Multi-Pollutant Analysis and Cost Effectiveness
Evaluation of Voluntary Mobile Source Measures
Prepared for:
Houston-Galveston Area Council
3555 Timmons Lane, Suite 120
Houston, Texas 77027
Prepared by:
Christian E. Lindhjem
ENVIRON International Corporation
773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115
Novato, California, 94998
www.environcorp.com
P-415-899-0700
F-415-899-0707
and
Barbara Joy, Earth Matters
Hazel Barbour
April 2014
0632913A
April 2014
DRAFT
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................1
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 4
SECTION 2: CURRENT PROGRAMS ........................................................................................ 5
Commute Solutions.................................................................................................................6
Clean Vehicles Program ........................................................................................................19
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TECQ): Texas Emission Reduction
Plan (TERP).....................................................................................................................22
H-GAC Regional Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP) .......................................................27
Drayage Loan Program..........................................................................................................28
Clean Vessels for Texas Waters ............................................................................................30
H-GAC’s ‘Engine Off’ Voluntary Idle Reduction Program .....................................................32
Air Check Texas Drive a Clean Machine Program .................................................................35
SECTION 3: VOLUNTARY EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAM POTENTIAL ............................. 38
Control Measure 1: Vehicle Miles Traveled-based Registration Fees ..................................40
Control Measure 2: Livable Centers .....................................................................................45
Control Measure 3: Compressed Work Weeks ....................................................................49
Control Measure 4: Heavy-Duty Vehicle Programs ..............................................................52
Control Measure 5: Cleaner Diesel Fuel ...............................................................................55
Control Measure 6: Encourage Off-Peak Deliveries .............................................................58
Control Measure 7: Parking Cash Out Program ....................................................................62
Control Measure 8: Optimal Traffic Flow (Adaptive Traffic Signal Cycles/Timing
to Optimize Traffic Throughput and Reversible Traffic Lanes) .....................................68
Control Measure 9: Expand the Emissions Testing Program to the Three
Counties not Currently Included in the Program ..........................................................70
Control Measure 10: Off-Road Equipment Idle Reduction...................................................73
Control Measure 11: Electric Lawn Equipment Exchange Program .....................................76
Control Measure 12: Circulator service to major trip generators ........................................78
Control Measure 13: Increase HOV Occupancy to 3 or More Per Vehicle ...........................78
Control Measure 14: Managed Lanes to Accommodate Some Single Occupant
Vehicles (HOT lane conversions) ...................................................................................80
i
April 2014
DRAFT
Control Measure 15: Clean Cities Technical Coalition ..........................................................83
Control Measure 16: Heavy-duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance..............................83
SECTION 4: ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION RELATED EMISSION REDUCTION
MEASURES ................................................................................................................... 86
Dedicated Overweight Truck Routes ....................................................................................87
Barge Transport ....................................................................................................................87
First and Last Mile Deliveries ................................................................................................88
INVEST Self-Assessment Tool................................................................................................88
Road Dust ..............................................................................................................................88
Buffer Zones ..........................................................................................................................88
Automated Gates at Intermodal Yards .................................................................................89
Corridor Specific TDM Planning: Real World Example .........................................................89
Eco-Driving ............................................................................................................................90
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 92
APPENDIX
Supplemental Information
TABLES
Table ES-1. 2013 Control Programs Progress ............................................................................1
Table ES-2. Voluntary Emission Control Measures. (Green – High Potential, Blue –
Medium, Yellow – Low) ...........................................................................................2
Table ES-3. Summary of Additional Measures with Qualitative Emission Reduction
and Cost Effectiveness Rankings (Green – High Potential, Blue –
Medium, Yellow – Low). ..........................................................................................3
Table 2-1.
2013 Control Programs Progress ............................................................................5
Table 2-2.
Commute Solutions and other Commuting Program Progress Detail
(tons/year). ..............................................................................................................7
Table 2-3.
Surveyed Mode Shares in the H-GAC Planning Region. ..........................................9
Table 2-4.
Emission Factors and Results For Metro Vanpools (tons/year). ...........................14
Table 2-5.
Transit Pilot Projects Transit Vehicles and Emission Factors
(grams/mile) Certification Levels. .........................................................................15
ii
April 2014
DRAFT
Table 2-6.
Transit Pilot Project Ridership, VMT Reductions, and Transit VMT in
2012. ......................................................................................................................16
Table 2-7.
Emission Factors and Results for Transit Pilot Programs. .....................................16
Table 2-8.
Total emissions reductions from completed replacement projects
funded during 2012 and 2010-2011......................................................................20
Table 2-9.
Clean Cities/Clean Vehicles Summary. ..................................................................21
Table 2-10. Year 2013 TERP Funding. .......................................................................................23
Table 2-11. TERP ERIG. .............................................................................................................24
Table 2-12. 2008 – 2013 TERP ERIG in HGB Area. ....................................................................24
Table 2-13. EPA Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines. .....................................25
Table 2-14. Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP) Summary. ................................................26
Table 2-15. Drayage Loan Summary ........................................................................................29
Table 2-16. Clean Vessels for Texas Waters Progress. .............................................................31
Table 2-17. Clean Vessels for Texas Program Summary. .........................................................31
Table 2-18. MOVES2010a Harris Co. average short term idle emission rates in
calendar year 2018. ...............................................................................................33
Table 2-19. H-GAC’s ‘Engine Off’ Voluntary Idle Reduction Program Summary. ....................34
Table 2-20. Cost Effectiveness (C/E) for NOx and PM over 5-year project life. .......................36
Table 2-21. Air Check Texas Drive a Clean Machine Program Summary. ................................37
Table 3-1.
Voluntary Emission Control Measures. (Green – High Potential, Blue –
Medium, Yellow – Low) .........................................................................................38
Table 3-2.
Emission Factors and Results For 1 cent/mile VMT Tax In 2018 (Tpd). ................43
Table 3-3.
Emission Factors and Results for Livable Centers in 2018 (Tpd)...........................47
Table 3-4.
Other Heavy-Duty Vehicle Programs Summary. ...................................................53
Table 3-5.
Emissions Reductions and Cost-effectiveness of Alternative Fuels. .....................56
Table 3-6.
Cleaner Diesel Fuel Summary................................................................................57
Table 3-7.
Average Delivery TruckA Emission Factors during Peak Period (7-9AM
and 4-7PM) and Off-Peak Period (midday 9AM-4PM and overnight
7PM to 7AM). ........................................................................................................60
Table 3-8.
Encourage Off-Peak Deliveries Off-Peak Delivery Summary. ...............................61
Table 3-9.
Emission Factors and Results for Parking Cash-Out in 2018 (tons). .....................66
Table 3-10. Parking Cash-Out Air Emissions Benefit and Cost Effectiveness
Summary. ..............................................................................................................67
iii
April 2014
DRAFT
Table 3-11. MOVES Model Annual Emissions Benefits Before and After Woodlands
Parkway Traffic Signal Timing for the AM Period. ................................................68
Table 3-12. Optimal Traffic Flow Summary. .............................................................................69
Table 3-13. Expand I/M to Three Counties Summary. .............................................................72
Table 3-14. Mode Weightings and Emissions by Mode for a Sample Engines. .......................74
Table 3-15. Off-Road Equipment Idle Reduction Summary. ....................................................75
Table 3-16. Sample Costs of Electric Lawnmowers. .................................................................77
Table 3-17. Lawnmower exchange cost effectiveness ($/ton). ...............................................77
Table 3-18. Electric Lawn Equipment Exchange Program Summary. ......................................78
Table 3-19. HOV Lanes Studied. ...............................................................................................78
Table 4-1.
Summary of Additional Measures with Qualitative Emission Reduction
and Cost Effectiveness Rankings. ..........................................................................86
Table 4-2.
Emission Factors and Results for Corridor Specific Carpooling Along
290 Construction Corridor.....................................................................................90
FIGURES
Figure 2-1.
NuRide telework program reporting. ....................................................................11
Figure 2-2.
Vanpool vehicle miles traveled reduced. ..............................................................14
Figure 2-3.
Commuter and Pilot Transit program activity.......................................................15
Figure 2-4.
NOx Emission Rates for Delivery Vehicles as a Function of Hour of Day
for a Weekday. ......................................................................................................59
Figure 2-5.
PM2.5 Emission Rates for Delivery Vehicles as a Function of Hour of Day
for a Weekday. ......................................................................................................59
Figure 3-1.
HOT Lane Network. ...............................................................................................82
iv
April 2014
DRAFT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary
H-GAC has contracted with the ENVIRON team to complete an analysis of current and potential
mobile source emission programs that includes expected reductions for multiple pollutants
affecting air quality. Therefore this analysis attempts to quantify the annual emission
reductions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that affect ozone
from on-going programs and reduction potential from likely programs. In addition, emission
reductions of VOC, NOx, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) affect ambient levels of PM2.5, so
we also estimate emission reductions of PM2.5 from mobile sources.
A summary of the annual emission reduction in 2013 of current programs is shown in Table ES1. The emissions reductions include projects that began before 2013 but are still producing
emission reductions through 2013. This situation can occur when the emission reduction
projects produce emission reductions over several years and the programs add projects each
year.
Table ES-1. 2013 Control Programs Progress
VOC
(tons)
16.1
3
0.6
NOx
(tons)
38.7
7
1.4
PM2.5
(tons)
1.8
0.5
0.1
VMT/Start orVehicles
174,763,308/6,808,442
60,753,529
8,807,980
11.6
12.6
0.33
21,182,775/14,121,485
10
169
11
389
Clean School Bus*
Regional TERP
0.7
150
11
2,754
0.7
65 – 275
64
3,243
Regional H-GAC TERP*
Drayage Trucks
4
N/A
83
N/A
2–8
N/A
100
217
Clean Vessels for Texas
Waters
3
80
1
10 engines
<0.5
<2
<0.5
20,000
67
82
1
1,095
Measure
Commute Solutions
METRO Vanpool
Commuter and Transit
Pilot Projects
Bicycle Pedestrian
Trips/Facilities
H-GAC Clean Vehicles
H-GAC Engine-Off
Voluntary Idling
Reduction Program
Air Check Texas/Low
Income Repair Program
*Program
2013 Funding Comments
$2,500,000
$5,750,00
$520,000 2011 CMAQ
funding
$37,198,495 TIP Projects
$1.3 million (2012) CMAQ
$12.7 million (2010 – 2011)
$6.2 million (2010 – 2012)
$15 million (2013 only)
$162 million (2008–13)
$3.6 million
Revolving Fund Assistance
Program Supporting Clean
Vehicles and Regional TERP
Projects
$4 million total available
$1.5 million spent
Program just begun.
Emission reduction potential
estimated for 20,000
vehicles.
$2.5 million (Replacements
only)
benefits for Clean School Buses are included in Clean Vehicle Program; and Regional TERP in State TERP Program
totals.
1
April 2014
DRAFT
In addition, potential control measures were analyzed to estimate emission reduction potential,
however in many cases the design and funding for each measure will determine the emission
reduction realized if implemented. A summary of the measures and expected reduction are
shown in Table ES-2. The measures with the best potential, shown in green in Table ES-2, are
programs that affect a large number of vehicles. These measures include incorporating fees
(registration, insurance, or others) relative to miles traveled, reduced commuting through
encouraging alternative work locations or combining trips to reduce parking costs or commute
time with HOV lanes.
Table ES-2. Voluntary Emission Control Measures. (Green – High Potential, Blue – Medium,
Yellow – Low)
Control Measure
No.
Description
1 Vehicle miles traveled –
based registration fees
and/or higher fees for
high emission vehicles1
2 Encourage/Mandate
Livable Centers
3
4
5
6
7
Compressed Workweek
(CWW), Telework
(Evaluated as
compressed work week
as currently
implemented)
Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Programs
Cleaner Diesel Fuel
Encourage Off-Peak
Deliveries
Employee parking cashout program
8
Traffic Flow
Improvements
9
I/M for Three Additional
HGB Counties
Program Summary
Based on results in U.S. including now
completed demonstration projects in
Minnesota, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington,
a 1 cent per mile tax is assessed.
Scenario: 5% of 4% increase in bike/walk
between 2001 and 2010. The 5% is the
scenario-based livable centers estimate for
2018 until a more precise value can be
projected.
Scenario: 20% of employees who work for one
of the 71% of employers who offer
compressed work weeks participate once
weekly.
Reduction (tpy)
VOC/NOx/PM2.5
146/456/25.6
Scope
Region
11/7/0.3
Region
72/146/7
Region
Other vehicle program initiatives in addition to 0.01/0.02/0.0001
Per Truck
Clean Vehicles and Regional TERP programs.
Alternative diesel fuels.
20%/12%/20%
% Per Gallon
Move trips to off-peak.
6/30/2
10% Peak
VMT
Build from the momentum developed in 2011183/66/11
Region
2012 using TMAs data to re-evaluate potential
participation rates.
Groups of these measures from
5%/8%/4%
% Per Project
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and
Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).
Includes infrastructure, signal timing,
reversible lanes, and other measures.
Temporary measures such as Ozone Action
and SAFE Clear / Steer It Clear It also included.
Basic program extended to three counties not
100/100/0
Chambers,
already using the program. EPA does not
Liberty,
estimate a PM reduction from I/M.
Waller
1
Higher fees for high emission vehicles not feasible under current registration fee structure; values provided are for a
hypothetical VMT tax.
2
April 2014
DRAFT
Control Measure
No.
Description
10 Limitations on Idling of
Heavy-Duty Construction
Equipment
11 Lawn and garden
equipment exchange/
recycling program
12 Circulator service to
major trip generators
13
14
15
16
Reduction (tpy)
Program Summary
VOC/NOx/PM2.5
Scope
Voluntary idle reduction for off-road
3/10/1
Thousands of
equipment similar to the Engine Off program
Off-Road
for on-road vehicles.
Equipment
Exchange residential or other lawn and garden
2/0.1/0.1
2,000 Pieces
equipment for zero emitting electric
of
equipment.
Equipment
Extend analysis done in 2011-2012 to new,
Program design
Region
planned and potential shuttle services. Review
and estimate
potential bus fleet modernization.
May, 2014
Increase HOV Occupancy Apply 3+ requirement to highways currently
426/138/33
Region
to 3 or More Per Vehicle requiring only 2+.
Managed Lanes to
Apply method developed in 2011 – 2012 to
Expected benefits
Region
accommodate some
the project implemented or will be
low because no
single occupant vehicles implemented in region.
VMT change, only
(HOT lane conversions)
small speed
increase
Clean Cities Technical
The Clean Air Action outreach program.
No emission
Region
Coalition
effect of outreach
Heavy-duty Vehicle
Outlined objectives and technology to be used
Likely small
Region
Inspection and
in this program.
benefit, but
Maintenance Program
unquantified to
date
H-GAC and its oversight committees have sought to better understand the emission reduction
potential of a wide range of potential programs. To date, the potential program list includes
the following listed in Table ES-3 along with our qualitative estimate of the potential of each
measure. The measures listed here are unlikely to produce large emissions reductions, except
for paving high fugitive dust areas near sensitive receptors.
Table ES-3. Summary of Additional Measures with Qualitative Emission Reduction and Cost
Effectiveness Rankings (Green – High Potential, Blue – Medium, Yellow – Low).
Measure
Overweight trucking route
Barge transport/return of empty shipping containers from the Port of Freeport to
Port of Houston
First and last mile deliveries: bottlenecks and emission reduction potential
INVEST self-assessment tool to evaluate and improve the sustainability of plans
and projects
PM2.5 reductions for paving projects
Buffer zones
Automated gates optical character recognition (OCR) and drayage truck driving
directions at the Port of Houston
Corridor Specific TDM Planning: Real World Example
Eco-Driving
3
Emission
Reduction
Low
Low
Cost
Effectiveness
Poor
Unknown
Low
N/A
Unknown
N.A
High
N/A
Low
Medium
N.A
Medium
Low
Low
Poor
Poor
April 2014
DRAFT
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
H-GAC has contracted with the ENVIRON team to complete an analysis of current and potential
mobile source emission programs that includes expected reductions for multiple pollutants
affecting air quality. Therefore this analysis attempts to quantify the annual emission
reductions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that affect ozone
from on-going programs and reduction potential from likely programs. In addition, emission
reductions of VOC, NOx, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) affect ambient levels of PM2.5, so
we also estimate emission reductions of PM2.5 from mobile sources.
We did not include an evaluation of sulfur oxides (SOx) emissions that affect ambient levels of
SO2 and PM2.5 because mobile sources based and fueled in the United States are required to
use 15 ppm sulfur fuel and produce insignificant amounts of sulfur dioxide or sulfate particulate
emissions.
This report is intended to provide a review of the progress of current programs, evaluate
programs that may be implemented, and suggest additional programs that have may have the
potential to reduce emission cost effectively. In Section 2, we evaluate current programs using
participation and cost data through calendar year 2013. In Section 3, we evaluate the emission
reduction potential of programs yet to be implemented using the expertise of team members
and published accounts of similar programs. Finally in Section 4, we list and qualitatively
evaluate programs that may have potential to reduce emissions cost effectively.
4
April 2014
DRAFT
SECTION 2: CURRENT PROGRAMS
H-GAC on its own and partnering with others administers a variety of emission reduction
programs in the Houston area. These programs include the following:
1. Commute Solutions
2. METRO Vanpool
3. Commuter and Transit Pilot Services Program
4. Regional Bicycle Pedestrian Programs
5. H-GAC Clean Cities / Clean Vehicles Program and Clean School Bus
6. Regional TERP
7. Drayage Loan Program
8. Clean Vessels for Texas Waters
9. H-GAC Engine-Off Voluntary Idling Reduction Program
10. Air Check Texas/Low Income Repair Program
This section reviews each of these programs outlining the emission reduction to date and
expected future year emission reductions and program costs. A summary of the program
benefits and recent funding is provided in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1.
2013 Control Programs Progress
Measure
Commute Solutions
METRO Vanpool
Commuter and Transit
Pilot Projects
Bicycle Pedestrian
H-GAC Clean Vehicle
Program
Clean School Bus*
State TERP in HGB
VOC NOx
(tons) (tons)
16.1
38.7
3
7
0.6
1.4
PM2.5
(tons)
1.9
0.5
0.1
VMT/Starts or Vehicles
174,763,308/6,808,442
60,753,529/0
8,807,980/0
2013 Funding Comments
$2,500,000 TIP
$5,750,000 TIP
$520,000 2011 CMAQ funding
$37,198,495 TIP Projects
$1.3 million (2012) CMAQ
$12.7 million (2010 – 2011)
$6.2 million (2010 – 2012)
$15 million (2013 only)
$162 million (2008–13)
$3.6 million
Revolving Fund Assistance
Program Supporting Clean Vehicles
and Regional TERP Projects
$4 million total available DERA
$1.5 million spent
Program just begun, no significant
cost expected.
11.6
11
12.6
180
0.33
12
21,182,775/14,121,485
389
1
150
11
2,754
0.7
65 – 275
68
3,243
Regional H-GAC TERP*
Drayage Loan Program
4
0
83
0
2–8
0
100
217
Clean Vessels for Texas
Waters
H-GAC Engine-Off
Voluntary Idling
Reduction Program
Air Check Texas/Low
Income Repair Program
3
80
1
10 engines
<0.5
<2
<0.5
20,000
67
82
1
1,095
*Program
$2.5 million (Replacements only)
benefits for Clean School Buses are included in Clean Vehicle Program; and Regional TERP in State TERP Program
totals.
5
April 2014
DRAFT
Commute Solutions
Many of the programs administered and promoted within H-GAC to encourage the use of travel
modes other than driving alone fall under the general umbrella of Commute Solutions.
Commute Solutions is a partnership of the Houston–Galveston Area Council (H-GAC), the
Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO), the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT),
Brazos Transit District, Colorado Valley Transit, Fort Bend County Transportation, the Gulf Coast
Center-Connect Transit, the City of Galveston’s Island Transit, and the region's Transportation
Management Organizations (TMOs), which include BayTran, Central Houston "Downtown in
Motion," North Houston Association, and TREK.
The purpose of Commute Solutions is to provide a “one-stop” alternative transportation
resource in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area for both commuters and businesses.
Members of Commute Solutions provide advice, employer outreach, answers, and assistance
on commuting options and employee transportation programs. The program has assisted some
of the biggest and most prestigious employers in the region in helping their employees use
alternative transportation methods to get to work and has assisted residents throughout the
region in getting around generally by riding the bus, vanpooling, carpooling, using NuRide,
teleworking, biking and walking.
Outreach by the Commute Solutions program to area employers is conducted through the
Clean Air Champions program. As of March, 2014 this program has recruited approximately
117 employers representing approximately 175,000 employees, or 5.5 percent of the
workforce.
Below we provide emission reduction calculations for each component of the Commute
Solutions program, including
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Carpooling
Vanpooling
General Transit
Transit Pilot Programs
Telework
Bicycle/Pedestrian
The Commute Solutions Program consists of several components. One is NuRide, which has
carpool, vanpool, transit, bike/walk, telework, and compressed work week components. The
others are regional carpool, transit, and telework programs participated in by employees of
companies that are Clean Air Champions. These companies promote use of carpooling, transit,
telework and other measures that reduce the amount of driving in the region. Commute
Solutions has created the program and conducts the outreach to Clean Air Champion
companies and potential companies.
6
April 2014
DRAFT
Table 2-2 below presents emission reductions for each component of the Commute Solutions
program and provides a comparison to other commute reduction programs not necessarily
within the Commute Solution program.
Table 2-2.
Measure
Commute
Solutions
Subtotal
METRO Van
Commuter
and Transit
Pilot
Bicycle
Pedestrian
a
Commute Solutions and other Commuting Program Progress Detail (tons/year).
Component
Carpool: NuRidea
Carpool: Clean Air
Champions
Telework: NuRidea
Telework: Clean Air
Champions2
Transit: NuRidea
Transit: Clean Air
Champions
Bike/Walk: NuRidea
Commute Solutions
METRO Vanpool
(net):
VOC
1.61
3.5
NOx
3.78
8.2
PM2.5
0.18
0.4
CO2
6,923
14,872
2013 VMT Reduced
16,894,678
36,275,908
2013 Trips
Reduced
732,846
1,664,218
0.49
4.8
1.31
9.8
0.07
0.44
2,534
16,578
6,205,216
40,236,710
128,144
3,095,132
1.64
4.0
3.8
11.9
0.18
0.62
6,892
24,102
16,810,330
59,170,280
778,187
2,936,498
0.08
16.1
3.0
0.12
38.7
7.1
0.004
1.9
0.53
120
63,846
23,402
97,740
6,808,442
Assumes no trip
reduction for
conservatism
Transit Pilot
Programs (net)
0.6
1.42
0.1
3,935
Other
11.6
12.6
0.33
9,550
367,493
174,763,308
70,282,888 from
passenger cars and
9,529,359 increase
from vans = 60,753,529
net
9,670,914 passengers,
862,934 increase from
vans; net 8,807,980
21,182,775
Assumes no trip
reduction for
conservatism
14,121,485
– Half of NuRide totals here was assumed to be Clean Air Champions.
The Commute Solutions total row sums (1) all NuRide measures at 97%. H-GAC has compared
all overlap between NuRide participants and Clean Air Champions participants and this
comparison shows that 2.7 percent of NuRiders also work for Clean Air Champions (CAC)
companies3. Therefore we add only the portion of NuRIde that does not overlap with the
exceptions of vanpool (the only vanpooling service is Metro so the Metro values contain the full
100% considered) and bike/walk since bike/walk NuRide programs are specific to Commute
Solutions while regional bicycle and pedestrian programs are treated separately and later in this
this section; (2) the Clean Air Champion component of carpool, transit, and telework.
An important background for the analysis is the current and expected distribution of travel by
mode. For example there is already a great deal of carpooling in the Houston region. A portion
of this is due to the Commute Solutions program and a portion due to other factors, and it
2
There are 1,800 teleworkers known specifically to H-GAC, representing 0.056% of the workforce. Regionally, according to
surveys such as the Houston Travel survey, 12.5% of the workforce teleworks regularly. As an example of the more likely
benefits of telework that could be attributed to Commute Solutions this estimate was created by scaling down the regional
percentage to the percentage represented by Commute Champion companies.
3 Personal communication, H-GAC staff to ENVIRON staff, email March 25, 2014.
7
April 2014
DRAFT
would be impossible to attribute or quantify the contribution with 100% certainty. The only
100% directly attributable benefits are those from the NuRide program; however NuRide
represents just under one percent of carpooling in the region (0.94 percent) and a similar
proportion of other alternative mode use such as telework or non-motorized travel.
We approximate the Commute Solutions contribution to areawide observed levels of
carpooling, telework, bicycle/walk, and transit by considering only alternative mode use by
employees working at Commute Champion companies, which represent 5.5 percent of regional
employment.
Clean Air Champion Summary
To become a Clean Air Champion for offices (there is also a program for fleets), companies fill
out an application certifying that they provide two or more of the following:

