COMPILATION OF THREE DIMENSIONAL
CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Contract No. 68-02-3509
Work Assignment No. 27

Prepared for

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Ga. 30365

March 1983
9227.00/84

Submitted by

Engineering-Science
10521 Rosehaven Street
Fairfax, Virginia 22030

-------
COMPILATION OF THREE DIMENSIONAL
CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Contract No. 68-02-3509
Work Assignment No. 27

Prepared for

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Ga. 30365

March 1983
9227.00/84

LIBRARY

us EPA Region 4

AFC/9th FL Tower
61 Forsyth St. S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104

Submitted by

Engineering-Science
10521 Rosehaven Street
Fairfax, Virginia 22030

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1	INTRODUCTION	1-1

Background	1-1

Summary of Prior Work	1-1

Purpose of This Study	1-2

Report Organization	1-3

CHAPTER 2	SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS	2-1

CHAPTER 3	METHODOLOGY	3-1

Traffic Data	3-1

Meteorological Data	3-2

Receptor Data	3-2

Background Concentration	3-2
Adjustment for Vehicles Not Subject to I&M
and Adjustment for I&M Applied to Heavy

Duty Gasoline Trucks	3-3

Calculation of Total CO Concentrations	3-3
Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Plots

of CO Concentrations	3-3

CHAPTER 4	RESULTS	4-1

Task 1a. Model Comparison	4-1

Task 1b. 1982 Air Quality	4-1
Task 1c. 1987 Air Quality with Growth But

No I&M and TCMs	4-1
Task 2. 1987 Air Quality with Growth And

I&M But No TCMs	4-1
Task 3. 1987 Air Quality with Growth And

TCMs But No I&M	4-5
Task 4. 1987 Air Quality with Growth,

TCMs and I&M	4-5
Task 5. 1982, 1987 And 1995 Air Quality with

Relaxed Auto Emission Standard	4-5
Task 6. Three-Dimensional Plots of CO

Concentrations	4-5
Task 7. Two-Dimensional Plot for College

Street Corridor	4-5

ii

-------
ATTACHMENT I
ATTACHMENT II
ATTACHMENT III
ATTACHMENT IV
ATTACHMENT V

MODEL COMPARISON
1982 TRAFFIC DATA
1987 TRAFFIC DATA WITHOUT TCMs
1987 TRAFFIC DATA WITH TCMs
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FOR TASK 2

iii

-------
LIST OF TABLES

2.1	1982 and 1987 Air Quality (Tasks 1b thru 4)	2-2

4.1	Task 1b. 1982 Air Quality	4-2

4.2	Task 1b. 1987 Air Quality with Growth But

No TCMs and No I&M	4-3

4.3	Task 2. 1987 Air Quality with Growth and

I&M But No TCMs	4-4

4.4	Task 3. 1987 Air Quality with TCMs and

Growth But No I&M	4-6

4.5	Task 4. 1987 Air Quality with TCMs, Growth

and I&M	4-7

4.6	Task 5. Effect of Leuken Bill	4-8

LIST OF FIGURES

4.1	Central/Sharon Amity (87, I&M, TCM & GROWTH)

(3-D Plot Looking from Southwest Direction)	4-9

4.2	Central/Sharon Amity (87, I&M, TCM & GROWTH)

(3-D Plot Looking from Southeast Direction)	4-10

4.3	Albemarle/Sharon Amity (87, I&M, TCM, GROWTH)

(3-D Plot looking from Southeast Direction)	4-11

4.4	Albemarle/Sharon Amity (87, I&M, TCM, GROWTH)

(3-D Plot Looking from Northeast Direction)	4-12

4.5	CO Concentration for College Street Corridor

(1987, I&M, GROWTH)	4-13

IV

-------
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, has been designated as a
nonattainment area for carbon monoxide (CO). This designation was made
because measured concentrations of CO exceeded the air quality standards.
For areas designated as nonattainment, the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments
of 1977 require that the States revise their State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) to attain the air quality standards as expeditiously as possible.
The 1979 SIP revision submitted by North Carolina stated that Mecklenburg
County would not attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for CO by 1982. Subsequently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
granted an extension until 1987 for attaining the CO standards in Mecklen-
burg County. The Act requires that when an extension is granted, an air
quality analysis be performed and a strategy developed to bring the area
into compliance with the NAAQS by the end of 1987.

SUMMARY OF PRIOR WORK

The 1979 SIP revision submitted by North Carolina predicted attainment
of the CO standards by 1987. This prediction was based on the inclusion
of air quality benefits to be derived from a proposed automobile Inspection
and Maintenance (I&M) program. The need and air quality benefits of the
I&M program were based on an analysis performed in mid-1978. Since the
air quality analysis was performed several years ago under a compressed
time schedule, it was considered necessary to revise the analysis using
up-to-date information and refined modeling techniques.

As a part of this effort, Engineering-Science under contract to the
USEPA analyzed the CO problem in Mecklenburg County. Since CO problems
in urban areas are related to localized traffic situations, the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) identified twenty-nine
(29) potential hot spots on the basis of street configuration and traffic
congestion for further study. Using an air quality simulation model, ES
computed the maximum expected OO concentrations in the vicinity of each
of these intersections. The results of the analysis indicated that the

1-1

-------
following four of these twenty-nine intersections would not attain the
CO standard by 1987 even if the proposed I&M program was implemented:

Central Avenue and Sharon Amity Road
Albermarle Road and Sharon Amity Road
Independence Boulevard and Sharon Amity Road
Independence Boulevard and Idlewild Road

In a subsequent study, the consulting firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell
and Co. (PMM) considered the implementation of Transportation Control
Measures (TCMs) for further reduction of CO concentrations at these four
intersections. The PMM study considered several sets of TCMs and evaluated
their impact on traffic movements at these intersections.

PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY

The main purpose of this study is to perform a detailed air quality
analysis of these hot spots and determine the extent of the CO problem at
these intersections. Earlier studies had analyzed only one receptor at
each of these intersections; in this study, a large number of receptors
for each intersection is to be modeled in order to make a graphical
presentation of the extent of the CO problem. Another purpose of this
study is to determine 1987 CO concentrations under several transportation
scenarios including I&M only, TCMs only, I&M and TCMs, effects of Leuken
Bill, etc. A part of this study also concerns the comparison of the
air dispersion model to be used. Various tasks to be performed in this
study are outlined below:

1a.	Model Calibration

1b.	1982 Air Quality

1c.	1987 Air Quality with traffic growth only

2.	1987 Air Quality with growth and I&M but no TCMs

3.	1987 Air Quality with growth and TCMs but no I&M

4.	1987 Air Quality with growth, TCMs and I&M

5.	1982, 1987 and 1995 Air Quality with relaxed auto emissions
standard

6.	Three-dimensional plot of isosurface with 10 mg/m^ CO concentra-
tion

7.	Two-dimensional plot of CO concentrations

1-2

-------
These tasks are to be performed for a number of different intersec-
tions as given below:

Task 1a

Sharon Amity Road and Central Avenue

Task 1b thru 4

Sharon Amity Road and Central Avenue
Sharon Amity Road and Albemarle Avenue
Sharon Amity Road and Independence Boulevard
Independence Boulevard and Idlewild Road
Fairview Road and Providence Road
Park Road and Woodlawn Road

Task 5

Sharon Amity Road and Central Avenue
Task 6

Same as Tasks 1b thru 4
Task 7

College Street corrider between 1st and 4th Streets

REPORT ORGANIZATION

This report is divided into four chapters. This chapter provides
background information for the study. The results and conclusions of
this study are summarized in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 presents a general
methodology used to perform the various tasks. Chapter 4 presents the
task by task results of this study. In addition there are five attach-
ments to the report which provide most of the data upon which this study
is based.

1-3

-------
CHAPTER 2

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

1 . The Intersection Midblock Model (IMM) was used for dispersion calcu-
lations in this study. A revision to the model was made by Engin-
eering-Science as part of another contract for USEPA Region IV.
The main purpose of the revision was to incorporate the latest
available emission factors as contained in EPA's document MOBILE
2 (Mobile Source Emission Model).

2.	The IMM predicted values were compared with data collected during a
4-1/2 day monitoring program at the Sharon Amity Road and Central
Avenue intersection. Data on traffic and meteorology collected
during the monitoring program were input to the model, and predicted
CO concentrations were compared with measured CO concentrations

for the same time period. The results show good agreement between
the model predicted and measured values.

3.	Predicted 1987 CO concentrations under several scenarios are summa-
rized in Table 2.1. Predicted 1982 concentrations and NAAQS are
included in this table for comparison. The results indicate a
potential for violation of the CO standard at two intersections
even after the implementation of the proposed I&M program and TCMs.
If I&M is not implemented, four of the six intersections shown in
Table 2.1 are likely to exceed the CO standard.

4.	The effects of the Leuken Bill were shown to be increased CO concen-
trations. In 1987, the expected CO concentrations would be 8.3%
higher than those without the Leuken Bill. By 1995, however, this
increase reduces to only 2.3%. The increases are due to delayed
compliance with the emission standards.

5.	Of the six intersections modeled under Tasks 1 through 4, only two
were found to be in violation of the CO standards by 1987 with I&M
and TCMs in place. Hence, a CO concentration isosurface of 10 mg/m^
was only plotted for these two intersections. The results indicate
that CO violations are confined to a limited area near the inter-
section.

2-1

-------
TABLE 2.1

1982 and 1987 AIR QUALITY3
(Tasks 1b thru 4)

Intersection



8-Hour CO

Concentration

(mg/m^)



1982

1987 w/o
w/o I&M

TCMs
w/I&M

1987 w/TCMs
w/o I&M w/I&M

Standard

Sharon Amity

Road/Central Avenue

21.4

16.7

13.0

15.9

12.4

10.0

Sharon Amity

Road/Albemarle Road

16.0

14.8

11.5

15.4

12.0

10.0

Sharon Amity

Road/Independence Blvd.

16.4

14.7

11.6

11.7

9.4

10.0

Independence

Blvd./Idlewild Road

17.0

15.9

12.4

12.7

9.9

10.0

Fairview Road/Providence Road

10.9

9.5

7.4

N.A.

N.A.

10.0

Woodlawn Road/Park Road

12.1

9.4

7.5

N.A.

N.A.

10.0

a Includes a background concentration of 1.5 mg/m^ for 1982 and 1.0 mg/m^ for 1987.

N.A. = Not applicable (No TCMs considered).

NOTE: All predicted CO concentrations simulate worse—case meteorological and traffic conditions.

-------
6. Study of the College Street corridor shows the potential for viola-
tion of the CO standard near all intersections analyzed. No trans-
portation control measures have been proposed for this intersection.
As a result, any improvements resulting from TCMs could not be
determined.

2-3

-------
CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

The methodology consisted mainly of predicting, through the use of a
computer diffusion model, ambient concentrations of CO. The model selected
for this study was the Intersection Midblock Model which was developed
in 1978 by GCA Corporation under contract to the USEPA. Details of the
model are available in Reference 1. In an earlier study of the CO problem
in Mecklenburg County (Reference 2), ES revised this model to include
the latest mobile source emission factors. The revised version of the
model was used in this analysis. Since the 8-hour CO concentration is
of critical importance (historical measurements show no violation of the
1-hour standard), only 8-hour CO concentrations were modeled using traffic
volumes for the peak 8-hour period. Basic inputs to the model are traffic
and meteorological data. Since emissions calculation is an inherent
part of this model, other automobile-related parameters are required.
In addition, the model requires a set of receptors at which concentrations
are to be predicted. These model inputs are described below.

TRAFFIC DATA

Three sets of traffic data were used in this analysis, namely
o 1982 peak 8-hour traffic volumes
o 1987 peak 8-hour traffic volumes without TCMs
o 1987 peak 8-hour traffic volumes with TCMs

1982 traffic volumes for all intersections were provided by the
Charlotte Department of Transportation. Data provided by Charlotte DOT
included intersection geometry and signal cycle times for signalized
intersections. The data as provided are included in Attachment I.

1987 traffic volumes without TCMs (Attachment II) were computed by
ES using 1982 traffic volumes and growth factors (also given in Attach-
ment II) provided by Charlotte DOT. Annual percentage growth rates were
compounded to determine growth factors from 1982 to 1987.

3-1

-------
1987 traffic volumes with TCMs were computed by ES using information
developed during another related study (Reference 3). Procedures used to
compute these traffic volumes and the computed traffic data are given in
Attachment III.

METEOROLOGICAL DATA

Since the NAAQS for CO are in terms of 1-hour and 8-hour averages
not to be exceeded more than once per year, it is imperative that the
analysis be performed for the worst case meteorological conditions. A
review of historical data (Reference 2) indicated that the highest con-
centrations of CO in Mecklenburg County were measured during calm to
light winds and stable atmospheric conditions. For reasons discussed in
detail in Chapter 4 of Reference 2, all modeling was performed for an
assumed worst case meteorological condition; i.e. , a wind speed of 2
m/sec and stability Class 6 (very stable). A different wind direction
was selected for each receptor being modeled depending upon the intersec-
tion geometry and traffic volumes so as to maximize the predicted concen-
trations. Many receptors were modeled for several wind directions in
order to make sure that the maximum concentration was obtained.

RECEPTOR DATA

A number of receptors were selected for each intersection in order
to provide adequate coverage of the intersection under consideration.
The plotting package used to generate the three-dimensional and two-
dimensional plots of concentrations required that the receptors be equally
spaced. In order to economize on the number of receptors to be modeled
and still provide adequate coverage of the intersection with equally
spaced receptors, a coordinate system with an axis parallel to one of
the roadways at the intersection was selected. The coordinate system
selected by Charlotte DOT to determine link coordinates did not correspond
to this coordinate system; hence, coordinate transformation became nec-
essary in order to make all model inputs consistent. A grid receptor
spacing of 0.02 to 0.05 km was used depending upon the intersection
geometry. On the average, 35 receptors were considered for each
intersection.

BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION

The major contribution to the total CO concentration is due to traf-
fic on immediately adjacent roadways. However, a small contribution gen-
erally referred to as background is attributable to other emission sources
including other roadways. Since there are no large point source CO emit-
ters in the area under consideration, background is primarily attributable
to roadways not included the in modeling. Because roadway impact falls
off rapidly with distance, the background concentration is considered

3-2

-------
small. In an earlier study (Reference 2) a background concentration of
1.5 mg/m3 was assumed for 1987. Model comparison performed as a part
of this study indicated a much lower background concentration. For 1982
conditions, the difference between the 8-hour modeled and measured con-
centrations was estimated to be 0.7 mg/m3. Adjusting this to 1987
conditions, the estimated background concentration would be 0.35 mg/m3.
To be somewhat on the conservative side, it was agreed by the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management and the USEPA that a back-
ground concentration of 1.0 mg/m3 for the 8-hour averaging period for
1987 should be used in this study. The background concentration for
1982 was assumed to be 1.5 mg/m3.

ADJUSTMENT FOR VEHICLES NOT SUBJECT TO I&M AND ADJUSTMENT FOR I&M APPLIED
TO HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE TRUCKS

When modeling CO concentrations under the I&M scenarios, the model
predicted concentrations were adjusted to account for the following
conditions:

1.	Vehicles not subject to I&M — these are vehicles in the study
area but not registered in Mecklenburg County or the City of
Charlotte and thus not subject to I&M and

2.	I&M applied to heavy duty gasoline trucks as required by the
current North Carolina program — MOBILE 2 does not include
adjustment factors for heavy duty gasoline trucks subject to
I&M.

Adjustment factors to account for these conditions were discused in detail
in the Technical Memorandum for Task 2 which is included in this report as
Attachment V.

CALCULATION OF TOTAL CO CONCENTRATIONS

A background concentration of 1.0 mg/m3 was added to the model pre-
dicted CO concentrations. For scenarios considering the impact of I&M,
further adjustments using factors given in Attachment V were made to
obtain the total CO concentration.

TWO-DIMENSIONAL AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL PLOTS OF CO CONCENTRATIONS

The two-dimensional plot of CO concentrations was straightforward.
Ground level concentrations at equally spaced receptors were input to
the graphics package called "DISPLA" and the results were output on a
CALCOMP plotter.

