19
13-20
14-21
15-22

2-3 Oct 71 14-21
15-22
16-23
17-24
18-01
19-02
20-03
21-04
22-05
23-06
8-HOUR AVG.
CONCENTRATION DATE
14.4 17-18 Nov 71
18.3
18.3
18.3
18.7
18.1
17.8 18 Nov 71
17.5

16.5
18.1
19.3
20.4
20.2
20.1
20.1 14-15 Dec 71
16.4
16.6
16.5
16.2

16.2
17.2
18.4
19.6 29 Feb-1 Mar 72
20.4
20.9
21.2**
20.2
18.7
17.2
HOURS
17-24
18-01
19-02
20-03
21-04

03-10
04-11
05-12
06-13
07-14
08-15
09-16
10-17

15-22
16-23
17-24
18-01
19-02
20-03
21-04
22-05

15-22
16-23
17-24
18-01
19-02
20-03
21-04
22-05
8-HOUR AVG.
CONCENTRATION
19.8
19.5
18.8
17.4
15.8

15.8
18.4
20.7
20.9
21.27*
20.3
18.7
16.2

17.0
18.4
19.8
20.4
20.4
19.6
19.3
17.4

17.7
18.9
20.4
20.9
20.7
20.7
19.4
17.0
       *  Highest recorded for the period.
      **  Second highest recorded for the period.
                                 B-l

-------
    RUNS OF HIGH HOURLY CO CONCENTRATIONS, PITTSBURGH, ZONE 30 (PPM)
                  14-15 Dec 71  16-23
 8-HOUR AVG.
CONCENTRATION
    18.4
    19.1
    19.1
    18.9
    18.8
    18.0
                     24 Feb 72  11-18            20.0
                                12-19            19.5
                                13-20            18.9
                                14-21            18.8
                                15-22            19.0
                                16-23            18.9
                                17-24            18.4

               29 Feb-1 Mar 72  16-23            18.1
                                17-24            19.9
                                18-01            20.3
                                19-02            20.6*
                                20-03            19.8
                                21-04            18.0
*highest 8-hour average recorded at Bellevue location during the period

                                 B-2

-------
APPENDIX C

-------
CITY OF PITTSBURGH            CALENDAR YtAR  IS  1972




R5&ION NO.  5          PJLLUTANT SPtCICI  IS  CARBON MUNOXIOF




HOOTl. YEARS CONS1DFRCD IS FROM 19c,0  TO 1973




LENGTH OF TIME PCRI3D IS   24 HOURS
VEHICLE
CATEGORY •
ZONE AREA
NO.
(SO. MI I
1 1.260
2 2.070
3 3.850
4 2.890
5 5.820
6 4.230
7 4.540
B 1.960
9 2.550
10 6.990
11 1.520
12 3.060
13 2.270
14 3. £90
15 5.510
16 1.230
17 1.210
10 2.550
19 1.850
20 L.i.90
21 7.170
Z2 24.760
23 3.070
24 3.f90
25 9.190
26 12.200
27 71.500
28 15.420
29 9.020
30 10.340
31 5.130
32 93.150
33 6.770
34 10.990
35 4.790
36 12.P20
37 44.990
38 33.720
39 11.3CO
40 22.870
41 19.5BO
42 13.010
43 50.620
44 20.230
45 34.440
46 20.510
47 5K.340
48 8.280
4? 11.38G
50 25.780
51 13.640
52 25.130
53 1*>9.390
54 339.420
55 239.000
56 38.230
57 251.770
58 375. 25C
59 91.090
60 20.5CO
61 17.290
62 233. 97t
63 513.300
64 173.330
65 62.340
5o 344.910
67 431 . 110
6** 24.400
69 53.6&G
7O 46.990
71 243. H10
72 94.010

L I iHT
EMISSIONS

(KSMI
?4724.P5
14729.28
22244.99
2950.56
8290.42
22841.70
11431.11
2553.17
13641.27
8227.40
4385.58
4839.05
4297.40
21730.57
5367.35
6471.90
5656.31
9313.21
2234.35
3015.11
12357.12
25607.84
7223.39
3404.93
9708.55
7704.05
8235.78
2450.41
2246.12
9666.53
4405.74
17847.54
3174.11
7812.18
4998.13
11203.52
6362.34
7228.39
12621.91
25170.46
6145.77
11036.73
7793.48
27161.34
7336.60
17628.13
14356.13
10007.20
5445.22
51059.28
0973.43
1C128.97
2501».S9
17579.57
16602.44
7296.04
14212.66
13503.15
4»26r,3«
591! -.45
8187.59
31577.23
35690.96
27985.47
31097. fZ
25138.93
31353.86
9432.23
17972.72
23U£>7. 63
17144. »6
6316.43

DUTY
EMISSION
OF.NSITY
(KGM/SO.MI
19621.91
7115.59
5777.92
102C.96
1424.47
5399.93
2517. "6
1302.64
5349.52
1177.02
28S5.25
1581.39
10PP.72
5536.27
974.11
6618.67
4674.64
3654.20
1207.75
17S4.09
1793.18
1033.41
2352.59
875.30
1056.43
631.48
115.89
158.91
249.02
934.37
855.48
191.60
46S.85
710.34
1043.45
••73.91
141.42
196.6H
1116.98
1100.59
313.88
34P.33
153.9o
1342.63
213.03
059, *9
2*6 .IS
120-3.00
473 .49
19S0.53
451.41
403.06
132.10
51.79
69.47
190.35
56.45
35.98
529. VO
202.02
473.54
134.96
69.53
160.42
*9f>.«*
73.03
73.91
387.35
334.31
490.91
70.49
66.76

HEAVY
EMISSIONS

(KGM)
2654.71
15^1.47
23SS.40
316.74
390.17
2452.52
1227.3f
274.08
1464.59
833.36
470.63
519. SO
460.37
2333.12
576.34
909.66
607.28
1000.51
239. S5
298.16
724.43
1442.95
407.04
194.07
547.06
434.13
466.88
138.05
126.59
54*. 69
348. 2i
1005.64
173.87
440.19
281.65
631.27
35B.48
407.29
711.20
1418.32
346.30
621. FT
439.10
153C.4S.
413.42
993.29
003.90
563.91
306.85
2977.06
505.67
346.22
H55.12
600.84
567. 4P
662.72
1290.99
1226. 5B
2127.37
350.64
479.55
1149.63
,1090.63
1633.43
1336.31
1082.81
1369.70
407.58
1589.36
2039.89
1516.11
550.59

DUTY
EMISSION
DENSITY
IKGI/SO.MI)
2106.91
"lot .00
i20.J6
109. »>0
152.95
579.79
270.35
13-7.J4
574. J5
126.37
J09.75
109.77
202. PI
599.77
104.60
710.67
501.39
392. i5
129.65
176.43
lr,l. 04
58.23
112.59
49.0
15.10
19.45
71.39
151.65
41 .47
20.02
623.69
46.09
49.56
14.05
13.43
59.62
26.35
106.76
18.93
46.74
29;90
74.03
3" .06
43.25
75.50
152.26
40.04
66.03
47.83
145.81
43.09
105.70
37.52
57. Jl
30.74
306.15
50.43
38.25
93. 6d
65.25
64.07
74.29
144.79
1J7.56
317.52
37. J5
53.7-*
200.61
232 .lii
203.93
164.23
175.4*
157.46
49.35
170.67
223.53
163. li
60.11
EMISSION
OFNilTY
(KGM/S3.MIJ
129.34
49.69
3U.90
6.41
ll. i2
36.il
15.72
7.36
33.97
7.91
19.32
10.74
12.14
4,. 83
6.48
44.46
30.85
25.02
P. 16
11.51
9.9o
6.12
13.51
5.15
67. K7
3.70
0.69
0.95
1.49
5.77
S.12
1.15
2.80
4.25
6.24
5.77
O.«b
1.12
6.08
6 .66
2.05
5.0"
0.95
8.20
1.25
5.16
1.50
6.90
2.70
11.88
2.71
1.52
0.49
0.19
0.27
1.94
0.58
0.3T
3.49
1.P2
3.11
0.86
0.45
1.17
2.6*
0.36
0.39
2.02
3.18
4.76
0.67
0.64


TOTAt
EMISSIONS

(KGM)
27542.52
16413.62
2*7*3.13
3285.84
9231.93
25447.82
12729.85
2842.66
15192.48
9166.03
4885,77
5391.41
4775.32
24238.09
5979.40
9436.46
6300.92
10382.52
2469.30
3332.72
13652.94
27202 »43
7671.90
3619.02
10*79.29
8184.26
8802.22
2603.12
2386.14
10270.83
46*0.32
18959.94
3371.96
8299.10
5309.66
11908.81
675P.K9
7678.93
13408.60
26741.04
6532.11
11724.62
8280.52
28857.63
7793.10
18727.20
15252.54
1062". 21
S782.80
54242.49
9529.53
10513.43
25967.38
1*245.66
17233.98
8033.05
15648.43
14867.29
51413.26
6374.34
8720.88
33627.46
38013.77
29722.87
32598.90
26397.21
33401.08
9939.16
19732.74
2531 1.O4
1882*. 13
6935.13
EMISSION
DENSITY

-------
	 " CITY OF PITTS6URGH
- RES1ON NO. 5
CALENDAR YEAR IS 1972
POLLUTANT SPECIES IS HYDROCARBONS
MODEL YEARS CONSIDERED IS FROM 1960 TO 1973
LENGTH OF TIME ft ~ IS 24 HOURS
VEHICLE
CATEGORY - LI6HT
~ idOe ~~A»SA EMISSIONS
M.
•
(SO .Mil
1 J.260
2 2.OTO
3 3.850
' 4 2.8*0
5 5.620
6 4.230
7 4.540
8 1.960
9 2. 550 .
10 6.990
11 1.520
12 3.060
13 2.270
14 3.890
15 5.510
16 1.280
17 1.210
16 2.55O
19 l.*5O
20 1.690
21 7.176
22 24.780
23 3.070
24 3.890
25 9.190
26 12.200
27 71.500
28 15.420
	 2_9 9.020
30 10.340
31 5.150
32 93.150
33 6.770
34 10.990
	 J5 4,790
36 12.820
37 44.990
38 38.720
	 39 11.100
40 22.870
41 ~ 19.580
__ 42 13.010
"43 ' 50.620
44 20.230
45 34.440
46 20.510
47 58.340
40 ».2<>0
49 11.380
50 25.780
51 18.640 ""
52 25.130
53 189.390
54 339.420
55 239.000
56 38.230
57^251.770
58 375.250
59 91.090
60 20.500
61 17.290
62 233.970
63 513.300
64 173.830
6$ 62.340
66 344.910
67 431.110
68 24.480
69 53.680
70 46.990
71 24-3.Z10
72 S '-. 610
IKGMI
3392.29
2076.51
3082 .60
397.03
U07_iA3 -
3162.90
1533.56
336.93
1644.87.
1143.55
606.60
676.35
503. 31
3288.64
742.52
1177.53
77*^*8
1307.67
311.54
410.62
2214.44
4597.2O
1277.2.1
609.55
IMS. 30
1392.03
1497.14
442.76
405.85
1766.41
796.06
3224.83
573.52
1411.56
903. 10_
2124.2*
1149.60
1306.06
2280.62
4572.18'
1159.09
1994.20
1426.07
4959.71
1314.23
3191.16
2618.73
176*. "7
957.64
9243.66
"1 575.1 0~~
1899.57
4646.86
3250.75
3131.88
1343.69
2616.05
2487.36
9138.89
1101.60
1548.29
5872.52
6718.59
5585.72
5928.04
4658.82
6057.50
1793.51
3304.87
4285.40
3155.90
1162.68
DUTY HEAVY DUTY
EMISSION EMISSIONS EMISSION
DENSITY DENSITY
(KGM/SO.NI)
2692.30
10O3.14
600.66
137.36
190.35
747.73
337 .79
171.91
723.46
163 .60
400.40
221.03
256.96
•45.41
134 .76
919.95
.644.20
512.81
16* .40
243.09
311.64
(85.52
416.03
156.70
197.53
114.10
20.94
Z6.T1
44.99
171.03
154. 5>
34.62
64.72
128.44
... 1»8.54
165.70
25.55
33.73
201.83
199.92
59.20
153.2"
28.19
245.17
38.16
155.59
44.89
213.63
84.17
356.56
84 .50
75.19
24.54
9.50
13.10
35.15
10.40
6.63
100.33
53.74
89.55
25.10
13.09
32.13
95.09
13.51
14.05
73.26
61.57
91.20
12.98
12 .2<)
(K6MI 7
6357.50
7272.58
6042.68
6288.17
4942.92
6425.63
1902.57
3717.90
4820.24
3550.24
1307.97
(KGM/Sg.MIl
3113.65
1159.65
925.84
158.94
iZ0.24
864.62
390.82
198.93
636.96
189.19
463.03
255.58
297.25
976.34
155.85
1063.84
745 ,U4
542.V4
l**.Tj
2T*.SJ
316.47
JO0.34
44* .39
169.38"
223.30
123.23
22.61
31.01
48.59
164.67
166.94
37.39
91.49
138.71
203.62
176.86
27.60
36.43
217.97
215.90
63.91
165.54
30.44
264.75
41.22
168.03
48.47
23O.77
9O.93
3BT»23
" VT.29 	
78.82
25.72
1O.04
13.73
39.67
il.74~
7.48
106.59
56.18
96.93
27.17
14.17
34.76
100.87
14.33
14.90
77.72
69.26
102.58
14.60
13.82
C-2

-------
             CITY OF PITTSBURGH            CALENDAR YEAR IS 1977
             REGION NO.   *          POLLUTANT SPECIES is CARBON MONOXIDE
            "MODEL ^YEARS  CONSIDERED is FROM 1965 TO 1978
             LENGTH OF TIME  PERIOD IS   24 HOURS
«HKLE.  	
c.«rutafe».- -
CATEGORY •
ZONE AREA
NO.
I SO .Mil
1 1.260
2 2.070
3 3.850
4 2.890
5 5.»20
6 4.230
7 4.540
8 1 . 960
9 2.550
10 6.990
11 1.520
12 3.060
13 Z.270
14 3.390
15 5.510
16 1.280
17 1.210
18 2.550
19 1.S50
20 1.690
21 7.170
22 24.780
23 3.070
24 3.S90
25 9.190
26 12.200
27 71.500
28 15.42C
29 9.020
30 10.340
31 5.150
32 93.150
33 6.770
34 10.990
35 4.790
36 1Z.320
37 44.990
38 38.720
39 11.300
40 22.870
41 1-7.580
42 13.010
43 5C.620
44 20.230
45 34.440
46 20.510
47 58.340
48 0.230
49 11.380
50 25.730
51 19.640
52 25.130
53 189.390
54 33-7.420
55 239.000
56 30.230
57 251.770
5r 375.750
59 91.O90
60 20.?00
61 17.290
62 233.970
63 513.300
64 173.030
t>5 62.340
<>6 344.910
67 431.110
6? 24.430
69 53.530
70 46.090
71 243. ?1Q
7? 44.610
- LISHT
EMISSIONS