Supported alternative commuting methods for employees;

compressed work schedules*(i.e. 9/80s, 4/10s, 3/12s) to employees;

telework opportunities;

subsidies for transit and vanpool use;

pay-outs to employees to use alternative modes instead of parking;

participate in the NuRide program;

provide preferred parking or reduced parking costs to carpools and/or vanpools;

Providing employees with the option of a pre-tax transit/vanpool deduction from their
paychecks Under Section 132 (f) of the Internal Revenue Code, Qualified Transportation
Fringe Benefits allow employees to set aside up to $230 per month pre-tax for transit or
vanpool expenses, similar to a flexible spending plan for medical expenses. The employee
pays no income tax on the benefit and the employer saves on payroll taxes.

Providing secure bicycle racks, showers, and/or lockers.

Take other measures to reduce employees' single occupancy vehicle trips and/or to
promote commute alternatives.

Holding an active membership in a Transportation Management Organization (TMO) or
actively participating in a voluntary regional air quality program (e.g., Spare the Air, Air
Awareness, SEQL, Clean Air Coalition) or another employer-based commuter program

Holding an active membership in a local ozone awareness program (e.g. Clean Cities)

Providing a workplace with on-site amenities (e.g. cafeteria, restaurant, post box, ATM, dry
cleaning, etc.)

Providing membership in a car sharing program (visit www.carsharing.net to learn more)

Having an employee recognition program that promotes alternative commuting

Providing incentives to encourage employees to utilize alternative transportation (e.g. the
ability to earn additional vacation, quarterly raffle prizes, etc.)
8
April 2014
DRAFT