3-3

-------
For a three-dimensional plot, it is a common practice to plot ground
level concentrations along the vertical axis as a function of horizontal
(x) and transverse (y) coordinates using a cartesian coordinate system.
To plot concentrations (or for that matter any variable) as a function
of x, y, and z in reality requires a four-dimensional plot. Since such
a plot is impractical and we only wish to show a three-dimensional space
where violation of the CO standard is expected, it was decided to plot a
CO isosurface of 10 mg/m^. The height of any point on this surface above
ground level represents the height beyond which there would be no viola-
tion of the CO standard. For the purposes of this plot, the height was
determined by solving the vertical term of the Gaussian equation. Such
calculations were only made for those receptors where the predicted
ground level concentration exceeded the 8-hour CO standard of 10 mg/m^.
These heights, along with coordinates of the equally spaced receptors,
were input to the plotting package and the results were output on a
CALCOMP plotter.

3-4

-------
CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

This chapter presents the results of the analyses for the various
tasks performed under this study.

TASK 1a. MODEL COMPARE SON

The analysis performed under this task indicates that the model
predicted concentrations are in good agreement with measured concentra-
tions. However, due to the limited data used in this analysis, the
comparison coefficients were not used in subsequent analyses. Details
of the model comparison are given in Attachment I.

TASK 1b. 1982 AIR QUALITY

Predicted 1982 CO concentrations are shown in Table 4.1 and exceed
the CO standard for all six intersections. The highest predicted concen-
tration was at the Sharon Amity Road and Central Avenue intersection. A
background value of 1.5 mg/m^ was added to the model predicted concentra-
tions to obtain total CO concentrations.

TASK 1c. 1987 AIR QUALITY WITH GROWTH BUT NO I&M AND TCMs

Predicted 1987 CO concentrations shown in Table 4.2 show a violation
of the CO standard at four of the six intersections modeled.

TASK 2. 1987 AIR QUALITY WITH GROWTH AND I&M BUT NO TCMs

The results shown in Table 4.3 still indicate a violation of the
8-hour CO standard at four of the six intersections modeled. The impact
of I&M is estimated to be a 20 to 23 percent reduction in CO concentra-
tions (Table 4.2).

TASK 3. 1987 AIR QUALITY WITH GROWTH AND TCMs BUT NO I&M

The results are shown in Table 4.4. Without I&M, violations of the
CO standard are expected at four of the intersections.

4-1

-------
TABLE 4.1

TASK 1b. 1982 AIR QUALITY

| INTERSECTION

I I

| PREDICTED 8-HOUR |
I CO CONCENTRATION3 |
| (mg/m3) |

| Sharon Amity Road and
| Central Avenue

I I
I I

I 21.4 |

| Sharon Amity Road and
| Albermarle Avenue

I I
I I

I 16.0 |

| Sharon Amity Road and
| Independence Boulevard

I I
I I

| 16.4 |

I Independence Boulevard and
| Idlewild Road

I I
I I

I 17.0 |

| Fairview Road and
I Providence Road

I I
I I

I 10.9 |

| Park Road and
| Woodlawn Road

I I
I I
I 12.1 |

a Includes a background concentration of 1.5 mg/m3.

NOTE: All predicted CO concentrations simulate worst case meteoro-
logical and traffic conditions.

4-2

-------
TABLE 4.2

TASK 1c. 1987 AIR QUALITY WITH GROWTH BUT
NO TCMs AND NO I&M

| INTERSECTION

I I

| PREDICTED 8-HOUR |
] CO CONCENTRATIONa |
I (mg/m3) |

I Sharon Amity Road and
| Central Avenue

I I
I I

I 16.7 |

| Sharon Amity Road and
| Albermarle Avenue

I I
I I

I 14.8 |

| Sharon Amity Road and
| Independence Boulevard

I I
I I

I 14.7 |

I Independence Boulevard and
| Idlewild Road

I I
I I

I 15.9 |

| Fairview Road and
| Providence Road

I I
I I

I 9.5 |

| Park Road and
| Woodlawn Road

I I
I I

I 9.4 |

a Includes a background concentration of 1.0 mg/m^.

NOTE: All predicted CO concentrations simulate worst case meteoro-
logical and traffic conditions.

4-3

-------
TABLE 4.3

TASK 2. 1987 AIR QUALITY WITH GROWTH AND I&M
BUT NO TCMs

| INTERSECTION

I I

| PREDICTED 8-HOUR |
| CO CONCENTRATION3 |
I (mg/m3) |

| Sharon Amity Road and
| Central Avenue

I I
I I

I 13.0 |

| Sharon Amity Road and
| Albermarle Avenue

I I

I I

I 11.5 |

| Sharon Amity Road and
I Independence Boulevard

1 1
1 1
1 11.6 |

I Independence Boulevard and
I Idlewild Road

1 1
1 1

1 12.4 |

I Fairview Road and
I Providence Road

I I
I I

I 7.4 |

| Park Road and
I Woodlawn Road

I I
I I

I 7.5 |

a Includes a background concentration of 1.0 mg/m3 and an adjustment
factors for vehicles not subject to I&M and for ISM applied to
heavy duty gasoline trucks.

NOTE: All predicted CD concentrations simulate worst case meteoro-
logical and traffic conditions.

4-4

-------
TASK 4. 1987 AIR QUALITY WITH GROWTH, TCMs AND I&M

The results of this analysis are shown in Table 4.5. With the im-
plementation of I&M and TCMs as proposed, two of the intersections still
show potential for violation of the standard. The standard at these two
intersections will be exceeded by approximately 20 percent.

TASK 5. 1982, 1987 AND 1995 AIR QUALITY WITH RELAXED AUTO EMISSION
STANDARD

The effects of the relaxed auto emission standard as proposed in
the draft Clean Air Act Amendment by Representative Luken (R-Ohio) (H.R.
Bill 5252) was evaluated. Only one intersection (Sharon Amity Road and
Central Avenue) was considered for this evaluation. Carbon monoxide con-
centrations at this intersection with a relaxed auto emissions standard
were predicted under two scenarios; one with I&M and the second without
I&M. The effects of transportation control measures were not included.
For predicting 1995 air quality, 1995 traffic volumes estimated from
1982 traffic volumes and growth factors were used. The results of the
analysis are shown in Table 4.6. The effects of the relaxed auto emis-
sion standard were estimated to be an increase in CO concentrations of
8.3% in 1987 and 2.5% in 1995.

TASK 6. THREE-DIMENSIONAL PLOT OF CO CONCENTRATIONS

Of the six intersections modeled, two intersections were found to
be in violation of the CO standard by 1987 if the proposed I&M and TCMs
are implemented. Hence, three-dimensional plots were only made for the
two intersections. The plots are shown in Figures 4.1 through 4.4. For
each intersection, two three-dimensional plots are shown based on two
different viewpoints. These plots depict the three-dimensional surface
where the 8-hour average CO concentration is expected to be 10 mg/m^.
The area below the surface in each plot is in violation of the 8-hour
CO standard.

TASK 7. TWO-DIMENSIONAL PLOT FOR COLLEGE STREET CORRIDOR

The College Street corridor between the 1st and 4th Streets was
modeled for 1987 traffic conditions with the I&M program in effect. The
ground level concentrations were determined for a number of receptors and
the results were input to a plotting package which produced a two-dimen-
sional graphic display. The plot is shown in Figure 4.5. As can be seen
from the plot in Figure 4.5, there are areas near each intersection in
this corridor where violation of the eight-hour CO standard is expected.
The highest predicted concentration in this corridor is even higher than
those predicted at the other intersections in this study. This is mainly
because v/c (volume demand over capacity) ratios for some of the streets
in the corridor are much higher than those for other intersections. For
some streets (see Table 1 of Attachment II) this ratio approaches and
even exceeds unity.

4-5

-------
TABLE 4.4

TASK 3. 1987 AIR QUALITY WITH TCMs AND GROWTH

BUT NO I&M



I I

| PREDICTED 8-HOUR |

I INTERSECTION

| CO CONCENTRATION3- |



| (mq/m3) |

| Sharon Amity Road and

1 1
1 1

| Central Avenue

1 15.9 |

I Sharon Amity Road and

I I
I I

| Albermarle Avenue

I 15.4 |

I Sharon Amity Road and

I I
I I

| Independence Boulevard

I 11.7 |

I Independence Boulevard and

1 1

1 1

| Idlewild Road

1 12.7 |

| Fairview Road and

1 1
1 1

I Providence Road

1 N/A |

I Park Road and

1 1
1 1

| Woodlawn Road

1 N/A |

a Includes a background concentration of 1.0 mg/m3.

N/A = Not applicable (no TCMs considered)

NOTE: All predicted CO concentrations simulate worst case meteoro-
logical and traffic conditions.

4-6

-------
TABLE 4.5

TASK 4. 1987 AIR QUALITY WITH TCMs, GROWTH AND I&M



I I

I PREDICTED 8-HOUR |

| INTERSECTION

I CO CONCENTRATION3, |



I (mg/m3) |

| Sharon Amity Road and

I I
I I

| Central Avenue

I 12.4 |

| Sharon Amity Road and

I I
I I

I Albermarle Avenue

| 12.0 |

| Sharon Amity Road and

I I
I I

I Independence Boulevard

I 9.4 |

I Independence Boulevard and

I I
I I

| Idlewild Road

I 9.9 I

I Fairview Road and

I I
I I

| Providence Road

I N/A |

| Park Road and

I I
I I

I Woodlawn Road

I N/A |

a Includes a background concentration of 1.0 mg/iti3 and an adjustment
for vehicles not subject to I&M and for I&M applied to heavy duty
gasoline trucks.

N/A = Not applicable (no TCMs considered for these intersections)

NOTE: All predicted CO concentrations simulate worst case meteoro-
logical and traffic conditions.

4-7

-------
TABLE 4.6
TASK 5. EFFECT OF LEUKEN BILLa'b

I I
I I

8-HOUR CO CONCENTRATION0 (mg/m3) |

| YEAR |

I I
I I

Without
Leuken Bill

With |
Leuken Bill |

I I

I 1982 |

I I

21.4

21.4 |

I I

| 1987 with I&M |

I I

13.0

14.1 |

| 1987 without I&M |

I I

16.7

18.1 |

I I

| 1995 with I&M |

I I

11.6

11.9 |

I I

| 1995 without I&M |

I I

14.3

14.6 |

a Based on the ratio of emission factors with and without Leuken Bill
as given in the Memorandum from Tom Cackette, Chief, I&M Staff,
to Air Program Branch Chiefs of USEPA Regions I-X, dated
January 11, 1982.

k For Sharon Amity Road and Central Avenue intersection.

c Includes a background concentration of 1.5 mg/nP for 1982 and
1.0 mg/m3 for 1987 and 1995.

NOTE: All predicted CO concentrations simulate worst case meteoro-
logical and traffic conditions.

4-8

-------
CENTRAL/SHARON AMITY (87,IM,TCM,GROWTH)

-------
CENTRAL/SHARON AMITY (87, IM,TCM, GRONTH)

-------
RLBEMRRLE/SHflRON AMITY

(87,IM,TCM,GROWTH)

-------
flLBEMflRLE/SHflRON AMITY (87, IM, TCM, GROWTH)

-------

-------
The intersections of this corridor were not analyzed in previous
studies. Transportation control measures were also not considered for
this analysis because there were no such data available.

4-14

-------
REFERENCES

1.	Carbon Monoxide Hot Spot Guidelines, Volume V: User's Manual for
Intersection Midblock Model, EPA-450/3-78-037, August 1978.

2.	Review and Update of Modeling Analysis of Carbon Monoxide Emissions
in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Prepared for USEPA Region IV
by Engineering-Science, July 1981.

3.	Findings of CO Hot Spot Analysis for Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina, prepared for USEPA Region IV by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell &
Co., March 11, 1982.

4.	Personal Communication with David Johnson, North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management, and Donald E. Stone, USEPA Region IV,
January 19-20, 1983.

R-1

-------
Attachment I

COMPILATION OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL
CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
IN MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Task 1
Model Comparison

Submitted to:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365

June 1982
9227.00/91 A

Submitted by:

Engineering-Science
7903 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102

-------
Attachment I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION	1

SCOPE OF WORK	1

TECHNICAL APPROACH	1

MONITORING PROGRAM	1

DATA AVAILABILITY	2

MODELING RESULTS	4

MODEL COMPARISON	4

MODELING FOR MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION	14

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS	15

RECOMMENDATIONS	15
APPENDIX A AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA
APPENDIX B METEOROLOGICAL DATA
APPENDIX C TRAFFIC DATA

ii

-------
Attachment I

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Intersection Geometry and Monitor Locations
Figure 2 Measured vs Modelled Concentration (Site 2)

* 3
13

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Data Availability

Table 2 Measured Versus Modelled Concentrations (Site 1)
Table 3 Measured Versus Modelled Concentrations (Site 2)
Table 4 Data Used for Model Comparison

5
9
10
12

iii

-------
Attachment I

MODEL COMPARISON FOR DETERMINING CARBON MONOXIDE
CONCENTRATIONS IN MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

INTRODUCTION

The 1979 State Implementation Plan submitted by North Carolina demo-
strated that Mecklenburg County would not attain the CO standards by 1982.
Therefore, EPA granted an extension until 1987 to attain the CO standards
in Mecklenburg County. Under this extension, North Carolina is required
to submit a revised State Implementation Plan for the attainment of CO
standards. U.S. EPA Region IV has contracted with Engineering-Science
(ES) to study the problem of attaining the CO standards in Mecklenburg
County.

SCOPE OF WORK

In an earlier study, ES used the Intersection Midblock Model (IMM) to
determine CO concentrations in the vicinity of 29 intersections in the
Charlotte - Mecklenburg area. The study identified several intersections
which had the potential for the violation of the standard in 1987. In
the previous study, no attempt was made to compareIMM prediction with
measured values. Furthermore, no growth in traffic was assumed because
site-specific growth factors were not available.

One of the tasks specifically identified in this Work Assignment is
the comparison of IMM prediction with measured values. This report pre-
sents the results of the analysis undertaken for this task.

TECHNICAL APPROACH

A project initiation meeting was held on March 24, 1982 in Raleigh,
North Carolina. The following parties took part in the meeting:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
City of Charlotte, Department of Transportation
Mecklenburg County, Department of Environmental Health
Engineering-Science, Air Quality Planning

After discussion of several aspects of the entire study, it was decided
to conduct a monitoring program to collect data required to compare the
model. Meteorological and traffic data collected during the monitoring
period would be input to the model, and predicted concentrations would be
compared with ambient air quality data collected during the same period.

MONITORING PROGRAM

The monitoring program was conducted during the period March 30 to
April 2, 1982 at the intersection of Central Avenue and Sharon Amity

1

-------
Attachment I

Road. A general layout of the intersection is shown in Figure 1. There
are two gasoline service stations (Shell in the northeast and Exxon in
the southwest corners), one tire center (northwest corner) and a fast
food restaurant (Burger King in the southeast) at the four corners of
the intersection.

Ambient air quality and meteorological data were collected at two
sites. The CO monitor (Site 1, Figure 1) operated by Mecklenburg
County is located in the northwest corner and is a permanent monitor.
Another CO monitor was installed in a trailer in the southwest corner.

This is shown as Site 2 in Figure 1. The CO monitors were operated by
the Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Health. The measured
data as provided by the Department are given in Appendix A.

Two meteorological towers were installed as shown in Figure 1, one
on the top of the roof of Price Tire Center (Tower 1) and the other on the
top of the trailer (Tower 2). The location of air vanes on the meteoro-
logical towers were as follows:

Tower 1: distance from Sharon Amity Road =	44 ft.

distance from Central Avenue =	72 ft.

height above ground =	17 ft.

Tower 2: distance from Sharon Amith Road =	24 ft.

distance from Central Avenue =	136 ft.

height above ground =	15 ft.

The meteorological instruments were operated by U.S. EPA Region IV
personnel. Wind speed, wind direction and temperature were recorded by
these instruments. Cloud cover data required to determine stability
classes were obtained from the airport. Data reduction and stability
classification were performed by Region IV personnel. The data on wind
speed, wind direction, temperature and atmospheric stability are given
in Appendix B.