(K.GM)
114<>4. 1C
6779.83
10118.42
1331.2?
352.1.21
10527.31
5213.04
1130.54
6283.28
3745.67
1913.55
2042.32
1794.22
10108.20
2272.55
4697.62
2663.40
4192.75
886.65
1567.59
6593.18
12190.81
3516.56
1925.16
5443. S3
4177.26
4526. Zl
1299.28
1144.14
5038.98
2116.92
9837.25
1765.38
3653.57
2ZO&.01
6663.52
3733.60
3737.41
6495.13
12490.07
3436.25
5705.65
4646.64
144-45.94
3686.70
8675.24
7273.82
4758.07
2662.13
25453,34
4269.39
4753. J4
13155.59
9096.24
3537.97
3730.73
7679.18
7054.7C
25055.23
2358.36
3903.63
16619.33
19416.49
14S93.05
1MB6.80
14134.45
17111.61
4573.92
9C92.23
11303.07
9343.30
3195.00
'DUTY
EMISSION
DENSITY
iKr-M/sg.Mii
9122.30
3275.28
2628.16
460.66
605.02
2400.73
1148.25
602.32
2464.03
535.86
1258.91
667.43
790.41
2598.51
412.44
3670.01
2201.16
1644.22
479.27
927.57
919.55
491.96
1145.46
494 .90
592.35
342.40
63.30
84.26
126.85
484.43
411.05
105.61
260.71
332.44
477.25
520.16
14.10
96.52
574.79
546.1'
175.50
438.56
91.83
714.08
107.05
422.98
I24.&3
574.55
233.93
9S7.33
229.07
139.35
69.46
26. tO
35.72
97.59
30.50
l*.BO
275.06
139.43
226.07
71.07
37.35
T3.95
253.05
41.13
39.69
1.16.34
1(9.38
740.56
31.44
3i.77
HEAVY
EMISSIONS

(KGHI
2157.77
1288.19
1*07.72
247. SO
652.83
1904.46
966.06
217.80
1170.65
705.08
360.40
305.75
335.14
1990.96
427.40
385.29
500.15
793.37
167.33
293.00
722. 3
1359.5.
333.7"
214.21
321.41
467.21
^06. 1';
145.30
127.95
500.20
?36.7.'J
1 ICO. 16
197.43
400.5".
255. 6(,
767.5"
423.16
4 1 7 . 9'j
726.3°
14P1 ."!
393.91
53C.09
523.83
1674.94
410.19
971.12
P17. OJ>
525.1"
293.03
2348.58
469 . 33
323.92
907.05
6Z5.6C
593.92
680. 3C
1400.53
1286.64
2193.2?
335.97
466.62
1966.43
2313.22
1*00.56
1415.92
1727.13
1503.73
4C0.78
1SI2.67
2016.60
DUTY
EMISSION
DENSITY
(KGM/SO.Mri
1712.51
622.31
495.51
35.64
112.17
469.14
213.23
111.12
459.08
100.98
237.10
126.06
147.64
509.25
77.57
691.63
413.35
311.13
90.44
173.38
100.74
54.87
126.64
b5.07
67.62
38.30
7.08
9.42
14.18
54.10
45.97
11. til
29. 16
37.13
53.37
59. "7
9.41
10.79
64.28
61. 27
20.12
49.05
10.35
30.32
11.91
47.35
14.02
63.43
25.75
U0.50
Z5.18
13.09
4.79
1.84
2.49
17.79
5.56
3.43
32. rs
10.39
26.99
3.4C
4. SI
10.36
22.71
3^49
14.37
JO. 04
12.92
'>.99
OTHER
EMISSIONS

IKGM1
177.30
110.44
159.22
19.63
51.21
165.48
74.39
16.74
93.56
58.82
29.96
32.41
27.02
187.61
35.37
73.76
41.13
67.05
14.00
23.68
03.11
162.97
45.70
25.55
78.35
56.35
61.07
17.53
15.43
67. 5f
28,55
132.73
23.32
49.29
30.84
90.46
51.05
SO. 43
37.64
170.24
50.11
76.99
64.27
198.55
48.90
117.33
99.03
61.50
34.06
344,15
54.41
40.29
110.52
75.82
73.72
85.37
175.81
161.50
360.52
19. 9S
S7.37
237.00
292.86
236.10
109.77
158.67
2TO.92
53.23
194.1P
245. 7fl
199.94
*».33
EMISSION
DENSITY
(KGM/SO.MII
140.72
53.35
41.36
6.79
a. so
39.12
16.03
8.54
36.69
8.42
19.71
10.59
11.90
48. Z3
6.42
57.63
33.99
26.29
7.57
14.01
11.59
6.58
14.39
6.57
8.53
4.62
0.85
1.14
1.71
6.54
5.54
1.42
3.52
4.48
6.44
7.60
1.13
1.30
7.76
7.44
Z.56
5.9Z
1.27
9.81
1.42
5.72
1.71
7.43
2.99
13.35
2.92
1.60
0.5"
0.22
0.31
2.23
0.7C
0.43
4.05
1.95
3.32
1.01
0.55
1.36
3.04
O.46
0.47
2.17
3.62
5.23
TOTAL
EMISSIONS

(KOMI
13029.16
3178.49
12185.35
1998.43
4229.24
12677.26
6257.49
1415.08
7547.49
4510.36
2303.91
2460.48
2156.33
12276.79
2735.32
5656.66
3204.66
5053.16
1067.97
1884.27
7398.63
13713.34
3951.03
2164.94
6143.44
4700.82
5093 .47
1462.12
1287.50
5636.75
2382.21
11070.13
1986.62
4111.44
2572.52
7534.55
4257.80
4205.79
7309.15
14061.62
3880.26
6420.72
5236.75
16269.43
4145.79
9763.73
P191.52
5344.74
2969.22
28646.07
4793.63
5IZ7.55
14173.16
9797.66
1205.61
4496. 4O
9295.92
8902.64
'0417.02
3234.29
44V -67
18632.76
22022.76
16629.73
17692.49
15970.24
18616.26
5027.92
10896.99
13566.32
11207.35
363O.34
EMISSION
DENSITY
(KGM/SO.MII
10979.53
3990.94
3165.03
593 . 09
729.99
2996.99
137(1. 30
721.96
2959.80
649.26
1515.73
604.06
949.95
3199.99
496.43
4419.27
2646.50
1981.63
577. If
1114.95
1031.89
5S3.40
1266.96
556.54
666.49
385.31
71.24
94.82
142.74
545.14
462.96
118.84
293.45
374.11
937.06
987.72
94.64
108.62
646.83
614.65
198.18
493.92
103.49
604.22
120.38
476.09
140.41
645. SO
262.67
1111.17
257.17
204.04
74.64
28.67
36.92
117.61
36.76
22.6*
311.97
19T.77
296.37
BO.49
42.90
99.67
Zoj.f 1
49.14
43.69
209.39
203.04
20*. 71
46.00
4O.49
                                               C-3

-------
CITY OF PITTSBURGH            CALENDAR YEAR  IS  1977




REGION NO.  5          POLLUTANT SPEC IFS  IS  HY03UCARHUNS




MODEL YEARS CUNSIMR6D IS FROM 1965 TO 197F




LEN'.TH UF TIME PERIOD IS   24 HOURS
VEHICLE
CATEGORY
tnnr AREA
Nu.
(SO. MI)
1 1.260
2 2. 070
3 3.S50
4 2.890
5 5. 820
6 4.730
7 4.540
S 1.960
9 2.550
10 6.C19C
11 1.5ZO
12 3.060
13 2.?70
14 3.890
IS 5.510
16 1.280
17 1.210
18 2.550
19 1.850
ZO 1.690
21 7.170
22 24. 7^0
23 3.070
24 3.890
25 9,190
26 12. SCO
27 71.500
26 15.42ft
29 9. (.20
30 10.340
31 5.150
32 93. ISO
33 6.770
34 10.990
35 4.790
36 1Z.3ZC
37 44.990
3S 33.720
39 11.300
40 22.87C
41 I9.58P
42 13.010
43 50.620
44 20.230
45 34.440
46 20.510
47 58.340
48 8.Z30
49 11.390
50 25.730
51 18.640
52 25.130
53 189.390
54 339. 4?0
55 239. TOO
54 3S.?JC
57 ^51.770
if 375. ?*J3
•>" 9J.090
If SO.iOO
61 I7.?90
62 ?33.V70
41 513. 3CT
64 173.^30
65 oT. 340
•>1 14'.. "10
67 4 j 1.1 10
0' .74.430
69 53.o">0
70 46. "9;)
71 ;4i.;'iu
It 94. MO

LIGHT
EMISSIONS

(KGMI
1390.03
433.48
1233.10
158.52
416.83
12"2.7P
619.16
136.29
751.34
458.23
233.82
251.05
215.63
13Z5.77
276.94
574.76
323.54
517.13
108.77
108.62
968.44
1835.92
523.53
239.3"
845.33
632.44
695.29
196.72
173.23
753.39
320.51
1419.41
267.29
55.3.17
346.11
1046.25
572.86
565.87
933.40
1898.51
537. ZP
863.87
710.84
2204.96
554.62
1315.46
1109.27
708.75
395.12
3860.34
632.74
737. SO
2033.11
1401. 09
1334.97
572.38
1179.38
1083.47
3923.45
438.66
612.2*
2572.43
3032.71
23»6.61
253>.li
?.!!">. 14
2691.1?
716.60
130^. «J9
1747. 2S
1414. 9(,
490.41

DUTY
EMISSION
DENSITY
(KGN/SQ.MI)
1103.20
405.0o
3Z0.47
54.85
71.62
303.26
136.33
70.55
294.64
65.56
153.83
•12.04
94.99
340.01
50.26
449.03
267.39
202 ."0
58.30
11L.61
135.07
74.09
17C.53
74.39
91.98
51.84
9.58
12.76
19.21
73.35
02.24
15.99
39.43
50.33
72.26
91 .61
12.73
14.61
87.03
83.01
27.44
66.40
14.04
106.99
16.10
64.14
19.01
85.60
34.72
149.74
33.95
29.36
10.74
4.13
5.59
14.99
4.6S
2,n9
43.13
n .40
35.41
10.99
5.91
13.73
40.47
6.34
6.24
.19.37
J5.9B
3 7 . 1 '3
5.90
5.11

HFAVY
EMISSIONS

(KGMI
374.68
226.92
333.04
42.57
111.84
346.26
166.22
37.05
201.92
123.62
63.06
67.76
58,00
362.18
74.66
155.04
87.13
139.6"
29.35
50.75
141. ZZ
269.10
76.53
42.3"
124.75
9Z.76
IOC. 50
2B.85
25.40
111.22
47.00
218.43
39.20
81.12
50.76
154.77
34.02
32.98
144.22
278.71
79.36
126.69
104.43
323.90
31.21
192.97
162.94
103.52
57.67
566.20
92.29
66.00
1*1.74
125.16
119.63
135.91
?79.81
257.06
603.69
67.10
94.07
394.18
465.63
369. 9T
2)0.23
245.51
303.69
60. GO
32?. 01
404.12
131.40
113.;.,

DUTY
EMISSION
DENSITY
(KGM/SO.MI )
297.36
109.62
86.50
14.73
19.22
1 1.P6
36.61
13.90
79.19
17.69
41.49
22.15
25.55
93.10
13.55
121.13
72.05
54.7"
15.87
30.03
19.70
10.36 '
24.93
10. "9
13.57
7.60
1.41
1.37
2.3.?
10.76
9.13
2.34
5.79
7.3B
10.60
12.07
1.37
2.14
12.76
12.19
4.05
9.74
2.05
16.01
2.36
9.41
2.79
12.50
5.07
21.96
4.95
2.43
0.96
0.37
0.50
3.56
1.11
0.69
6.63
3.27
5.44
1.6B
O.V1
2.13
4,5V
0.71
0.7C
3.30
6. no

l!l6
l.'O


OTHER
EMISSIONS

(KGMI
29.16
18.16
26.19
3.23
8.42
27.22
12.57
2.75
15.39
9.67
4.93
5.33
4.44
30.85
5.82
12.13
6.76
11.03
2.30
3.89
13.67
26.81
7.52
4.20
12.89
9.27
10.04
2.89
2.54
11.12
4.70
21.83
3.92
8.11
5.07
16.19
8.40
8.30
14.41
28.00
P. 2%
12.66
10.57
32. 6A
8.04
19.31
16.42
10.11
5.60
56.61
8.96
6.63
1 P. 1"
12.47
12.13
14.04
28.97
26.56
60.61
6.57
9.44
38. 9i)
46.52

31.21
26.10
33.05
8.76
31.93
4C.4?
32. ''9
11 .24
EMISSION
DENSITY
CKGM/SO.Mt 1
23.14
8.76
6.80
1.12
1.45
6.43
2.77
1.40
6.03
1.38
3.24
1.74
1.96
7.93
1.06
9.48
5.59
4.32
1.24
2.30
1.91
1.03
2.45
1.08
1.40
0.76
0.14
0.19
0.28
1.07
0.91
0.23
0.58
0.74
1.06
1.26
0.19
0.21
1.28
1.22
0.42
O.97
0.21
1.61
0.23
0.94
0.28
1.22
0.49
2.20
0.48
0.26
0.10
0.04
0.05
0.37
0.11
O.C7
0.67
0.3?
0.55
0.17
O.C9
C.?2
0.5C
o.oa
o.na
0.3&

O.H6
0.14
0.1.'


TUIAL
EMISSKINS

IKGM)
1793. P7
1083.57
1593.02
204.3?
537.10
1656.26
797.94
178.09
960 .66
!>91.56
301.80
324.14
278.07
1718.80
357.43
741.93
417.48
667.84
140.43
243.27
1123.33
2131.83
607.56
335.97
982.96
734.49
795.84
228.45
201.17
P80.73
372.21
1729.68
310.40
642.40
401.95
1217.21
665.27
657.14
1142. O3
ZZ05.22
674. £9
1003.22

2561.52
643.88
15Z7.73
1288.64
822.38
458.38
4483,14
733.91
810.43
2233.03
1538.72
1466.73
722.83
14M.ll
1367.10
4592.7^
51?. 3!
715.7 '
3C05.fr>
354* . «*.
2795.42

Z450.77
3027 . «!>
806. 16

?191 . 79
1 7v9 .24
614.01
CMiSSHA
DfcNSlTY
(KoM/SO.M:
1423.70
523.46
413.77
70.70
92.28
391.55
175.76
90.86
379.86
84.63
1V8.56
105.93
12J.50
441 .B5
64.87
579.63
345.02
261.90
75.91
143.94
156.07
86.03
197.91
86.37
106.96
60.20
11.13
14.82
22.30
65.18
72.27
18.57
45.35
58.45
83.91
94.95
14.79
16.97
101.07
96.42
31.91
77.11
16.32
126.62
IB. 70
74.49
22.09
9V. 3Z
40.28
173.90
39.38
32.75
11.79
4.53
6.14
13,91
5.91
3.6'
'.0.4;

41 .4(
I2.B5
6.91
16.08
45. 7o
7. 12
7.02

1? 67
46 . 64
7 40

                                  C-4

-------
CITY OFJ»ITTSBURGH

REGION NO.  5
       CALENDAR YEAR IS _1972   	

POLLUTANT SPECIES IS CARBON MONOXIDE
EMISSION INDICES AND TOTAL EMISSIONS BY MODEL YEAR
FOR ZONE NO.   1
VEHICLE
CATEGORY
CALENDAR
"YEAR
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
	 19-65"~
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973

LIGHT
INDEX
(GM/MILE)
0.65
0.22
0.40
0.97
2.37
2.73
4.44
5.16
5.06
4.49
4.46
7.26
1.90
0.14
*fb,2L5
DUTY
EMISSIONS
(KGM)
PR56.07
3041.48
5380.85
13208.17
32216.80
37074.35
60291.20
70058.50
68739.50
60976.19
60552.40
98641.63
25794.53
1928.30
y«ffrW-11
HEAVY
INDEX
(GM/MILE)
5.63
0.99
1.18
2.25
2.85
4.59
5.91
8.20
8.64
11.35
12.26
13.81
7.01
0.52
JS.I1
DUTY
EMISSIONS
(KGM)
2537.48
447.9P
533.34
1012.90
1285.99
2070.37
2663.76
3694.21
3891.78
5113.89
5524.60
6225.43
3161.06
232.14
3*344.43

