San Joaquin Council of Governments, Stockton, California
Air Quality Conformity Case Study Response
Prepared by Julia E. Greene, Executive Director, San
Joaquin COG
July 19, 2002
Air quality conformity has had a positive impact over the past six years in merging transportation investments with the objectives of achieving air quality standards in this region. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program is an excellent example of how transportation objectives and air quality objectives can be integrated. Great progress has been made. Nevertheless there are challenges that still need to be met. The timing of air quality attainment plans, the conformity process, and regional transportation plans has led to confusion and unnecessary work. To a large extent the timing of conformity drives the transportation planning process rather than the other way around. Also, the transportation modeling tools that have been accurate for assessing regional impacts of transportation improvements have had a greater set of expectations placed on them with air quality requirements. These tools have not always proven up to the task, and the investment required for staffing and upgrading of these tools has been inadequate.
In the San Joaquin Valley of California the task of
achieving federal and state air quality attainment standards is daunting. The requirement to reduce emissions by 30%
by 2005 is not achievable. As a
result this valley will join the Los Angeles air basin within the next year
under the “Extreme” air quality designation.
Merging the efforts of technology improvements, transportation control
measures and capital and operating transportation investments will be a large
challenge for this region, and attainment of air quality standards will still
be an uncertain thing. We need the
ability to use all these tools in our effort to bring acceptable clean air to
the San Joaquin Valley.
POINT BY POINT RESPONSES:
Difference in Timing Schedules:
¨California’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) process in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin has been driven by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) findings of inadequacies, rather than by a regular schedule for SIP updates. Our Regional Transportation Plan and Federal Transportation Improvement Program are updated on schedules determined by our transportation planning requirements, and by the ever-changing nature of our conformity and the San Joaquin Valley’s attainment status.
¨To date the SIP process has not yet impacted our highway investments. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin experienced a lapse of seven weeks due to an inadequate SIP. The impact was minimal in San Joaquin County, only due to the time of year in which it occurred. Had it occurred during early spring there would have been a project delivery impact.
The entire eight county San Joaquin Valley Air basin faces a constant threat of highway funding sanctions that could halt over $3 billion in transportation projects valley-wide. SJCOG has always voluntarily placed a high priority on clean air projects, independent of the SIP planning process.
¨SJCOG has prepared four air quality conformity certifications in the past twelve months. This has been the result of both the requirements of the transportation planning process and our SIP status.
MOBILE6 Versus
MOBILE 6 Projections:
¨California uses the EMFAC air quality model, rather than the MOBILE air quality model. We face the same problem as the rest of the nation as the new EMFAC 2001 model reportedly projects higher emissions levels than the older EMFAC 7F and EMFAC 7G models it will replace.
In California, the challenge is even greater in that EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have not sanctioned EMFAC 2001 for use in most of the state’s non-attainment areas. (The reason is somewhat arcane but is based upon the assumptions for vehicle fleet mix that are used in California and their adequacy.) Federal Highway Administration has made it known that if this is not achieved by December of 2002, a conformity freeze will be in effect. This will mean that no Regional Transportation Plan, Federal Transportation Improvement Program or amendment to either will be approved by FHWA unless the modified projects fall into the exempt category. It is almost a surety that most of California’s regions will suffer an air quality conformity “lockdown” or “freeze” as a result of this modeling issue.
¨The impact of the new model is still unclear as a new SIP is pending for our air basin. MPOs in the San Joaquin Valley believe that from the results of tests at the University of California at Davis, there will be great difficulty in meeting conformity and that emissions budgets will go up due to changes in the new EMFAC model.
¨The new EMFAC 2001 model, or an updated version, will be used to prepare our next SIP. At this point it is still uncertain what air quality status the SIP will address. The San Joaquin Valley is currently designated as Severe, but the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) has declared “an intent” to voluntarily designate the air basin as Extreme.
¨Technical staffs in the San Joaquin Valley estimate that the new 8-hour standard will be more difficult to attain, than the previous 1-hour standards. We also are given to understand that the 1-hour standard will remain in place until it has been attained.