Traffic data were collected by the City of Charlotte Department of
Transportation (DOT). Traffic counts were obtained by mechanical counters
as well as by manual methods. Mechanical counters were placed on all four
links of the intersection. Manual counts of traffic were performed by
persons stationed in the northeast and southwest corners of the intersec-
tion. The data were analyzed by the City of Charlotte DOT and are given
in Appendix C.

DATA AVAILABILITY FOR MODEL COMPARISON

Three sets of measured data are required to compare the model.

These are data on:

o Traffic
o Meteorology, and
o Ambient air quality.

Availability of these data is shown in Table 1. Collection of traffic
data only covered periods of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. over the 4-day period

2

-------
Figure 1

Attachment I

Intersection Geometry and Monitor Locations

3

ENGINEERING-SCIENCE

-------
(March 30 through April 2). Meteorological and ambient air quality moni-
tors are continuous instruments. Meteorological data collected at Tower 1
covered a period from 11:00 a.m. on March 30 to 9:00 a.m. on April 2 where-
as those for Tower 2 did not start till 3:00 p.m. on March 30 and ended
at 9:00 a.m. on April 2. No air quality data from Site 1 is available for
March 30 and the first 7 hours on March 31. Air-quality measurements at
Site 2 began at 6:00 p.m. on March 30 and continued until 9:00 a.m. on
April 2.

A review of the data presented in Table 1 shows that there is only one
hour on March 30, 12 hours on March 31, 12 hours on April 1, and 2 hours
on April 2 for which all three sets of data are available. Thus, there
are a total of 27 hours of data which can be used in model comparison.

These hours are marked in Table 1.

MODELING RESULTS

Data on traffic and meteorology were input to the IMM and air quality
predictions were obtained. Model predicted concentrations are compared
with measured concentrations in Tables 2 and 3 for Site 1 and 2, respec-
tively.

For Site 1, model predicted concentrations are always higher than the
measured concentrations by a factor of almost 2 to 3. For Site 2, model
calculated values are lower than the measured values. Within hours 11
through 18 on April 1, there were wide fluctuations in the wind direction
(as noted by Region IV personnel, see Appendix B). Modeling results for
these hours are inconsistent and were not considered for model calibration.

Low monitored CO concentrations at Site 2 during hours 10 through
19 on March 31 are due to the fact that (1) the wind was mostly from the
south, thus only free flowing traffic on south Sharon Amity Road was
influencing the CO monitor; (2) The atmospheric stability was neutral
during these hours and the wind speeds were light to moderate; (3) The
monitor is further from the edge of the nearby lane as compared to the
monitor at Site 1; and (4) Site 2 is not located on the queue side of
the road.

When the wind blew from 360° as during the morning hours of April
1, higher CO concentrations were measured. The model predictions were
also higher. This is because the wind blew from the intersection toward
the receptor; thus, the monitor was influenced by traffic with high
emission rates caused by idling and accelerating conditions.

MODEL COMPARISON

For reasons mentioned above, data for hours 11 through 18 on April
1, 1982 are not considered suitable for model comparison. An accurate
estimate of wind direction could not be made due to wide fluctuations
in the wind direction during these hours.

4

-------
Attachment I

TABLE 1

DATA AVAILABILITY

Date

Hour1

Site 1 (NW)
Air Meteoro-
Quality logical Traffic

Site 2 (SW)

Air
Quality

Meteoro-
logical^

Traffic

3-30-32

0









1









2









3









4









5









6









7



X



X

8



X



X

9



X



X

10



X



X

1 1

X

X



X

12

X

X



X

1 3

X

X



X

1 4

X

X



X

15

X

X

X

X

16

X

X

X

X

17

X

X

X

X

18

X

X !

X X

X

19

X



X X



20

X



X X



21

X



X X



22

X



X X



23

X



X X



Beginning hour (hour 0 is 12 p.m. to 1 a.m.)

5

-------
Attachment I

Table 1 -- Continued
Data Availability

Site 1 (NW)	Site 2 (SW)

Air Meteoro-	Air Meteoro—

Date	Hour1 Quality logical Traffic Quality logical Traffic

0



X



X

X



1



X



X

X



2



X



X

X



3



X



X

X



4



X



X

X



5



X



X

X



6



X



X

X



7



X

X l

X

X

X

3

X

X

X

X

X

X

9

X

X

X

X

X

X

10

X

X.

X

X

X

X

1 1

X

X

X

X

X

X

1 2

X

X

X

X

X

X

1 3

X

X

X

X

X

X

1 4

X

X

X

X

X

X

15

X

X

X

X

X

X

16

X

X

X

X

X

X

17

X

X

X

X

X

X

18

X

X

X

X

X

X

19

X

X



X

X



20

X

X



X

X



21

X

X



X

X



22

X

X



X

X



23

X

X



X

X



6

-------
Attachment I

Table 1 — Continued
Data Availability

Site 1 (NW)	Site 2 (SW)

Air Meteoro—	Air Meteoro-

Date	Hour1 Quality logical Traffic Quality logical Traffic

0

X

X



X

X



1

X

X



X

X



2

X

X



X

X



3

X

X



X

X



4

X

X



X

X



5

X

X



X

X



6

X

X



X

X



7

X

X

X

X

X

X

3

X

X

X

X

X

X

9

X

X

X

X

X

X

10

X

X

X

X

X

X

1 1

X

X

X

X

X

X

1 2

X

X

X

X

X

X

13

X

X

X

X

X

X

1 4

X

X

X

X

X

X

15

X

X

X

X

X

X

16

X

X

X

X

X

X

17

X

X

X

X

X

X

18

X

X

X

X

X

X

19

X

X



X

X



20

X

X



X

X



21

X

X



X

X



22

X

X



X

X



23

X

X



X

X



7

-------
Attachment I

Table 1 — Continued
Data Availability

Date

Hour'

Site 1 (NW)
Air Meteoro-
Quality logical Traffic

Site 2 (SW)
. Air Me teoro-
Quality logical

Traffic

4-2-82

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7
3
9

I	0

II
1 2

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

3

-------
Attachment I

TABLE 2

MEASURED VERSUS MODELLED CONCENTRATIONS (SITE 1)

CO Concentration

Meteorological Data	(mg/m^)

Wind

Wind	Speed	Stability

Day	Hour	Direction (m/s)	Class	Measured Modelled

3-3 0-82 18 130 2.2	D	—	3.7

3-31-82	10 170 2.2	D	2.6	8.6

I	1 170 3.6	D	3.2	6.0

12	180 3.6	D	4.6	8.7

13	180 4.9	D	2.6	4.9

14	180 3.6	D	2.3	6.8

15	150 4.0	D	3.5	3.0

16	180 3.6	D	2.9	8.8

17	170 4.0	D	3.5	9.2

18	200 3.6	D	4.3	9.8

4-1-82	7 360 2.2	D	5.2	0.3

7	360	2.2	D	2.6	0.5
9 360 2.7	C	0.9	0.0

10 360 1.8	C	0.9	0.0

II	360 1.8	C	1.7	0.2
12 340 1.8	C	1.2	0.1
1 3 220 2.2	C	1.4	4.9

14	200 2.2	D	2.3	5.1

15	240 1.8	D	1.4	3.0

16	240 1.3	D	1.4	4.7

17	330 1.3	E	1.4	0.0

18	270 1.3	E	3.2	5.4

4-2-82 7 60 1.8	D	7.8	2.0

8	60 2.2	D	—	1.6

9

-------
Attachment I

TABLE 3

MEASURED VERSUS MODELLED CONCENTRATIONS (SITE 2)

CO Concentration

Meteorological	Data 	(mg/m^)	

Wind

Wind	Speed	Stability

Day	Hour	Direction (m/3)	Class	Measured Modelled

3-3 0-82 18 140	2.2	D	4.5	1.4

3-31-82	7 170	1.1	D	2.8	2.4

8	170	1.1	D	3.7	2.3

9	170	2.2	D	2.0	0.9

10	170	2.2	D	0.6	0.7

11	170	2.2	D	1.4	0.8

12	180	2.6	D	2.0	0.6

13	180	3.4	D	1.4	0.5

14	180	3.4	D	1.1	0.5

15	180	3.4	D	1.7	1.4

16	180	2.5	D	1.4	0.7

17	180	3.1	D	2.0	0.6

18	180	1.3	D	2.0	1.4

4-1-82	7 10	2.2	D	9.3	4.8

7	20	2.5	D	5.9	6.5
9 350	3.1	C	3.4	1.6

10	330	2.2	C	2.8	0.8

11	180	1.8	C	4.2	0.0

12	210	1.3	C	4.2	0.0

13	210	1.3	C	4.5	0.0

14	210	1.3	D	4.8	0.0

15	240	1.1	D	5.9	0.0

16	240	1.1	D	5.1	0.0

17	280	0.7	E	5.6	0.0

18	210	0.5-	E	7.6	0.5

4-2-82 7 60	1 .3	D	9.3	10.8

8	70	1.8	D	6.2	8.0

10

-------
Attachment I

Under normal conditions, model predictions are expected to be lower
than measured concentrations, because model predictions only relate to
the impact of traffic being modelled and do not account for background
concentrations from sources not being modelled. The measured concentra-
tions, on the other hand, include background. Modelled CO concentrations
at Site 2 are lower, in general, than measured concentrations.

Data for Site 1 do not follow the expected trend; i.e., predictions
are in general higher than measurements. One possible reason for this
appears to be the wide separation between the meteorological and ambient
CO monitor. The two instruments were approximately 70 feet apart. The
air vane was locted on top of the building and was approximately 17 feet
above the ground whereas the CO monitor was about 8 feet above the ground.
There were heavy bushes immediately to the north of the CO monitor and
there was a large tree to the west of the air vane. It is suspected
that the CO monitor at Site 1 did not experience the some wind regime as
the instruments on Tower 1. Due to its location, the CO monitor at Site
1 was subject to a localized wind flow pattern which was not observed at
Tower 1.

At Site 2, the ambient CO monitor and meteorological instruments were
located close to each other, about 7 feet apart. The vertical distance
between the two instruments was not more than 5 feet. Thus, it is be-
lieved that the CO monitor at Site 2 was subject to the same wind condi-
tions monitored at Tower 2.

It is concluded that data collected at Site 2 can be used for model
comparison with the exception that data collected during hours 11 through
18 on April 1 be excluded from consideration due to wide fluctuations in
wind directions. The data to be used for model comparison is summarized
in Table 4 and plotted in Figure 2. A linear regression analysis on
these data gives the following relationship between measured and modelled
CO concentrations:

y = 1.3 + 0.67 x

where y = measured concentration
x = modelled concentration

Since the values plotted in Figure 2 are one-hour CO concentrations, the
intercept of 1.3 mg/m^ is the background concentration for a one-hour
averaging period. The correlation coefficient was determined to be 0.93
which shows that measured and modelled values are in good agreement.

Sufficient data for examining 8-hour averaging period are not avail-
able. A maximum of 5 eight-hour averaging periods can be formed from
the data given in Table 4 for March 31, 1982. The measured and modelled
CO concentrations for these 5 eight-hour periods are as follows:

Hours	Measured	Modelled	Difference

7-14	1.9	1.1	0.8

7-18	1.7	1.0	0.7

7-19	1.5	0.8	0.7

1 1

-------
Attachment I

TABLE 4

DATA USED FOR MODEL COMPARISON

CO Concentration

Meteorological	Data		(mg/m3)	

Speed	Stability

Day	Hour	Direction	(m/s)	Class	Measured	Modelled

3-30-82 18 140 2.2	D	4.5	1«4

3-31-82	7 170 1.1	D	2.8	2.4

8	170 1.1	D	3.7	2.3

9	170 2.2	D	2.0	0.9

10	170 2.2	D	0.6	0.7

11	170 2.2	D	1.4	0.8

12	180 2.6	D	2.0	0.6

13	180 3.4	D	1.4	0.5

14	180 3.4	D	1.1	0.5

15	180 3.4	D	1.7	1.4

16	180 2.5	D	1.4	0.7

17	180 3.1	D	2.0	0.6

18	180 1.3	D	2.0	1.4

4-1-82	7 360 2.2	D	4.1	4.8

7	360 2.2	D	5.2	6.5
9 360 2.7	C	2.1	1.6

10 360 1.8	C	2.8	0.8

4-2-82 7 60 1.3	D	9.3	10.8

8	70 1.8	D	6.2	8.0

1 2

-------
Attachment X FIGURE 2

Measured vs. Modelled Concentration

[Site 2)

16



o
o

o

UJ
OS
=3
oo
<
LlJ

14

12 "

10 -

8 -

6 -

4 -

2 -

Y = 1.3 + 0.67X

CORR. COEFF.= 0.93

10

12

X = MODELLED CONC. (mg/m3)

13

ENGINEERING-SCIENCE

-------
Attachment I

Hours

Measured

Modelled

Difference

1 0-17
1 1-18

1.5

1.6

0.8
0.8

0.7
0.8

Aver age

1 .6

0.9

0.7

The average difference of 0.7 mg/m3 can be considered as the back-
ground for the 8-hour averaging period. The ratio between 8-hour and 1-
hour background concentrations is 0.5.

MODELLING FOR MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION

The NAAQS for carbon monoxide are 10 and 40 mg/m3 for the 8-hour and
1-hour averages not to be exceeded more than once per year. This intro-
duces the concept of modeling for the worst-case. Since predicted con-
centration is dependent upon emission rate (hence traffic) and meteorolo-
gical conditions, the determination of the worst condition should consist
of worse case meteorology and maximum emission rates. Experience indi-
cates that for such lew level sources as traffic, maximum concentrations
are expected under stable atmospheric conditions and low wind speeds.
The wind direction frcm the source to the receptor would produce the
highest predicted concentrations. For a given intersection, high emission
rates are expected during the time period when the traffic demand is the
highest. For a given capacity of the roadway, this produces maximum
congestion and longest queue lengths.

Assuming worst-case meteorology, the calibrated model predicted a
value of 15.6 mg/m3 for Site 1. The following conditions were used for
this worstease analysis:

1 . Wind 3peed = 2.0 m/sec

2.	Stability = 5 (stable)

3.	Wind direction = 180° frcm north

4.	Peak hour traffic during the period of the on-site monitoring
program

Conditions 1 through 3 are the same as used in previous analysis under
Assistance to States Contract No. 68-02-3509, Work Assignment No. 5.

The highest model predicted -
-------
Attachment I

suit in a lower concentration which might be the case when the highest CO
concentration was measured during the late evening hours of April 1.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

1.	A monitoring program was conducted over ^ 4 day period to
collect data for calibrating IMM.

2.	A total of 27 hours were identified for which all data
were available to be used in model calibration; however,
due to fluctuating wind conditions, about eight hours of
these data were considered inappropriate for inclusion in
model calibration.

3.	Model predicted concentrations for Site 1 did not cor-
relate with measured CO concentrations at this site.

It is suspected that local distrubances caused the CO
monitor to experience different wind conditions than
the meteorological instrument at Tower 1. Thus, the
data from Site 1 are not considered appropriate for model
comparison.

4.	Measured and modelled concentrations for Site 2 compare
well, with measured values being higher than modelled
concentrations. The difference between these two values
is the background concentration.

5.	Measured and modelled concentrations at Site 2 are consis-
tent with the meteorological and traffic data.

6.	Using a worst-case meteorology and the comparison coef-
ficients developed in this analysis, the model-predicted
highest concentration compares well with the highest
measured during the same period.

7.	It is concluded that IMM predicts CO concentrations which
are in good agreement with measured concentrations.

RECOMMEND ATT ONS

A rigorous model comparison could not be performed due to limited
data availability; however, the limited" data suggest that IMM is an appro-
priate model for predicting CO concentrations near traffic intersections.
Although the data used in model comparison represented neutral stability
conditions, the model is considered appropriate to calculate maximum
1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations using worst-case conditions. Based
on the analysis performed here, ES recommends the following:

1. Assume a stable atmospheric conditions and low wind speeds
with the wind blowing directly from the intersection to the
receptor to estimate the highest concentrations.