-------
                      CITY UF PITTSBURGH            CALENDAR YEAR  IS  1972

                      REGION NO.  5          POLLUTANT SPECIES  IS  CARBON MONOXIDF

                      MOQtL YEARS CONSIDERED IS FROM I960 TO 1973

                      L?»JGTH OF TIME PERIOD IS   2* HOURS
O
   VEHICLE
   CATEGORY -     LIGHT DUTY

ZONE   AREA  EMISSIONS   EMISSION
 NO.                     DENSITY
     • SQ..MI)   CK3M)    (KQH/SQ.MI)
     HEAVY DUTY

EMISSIONS   EMISSION
            DENSITY
  (XGMI    IK5H/S0..1I)
        JTHES

EMISSIONS   EMISSION
            DENSITY
  (XGM)    IKGM/SO.MIl
           ******   546759.3d
                                 733.51
                                           33394.91
                                                         51.51
                                                                    3502.90
                                                                                  4.70
        TOTAL

EMISSIONS   EMISSION
            DENSITY
  (KGM)    (K6M/SQ.MU
                                                                                          568657.13
                                                                                                        789.72

-------
CITY OF  PITTSBURGH
CALENDAR  YEAR IS 1972
REGION NO
EMISSION
FOR ZONE
VEHICLE
CATEGORY
CALENDAR
YEAR
1960
T96T
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
. ,,
INDICES AND
NO. 1
LIGHT
INDEX
IGM/MILE1
0.17
0.06
0.10
0719
0.47
0754
0.87
1701
0.70
0783
0.86
0757
0.29
^702
POLLUTANT
SPECIES IS
HYDROCARBC
TOTAL EMISSIONS BY MODEL YEAR
DUTY
EMISSIONS
(KGM)
2276.08
781.66
1382.92
"2598.00
6336.93
7192740
i!859.07
.3780.26
9561.12
11240.44
11610.34
7683.39
3914.64
330.24
HEAVY
INDEX
"IGM/RTCE1
1.41
07Z5
0.30
0.56
0.71
1.1T
1.48
1 .05
1.67
2.19
2.63
3.0T
1.61
o.ri
DUTY
EMISSIONS
133.16
321.07
516.90
665.05
922.32
752.58
988.91
1185.40
1366.58
723.89
51.19
                  fc.fcl
 i^,ls f . \ot>f •  "7-11

-------
_  _CITY  OF  PITTSBURGH            CALENDAR YEAR IS 1972




    REGION NO.   5           POLLUTANT SPFCI^S IS HYDROCARBONS




    MODEL YEARS  CONSIDERED IS FROM I960 TO 1»TJ




    LENGTH OF  TIME PcRIDD IS   2* HOU1S



a
i
00
VEHICLE
CATEGORY - LIGHT DUTY HEAVY
ZONE AREA EMISSIONS EMISSION EMISSIONS
NO." " DENSITY
(SO. MI) (K^.Ml (KGM/SO.MI) (KGMI

DUTY UTHGR
fcMIa'ION EMISSIONS EMISSION
DcNiiTY DcNSITY
(KGM/SJ.'H) (KjMI (KGM/SO.MI)

TOTAL
EMISSIONS EMISSION
DENSITY
(KG'HI (KGM/SO.MI)

-------
                  OF PITTSBURGH

             REGION NO.  5
                CALENDAR YEAR IS 1977

         POLLUTANT SPECIES IS CARBON MONOXIDE
             EMISSION INDICES AND TOTAL EMISSIONS BY MODEL YEAR
             FOR IONE NO.   1
             VEHICLE
             CATEGORY -
LIGHT DUTY
                         INDEX   EMISSIONS
               YEAR   (GM/MILE)    (KGM)
     HEAVY DUTY

   INDEX   EMISSIONS
(GM/MILE)     (KGM)
i
VD
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
0.65
0.22
0.40
0.91
1.91
1.66
3.55
1.87
2.16
2.16
0.57
0.60
0.29
0.02
10083.14
3462.90
6126.40
14108.59
29477.90
25661.10
54826.77
28933.09
33322.38
33321.90
8735.88
9304.17
4446.30
_292.70
                                  24.il 03. 11
5.63
0.99
1.18
2.25
2.35
4.72
5.93
7.97
3.13
5.52
9.27
10.45
5.31
0.39
7».«
2858.33
504.63
600.78
1140.97
1448.59
2396.74
3009. SO
4046.07
4127.58
2800.93
4707.21
5304.35
2693.36
197.80
31 8? 7. 1*

-------
         		  CITY OF PITTSBURGH            CALENDAR YEAR  IS  1977


                     R?GION NO.  5          POLLUTANT  SPECIES  IS  CARBON MONOXIDE


                     MODEL YEARS CONSIDERED IS FROM  1«>65  TO 1978


            	LENGTH OF TIME PERIOD IS   2* HOURS



O      VEHICLE
^      CATEGORY -     LIGHT DUTY             HEAVY  DUTY                OTHER                    TOTAL

O
     ZONE	 AREA  EMISSIONS   EMISSION   EMISSIONS   EMISSION   EMISSIONS    EMISSION    EMISSIONS   EMISSION
      NO.                     DENSITY                DENSlTr                 DENSITY                  DENSITY
          (SO.Mil   (K&M)    CKGM/SO.NI)   IKGHI     IKGrt/SO.MI)    (KGM)     1KSM/SG.MII     IKGM)     IKGM/SQ.MI)



       1  ******  262102.56     351.63    35837.12      «.8.08      39*7.62        S.30    3018R7.19     405.OO

-------
CITY OF PITTSBURGH

REGION NO.  5
                CALENDAR YEAR IS 1977

         POLLUTANT SPECIES IS HYDRUCARSONS
EMISSION INDICES AND TOTAL EMISSIONS BY MODEL YEAR
FOR ZONE NO.   1
VEHICLE
CATEGORY -
LIGHT DUTY
CALENDAR    INDEX   EMISSIONS
  YEAR   (GM/MTLE)    (KGM)
     HEAVY DUTY

   INDEX   EMISSIONS
(GM/MILE)     (KGM)
1965
1966
1967
19 6 P
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
0.13
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.33
0.30
0.27
0.26
0.30
0.30
0.11
0. 12
0.06
0.00
1983.32
681.14
1205.04
1*11.41
5102.71
4709.11
4099.64
3986.59
4578.42
4634.70
1705.45
1893.83
983.46
69.92
1.41
0.25
0.30
0.43
0.55
0.92
1.17
1.60
1.46
1.02
1.57
1.30
0.9£
0.08
713.63
125.99
149.99
220.64
280.12
466.78
592.94
811.75
739.62
517.91
794.86
914.12
481.69
39.56

-------
             CITY OF PITTSBURGH            CALENDAR YEAR IS 1977

             REGION NO.  5          POLLUTAfcT SPECIES IS HYDROCARBONS

             MODEL YEARS CONSIDERED IS FROM I9b5 TO 1970

             LENGTH OF TIME PERIOD IS   24 HOURS
VEHICLE
CATEGORY -
               LIGHT DUTY

    AREA  EMISSIONS
      ZONF   AREA  EMISSIONS   EMISSION
O      NO.                     DENSITY
i          iso.Mii   CKSMi    (KGH/so.Mi)   IKSHI
                                               HEAVY OLtTY

                                          EMISSIONS   EMI!
                                             DSNSITY
        OTHcR

MISSIONS   EMISSION
            DENSITY
  (IT.M)    (KSM/SO.MI1
 TIS.tff
  **«*{£
                         50.23
                                   6849.61
                                                           0*9.3C
                                                                        0.87
        TOTAL

EMISSIONS   EMISSION
            DENSITY
  (KGM)    (KGM/SQ.MI)
                                                                                 44943.57
                                                                                               60.29

-------
   APPENDIX D




1972 AND 1977 VMT

-------
      Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
Metropolitan Area
         Year.
                 1872
      Time Period   Peak Hour
District
1

2


3


4


5


6


Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
31
17
13

31
17

13

31
17

13


17

13


17

13

31
17

IS

VMT
LD
7,044
5, 386
29,004
41,434
6, 276
1, 583
--
12. 290
26, 149
1, 234
8, 376
--
22,463
38.073
0
2, 545
--
2, 168
4, 713
0
5,222
--
7,833
13.055
1, 810
6,248
--
2.4, 993
39,051
HD
362
277
1,491
2,130
323
390
__
632
L345
372
430
--
LI 5 4
1J956
0
131
--
111
242
0
268

403
671
401
321

1,284.
2,006
Diesel
136
104
559
799
121
146
--
237
504
139
161
--
4
734
0
49
--
42
91
0
101
--
151
252
151
120
--
482
753
Area
(sq. mi.)



1. 26




2.07




3. 85




2.89




5.82



4. 23
                  D-l

-------

District
7




8




9




10




11




12




13





Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL

Avg Speed
(mph)

17

13


17

13


17

13


18

14


18

14


18

14


18

14

VMT

LD
0
8, 711
—
9.437
18, 148
0
548
--
3,367
3, 915
0
14,094
—
7, 928
22,022
0
6,463
__
7, 585
14. 049
0
3, 285

4. 180
1, 465
0
4,429

3, 928
8, 357
0
1,262

5, 747
7, 009
HD
0
448

485
933
0
28

173
201
0
724
--
407
1,131
0
332
--
390
722
0
169

215
384
0
228

202
430
0
65

295
360
Diesel
0
168
--
182
350
0
11
—
65
76
0
272
--
153
425
0
125
--
146
271
0
63

81
144
0
85

76
161
0
24

110
134

Area
(sq. mi. )




4. 54




1.96




2.55




6.99




1. 52




3.06




2.27
D-2

-------


District
14




15




16




17




18




19




20





Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL

Avg Speed
(mph)
31
18

14


18

14


18

14


18

14


18

14


18

14


18

14

VMT

LD
13,301
23,498

7, 537
44,336
0
3, 632
__
5,447
9,079
0
6, 655
	
7, 812
14,467
0
3, 322

6, 170
9,492
0
9,409
--
6,813
16, 222
0
1,920
--
1. 920
3,840
0
989
--
3,955
4,944
HD
684
1, 208

387
2,279
0
187
__
280
467
0
342
	
402
744
0
171

317
488
0
484
--
350
834
0
99

99
198
0
51
--
203
254
Diesel
256
453

145
854
0
70
__
105
175
0
128
	
151
279
0
64

119
183
0
182
--
131
313
0
37
--
37
74
0
19

76
95

.
Area
(sq. mi.)




3. 89




5. 51




1,28




1.21




2. 55




1.85




1. 69
D-3

-------
District
21


22
23


24


25
26


27



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

28

22

36
28
22


28

22


28

22

36
28
28


28

28


28

28

, II • !• ••
LD
0
21, 918

11,302
33, 720
1, 162
55, 151
9, 311
71,624
0
15,865

3,722
19, 587
0
8,697
--
756
9,453
10,898
14,138
4,418
29,454
0
19, 155
__
2,612
21,767
0
22,240
__
1, 171
23,411
VMT
HD
0
591
	
318
909
193
1,488
251
1, 932
0
428
--
100
528
0
235

20
255
294
382
119
795
0
517
..
70
587
0
600
_ —
32
632
Diesel
0
227
	
122
349
74
572
97
743
0
165
--
39
204
0
90
—
8
98
113
147
46
306
0
199

27
226
0
231

12
243
Area
(sq. mi. )




7. 17


24. 78




3.07




3.89


9.19




12.20




71.50
D-4

-------
District
28

29


30

31

32

33


34



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
28

28


28

28


28
25


28
28


28
28


28

28


28

28

VMT
LD
0
2,562
--
4, 362
6,924
0
2,983
_ _
3,363
6,346
0
27,311
845
28, 156
0
9, 212
3, 236
12,448
0
41,853
8, 572
50,425
0
8, 071

897
8, 968
0
18,982
._
3, 090
22,072
HD
0
69
--
118
187
0
80
	
91
171
0
737
23
760
0
248
87
335
0
1, 129
231
1,360
0
218

24
242
0
512
- -
83
595
Diesel
0
27
--
45
72
0
31
™ _
35
66
0
283
9
292
0
96
34
130
0
434
89
523
0
84
__
9
93
0
197
~ -
32
229
Area
(sq. mi.)



15.42




9.02



10. 34



5. 15



93. 15




6. 77




10.99
D-5

-------
District
35


36

37


38


39


40


41



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

28

28

36
28
28


28

28


28

28


28

28

36
28

28

44
28

28

VMT
LD
0
6, 920

1, 202
14, 122
17,832
5,594
11, 538
34,964
0
13,481
	
4, 135
17, 976
0
15, 930

4^493
20,423
0
31, 026

4. 636
35, 662
4, 315
58, 252

9, 349
71. 916
5, 297
10,026

3, 594
18, 917
HD
0
187

194
381
481
151
311
943
0
3, 733
	
112
485
0
430
--
121
551
0
837
__
125
962
116
1,571

252
1.939
143
270

97
510
Diesel
0
72
	
75
147
185
58
120
363
0
144
—
43
187
0
165
__
47
212
0
322
	
48
370
45
604

97
746
55
104

37
196
Area
(sq. mi.)




4. 79



12.82




44.99




38. 72




11.30




22.87




19.58
D-6

-------
District
42


43

44


45


46


47


48



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

28

28

44
28
28

44
28

24


28

24

44
28

24

44
28

24


28

24

VMT
LD
0
19,022
-™ —
12.161
31,183
2,036
14,248
6,333
22, 617
13, 314
46, 207
--
18. 796
78, 317
0
17, 299
--
3,053
20, 352
3,498
39,472
--
6,996
49, 966
4, 546
32,239

4,545
41,331
0
16,453

10,520
26,973
HD
0
513
__
328
841
55
384
171
610
359
1,247
--
507
2, 113
0
467
--
82
549
94
1,065
--
189
1,348
123
870
_.
123
1,116
0
444
— -
284
728
Diesel
0
197

126
323
21
148
616
235
138
479
--
195
812
0
179
--
32
211
36
410
--
73
519
47
334
	
47
428
0
171
_ ff*
109
280
Area
(sq. mi. )




13.01



50. 62




20.23




34.44




20.51




58. 34




8. 28
D-7

-------

District
49




50




51




52




53





54




55





Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial

Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL

Avg Speed
(mph)

28

24

44
28

24


28

24

50
30

30

50

30

30

50
30

30

50
30

30

VMT

LD
0
7,551
_ _
6, 971
14,522
23, 136
69,408
_ _
52,056
144, 600
0
11,435
__
12,387
23,822
2, 749
23, 522
	
4,277
30, 548
4,489

60, 597
	
9, 725
74,811
1,563
43, 772
_ _
6, 774
52,109
8, 187
37,867
—
5,117
51,171
HD
0
204
,. _
188
392
624
1,872
—
1,404
3,900
0
308
— .-
334
642
45
385
	
70
500
73

991
—
159
1,223
26
716
_ „
111
853
134
620
--
84
838
Diesel
0
78
—
72
150
240
720
--
540
1, 500
0
119
	
129
248
17
144
—
26
187
28

372
_ _
60
460
10
269
__
42
321
50
232
—
31
313

Area
(sq. mi.)