Taking other measures to reduce employees' single occupancy vehicle trips and/or to
promote commute alternatives.
Employers are asked to provide quantitative estimates of the number of employees
participating in each alternative mode, and the frequency of participation, and are encouraged
to adopt NuRide as a simple and efficient method for tracking. Clean Air Champions are
honored in awards luncheons and listed as Clean Air Champions in media releases or other
publicity.
Current Mode Shares in the Region
Regionally, according to the Houston Household Travel Survey4 and other references described
later, approximately 18% of work trips are via shared or non-motorized modes, with an 82%
single occupant vehicle mode. There are some significant variations depending on the part of
town people commute to. For example, the 2009 Downtown Houston Commute Survey
Report5 found that 52% of employees working and/or living in that part of the region use
shared modes as a primary means of transportation to work.
As additional background, Table 2-3 below presents mode shares found in various surveys of
the Houston region.
Table 2-3.
Surveyed Mode Shares in the H-GAC Planning Region.
Commute
Mode
Drive Alone
Transit
Carpool
Vanpool
Regional
from 2009
NHTS AddOn6
82%
5.9%
9%
1%
Bike/Walk
3.1%
Regional from
Houston
Household
Survey
80.2%
4.72%
14%
Included in
transit
1.1%
Downtown
Houston
48%
37%
11%
1%
1.3%
Energy Corridor
Study for
Houston MSA
79.2%
2.4%
11.7%
Included in
carpool
1.7%
Energy Corridor
Percentages (EC
Commute Zone)
82.3%
2.0%
9.6%
Included in
carpool
1.0%
East End Study
Percentages
(area 3101
example)
68.0%
8%
11%
Included in
carpool
~3%
Commute Solutions: Carpooling (NuRide Component)
As noted above, the Commute Solutions carpooling/ridesharing component has two features.
One is a directly quantified portion through a contract with NuRide. The other is area-wide
ridesharing made use of by approximately 11 percent of the Houston region’s population for
getting to work. Both are discussed below.
NuRide is one of the largest and most successful incentive-based online rideshare programs in
the nation. NuRide rewards people for trips in which they choose to walk, bike, telecommute,
4
H-GAC 2008-2009 Regional Household Activity/Travel Survey. Prepared by ETC Institute, June, 2009.
http://downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2010-04-22/9A2009_Downtown_Houston_Commute_Survey_Report.pdf conducted by Central Houston, Inc. (CHI)
6 An Evaluation of the 2009 NHTS Add-On Surveys In Texas” Bricka et al, TTI, 2009.
5
9
April 2014
DRAFT
carpool, vanpool, take transit, or work a compressed week. To date the NuRide program has
over 19,400 users from more than 1,530 organizations which have reduced more than 36
million vehicles miles traveled since it began operation almost 10 years ago.
In January of 2013, NuRide’s Houston members numbered 24,336, growing to 25,834 by the
end of December, 2013. Records showed that 16,894,678 miles of travel were reduced in 2013,
along with 732,846 vehicle trips.
Using 2018 MOVEs emission factors and the above trip and VMT reductions, the NuRide
program reduced nearly 1/5 of a ton of PM2.5 as well as 1.6 tons of VOC and 3.8 tons of NOx in
2013.
However only a small fraction (slightly under 1%) of area carpoolers are using NuRide to
schedule and track their shared rides or other alternative mode activity. Therefore we believe
the scenario presented below, which uses areawide carpooling rates together with the
proportion of area employees working for Commute Champions companies provides a more
robust estimate of the benefits gained through the Commute Solutions Program for carpooling.
Commute Solutions Carpooling: Clean Air Champions Component
The Clean Air Champions program constitutes another measureable outreach program to
partner with local employers to implement alternative mode use by their employees.
Organizations that join the Clean Air Champion for Commuters program earn the distinction of
being recognized as a regional leader of employee benefits offerings - a designation that gives
them a competitive advantage in recruiting the best and brightest employees.
The Clean Air Champions companies represent 174,886 employees, or 5.5 percent of regional
employment. H-GAC does not wish to take credit for all carpooling in the region but carpooling
engaged by employees at Clean Air Champions companies is a good indicator of the amount of
regional commute carpooling that can be attributed to the Commute Solutions program. Likely
some carpooling by non-clean air champions employees and by all regional residents for nonwork purposes is also due to Commute Solutions outreach.
Work-based VMT in the region is estimated as 34,666,2267, which represents 20 percent of all
vehicular travel in the 8 county region. Travel modeling for Houston confirms that on a daily
basis over 14% of daily work VMT is made via shared mode (see footnote below). If 11% of
work travel is made via carpooling, and 5.5 percent of this carpooling is due to Commute
Solutions because it’s by Clean Air Champions employees, we estimate that carpooling
attributable to Commute Solutions is 76,551,815 miles per year. Dividing by 2 (the
overwhelming majority of commute carpools in Houston are 2 persons) we get 36,275,908
miles reduced. Using the ratio of trips to VMT reduced tracked by NuRide carpoolers (some of
7
Personal communication, email January 3, 2014 from H-GAC, to ENVIRON transmitting travel model output file
tceq2_data.xlsx
10
April 2014
DRAFT
whom forgo a trip to carpool and some of whom do not), we also estimate that 1,664,218 trips
per day are reduced.
The emission benefits, in tons per year, are 3.53 VOC; 7.18 NOx; 0.4 PM2.5; and 14,872 CO2.
Commute Solutions Telework: NuRide Component
The Regional Telework Incentive Pilot Program is administered by the Houston-Galveston Area
Council (H-GAC), and businesses who apply and submit a telework application can receive a
share of the more than $500,000 available through federal grant funding. The telework
program helps regional employers and employees by educating them about the benefits of
teleworking and offering financial incentives to develop and implement Telework and
alternative work schedule programs. Almost 1,500 teleworkers participated in the program in
2012, and an additional 300 signed on to the program in 2013.
Almost 1,800 teleworkers participated in the program in 2013, resulting in over 8 million VMT
reduced with the historic growth of the program shown in Figure 2-1. The emission benefits
from the NuRide only portion of telework in the area were listed in Table 2-3.
Figure 2-1. NuRide telework program reporting.
Source: H-GAC Path Forward Document, March, 2014.
Commute Solutions Regional Telework: Clean Air Champion Component
Statistics on telecommuting in the Houston region indicate a very large rate of telework
regionally; much more than 1,800 people. The Houston Travel Survey8 reports that 12.5 of the
workforce teleworks, although it does not track the frequency, which could be as much as daily
and as infrequent as several times annually. American Community Survey data suggests 12 to
13 percent as a national average. It should be noted that 12.5% of the workforce is equal to
397,875 people.
8
See footnote 1
11
April 2014
DRAFT
The Energy Corridor 2013 Inventory and Data report9 shows a telecommuting rate of 3.5% rate
for the Houston MSA generally, and 3.9– 4 percent for energy corridor residents and workers.
The Downtown Houston survey referenced earlier in this section reported a 4.6%
telecommuting rate of between once a month to more than twice weekly, with a weighted
average of 0.7 times per week. We utilize the Houston travel survey here because that survey
was constructed with the purpose of describing regional travel behavior whereas the Energy
Corridor and Downtown Houston surveys were for other purposes.
NuRide statistics, which are a sample somewhat more specific to Clean Air Champions
employees show that this sample teleworks an average of 1.35 times per week. In keeping with
our approach of quantifying benefits from the Clean Air Champions employees, we utilize the
average 1.36 telework days per week for frequency.
As an estimate of telework emission benefits, we use the Houston travel survey regional rate
surveyed (12.5%) along with the average frequency recorded by NuRide participants. Given
regional employment of 3,183,000 we therefore estimate 397,875 people in the region are
telecommuting. Using the same ratio of Commute Champions to total employment as noted in
the regional carpooling analysis, we calculate that 21,883 people are teleworking that can be
attributed to the H-GAC Commute Solutions program. The average work trip length is 13 miles
each way. If they telework at an average rate of 1.36 times weekly, this will result in
40,236,710 annual VMT and 3,095,132 annual trips reduced.
The annual emission benefits are 4.82 tons VOC; 9.82 tons of NOx; 0.44 tons of PM2.5; and
16,578 tons of CO2.
Transit
Transit use is on the rise in the region. A national report released on March 1-, 2014 by the
American Public Transportation Association found that use of transit in the Houston region
grew by 2.76 percent between 2012 and 2013. Houston’s Metro transit authority recorded
2.26 million trips on buses, rail and trains. A spokesperson from metro quoted in a newspaper
article on March 1110, noted that a program allowing cyclists to take their bikes on buses has
enjoyed strong recent gains, and that ridership is up at park and ride centers.
Metro’s in-house statistics for fiscal 2013 are even higher, showing a 4.4 percent gain over 2012
in transit use and a 7.8 percent increase in park and ride lot usage.
Similar to carpooling and telework, it is difficult to attribute what portion of transit use and
growth is due to the efforts of Commute Solutions. Efforts by Metro also have an effect, and
individuals needing to get around in the region are completely capable of deciding to use transit
on their own when it makes more sense than driving in congested conditions.
9
The Energy Corridor District Land Use and Demographics, 2013 Inventory and Database, CDS Market Research
Austin American Statesman, March 11, 2014.
10
12
April 2014
DRAFT
A solid estimate of emission benefits that could be attributed to Commute Solutions is again
made using the percentage of employees who work for Clean Air Champions companies.
The regional rate of transit use for work trips ranges from 2 percent (Energy Corridor) to 37
percent (Downtown Houston), with most areas reporting approximately 5 percent. For nonwork trips, transit use appears to be approximately 0.8 percent, using the Houston Travel
survey and information from the travel demand modeling section11. Our analysis below
assumes the 5% rate for work trips and adjusts the 5% downwards by 5.5% to account for Clean
Air Champion involvement. With 3,183,000 employed in the region, this results in 159,150
transit users who use transit to get to work, 8,753 of which work for Clean Air Champions
companies.
If 8,753 people use transit on an average day, this results in 59,170,280 miles per year reduced
(8,753 * 260 workdays per year * 26 mile round trip commute).
Finally, many individuals walk or bicycle to access transit, thus eliminating a trip as well as VMT.
Metro maintains monthly statistics on “bike boardings”, the number of bicycles brought on
buses equipped with bicycle racks. The 2013 Bike Report shows that a typical summer monthly
average is 19,816 bike boardings, or approximately 990 bike boardings daily (per work day).
Additional emission benefits from the 990 reduced trips (361,350 annually for all transit) are
not credited given the small number of these that could be attributed to the Clean Air
Champion employees. If the ratio of saved VMT to saved trips were the same as they are for
NuRide participants, the expected trip savings is 2,936,498
Regional Vanpool Program
STAR, the regional vanpool and rideshare program provided by METRO, is in its sixteenth year
of operation and is one of the largest programs of its kind in the nation. The program provides a
15-, 12-, or 7-passenger van along with insurance, maintenance, roadside assistance and
administrative coordination. Average fares are about $135 per month, and the average roundtrip traveled is 66 miles. Additionally, program participants receive a $35 per month subsidy to
help offset vanpool costs. Volunteers within the vanpool groups do the driving. There are
currently over 700 vanpools in operation with over 7,000 riders in the region.
According to the Metro contractor 2Plus that promotes and manages this program, virtually
none of the vanpool riders is picked up from their home; more than 99% are picked up at a
central parking lot or park and ride lot. Therefore no trip reduction from the vanpooling
program should be assumed.
Figure 2-2 below shows the net VMT reductions per year since 200512
11
Personal communication, email January 3, 2014 from H-GAC, to ENVIRON transmitting travel model output file
tceq2_data.xlsx.
12 Source: H-GAC personal communication January 28, 2014. Email from H-GAC to ENVIRON.
13
April 2014
DRAFT
Total Net Vanpool VMT Reductions
812,490
2006
60,574,214
2005
58,576,726
10,000,000
57,716,742
20,000,000
52,981,738
30,000,000
48,845,147
40,000,000
60,005,158
950,773
61,907,998
50,000,000
2,069,394
59,751,108
60,000,000
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
0
METROVan
miniPOOL
Figure 2-2. Vanpool vehicle miles traveled reduced.
Source: H-GAC Path Forward document, March, 2014.
The program tracks and reports ridership and mileage on a monthly basis, and this data provide
a straightforward way to calculate emission benefits. In 2013, the total passenger auto VMT
reduced was 70,282,888 miles, or an average of 270,319 miles per average day. The vans
themselves travelled 9,529,359 miles, or an average of 36,651 miles per day. Because vans are
larger vehicles than passenger cars, they emit more pollutants on a gram per mile basis and the
extra emissions from their use must be subtracted from the emission benefits due to the
reduced driving as shown in Table 2-4.
Table 2-4.
Emission Factors and Results For Metro Vanpools (tons/year).
Pollutant
Commute Vehicles (g/mile) (LDV)
Commute Reduction (ton/year)
Van (g/mile)13
Van Increase
Overall Emission Reduction (tons/year)
VOC
0.058
4.5
0.14
1.47
3.0
NOx
0.18
13.9
0.65
6.82
7.1
CO
2.07
160.2
3.52
36.9
123.2
PM2.5
0.0095
0.74
0.02
0.21
0.53
CO2
369.5
28,601
495.4
5,199
23,402
Commute Solutions: Commuter and Transit Services Pilot Projects
More than 13 pilot projects have been implemented in the HGB region using a combination of
federal funds and local matching funds. Over $520,000 of federal CMAQ funds was invested in
2011 - resulting in over 8,000,000 VMT reduced. Figure 2-3 shows the ridership and vehicle
miles reduced from these programs.
13
Use light commercial truck average rates (gas and diesel).
14
April 2014
DRAFT
Figure 2-3. Commuter and Pilot Transit program activity.
Source: H-GAC Path Forward Document, March, 2014.
The emission reductions associated with the transit pilot projects are estimated by evaluating
the reductions from reduced driving, offset by the emissions of the transit pilot vehicles. The
vehicles used in each project, along with their emission rates (in grams per mile) are listed
below in Table 2-5.
Table 2-5. Transit Pilot Projects Transit Vehicles and Emission Factors (grams/mile)
Certification Levels.
Project
Baytown
Fort Bend
Island Connect
Sterling Ridge
Woodlands
Township
Victory Lakes
Engine(s)
2008 8.9l manufacturer not specified
Currently Cummins 6.7 l 2010 diesel (used
2003 and 2006 vehicles until 2010)
2008 14.9 l engine and 2008 8.9 l engines
(use higher of two factors)
No information received from provider.
This project started after 2010 but for
conservatism we use 2008 factors.
No information received from provider.
This project started after 2010 but for
conservatism we use 2008 factors.
2010 Cummins 8.9l diesel, 2010
NOx
1.02
0.20
NMHC
0.034
0.003
CO14
15.5
0.9
PM2.5
0.002
0.002
1.02
0.034
0.9
0.002
1.02
0.034
0.9
0.002
1.02
0.034
0.9
0.002
0.20
0.003
15.5 (Std.)
0.010
(Std.)
Source: Personal Communication, 2/25/14. Email from H-GAC to Earth Matters transmitting engine specifications and
emission measurements for engines used in the transit pilot projects.
14
The standard is used when the certification and ftp levels are listed as zero.
15
April 2014
DRAFT
The pilot projects differ in the amount of ridership and VMT reductions. Ridership, VMT
reductions and transit vehicle VMT are shown in Table 2-615.
Table 2-6.
Transit Pilot Project Ridership, VMT Reductions, and Transit VMT in 2012.
Project
Baytown
Fort Bend
Island Connect
Sterling Ridge
Woodlands
Township
Victory Lakes
Total
Ridership
(sum monthly totals
for year)
30,758
93,534
26,783
110,541
103,596
VMT Reduced
870,458
1,868,436
520,488
3,868,944
207,200
89,748
454,960
2,335,388
9,670,914
Transit Vehicle VMT
87,426
265,375
80,503
130,641
37,660
261,329
862,934
Source: H-GAC, January 2014
The PM2.5 emission Reductions from the riders are 0.1 ton per year; increases from the transit
vehicles are 0.002 tons. The net reduction rounds to 0.1 tons as shown in Table 2-7.
Table 2-7.
Emission Factors and Results for Transit Pilot Programs.
Pollutant
Commute Vehicle (g/mile) (LDV)
Commute annual reduction
Transit vehicles (g/mile)16
Transit vehicle increase
Emission Reduction (tons/year)
VOC
0.058
0.62
0.015
0.014
0.61
CO
2.30
22.05
6.59
6.26
15.8
NOx
0.18
1.92
0.52
0.49
1.42
PM2.5
0.0095
0.10
0.002
0.002
0.10
CO2
369.5
3,935
N/A
0
3,935
Energy Corridor District’s Carshare Program
The Energy Corridor in partnership with Enterprise Holdings provides commuters access to
vehicles on days they use a commute alternative. CarShare vehicles are available for hourly
rental at two different sites for personal or work errands throughout the day, with fuel, physical
damage/liability protection, vehicle maintenance, and 24/7 roadside and member assistance
included. This program assists in making alternative mode use more attractive to users and is
not assumed here to result in additional emission reductions. In a discussion of potential new
and previously un-evaluated measures presented later, a hypothetical area-wide carsharing
program of the type that reduces car ownership is presented, similar to the Car2Go program in
Austin.
15
Source: H-GAC staff January 28, and February 25, 2014
Weighted average by mileage of transit pilot vehicles in 2012 resulting in approximately 20% 2008 type emission factors and
80% 2010 type emission factors.
16
16
April 2014
DRAFT
Bicycle Pedestrian Measures
Although Houston is viewed as a busy, traffic clogged city where people insist on relying upon
their cars for getting around, there is actually a substantial amount of bicycle use. There are a
growing number of bicycle and pedestrian paths and walkways and a concentrated effort to
connect these walkways with activity centers, transit centers, and eachother. In addition,
measures such as requiring buses to have bike racks increase bicycle use. In 2013, 167,421 bike
boardings on buses were recorded17
NuRide Bicycle/Walk Trips
NuRide began tracking participation in 2009 and shows a significant amount of participation
although it does capture less than one percent of total regional bicycle/walking modes.
In 2013 NuRide statistics show that 9,116 vehicle trips were reduced, along with 192,977 miles
of vehicular travel. Using 2018 emission factors, this reduces (annually) NOx by 0.11 tons; VOC
by 0.08 tons; PM2.5 by 0.0045 tons, CO by 0.91 tons, and CO2 by 119.6 tons.
Bicycle Pedestrian Program Regional Estimated Effect
Regionally, there is a vibrant move toward more bicycle use. The City of Houston offers over
300 miles of an interconnected bikeway network spanning across 500 square miles. The
network includes bike lanes, bike routes, signed-shared lanes and shared-use paths, commonly
referred to as ‘hike and bike’ trails, which includes rails to trails, and other urban multi-use
paths. In addition to these bicyclist transportation facilities, there are over 80 miles of hike and
bike and nature trails found in City of Houston parks. In addition, Harris County and many
municipal utility districts have constructed over 160 miles of bikeways within the City limits.
The move toward requiring more bicycle racks on transit buses also encourages additional bike
use, as noted above, 167,421 bike boardings were counted in 2013.
17