15
-------
Attachment I

Carbon monoxide concentrations predicted by IMM model be
adjusted using comparions coefficients developed in this
analysis and as given below:

Ca = A + B Cp

where Ca = adjusted CO concentration

Cp = model predicted concentration

A and B represent the y-intercept and slope of the regres-
sion line. Values A and B using 1982 automobile emissions
were determined to be 1.3 and 0.67.

When predicting CO concntrations for other years the y-
intercept (or background as commonly known) be modified to
reflect emission factors for the year under consideration.

16
-------
Attachment I

APPENDIX A
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA
-------
auuctLf AVE3AG2S

sraxicw



DATS __

ir

Attachment I
STATION 0PS3AT0S	

DATS



IKz.C.



ca

CO



acna

HEAD-
ERS

3ASZ [
LINE

DI7FZR-
ZNC2

V f

:>5

'* ¦ "1

nsf/m?

RZAD-Z
UtG ' '

3AS2-
LUTE

DIFFES-
SHCZ.

+5

mar/at^

a-1



i



£



szr



42?

1-2







:











&3

2-3











y.c



Cf



&

3-4











*<£-

4.f

£>



P

4-5











' V.S-



£>



&

5-6











\ *sr

4-s

d>



&

5-7







-



' £,



<2



//

I 7-3



¦







1 f



J?



w?r

| 9-9-

•



~

k



i



£.3-



£7

9. ia





¦





\ ?.£-









10-It









1

'•



/



AC

... 11-12









'

I

i ^

S.£





A*

< '

Y 12-13









:

: 7

Jts-

3.£~



#0

i 13-14







>











/.4

j

14-15







-



; ^T5-

3.S

-?



/¦/

. 15-16











: /.5"

*.S

3



A 7

16-17



















A4

L7-L3

•









' ^5"

Z*

Jar





IS-19

yj

$







>* ,*

3.*

£-jT



o? Z3

20-21



£

s.^



jt/

*r.r"

*¦*

3>.r



A#

21-22

//

£

£







S.*

 •
-------
awutuif AVttKAGZS

ST&TICK

/ / ' &

DATS ¦#///£Zl	

itcacnment I

STATION OPERATOR..
DATE

!&*

*L



ca

CO



Hoxm

3EAD- ;
INC

3A5S .
LINE :

DIFFER-.
SHC2

•• +5 f an?/®?

SEAD-fc
INC "

HASZ

zjsz L

DIFFER-
ENCE

+5

¦*
BUf/»

O-l



o?.r

/

k !
¦• f #£ \



.£

*



S3

1-2





/

\.4t£-

*



/.JT



at

2-2

4t





i

\

/

.£



~

#3 [

3-4

3-*



	

/





AS- | 0

/





1

s-r

/J*

^ f





I AX

'

a







i 7-S

/C&

- -7

/2^-



?3-

! /£S~

&





*& [

1 8-9

/&.£

~

/^r





*

& \ //



¦ [

9-10

: €

-Sr

i



¦ JV 1



. •



i

10-11



/r

¦



: •?¦¦£

t,

\





» r-

- 11-12

f

/.r





\ #-2 !

f •
t



»

¦



j 12-13

' ?

/:^sr

:



/

If

r

/C.3>











21-22

s£

/

3&



/£.?











22-23

/*£"

; .5"

/£>



3T
-------
HOURLY A7Z3AG2S

StATIOU
DAT2



Attachn\pn7 I

STAITOW OPERATOR

"V ~2- r- 2"C_

UAX2

1..







CO f CO



hour

REAH-
IHG

3 ASS
LUTE

ULtfh'bLtt-f
EHCH

f' " | R2A
+5 f asr/o? | INC

3ASE t DtSTBR-
LIHK r SKCS

+•5

bu?/h^

a-L

"T

\

\ 1

t

f F. ^ i

7

> 1 ^



^."E-

t-z

*•" '

> "

y-

\



f 6 -1-

u

~

r





-T

2-J [ j

«.<

15"

? *

u



\



.t.

3-4 \ -7

u

.

.t

-»¦
G>.">





m

t >



-t

4-5

c

>

r



*

C





t



-1

5-6 f ^

r



.

i 1

r

'¦ C-v





*5



.?

6-7 | c



i

¦

.c

1 ^

¦



r ^.\



[

7-S



t

> r/T



-> 1

3-9

c

~
k-

s

r

\

k

. c

^ J J

/
\

r



' ¦ S

| >ia

&

' ***

O

>

L - t



! {>

V



: &





i



11-12





y

* t >





•'* 7

><





¦ *-.*

12-13

f.'

*

>*

i

¦ w

• 1

+¦

V

-¦ t



r e_x. |

! 13-14-

i

: s

»

- «-

j:

: "V$

5 «>



1 "S.^"



^ !

14-15

7

: <*•>

i>

'

t M-

i ca

Cj.

:

t

'**¦

15-16

¦ -i

1

y

;

' F7

: ?



H



; !

16-17

&

*

j.\



\o

' i-i

*

' 7



*

17-19

{ 0

>

. j*
>



: Vt

s*

> ty\

[

/•



H.9

13-1?



sJ

; "?



W

' tv"

I

/a



. <^-^-

19-20"



' L

i

1 \ ***

; v>.\T

r



S:f



¦ ^

20-21

\ ¦»-

~

X

¦ T [1 IM

1 9









"2- •>

21-22

: i a

r F

f 1

1 t452 - 1/74-

RECEIVED
APS 121S82
-------
-------
HOURLY AVERAGES

					Attachment I

SIAHCH	JxJt		STATION QP2SAT0R. iL~S£~

DAX2-	H J. Jt.			SAES		







CO



'





CO

(

: HOUi

3ZAH- i

INC J

3ASS fc
'LIST f

BIHFEl-
SHC2

-rS

o^/a3" ':

mn-i j
IHC 1

3ASE
LISE

DIFFER.-I
5HC2 I

+5

f

«?/» !

a-i

- " t

E

~

r

t.C f

-<* 1



*
>





t-H 1

z-z

*T' f

V

T> f

f -**• 1

->

i.

X-





2-3

7

" vf

FN 1



!

G* "¦>

„ /
V .V

\



1

1

r 3-4

1

r.>

^ r

< r A " f

!

n *

Gr.'f

L

s

. \



-y

S 4.5

7.\

*x

f

r - "L

7

*:r

y

I A





1

j 5-S



&

t F

r.t-

.

Urr

1





i

"l>

S-?

F fcn



* r



k -£_'r

' * \

I





r.r

i

i 7-#



7





C.t-

: \CT

cv

11-f



7. g:

f 3^<*

¦ fa

* vS

f

i

J -t-4. |

;









i "

[ 9-10

7

t p

~*

f.^

¦

' .?

i









| 10-II

7

P r
r •
r





.
•









i 12-13



ir i;

"5- ¦



• f k-L !

i









j 13-14

ft

;

*-

L

i

¦ t-f

i









L4-15



/

! ^

>

' 1.-J

~

f









15-16

¦ 7*

r

: T-V



*-Y

L

f









16-17

1.?

; i

>¦ ^

' 1 ^

i









17-15

*o

J >





t u

r









18-

i \

'

*. V



; X"L











L9-2Q

.

(*

1



; O.o











za-21

**->

•sT



1

t









11-22



j

1 1H <

: 1 s.v











22-23

t W



7

! <4_a

»



1 |

— —

. 23-24

*

1



pr

vs





¦ ! i i

SHO #453 - 1/74.
-------
Atracfiment I

APPENDIX B
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
-------
'hwi<-Vt /vX~

/ M/ fuJ

T7»1^ A'V C^nrrx^) jy S «V jy ST%£»»^?)

^/ib / f~\<(,/y\csfh 6*7

' /X--\f"v i^l 1»

l~"u f«i nu/7.r it i

	—n

' —- ! !

jt>oh c t

/&t>h £?'

jiu/l 7 ^ i

0

'

J^o/L.b 73 |
5-7 l*iv/l'0 9^
'/~^ i /royfrp

i ///<>y 7'6

lSv/^,0



; /fty/7 , ?V | ;
i^o^Ax. | 7^ I
l/fcV/J 1 7/ ! i



iT~(, /,Vo /7.6 70

— 6-7 /^/r*<> !
¦>~r :

1 jvo/w

\ JVb/C'p

)W/*h\r





>/o/f 7-2. , !

/rc/7 a !

"°/> & }

9-^ b o
ju~n 1/7 o/y.o tr&

/iro/3
rt-
rt*
(u
O

3'
(D
3
rt
-------
d<£



C\ou\L>Vtf Nc
T/«f t W £/^ A^v^MT rv,

TJO/C fi

l-ZAl iS^Q < *f
£l- ! t sq Is: 5"/

i / 6 ^ /
i !L>d / <

, / ' / q

77c|/7

/«^,r i ^

i /*Wv 1 j
! /?v /-)o/[ H

;?a / £~
y?o ) £*

p» ) 5" '

¦3-'"/# I 60

-2>f/ir |  : /^o/z^i-o , 6 /

1 /-X ; yrtf/,/ «

P--A /W* 43

/W £>

j to! 7-r
)\0 ) 1 ^

! 62

/{f/o/tl : (af





\ •i"7/ a*-*/* £/
\ ! Wf k

1 ^-6 /7oA ^ r

! &t>/ 7» 5~

/^/r.r-, ¦
/J/// 7.0 !

2->t/n ! &1

s>.t*j/i+ (57



>
rt
r+
P>

n

1 £:;_2^ /% (>1~
7- % ^/ 0 /s~ £/
i3'- ^ 9-iif js* (o

/ WJl'b '¦
/ } v/^ho

n*/t-s-

5»t>/'}- 6^
/<- ¦ &Lt

«y/p * 3



	0=,

3
CD
3
rt

H

c1-^ ^->u /S' h
jo-i) ^

/ I/Ill*/"**- frtt/'lA

/*'}?>
^uiJzS

P-IU J'X.U

%yo Ji 6/
>!<;/?

s.a"/7 i ^

-V- ;^i/n

s;

X'is-

[

/°A»
-------
A/W 6°ftA/b(\ 7jL
P- '/<> / ^ ~S~?

/^ 	 *"*¦

jouy -l

iS^o/ **

3>^ ; ?-

sWs-

S3-

ST»

Jfco/*>fr

2 M
a?Vi

6b«/3

jm

oh
'A3

, ?fr

7^

!

TT

o^°

j a-))	I W3

^ 3- U/l/>(ILudW) ^jit~ CtftJyP&fr

&
(>u



' 570/ /«5T
#/ /o

3°6 /

dULr^fard.
Quia i

AO

T/y

>9 ofi

Sex; /'i

o^o/h

TV fTti k'^7

306 / /*-*

3^° /
Jfc0 /.^.^l

Uti
/ ^

0/t> / y>o
o/oj/ ^0
Q^Q V 'r, y

3!TU]/
?3D/

fio/ y-f

T^v^Tvo

^10/ 2'V
P-to/ Z> *j

o^°A

o^h

owh

of*h
0b^/9
ofv/lb
ci*!*

is«/t>

p-r
pc^/ / ^

pWA
j/0/

) /•**
Qov ^,6"

JC(// ^,1/

//fA

0H//3
/t,

zxv/l
o-b°/yj ,

0 9<>h
o i u/f

oH"Jr
o-rvh

3

rr

s-r

rr

5T

fc-2-

TT
b7

_Z/_

7^i

fef

.77

¦r77

7-6

7 2,

fc'i-

£t>

*7.

[;-

i

£

P
£"

/

351

n !

<~* i

n

-S-'


n

rt
-------
/|'>pL fVVV ¦	1 Ty	^	'Ty SW'^V

^iJL^hJT -Ml Olv/Z 6*
j~ %. cpy ' 0 i°/3 : *» ^

i^-3 ; osruy/3 >*"7

O lq 1

o3u/^r !

06p/*',r i

.

;/3b/>
; 0 w/i :

sq

4 00

js?

r

bT

j i-1/ j o arwc?, s-/
1 oro /j */*

1 ^ i 6^0/i ': £l

¦ | C . —¦

^f7?r
.060,

6¥u //





ft

tro

, 1 — i

j

^)6f/3 |

£7o/y

/«o/(r ;

//"A ,

s?> ,

6/ j
6? :

y ;
'/

f- hio #&
el
rt
(u
o
tr
9
rt>
3
r+
-------
attachment I

APPENDIX C
TRAFFIC DATA
-------
Attachment I

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT	CQpV	MANUAL VEHICLE

ENGINEERING DIVlSlCN/PLANNiNG&REScARCH SECTION OR/Gi/\Mr Ujl	SURVEY SUMMARY

crry of charlotte north Carolina	"AS

' filed

a	I /¦) LOCATION- (L&l I *aL Ajg	-.C/Wttj AmUY

WEATHER: COUNTED av-	nATe-'i-AZ-yj. (

TIME scatnrr	n Ata-H ?tl\ Mn hoiips CF COUNT'	'	rtv	

COMPILED 	pat?:	'

remarks:	

24-HOUR CONTROL i rrynnN: T • * rySL rv 5) aL<2r>r-.-t'V*Qrr\rU PA. gar-ma.
ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL ENTERING TRAFFIC VOLUME(VEH/DAY):_U^3IX1—	

5jdM0fiLAaV34J^

ST. NAME '

J

f C

^Ps

l

D

10,01



HsaZ

gL5og

522.

SHOW
NCBTH

HsniHfiTy

VI IW

w

7

4-

S

Ul

TED-15(REV :/79)

i

I



5c7fri )Wo



Av^\ tv fta

ST. NAME I

B

CROSSWALK _CC.

2SJGNAC2E2	

CSTCP 3T	

"OTHER 	
-------
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CERARTMENT	ncr^	MANUAL VEHICLE

ENGINEERING DIVISION/FLANNING1RS3EARCH SECT !CN W"'G1NAL HAS	SURVEY SUMMARY

C.TY OF CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLINA	BEEN FlLFjy

Attachment I

,	) nnxrir.u-C \ L Aj e n

atuc3- (?		COUNTED av	g./^ .?. fl	hat=-^3-"3ia-v

TIME seamn-n A/*-H ? (A mo wrings CF rniiMT l\	nAvTugiA^	

COMPILED				hat?:		

REMARKS:	¦ 	

2u. 3 53 gar-mo- ^3z.
ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL ENTERING TRAFFIC VOLUME(VE-f/CAY):__J£5-^2	

J.

Ad*

. >*
-------
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CEP4RTMENT

ENGINEERING OfVlSlCN/FLANNINGiRESEARCH SECTION

C57V CF CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLINA

COPY

ORIGINAL HAS
FILED

MANUAL VEHICLE
SURVEY SUMMARY

wCATuea-		

nwe pggmn- 1 -A^-1

CCWPfLSD 3Y:^0	

REMARKS:	

Attachment I

location:

dgw i £aL Avg-y	fUrr^ Rj|

.COUNTED qy ^	, 
-------


TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

ENGINEERING DIVISION/PtANNINGiRESSARCH- SECTION

CITY QF CHARLOTTE. NGRTr* CAROLINA

co^r

ORIGINAL HAS
been FILED

ihment I

MANUAL VEHICLE
SURVEY SUMMAHV

WgATHSfg..	iff-	

FTME. rEHlCDp^jSlzB-llCL
COMFfLED 3*?SlL___

U

LOCATION!	Am> / y

.COUNTED gy- C . *J *i.T} ."P. ft, CG>

j^c. hours gf ccunt-JI.

ptav-F ^ v nr^nM-Ca-^nZ^J* 4w. S *7	(X~=£:	g-ir-rncr-/>3lT

EST!MATED AVERAGE ANNUAL ENTERING TRAFFIC VOLUME CVEH/CAYl:__s££i2S	

ffi^; w "Rgj

ST. NAME

D

L236f

J

5,

i?

u*

l^.

>

o

-f^gaf K
11,4-75 j-rfcTit-s j-—

'54TfF Co

c

r

f-

1



V

SHOW

NC2TH.