11. 38




25. 78




13.64




25.13





189.39




339.42




239.00
D-8

-------


District
56




57




58





59





60




61




62





Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial

Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial

Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL

Avg Speed
(mph)

30

30


30

30



30

30

50

30

30


30

30

50
30

30

50
30

30

VMT

LD
0
19, 310

2,146
21,456
0
38,467

3,345
41,812
0

36, 547
	
3, 178
39, 725
28,466

92,889
—
28.466
149,821
0
14,410
_-_
3.163
17, 573
4,564
16,734

4.057
25,355
6,626
73,832

14,199
94,657
HD
0
840

93
933
0
1,673

145
1,818
0

1,589
	
138
1, 727
798

2,604
--
798
4,200
0
404
-_
R9
493
128
469

114
711
186
2,070

398
2,654
Diesel
0
328

37
365
0
653

57
710
0

620

54
674
296

965
—
296
1,557
0
150
—
33
183
47
174

42
263
69
767

147
983

,
Area
{sq. mi.)




38.23




251.77





375. 25





91.09




20. 50




17.29




233. 97
D-9

-------
District
63


64

65


66

67


68


69


Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
50
30

30

50
30
30

50
30

30

50
30
30

50
30

30

50
30

30

30

30

VMT
LD
16,433
76,687
- -
16.433
109,553
50,046
30, 797
15,399
96,242
22,494
60, 635
	
14, 670
97, 799
2, 241
64, 241
8. 217
74, 699
20, 934
67, 787

10, 966
99, 687
5, 288
19, 976

4, 113
29. 377
0
39, 511

13, 170
52,681
HD
461
2, 150
--
461
3,072
1,403
864
432
2,699
463
1,248
	 .
302
2,013
46
1, 322
169
1,537
431
1,395

226
2,052
109
411

85
605
0
1,672

558
2,230
Diesel
171
796
--
171
1,138
520
320
160
1,000
185
500
_ _
121
806
18
529
68
615
173
558

90
821
44
164

34
242
0
627

209
836
Area
(sq. mi.)




513.30



173.83




62. 34



344. 91




431. 11




24.48

•

53.68
D-10

-------
District
70
71


72













Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
50
30
30


30

30


30
30




















VMT
LD
4,830
46, 918
17.249
fift QA7
0 '
42,808
_ _
7, 554
50,362
0
15,771
2 783
18,554















TOTAL


2,654,827
HD
204
1,986
730
•>. Q?n
' 0
1,812
__
320
2,132
0
668
1 1 R
786















TOTAL


81,069
Diesel
77
745
274
1.096
0
680
__
120
800
0
251
44.
295















TOTAL


0,833
Area
(sq. mi.)


4fi flfl




243.21



94.61















VMT
Total for
All Vehicle
Types

,766,729
D-U

-------
      Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
Metropolitan Ar*a  Pittsburgh	
         Year 1972	
      Time Period__12_hour	
District
1


2


3


4


5

6


Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(niph)
39
19

17

39
19

1 7

39
19
__
17


19

17


19
17

39
19
17

VMT
LD
52,828
40,398
--
217.527
_S 1 0 7 5 3
47, 069
56, 876
--
92, 178
196, 123
54, 253
62, 819
— —
168,469
285, 541
0
19,090

16,262
35. 352
0
39, 161
58, 744
97, 905
58, 578
46,862
187,450
292,890
HD
2,715
2,076
--
11.179
1 f>97f)
2,419
2,923
--
4,739
10,081
£789
3,228
— _
&658
14675
0
981

836
1,817
0
2,012
3.019
5,031
3,011
2,408
9,633
15,052
Diesel
1,018
779
--
4193
5,990
907
1,096
--
1777
3,780
1,046
1,211
_..
3,247
5504
0
368

314
682
0
755
1,132
1,887
1,129
903
3,613
5,645
Area
(sq, mi.)




1.26




2.07




3.85




2.89



5.82



4.23
                  D-12

-------
District
7


8


9


10


11


12


13



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

19

17


19

17


19

17


22

18


22

18


22

18


22

18

VMT
LD
0
65,333

70778
136. Ill
0
4,112

25,256
29. 368
0
105,703

59.459
1KB 1 fi2
0
48,469

56,898
105.367
0
24, 635

31, 352
55, 987
0
33, 216
--
29,456
62.672
0
9462
	
43, 100
52,562
HD
0
3,358

3,638
6.996
0
212

1298
1.510
0
5,432

3JD58
8.4RR
0
2492
__
£924
5416
0
1,266

1,611
2,877
0
1,707
—
1,514
a22i
0
486
	
2215
2,701
Diesel
0
}259

1,364
2623
0
80

487
567
0
2,037

LI 46
•31 R3
0
934
__
1097
2.031
0
475
__
605
1,080
0
641
—
568
1209
0
182
—
832
1,014
Area
(sq. mi. )




4 54




1 96




51 FIR




6. 99
•<



1.52




3.06




2. 27
D-13

-------
District
14


15


16


17

18

19

20


Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
39
22

18


22

18


22

18


22
18
VMT
LD
99, 758
176,238

56, 528
332, 524
0
27, 235
	
40,853
68,083
0
49, 910

58, 589
108, 439
0
24,917
46,274
71. 191
HD
5,127
9057
__
2,906
17,090
0
1,400
	
2,099
3,499
0
2,565

3,011
5,576
0
1,280
2,379
3.659
Freeway j 0 0
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
22
18
70, 565 I 3,626
i
51,099 2,627
121,664 6,253
22
0 0
14,3991 740

18 14, 399 i 740
Diesel
1922
5397
_ _
1090
6409
0
525
—
788
1,313
0
962

1,130
2.092
0
480
892
1,372
0
1,360
985
2,345
0
278

278
TOTAL ; 28,798] L480 556
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
'0 i 0 0
22 1 7417 ' 381 f 143

Local 18 i 29,661; 1,524
TOTAL
37,078' 1,905 j
572
715
Area
(eq. mi.)




3.89




5. 51




1.28



1.21



2. 55



1.85



1.69
D-14

-------


.District
21





22





23





24



'
25




26




27





Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Loc 
-------
District
28


29


30


31


32

33


34


Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

36

36


36

36


36

36


36

36


36
36


36

36


36
36

VMT
LD
0
19,212
_.
32, 713
51,925
0
22,371
-.
25,226
47,597
0
204, 836

6335
211. 171
0
69,086

24, 273
93, 359
0
313, 900
64, 293
378, 193
0
60, 534

6726
67, 260
0
142, 367
23, 176
165,543
HD
0
518
_.
882
1,400
0
603
__
680
1,283
0
5,525

171
5696
0
1,863

655
2.518
0
8466
1,734
10,200
0
1,633

182
1,815
0
3,840
625
4,465
Diesel
0
200
_ -
339
539
0
232
_ _
262
494
0
2,125

66
2191
0
716

252
968
0
3,257
657
3,924
0
628

70
698
0
1,477
240
1,717
Area
(sq. mi. )




15.42




9.02




10.34




5.15



93.15




6. 77



10.99
D-16

-------
District
35


36

37

38

39


40


41



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

36

36

45
36

36


36
36


36
36


36

36

45
36

36

54
36

36

VMT
LD
0
51,897
— «
54.015
105,912
133,741
41,958
—
86. 537
262,236
0
103,811
31.009
134,820
0
119,474
33, 698
153,172
0
232, 691

34, 770
267,461
32, 363
436,893
— —
70,119
539,375
39, 725
75,194
__
26,957
141,876
HD
0
1400
__
1457
2,857
3,607
1,132
—
2334
7,073
0
2,800
836
3,636
0
3,222
909
4,131
0
6276
__
938
7,214
873
H783
— -
;892
14548
1,072
2P28
_ _
727.
3827
Diesel
0
539

560
1,099
1388
'435
—
898
2,721
0
1,077
322
L399
0
1239
350
1,589
0
2,414
__
361
2,775
336
4£32
_ _
728
5596
413
780
	
280
1,473
Area
(sq. mi.)




4. 79



12.82



44. 99



38.72




11. 30




22.87




19. 58
•D-17

-------
District
42


43


44


45


46
47

48



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

36

35

54
36

36

54
36

30


36

30

54
36
30

54
35
30


36

30

VMT
LD
0
142,661

91, 209
233,870
15,266
106,861

47,494
169,621
99,854
346,553

140,971
587. 378
0
129, 737
	
22,895
152,632
26, 232
296,043
52,464
374, 739
34,098
241, 789
34.098
309, 985
0
123,397

78, 893
202, 290
HD
0
3,848
__
2,460
asos
412
2,882
__
1,281
4,575
2,6,93
9,347
_ ^
?802
15,842
0
3,499
	
617
4,116
707
7,985
1,415
10,107
920
6,521
920
8,361
0
3,328

2,128
5,456
Diesel
0
1,480
_ _
947
2,427
158
1,109
__
493
1,760
1,036
3595
j
__
1,463
6.094
0
1,346
_ _
238
1,584
272
ao?i
545
3,888
354
2,508
354
3,216
0
1,280

818
2,098
Area
(sq. mi.)




13.01




50.62




20. 23




34.44


20.51



58.34




8.28
D-18

-------


District
49




50




51




52




53




54




55





ITcicility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL

Avg Speed
(mph)

36

30

54
35

30


36

30

56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

VMT

LD
0
56, 636

52,279
108, 915
173, 520
520, 559

390,420
;084, 499
0
85, 760

92,906
178 666
20,621
176,417
	
32,076
229, 114
33,665
454,474

72, 940
561.079
11,725
328, 293

50,807
390.825
61,406
284, 003
--
38, 379
383, 788
HD
0
1.528

1410
2,938
4,680
14040

10,530
29,250
0
2,313

2506
4,819
338
2,886
	
525
3749
551
7436

1193
9180
192
5,371

831
6394
1,004
4,646
__
628
6,278
Diesel
0
587

542
1.129
1,800
5,400

4,050
H250
0
890

964
1854
127
1,082
_ „
197
1,406
206
2,789

448
3.443
72
2,014

312
239S
377
1,742
--
236
2,355


Area
(sq. mi.




11. 38




25.78




13 64




25. 13




189.39




339.42




239.00
D-19

-------
District
56


57


58


59


60


61

62


Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL,
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

38

37


38

37


38

37

56
38

37


38

37

56
38
37

56
38
37

VMT
LD
0
144,821
—
16, 091
160,912
0
288,503

25,087
313, 590
0
274, 100

23,835
297,935
213,494
696,665

213,494
J,123r 653
0
108,078

23, 725
131,803
34,228
125,501
30.425
190, 154
49, 695
553, 742
106,490
709, 927
HD
0
6,296
--
700
6,996
0
12,544

1091
13,635
0
11,918
__
1,037
12,955
§986
19532

5,986
31-504
0
3,030

665
3JS95
960
3,519
853
5,332
1,394
15,526
2J986
19J906
Diesel
0
2,457
--
273
2,730
0
4,895

425
5,320
0
4,651
__
404
5,055
2,217
7,235

2,217
11,669
0
1,122

247
1.369
356
1,304
316
1,976
516
5,750
U06
7,372
Area
(sq. mi.)




38.23




251.77




375.25




91.09




20.50



17. 29



233. 97
D-20

-------


District
63




64




65




66




67




68




69





Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL

Avg Speed
(mph)
56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37


38

37

VMT

LD
123,247
575, 154

123,247
821, 648
375, 343
230, 980

115,490
721, 813
168, 702
454, 765
__
110,024
733,491
16,807
481,805
—
61, 626
560.238
157,007
508,406
--
82,242
747, 655
39,658
149,820
--
30,845
220,323
0
296,333
--
98, 777
395, 110
HD
3,455
16126

3,455
23P36
10,523
6,476

3,238
20,237
3,471
9,357
_ _
2,264
15,092
346
9,914
--
1268
11.528
3230
10,461
--
1,692
15,383
816
3083
--
635
4,534
0
12,543
	
4.181
16,724
Diesel
1,280
5,972

1,280
8,532
3,898
2,399

LI 99
7,496
1,388
3,743
_ _
905
6,036
138
3,966
--
507
4611
1,292
4.L84
--
676
6,152
326
;233
--
254
1,813
0
4,704
	
1568
6,272

.
Area
(sq. mi.)




513. 30




173.83




62.34




344.91




431.11




24.48




53.68
D-21

-------
District
70


71


72












Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
56
38

37


38

37


38
37



















VMT
LD
36,224
351,887
_.
129,370
517,481
0
321,061
	
56,658
377, 719
0
118,284
20,873
139, 157
















TOTAL
9,911,154
HD
1,533
14895
	
5,476
21,904
0
13,590
— _
2,399
15,989
0
5,007
884
5,891
















TOTAL
607,954
Diesel
575
5,586
_ -
2.054
8,215
0
5,096
—
899
5,995
0
1,878
332
2,210
















TOTAL
31, 169
Area
(aq. mi.)




46.99




243.21



94.61















VMT
Total for
All Vehicle
Types
0,750,277
D-22

-------
      Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
Metropolitan Area    Pittsburgh
          Y,e ar	1972
      Time Period   24-Hour
District
1


2


3


4


5


6



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
39
19

17

39
19

17

39
19

17


19

17


19

17

39
19

17

VMT
LD
70,437
53,864
--
290,036
414,337
62,759
75,834
—
122,904
261,497
72,337
83,758
--
224,625
380,720
0
25,453
--
21,683
47, 136
0
52,215
—
78,325
130,540
78, 104
62,483
--
249,933
390,520
HD
3,620
2,768
--
14,905
21,293
3,225
3,897
—
6,316
13,438
3,718
4,304
--
11,544
19,566
0
1,308
--
1, 114
2,422
0
2,683
--
4,025
6,708
4,014
3,211
--
12,844
20,069
Diesel
1,357
1,038
--
5,590
7,985
1,209
1,461
__
2,369
5,039
1,394
1,614
--
4,329
7,337
0
491
--
418
909
0
1,006
--
1,509
2,515
1,505
1,204
--
4,817
7,526
Area
(sq. mi.)




1.26




2.07




3.85




2.89




5.82




4.23
                   D-23

-------
Pittsburgh - 1972 - 24-Hour

District
7




8




9




10




11




12




13





Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL

Avg Speed
(mph)

19

17


19

17


19

17


22

18


22

18


22

18


22

18

VMT

LD
0
87, 110
--
94,370
181,480
0
5,482
--
33,674
39, 156
0
140,937
--
79,278
220,215
0
64,625
--
75,864
140,489
0
32,846
--
41,803
74,649
0
44, 288
--
39,275
83,563
0
12,615
__
57,467
70,082
HD
0
4,477
--
4,850
9,327
0
282
--
1,731
2,013
0
7, 243
--
4,074
11,317
0
3,322
--
3,899
7,221
0
1,688
--
2,148
3.836
0
2,276
--
2,018
4,294
0
648
	
2.953
3,601
Diesel
0
1,679
--
1,819
3,498
0
106
--
649
755
0
2,716
--
1,528
4,244
0
1,245
--
1,462
2,707
0
633
--
806
1,439
0
854
--
757
1,611
0
243
_ _
1, 108
1,351

Area
(sq. mi.)




4.54




1.96




2,55




6.99




1.52




3.06




2.27
            D-24

-------
Pittsburgh - 1972 - 24-Hour
District
14


15


16


17


18


19


20



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
39
22

18


22

18


22

18


22

18


22

18


22

18


22

18

VMT
LD
133,010
234,984
- _
75,371
443,365
0
36,313
--
54, 470
90,783
0
66,546
--
78, 118
144, 664
0
33,222
--
61,699
94,921
0
94, 087
--
68, 132
162,219
0
19, 198
--
19, 199
38,397
0
9, 889
--
39,548
49,437
HD
6,836
12,076
_ _
3,874
22,786
0
1,866
--
2,799
4,665
0
3,420
--
4,015
7,435
0
1,707
__
3,172
4,879
0
4,835
--
3,502
8,337
0
987
--
987
1,974
0
508
--
2,032
2,540
Diesel
2,563
4,529
*m mm
1,453
8,545
0
700
_-
1,050
1,750
0
1,282
__
1,506
2,788
0
640
--
1, 189
1, 829
0
1,813
--
1,313
3, 126
0
370
--
370
740
0
190
--
762
952
Area
(sq. mi.)