Additional Vehicle Emissions Controls:
¨San Joaquin COG already is subject to inspection and maintenance, reformulated fuels, the standard TCMs (i.e. ridesharing, transit alternatives etc.), and is even involved in funding an Air District sponsored diesel retrofit program as well as our own CNG fueled school bus replacement program (removes older diesel powered school buses from California) here in San Joaquin County.
New federal Vehicle Emission Controls scheduled for 2007 are estimated to have a significant impact in our air basin. The effectiveness of Transportation Control Measures varies by region. SJCOG has placed a very high priority on ride-sharing, vanpool, and commuter rail projects that have been very successful in our region due to a very large percentage of long distance commuters to the San Francisco Bay Area that reside in our region.
¨The new Vehicle Emissions Controls will not be implemented in time to assist in attainment of the Severe area deadline of 2005. They may allow for development of a SIP to meet an Extreme area designation by the 2010 deadline, though this is highly uncertain.
Role of Transportation Control Measures:
¨Transportation Control Measures alone cannot attain air quality standards, but does have the following effect:
¨TCMS AND ESTIMATED EMISSION REDUCTIONS
Not quantifiable…
Total Reduced Emissions (kg
/ day) |
ROG |
Nox |
CO |
PM10 |
60 |
30 |
n/a |
25 |
Total Reduced Emissions (kg
/ day) |
ROG |
Nox |
CO |
PM10 |
36 |
61 |
n/a |
26 |
Not quantifiable.
Total Reduced Emissions (kg
/ day) |
ROG |
Nox |
CO |
PM10 |
10 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
Total Reduced Emissions (kg
/ day) |
ROG |
NOx |
CO |
PM10 |
21 |
39 |
n/a |
25 |
¨TCMs represent between 4 and 5 % of total emission reductions in our region. The SJCOG Model projects that it will be as much as 10% by 2020. The effectiveness of TCMs varies greatly by region. In San Joaquin County rideshare, vanpool, and commuter rail provide significant emissions reductions. Again, this is due to the large percentage of San Joaquin County residents that have long distance commutes into the San Francisco Bay Area. These TCMs have an even greater value in the San Francisco Bay Area where the VMT reduced is even greater than in our own county.
¨CMAQ projects are considered in an overall qualitative analysis of air quality improvements and are performed off model. CMAQ money and CMAQ projects are a key component of our strategy to demonstrate air quality conformity.
Emissions reductions are the major criteria for selection of CMAQ projects, and are quantified in our project selection process. See the attached list of CMAQ projects and their air quality impact.
Impacts of Conformity Lapse:
¨ As mentioned earlier, the entire San Joaquin Valley Air Basin experienced a conformity lapse of less than two months that did not significantly impact any project delivery. We were fortunate that the conformity lapse occurred during the off peak period of project contract awards.
¨We are unaware in our region of any costs to project due to the conformity lapse, but there are five other MPOs in the Central Valley of California that may have experienced a more serious issue during these seven weeks.
¨The lapse was brief but did result in some project schedules slipping. We had enough lead-time to avoid any major re-startup costs or problems.
¨The March 1999 U.S. Court of Appeals decisions to eliminate the “grandfather” clause did not have a significant impact during our brief lapse. It certainly would have a major impact during an extended lapse of conformity. Bringing a multi-million dollar project to a halt during the middle of construction would cause millions in re-startup costs and contractor penalties. Even a halt during project design would result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It should be pointed out that any delay is fraught with concern. Even a short delay at the wrong time could greatly impact project schedules. For instance, a two month delay during a USFWS permitted time for pile driving piers into a river would result in reapplying for the permit, and could add 6 to 18 months to the project schedule if the Service requires even more mitigation than was identified under the original permit.