A

foke r"

toZfQ j-f^5a5 I



TED-f5(R0/ r/73)

\

?¦



5Z65 }&tc\

¦- r

1-

I



i





¦ 9 Set



Am'v 11 Rci

B

CROSSWALK LCC
5felGNALiZ23	

CSTCPST
-------
ATTACHMENT II
1982 TRAFFIC DATA
-------
TABLE 1
1982 TRAFFIC DATA

Attachment II

DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL



Time

Period:

10:00 - 16:00

Intersection: First

St./College St.

»

X= .088 Km;

Y= .070 Km

Stop sign controlled:

First Street

stops

Link





(Link)
Parameter

N(Colleee)

Er 1st

) S(College)

W( 1st

) Units

Approach Link:

1

t









Beg.X

.184

—

.004

.016

Km

Beg. Y

.146

—

.005

.150

Km

End X

.092

—

.083

.080

Km

End Y

.074

—

.066

.078

Km

Width

13-4

—

13.4

5.3

Meters

# of Lanes

4

—

4

1

#

Capacity

6000

—

6000

1400

veh/hr. (Level

Speed Limit

0

—

35

35

m. p. h.

Volume

0

—

2418

939

veh/hr.

Exit Link:











Beg.X

.092

—

.083

.0 80

Km

Beg. Y

.074

—

.066

.078

Km

End X

.184

—

.004

.016

Km

End Y

.146

—

.005

.150

Km

Width

13.4

—

0

2

Meters

$ of Lanes

4

—

0

0

£

Speed Linit

35

—

35

0

m.p.h.

Volume

3357

—

0

0

veh/hr.

Receptor Location:











X





.086



Km

Y





.248



Km
-------
TABLE 1 —Continued

Attachment II

DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL
Intersection: First St./College St.;

Stop sign controlled: First Street stops

Time Period: 16:00 - 18:00
X= .088 Km; Y= .070 Km

(Link)
Parameter

N( Colletre)

EMst

) S(College)

WMst )

Units

Approach Link:











Beg.X

.184

—

.004

.016

Km

Beg. Y

.146

—

.005

.150

Km

End X

.092

—

on
oo
o
•

.080

Km

End Y

.074

—

.066

.078

Km

Width

13.4

—

13.4

5.3

-Meters

# of Lanes

4

—

4

1

t

Capacity

6000

—

6000

1400

veh/hr. (Level

Speed Limit

0

—

35

35

m.p.h.

Volume

0

—

1098

540

veh/hr.

Exit Link:











Beg.X

.092

—

.083

.080

Km

Beg. Y

.074

—

.066

.078

Km

End X

.184

—

.004

.016

Km

End Y

.146

—

.005

.150

Km

Width

13.4

—

0

2

Meters

# of Lanes

4

~

0

0

#

Speed Limit

35

—

35

0

m.p.h.

Volume

1638

—

0

0

veh/hr.

Receptor Location:











X





.086



Km

Y





.248



Km

Z





3



Meters
-------
TABLE 1 —Continued

Attachment II

DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL
Intersection: Second St
Phasing: 2-Phase, fixed

(Link)
Parameter

Time Period: 10:00 - 16:00
,/College St.; X= .192 Km; Y= .152 Km
time (coordinated); cycle = 90 sec.
	Link	

Approach Link:
Beg.X
Beg. I
End X
End 1
Width

Q of Lanes
Capacity
Speed Limit
Volume
Exit Link:

Beg.X
Beg. y
End X
End 1
Width

# of Lanes
Speed Limit
Volume
Receptor Location:
X
Y
Z

N( CoUeKS) E(2nd ) S(College) W( 2nd )

.286
.229
.199
.158
15.0
0
0

35
0

.199
.158
.286
.229
15.0
4
35
2455

.239
.100
.201
.144
7.2
2

2900
35
1295

.201
.144
.239
.100
7.4
2

35
347

.092
.074
.184
.146
14.7
4

5900
35
2896

.194
.146
.092
.074
14.7
0
35
0

.086
.248
3

.103
.250
.185
.162
6.1
0
0

35
0

.185
.162
.103
.250
6.1
2
35
1389

Units

Km
Km
Km
Km
.Meters

veh/hr. (Level E)
m. p. h.

veh/hr.

Km
Km
Km
Km
Meters
#

m.p.h.

veh/hr.

Km
Km
Meter3
-------
TABLE 1 —Continued

Attachment II

DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL
Intersection: Second St.
Phasing: 2-Phase, fixed

Time Period: 16:00 - 18:00
/College St.;	X= .192 Km; Y= .152 Km

time (coordinated); cycle = 90 sec.

(Link)
Parameter

N(College)

E(2nd )

S(College)

W( 2nd )

Units

Approach Link:









Beg.X

.286

.239

.092

.103

Km

Beg. Y

.229

.100

.074

.250

Km

End X

.199

.201

.184

.185

Km

End Y

.158

.144

.146

.162

Km

Width

15.0

7.2

14.7

6.1

Meters

# of Lanes

0

2

4

0

#

Capacity

0

2900

5900

0

veh/hr. (Level

Speed Limit

35

35

35

35

m. p. h.

Volume

0

713

1769

0

veh/hr.

Exit Link:











Beg.X

.199

.201

.194

.185

Km

Beg. Y

.158

.144

.146 ,

.162

Km

End X

.286

.239

.092

.103

Km

End Y

.229

.100

.074

.250

Km

Width

15.0

7.4

14.7

6.1

Meters

it of Lanes

4

2

0

2

#

Speed Limit

35

35

35

35

m. p. h.

Volume

1552

298

0

632

veh/hr.

Receptor Location:











X





.086



Km

Y





.248



Km

Z





3



Meters
-------
TABLE 1--Continued

Attachment II

DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL	Time Period:

Intersection: Third St./College St.;	X= .295 Km;

Phasing: 2-Phase, fixed time (coordinated); cycle = 90 sec.

	Link	

10:00 - 16:00
Y= .236 Km

(Link)
Parameter

Approach Link:
Beg.X
Beg. Y
End X
End Y
Width

# of Lanes
Capacity
Speed Limit
Volume
Exit Link:

Beg. X
Beg. Y
End X
End Y
Width

t of Lanes
Speed Limit
Volume
Receptor Location:
X
Y
Z

N( College) EHrd 1 S(College) W( 3rd )

.392
.208
.302
.242
14.8
0
0
0
0

.302
.242
.392
.308
14.8
4

35
2764

.350
.174
.303
.226
12.0
0
0
0
0

• 303
.226
.350
.174
12.0
3
35
2952

.199
.158
.286
.229
14.7
4

5900
35
2751

.286
.229
.199
.158
14.7
0
0
0

.086
.248
3

.237
.300
.288
.244
13.3
3

4700
35
2965

.288
.244
.237
.300
13.3
0
0
0

Unita

Km
Km
Km
Km
.Meters
#

veh/hr. (Level E)
m. p. h.

veh/hr.

Km
Km
Km
Km
Meters
#

m. p. h.

veh/hr.

Km
Km
Meters
-------
TABLE 1--Continued

Attachment II

DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL	Time Period: 16:00 - 18:00

Intersection: Third St./College St.;	X= .295 Km; Y= .236 Km

Phasing: 2-Phase, fixed time (coordinated); cycle = 90 sec.

	Link	

(Link)
Parameter

Approach Link:
Beg.X
Beg. Y
End X
End 1
Width

#	of Lanes
Capacity
Speed Limit
Volume

Exit Link:

Beg.X
Beg. Y
End X
End I
Width

#	of Lanes
Speed Limit
Volume

Receptor Location:
X
1
Z

NCCoUese) EHrd ) sccollege) wnrd )

.392
.208
.302
.242
14.8
4
0
0
0

.302
.242
• 392
.308
14.8
4
35
1506

.350
.174
• 303
.226
12.0
3
0
0
0

.303
.226
.350
.174
12.0
3
35
2282

.199
.158
.286
.229
14.7
4

5900
35
1806

.286
.229
.199
.158
14.7
4
0
0

.086
.248
3

.237
• 300
.288
.244
13.3
3

4700
35
1982

.288
.244
.237
.300
13.3
3
0
0

Units

Km
Km
Km
Km
Meters
#

veh/hr. (Level E)
m. p. h.

veh/hr.

Km
Km
Km
Km
Meters
#

m. p. h.

veh/hr.

Km
Km
Meters
-------




TABLE 1

—Continued



Attachment II

DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL





Time

Period:

10:00 - 16:00

Intersection: Fourth St./College St.

J

X= .404 Km;

Y= .317 Km

Phasing: 2-Phase, fixed

time (coordinated);

cycle = 90

sec.







Link





(Link)
Parameter

N(Collece)

E(4th )

S( College)

wruth )

Units

Approach Link:











Beg.X

.496

.456

.302

.350

Km

Beg. Y

.387

.250

.242

.278

Km

End X

.411

.413

• 392

• 398

Km

End Y

.322

• 307

• 308

• 325

Km

Width

14.8

12.7

14.6

10.3

Meters

# of Lanes

0

2

4

0

#

Capacity

0

2900

5900

0

veh/hr. (Level E)

Speed Limit

35

35

35

0

m. p. h *

Volume

0

3164

2582

0

veh/hr.

Exit Link:











Beg.X

.411

.413

.392

.398

Km

Beg. Y

.322

• 307

.308

.325

Km

End X

.496

.456

.302

.350

Km

End Y

.387

.250

.242

.378

Km

Width

14.7

12.7

14.6

10.3

Meters

# of Lanes

4

0

0

2

t

Speed Limit

35

35

35

35

m. p. h.

Volume

2759

0

0

2987

veh/hr.

Receptor Location:











X





.086



Km

Y





.248



Km

Z





3



Meters
-------
TABLE 1—Continued

Attachment II

DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL





Time

Period:

16:00 - 18:00

Intersection: Fourth St./College St.

J

X= .404 Km;

Y= .317 Km

Phasing: 2-Phase, fixed

time (coordinated)

; cycle = 90

sec.









Link





(Link)
Parameter

N(Collece)

E(4th

) S(College)

W(4th

) Units

Approach Link:











Beg.X

.496

.456

.302

.350

Km

Beg.Y

• 387

.250

.242

.278

Km

End X

.411

.413

.392

.398

Km

¦ End 1

.322

• 307

.308

.325

Km

Width

14.8

12.7

14.6

10.3

Jleters

# of Lanes

0

2

4

0

#

Capacity

0

2900

5900

0

veh/hr. (Level

Speed Limit

35

-65

35

0

m.p.h.

Volume

0

1372

1656

0

veh/hr.

Exit Link:











Beg.X

.411

.413

• 392

• 398

Km

Beg. Y

.322

• 307

.308

.325

Km

End X

.496

.456

.302

.350-

Km

End I

.387

.250

.242

.378

Km

Width

14.7

12.7

14.6

10.3

Meters

# of Lanes

4

0

0

2

#

Speed Limit

35

35

35

35

m. p.h.

Volume

1691

0

0

1337

veh/hr.

Receptor Location:











X





.086



Km

1





.248



Km

Z





3



Meters
-------




TABLE 2

IJ Attachment

II



1982

TRAFFIC

DATA





DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL



Time Period:

11:00

- 19:00

Intersection: Central

Ave./Sharon Ami

.ty Rd. ;

X= 0.078

Km; Y=

0.097 Km

Phasing: 7-phase full

actuated









(Link)



Link





Parameter

XLSmAI

E(Cent.)

sr s.a.i

W(Cent.)

Units

Approach Link:









Beg.X

0.097

0.177

0.065

0.000

Km

Beg. Y

0.197

0.046

0.000

0.137

Km

End X

0.077

0.094

0.079

0.064

Km

End Y

0.116

0.103

0.081

0.099

Km

Width

7.6

7.4

6.9

7.0

Meters

# of Laces

2

2

2

2

#

Capacity

2800

2700

2400

2800

veh/hr.(Level

Speed Limit

45

45

45

45

m. p. h.

Volume

670

1030

1000

1230

veh/hr.

Exit Link:











Beg.X

0.088

0.089

0.070

0.069

Km

3eg. Y

0.113

0.084

0.085

0.109

Km

End X

0.107

0.172

0.051

0.004

Km

End Y

0.195

0.036

0.003

0.146

Km

Width

7.4

7.1

6.9

6.7

Meters

# of Lanes

2

2

2

2

0

Speed Limit

45

45

45

45

a. P. h.

Volume

980

1000

950

1000

veh/hr.

Heceptor Location:











X

0.080







Km

Y

0.155







Km

"T

I*

3







Meters
-------




TABLE 3



rtLtacnment ix

I

fJ

DATA FOP. MID3L0CK MODEL

1982

TRAFFIC

DATA

Time Period:

—*
• •

o
o

- 19:00

Intersection: Albemarle/

Sharon Amity

(444);

X= 0.141

Km;Y=

0.132 Km

Phasing: 5-Phase full actuated









(Link)





Link





Parameter

NCS.A. )

E(Albe.

) SfS.A. 1

W(Albe.)

0nit3

Approach Link:









Eeg.X

0.142

0.228

0.141

0.050

In

Beg. Y

0.245

0.180

0.023

0.092

Km

End 1

0.136

0.157

0.146

0.124

Km

End Y

0.150

0.147

0.114

0.117

Ka

Width

7

7.5

6.5

7

Meters

of Lanes

2

2

2

2

*

Capacity

3000

3000

2800

3000



Speed Limit

45

45

45

45

in. p. h.

Volume

840

830

1140

920

veh/hr.

Exit Link:











Beg.X

0.147

0.156

0.135

0.121

Km

Beg. Y

0.152

0.134

0.114

0.130

Km

End 2

0.154

0.232

0.131

0.046

Km

End Y

0.250

0.170

0.018

0.093

Km

Width

6

7.5

7

8

Meters

# of Lanes

2

2

2

2

#

Speed Lir.it

45

45

45

45

q «p« h.

Volune

990

1100

970

660

veh/hr.

Receptor Location:











X



0.199





Ka

V



0.184





£=
-------
TABLE 4

Attachment II

1982 TRAFFIC DATA
DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL	Time Period:

Intersection: Independence/Sharon Amity (446) 1= 0.092

Phasing: 8-phase full actuated

(Link)

Parameter
Approach Link:

Beg.X

Beg.Y

End I

End r

Width

t of Lanes

Capacity

Speed Limit

Volume

Exit Link:

Beg. I

Beg.I

End X

End I

Width

# of Lanes
Speed Limit
Volume
Receptor Location:

2

11:00 - 19:00
Ka;la 0.105

Km

US. 1^1

E(IndeDl

SIS,. AJ_

W(Indeo)

Units

0.157

0.191

0.038

0.000

Km

0.203

0.000

0.009

0.202

Km

0.100

0.110

0.082

0.072

£a

0.132

0.100

0.079

0.111

Km

8

12

8

12

Meters

2

3

2

3

A

Y

3100

4600

3100

4600



45

45

45

45

m. p. h.

740

1400

740

1430

veh/hr.

0.110

0.110

0.071

0.072

Km

0.124

0.084

0.086

0.128

Km

0.175

0.160

0.022

0.021

Km

0.202

0.002

0.010

0.212

Km

7

12

7

12

Meters

2

3

2

3

#

45

45

45

45

m. p. h.

960

1590

660

1100

veh/hr.





0.084



r~
-------
TABLE 5

Attachment II

DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL

1982

TRAFFIC

DATA

Time Period:

11:00

- 19:00

Intersection: Idlevild/Independence

(448)

X= 0.552

Ka;Y=

0.130 Km

Phasing: 7-phase, full

actuated









(Link)





Link





Parameter

N(IndeD)

E(Idlwd) S(IndeD)

W(Idvld)

Onits

Approach Link:











Beg.X

0.446

0.655

0.663

0.102

Km

Beg.T

0.203

0.142

0.055

0.081

Km

End X

0.529

0.579

0.579

0.532

Km

End I

0.138

0.135

0.123

0.124

Km

Width

11

6

11

6.5

Meters

# of Lanes

3

2

3

2

#

Capacity

4500

2800

4500

2900

veh/hr.(Level

Speed Limit

45

35

45

35

m. p. h.

Volume

1520

430

1160

600

veh/hr.