3.89




5.51




1.28




1.21




2.55




1.85




1.69
           D-25

-------
Pittsburgh - 1972 - 24-Hour
District
21


22


23


24


25


26


27



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

36

28

45
36

28


36

28


36

23

45
36

36


36

36


36

36

VMT
LD
0
219, 175
--
118,019
337, 194
71, 624
551,509
--
93, 113
716,246
0
158, 652
--
37,215
195, 867
0
86, 968
--
7,563
94,531
108,978
141,377
--
44, 180
294,535
0
191,547
	
26, 121
217,668
0
222,397
--
11,705
234, 102
HD
0
5,911
--
3, 183
9,094
1,932
14,875
--
2,511
19,318
0
4,279
--
1,004
5,283
0
2,346
--
204
2,550
2, 939
3, 813
--
1, 192
7,944
0
5, 166
_ —
704
5,870
0
5,998
--
316
6,314
Diesel
0
2,273
--
1,224
3,497
743
5,721
--
966
7,430
0
1,646
--
386
2,032
0
902
--
78
980
1,130
1,467
--
458
3,055
0
1,987

271
2,258
0
2,307
--
122
2,429
Area
(sq. mi.)




7. 17




24.78




3.07




3.89




9. 19




12.20




71.50
           D-26

-------
Pittsburgh - 1972 - 24-Hour
District
28


29


30


31


32


S3


34



Facility
Type
Freeway
.Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

36

36


36

36


36

36


36

36


36

36


36

36


36

36

VMT
LD
0
25, 616
--
43, 617
69, 233
0
29,828
--
33,634
63,462
0
273, 114
--
8,447
281,561
0
92, 115
--
32,364
124,479
0
418,533
--
85,724
504, 257
0
80,712
--
8,968
89,680
0
189,822
--
30,901
220,723
HD
0
691
--
1, 176
1,867
0
804
--
907
1,711
0
7,366
--
228
7,594
0
2,484
--
873
3,357
0
11,288
--
2,312
13,600
0
2, 177
--
242
2,419
0
5, 120
--
833
5,953
Diesel
0
266
—
452
718
0
309
--
349
658
0
2,833
--
88
2,921
0
955
--
336
1, 291
0
4,342
--
889
5,231
0
837
--
93
930
0
1,969
--
320
2,289
Area
(sq. mi.)




15.42




9.02




10.34




5. 15




93. 15




6.77




10.99
           D-27

-------
Pittsburgh - 1972 - 24-Hour
District
35


36


37


38


39


40


41



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

36

36

45
36

36


36

36


36

36


36

36

45
36

36

54
36

36

VMT
LD
0
69, 196
--
72,020
141,216
178,321
55,944
--
115,383
349,648
0
138,414
--
41,345
179,759
0
159,299
__
44, 930
204,229
0
310,255
--
46,360
356,615
43,151
582, 524
—
93,492
719, 167
52,967
100, 258
--
35,942
189, 167
HD
0
1,866
--
1,942
3,808
4,809
1,509
--
3, 112
9,430
0
3,733
--
1,115
4,848
0
4,296
--
1,212
5,508
0
8,368
--
1,250
9,618
1,164
15,711
__
2,522
19,397
1,429
2,704
--
969
5,102
Diesel
0
718
--
747
1,465
1,850
580
--
1,197
3, 627
0
1,436
--
429
1,865
0
1,652
-_
466
2,118
0
3,218
--
481
3,699
448
6,043
— —
970
7,461
550
1,040
--
373
1,963
Area
(sq. mi.)




4.79




12.82




44.99




38.72




11.30




22.87




19.58
           D-28

-------
Pittsburgh - 1972 - 24-Hour
District
42


43


44


45


46


47


48



' Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

36

36

54
36

36

54
36

30


36

30

54
36

30

54
36

30


36

30

VMT
LD
0
190,215
—
121,612
311,827
20,355
142,481
--
63,325
226, 161
133,139
462,071
__
187,961
783, 171
0
172,982
--
30,526
203,508
34,976
394,724
--
69,952
499, 652
45,464
322,385
--
45,464
413,313
0
164,529
--
105,191
269,720
HD
0
5, 130
™ _
3,280
8,410
549
3,843
--
1,708
6,100
3,591
12,463
--
5,069
21, 123
0
4,665
--
823
5,488
943
10,646
__
1,887
13,476
1,226
8,695
--
1,226
11,147
0
4,437
--
2,837
7,274
Diesel
0
1,973
— —
1,262
3,235
211
1,478
__
657
2,346
1,381
4,793
__
1,950
8,124
0
1,794
--
317
2, 111
363
4,095
--
726
5, 184
472
3,344
—
472
4,288
0
1,707

1,091
2,798
Area
(sq. mi.)




13.01




50.62




20.23




34.44




20. 51




58.34




8.28
            D-29

-------
Pittsburgh - 1972 -  24-Hour

District
49




50




51




52




53




54




55





Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL

Avg Speed
(mph)

36

30

54
36

30


36

30

56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

VMT

LD
0
75,514
--
69,705
145,219
231,360
694,079
__
520,560
1,445,999
0
114,346
--
123,874
238, 220
27,494
235, 222
__
42,768
305,484
44, 886
605,965
--
97,253
748, 104
15,633
437,724
--
67,743
521, 100
81,874
378,671
--
51, 172
511,717
HD
0
2,037
--
1, 880
3,917
6,240
18,720
--
14,040
39,000
0
3,084
--
3,341
6,425
450
3,848
--
700
4,998
734
9,914
--
1,591
12,239
256
7, 161
--
1, 108
8,525
1,339
6, 195
__
837
8,371
Diesel
0
783
--
723
1,506
2,400
7,200
--
5,400
15,000
0
1,186
--
1, 285
2,471
169
1,443
--
262
1,874
275
3,718
--
597
4,590
96
2,685
--
416
3, 197
502
2,323

314
3, 139

Area
(sq. mi.)




11.38




25.78




13.64




25.13




189.39




339.42




239.00
           D-30

-------
Pittsburgh - 1972 - 24-Hour
District
56


57


58


59


60


61


62



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

38

37


38

37


38

37

56
38

37


38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

VMT
LD
0
193,095
—
21,455
214,550
0
384,671
—
33,449
418, 1-20
0
365,467
--
31,780
397,247
284,658
928,886
--
284,659
,498,203
0
144, 104
--
31,633
175,737
45,637
167,335
--
40,566
253,538
66,260
738,323
-~
141,986
946,569
HD
0
8,395
__
933
9,328
0
16,725
__
1,454
18,179
0
15,890
--
1,382
17,272
7,981
26,043
--
7,981
42,005
0
4,040
--
887
4,927
1,280
4,692
--
1,137
7, 109
1,858
20,701
--
3,981
26,540
Diesel
0
3,276
_ _
364
3,640
0
6,527
—
567
7,094
0
6,201
--
539
6,740
2,956
9,646
--
2,956
15,558
-o
1,496
--
329
1,825
474
1,738
--
421
2,633
688
7,667
--
1,474
9,829
Area
(sq. mi.)




38.23




251.77




375. 25




91.09




20.50




17. 29




233. 97
           D-31

-------
Pittsburgh - 1Q72 - 24-Hour
District
63


64


65


66


67


68


69



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37


38

37

VMT
LD
164,329
766, 872
--
164,329
1,095,530
500,457
307,973
--
153,987
962,417
224,936
606,353
--
146,698
977, 987
22,409
642,407
--
82,168
746,984
209,343
677,874
--
109,656
996, 873
52,877
199,760
--
41,126
293,763
0
395, 110
--
131,702
526,812
HD
4,607
21, 501
__
4,607
30,715
14,031
8,635
--
4,317
26,983
4,628
12,476
--
3,018
20, 122
461
13, 218
__
1,691
15,370
4,307
13,948
--
2,256
20,511
1,088
4, 110
--
846
6,044
0
16,724
—
5,575
22,299
Diesel
1,706
7,.963
__
1,706
11,375
5, 197
3,198
--
1,599
9,994
1,851
4,990
--
1,207
8,048
184
5,287
--
676
6,147
1,723
5,579
--
902
8,204
435
1,644
--
338
2,417
0
6,272
_. _
2,091
8,363
Area
(sq. mi.)




513.30




173.83




62.34




344.91




431. 11




24.48




53.68
            D-32

-------
Pittsburgh - 1972 -  24-Hour


District
70




71




72

























Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL

Avg Speed
(mph)
56
38

37


38

37


38

37





















VMT


LD
48, 298
469, 182
--
172,493
689,973
0
428,081
	
75, 544
503, 625
0
157,712
--
27,830
185,542

















TOTAL

26,548,174

HD
2,044
19,860
--
7,301
29,205
0
18, 120
_ _
3,198
21,318
0
6,676
--
1, 178
7,854

















TOTAL

810,580

Diesel
766
7,448
—
2,738
10,952
0
6,795
	
1, 199
7,994
0
2,504
--
442
2.946

















TOT A L

308, 185

Area
(sq. mi.)




46.99




243. 21




94.61















VMT
Total for
All Vehide
Types
7, 666,939
            D-33

-------
      Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
Metropolitan *~"    Pittsburgh
          Year.
       Time
District
1


2


3


4


5


6



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
31
17

13

31
17

13

31
17

13


17

13


17

13

31
17

13

VMT
LD
7,663
5, 860
-
31. 553
45,076
6,738
8, 142
_
1-3, 196
28,076
7,691
8, 905
-
23,882
40,478
0
2, 694
-
2, 295
4,989
0
5,207
_
7, 811
13, 018
8, 414
6,732
-
26, 926
42,072
HD
394
301
-
1. 622
2, 317
346
418
_
678
1,442
395
458
-
1,227
2,080
0
139
-
118
257
0
268
_
401
669
432
346
-
1,384
2, 162
Diesel
148
113
-
608
869
130
157
_
254
541
148
172
-
460
780
0
52
-
44
96
0
100

151
251
162
130
-
519
811
Area
(sq. mi.)




l". 26




2.07




3.85




2.89




5.82




4.23
                  D-34

-------
District
7


8

9

10


11


12


13



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collectoi
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

17

13

17

13


17
13


18

14


18

14


18

14


18

14

VMT
LD
• o
9,323
_
10, 100
19,423
0
596
-
3,661
4', 257
0
15,222
8, 563
23,785
0
6, 878
-
8,074
14,952
0
3,351
-
4,265
7,616
0
4,367
-
3,873
8,240
0
1, 237
-
5,635
6,872
HD
0
479

519
998
0
31
-
188
219
0
782
440
1,222
0
354
-
415
•Z69
0
172
-
219
391
0
225
-
199
424
0
64
-
290
354
Diesel
0
180

195
375
0
12
_
71
83
0
293
165
458
0
133
-
156
289
0
65
-
82
147
0'
84
-
75
159
0
24
-
109
133
Area
(sq. mi.)




4.54



1.96



2.55




6.99




1.52




3.06




2.27
D-35

-------
District
14


15


16


17


18


19


20



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
31
18

14


18

14


18

14


18

14


18

14


18

14


18

14

VMT
LD
14,308
25,278
-
8, 108
47,694
0
3, 596
-
5, 394
8, 990
0
8,626
-
10, 126
18,752
0
3,660
-
6,798
10,458
0
9,886
-
7,159
17,045
0
1,780
-
1,780
3.561
0
1,205
-
4,817
6,022
HD
735
1, 299
-
417
2,451
0
185
-
277
462
0
443
-
520
963
0
188
-
350
538
0
509
-
369
878
0
92
-
92
184
0
62
-
248
310
Diesel
276
487
-
156
919
0
69
-
104
173
0
166
-
195
361
0
71
-
131
202
0
191
-
138
329
0
34
-
34
68
0
23
_
93
116
Area
(sq. mi.)




3. 89




5.51




1.23




1.21




2.55




1.85




	 1.69__
D-36

-------
District
21


22

23


24


25


26


27


Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

28

22

36
28

22


28

22


28

22

36
28

28


28

28

28

28

VMT
LD
0
25,513
-
13,738
39,251
7,697
59,270
-
10, 007
76,974
0
17,483
_
4, 101
21, 584
0
11, 108
-
966
12,074
13,692
17,763
-
5,551
37,006
0
23,425
-
3, 195
26, 620
0
27,401
-
1,442
28, 843
HD
0
688
-
371
1,059
208
1,599
-
270
2,077
0
472
_
111
583
0
300
-
26
326
369
480
-
150
999
0
632
-
86
718
0
739
-
39
778
Diesel
0
265
-
143
408
80
615
„
104
799
0
181
_
43
224
0
115
-
10
125
142
184
-
58
384
0
243
-
33
276
0
284
-
15
299
Area
{sq. mi. )




7. 17



24. 78




3.07




3.89




9. 19




12.20



71. 50
D-37

-------
District
28


29


30


31


32


33


34



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

28

28


28

28


28

28


28

28


28

28


28

28


28

28

VMT
LD
0
3,063
-
5,216
8,279
0
3,427
-
3,864
7,291
0
30,962
-
958
31..920
0
9,983
-
3,507
13, 490
0
52,031
_
10,657
62,688
0
10, 125
-
1, 125
11,250
0
20,023
-
3,260
23, 283
HD
0
83
-
141
224
0
92
-
104
196
0
835
-
26
861
0
269
-
95
364
0
1, 403
-
287
1, 690
0
273
_
30
303
0
540
_
88
628
Diesel
0
32
-
54
86
0
36
-
40
76
0
321
-
10
331
0
104
-
36
140
0
540
-
Ill
651
0
105
_
12
117
0
208
_
34
242
Area
(sq. mi.)




15.42




9.02




10.34




5. 15




93. 15




6. 77




10.09
D-38

-------
District
35


36

37


38


39


40


41


Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

28

28

36
28

28


28

28


28

28


28

28

36
28

28

44
28

28

VMT
LD
0
7,138
_
7,429
14, 567
23,719
7,441
_
15, 347
46, 507
0
18, 565
-
5,546
24, 111
0
18,577
-
5,240
23,817
0
36,009
-
5,381
41,390
4,825
65,131
-
10,453
80, 409
6, 627
12, 544
-
4,497
23,668
HD
0
193
_
200
393
640
201
_
414
1,255
0
501
-
150
651
0
501
-
141
642
0
971
-
145
1, 116
130
1,757
-
282
2,169
179
338
-
121
638
Diesel
n
74
_
77
151
246
77
_
159
482
0
193
-
58
251
0
193
-
54
247
0
374
-
56
430
50
676
-
109
835
69
130
-
47
246
Area
(sq. mi. )




4 79



12.82




44.99




38. 72




11.30




22.87



19.58
D-39

-------
District
42


43


44


45


46


47


48



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL,
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

28

28

44
28

28

44
28

24


28

24

44
28

24

44
28

24


28

24

VMT
LD
0
22, 179
-
14, 180
36, 359
2,732
19, 122
_
8,499
30,353
15,942
55, 328
-
22,506
93,776
0
19,637
-
3,465
23, 102
3,881
43,800
-
7,762
55,443
5, 187
36,780
-
5, 187
47, 154
0
17,716
-
11, 327
29,043
HD
0
598
-
382
980
74
516
_
229
819
430
1,492
-
607
2,529
0
530
-
93
623
105
1, 181
-
209
1, 495
140
992
-
140
1,272
0
478
-
306
784
Diesel
0
230
-
147
377
28
198
-
88
314
165
574
-
234
973
0
204
-
36
240
40
454
-
81
575
54
382
-
54
490
0
184
-
118
302
Area
(sq. mi.)