Role of Motor Vehicle Emissions Estimates and Models:
¨The conformity process has put a greater burden on transportation models to accurately represent the regional picture in transportation planning. As a result, there has been a higher level of expectation put on model outputs, and therefore a more rigorous set of calibration requirements. Our models are marginally better today as a result of conformity. These models are the basis for estimating emissions budgets for each region, and have been beneficial in assessing the full impact of mobile sources on the air quality picture.
The bigger challenge has been with increased expectations there is a greater demand for more comprehensive and better performing modeling tools. This translates into cost. Not so much for the tools themselves (though the promise of better tools has not matched actual performance in the real world), but for the data to be input into the model, and the skill needed to produce the model itself, run it effectively and maintain it.
¨In San Joaquin County the results have been consistent over the past 10 years. Where differences have occurred it has been the result of changes in planning assumptions such as population and employment projections. These did change in San Joaquin County in future years and had a proportional impact on Vehicle Miles of Travel and therefore emission projections.
¨There has been some variation over the 20-year period of time. With the introduction of new technology for emissions reductions, modeling assumptions changed substantially in the late 1980s, and emission reductions were substantial. In the past ten years we have captured this impact well, and produced a more consistent and we believe more accurate picture of emissions.
Role of Transportation Models:
¨ Impacts of individual highway capacity projects are difficult to determine in a regional air quality conformity process because of the accepted level of accuracy of a region project. However, when assessing the impacts of a larger number of capacity projects the effectiveness of the modeling tool is better. The size of the regional modeling tool means that it is relatively insensitive to a few small capacity increasing projects. However, as the number of projects increase, the impact is better captured on the regional system.
¨ The federal planning regulations require that models be “calibrated,” or adjusted, to reflect current vehicle miles traveled as reported in the federal Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) every ten years. Estimates during interim periods from existing conditions varied. The primary reason was that population and employment projections for the region proved too high. Actual emissions were likely lower than those predicted.
¨None of the models in the San Joaquin Valley produce a specific estimate of the impacts of induced travel. Using manual techniques an estimate of induced trips can be made, but the level of accuracy is highly uncertain.
CMAQ Air Quality
Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Traffic Signal
Installation and Coordination Projects |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Emissions
Reductions |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
ROG |
NOX |
ROG |
NOX |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Project Name |
CMAQ |
in LB |
in LB |
in KG |
in KG |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Caltrans |
County |
Air |
& |
Funding |
Per |
Per |
Per |
Per |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District |
MPO/RTPA |
Basin |
Description |
Amount |
Year |
Year |
Day |
Day |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
Lodi Avenue Sidewalk, Signal Installations/Interconnect, Cherokee to Lower Sacramento |
$310,000 |
4,516 |
2,139 |
6 |
3 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
Tracy Boulevard Traffic Signal Coordination Project |
$220,000 |
4,811 |
3,665 |
6 |
5 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
March Lane/El Dorado Street Intersection Improvements |
$333,000 |
2,062 |
1,374 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
Eleventh Street/MacArthur Drive Traffic Signal |
$220,000 |
2,401 |
1,281 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
Swain Road Traffic Signals |
$540,000 |
471 |
314 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
Stockton Traffic Management System |
$1,500,000 |
The emissions reductions of these projects cannot be adequately measured by the air quality model. |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
"B" Street Improvements |
$896,000 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
Benjamin Holt Drive and Gettysburg Place Traffic Signal |
$250,000 |
1,852 |
877 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
Benjamin Holt Traffic Signal at Herndon Place and Bike Lane/Sidewalk Installation |
$199,000 |
2,616 |
1239 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CNG Station and Other
Vehicle Projects |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Emissions
Reductions |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
ROG |
NOX |
PM 10 |
ROG |
NOX |
PM 10 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Project Name |