Exit Link:











Beg.Z

0.552

0.587

0.552

0.522

Km

Beg. I

0.145

0.129

0.119

0.132

Km

End 1

0.456

0.655

0.652

0.092

Km

End Y

0.223

0.136

0.038

0.087

Km

Width

11

4

12

4

Meters

# of Lanes

3

1

3

1

#

Speed Limit

45

35

45

35

m. p. h.

Volume

1320

540

1430

430

veh/hr.

Heceptor Location:











I







0.475

Km

Y







0.152

Km

4*







3

Meters
-------
TABLE 6

Attachment II

DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL

1982

TRAFFIC

DATA

Time Period:

11:00

- 19:00

Intersection: Fairview/Providence/Sardis (510) 1= 0.109

Km;Y=

0.095 Km

Phasing: 8-phase full actuated









(Link)



L

Ink





Parameter

N(Prov.)

E(Sard.)

S(Prov.)

W( Fair.

Dnits

Approach Link:











Beg.I

0.006

0.158

0.199

0.070

Km

Beg. I

0.201

0.201

0.000

0.000

Km

End X

0.087

0.115

0.124

0.103

Km

End I

0.109

0.116

0.086

0.068

Km

Width

7

7

7

7

Meters

# of Lanes

2

2

2

2

t

Capacity

3000

3000

3000

3000

veh/hr.(Level

Speed Limit

45

45

45

45

m. p. h.

Volume

740

680

510

1050

veh/hr.

Exit Link:











Beg.X

0.094

0.125

0.119

0.094

Km

Beg. Y

0.117

0.109

0.075

0.074

Km

End X

0.013

0.171

0.186

0.057

Km

End I

0.201

0.201

0.000

0.000

Km

Width

7

7

7

6

Meters

# of Lanes

2

2

2

2

#

Speed Limit

45

45

45

45

p«h.

Volume

540

820

840

780

veh/hr.

Receptor Location:











X







0.148

Km

v







0.076

Km
-------
TABLE 7

Attacnment II

DATA FOR MID3L0CZ

1982 TRAFFIC DATA
MODEL lice Period

: 10:30

- 18:30

Intersection: Park

: Rd./Woodlavn Rd.;



X= 0.102

Kn;Y=

0.107 Kn

Phasing: S-phase f

'ully actuated









(Link)





Link





Parameter

IK Park )

EfWood.

) S(Park )

WfWood.)

Units

Approach Link:











Beg. I

0.107

0.208

0.102

0.000

Kn

Beg.T

0.216

0.103

0.000

0.130

Kn

End 1

0.100

0.123

0.104

0.080

Km

End 1

0.126

0.110

0.090

0.107

Kn

Width

7.0

6.8

7-3

8.1

Meters

# of Lanes

2

2

2

2

*

Capacity

2900

3000

3000

2900

veh/hr.(Level

Speed Linit

35

35

35

45

n.p.h.

Voliuae

750

610

880

900

veh/hr.

Exit Link:











Beg.X

0.111

0.126

0.095

0.083

Kn

Beg. Y

0.124

0.097

0.090

0.119

Kn

End X

0.120

0.209

0.089

0.000

En

End Y

0.215

0.091

0.000

0.138

Kn

Width

7.4

7.3

7.3

7.1

Meters

v of Lanes

2

2

2

2

X
T

Speed Licit

35

35

35

45

n. p. h.

Voluae

840

870

780

650

veh/hr.

Receptor Location:











X







0.070

Kn

V







C.098

Kn

z







3

Meters
-------
ATTACHMENT III

TRAFFIC DATA FOR 1987
WITHOUT TCMs
-------
TABLE 8

DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL

1987

TRAFFIC

DATA

Time Period:

11:00

- 19:00

Intersection: Central

Ave./Sharon Amity Rd.;

X= 0.078

Km; Y=

0.097 Km

Phasing: 7-phase full

actuated









(Link)







Link





Parameter



il sa 1

E(Cent.

) S( S. A.)

W( Cent.)

Units

Approach Link:











Beg. X



0.097

0.177

0.065

0.000

Km

Beg. 7



0.197

0.046

0.000

0.137

Km

End X



0.077

0.094

0.079

0.064

Km

End I



0.116

0.103

0.081

0.099

Km

Width



7.6

7.4

6.9

7.0

Meters

$ of Lanes



2

2

2

2

#

Capacity



2800

2700

2400

2800

veh/hr.(Level

Speed Limit



45

45

45

45

m. p. h.

Volume



704

1030

1050

1230

veh/hr.

Exit Link:













Beg.X



0.088

0.089

0.070

0.069

Km

Beg. Y



0.113

0.084

0.085

0.109

Km

End X



0.107

0.172

0.051

0.004

Km

End I



0.195

0.036

0.003

0.146

Km

Width



7-4

7.1

6.9

6.7

Meters

it of Lanes



2

2

2

2

it

Speed Limit



45

45

45

45

m. p. h.

Volume



1023

1000

998

1000

veh/hr.

Receptor Location:













X



0.080







Km

Y



0.155







Ka

2



3







Meters
-------
TABLE 9

Attachment itI



1987

TRAFFIC

DATA





1ATA FOR MIDBLOCX MODEL





Time Period:

11:00

- 19:00

intersection: Albemarle/Sharon Amity

(444);

X= 0.141

Km; Y=

0.132 Kb

'hasing: 5-phase full actuated









(Link)





Link





Parameter

MS.k. )

EfAlbe.

) S(S.A. )

W(Albe.t

Units

Lpproach Link:











Beg.X

0.142

0.228

0.141

0.050

Km

Beg.Y

0.245

0.180

0.023

0.092

Km

End X

0.136

0.157

0.146

0.124

Km

End Y

0.150

0.147

0.114

0.117

Km

Width

7

7.5

6.5

7

Meters

$ of Lanes

2

2

2

2

#

Capacity

3000

3000

2800

3000



Speed Limit

45

45

45

45

m. p. h.

Volune

882

1112

1197

1232

veh/hr.

xlt Link:











Beg.X

0.147

0.156

0.135

0.121

Km

Beg. I

0.152

0.134

0.114

0.130

Km

End X

0.154

0.232

0.131

0.046

Km

End Y

0.250

0.170

0.018

0.093

Km

Width

6

7.5

7

8

Meter3

f of Lanes

2

2

2

2

#

Speed Limit

45

45

45

45

m. p. h.

Volune

1040

1474

1019

884

veh/hr.

eceptor Location:











X



0.199





Kn

Y



0.184





Km
-------
TABLE 10

Attachment III

DATA FOB MIDBLOCK MODEL

1987

TRAFFIC

DATA

Time Period:

11:00

- 19:00

Intersection: Independence/Sharon Amity (446)

X= 0.092

Km;Y=

0.105 Km

Phasing: 8-pbase full actuated









(Link)



Link





Parameter

5. A.)

E(Indeo)

SliL. 1x1

W(Indeo)

Onits

Approach Link:







Beg.X

0.157

0.191

0.038

0.000

Km

Beg. I

0.203

0.000

0.009

0.202

Km

End I

0.100

0.110

0.082

0.072

Km

End ?

0.132

0.100

0.079

0.111

Km

Width

8

12

8

12

Meters

t of Lanes

2

3

2

3

i

Capacity

3100

4600

3100

4600



Speed Limit

45

45

45

45

m« p. h«

Volume

in

1876

777

1916

veh/hr.

Exit Link:











Beg.2

0.110

0.110

0.071

0.072

Km

Beg. I

0.124

0.084

0.086

0.128

Km

End 1

0.175

0.160

0.022

0.021

Km

End I

0.202

0.002

0.010

0.212

Km

Width

7

12

7

12

Meters

$ of Lanes

2

3

2

3

#

Speed Limit

45

45

45

45

Q. p. h.

Volume

1008

21 31

693

1474

veh/hr.

Receptor Location:











1





0.084



7-

Y





0.052




-------




TABLE 1 1



Attachment III



1987

TRAFFIC

DATA





DATA FOR MIDBLOCK

MODEL



Time Period:

11:00

- 19:00

Intersection: Idlewild/Independence

(448)

X= 0.552

Km;Y=

0.130 Km

Phasing: 7-phase,

full actuated









(Link)



Link





Parameter

N(IndeD)

E(Idlwd)

S(IndeD-)

wridwld)

Units

Approach Link:











Beg.X

0.446

0.655

0.663

0.102

ITm

Beg.Y

0.203

0.142

0.055

0.081

Km

End Z

0.529

0.579

0.579

0.532

Km

End I

0.138

0.135

0.123

0.124

Km

Width

11

6

11

6.5

Meters

# of Lanes

3

2

3

2

#

Capacity

4500

2800

4500

2900

veh/hr.(Level

Speed Limit

45

35

45

35

m« p. h.

Volume

1854

525

1415

732

veh/hr.

Exit Link:











Beg. I

0.552

0.587

0.552

0.522

Km

Beg. 7

0.145

0.129

0.119

0.132

Km

End X

0.456

0.655

0.652

0.092

Km

End I

0.223

0.136

0.038

0.087

Km

Width

11

4

12

4

Meters

t of Lanes

3

1

3

1

*

Speed Limit

45

35

45

35

m. p. h.

Volume

1610

659

1745

525

veh/hr.

Receptor Location

'









I







0.475

Km

Y







0.152

Km

Z







3

Meters
-------




TABLE 1 2



Attachment III

)ATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL

1987

TRAFFIC DATA
Time

Period:

11:00

- 19:00

[ntersection: Fairviev/Pr

¦ovidence/Sardis (510) X

= 0.109

Km;I=

0.095 Ka

Phasing: 8-phase full actuated









(Link)



Link







Parameter

NfProv.)

E(Sard.) S(?rov.)

W(Fair.)

Units

Approach Link:









Beg.X

0.006

0.158

0.199

0.070

Km

Beg. I

0.201

0.201

0.000

0.000

Km

End X

0.087

0.115

0.124

0.103

Em

End I

0.109

0.116

0.086

0.068

En

Width

7

7

7

7

Meters

# of Lanes

2

2

2

2

#

Capacity

3000

3000

3000

3000

veh/hr.(Level

Speed Limit

45

45

45

45

m. p.h.

Volume

903

748

622

1218

veh/hr.

Exit Link:











Beg.X

0.094

0.125

0.119

0.094

Km

Beg.T

0.117

0.109

0.075

0.074

Km

End X

0.013

0.171

0.186

0.057

Km

End Y

0.201

0.201

0.000

0.000

£m

Width

7

7

7

6

Meters

£ of Lanes

2

2

2

2

#

Speed Linit

45

45

45

45

m. p • h.

Volume

659

902

1025

905

veh/hr.

Receptor Location:











X







0.148

Km

V







0.076

Km

U







3

Meters
-------
TABLE 13
1987 TRAFFIC DATA
DATA FOR HID3L0CX MODEL	Tine Period:

Intersection: Park Rd./Voodlawn Rd.;	Z= 0.102

Phasing: S-pfaase fully actuated

attachment III

10:30 - 18:30
Y= 0.107 Kn

(Link)
Paraaeter

Link

N(Park ) E(Wood.) SfPark ) W(Wood.)

Units

Beg.Z

0.107

0.208

0.102

0.000

In

Beg. I

0.216

0.103

0.000

0.130

Kn

End Z

0.100

0.123

0.104

0.080

Kn

End I

0.126

0.110

0.090

0.107

Kn

Width

7.0

6.8

7.3

8.1

Meters

# of Lanes

2

2

2

2

#

Capacity

2900

3000

3000

2900

veh/hr.(Level

Speed Lixait

35

35

35

45

q. p • h.

Volune

825

702

968

1035

veh/hr.

Exit Link:











Beg.Z

0.111

0.126

0.095

0.083

Kn

Beg. I

0.124

0.097

0.090

0.119

Kn

End Z

0.120

0.209

0.089

0.000

Kn

End Y

0.215

0.091

0.000

0.138

Kn

Width

7.4

7.3

7.3

7.1

Meters

v of Lanes

2

2

2

2

#

Speed Licit

35

35

35

45

n. p. h.

Volune

924

1000

858

748

veh/hr.

Receptor Location:











X







0.070

En

V







0.098

Kn

z







3

Meters
-------




TABLE 14



Attachment





1987 TRAFFIC DATA





DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL

Time

Period:

10:00 - 16:00

Intersection: First

St./College St.

,; X= .088 Km;

Y= .070 Km

Stop sign controlled:

First Street

stops

Link





(Link)
Parameter

N( Colleee)

EMst. ) S(College)

WMst

) Units

Approach Link:









Beg. X

.184

.004

.016

Km

Beg. Y

.146

.005

.150

Km

End X

.092

.083

.080

Km

End Y

.074

— .066

.078

Km

Width

13-4

13.4

5.3

Meters

# of Lanes

4

4

1

#

Capacity

6000

6000

1400

veh/hr. (Level

Speed Limit

0

35

35

m.p.h.

Volume

0

'2611

1014

veh/hr.

Exit Link:









Beg.X

.092

~ .083

.080

Km

Beg. Y

.074

— .066

.078

Km

End X

.184

.004

.016

Km

End Y

.146

.005

.150

Km

Width

13.4

— 0

2

Meters

Q of Lanes

4

0

0

£

Speed Limit

35

— 35

0

m.p.h.

Volume

3625

0

0

veh/hr.

Receptor Location:









X



.086



Km

Y



.248



Km

Z



3



Meters
-------
TABLE 14—Continued

Attachment III

DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL
Intersection: First St./College St.;

Stop sign controlled: First Street stops

Time Period: 16:00 - 18:00
X= .088 Km; Y= .070 Km

Link

(Link)
Parameter

N( College}

E(1st )

S(Colleee)

W( 1st )

Units

Approach Link:











Beg.X

.184

—

.004

.016

Km

Beg. Y

. 146

—

.005

O

in
•

Km

End X

.092

—

m
00
o
•

.080

Km

End Y

.074

—

.066

•

o

CO

Km

Width

13.4

—

13.4

5.3

-Meters

# of Lanes

4

—

4

1

#

Capacity

6000

—

6000

1400

veh/hr. (Level

Speed Limit

0

—

35

35

m. p. h«

Volume

0

—

1186

583

veh/hr.

Exit Link:











Beg.X

C\J

o*

o

—

.083

.080

Km

Beg. Y

.074

—

.066

.078

Km

End X

.184

—

.004

.016

Km

End Y

.146

— .

.005

.150

Km

Width

13.4

—

0

2

Meters

# of Lanes

4

~

0

0



Speed Limit

35

—

35

0

m. p. h.

Volume

1769

—

0

0

veh/hr.

leceptor Location:











X





.086



Km

Y





.248



Km
-------
TABLE 14--Continued

Attachment III

DATA FOR MIDBLOCK

MODEL





Time

Period:

16:00 - 18:00

Intersection: Second St,

./College St.

~ 5

X= .192 Km;

Y= .152 Km

Phasing: 2-Phase,

fixed

time (coordinated)

; cycle = 90

sec.











Link





(Link)
Parameter



N(College)

E( 2nd

) S(College)

W( 2nd

) Units

Approach Link:













Beg. X



.286

.239

.092

.103

Km

Beg. Y



.229

.100

.074

.250

Km

End X



.199

.201

.184

.185

Km

End Y



.158

.144

.146

.162

Km

Width



15.0

7.2

14.7

6.1

Meters

it of Lanes



0

2

4

0

#

Capacity



0

2900

5900

0

veh/hr. (Level

Speed Limit



35

35

35

35

m. p. h.

Volume



0

770

19'1-0

0

veh/hr.

ixit Link:













Beg.X



.199

.201

.194

.185

Km

Beg. Y



.158

.144

.146 ,

.162

Km

End X



.286

.239

.092

.103

Km

End Y



.229

.100

.074

.250

Km

Width



15.0

7.4

14.7

6.1

Meters

# of Lanes



4

2

0

2

#

Speed Limit



35

35

35

35

m. p. h.

Volume



1676 -

321

0

632

veh/hr.

eceptor Location:













X







.086



Km

Y







.248



Km
-------
TABLE 14—Continued

Attachment III

DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL
Intersection: Second St
Phasing: 2-Phase, fixed

Time Period: 10:00 - 16:00
./College St.;	X= .192 Km; Y= .152 Km

time (coordinated); cycle = 90 sec.