13.01




50.62




20.23




34.44




20.51




58.34




8.28
D-40

-------
District
49


50
51


52


53

54

55

Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

28

24

44
28
24


28

24

50
30

30

50
30

30

50
30

30

50
30
30

VMT
LD
0
8,369
-
7,725
16,094
26,008
78,023
58,517
162,548
0
12, 337
-
13,365
25,702
2,896
24, 774
-
4, 505
32, 175
5, 296
71,496
_
11,475
88, 267
1, 817
50, 862
~
7, 871
60, 550
9,420
43,569
5,888
58,877
HD
0
226
-
208
434
702
2, 104
I, 578
4, 384
0
333
-
361
694
47
405
-
74
526
87
1, 170
-
188
1,445
30
832
"
129
991
154
713
96
963
Diesel
0
87
-
80
167
270
809
607
1,686
0
128
-
139
267
18
152
-
28
198
32
439
-
70
541
11
312

48
371
58
268
36
362
Area
(sq. mi.)




11.38


25 78




13.64




25.13



189. 39



339. 42


239. 00
D-41

-------
District
56


57


58


59


60


61


62



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

30

30


30

30


30

30

50
30

30


30

30

50
30

30

50
30

30

VMT
LD
0
22, 189
-
2,465
24, 654
0
46,706
-
4,061
50,767
0
42,908
-
3.731
46,639
33,037
107,805
-
33,037
173,879
0
15,465
-
3,395
18, 860
4, 872
17, 865
_
4, 331
27, 068
17, 828
87, 223
-
16,774
111, 825
HD
0
965
-
107
1,072
0
2, 031
-
177
2, 208
0
1,866
-
162
2,028
926
3,023
-
926
4,875
0
434
-
95
529
137
501
_
121
759
220
2,446
_
470
3, 136
Diesel
0
377
-
42
419
0
793
-
69
862
0
728
-
63
791
343
1, 120
-
343
1,806
0
161
-
35
196
51
186
_
45
282
81
906
_
174
1, 161
Area
(sq. mi.)




38.23




251.77




375.25




91.09




20. 50




17.29




233.97
D-42

-------


District
63




64




65




66




67




68




69





Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL

Avg Speed
(mph)
50
30

30

50
30

30

50
30

30

50
30

30

50
30

30

50
20

30


30

30

VMT

LD
20, 020
93,427
-
20,020
133,467
57, 929
35,648
-
17, 824
111,401
25,983
70,041
-
16,945
112,969
2,834
81,233
_
10, 390
94, 457
25, 117
81,330
-
13, 156
119, 603
5,704
21, 548
-
4,436
31,688
0
44, 933
-
14, 977
59,910
HD
561
2, 619
-
561
3,741
1, 624
1,000
-
500
3, 124
535
1,441
-
349
2,325
58
1,671
_
214
1,943
517
1,673
-
271
2,461
117
443
-
91
651
0
1,902
-
634
2,536
Diesel
208
970
-
208
1,386
602
370
-
185
1, 157
214
576
-
140
930
23
669
_
86
778
207
670
-
108
985
47
177
-
37
261
0
713
-
238
951


(sq. mi. )




513. 30




173. 83




62. 34




344.91




431. 11




24.48




53. 68
D-43

-------
District
70


71


72














Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
50
30

30


30

30


30

30




















VMT
LD
5, 310
51,587
-
18,966
75,863
0
52,460
-
9,258
61,718
0
17,930
.
3, 164
21,094
















TOTAL

3,061,703
HD
225
2, 184
-
803
3,212
0
2,221
-
392
2,613
0
759
_
134
893
















TOTAL

92,805
Diesel
84
819
-
301
1,204
0
833
-
147
980
0
285
_
50
335
















TOTAL

35,307
Area
(sq. mi. )




46. 99




243.21




94.61















VMT
Total for
All Vehicle
Types
3,189,815
D-44

-------
      Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
Metropolitan Area     Pittsburgh
          Year	
1977
      Time Period    12-Hour
District
1


2


3


4


5


6



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
39
19

17

39
19

17

39
19

17


19

17


19

17

39
19

17

VMT
LD
57,470
43, 949
-
236,644
338, 063
50, 537
61, 066
-
98,969
210, 572
57,682
66, 789
-
179, 115
303,586
0
20, 208
-
17,215
37,423
0
39, 053
-
58,581
97, 634
63, 108
50,486
—
201, 946
315, 540
HD
2, 954
2, 258
-
12, 161
17,373
2,597
3, 138
-
5, 086
10,821
2,965
3,432
-
9,206
15,603
0
1,039
-
884
1, 923
0
2, 007
-
3, Oil
5, 018
3, 243
2, 594
_
10,379
16, 216
Diesel
1, 107
847
-
4,562
6, 516
974
1, 177
-
1, 907
4,058
1, 112
I, 287
-
3, 452
5, 851
0
390
-
332
722
0
752
-
1, 129
1,881
1, 216
973
"
3,893
6, 082
Area
(sq. mi.)




1.26




2. 07




3.85




2.89




5.82




4. 23
                    D-45

-------
District
7


8


9


10


11


12


13



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mphj

19

17


19

17


19

17


22

18


22

18


22

18


22

18

VMT
LD
0
69, 924
-
75,752
145,676
0
4,469
-
27,455
31, 924
0
114, 165
-
64,219
178,384
0
51, 584
-
60,556
112, 140
0
25, 132
-
31, 986
57, 118
0
32, 751
—
29, 045
61,796
0
9, 278
-
42,266
51, 544
HD
0
3, 594
-
3,893
7,487
0
230
-
1,411
1,641
0
5, 867
-
3,300
9, 167
0
2, 651
-
3, 113
5, 764
0
1, 292
-
1,643
2, 935
0
1,683
—
1,493
3, 176
0
476
-
2, 172
2,648
Diesel
0
1,348
-•
1,460
2, 808
0
86
-
530
616
0
2, 200
-
1,238
3,438
0
994
_
1, 167
2, 161
0
485
-
617
1,102
0
632
—
560
1, 192
0
179
-
815
994
Area
(sq. mi.)




4. 54




1.96




2.55




6.99




1.52




3.06




2.27
D-46

-------


District
14




15




16




17




18




19




20





Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL

Avg Speed
(mph)
39
22

18


22

18


22

18


22

18


22

18


22

18


22

18

VMT


LD
107,312
189, 585
-
60, 809
357,706
0
26, 971
-
40, 457
67,428
0
64,695
~
75, 945
140, 640
0
27,453
-
50, 986
78, 439
0
74, 144
""
53, 691
127,835
0
13,352
-
13,353
26,705
0
9, 035
-
36, 130
45, 165

HD
5,516
9,743
_
3,125
18,384
0
1,386
-
2,079
3,465
0
3,325
~
3,903
7,228
0
1,411
-
2, 621
4,032
0
3, 810
™*
2,760
6,570
0
686
-
687
1,373
0
464
"
1,856
2,320

Diesel
2, 068
3, 654
_
1, 172
6,894
0
520
-
780
1,300
0
1. 247
""
1,464
2,711
0
529
-
983
1,512
0
1,429
"
1, 035
2,464
0
257
-
257
514
0
173

697
870

Area
(sq. mi.)




3.89




5.51




1.28




1.21




2.55




1.85




1.69
D-47

-------
District
21


22


23


24


25


26


27



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

36

28

45
36

28


36

28


36

28

45
36

36


36

36


36

36

VMT
LD
0
191, 345
-
103, 034
294,379
57,730
444,524
-
75, 050
577,304
0
131, 121
-
30,758
161, 879
0
83, 307
-
7,245
90,552
102,691
133,221
-
41,631
277,543
0
175, 688
""
23, 958
199,646
0
205, 507
-
10,816
216,323
HD
0
5, 161
_
2, 779
7, 940
1, 557
11, 990
-
2,024
15,571
0
3,537
-
830
4,367
0
2, 247
-
196
2,443
2,770
3, 593
-
1, 124
7,487
0
4, 739
~
646
5,385
0
5,543
-
292
5, 835
Diesel
0
1, 985
-
1, 069
3,054
599
4, 611
-
779
5, 989
0
1,361
-
319
1,680
0
864
-
75
939
1,065
1,382
-
431
2,878
0
1, 822
•"
248
2,070
0
2, 132
-
113
2,245
Area
(sq. mi.)




7. 17




24.78




3.07




3.89




9.19




12.20




71.50
D-48

-------
District
28


29


30


31


32


33


34


Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

36

36


36

36


36

36


36

36


36

36


36

36

36

36

VMT
LD
0
22,976
..
39, 122
62, 098
0
25,702
-
28,982
54, 684
0
232, 214
-
1, 182
239, 396
0
74, 870
_
26, 306
101. 176
0
390, 229
-
79,927
470, 156
0
75,936
„
8,438
84, 374
0
150, 171
-
24, 446
174, 617
HD
0
620
—
1,055
1,675
0
693
-
782
1,475
0
6, 263
-
194
6,457
0
2,019
_
710
2,729
0
10, 525
-
2, 156
12,681
0
2,048
-
228
2,276
0
4,050
-
659
4,709
Diesel
0
239
_
406
645
0
266
-
301
567
0
2,408
-
75
2,483
0
776
_
273
1,049
0
4,049
-
829
4,878
0
788
-
88
876
0
1, 558
-
254
1, 812
Area
(sq. mi.)




15.42




9.02




10. 34




5. 15




93. 15




6.77



10. 99
D-49

-------
District
35


36


37


38


39


40


41



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

36

36

45
36

36


36

36


36

36


36

36

45
36

36

54
36

36

VMT
LD
0
53,536
-
55,721
109,257
177, 890
55, 809
-
115, 104
348. 803
0
139, 240
_
41,591
180,831
0
139,328
-
39,297
178, 625
0
270,070
-
40, 355
310,425
36, 185
488, 480
_
78, 398
603, 063
49,701
94,076
-
33,727
177, 504
HD
0
1,444
-
1, 502
2,946
4,797
1,506
-
3, 104
9.407
0
3,755
_
1, 122
4,877
0
3,758
-
1,060
4,818
0
7,284
-
1,088
8, 372
976
13, 175
_
2, 115
16, 266
1, 341
2, 537
-
909
4,787
Diesel
0
556
-
578
1, 134
1,846
578
-
1, 194
3.618
0
1,445
_
431
1,876
0
1,445
-
407
1,852
0
2,801
-
419
3,220
376
5,068
_
814
6,258
516
976
-
350
1,842
Area
(sq. mi.)




4.79




12. 82




44.99




38. 72




11. 30




22. 87




19.58
D-50

-------
District
42


43

44


45


46


47

48


Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

36

36

54
36

36

54
36

30


36

30

54
36

30

54
36

30

36

30

VMT
LD
0
166,343
-
106,350
272,693
20,489
43,417
-
63,741
227,647
119,564
414,959
_
168,797
703, 320
0
147, 279
-
25,991
173,270
29, 108
328,503
-
58,217
415, 828
38,900
275,843
-
38.900
353,643
0
132,873
-
84,952
217,825
HD
0
4,487
_
2,868
7,355
553
3,369
-
1,719
6,141
3,225
11, 192
_.
4,553
18,970
0
3,972
-
701
4,673
785
8, 860
-
1,571
11,216
1,049
7,440
-
1,049
9,538
0
3,584
-
2,291
5,875
Diesel
0
1,726
_
1,103
2,829
212
1,488
-
662
2,362
1,241
4,304
-
1,751
7,296
0
1,527
-
270
1,797
302
3,408
-
605
4,315
404
2,861
-
404
3,669
0
1,379
-
881
2, 260
Area
(sq. mi.)




13.01



50.62




20,23




34. 44




20.51



58. 34



8.28
D-51

-------


District
49




50




51




52




53




54




55





Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL

Avg Speed
(mph)

36

30

54
36

30


36

30

56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

VMT


LD
0
62,764
-
57, 935
120, 699
195,057
585, 171
-
438,879
1,219, 107
0
92, 529
-
100, 240
192,769
21,719
185, 808
-
33,784
241, 311
39,719
536, 219
-
86,059
661,997
13,624
381,465
-
59,036
454, 125
70,652
326,769
-
44, 159
441,580

HD
0
1,693
-
1, 563
3, 256
5, 261
15,782
-
11, 837
32,880
0
2,495
-
2,704
5, 199
356
3,040
-
553
3,949
650
8,773
-
1,408
10,831
223
6,241
-
966
7,430
1, 156
5,346
_
722
7,224

Diesel
0
651
-
601
1,252
2,024
6,071
-
4,552
12,647
0
960
-
1,040
2,000
134
1, 140
-
207
1,481
243
3,291
-
528
4,062
84
2,340
-
362
2,786
434
2,005
_
271
2,710

Area
(sq. mi.)




11.38




25.78




13.64




25. 13




189. 39




339. 42




239.00
D-52

-------

District
56




57




58




59




60




61




62



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local :
TOTAL j
Aver Speed
(mph)

38

37


38

37


38

37

56
38

37


38

37

56
38

37

56
i
38

37 ;
I

LD
0
166,417
_
18,491
184,908
0
350,294
-
30,460
380,754
0
321,807
-
27,983
349,790
247,778
808,541
-
247,779
1,304,098
0
115,988
-
25,461
141,449
36, 542
133, 988
-
32, 481 |
203,011
58,708
654, 173
-
125, 804
838,685 j
VMT
HD
0
7,235
_
804
8,039
0
15, 230
_
1, 325
16, 555
0
13, 992
-
1,217
15,209
6,947
22,669
-
6,947
36,563
0
3,252
_
714
3,966
1,025
3,757

911
5,693
1, 646
18,341
-
3, 527
23,514

Diesel
0
2,824
_
314
3,138
0
5,944
_
516
6.460
0
5,460
—
475
5,935
2, 573
8,396
-
2,573
13,542
0
1,204
-
265
1,469
380
1, 392
-
337
2,109
610
6,794
-
1, 306
8,710

Area
(sq. mi.)




38. 23




251.77




375. 25




91.09




20. 50




17. 29



233. 97
D-53

-------
District
63


64


65

66


67


68


69



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38
37

56
38

37

56
38

37
VMT
LD
150,150
700,702
-
150, 150
1,001,002
434,465
267,362
-
133, 682
835, 509
194, 871
525,308
127, 091
-847, 270
21, 253
609, 250
-
77, 927
708, 430
188, 374
609, 973
-
98, 672
HD
4, 210
19,646
-
4, 210
28, 066
12, 181
7, 496
-
3, 748
23,425
4, 010
10,808
2, 615
17, 433
437
12, 536
-
1, 604
14, 577
3, 876
12,551
-
2, 030
897,019 18,457
56 42,779j 881
38

161, 610
-
37 33,272
3, 325
-
685
237,661 4,891
0 0
38 336, 996J
-
37 i 112,331
t
! 449, 327
- - f
14, 264
-
4, 755
19, 019
Diesel
1, 559
7, 276
-
1,559
10, 394
4,512
2, 777
-
1,388
8, 677
1,604
4,323
1,046
6, 973
175
5,014
-
641
5,830
1,550
5,021
-
812
7,383
352
1,330
-
274
1, 956
0
5, 350
-
1, 784
7, 134
Area
(sq. mi.)