CMAQ |
in LB |
in LB |
in LB |
in KG |
in KG |
in KG |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Caltrans |
County |
Air |
& |
Funding |
Per |
Per |
Per |
Per |
Per |
Per |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District |
MPO/RTPA |
Basin |
Description |
Amount |
Year |
Year |
Year |
Day |
Day |
Day |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
Lodi CNG Bus Acquisition - Acquisition of three CNG fueled buses for local service. |
$780,000 |
|
2,841 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
Tracy CNG Bus Acquisition - Acquisition of two CNG fueled buses for local service. |
$546,000 |
|
909 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
6 CNG Replacement/Expansion Lodi Buses |
$354,000 |
251 |
560 |
29 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
3 CNG Replacement Vehicles for Lodi Police Department |
$24,000 |
24 |
52 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
CNG Fueling Station in Ripon and 5 CNG Vehicles |
$500,000 |
16 |
31 |
1 |
The San Joaquin Council of
Governments is committed to funding air quality projects that have beneficial
emissions reduction. CNG Fueling Facilities, however, cannot adequately be
measured for emissions reduction using this current model since these
projects combine both CNG vehicles and Fueling Stations. Please see the
project description for accurate emissions reduction data. |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
CNG Fueling Facility in Tracy and 2 CNG Buses |
$480,000 |
|
2,766 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
CNG Fueling Station in Stockton and 10 Vehicles |
$170,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
|
CNG Fueling Station in Lodi |
$498,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Emissions
Reductions |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
ROG |
NOX |
PM 10 |
ROG |
NOX |
PM 10 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Project Name |
CMAQ |
in LB |
in LB |
in LB |
in KG |
in KG |
in KG |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Caltrans |
County |
Air |
& |
Funding |
Per |
Per |
Per |
Per |
Per |
Per |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District |
MPO/RTPA |
Basin |
Description |
Amount |
Year |
Year |
Year |
Day |
Day |
Day |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
|
CNG School Bus Replacement - Replacement of 14 diesel school buses with 14 CNG school buses in the City of Lodi |
$1,120,000 |
0 |
13,923 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
0 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
|
Replace 5 heavy duty vehicles with 5 CNG heavy duty vehicles |
$200,000 |
0 |
2,978 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
|
5 Expansion clean diesel transit buses for Stockton Metro Service |
$1,856,000 |
8,056 |
4,816 |
2,795 |
10 |
6 |
3 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
|
7 Replacement clean diesel transit buses for SJRTD |
$2,598,000 |
0 |
6,703 |
485 |
0 |
8 |
1 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
|
Two Hybrid-electric transit vehicles |
$960,000 |
963 |
934 |
817 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
|
3 Compressed Natural Gas Transit Trolleys |
$902,000 |
1,964 |
181 |
372 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other CMAQ Projects |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Emissions
Reductions |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
ROG |
NOX |
PM 10 |
ROG |
NOX |
PM 10 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Project Name |
CMAQ |
in LB |
in LB |
in LB |
in KG |
in KG |
in KG |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Caltrans |
County |
Air |
& |
Funding |
Per |
Per |
Per |
Per |
Per |
Per |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District |
MPO/RTPA |
Basin |
Description |
Amount |
Year |
Year |
Year |
Day |
Day |
Day |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
Various - various projects which encourage the use of clean fuels in heavy duty vehicles. |
$386,000 |
All projects in this category will meet a cost effectiveness requirement of no more than $6 per pound of emission reduced. Since actual projects have not been finalized, the emissions of this item cannot be measured. Please see project description for more data regarding emissions reduction. |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
Lathrop Road Bike and Pedestrian Facility |
$130,000 |
108 |
75 |
19 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
Rail Car Purchase |
$2,880,000 |
2,918 |
5,574 |
3,496 |
4 |
7 |
4 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
Heavy Duty Low Emission Engine Incentive Program (Countywide) |
$200,000 |
All projects in this category will meet a cost effectiveness requirement of no more than $6 per pound of emission reduced. Since actual projects have not been finalized, the emissions of this item cannot be measured. |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 |
SJCOG |
San Joaquin Valley |
Ridesharing and TDM strategies |
$ 325,000 |
28,552 |
49,073 |
21,162 |
36 |
61 |
26 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GRAND TOTAL |
$ 19,377,000 |
61,581 |
102,305 |
29,201 |
68 |
109 |
35 |
|
|