(Link)
Parameter

N(College)

E( 2nd

UX1HV

) S(Colleize)

W(2nd )

Units

Approach Link:











Beg.X

.286

.239

.092

.103

Km

Beg. Y

.229

.100

.074

.250

Km

End X

.199

.201

.184

.185

Km

End Y

.158

.144

.146

.162

Km

Width

15.0

7.2

14.7

6.1

.Meters

Q of Lanes

0

2

4

0

t

Capacity

0

2900

5900

0

veh/hr. (Level

Speed Limit

35

35

35

35

m.p.h.

Volume

0

1399

312 8

0

veh/hr.

Ixit Link:











Beg.X

• 199

.201

.194

.185

Km

Beg. Y

.158

.144

.146

.162

Km

End X

.286

.239

.092

.103

Km

End Y

.229

.100

.074

.250

Km

Width

15.0

7.4

14.7

6.1

Meters

# of Lanes

4

2

0

2

$

Speed Limit

35

35

35

35

m. p. h.

Volume
eceptor Location:

26 5 1

375

0

" T 500

veh/hr.

X





.086



Km

Y





.248



Km

Z





3



Meters
-------
TABLE 14—Continued

Attachment III

DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL	Tine Period: 10:00 - 16:00

Intersection: Third St./College St.;	X= .295 Km; Y= .236 Km

Phasing: 2-Phase, fixed time (coordinated)cycle = 90 sec.

(Link)
Parameter

N(Colleee)

EHrd

) S(Colleee)

WHrd )

Units

ipproach Link:











Beg.X

• 392

.350

.199

.237

Km

Beg. Y

.208

.174

.158

.300

Km

End X

.302

.303

.286

.288

Km

End I

.242

.226

.229

.244

Km

Width

14.8

12.0

14.7

13.3

.Meters

£ of Lanes

0

0

4

3



Capacity

0

0

5900

4700

veh/hr. (Level

Speed Limit

0

0

35

35

m. p. h.

Volume

0

0

2 9 7 0

3202

veh/hr.

Ixit Link:











Beg.X

.302

.303

.286

.288

Km

Beg. Y

.242

.226

.229

.244

Km

End X

.392

• 350

.199

.237

Km

End Y

.308

.174

.158

.300

Km

Width

14.8

12.0

14.7

13.3

Meters

# of Lanes

4

3

0

0

#

Speed Limit

35

35

0

0

m. p. h.

Volume

2985

3 188

0

0

veh/hr.

eceptor Location:











X





.086



Km

Y

T





.248



Km
-------
TABLE 14—Continued

DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL	Time Period:

Intersection: Third St./College St.j	X= .295 Km;

Phasing: 2-Phasef fixed time (coordinated); cycle = 90 sec.

Attachment III

16:00 - 18:00
Y= .236 Km

(Link)
Parameter

N(Collese)

EHrd

) S(Collecel

WHrd )

Units

Approach Link:











Beg.X

.392

.350

.199

.237

Km

Beg. Y

.208

.174

.158

.300

Km

End X

.302

.303

.286

.288

Km

End I

.242

.226

.229

.244

Km

Width

14.8

12.0

14.7

13.3

^Meters

# of Lanes

4

3

4

3

#

Capacity

0

0

5900

4700

veh/hr. (Level

Speed Limit

0

0

35

35

m.p.h.

Volume

0

0

1950

2140

veh/hr.

Exit Link:











Beg.X

.302

.303

.286

.288

Km

Beg. Y

.242

.226

.229

.244

Km

End X

.392

.350

.199

.237

Km

End Y

.308

.174

.158

.300

Km

Width

14.8

12.0

14.7

13-3

Meters

$ of Lanes

4

3

4

3

0

Speed Limit

35

35

0

0

m.p.h.

Volume

1626

2465

0

0

veh/hr.

Receptor Location:











X





.086



Km

Y





.248



Km

Z





3



Meters
-------
TABLE 14—Continued

Attachment III

DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL
Intersection: Fourth St
Phasing: 2-Phase, fixed

(Link)

Parameter

Time Period: 10:00 - 16:00
,/College St.;	X= .404 Km; Y= .317 Km

time (coordinated); cycle = 90 sets.

	LJ.nk	

Approach Link:
Beg.X
Beg. Y
End X
End Y
Width

#	of Lanes
Capacity
Speed Limit
Volume

Exit Link:

Beg.X
Beg. Y
End X
End Y
Width

#	of Lanes
Speed Limit
Volume

Receptor Location:
X
Y
Z

N(College) E(4th ) S(College) W(4th )

.496
• 387
.411
.322
14.8
0
0
35
0

.411
.322
.496
.387
14.7
4

35

2980

.456
.250
.413

•	307
12.7

2

2900
35

3417

.413

•	307
.456
.250
12.7

0

35
0

•	302
.242

•	392
.308
14.6

4

5900
35

2 7.88

.392
.308

•	302
.242
14.6

0
35
0

.086
.248
3

•	350
.278
.398
.325
10.3

0
0
0
0

•	398
.325
.350
.378
10.3

2
35
3 2 26

Units.

Km
Km
Km
Km
Meters
#

veh/hr. (Level E)
m. p. h.

veh/hr.

Km
Km
Km
Km
Meters
#

m. p. h.

veh/hr.

Km
Km
Meters
-------
TABLE 1 4—Continued

Attachment III

DATA FOR MIDBLOCK MODEL
Intersection: Fourth St.
Phasing: 2-Phase, fixed

Time Period: 16:00 - 18:00
/College St.;	X= .404 Km; Y= .317 Km

time (coordinated); cycle = 90 sec.

(Link)
Parameter

N(Colleee)

Ef 4th

uinK

) S(Colleee)

W(4th )

Units

Approach Link:











Beg.X

.496

.456

.302

.350

Km

Beg. I

• 387

.250

.242

.278

Km

End X

.411

.413

.392

• 398

Km

End Y

.322

•

u>
o

.308

• 325

Km

Width

14.8

12.7

14.6

10.3

Jleters

# of Lanes

0

2

4

0

#

Capacity

0

2900

5900

0

veh/hr. (Level

Speed Limit

35

-35

35

0

m.p.h.

Volume

0

1482

1788

0

veh/hr.

Exit Link:











Beg.X

.411

.413

• 392

• 398

Km

Beg. Y

.322

.307

.308

.325

Km

End X

.496

.456

.302

.350

Km

End I

.387

.250

.242

• 378

Km

Width

14.7

12.7

14.6

10.3

Meters

3 of Lanes

4

0

0

2

#

Speed Limit

35

35

35

35

m. p. h.

Volume

1826

0

0

1444 .

veh/hr.

eceptor Location:











X





.086



Km

Y





.248



Km
-------
Attachment III

TABLE 15
GROWTH FACTORS

Growth Factor

Per Year

1982-1987

Albemarle Road

Independence Blvd. at Sharon Amity

Independence Blvd. at Idlewild Road

Sharon Amity Road

Idlewild Road

Central Avenue

Second Street

Third Street

College Street

Fourth Street

Tryon Street

Fairview Road

Providence Road

Sardis Road

Woodlawn Road

Park Road

6.0%
6.0%
4.0%
1 .0%
4.0%
0.0%
1 .5%
1 .5%
1 .5%
1 .5%
1.5%
3.0%
4.0%
2.0%
2.9%
0.0%

1 .34
1 .34
1.22
1 .05
1 .22
1 .00
1 .08
1 .08
1 .08
1 .08
1 .08
1.16
1 .22
1.10
1.15
1 .00
-------
ATTACHMENT IV

TRAFFIC DATA FOR
1987 WITH TCMs

(Letter dated December 10, 1982 and
November 20 with attachments)
-------
Attachment iv

S3 ENGINEERING-SCIENCE

TWO FLINT HILL • 10521 ROSEHAVEN STREET • FAIRFAX. VIRGINIA 22030 • 703/591-7575

TELEX. 37-5428

December 10, 1982
9227.00/58

Mr. Don S tone

Air Management Branch

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IV

345 Courtland Street, N.E.

Atlanta, GA 30308

Subject: 1987 Traffic Data for Charlotte CO Study.

Dear Don:

With reference to my letter of November 30, 1982, on the same subject,
Nancy Williams of Charlotte DOT suggested certain modifications to the
predicted 1987 peak 8-hour traffic volumes. Her suggestions were as
follows:

o Determine the peak 8-hour to 1-hour ratio based on total (two-way)
traffic for a roadway link rather than using directional traffic
volume.

o Determine total traffic volumes for 1987 peak 8-hour using total
peak 1-hour traffic and the ratio developed above.

o Split the projected total 8-hour traffic volumes into approach and

exit link volumes using directional split based on data provided for
the base year peak 8-hour period.

Based on these modifications, the revised traffic data are attached
for your information. These are the traffic volumes which will be used
in the final analysis.

cc: Dave Johnson

Nancy Williams
Bobby Cobb

Sincerely yours,
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE

Chandrika Prasad
Air Quality Planning

OFFICES IN PRINCIPAL CITIES
-------
TABLE 1

TRAFFIC DATA FOR CENTRAL/SHARON AMITV





Base Year
Peak 8-hr

Base Year
Peak 1-hr

Ratio
Peak 8-hr

1987 Peak
1-llr 'ft-affic

1987 Peak
8-Hr Traffic

Directional
Spli t

1987 Peak 8-hr
Dir ectional

Link

Description

Traf fic
(Veh/Hr )

Traf fic
(Veh/Hr)

Peak 1-lir

with TCMs
(Veh/Hr)

with TCMs
(Veh/Hr)

Ratioa

Traffic with
TCMs
(Veh/Hr)

E

N L
T I
I N
R K

E

N .S.A.
S.S.A.

E. Central
W. Central

1650
1950
2030
2230

2070
2390
25 37
27 27

0.80
0.82
0.80
0.82

2079
2396
2525
2718

1657
1955
2019
2223





A
P
P

R L
0 I
A N
C K
11

N.S.A.
S .S.A.

E. Central
W. Central

670
1000
1030
1230









0.41
0.51
0.51
0.55

679
1003
1025
1226

E L
X I
I N
T K

N.S.A.

b . is . A .
E. Central
W. Central

980
950
1000
1000









0.59
0.49
0.49
0.45

978
952
994
997

a. Based on Base Year peak 8-hour traffic volumes.
-------
TABLE 2

TRAFFIC DATA FOR ALBERMARLE/SHARON

AMITY

Link

Description

Base Year
Peak 8-hr
Traffic
(Veh/llr )

Base Year
Peak 1-hr
Traffic
(Veh/llr )

Ratio
Peak B-l»r
Peak 1-hr

1987 Peak
1-Hr Traffic
wi th TC'Ma
(Veh/llr )

1987 Peak
8-llr Traffic
wi th 'iCMs
(Veh/llr )

Directional
Spli t
Ratioa

1987 Peak 8-hr
Directional
Traffic with
TCMs
(Veh/llr )

E

N I.
T I
I N
k K
E

N.S.A.

S . S . A .

E. Alberuiai le
W. Albermarle

>030
2110
1930
1580

2066
239 7
24S0
2031

0.89
0.88
0.78
0.78

2074
2326
3710
3284

1837
2048
2887
2554





A
I'

I'

U 1,
O I
A H
C K
11

N.S.A.

S t b . A •

E. AlLiermarie
M. Albermarle

840
1 140

830
920

91	5
1 315

92	2
1336







0.46
0.54
0.43
0f 58

845
1106
1 241
1481

e r.

X I
1 N
T K

N.S.A.

S .S .A .

E. Albermale
W. Alberuiale

990
970
1 100

660

1 151

1082
1558
695







0.54
0.46
0.57
0.42

992
942
1646
1073

a. lidded on Udbc Year peak 8-hour traffic volumes.
-------
TABLE 3

TRAFFIC DATA FOR INDEPENDENCE/SHARON AMITY



Base Year

Base Year

Ratio

1987 Peak

1987 Peak

Directional

1987 Peak 8-hr



Peak 8-hr

Peak 1-hr

Peak 8-hr

1-Hr Traffic

8-Hr Traffic

Spli t

Directional



Traf fic

Traffic

Peak 1-hr

wi th TCMs

wi th TCMs

Ratio3

Traffic with

Link Description

(Veh/Hr )

(Veh/llr )



(Veh/Hr)

(Veh/Hr)



TCMs
(Veh/Hr)

N.S.A.	1700

S.S.A.	1400

E. Independence	2990

W. Independence	2530

2154
1743
3573
31 14

0.79
0.80
0.84
0.81

1999
1683
4347
4081

1578
1 351
3638
3316

N.S.A.	740

S.S.A.	740

E. Independence	1400

W. Independence	1430

846
950
1404

2092

0.44
0.53
0.47
0.57

694
716
1709
1890

N.S.A.	960

S.S.A.	660

E. Independence	1590

W. Independence	1100

1308
793
2169
1022

0.56
0.47
0.53
0.43

884
635
1929
1426

>

a. Baaed on Base Year peak 8-hour traffic volumes.	<+

ft
Ui
o
rr
9
CD
3
ft
-------
TABLE 4

TRAFFIC DATA FOR INDEPENDENCE/IDLEWILD



Base Year

Base Year

Ratio

1987 Peak

1987 Peak

Directional

1987 Peak 8-hr



Peak 8-hr

Peak 1 - hr

Peak 8-hr

1-Hr Tr af fic

8-Hr Tr af fic

Spli t

Directional



Tr af fic

Tr af fic

Peak 1-hr

with TCMs

with TCMs

Ratio3

Traffic with

Link Description

(Veh/ilr )

(Veh/Hr )



(Veh/Hr)

(Veh/Hr)



TCMs
(Veh/Hr)

N. Independence 2840
S. Independence 2590

E. Idlewild	970

W. Idlewild	1030

3553
3299
1350
1316

0.89
0.79
0.72
0.78

4206
3697
1527
1443

3 361
2902
1097
1 129

N. Independence	1520
S. Independence 1160

E. Idlewild	430

W. Idlewild	600

21 22
1382
419
836

0.53
0.45
0.44
0.58

1782
1306
482
655

N. Independence	1320

S. Independence	1430

E. Idlewild	540

W. Idlewild	430

1431
1917
931
480

0.47
0.55
0.56
0.42

1579
1596
61 5
474

Based on Base Year peak 8-hour traffic volumes.	^

rt
(u
o
3
3
(D
3
ft
-------
Attachment IV

ENGINEERING-SCIENCE

TWO FLINT HILL • 10521 ROSEHAVEN STREET • FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030 • 703/591-7575

TELEX. 67-5423

November 30, 1982
9227.00/51

Mr. Don Stone

Air Management Branch

U.S. EPA Region IV

345 Courtland Street, N.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30308

Sub: 1987 Traffic Data for Charlotte CO Study
Dear Don:

As you know, the remaining tasks for the study referenced above
require 1987 traffic volumes which reflect the expected growth in traffic
and effects of transportation control measures (TCMs). Problems resulting
from the unavailability of such data were brought to the attention of all
parties concerned through my Technical Memorandum of October 11 and
Monthly Progress Reports for September and October 1982.

Dave Johnson in his letter of October 18 (copy attached) suggested
two possible approaches to generate the data needed and recommended that
the second approach be used. I have discussed in detail the difficulties
in using this approach with Dave and the same was brought to your atten-
tion. From these discussions it was concluded that the first approach
(use of the peak 8-hour to peak 1-hour traffic ratio) would be more
appropriate under present circumstances. Data required under this approach
are readily available and the Study could proceed without further delays.

Based on this approach I have compiled a table of traffic volumes
for 1987 with growth and TCMs (See Attachments). The methodology used in
compiling these traffic volumes is also attached. Through copies of this
letter and Attachments, this information is being forewarded to all
parties concerned so that everyone will be aware of the traffic data to
be used in this Study.
-------
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE

Letter to Mr. Don Stone

Attachment iv

November 30, 1982
Page Two

Unless otherwise directed, I intend to use these traffic data in com-
pleting the remainder of this Study. Anyone having objections to the	same
is requested to contact me as soon as this letter is received so that the
study can be completed in an expedient time frame.