513.30




173.83



62.34




344.91




431. 11




24.48




53.68
D-54

-------
District
70


71


72














Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
56
38

37


38

37


38

37




















VMT
LD
39,828
386, 901
_
142,243
568, 972
0
393,449
-
69,433
462, 882
0
134,471
-
23,729
158,200
















TOTAL
LD
22,952,734
HD
1, 685
16, 377
_
6, 021
24, 083
0
16, 654
-
2, 939
19, 593
0
5, 693
-
1,004
6, 697
















TOTAL
HD
695,964
Diesel
632
6, 142
_
2,258
9,032
0
6, 245
-
1, 102
7,347
0
2, 135
-
377
2,512
















TOTAL
DIESEL
264,718
Area
(sq. mi.)




46. 99




243.21




94.61















V Ml
Total for
All Vehicle
Types
3,923,416
D-55

-------
      Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
Metropolitan Area.	Pittsburgh	
         Year.
1977
      Time Period.
                      2 4-Hour
District
1


2


3


4


5


6



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
39
19

17

39
19

17

39
19

17


19

17


19

17

39
19

17

VMT
LD
76,627
58,598
-
315, 525
450,750
67,382
81,421
-
131,958
280,761
76,909
89,052
_
238,820
404,781
0
26,944
-
22,953
49, 897
0
52,071
-
78, 108
130, 179
84, 144
67,315
-
269,261
420, 720
HD
3,938
3,011
-
16, 215
23, 164
3,463
4, 184
-
6,781
14,428
3, 953
4,576
_
12,274
20,803
0
1,385
-
1, 179
2,564
0
2,676
-
4,014
6,689
4, 324
• 3,459
-
13, 838
21,621
Diesel
1,476
1, 129
-
6,082
8,687
1,298
1, 569
-
2,543
5,410
1,482
1,716
_
4,603
7,801
0
520
-
442
962
0
1,003
-
1,505
2,508
1,621
1,297
-
5, 190
8, 108
Area
(sq. mi.)




1.26




2.07




3.85




2.89




5.82




4.23
                  D-56

-------

District
7




8




9




10




11




12




13





Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL

Avg Speed
(mph)

19

17


19

17


19

17


22

18


22

18


22

18


22

18

VMT

LD
0
93,232
-
101,002
194,234
0
5,959
-
36, 607
42,566
0
152,220
-
85,625
237, 845
0
68,779
-
80,741
149, 520
0
33, 509
-
42, 648
76, 157
0
43, 668
-
38,726
82, 394
0
12,371
-
56,354
68,725
HD
0
4,792
-
5, 190
9,982
0
307
-
1, 881
2, 188
0
7,823
-
4,400
12,223
0
3,535
-
4,150
7,685
0
1,722
-
2, 191
3,913
0
2,244
-
1,990
4,234
0
635
-
2,896
3,531
Diesel
0
1,797
-
1,947
3,744
0
115
-
706
821
0
2,933
-
1,650
4,583
0
1,325
-
1,556
2.881
0
646
-
822
1,468
0
842
-
746
1,588
0
238
-
1,087
1,325

Area
(sq. mi.)




4.54




1.96




2.55




6.99




1.52




3.06




2.27
D-57

-------
District
14


15


16


17


18


19


20



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
39
22

18


22

18


22

18


22

18


22

18

:
22

18

l
22

18

VMT
LD
143,083
252,780
-
81,079
476,942
0
35,961
-
53,943
89,904
0
86, 260
-
101, 260
187, 520
0
36, 604
_
67, 981
104, 585
0
98, 858
-
71, 588
170, 446
0
17, 803
-
17,804
35, 607
0
12,046
_
48, 173
60,219
HD
7, 354
12,991
-
4, 167
24,512
0
1,848
-
2.772
4,620
0
4,433
-
5, 204
9,637
0
1, 881
_
3,495
5, 376
0
5,080
-
3,680
8, 760
0
915
-
916
1, 831
0
619
~
2,475
3, 094
Diesel
2,757
4,872
-
1, 563
9, 192
0
693
-
1.040
1,733
0
1,662
-
1,952
3,614
0
705
_
1, 310
2,015
0
1,905
-
1,380
3,285
0
343
-
343
686
0
231
—
929
1, 160
Area
(sq. mi.)




3.89




5.51




1.28




1. 21




2.55




1. 85




1.69
D-58

-------
District
21


22


23


24


25


26


27


Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
-\rterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

36

28

45
36

28


36

28


36

28

45
36

36


36

36


36
36
L
VMT
LD
0
255, 127
-
137,378
392, 505^
76,973
592,698
-
100.067
769,738
0
174,828
-
41,010
215,838
0
111,076
-
9,660
120,736
136,921
177,628
-
55,508
370,057
0
234,251
-
31,944
266, 195
0
274,009
14,421
288,430
HD
0
6,881
-
3,705
10, 586
2,076
15,986
-
2,699
20,761
0
4,716
_
1, 106
5,822
0
2,996
-
261
3,257
3,693
4,791
-
1,498
9,982
0
6,318
_
861
7, 179
0
7, 390
389
7,779
Diesel
0
2,646
-
1,425
4,071
798
6, 148
-
1,039
7,985
0
1,814
-
425
2,239
0
1, 152
-
100
1,252
1,420
1,843
-
575
3,838
r o
2,430
-
331
2,761
0
2,843
150
2,993
Area
(sq. mi. )




7. 17




24. 78




3.07




3.89




9. 19




12.20



71. 50
D-59

-------
District
28


29


30

31


32

33


34



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

36

36


36

36


36
36


36

36

36

36


36

36


36

36

VMT
LD
0
30,634
-
52, 162
82,796
0
34,269
-
38, 642
72,911
0
309, 619
9,576
319, 195
0
99,827
-
35,074
134,901
0 i
520, 305
_
106,569
626, 874
0
101,248
-
11,250
112,498
0
200,228
_
32,595
232,823
HD
0
826
-
1,407
2,233
0
924
-
1,042
1,966
0
8,351
258
8,609
0
2,692
-
946
3,638
0
14, 033
_
2,874
16,907
0
2,730
-
304
3,034
0
5,400
-
879
6,279
Diesel
0
318
-
541
859
0
355
-
401
756
0
3,211
100
3,311
0
1,035
-
364
1,399
0
5,398
-
1, 105
6,503
0
1,050
-
117
1. 167
0
2,077
_
338
2,415
Area
(sq. mi.)




15.42




9. 02



10.34




5.15



93.15




6.77




10.99
D-60

-------


District
35




36




37




38





39





40




41





Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector

Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector

Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL

AVB Speed
(mph)

36

36

45
36

36


36

36


36

i
36
i
,
•
36


36

45
36

36 __j.
f
54 {
36
t
i
36
1


LD
0
71,381
-
74,294
145, 675
237, 186
74,412
_
153,472
465,070
0
185,653
—
55,455
241, 108
0
185,770


52, 396
238, 166
0
360,093
i

53, 807
413,900
48, 246
651,306
-
104,531
804, 083
66, 268
125,435
-
44, 969 (
236, 672
VMT

HD
0
1,925
_
2,003
3,928
6,396
2,008
_
4,139
12, 543
0
5,007
-
1,496
6, 503
0
5,010
_

1,413
6,423
0
9,712
-

1,451
11, 163
1,301
17,566
-
2, 820
21, 687
1,788 |
3, 383
-
1,212
6, 383


Diesel
0
741
_
771
1,512
2,461
771
_
1,592
4,824
0
1,926
-
575
2,501
0
1,927
_

543
2,470
0
3,735
-

558
4,293
501
6,757
-
1,085
8,343
688
1, 301
-
467
2,456

A
(sq. mi.)




4. 79




12.82




44.99





38.72





11.30




22.87




19.58
D-61

-------
District
42


43


44


45


46


47


48



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

36

36

54
36

36

54
36

30


36

30

54
36

30

54
36

:30


36

30

VMT
LD
0
221,790
-
141, 800
363,590
27, 318
191,222
-
84, 988
303, 528
159,419
553,278
-
225,062
937,759
0
196, 372
-
34,654
231,026
38,811
438,004
-
77,622
554,437
51,867
367,791
-
51, 867
471, 525
0
177, 164
-
113, 269
290,433
HD
0
5,982
-
3,824
9,806
737
5, 158
-
2,292
8, 187
4, 300
14, 922
_
6, 070
25,292
0
5, 296
-
934
6,230
1,046
11,813
-
2,094
14,953
1, 399
9,920
-
1, 399
12,718
0
4,778
-
3,055
7, 833
Diesel
0
2,301
-
1,471
3,772
283
1,984
-
882
3, 149
1,654
5,739
_
2, 335
9,728
0
2,036
_
360
2,396
403
4, 544
-
806
5,753
538
3,815
_
538
4,891
0
1,838
-
1, 175
3,013
Area
(aq. mi.) •




13.01




50.62




20.23




34.44




20.51




58. 34




8. 28
D-62

-------
District
49


50


51


52


53


54


55



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

36

30

54
36

30


36

30

56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

VMT
LD
0
83,685
-
77, 247
160,932
260,076
780,228
_
585, 172
1,625,476
0
123, 372
_
133,653
257,025
28,958
247, 744
-
45,045
321,747
52, 959
714,958
•"
114,745
882,662
18, 165
508,620
-
78,714
605,499
94,203
435,692
-
58, 878
588,773
HD
0
2, 257
-
2,084
4,341
7, 015
21, 042
_
15,783
43, 840
0
3, 327
_
3,605
6,932
474
4,053
_
737
5,264
866
11,697
•
1,877
14, 440
297
8, 321
-
1,288
9,906
1,541
1, 128
-
963
9,632
Diesel
0
868
-
801
1,669
2, 698
8,094
_
6,070
16,862
0
1,280
_
1, 386
2,666
178
1,520
-
276
1,974
324
4,388
™
704
5,416
112
3,120
-
483
3,715
578
2,673
-
361
3,612
Area
(gq. mi.)




11.38




25, 78




13.64




25. 13




189. 39




339.42




239.00
D-63

-------
District
56


57


58


59


60


61


62



Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)

38

37


38

37


38

37

56
38

37


38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

VMT
LD
0
221,889
-
24, 654
246, 543
0
467, 059
-
40,613
507, 672
0
429,076
-
37,311
466, 387
330,371
1,078,054
_
330, 372
1,738,797
0
154,651
-
33,948
188, 599
48,723
178,650
-
43,308
270,681
78,277
872,231
-
167,738
1,118,246
HD
0
9,647
-
1,072
10,719
0
20, 307
-
1,766
22,073
0
18, 656
-
1,623
20, 279
9,263
30, 225
_
9,263
48,751
0
4, 336
-
952
5,288
1, 367
5,009
-
1,214
7,590
2, 195
24, 455
-
4,703
31,353
Diesel
0
3,765
-
418
4,183
0
7,925
_
688
8,613
0
7,280
-
633
7,913
3,431
11, 195
_
3,430
18,056
0
1,605
-
353
1,958
506
1,856
-
449
2,811
813
9,058
-
1,741
11,612
Area
(sq. mi.)




38.23




251. 77




375.25




91.09




20.50




17.29




233.97
D-64

-------
District
63


64


65


66


67


68


69


Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

56
38

37

38

37

VMT
LD
200, 200
934, 269
-
200, 200
1,334,669
579, 287
356,483
_
178, 242
1,114,012
259,828
700,410
-
169, 454
1,129,692
28, 337
812,333
-
103, 903
944,573
251, 165
813,297
-
131,563
1,196,025
57,038
215, 480
-
44, 363
316,881
0
449, 328
_
149,774
599, 102
HD
5,613
26, 194
-
5,613
37,420
16,241
9,995
—
4,997
31,233
5,346
14,411
-
3,486
23, 243
583
16,714
-
2, 138
19,435
5, 167
16,734
-
2,707
24, 608
1, 174
4,433
-
913
6, 520
0
19,019
-
6,340
25, 359
Diesel
2,078
9,701
-
2,078
13,857
6,016
3,702
_
1,851
11,569
2, 138
5,764
-
1, 394
9,296
233
6,685
-
855
7,773
2,067
6, 694
-
1,082
9,843
469
1,773
-
365
2,607
0
7, 133
-
2,378
9,511
Area
(sq. mi.)




513.30




173.83




62. 34




344.91




431.11




24.48



53. 68
D-65

-------
District
70


71


72













Facility
Type
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Freeway
Arterial
Collector
Local
TOTAL
Avg Speed
(mph)
56
38

37


38

37


38

37



















VMT
LD
53, 104
515,868
-
189,657
758, 629
0
524, 599
-
92, 577
617, 176
0
179,295
-
31,638
210,933















TOTAL

0,616,952
HD
2,247
21, 836
-
8,028
32, 111
0
22,205
-
3,919
26, 124
0
7, 590
-
1, 339
8, 929















TOTAL

927.926
Diesel
842
8, 189
-
3,011
12,042
0
8,327
-
1,469
9,796
0
2,847
-
502
3, 349















TOTAL

352. 924
Area
(sq. mi.)




46. 99




243.21




94.61















VMT
otal for
All Vehicle
Types
1,897.802
D-f

-------
  APPENDIX E





VMT ALGORITHM

-------
                             APPENDIX E

There were five important inputs.  They are:  (1) 1967 VMT, (2) 2000
VMT,  (3) 1967 population and employment, (4) 1980 population and
employment, and (5) 2000 population and employment.  All of these inputs
were given by SPRPC zones (968).  These inputs were then aggregated
into 72 districts by AMV.

The first method used to project VMT by district for 1972 and 1977 was
based on VMT increases by county (7) from 1967 to 2000.  This VMT
increase was then apportioned out to  all districts in the county based on
relative  population and employment growths* in each district.  That is,
                                     PE   -  PE
            .VMT72 =  AVMT^   i   72   i   67
where:
                                     jAPlS-67
            .VMT   = 1972 VMT for district  i
.
j
                    = VMT growth for county j between 1967 and 1972
              72-67
     .PE    - .PE   = district i  population plus employment growth
     i  72  i   67   between 1967 and 1972
        ,APE     7 = county j population plus employment growth
        J    72-67   between 1967 and 1972
*The district population and employment growths were first represented
 by a weighted factor equal to:
           Population + 2 (Manufacturing Employment)
                      + 2.5 (Non-Manufacturing Employment)
                      -I- 0. 1 (Total Employment)
 This factor was found unsatisfactory as VMT growth factors due to its
 greater weighting of population in districts with few manufacturing
 employees.  The population-employment factor for each district finally
 used was the sum of population and employment.  This factor is a
 measure of the activity of the district.
                                 E-l

-------
The individual district's  PE    was linearly interpolated between 1967
                            ( £t
and 1980.  A similar procedure was followed for 1977 VMT estimates.

It was found that those districts which were projected to experience heavy
growths in population and employment might be unfairly receiving too
large a portion of the county's increase in VMT.

Many districts which had relatively small 1967 PE totals had the greatest
increases in PE totals from 1967  to 1972.  These districts were therefore
allocated a large portion  of the county's VMT growth.  This would be
reasonable if most of the VMT growth for the district was generated
by trips ending or beginning in the district.

It appears reasonable to assume that this method would be feasible in
areas where population and employment changes are the prime indicators
of travel activity in the districts,  and where the transportation facilities
in each district are similar.  In particular,  transit usage and the ratio of
freeway VMT to total VMT should be similar for all districts in the county.
Another formidable obstacle can also  occur  if a number of districts in an
area decrease  in population and employment.  In this case, the equation
cannot be used.