H-GAC’s Special Districts Program identifies districts within the region where walking
and bicycling are in greatest demand. H-GAC works with local partners in these districts
to develop pedestrian and bicycle master plans that identify improvements to
pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety.

The City of Houston continues to expand the bikeway network through the construction
of both on and off street bikeways. Many bicyclists are awaiting the completion of the
trail extension along White Oak Bayou, and there is also an on-street component to
accompany the off-street facility. The pavement markings along Antoine are being
revised to provide a 14 foot-wide outside lane.

The Regional Bikeway Viewer is provided online as an interactive map of existing and
planned bikeways in the Houston-Galveston region. The Bikeway Viewer allows users to
see the regional bikeway network in its entirety, or zoom in for a closer look at specific
areas of interest.
Metro Bike Boarding Running Count FY 2011 – FY 2014 by month
17
April 2014
DRAFT

The Sunday Streets program will open White Oak, Westheimer and Washington/Market
Square to bicyclists and pedestrians on the first Sundays in April, May and June 2014,
respectively, from 11am-3pm.

TxDOT contractors are also installing new pedestrian-bicyclist bridges along Brays
Bayou.

The West White Oak Bayou Trail offers bicyclists and pedestrians almost 5 miles of 10foot wide concrete and asphalt trail with 2-foot shoulders on each side. The trail is
lighted and includes railings in some areas. The trail runs along the bayou and T. C.
Jester Park, parallel to T. C. Jester Boulevard, from 11th Street to Pinemont. The existing
White Oak Bayou trail is being extended almost 3 miles from Pinemont to Victory.

New Bicyclist-Pedestrian Study of the Clear Lake Area: the Houston Bikeway Program,
within the Department of Public Works and Engineering, is partnering with the HoustonGalveston Area Council to conduct a bicyclist-pedestrian study of the Clear Lake area.

The Houston Bikeway Program, within the Department of Public Works and Engineering,
is partnering with the Houston-Galveston Area Council to conduct a bicyclist-pedestrian
study of the Clear Lake area.
Using the values derived from the frequency distribution of trips by trip length it is apparent
that at least 58,035 miles and 38,689 trips per day are being reduced due to use of facilities
provided and encouragements to participate in bicycle and pedestrian programs. This value is
derived from assuming that one percent of trips less than 2 miles is valid. Since the measured
value is as high as 3% and since many of the bicycle trips might be at least 5 miles in length, this
value should be conservative.
The annual reduction is 21,182,775 miles and 14,121,485 trips, reducing 11.6 tons of VOC; 12.6
tons of NOx; 0.33 tons of PM2.5; and 9,550 tons of CO2 annually.
18
April 2014
DRAFT
Clean Vehicles Program
This fuel neutral program is designed to reduce on-road vehicle emissions by rapid turnover to
newer lower emitting engines, retrofit of existing engines with approved devices, or introduce
new lower emission technologies. Vehicle owners can access grant funds through the program
and possibly supplemental with low interest loans through the Drayage Loan program that
enables eligible truck owners to finance the purchase of newer, cleaner and more
environmentally-friendly trucks.
For the period 2012-2013, of the 176 projects awarded grant funds through the Clean Vehicles
Program, 28 (4 of which were school buses and the rest heavy-duty trucks) from 2012 were
finalized as of January 2014. The remaining projects initiated during 2012 and 2013 but not yet
finalized will produce emission reductions once the truck or truck engines have been replaced
and returned to service. Thus, for the purposes of this document, emissions benefit and cost
effectiveness have been calculated for the 28 completed projects. To provide a longer term
picture of the program, we add to the 2012 projects the 204 projects (64 school buses) from
the 2010 and 2011. The year 2010 is important because a new NOx emission standard for
heavy-duty on-road engines was implemented that year, and engines/vehicles replaced since
2010 provide a good picture of future projects.
Administration Resources
In Houston, H-GAC administers a program under The Clean Cities/Clean Vehicles Program18
where federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds are distributed to replace or
retrofit lower emitting heavy-duty. This is part of the Houston Galveston Clean Cities Coalition
(HGCCC) that has been in existence since 199419.
The Clean Vehicles program is run with six staff to review new projects and administer past
projects through completion of the contracts. The cost of the oversight leads to an internal
budget of $370,000 for administration. The program lets several million dollars per year in
project funding making the overhead a fraction of the program cost.
Project funding (Other Costs)
This program uses Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding. The CMAQ program
was implemented to support surface transportation projects and other related efforts that
contribute air quality improvements and provide congestion relief since 1991.20
Multi‐pollutant Reduction Analysis
Emissions factors from a Fleet Emissions Calculator tool were used to assess VOC, NOx, PM and
PM2.5 vehicle emissions. This calculator was developed using Houston area conditions with the
18
http://www.houston-cleancities.org/#
http://www.houston-cleancities.org/coalition.htm
20
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/
19
19
April 2014
DRAFT
MOVES2010 emissions model using area average vehicle speeds. It determines the emissions
for the replace and replacement vehicles and cost effectiveness using the project costs.
The MOVES Source Use Type was used to categorize vehicles. As 75% of the mileage for
vehicles funded under the Clean Vehicles Program must be in the 8 county HGB non-attainment
area, it was assumed that the heaviest duty vehicles would be combination short-haul trucks.
Using the average annual mileage of 20,452 for the 28 vehicles replaced to date during 2012, a
5 year project life, and the total grant cost of $1,240,497 for the 28 projects, annual emission
reductions and cost effectiveness per pollutant for the program are provided in Table 2-8. The
204 projects initiated in 2010-2011 reported 32,738 average annual mileage with a total grant
cost of $12,709,775. Table 2-8 shows the Clean Cities progress over three recent years progress
of progress because a low NOx emission standard was implemented in 2010.
Table 2-8. Total emissions reductions from completed replacement projects funded during
2012 and 2010-2011.
Pollutant
VOC
NOx
PM2.5
VOC
NOx
PM2.5
Emission
Reduction
Cost Effectiveness
(Tons/Year)
($/ton)
2012 (28 projects)
0.5
8.2
$30,000
0.5
$530,000
2010 – 2011 (204 projects)
6.0
101.7
$24,000
6.5
$370,000
The NOx cost effectiveness per ton for the 2010-2011 Clean Cities Program for all replaced
vehicles (204) was estimated to be $22,534. From Table 2-8 above, the NOx cost effectiveness
per ton is $30,352 and the multi-pollutant cost effectiveness per ton is calculated to be $25,736
over a 5 year project life. However, until the data can be finalized from the incomplete vehicle
replacement projects, it is difficult to rely on the numbers in the above table as an accurate
assessment of the effectiveness of the program as a whole for the period 2012-2013.
Many of the projects funded under this program were retrofits of school buses primarily to
reduce PM, so NOx emissions reduction of those projects were minimal, so the NOx cost
effectiveness is lower than if all projects target NOx emission reductions. School buses also
drive less and therefore create fewer emission reductions and are less cost effective than larger
trucks. Overall school bus projects for 2010-2011 result in 6.2 NOx and 0.40 PM2.5 tpy
reduction and for 2012 0.4 NOx and 0.03 tpy PM2.5 reduction.
Overall, the project life is at least 5 years and sometimes longer, so scaling the 2010 – 2012
Clean Cities/Clean Vehicles projects to 5 years, 180 tons of NOx and 12 tons of PM2.5 per year
20
April 2014
DRAFT
will be reduced through this program of which 11 tpy and 0.7 PM2.5 were derived from school
bus replacements.
Costs and Cost Effectiveness
Costs per project calculated simultaneously with the project benefits. Per replacement project
averages $50,000 - $60,000.
Other Benefits or Considerations
Owners should have better reliability with the new engine and vehicle purchased under this
program. A summary of the Clean Cities program is provided in Table 2-9.
Table 2-9.
Clean Cities/Clean Vehicles Summary.
Input
Administration
Other Costs
Emissions
Cost Effectiveness
Other Benefits or
Considerations
Estimate
6% overhead for H-GAC staff on average.
Project costs for replacement engine.
180 tons per year NOx and 12 tons per year PM2.5
$25,000 per NOx ton reduced and $400,000 per PM2.5 ton reduced
Better vehicle and engine reliability, and multiple pollutant benefits.
21
April 2014
DRAFT
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TECQ): Texas Emission Reduction
Plan (TERP)
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ) Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP)
program has arguably been the most important voluntary project in the state providing a pool
of grant money to upgrade or replace engines to reduce emissions. TCEQ provides TERP
funding for emission reduction projects to participants in the HGB area and contracts.
Administration Resources
The Texas State legislature established the TERP in 2001 and subsequent legislatures have
defined the program’s goals, funding, and disbursement.
The original TERP (TCEQ 2012) program budget included the elements as follows:

87.5 percent to be used for the emissions reduction incentive programs;

9 percent to be used for the New Technology Research and Development (NTRD) program,
of which $500,000 was to be deposited to the Clean Air Account to supplement funding for
air quality activities in affected counties, up to $200,000 allocated for a health effects study,
and a minimum 20 percent to support air quality research in the Houston–Galveston–
Brazoria and Dallas–Fort Worth nonattainment areas; and

2 percent for the administrative costs associated with the TCEQ’s administration of the
Texas Emissions Reduction Plan and 1.5 percent for the administrative costs of the Texas
Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas Engineering Experiment Station, Texas A & M University.
Of the money allocated to the emissions reduction incentive programs, the total appropriation
from the TERP Fund was reallocated in 2011 as follows:

not more than 4 percent for the Texas Clean School Bus Program;

not more than 10 percent for the Heavy-Duty Motor Vehicle Purchase or Lease Incentive
Program;

a specified amount may be used for the New Technology Implementation Grants Program;

5 percent for the Texas Clean Fleet Program;

not less than 16 percent for the Texas Natural Gas Vehicle Grants Program;

not more than 4 percent for the Clean Transportation Triangle Program;

up to 2 percent for the Alternative Fueling Facilities Program;

not more than $7 million in FY 2012 and FY 2013 and not more than $3 million in
subsequent fiscal years for a regional air monitoring program in TCEQ Regions 3 and 4;

a specified amount to support research related to air quality as provided by Texas Health
and Safety Code Chapter 387;

up to $200,000 for a health effects study;
22
April 2014
DRAFT

up to $500,000 to be deposited to the Clean Air Account for air quality planning activities in
affected counties;

not more than $216,000 to the TCEQ to contract with the Energy Systems Laboratory
annually for the development and annual computation of creditable statewide emissions
reductions obtained through wind and other renewable resources;

not more than $3.4 million to the TCEQ for administrative costs (in 2011, the overall budget
allocation was $117 million and with legislative changes reduced to $84 million, so $3.4
million amounted to 3-4%);