P.S. Please note that we have moved and our new address and telephone
number appear on the letterhead.

CP/sf

cc: Nancy Williams
Bobby Cobb
Dave Johnson

Enclosure:

Sincerely

ENGINEERING-SCIENCE

Chandrika Prasad
Air Quality Planning
-------
9227.00/58
Attachment IV

METHODOLOGY USED TO COMPUTE 1987 PEAK 8-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
TO INCLUDE EFFECTS OF TCMs AND GROWTH

The Methodology used to determine 1987 peak 8-hour traffic volumes
with growth and TCMs was as follows:

(i) Determine a ratio for peak 8-hour to peak 1-hour traffic
volumes using data for the base year.

(ii) Multiply the 1987 peak 1-hour traffic data as given in the PMM
report by the ratio determined above.

For the base year, peak 8-hour traffic volumes in IMM format (total
for each approach and exit link) were provided by Charlotte DOT. Peak 1-
hour traffic volumes for the same year were calculated from data available
in the PMM report which provided data for each lane including turning
lanes. By adding traffic volumes for each lane (including turning lanes)
of a given approach or exit link, the peak 1-hour traffic volume for
that link was computed. From these two base year data sets, the ratio of
peak 8-hour to peak 1-hour traffic for each approach and exit link was
determined.

The PMM report also provided 1987 peak 1-hour traffic data which
include the effects of growch and TCMs. Using the same procedure mentioned
above, 1987 peak 1-hour traffic volumes for each approach and exit link
were first determined. On the basis of the peak 8-hour to peak 1-hour
traffic ratios, the 1987 peak 1-hour traffic volumes were transformed
into peak 8-hour traffic volumes.

The PMM report provided 1987 peak 1-hour traffic volumes for two
scenarios given below:

1.	Alternative 1 (geometric improvements to the intersection)

2.	Alternative 2 (parallel facility improvements) and Alternative 3
(coordinated signal system) combined.

For the purposes of this study, traffic data for scenario §2 were con-
sidered.

It should be noted here that the PMM report only considered four of
the six intersections to be analyzed for this study. For the other two
intersections, Park/Woodlawn and Fairview/Providence, it was assumed that
there are no TCMs. For these two intersections, 1987 peak 8-hour traffic
volumes were calculated using base year peak 8-hour traffic volumes and
growth factors provided by Charlotte DOT.

Anomaly Normally 8-hour average traffic is expected to be lower than
the peak 1-hour traffic volumes. Slight variations from such
expectations 'were noticed for two links (East Idlewild Road
approach link and West Independence 31vd. exit link, see tables
attached).
-------
TRAFFIC DATA

Intersection; Central/Sharon Amity

TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN VEHICLES PER HOUR

Link Description



Base Year
Peak
8-Hour

Base Year
Peak
1-Hour

Ratio
Peak 8-hr
Peak 1-hr

1987 Peak

1-hr
with TCMs

1987 Peak

8-hr
with TCMs

APPROACH LINKS:

N.

S. A.

670

782

0.86

767

660



S.

S. A.

1000

1229

0.81

1239

101 5



E.

Central

1030

1368

0.75

1368

1026



W.

Central

1230

1481

0.83

1485

1232

EXIT LINKS;

N.

S. A.

980

1288

0.76

1312

997



S.

S. A.

950

1161

0.82

1157

948



E.

Central

1000

1 169

0.86

1157

995



W.

Central

1000

1246

0.80

1233

986
-------
TRAFFIC DATA

Intersection: Albemarle/Sharon Ainity

TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN VEHICLES PER HOUR

Link. Description

Base Year
Peak
8-Hour

Base Year
Peak
1-Hour

Ratio
Peak 8-hr
Peak 1-hr

1987 Peak

1-hr
wi th TCMs

1987 Peak

8-hr
with TCMs

APPROACH LINKS:

N.

S. A.

840

913

0.92

897

825



S.

S. A.

1140

1315

0.87

1297

11 28



E.

Albemarle

830

922

0.90

1387

1248



W.

Albemarle

920

1336

0.69

2116

1460

EXIT LINKS;

N.

S. A.

990

1151

0.86

1177

101 2



S.

S. A.

970

1082

0.90

1029

926



E.

Albemarle

1100

1558

0.71

2323

1650



W.

Albemarle

660

695

0.95

1168

1109

D*

a

CO
D
ft
-------
TRAFFIC DATA

Intersection: Sharon Amity/Independence







TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN VEHICLES PER

HOUR



Link Description

Base Year
Peak
8-Hour

Base Year
Peak
1-Hour

Ratio
Peak 8-hr
Peak 1-hr

1987 Peak

1-hr
wi th TCMs

1987 Peak

8-hr
with TCMs

APPROACH LINKS:

N.

S. A.

740

846

0.87

782

680



S.

S. A.

740

950

0.78

936

730 /;y



E.

Independence

1400

1404

0.99

1842

1824 ifit]



W.

Independence

1430

2092 ni,„

0.68

2570

1 748 / ' ''

EXIT LINKS:

N.

S . A.

960

1 308

0.73

1 21 7

888 ; '



S.

S. A.

660

793

0.83

747

. 620 ' '!



E.

Independence

1590

2169

0.73

2505

1828 l''v



W.

Independence

1100

1022a m -

1 .07

1 51 1

1616

a. Data anomely (1-hr traffic less then fl-hr traffic)

(D
3
rt

M
<
-------
TRAFFIC DATA

Intersection: Independence/Idlewild







TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN VEHICLES PER

HOUR



Link Description



Base Year
Peak
8-Hour

,/'

Base Year
Peak
1-Hour

Ratio V-/
Peak 8-hr
Peak 1-hr

1987 Peak

1-hr
with TCMs

1987 Peak

8-hr
wi th TCMs

APPROACH LINKS:

N.

Independence

1520v^

xy7

2112^,/^

0.72

(^2582^)'

1859



S.

Independence

1160

1382

0.84

1548'

1301



E.

Idlewild

430

419a >

I

1 .03

446

459



W.

Idlewild

600

836

0.72

860

620

EXIT LINKS:

N.

Independence

1320

1431

0.92

(^624 )

1494



S.

Independence

1430

1917

0.75

2149

161 1



E.

Idlewild

540.

931

0.58

1081

627



W.

Idlewild

430

480

0.89

583

519

ft

a. Data anomely (Peak 1-hr traffic leas then peak 8-hr traffic)	r+

o
3*
3

0>
3
ft
-------
Attachment IV

North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources &Community Development

James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor

Joseph W. Grimsley, Secretary

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Air Quality Section

October 18, 1982

Mr. Doug Toothman
Engineering - Science
7903 Westpark. Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102

Dear Doug:

As we discussed by phone, the CO study for Mecklenburg County has reached
the point where the effect of selected transportation control measures must be
considered in calculating future CO amhient concentrations. However, the
difficulty in determing the effects of the TCM's and relating the effects to
air quality necessitate that certain assumptions be made. Futhermore, it is
important that the different parties involved in this project agree that these
assumptions are reasonable and that the approach that is selected for analyzing
the TCM's is based on an acceptable rationale.

In light of past studies and available data or projectionsi it seems that
there are at least two approaches for performing the TCM analysis. These
approaches are as follows:

(1)	Using the TCM analysis performed by Peat, Marwick & Mitchell^determine
an appropriate 1-hr to 8-hr ratio and apply this ratio to the PMM
analysis based on 1-hr peak traffic.

(2)	Using turning movement ratios based on existing data or other available
data appropriate for the intersections, allocate the future midblock
traffic volumes to the straight and turn lanes at the intersection.

The effect of TCM's would show up as either reduced volumes at the
intersection or as an additional.lane(s) to handle the turning movement.
Following the allocation of volumes to intersection lanes, the
intersection would have to be "balanced" to be sure that future midblock
volumes were not changed. This procedure could be done for the peak.
8-hr period.

It seems to me that the'second approach, although based on a continuation of
existing turning movement allocations, might represent a more direct effort at
analyzing the 8-hr peak concentrations at the subject intersections. This approach
would also be more independent since it would not necessarily rely on the assumptions
of the earlier study. Therefore, I suggest we pursue the second approach unless you
or one of the persons copied on this letter have another suggestion.

¦3 O Sox 27637 Raleiqn. M C 2:611-7687
-------
Attachment IV

I assume that Dr. Prasad will be able to perform tire tasJ<£ involved tn this
approach if the existing volumes and turning movement distributions are supplied
by Charlotte DOT. Unless this data for the six intersections has already been
supplied to you, r hope Charlotte DOT will able to furnish you the data within
the next two weeks. If there are other data needs, please let me know.

I realize that this point in the CO analysis probably has more questionable
inputs and outputs than other parts of the study, but I also believe we can select
an approach that produces meaningful results based on the limited data and time we
have for performing this task. If there are objections, I hope they are aired now
and I hope they are accompanied by alternative suggestions.

Please let me know if you have any questions or if you feel, this matter needs
further discussion by other participants in this study.

Sincerely

David G. Johnson

Ih

cc: Nancy Williams
Don Stone
Bobby Cobb
Frank Vick
-------
ATTACHMENT V

ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
(TASK 2, Technical Memorandum)
-------
ttachment V

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TASK 2: 1987 AIR QUALITY WITH ISM
FOR

WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 27
CONTRACT NO. 68-02-3509

COMPILATION OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL CARBON MONOXIDE
CONCENTRATIONS IN MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Prepared for

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308

September 1982
9227.00/79A

Prepared by

Engineering-Science
7903 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102
-------
Attachment V

1987 AIR QUALITY WITH I&M AND GROWTH BUT NO TCMs

This technical memorandum documents the results of Task 2 of Work
Assignment No. 27 under the Assistance to States-Contract No. 68-02-3509.
The purpose of this task was to determine 1987 air quality with the in-
clusion of I&M and considering traffic growth but no transportation con-
trol measures. This memorandum summarizes the results of this task.

1987 Air Quality With I&M and Growth But No TCMs

The six intersections as analyzed in Task 1 were again modeled for
1987 traffic conditions considering growth in traffic and including an
automobile inspection and maintenance program. No transportation control
measures were considered for purposes of this analysis. Traffic volumes
for 1987 were obtained from 1982 traffic data and growth rates as pro-
vided by Charlotte DOT. The results of the analysis are shown in Table
1 along with 1982 predicted concentrations and 1987 predicted concentra-
tion without I&M or TCMs. I&M specifications used in this analysis were
as follows:

o Calendar year of projection = 1987
o Start of I&M program = January 1983
o Stringency factor = 30%
o Mechanics Training = yes
o First model year to be inspected = 1975
o Last model year to be inspected = 1986

The carbon monoxide concentrations presented in Table 1 do not in-
clude background or any adjustment based on model comparison. However,
two adjustments were made to the IMM predicted values for 1987 with I&M
and growth. These adjustment factors are described below.

1. Adjustment for Vehicles Not Subject to I&M

Under the proposed I&M program, only vehicles registered in Mecklen-
burg County and the City of Charlotte will be subject to the inspection
and maintenance program. Hence, an adjustment is required to account
for the impact due to vehicles not subject to the I&M program. Neither
a site-specific breakdown of these vehicles nor a breakdown by vehicle-
type (autos, light duty trucks, diesel tracks, etc) is available.' There-
fore, an adjustment factor based on overall vehicle population was de-
rived. As suggested by the Project Officer in consultation with the
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Develop-
ment, the percentage of non I&M vehicles was assumed to be 10% for this
analysis. Using this percentage, an adjustment factor was developed as
follows:

o Composite 1987 emission factor w/o I&M = gm/vehicle-mile
o Composite 1987 emission factor w/I&M	= E2 gm/vehicle-mile

o Percentage of vehicles not subject to I&M = P-j

Therefore, the adjustment factor (F1) is:

1
-------
Attachment V

TABLE 1
1982 AND 1987 AIR QUALITY3



8-Hour

CO Concentration0

(mg/m-5)

Intersection

1982

1 987c
w/o I&M

1987d
w/I&M

Standard

Sharon Amity Road/Central Avenue

19.89

15.72

11 .98

10.0

Sharon Amity Road/Albemarle Road

14.46

1 3.83

10.44

10.0

Sharon Amity Road/Independence Blvd.

14.86

1 3.65

10.59

10.0

Independence Blvd./Idlewild Road

15.50

14.91

1 1 .36

10.0

Fairview Road/Providence Road

9.37

8.49

6.40

10.0

Woodlawn Road/Park Road

10.61

8.91

6.45

10.0

a Does not include background or adjustments resulting from model com-
parison.

b Predicted under peak 8-hour traffic conditions as provided by Char-
lotte DOT.

c Does not include TCMs or I&M but includes growth in traffic.
d Does not include TCMs but includes growth in traffic and I&M program
as proposed for Charlotte-Mecklenburg area.

2
-------
Attachment V

?1 = (100 - Pi ) x E? + P1E1

100 e2

Since emission factors vary with speed, correction factors were calculated
tzr ".d 11 r.a, average ^peed ind cruise sreed and an average of *:hese factors
was used in the final analysis. The composite emission factor is dependent
upon the vehicle-mix for a given intersection; hence, a separate correction
factor was calculated for each intersection.

A review of the analysis indicated that variation in this factor with
respect to speed was insignificant (less than 0.3%). Variation in this
factor for the six intersections analyzed was also found to be insignifi-
cant (less than 0.2%). The average value of the correction factor was
1.05. This factor was multiplied by the IMM predicted concentrations
with I&M to determine the corrected CO concentrations.

2. Adjustment for I&M Applied to Heavy Duty Gasoline Vehicles

The current version of MOBILE 2 includes options to calculate emis-
sion factors for I&M applicable to a limited combination of vehicles as
given below:

Option	Type of Vehicle Affected by I&Ma

0	LDV

1	LDV and LDT1

2	LDV and LDT2

3	LDV, LDT1 and LDT2

The I&M program proposed for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area will apply
to all gasoline vehicles including heavy duty gasoline trucks. Limited
testing13 of such vehicles indicates an 18% reduction in CO emissions
due to I&M. A correction factor to account for the North Carolina I&M
program was developed as follows:

o	1987 HDG emission factor w/o I&M	= E3

o	1987 HDG emission factor w/I&M	= E4

o	1987 composite emission factor with	EPA I&MC = E2

o	Percentage of HDG vehicles	= P2

o	Reduction in emission factor due to	HDG I&M = P2 (E3-E4)

o	Net 1987 emission factor	=> E2-P2 (E3-E4)

Therefore, the correction factor (F2) is:

F-, = E? ~ p? (E^-E^

E-,

a LDV = light duty vehicles

LDT1 = light duty trucks (0-6000 lbs)

LDT2 = light duty trucks (6000-8500 lbs)

13 Personal communication with Phil Lorange, U.S. EPA Mobile Source Pol-
lution Control, Ann Arbor, Michigan, July 1982.
c I&M for LDV, LDT1, and LDT2.

3
-------
Attachment V

Since emission factors vary with speed and the percentage of HDG vehicles
varies from one intersection to the other, correction factors were calcu-
lated for each intersection and for each of several vehicle speeds.

Ccmputions indicated that the ''Hriation in the correction factor
with respect to speed and intersection was not significant (less than
0.3%). The average value was determined to be 0.395. This factor was
used for all intersections and for all vehicular speeds.

Total (Net) Correction

To determine resultant effect of the two correction factors pre-
viously discussed, a total correction factor was obtained by multiply-
ing factors F-| and F2. The resultant factor was determined to be 1 .045.

Summary and Conclusions

Results of this analysis indicate that:

o The percentage of vehicles not subject to I&M will have an iden-
tifiable impact on CO concentrations. In this case, with 10%
of the vehicles not subject to I&M, the CO concentrations are
5% higher than if all vehicles were subject to I&M.

o Due to the low volume of heavy duty gasoline trucks, I&M for
these vehicles will have very little impact (about 0.5% reduc-
tion) on overall CO concentrations at the intersections ana-
lyzed in this task.

The results further indicate a potential for nonattainment of the 8-hour
CO standard by 1987 at four intersections even with the application of
proposed I&M program.

4
-------