The results of  allocating county VMT  growth to districts by using the
ratio of a district's 1972 population-employment factor to the county's
1972 population-employment factor was found to be inadequate at the
district level.  The lack of sensitivity for districts with high transportation
growth and low population-employment growth was again prevalent.  This
method  did,  however,  eliminate the problem of decreasing population-
employment totals.
                                  E-2

-------
        APPENDIX F





RESULTS OF RETROFIT METHODOLOGY

-------
                               TABLE  F-l

                     SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
                     Weighted Light Duty Annual Travel
Year
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
Average
Miles
Driven (D) *
3,600
11, 900
16, 100
13,200
11,400
11,700
10, 000
10, 300
8,600
10, 900
8,000
6,500
6,500
6,500
Fraction of
Total Vehicles
in Use (V) +
8.0
12.7
12.0
11.8
10.2
11.3
10.6
8.1
6.0
3.9
1.7
1.2
.5
.2
98.2
VxD
28,800
151,130
193,200
155,760
116,280
132,210
106,000
83,430
51,600
142,510
13,600
7,800
3,250
1,300
1,186,870
M *
2.65
13.91
17.78
14.33
10.70
12. 16
9.75
7.68
4.75
3.91
1.25
.72
.30
.12
100.01
*  E. P. A.  National Averages
+  R. L. Polk,  1971  (see Table   13)
+  ...       VxD
*  M =   2  VxD
                                   F-l

-------
                         TABLE  F-2

                SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

                Gas Powered Light Duty Vehicles
                                    1977 Average Emission Reduction
                                               for the Area
  Pre-Controlled Vehicles              HC         CO        NOX


Lean Idle Air/Fuel Ratio              0.60%       0.22%     0.53%
Adjustment and Vacuum Spark
Advance Disconnect

Oxidizing Catalytic Converter
and Vacuum Spark Advance             1.63%       1. 51%     1. 15%
Disconnect

Air Bleed to Intake Manifold            0.50%       1.39%     0%

Exhaust Gas Recirculation and          Q           Q<
Vacuum Spark Advance Disconnect
      Controlled Vehicles
Oxidizing Catlytic Converter
and Vacuum Spark Advance             32.8%       32.8%       0%
Disconnect

Exhaust Gas Recirculation and
Vacuum Spark Advance Disconnect       0%          0%        15.5
     Source: E.P. A.
             Table F-l
                                F-2

-------
               APPENDIX G




           DETAILED RANKINGS




                 OF THE




NON-ECONOMIC IMPACT FOR EACH CONTROL STRATEGY

-------
        TABLE  6-1.
                      RATING OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
                         SOCIAL CRITERIA

Strategy
Reduce Emission Rate
Traffic Flow Improvements
Upgrade Existing Streets
Loading Zone
Metering
Information Systems
Source Control
Retrofit
Inspection
Fuel Conversion
Reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel
Reduce Travel Demand
Four Day Week
Increase Transit Use
Short Term Transit Impv.
Transit Fares
Tolls
Parking Taxes and Charges
Parking Restrictions
Vehicle-Free Zone
Reserved Bus Lanes
Increase Fuel Tax
Increase Occupancy
Car Pools
Tolls
Metering
Vehicle -Free Zones
Parking Taxes and Charges
Shift Travel Patterns
Staggered Hours
Fringe Parking
Night Goods Deliveries
Government Offices
Zoning

^^_VI_BMIWWH
Rating*


5
4
4
2
2
3

5
5
5
3
4
4
2
4
4
4
**
**
**
**
3
3
3
2
2

Comments


Generally acceptable
No obvious conflict with goals
Mixed impact
May be regressive
May be regressive
Impact uncertain

No apparent negative impacts
Conforms to community goals
Conforms to community goals
Impact mixed
Some aspects adopted
Some aspects adopted
Tends to conflict with goals
Beneficial if justified economically
User cost
No obvious negative impacts
Indifferent
Indifferent
Indifferent
Contrary to stated goals
Contrary to stated goals
*  Criteria defined in Table G-2
** Strategy rated previously in this table

                                   6-1

-------
               TABLE G-2. SOCIAL CRITERIA
Rating
                  Criteria
 5.0
 4,0
 3.0
 2.0
 1.0
In conformance with expressed or implied commu-
nity goals.  No obvious negative social impact.
Similar program, implemented without  obvious nega-
tive social impact.

Tending to be in conformance with expressed or
implied community  goals.  Minor negative impacts
outweighed by positive impacts.

Indifferent with respect to expressed or implied
community goals.  Social impact undetermined or
apparently evenly mixed.  Implemented elsewhere
without net negative social impact.

Tending to be contrary to expressed or implied
community goals.  Negative social impact slightly
in excess  of positive social impact.

Obviously contrary to expressed or implied commu-
nity goals.  Negative social impact outweigh posi-
tive social impact.  Implemented elsewhere with
obvious net negative social impact.
                            G-2

-------
       TABLE G-3.
 RATING OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA
Strategy
Reduce Emission Rate ~
Traffic Flow Improvements
Upgrade Existing Streets
Loading Zone
Metering
Information Systems
Source Control
Retrofit
Inspection
Fuel Conversion
Reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel
Reduce Travel Demand
Four Day Week
Increase Transit Use
Short Term Transit Impv.
Transit Fares
Tolls
Parking Taxes and Charges
Parking Restrictions
Vehicle-Free Zone
Reserved Bus Lanes
Increase Fuel Tax
Increase Occupancy
Car Pools
Tolls
Metering
Vehicle-Free Zones
Parking Taxes and Charges
Shift Travel Patterns
Staggered Hours
Fringe Parking
Night Goods Deliveries
Government Offices
Zoning
i^— ^^—- •»«^_
Rating*
4
2
I
2
2
3
2
5
3
3
1
4
3
1
1
5
4
**
#*
#*
**
4
3
4
4
3
Comments
•
* Criteria defined in Table G-4
*# Strategy rated previously in this table
                                 G-3

-------
         TABLE G-4.  ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA
Rating
                  Criteria
  5.0
 4.0
 3.0
 2.0
 1.0
Program currently in existence.  Similar program
currently in existence.  No additional agency,
manpower or procedures necessary for implemen-
tation.

Similar program implemented elsewhere.  No
additional agency or manpower required.  Minor
additional procedures required for implementation.

Adaptation of programs existing in area or else-
where.  Minor additions to existing agencies.
Minor manpower and procedural requirements.

Similar program not existing in area or elsewhere.
Significant additions to existing agency or minor
new agency required.  Significant manpower and
procedural difficulties in implementation of program.

Similar program not existing in area or elsewhere.
Major new agency or administrative jurisdiction
required.  Major manpower  and procedural diffi-
culties in implementation.
                           G-4

-------
        TABLE  G-5.
                       RATING OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
                          LEGAL CRITERIA
          Strategy

 Reduce Emission Rate
Rating*
        Comments
    Traffic Flow Improvements
       Upgrade Existing Streets
       Loading Zone
       Metering
       Information Systems
    Source Control
       Retrofit
       Inspection
       Fuel Conversion

 Reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel
    Reduce Travel Demand
       Four Day Week
    Increase Transit Use
       Short Term Transit Impv.
       Transit Fares
       Tolls
       Parking Taxes and Charges
       Parking Restrictions
       Vehicle-Free Zone
       Reserved Bus Lanes
       Increase Fuel Tax
    Increase Occupancy
       Car Pools
       Tolls
       Metering
       Vehicle-Free Zones
       Parking Taxes and Charges

 Shift Travel Patterns
       Staggered  Hours
       Fringe Parking
       Night Goods Deliveries
       Government Offices
       Zoning
  5
  5
  2
  4

  1
  1
  1
  5
  2
  1
  5
  4
  3
  3
  3
 **
 **
 1
 5
 2
 3
 3
 Presently performed
 Possible under present arrangements
 No agency authorized currently
 Could be added to existing agency

 Major legislative action
 Major legislative, implementation
 Major legislative action
Doubtful as mandatory measure

Also depends on injunction
Subsidy challenge likely
Various challenges probable
Charges presently controlled
Attainable with existing agencies
Precedents mixed
Implementation troublesome
Can be done at local level

Doubtful as mandatory measure
Doubtful  as mandatory measure
Requires other action (rates, etc. )
Questionable as mandatory measure
Local action sufficient
Local action sufficient
*  Criteria defined in Table G-6.
** Strategy rated previously in this table
                                  G-5

-------
              TABLE  G-6.  LEGAL CRITERIA
Rating
                   Criteria
 5.0
 4.0
 3.0
 2.0
 1.0
No legislative enactment at any level required.
Existing jurisdiction sufficient for enforcement.
Legality of measure assured, due to similar
measures currently in operation  in area or else-
where.

Some expansion of existing legislation required.
Minor expansion of existing jurisdiction necessary
for enforcement.  Legality assured due to the
establishment of similar measures elsewhere.

Local legislative, enactment necessary.  Enforce-
ment requiring additional responsibility by existing
jurisdictions.   Legality not assured,  due  to lack
of precedents or mixed precedents.

Regional legislation required.  Enforcement
requiring new responsibilities by existing juris-
dictions.  Legality not assured, due to lack of
precedents and succesful challenge of precedents.

Statewide legislation required.  New enforcement
agencies or major expansion of existing enforce-
ment jurisdictions required.  Legality doubtful
due to successful challenge of similar measures
in area or elsewhere.
                           G-6

-------
             TABLE  G-7. RATING OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
                           TECHNICAL RATING
Strategy

Traffic Flow Improvements
Upgrade Existing Streets
Loading Zone
Metering
Information Systems
Source Control
Retrofit
Inspection
Fuel Conversion
Reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel
Reduce Travel Demand
Four Day Week
Increase Transit Use
Short Term Transit Impv.
Transit Fares
Tolls
Parking Taxes and Charges
Parking Restrictions
Vehicle -Free Zone
Reserved Bus Lanes
Increase Fuel Tax
Increase Occupancy
Car Pools
Tolls
Metering
Vehicle-Free Zones
Parking Taxes and Charges
Shift Travel Patterns
Staggered Hours
Fringe Parking
Night Goods Deliveries
Government Offices
Zoning
^^^^ <^_— .__ ^
Rating*
5
5
3
2
2
3
2
5
5
6
5
5
5
2
3
5
4
**
**
**
**
4
4
3
4
4
Comments

*  Criteria defined in Table  G-8.

** Strategy rated previously  in this table

                                    G-7

-------
            TABLE G-8.  TECHNICAL CRITERIA
Rating
                  Criteria
  5.0
  4.0
  3.0
 2.0
 1.0
No technical innovation required.  Technology
existing and in wide use.  No further technical
development required.

No significant technical innovation required.
Technology existing and in growth stages.
Technology somewhat beyond pilot applications.
Minor additional development and expansion of
existing technology required.

Technology developed; no major innovation required.
Pilot applications existing.  Some expansion and
development necessary and currently under way.
Technology not in wide use.

Further technical innovation necessary.  State
of the art projects now at pilot stage.  Significant
development and expansion required.  Technology
not in actual use.

Technical capability not yet developed or in use.
Probability of successful development not assured.
                            G-8

-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
                    1* Report No.
                                                                    3. Recipient's Accession No.
               Transportation Controls  to Reduce Motor  Vehicle
               Emissions  in  Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania.
                                                                    S. Report Date
                                                                      December 1972
  Authoi(s)
                                                                    8- Performing Organization Kept.
                                                                      No.
  Performing Organization Name and Address
               GCA Corporation
               GCA Technology Division
               Bedford,  Massachusetts
                                                                    10. Project/Task/Wort Unit No.

                                                                      DU-72-B895
                                                                    11. Contract/Grant No.
                                                                      68-02-0041
 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address

               Environmental Protection Agency
               Office  of Air Quality  Planning and Standards
               Research  Triangle Park,  N.C.  27711
                                                                    13. Type of Rep
                                                                               12/T5/72
                                                                    14.
is. supplementary Noces  Prepared to assist  in the development  of transportation control  plans
  by those State Governments demonstrating that National  Ambient Air Quality  Standards
  cannot  be attained  by implementing  emission standards  for stationary sources  only.
16. Abstracts
  The  document demonstrates the nature of the Air Quality problem attributed  to motor
  vehicle operation,  the magnitude  of the problem and  a  strategy developed to neutralize
  these  effects in  order that National Ambient air quality standard may be attained and
  maintained.
 17. Key Words and Document Analysis.  17o. Descriptors

  Motor Vehicle emitted pollutants  -  air pollutants  originating within a motor vehicle
                                        and released to the  atmosphere.

  National  Ambient  Air Quality Standards - Air Quality  Standards promulgated  by the
                                              Environmental  Protection Agency  and pub-
                                              lished as a  Federal Regulation in  the
                                              Federal Register.
 17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms

  VMT  -  Vehicle Miles  Traveled                         .
  Vehicle Mix - distribution of motor vehicle population  by age group.
  LDV  -  light duty vehicle - less  than 6500 Ibs.
  HDV  -  heavy duty vehicle - greater than 6500 Ibs.
i7e. COSATI Field/Group
                       Environmental  Quality Control  of Motor Vehicle Pollutants
 18. Availability Statement

  For  release to public
                                                           Report)
                                                              UNCLASSIFIED
                                                         20. Security Class (Thi;
                                                           Page
                                                              UNCLASSIFIED^
      all
22. Price
FORM NTIS-3» (HEW. 3-7ZI

-------
    INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM  NTIS-35 (10-70)  (Bibliographic Data Sheet based on COSATI
   Guidelines to Format Standards for Scientific and Technical Reports Prepared by or for the Federal Government,
   PB-180 600).

    1.  Report Dumber. 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'* Accession Number.  Reserved for use by each report recipient.

   4  Title and Subtitle. Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report,  and be displayed promi-
       nently.  Set subtitle, if used, in smaller type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report  is prepared in more
       than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and include subtitle for the specific volume.

   5.  Report Dote. Kach report shall carry a date indicating at  least  month and year.  Indicate the basis on which  it was selected
       (e.g., date of issue, date of approval, date of preparation.


   6.  Performing Organization Code.  Leave blank.

   7.  Author(*)'  Give name(s) in conventional order (e.g.,  John R. Doe, 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 organizational hierarchy.  Display the name of the organization exactly as  it  should appear in Government indexes such
       as  USGRDR-I.

  10.  Projeet/Task/Work Unit Number.  Use the project, task and work unit numbers under  which the report was prepared.

  11.  Contract/Grant Number.  Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.

  12.  Sponsoring Agency Nome ond Address. Include zip code.

  13.  Type of Report and Period  Covered.  Indicate interim, final, etc., and, if applicable,  dates covered.

  14.  Sponsoring Agency Code.  Leave blank.

  15.  Supplementary Notes.  Enter  information not  included elsewhere  but  useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with .  . .
       Translation of ...  Presented at conference of ...  To be published in ...   Supersedes . . .       Supplements

  16.  Abstroct.   Include a  brief (200 words or less)  factual summary of  the  most significant information contained in the report.
       If the report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey,  mention it here.

  17,  Key Words and Document Analysis,  (a).  Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the
       proper authorized tetms 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).  COSATI  Field/Group.  Field and Group assignments are  to be taken from  the 1965 COSATI  Subject Category  List.
       Since the majority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the primary Field/Group assignmem(s)  will be the specific
      discipline, area of human endeavor, or type of physical object.  The  application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary
       Field/Group assignments that will follow the primary posting(s).

  18.  Distribution Statement.  Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons  other than security for  example  "Re-
       lease unlimited". Cite any availability to the public, with address and price.

  19 & 20.  Security Classification.  Do not submit classified reports to the National Technical

  21.  Number of Pages.  Insert the total number of pages,  including this one and unnumbered pages, but excluding distribution
       list, if any.

  22.  Price. Insert the ptice set by the National Technical Information  Service or the Government Printing Office, if known
FORM NTIS-3* IREV. 3-72)
                                           r*-' Of
                                EPA  L[::r,:;y
                              RTPNC   2/711
                           USC OMM- D C I40T12-P~
' U. S. EOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1S73—7«768/«,5S

-------