1.5 percent for administrative costs incurred by the Energy Systems Laboratory; and

the balance is allocated to the TCEQ for the Emissions Reduction Incentive Grants Program.
The TERP budget provided for various alternatives, special studies, and other options, but the
overall TCEQ administration budget amounted to 2 – 3% of the money spent for emission
reduction programs. While annual budget for TERP programs is $100 million or more, some of
this is spent on research and innovative demonstrations or other approaches as well as
administration. For 2013, the total grant amount let for projects was $64 million of which $22
million was granted to projects within the HGB nonattainment area.
A summary of the project funding and administration costs are provided in Table 2-10.
Administration costs that comer from H-GAC’s budget are a small fraction of the program
funding but increase the cost and cost effectiveness of projects by about 3%.
H-GAC was directed to market and administer special TERP projects to encourage additional
participation in the program. H-GAC dedicated one staff member to work on those projects.
The H-GAC staff assigned to local projects also assisted TCEQ in generating interest in the
program that provided grants to TERP projects directly through TCEQ instead of through H-GAC.
The third party grant to H-GAC began with the 2013 fiscal year, so the H-GAC program has just
begun.
Table 2-10. Year 2013 TERP Funding.21
Program
TERP –
TCEQ
Administration
Overhead
2 - 4%
Administration
(cost/ year)
~$3,000,000
2013 TERP Project
Funding
<$100 Million Total
$22 Million in HGB
21
Notes
Program administrator, fraud
examiner, other technical and
administrative staff.
TCEQ 2012. “Texas Emissions Reduction Plan Biennial Report (2011-2012), A Report to the 83rd Texas Legislature,” SFR079/12, December 2012.
23
April 2014
DRAFT
Project Funding (Other Costs)
The TERP funding shown in Table 2-11 is the fraction due to direct funding of replacement and
retrofits of engines replacements for on-road vehicles and off-road equipment. Other projects,
such as truck stop electrification through the Emission Reduction Incentive Grant (ERIG)
program, are included as well. The TERP program has also begun to facilitate the
implementation of emission reductions through third party grants to H-GAC that had yet to be
fully subscribed as of January 2014.
Table 2-11. TERP ERIG.
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
TERP ERIG Grants
$ 2,856,423
$ 11,211,138
$ 22,280,306
$ 105,165,295
$ 45,109,162
$ 49,433,353
$ 55,986,327
$ 27,678,029
$ 50,425,052
$ 4,663,751
$
$ 22,454,852
Over the last six years of the TERP grants program the funding and emission reductions are
shown in Table 2-12.
Table 2-12. 2008 – 2013 TERP ERIG in HGB Area.
Category
Non-Road
On-Road
Stationary
Locomotive
Marine
ERIG Total
Projects
1849
1225
38
12
93
3217
Grant Amount
$76,888,093
$64,269,084
$981,156
$11,303,055
$7,766,624
$161,208,011
NOx
(tons)
8,884
6,840
153
2,439
2,167
20,484
NOx
(tons/yr)
1307
976
24
130
297
2,734
NOx Cost
Effectiveness
($/ton)
$ 8,655
$ 9,395
$ 6,395
$ 4,635
$ 3,584
$ 7,870
Annual Cost
($/ton/yr)
$58,844
$65,816
$41,374
$86,827
$26,152
$58,964
Multi‐pollutant Reduction Analysis
TCEQ has developed a methodology to analyze and report NOx emission reduction, the primary
objective of the TERP program. While PM reductions are also useful for air quality, TCEQ does
not report PM reductions from the TERP projects. In order to estimate the PM reductions, we
have investigated the likely relative emission reduction of PM and NOx emission using sample
emission projects with the relative emission standards of replaced and replacement engines.
The estimates of PM reductions are approximate because a detailed project by project estimate
24
April 2014
DRAFT
is beyond the scope of this analysis, and TCEQ does not provide the specific model years and
other projects’ information in their public reports.
Table 2-13 on-road emission standards show the emissions standards by model year and
provide one basis for estimating the relative NOx and PM emission reduction with
engine/vehicle replacement emission reduction projects. For example, in 2013 a ten-year old
vehicle/engine replaced with a new vehicle/engine resulted in a 95% reduction in NOx and a
90% reduction in PM, and the relative reduction per hp-hr for NOx is about forty times that of
the PM reduction. Before 2010, a ten-year old vehicle replaced would have resulted in NOx
reductions about thirty times the PM emission reduction.
Table 2-13. EPA Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines.
Model Year
1988 – 1989
1990
1991 – 1993
1994 – 1997
1998 – 2003
2004 – 2006
2007 – 2009
2010
1
2
NOx
(g/hp-hr)
10.7
6.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
2.4
1.32
0.2
PM1
(g/hp-hr)
0.60
0.60
0.25
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.01
0.01
– PM is total particulate while PM2.5 is 92 - 97% of PM
– 50% of fleet meets new NOx standards
For the off-road emission standards shown in Table A-1, a similar ten-year old
engine/equipment replaced with a new Tier 4 engine results in a greater than 90% reduction in
NOx and PM. NOx mass reductions were about forty times the PM reductions.
The PM reductions for the 2008 – 2013 year grants would have resulted in about 65 tons of PM
reductions per year by dividing estimated from the NOx reductions of 2,754 tons per year by a
NOx to PM emission reduction ratio of forty to one.
However, an alternative view of the expected relative NOx and PM emission reductions is
provided by MOVES model runs. Table A-2 provides the running emission rates in gram per
mile for combination short haul trucks, the largest truck type that would be locally based.
Using these emission factors, replacing a ten-year old truck with a new truck would result in
NOx emission reductions ten to eighteen times what the PM reductions would be. Using the
relative NOx and PM reduction ratio figure of ten to one, PM reductions from the TERP grants
would increase to 275 tons per year reduced.
Costs and Cost Effectiveness
Likewise because of the relative NOx and PM emission reductions per project, PM cost
effectiveness is about ten to forty times higher than the NOx cost effectiveness, of about
$9,000 per ton reduced for the most recent projects. So PM cost effectiveness alone (without
25
April 2014
DRAFT
considering the NOx or other emission reductions) is about $90,000 - $360,000 per ton of PM
reduced.
Other Benefits or Considerations
The primary purpose of the TERP program is to reduce NOx emissions, however most
replacement engines provide lower VOC, CO, PM and toxic emissions as well. The PM emission
reductions have been included in the summary results.
Another benefit of engine replacements is that the vehicle and equipment owners have a new
engine, which should be more reliable. The cost benefit of better reliability is difficult to
estimate, but improved engine reliability is part of an incentive for fleet operators to participate
in such projects. Table 2-14 provides a summary of TERP program progress.
Table 2-14. Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP) Summary.
Input
Administration
Other Costs
Emissions
Cost Effectiveness
Other Benefits or
Considerations
Estimate
Typically 3% of direct grant funding
Direct emission reduction project funding
Emission reductions of NOx and PM from diesel engines:
2008 – 2013 NOx reduction of 2,754 tons/year and PM reductions of 65 – 275
tons/year
$9,000 per NOx ton and $90,000 - $360,000 per PM ton
Additional PM, CO, ROG, and toxic emission reductions; and fleet operator engine
reliability improvements
26
April 2014
DRAFT
H-GAC Regional Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP)
H-GAC was awarded a third party contract of TERP funding. From 2008-2013, H-GAC operated
the first Regional TERP and was commended by TCEQ as being one of the most successful first
rounds of third party TERP contracts. H-GAC has received another grant to administer another
Regional TERP program from 2013-2015.
Administration Resources
Where the TCEQ TERP can be broad, the H-GAC Regional TERP focuses on two elements:
creating NOx reductions by replacing on-road vehicles and off road equipment of local
government entities, and creating NOx reductions by replacing on-road vehicles associated with
the H-GAC Drayage Loan Program. The benefits of seeking Regional TERP funding include:

Applicants compete with other applicants within the HGB area, not the entire state of
Texas.

H-GAC Staff works directly with applicants to form viable projects.

H-GAC Staff will seek applicants to prompt their interest in the Regional TERP.
Each project is evaluated every two years of the monitoring period to ensure that the usage
commitment is being completed. In cases where the usage commitment has not been met,
H-GAC bills the recipient for a partial grant repayment equal to the unmet usage. The partial
grant repayment alters the contracted NOx reduction. These reductions are included in the
following results section.
Results
The first H-GAC Regional TERP program provided $3,546,061 grant funds contracting for a NOx
emission reduction of 405 tons from on-road vehicles and off road equipment (Local
Government and Drayage Loan Trucks). The TERP investment cost $8,754 per ton of NOx-only
reduction. The PM reductions were not enumerated, but we estimate that PM reductions
were 10 – 40 tons with cost effectiveness of $90,000 - $360,000 per ton PM-only reduced over
the past six years of grant program funding.
The second H-GAC Regional TERP program, which is currently open to Local Governments, has
currently provided $78,015 grant funds contracting for a NOx emission reduction of 7.8 tons
from off road equipment. The TERP investment cost $10,000 per ton of NOx-only reduction.
The PM reductions were not enumerated, but we estimate that PM reductions were at least 0.2
– 0.7 tons.
The emission reductions reported here are included in the total TERP progress reported
previously in this report.
27
April 2014
DRAFT
Drayage Loan Program
The H-GAC Drayage Loan Program, a collaborative effort between H-GAC, Environmental
Defense Fund and the Port of Houston Authority, is an innovative program that provides low
interest loans with a grants for eligible applicants to replace older trucks with newer, cleaner
and more environmentally-friendly trucks.
H-GAC uses the Regional TERP program or the Clean Vehicles program (depending upon
funding availability) to provide the granting component. These programs may provide private
entities, such as drayage owner/operators and drayage trucking companies, grants based upon
NOx reduction caused by heavy duty diesel engine replacement.
H-GAC used a DERA grant from the EPA to establish a revolving loan fund that provides the loan
component of the Drayage Loan Program. The loan establishes a “bridge” that removes a
barrier by funding the remaining cost of the purchase of a new truck that the granting element
will not fund.
The traditional method of seeking conventional loans for this bridge typically results in
unfavorable terms (e.g., high interest rates and/or an abbreviated repayment schedule)
creating monthly payments too large for an owner/operator’s budget. By offering a lower
interest rate (4% in most cases) and a longer loan term (5 years), owner/operators and drayage
companies are provided more feasible access to clean diesel programs.
The DERA grant establishes goals of job creation, job retention, and increasing economic
opportunities in disadvantaged minorities. Please view the Drayage Loan Program’s website for
more information: (http://www.h-gac.com/taq/airquality/drayageloans/default.aspx)
Administration Resources
The Drayage Loan Program is administered by two H-GAC staff at a cost of about $140,000 per
year.
Project funding (Other Costs)
The initial funding provided by the loan component is the only direct cost of the program.
H-GAC revolves the loan payments received, or program income, in order to provide loan
funding for additional loans. Contrarily, loan defaults would decrease the program income.
However, no defaults have occurred in the Drayage Loan Program as of date.
Multi‐pollutant Reduction Analysis
Emission reductions from the Drayage Loan Program are calculated in the respective Regional
TERP and Clean Vehicle programs.
Costs and Cost Effectiveness
Cost effectiveness of the Drayage Loan Program is calculated in the respective Regional TERP
and Clean Vehicle programs.
28
April 2014
DRAFT
Other Benefits or Considerations
The Drayage Loan Program provides an additional incentive to participate in the Regional TERP
and Clean Vehicle programs. Table 2-15 summarizes the administrative aspects of the Drayage
Loan Program.
Table 2-15. Drayage Loan Summary
Input
Administration
Other Costs
Emissions
Cost Effectiveness
Other Benefits or
Considerations
Estimate
H-GAC Staff Time
Loans should be repaid resulting in no direct costs.
No emission reductions separate of the TERP and Clean Vehicles programs.
Not applicable
Overall support to other emission reduction programs.
29
April 2014
DRAFT
Clean Vessels for Texas Waters
The National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program began as a Diesel Emissions Reduction
National Program (DERA) from which federal funding has been provided in 2008 – 2011
timeframe. Funds have been made available to replace marine engines on high use tugs, and
this source represents an important and cost effective source category to address larger in-use
engines. Funding has been used to begin the Clean Vessels for Texas Waters program.
Administration Resources
H-GAC and the Port of Houston have prepared and been awarded grants and continue to work
with partners to identify and implement marine engine replacement projects.
Project Funding (Other Costs)
Three grants totaling nearly $4 million have been made to H-GAC and the Port of Houston
under Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) or the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (ARRA).
Multi‐pollutant Reduction Analysis
The emission reduction identified will depend upon the replaced engine emission rates. Table
A-3 provides the base emission factors for marine engines, and Tier 1 engines which followed
the emission standards begun in 2000. Tables A-4, 2-27, and 2-18 provide the emission
standards for newer engines and provide a basis for evaluating the potential benefits of marine
engine replacement projects. The difference between the new and old engine emission factors
(EF) in units of power (kilowatts, kW) multiplied by the annual work results in the expected
emission reduction.
Emission reductions = Engine power X Load Factor X Hours X (EFnew – EFold)
There have been two programs targeting marine engine emissions, the Texas Emission
Reduction Plan (TERP) and the federal grant funded program Clean Vessels for Texas Waters
that provide a basis for evaluating the emission benefits and cost effectiveness.
The 388 TERP marine projects have cost $38 million to date and are reducing NOx emissions by
1500 tons per year with a cost effectiveness of $3,250 per NOx ton reduced. The TERP marine
projects mostly occurred from 2004 through 2013, and replaced precontrolled (<2000 model
year) engines with Tier 2 engines.
To estimate a PM reduction, a 20-30% reduction in PM (0.3 to 0.2 g/kW-hr) and 30-40%
reduction in NOx (10 to 7.2 g/kW-hr for cylinder displacement of 2.5 to 3.5 liters) was expected.
Using the ratio of PM and NOx relative benefits and the NOx reductions of 1,500 tons in the
TERP program, estimated PM2.5 emission reductions from these projects are 50 tons per year.
The Clean Vessels for Texas program provides a second set of projects that were federally
funded engine replacements. The estimated cost was about $1.6 million and reduced NOx by
30
April 2014
DRAFT
77 tons per year and PM by more than 0.8 tons per year as shown in Table 2-16. The Phillip K,
Judge, and Kristy L engine replacement projects were Category 2 engines and therefore
provided larger NOx than PM reductions due to the engine type and replacement model years.
As the program moves forward greater PM reductions could be realized as the PM emission
standard is reduced for marine engines model year 2013 and later.
Table 2-16. Clean Vessels for Texas Waters Progress.
Engine Identifier
Phillip K Main Starboard
Phillip K Main Port
Judge Main Starboard
Judge Main Port
Phillip K Generator Starboard
Phillip K Generator Port
Kristy L Main Starboard
Kristy L Main Port
Sam Houston Propulsion
Sam Houston Auxiliary
Total
NOx Reduction
(tons/year)
14.7
14.7
15.1
15.1
1.9
1.9
6.9
6.9
2.6
0.9
80.7
PM Reduction
(tons/year)
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.08
0.25
0.05
1.12
Costs and Cost Effectiveness
Costs for marine projects have been established based on recent state and federal grants. NOx
cost effectiveness is well established at near $3,000 per ton through the TERP and Clean Vessels
programs. The estimated PM2.5 – only control cost would be about 30-100 times the NOx
estimate based on relative emissions benefits at $90,000 - $250,000.
Other Benefits or Considerations
The vessel owners typically get a new engine that needs less maintenance. Table 2-17 provides
a summary of the Clean Vessels for Texas program expected progress when fully implemented.
Table 2-17. Clean Vessels for Texas Program Summary.
Input
Administration
Other Costs
Emissions
Cost Effectiveness
Other Benefits or
Considerations
Estimate
H-GAC and Port of Houston staff provides grant oversight.
Direct engine replacement costs.
90 tons NOx and 3 tons PM2.5 reduction per year when fully implemented
$3,000 per NOx ton and $90,000 - $250,000 per PM2.5 ton reduced
No significant issues, but multiple pollutant benefits.
31
April 2014
DRAFT
H-GAC’s ‘Engine Off’ Voluntary Idle Reduction Program
In 2012, in partnership with local governments, citizen and environmental groups, business and
industry-based organizations and other stakeholders H-GAC developed the Engine Off voluntary
idling reduction program and adopted a voluntary diesel idling reduction policy.22 The antiidling policy aims to lower particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and other emissions
by placing a five-minute idle limit on motor vehicles. Along with promoting this voluntary policy
region-wide, H-GAC provides idling reduction bumper stickers and signs within our region free
of charge. The Port of Houston Authority has been a major partner in developing and
supporting this program, posting over 100 idling reduction signs at the Turning Basin terminal
within the Port.23
Through 2013, H-GAC has signed on the following fleets and is engaged with partners including
those participating in TERP, Drayage Loan, and other heavy-duty vehicle emission reduction
projects:
























22
23
Alief Independent School District
(ISD)
Alvin ISD
Angleton ISD
Alain Garcia Independent Trucking
AT&T
Barbers Hill ISD
Brazosport ISD
City of Houston
Clear Creek ISD
Columbia-Brazoria ISD
Conroe ISD
Crosby ISD
Cypress-Fairbanks (Cy-Fair) ISD
Damon ISD
Danbury ISD
Dickinson ISD
Davenport Transportation &
Rigging
Fast Trac Transportation
Fort Bend ISD
Friendswood ISD
Galena Park ISD
Galveston ISD
Goose Creek Consolidated ISD
Harris County
High Island ISD











http://www.h-gac.com/taq/airquality/engineoff/default.aspx
http://www.h-gac.com/taq/airquality/engineoff/default.aspx.
32





Houston Astros
Houston ISD
Houston Biodiesel
Huffman ISD
Humble ISD
Jose Alfaro Independent Trucking
Klein ISD
Magnolia ISD
Museum Park Super Neighborhood
North Forest ISD
Our Lady Queen of Peace Catholic
School
Pasadena ISD
Pearland ISD
Port of Houston
Santa Fe ISD
Sheldon ISD








Spring ISD
Sweeny ISD
Texas City ISD
Tomball ISD
TxDOT
UPS
Waller ISD
Westside High School, HISD
April 2014
DRAFT
Administration Resources
H-GAC administers this program with internal air quality staff and through partners. H-GAC will
work with partners to document progress of these programs.
Project funding (Other Costs)
Direct projects costs have been minimal with small one-time costs incurred for printing signs
and bumper stickers.
Multi‐pollutant reduction analysis
For all vehicles, a benefit can be estimated if the number of hours that idling was reduced can
be determined. Table 2-18 provides the per vehicle short term (<1 hour) idling emission rates.
Table 2-18. MOVES2010a Harris Co. average short term idle emission rates in calendar year
2018.
Vehicle Type
Passenger cars (gasoline)
Passenger trucks (gasoline)
Light Commercial Truck Gasoline
Light Commercial Truck Diesel
Single Unit Short-haul Truck Diesel
Single Unit Long-haul Truck Diesel
Combination Short-haul Truck Diesel
Combination Long-haul Truck Diesel
VOC
(g/hr)
0.35
0.98
1.26
4.24
2.35
2.27
5.36
6.00
CO
(g/hr)
4.02
20.24
20.42
21.84
8.02
7.85
15.16
16.83
NOx
(g/hr)
0.98
3.18
5.01
75.29
14.45
14.22
37.03
44.97
PM2.5
(g/hr)
0.047
0.033
0.033
2.013
1.085
1.045
2.634
2.920
For heavy-duty vehicles, Tables A-4 and A-5 provide the MOVES idle emission rates for PM2.5
and NOx for short term and extended idling. The MOVES definition of extended and short term
idle is above or below one hour as described in the MOVES2009 technical documentation of
heavy-duty emission factors.24 It is possible that many trucks will idle in excess of one hour per
event, and yet not be considered extended idling.
Drayage and trucks from the Port and other local delivery trucks are uniquely important fleets,
and H-GAC has been collecting data that shows these trucks idle more than 30% of their
operating time or over 800 hours per year. Long haul trucks by contrast can idle less than 10%
of the time the engine is running except for extended idling during layovers. Excess idling may
occur at pick-up and delivery points for shorter periods.
H-GAC has been collecting idling time from participants of its heavy-duty emission reduction
programs using on-board activity monitors and expects to be able to determine the benefits of
the Engine Off program. Because drayage trucks for example idled 808 hours per truck on
24
. EPA. 2009. “Development of Emission Rates for Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (Draft
MOVES2009) Draft Report,” Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-420-P-09-005, August 2009.
33
April 2014
DRAFT
average in 2013, one ton of PM2.5 may be eliminated if no excess idling occurs from 3,000 to
6,000 2007 and later model year trucks, or 150 older model year trucks. Reductions of NOx
emissions may be considerably higher depending upon how long each idling event is because
the NOx controlling catalyst becomes less efficient as the engine cools at idle. Short term idling
of late model trucks may produce one ton of NOx per year for every 150 trucks, while under
extended idling conditions only seven trucks would produce one ton of NOx per year. Older
trucks have NOx emission rates similar to those of late model extended idling during all idle
modes. If several thousand truck change their operations to largely eliminate idling, 1 – 20 tons
of PM2.5 and 20 to 400 tons of NOx may be reduced.
If it can be determined that light-duty vehicles have reduced idling, those emission can also be
estimated based on the number of hours reduced. Because of the lower emissions rates for
smaller vehicles, the program must involve a larger number of vehicles. It may difficult to
determine how much idling time is reduced through a voluntary program for the large number
of vehicles participating in idle reduction.
Costs and Cost Effectiveness
The costs for administering the program are minimal, and the fleet operators may realize a
monetary benefit from reduced fuel costs and less engine wear.
Other Benefits or Considerations
Idle reduction is cost saving opportunity for fleet operators reducing fuel consumption and
engine wear. In addition, local exposure to air pollution near the idling engine is reduced, and
for that reason school bus idle reduction has been emphasized.
Emission reductions for all pollutants will occur, and local air quality benefits, such as near
schools, will be realized.
Table 2-19. H-GAC’s ‘Engine Off’ Voluntary Idle Reduction Program Summary.
Input
Administration
Other Costs
Emissions
Cost Effectiveness
Other Benefits or
Considerations
Estimate
H-GAC staff as part of overall air quality program implementation.
Marginal printing costs for signs, and a partial FTE administrative staff to educate
and enroll partners and collect progress data.
1 to 20 tons per year PM2.5 and 20 to 400 tons per year NOx
Insignificant, zero, or a cost savings.
Local air pollution exposure reductions especially at schools.
34
April 2014
DRAFT
Air Check Texas Drive a Clean Machine Program
Owners of vehicles that either fail the emissions test or are 10 years old or older can receive
funding from the Air Check Texas Drive a Clean Machine Program (formerly known as the Low
Income Repair Assistance, Retrofit and Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Program) to either
repair the vehicle or purchase a new one. For FY 2013, eligible replacement vehicles for cars,
SUVs and vans had to be MY 2013 – MY 2010, and for pick-up trucks MY 2013 – MY 2011.
Vehicles that are replaced are required to be scrapped.
In Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, and Montgomery Counties from December 12, 2007
through August 31, 2013 the program has retired and replaced 21,680 vehicles at a cost of
$65,094,813. An additional 14,735 vehicles have had emissions-related repairs at a cost of
$8,184,641, making a total expenditure of $73,279,454 on vehicle repair and
retirement/replacement for the 5 counties for that period.25
Administration Resources
HB 1, General Appropriations Bill, 82nd Texas Legislature 2011, Regular Session, continued
funding for the program but at a reduced level. HB 1 appropriated $5.58 million for fiscal year
(FY) 2012 and FY 2013 to continue this clean air strategy in the 16 participating counties.
Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, and Montgomery were allocated approximately $2.5
million for FY 2012 and FY 2013.
In FY 2013, H-GAC provided the following Air Check Texas Drive a Clean Machine services:

Processed more than 4977 applications

Issued nearly 3200 vouchers

Repaired or replaced over 2750 vehicles in the HGB region, as follows:

Vehicles Repaired: 2110

Vehicles Replaced: 657
Compared, for example, with the services provided in 2009 when over 17,000 applications were
processed, nearly 11,000 vouchers issued and, over 9,000 vehicles repaired or replaced, the
2013 numbers reflect the reduced funding appropriated to the program for that year.
Project Funding (Other Costs)
This program is funded with a portion of the emission inspection fee and integral to maintaining
low waiver rates of the inspection and maintenance program.
Multi‐pollutant Reduction Analysis
There are two parts of the program, retired and replacement vehicles and repair assistance.
25
TCEQ 2014 Five-Year Regional Haze State Implementation Plan: Project Number 2013-013-SIP-NR
35
April 2014
DRAFT
Retired and Replacement Vehicles
Of the 657 vehicles replaced in 2013, approximately two thirds (438) were gasoline powered
passenger cars and one third (219) gasoline powered passenger trucks. The average age of the
replaced vehicles was 15 years (MY 1998) and that of the replacement vehicles 1 year (MY
2012). From MOVES emission factor runs conducted by ENVIRON using TCEQ Houston area
input files, for passenger cars and trucks for the 2018 calendar year the mileage accumulation
for a 15-year old vehicle was estimated to be 11,812 miles. The MY 1998 and MY 2012
emissions factors for passenger cars and passenger trucks used in this analysis shown in Tables
A-6 and A-7 were also taken from the emission inventory runs prepared by TCEQ or using
MOVES input files prepared by TCEQ. Summary emission reductions for the 2012 vehicle
replacements and for five years of projects are shown in Tables A-8 and A-9, respectively.
Repaired Vehicles
Emissions benefits for vehicles repaired as a result of failing the Air Check Texas emissions test
are measured using MOVES. Thus, emissions benefits for vehicles repaired with financial help
from the ‘Drive A Clean Machine’ program are automatically accounted for in the MOVES runs,
making it difficult to assess the specific impact of this element of the Drive a Clean Machine
program. There may be some benefit in terms of long-term effectiveness from the fact that
repairs must be carried out at a Recognized Repair Facility but this has not been assessed here.
The MOVES runs assessing benefits from vehicle emissions testing provide data on NOx, VOC
and CO emissions but not PM.
Costs and Cost Effectiveness
Given the lack of specific data re the emissions benefit of repairing vehicles under the program,
it is only possible here to assess the cost effectiveness of the vehicle repair aspect of the Drive a
Clean Machine program. Drive a Clean Machine replacement vouchers are made available as
follows:
$3000 for eligible cars (+SUVs and minivans) 3 years or newer
$3000 for trucks 2 years of newer
$3500 for hybrids 3 years or newer (Tier 2 Bin 3)
In 2013, 9 of the 657 retired vehicles were replaced with a hybrid vehicle. Thus the total
voucher cost for 2013 was $1,975,500. Administrative costs for the replacement element of
the Drive A Clean Machine Program are estimated to be $479,900, making a total cost of
$2,455,400 for this element of the program. However, the administration cost also includes
repair assistance. A summary of the cost effectiveness per pollutant is shown in Table 2-20.
Table 2-20. Cost Effectiveness (C/E) for NOx and PM over 5-year project life.
Program cost
$2,455,400
VOC
(tons)
66.5
NOx
(tons)
82.2
PM
(tons)
0.675
VOC
($/ton)
$40,000
36
NOx C/E
($/ton)
$30,000
PM C/E
($/ton)
$3,600,000
April 2014
DRAFT
Other Benefits or Considerations
The program’s repair assistance provides additional emissions benefits by reducing the waiver
rate of vehicles failing the emissions test.
Table 2-21. Air Check Texas Drive a Clean Machine Program Summary.
Input
Administration
Other Costs
Emissions Reductions
Cost Effectiveness
Other Benefits or
Considerations
Estimate
Part of the AirCheck program.
Direct repair and replacement costs.
67 tons of VOC, 82 tons of NOx, and 0.7 tons of PM
$30,000 per ton NOx and $3,600,000 per ton PM.
Reduced I/M waiver rates and better functioning vehicles.
37
April 2014
DRAFT
SECTION 3: VOLUNTARY EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAM POTENTIAL
H-GAC has suggested several programs for further review. Table 3-1 provides a summary list,
short description, and approximate emission reduction potential suggested for the program.
Each measure is review in greater detail in this section.
The measures with the best potential, shown in green in Table 3-1, are programs that affect a
large number of vehicles. These measures include incorporating fees (registration, insurance,
or others) relative to miles traveled, reduced commuting through encouraging alternative work
locations or combining trips to reduce parking costs or commute time with HOV lanes.
Table 3-1. Voluntary Emission Control Measures. (Green – High Potential, Blue – Medium,
Yellow – Low)
Control Measure
No.
Description
1 Vehicle miles traveled
– based registration
fees and/or higher
fees for high emission
vehicles26
2 Encourage/Mandate
Livable Centers
3
4
5
6
7
Reduction (tpy)
Cost
Program Summary
VOC/NOx/PM2.5
Scope
Effectiveness
Based on results in U.S. including now146/456/25.6
Region
Good
completed demonstration projects in
Minnesota, Oregon, Nevada, and
Washington, a 1 cent per mile tax is
assessed.
Scenario: 5% of 4% increase in bike/walk
11/7/0.3
Region
Medium
between 2001 and 2010. The 5% is the
scenario-based livable centers estimate
for 2018 until a more precise value can be
projected.
Compressed
Scenario: 20% of employees who work for
72/146/7
Region
Good
Workweek (CWW),
one of the 71% of employers who offer
Telework (Evaluated as compressed work weeks participate once
compressed work
weekly.
week as currently
implemented)
Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Other vehicle program initiatives in
0.01/0.02/0.0001
Per Truck
Poor
Programs
addition to Clean Vehicles and Regional
TERP programs.
Cleaner Diesel Fuel
Alternative diesel fuels.
20%/12%/20% % Per Gallon
Poor Medium
Encourage Off-Peak
Move trips to off-peak.
6/30/2
10% Peak
Medium
Deliveries
VMT
Employee parking
Build from the momentum developed in
183/66/11
Region
Good
cash-out program
2011-2012 using TMAs data to re-evaluate
potential participation rates.
26
Higher fees for high emission vehicles not feasible under current registration fee structure; values provided are for a
hypothetical VMT tax.
38
April 2014
DRAFT
Control Measure
No.
Description
8 Traffic Flow
Improvements
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Program Summary
Groups of these measures from
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
and Long Range Transportation Plan
(LRTP). Includes infrastructure, signal
timing, reversible lanes, and other
measures. Temporary measures such as
Ozone Action and SAFE Clear / Steer It
Clear It also included.
I/M for Three
Basic program extended to three counties
Additional HGB
not already using the program. PM
Counties
reductions not currently modeled by EPA.
Limitations on Idling of Voluntary idle reduction for off-road
Heavy-Duty
equipment similar to the Engine Off
Construction
program for on-road vehicles.
Equipment
Lawn and garden
Exchange residential or other lawn and
equipment exchange/ garden equipment for zero emitting
recycling program
electric equipment.
Circulator service to
Extend analysis done in 2011-2012 to
major trip generators new, planned and potential shuttle
services. Review potential bus fleet
modernization.
Increase HOV
Apply 3+ requirement to highways
Occupancy to 3 or
currently requiring only 2+. Can apply to a
More Per Vehicle
particular facility or set of facilities if
desired
Managed Lanes to
Apply method developed in 2011 – 2012
accommodate some
to the project implemented or will be
single occupant
implemented in region.
vehicles (HOT lane
conversions)
Clean Cities Technical The Clean Air Action outreach program.
Coalition
Heavy-duty Vehicle
Outlined objectives and technology to be
Inspection and
used in this program.
Maintenance Program
39
Reduction (tpy)
VOC/NOx/PM2.5
5%/8%/4%
100/100/0
3/10/1
Scope
% Per
Project
Chambers,
Liberty,
Waller
Thousands
of Off-Road
Equipment
2/0.1/0.1
2,000 Pieces
of
Equipment
Program yet to be
Region
detailed;
expected May,
2014
426/138/33
Region
Cost
Effectiveness
Poor to
Medium
Medium
Good
Poor
Unknown
Medium
Expected benefits
low because no
VMT change, only
small speed
increase
Outreach Effort
Region
Poor
Region
N/A
Likely small
benefit, but
unquantified to
date
Region
Poor
April 2014
DRAFT
Control Measure 1: Vehicle Miles Traveled-based Registration Fees
Since 1991 the Texas state gas tax has been 20.0 cents per gallon, and the federal gas tax has
been 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993. The gas tax is not only stagnant, but depreciating in
value due to inflation. Over the past 20 years revenues from the gasoline tax have also been
declining as vehicles become more fuel efficient and people drive less. Thus, damage is being
done to the infrastructure but the money needed to maintain and improve roadways is not
being adequately generated. The fuel efficiency of new vehicles on America’s roadways is only
going to improve. President Obama recently announced a new national fuel economy standard
of 35.5 miles per gallon for new vehicles, effective 2016. While this new standard will help
contribute towards cleaner air stemming from fewer emissions, and reduce dependence on oil,
it negatively impacts transportation funding under the current gas tax funding system.
This issue has received plenty of national attention as various plans to help reduce, and
eventually eliminate, the national debt have been proposed. One of the plans, championed by
Senator Tom Carper of Delaware and Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, proposes
incrementally raising the federal gas tax to eventually reach 43.4 cents per gallon. The 25 cent
tax hike is thought able to generate $200 billion in revenue over five years. Of that, over half
would end up earmarked for transfer to the federal Highway Trust Fund.
More recently, with Congress facing a major shortfall in transportation funding, a House bill
introduced in December, 2013 would raise the federal gasoline tax by 15 cents per gallon to
close the gap. In his press conference announcing the bill, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said
the bill would raise the federal tax on gas to 33.4 cents per gallon and on diesel to 42.8 cents.
As of right now, (March, 2014) states such as Delaware, New Hampshire, Minnesota, California,
Oregon, and Washington all have active state legislative proposals to raise their state gas taxes.
VMT Tax: Alternative to Gas Tax
One widely proposed alternative to the gasoline tax is a “Vehicle Miles Traveled” (VMT) tax.
Under this system, drivers pay a fee based on miles traveled rather than a tax on the amount of
fuel used. The VMT tax concept can serve broader policy aims as well, by enabling policy
makers to set variable fees in different network areas to reduce congestion during peak travel
times, a critical and worsening issue in some metropolitan areas. While possessing many
obvious implementation and feasibility barriers, the measure could offer highly cost effective
emission reductions in the Houston region.
VMT taxes have been evaluated in several U.S. areas. To date, this method of revenue
generation has been implemented only for trucks (e.g. in Germany and, on a limited basis,
Illinois)27. and only exists as a proposal for all vehicles (to replace or supplement the motor
fuel tax, for example). It has been tested on a pilot basis in Oregon and 12 cities in the U.S. as
part of a study conducted by the University of Iowa. A recent trial of VMT fees for 475 drivers
27
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/revenue/road_pricing/defined/vmt.htm
40
April 2014
DRAFT
in Atlanta found a three percent drop in mileage traveled, though researchers couldn't
conclude that pricing had caused the drop. A trial of 500 cars in Seattle, Washington, reduced
mileage 12 percent, though that included a very steep congestion charge of 50 cents a mile
during evening rush hour28.
A third trial in Portland, Oregon29, suggested that any VMT fee system will likely need some
congestion pricing elements to succeed. For the study, some drivers paid a flat 1.2-cent
mileage fee, some paid a congestion-based fee that ranged from .43 cents a mile at low periods
to 10 cents during peak travel inside metropolitan Portland, and some (a control) paid the
typical gas tax. Both VMT groups drove less than the control group. The flat group showed only
a modest drop in VMT, however, while the congestion group decreased mileage by 22 percent
at peak hours.
The Oregon legislature approved, in 2013, a mileage-based tax system whereby 5,000 volunteer
motorists will pay 1.5 cents per mile and have their state gas tax refunded. The program will
start on July 1, 2015.
As part of the Transportation Policy Research Program, the University of Iowa Public Policy
Center is conducting a National Evaluation of a Mileage-Based Road User Charge. This four-year
study involves placing an on-board computer or OBC into participants' vehicles. Data are then
collected from both the technology and the participants. Participants have been selected from
six locations nationwide and range in age, education, and background. The GPS located in the
OBC in participants' vehicles keeps track of the number miles they travel and submits the
information to the University of Iowa Public Policy Center to be processed and evaluated. The
study involves two major issues: 1) testing the appropriateness of the technology and 2) looking
at user accessibility and acceptability.
Several countries in Europe have determined that a mileage-based fee is the best way to
address congestion. The UK government concluded the full-scale implementation of distancebased fees by about 2015 and would be able to address the sustainability issues of economic
growth and environmental protection. A feasibility study in 2004 concluded that a VMT tax
could reduce urban traffic congestion by half.30
Analysis of a 10 percent increase in per mile in Houston (approximately 1 cent per mile)
A tax on vehicle miles traveled can decrease vehicle miles traveled, but just how much is an
open question. Statistical models suggest a significant impact. A recent simulated VMT tax of
five cents a mile in the Sacramento area31 resulted in a 10 percent reduction in VMT. Another
simulation in the Washington, D.C., area found that a tax of 10 cents per mile led to a 14
percent mileage decline32. The VMT simulations also showed a substantial drop in energy use
28
“Traffic Choices Study”, Puget Sound Regional Council, April, 2008
“Oregon’s Mileage Fee Concept and Road User Fee Pilot Program, Final Report”, Oregon Department of Transportation, 2007.
30 FHWA, Managing Travel Demand: Applying European Perspectives to U.S. Practice, FHWA-PL-06-015, May 2006.
31 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/tools/toolbox/sacramento/sacramento_table2.cfm
32
“Spatial Development and Energy Consumption”, Elena Safirova, Sébastien Houde, and Winston Harrington. December, 2007.
29
41
April 2014
DRAFT
— transportation energy, for sure, but also household energy, which is reduced through dense
development encouraged by the VMT system.
With current gasoline prices remaining above $3.00/gallon, a VMT tax of 10 cents per mile
would represent nearly doubling the cost of driving33. Because doubling the cost of driving
brings too many implementation and feasibility obstacles to be considered realistic, a charge of
1 cent a mile, similar to the pilot program in Oregon, is considered here. This represents an
approximately 10 percent increase in the cost of driving.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) data for all of 2008 show that motor gasoline
consumption declined by 3.3% in response to a 28% increase in gas costs34, implying a shortterm elasticity of .085 (a one percent increase in gas costs causes an 8.5% decrease in gasoline
use and driving. For the months of August, September, and October, from 2007 to 2008, the
percent gas price increases were 36%, 32%, and 12%. These price increases resulted in the
largest monthly, year-over-year declines in U.S. vehicle miles traveled (VMT) since record
keeping began in 1942. The VMT declines in 2008 over 2007 were 3.6% in July, 5.6% in August,
4.4% in September, and 3.5% in October. These indicate a change of between 4 – 8.5 percent
VMT decrease in response to a one percent increase in gas costs.
FHWA computed the short-run VMT price elasticities from 2007 to 2008 as -0.17 for the fourmonth period July to October, and about -0.12 (=3.5% VMT decline/30% price increase) for
2008 through October. They estimated short-run gasoline price elasticity for the year through
October as only slightly larger at -0.13 (=4% gas decline/30% price increase, or a 7.5% VMT
reduction for a 10% increase in costs).
In the Oregon study the flat VMT tax of 1.2 cents/mile resulted in a 9 – 12 percent reduction in
driving, including a 10% reduction in peak hour driving. This result is similar to what is
suggested in recent studies of the elasticity of driving with respect to gasoline price. For
example, a 2011 Yale study reports a .15 elasticity of driving with respect to gasoline driving (eg
a 10% increase in gas prices results in a 15% reduction in driving, in the short term)35.
The above suggests that a 10 percent increase in gas costs could result in 4 – 15 percent
reduction in driving. For conservatism, we assume that a 10 percent increase in gas costs for
Houstonions will result in the lowest of these, a 4% percent reduction in driving.
Again though it should be noted that because both the Oregon pilot VMT tax study and the Yale
empirical study show a similar response to price increases, it is reasonable to expect that a one
Winston Harrington, Resources for the Future, December 2007, RFF DP 07-51
33 If the current required average fuel economy of 22.5 mpg is used in conjunction with $3.00 per gallon, driving costs the
average motorist 13.3 cents per mile. In 2016 the average is required to rise to 35.5 mpg, which, if gasoline prices remain at
$3.00, implies a cost of 8.45 cents/mile.
34 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/innovation/issue1/impacts.htm
“How Do Consumers Respond to Gasoline Price Shocks? Heterogeneity in Vehicle Choice and Driving Behavior”, Kenneth
Gillingham, Yale University, Draft Version: July 1, 2011 Note: this study was updated in 2013.
35
42
April 2014
DRAFT
cent per mile VMT tax in the cost of driving in Houston, levied through a VMT tax, could result
in a 10% decrease in driving.
Because the VMT tax applies to all trip purposes the reduction will apply to all passenger
vehicle travel. Many other measures under consideration or being implemented in the region
focus on work travel. In the case of a VMT tax, a 4% reduction in all passenger VMT is modeled
as mentioned above.
Emissions Affected and Benefit
Daily total estimated VMT in 2018 is 178,317,40036, with 87% of that being from LDVs37, or
157,405,219 miles per day. A four percent reduction is equivalent to 6,296,209 miles per day.
Table 3-2 below presents the results of a VMT tax achieving this VMT reduction in passenger
travel.
Table 3-2.
Emission Factors and Results For 1 cent/mile VMT Tax In 2018 (Tpd).
Pollutant
Running Emissions (g/mile)
Tons per day reduction
VOC
0.058
0.4
NOx
0.18
1.25
CO
2.30
15.9
PM2.5
0.0095
0.07
CO2
369.5
2,562
Note that these estimates are only for VMT. In actuality this measure would likely reduce trips
and associated start emissions to some extent. For conservatism these additional benefits are
not included here.
Cost and Cost Effectiveness
This measure is most often considered as an alternative to the gas tax, and as a significant
revenue generator sufficient to cover many transportation infrastructure repairs and
improvements. Although there would be start-up costs, these are minor compared with the
enormous revenues the measure could generate. For example, in the analysis presented
above, the measure would generate gross revenue of over $10 million per day in the Houston
region. Therefore the measure is both effective and carries with it a positive revenue per ton of
pollution reduced.
Some related measures are being explored that might have a more limited, but similar type of
impact on driving as a VMT tax. First, Pay As You Drive or Pay How You Drive insurance is
already offered by several automobile insurance companies. These programs have been
shown to reduce the amount and even the nature of driving by its users. While this is a
separate control measure, and largely deemed unacceptable in the Houston-Galveston region,
increasing exposure and up-take by insurance companies might suggest this measure be
revisited. California has also considered Pay at the Pump insurance options (therefore usage36 This is based on the file mvs10a_hgb_8county_2018_summer_weekday_cel_PM205add
37 Personal communication, email January 3, 2014 from H-GAC, to ENVIRON transmitting travel model output file
tceq2_data.xlsx.
43
April 2014
DRAFT
based) to more equitably insure motorists. Finally, another form of usage-fees has been tested
in the Netherlands under the name, Rush Hour Avoidance. In this case, drivers are paid to
STAY OFF key congested road during the most congested periods. This reduces volumes and
delay, and therefore, emissions.
The price elasticity of demand with respect to gas prices is an important factor in projecting the
impact of usage-based fees on traffic volumes (and therefore emissions). A seminal metaanalysis by the British researchers Goodwin, Dargay and Hanly, conclude that a 10% increase
(sustained) in gas price would reduce traffic volumes by 1% within one year and 3% in five
years’ time. The elasticity of fuel consumption (demand) with respect to price is higher (2.5%
short term and 6% longer term) than that of traffic volumes is due to changes in how people
use their cars as a result of rising gas prices. Improvements in technology, driving habits and
reduced congestion makes driving more efficient and, in the longer run, people will choose to
own fewer vehicles.38
38
Phil Goodwin, Joyce Dargay and Mark Hanly, “Review of Income and Price Elasticity in the Demand for Road Traffic,”
Transport Reviews, 24(3), 2004.
44
April 2014
DRAFT
Control Measure 2: Livable Centers
The goal of H-GAC's Livable Centers Program is to help create walkable, mixed-use places that
provide multi-modal transportation options, improve environmental quality, and promote
economic development. This is a continuation of the program started in 2008. The program is
formally included in the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, which presents a 3C's approach to
development strategy: Centers, Connects and Context. This strategy encourages transit,
pedestrian and bicycle options. The RTP allots:

$68 Million for livable centers projects between 2008-2011

$20 million for additional support for long-range livable centers projects

$274 million in bicycle and pedestrian improvements
The 2040 RTP is under development and will be finalized in fall, 2014.
H-GAC has a vibrant Livable Centers program which has conducted numerous studies for
specific areas around the region, including:

Downtown/EaDo Livable Centers Study

Galveston Livable Centers Study

Harris County-Airline Improvement District Livable Centers Study

Hempstead Livable Centers Study

Independence Heights-Northline

City of League City Livable Centers Study

NASA Area Management District Livable Centers Study

Near Northwest Livable Centers Study

Washington Avenue Study
Copies of any of these and the following studies can be obtained from http://www.hgac.com/community/livablecenters/planningstudies/.
A review of all but the last two of these studies reveals that, with the exception of the
Galveston Study, they do not contain quickly quantifiable features with which to model the
mode change, VMT, and trip effects. The Galveston study went so far as to calculate VMT and
trip changes, including provision of the assumptions used, and then went on to estimate air
quality effects, using what appear to be MOBILE6 emission factors. The remaining studies did
not do this. With adequate time (likely approximately 4 – 6 hours per study) inputs to the
Livable Center calculator could be extracted from each study. These inputs include acreage,
access variables, density variables, trip lengths, and the like. It is recommended that H-GAC
consider applying this method to one or two selected studies, in order to obtain mode shift,
VMT and trip reductions for one or more of the proposed centers/center design features.
45
April 2014
DRAFT
Livable Centers Studies Conducted 2008 - 2010
In the 2008-2011 TIP, the Transportation Policy Council committed $1.5 million to fund Livable
Center studies in the region, including:

East End

Energy Corridor

Fourth Ward

City of Houston/Midtown

Northside

City of Tomball

Upper Kirby
Livable Centers Studies from other organizations include:

City of Baytown Livable Centers Study

Upper Kirby Mobility Improvement Plan

Uptown Houston Pedestrian/Transit Master Plan
Some implementation project examples include the City of Waller, the Energy Corridor, and the
Midtown and Northside districts.
The effects of livable centers on travel activity are to encourage additional bicycle and walking
trips, and to generally lower the use of single occupant vehicle travel. Some increases in
carpooling and transit are also possible. The measures can replace both commute and noncommute trips with a non-polluting alternative such as additional bicycle and pedestrian trips
substituting for SOV trips. In addition they are expressions of land use decisions that support
sustainability and livability and a culture that relies less upon single occupant vehicles.
Public Acceptance
Because the approach to livable centers involves urban planning and land use, it may either be
viewed positively or negatively depending upon how the approaches are implemented and who
the property owners are. The studies conducted to date seemed to indicate broad popular
support for the concepts, which improve access and livability as well as a greater “sense of
place”.
Analysis
Because the effects of livable centers are to increase the use of alternative modes, it is
challenging to analyze the benefits of livable centers without double counting the effects of
other stand-alone measures such as bicycle/pedestrian programs.
The analysis of bicycle and pedestrian programs utilized survey data on changes in bicycle and
pedestrian use between 2001 and 2010 and applied the 4% new mode share in bicycle and
46
April 2014
DRAFT
pedestrian modes to the 2018 population to estimate a 2018 mode share, and then scaled this
value down based on the proportion of people who are exposed to Commute Solutions
messaging at their workplaces. Growth in use of these modes will be a natural outcome of
livable center implementation. However attributing the growth to livable centers would
require extensive data collection including:
1. The number of people living and/or working in livable centers;
2. Their current and previous modes of travel for work and non-work trips; and
3. The percentage of bicycle/pedestrian mode share of livable center “people” compared with
the general population
Until such time as these data could be collected in surveys, a quantitative air pollutant benefits
estimate for livable centers is not possible without either double counting the
bicycle/pedestrian benefits enumerated under that measure or subtracting benefits estimated
using the H-GAC Livable Center Benefits Calculator from the total bicycle/pedestrian benefits.
However in order to accomplish this latter method, detailed data on current and expected
implementation projects would need to be developed.
It is likely that a large or even majority portion of bicycle pedestrian benefits for air quality
results from livable centers. The discussion below assumes all bicycle and pedestrian benefits
accruing from the surveyed increase in those modes between 2000 and 2010 (4% after
adjustment for non-drivers such as people under 15) are attributed to livable centers.
Emissions Affected
The emissions affected by Livable Centers are all short trips currently made by passenger
vehicles. This includes both work and non-work related trips. Total daily passenger vehicle
emissions in 2018 are 47.21 tpd of NOx, 40.44 tpd of VOC, 1.43 tpd of PM2.5, 65,333 tpd of
CO2, and 515.7 tpd of CO.
To calculate the emission benefits below we estimated the total number of additional
individuals who would use bicycle or pedestrian modes as 690,983. We assumed five percent
used these non-motorized modes for trips of one mile (each way) because they were living in
livable center developments. We assumed they reduced start emissions for one leg of the trip
(as a lower benefits estimate), resulting in the benefits below.
Table 3-3.
Emission Factors and Results for Livable Centers in 2018 (Tpd).
Pollutant
Running Emissions (g/mile)
Start Emissions (g/start)
Emission Reduction (tpd)
VOC
0.058
0.66
0.02
NOx
0.18
0.54
0.03
47
CO
2.07
5.7
0.38
PM2.5
0.0095
0.007
0.0008
CO2
369.5
59.8
30.4
April 2014
DRAFT
Emission benefits from Livable Centers include increased alternative mode use, especially
additional walking and bicycling trips. Part of this is due to the ability to take shorter trips, as
individuals become more able to have their residences and workplaces more proximate.
As mentioned earlier, at this time it is not recommended to credit alternative mode use that is
due to Livable Centers specifically. Progress in implementation by 2018 is uncertain, and there
is the issue of overlap of alternative mode use with other programs such as bikeways, Commute
Solutions and Transit service increases. There are certainly not yet any stand-alone livable
centers that one could evaluate.
For example, implemented projects at this time include a few sidewalks, a butterfly garden, and
the likely construction of a convention center hotel, now known to be a Marriot project39.
Other examples are things like a sewage line to accommodate more residents, or the
construction of water features. Livable Centers staff keeps a running list of projects under
implementation that meet Livable Center goals or which are elements of livable center studies,
such as permits being granted to encourage more mixed use development, or plans to include
bikeways in an upcoming city plan. Currently implemented projects at this time include some
infrastructure and some progress toward implementing recommendations contained in the
Livable Center Studies. Clearly these types of projects do not lend themselves to analysis.
One possibility for quantitative evaluation in the future would be to evaluate changes in
planned density, and jobs/housing mixes for the future. A possible methodology could be
developed that utilizes GIS records to evaluate changes in the number of residents and workers
in the areas. There are two possible scenarios: (1) development along regular lines leading to
continuation of current mode shares; and (2) development along livable center lines leading to
some additional changes in mode that would not have occurred otherwise.
The other approach discussed earlier would be to conduct a deeper review of one or more
individual studies to extract the variables relevant to an analysis. These include density,
acreage, access and similar inputs.
39
Personal Communication via phone call, Kelly Porter of Livable Centers, Community and Environmental Planning Department
of H-GAC on March 6, 2014.
48
April 2014
DRAFT
Control Measure 3: Compressed Work Weeks
Compressed Workweek (CWW) are being implemented by employers throughout the region,
including Clean Air Champions, some of whom are utilizing NuRide for tracking.
Description
Compressed work weeks are an effective way to reduce emissions and are popular with both
employees and employers. Typical compressed work weeks include either a 4/40 (work 4 ten
hour days per week with a three-day weekend) or 9/80 (work an average of 9 hours daily with a
third weekend day every other week). Since Houston has so many hospitals, the use of 3/36
scheduled used extensively by hospitals, fire, and other 24/7 operations is also relevant.
Compressed work weeks remove work trips as well as change the timing of travel, which can
reduce peak period congestion.
The 2009 General Appropriations Act (Tex. SB. 1, Art. 1, Rider 15) directed the Texas
Comptroller’s office to conduct a study on the establishment of a four-day, 40-hour workweek
for state employees. The report findings, entitled “Analysis of Alternative Work Schedules”,
published in August, 2010, can be found online40. In the remainder of this section this report is
referred to as the comptroller’s report.
Implementation Feasibility
Compressed work weeks are widely implemented in the Houston region, with between 44 and
76 percent of surveyed area employer categories offering them. Participating employees
appreciate the extra day off, as well as the fuel and time cost savings achieved through
participation. Principal barriers to implementation are employment sectors or responsibilities
that do not lend themselves to days off, such as teachers. Other responsibilities, such as
customer service, or executive and managerial, cannot participate regularly.
Public Acceptance
Certainly a mandatory approach could engender problems with firms. However a voluntary
approach is more typically how compressed work weeks are implemented, and that may
provide a benefit to employees.
NuRide Measured Compressed Work Week Benefits
NuRide began tracking participation in compressed work weeks in 2010, when they recorded
1,340 trips reduced through the program. In 2013 they recorded 9,116 reduced trips and
192,977 miles reduced, which resulted in annual emission reductions of 0.04 tons NOx, 0.02
tons VOC, 0.002 tons PM2.5 0.44 tons CO, and 79.1 tons of CO2.
Because only a small proportion of compressed work week participants also use NuRide to track
their trips, it is important to estimate compressed work weeks on a regional basis.
40
http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/altschedule
49
April 2014
DRAFT
Analysis of Emissions Benefit For Regional Compressed Work Weeks
In order to estimate the participation rates from among the companies that offer this program,
an estimate must be made about the percentage of employees that can participate. Not all
employees at companies that offer compressed work weeks can participate, if their job
requirements do not support participation.
Appendix D of the Comptroller report shows that of the companies offering compressed work
weeks, most offer them to less than 25% of employees (85%) and a few offer it to more than
25% of their employees (15%). The analysis presented here assumes 20% of employees
working for companies that offer this program participate in a 4/40 work-week.
According to the 2012 conformity determination on the 2035 RTP41, Table 3 total employment
in the Houston-Galveston Brazoria nonattainment region in 2018 is projected to be 3,183,000.
According to 2012 Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Houston region42, 75% of employees work
for private companies; 14% for government agencies; and 11% for educational institutions. A
weighted average of compressed work week offerings therefore indicates 71% of area
employees work for companies that offer compressed work weeks, or 2,259,930 employees.
Based on the 20% participation rate for these employees, we estimate that 451,986 employees
could potentially participate once per week in a 4/40 program under current implementation
policies. A more complex scenario could be developed that assumes various values for 4/40,
9/80, and 3/36 workers. Since the analysis is hypothetical and uses a smaller value than
suggested by the survey data regarding the percentage participation, the approach provides a
reasonable estimate of the possible benefits of compressed work weeks.
Emissions Affected and Benefit
There are three potential sources of emission reductions for this measure. The reduced trips
and VMT associated with the extra day off reduce both start and running emissions.
Additionally, travel speeds may be increased by shifting travel from peak to off-peak periods.
The analysis assumes the measure is implemented as a 4/40 work-week, although as noted
earlier many employees participate on a different schedule.
The 451,986 participating employees are potentially shifting travel during morning and evening
peak periods to off-peak hours because their work days are now 10 hours instead of 8. Given
the long length of the peak period in the Houston region, and the resulting difficulty of shifting
both the morning and evening commute from peak to off-peak periods, it could be assumed
that one leg of the commute normally occurring during peak periods by compressed work week
participants is now occurring during off-peak periods. Or 451,986 (participating employees) *
13.3 (work trip length – miles) * 4 (days per week where travel is shifted)/7 (number of days per
week) = 3,435,094 miles per average day.
41
http://www.h-gac.com/taq/airquality_model/conformity/2012/default.aspx. Table 3 contains population and employment
projects by year, county, and regionally.
42 http://www.bls.gov/ro3/fax_9657.pdf
50
April 2014
DRAFT
Emission changes resulting from shifting these miles were not evaluated.
Speed-based factors for PM2.5 are not available at this time (March 12, 2014)
Trip-based portion of emission reduction
The 451,986 participants reduce two work trips per week (one to and one from the workplace).
This reduction is discounted by 30% to account for additional trips made for errands from home
that would have been made on the way to or from the workplace. Average daily trips reduced
= 451,986 * 2/5 *0.7 = 126,556 trips per average workday day.
TEFAUTO:
TLA:
Average passenger vehicle start emission factor (NOx , VOC, or CO)
(grams/trip)
Resulting reductions are detailed in Table A-13.
Average auto trip length after implementation (miles)
VMT based portion of emission reduction
TLB:
Average auto trip length before implementation (miles)
Resulting in reductions detailed in Table A-13.
VMTA:
Vehicle trips after implementation
VMTB:
Change in VMT as a result of implementation
Reductions from the 600,508,220 miles per year and 46,192,940 trips per year total 72 tons of
VOC; 146.5 tons of NOx; 6.6 tons of PM2.5 and 247,412 tons of CO2.
Cost Effectiveness
Compressed work weeks are a component of the Commute Solutions program, which costs
$2.5 million per year. It is assumed that the compressed work week portion of the program,
conducted as part of general employer outreach for carpooling and telecommuting as well, is
30 percent of program costs, or $833,000 annually (averaging $2,282/day).
The sum of daily VOC + NOx reduced by compressed work weeks is 0.6 tpd, yielding an
estimated cost effectiveness of $3,803/ton reduced.
51
April 2014
DRAFT
Control Measure 4: Heavy-Duty Vehicle Programs
Heavy-duty vehicle programs could include a range of options to implement new or proven
technologies through a variety of federal grants and supplemental funding approaches.
Examples of programs are those funded under the federal Diesel Emission Reduction Act
(DERA), EPAʼs Innovative Technologies Grants and other competitive grant processes.
Two example projects are the Houston Zero Emission Delivery Vehicle Deployment43 where
federal Department of Energy (DOE) funding has been provided with in-kind contractor
matching funds to demonstrate effectiveness of all-electric delivery vehicles to perform at the
same level of operation as similarly sized diesel delivery vehicles while reducing vehicle
emission and petroleum consumption. The two projects seek to replace 50 medium and heavyduty delivery vehicles with zero emission versions.
Other funding sources may be identified, such as through supplemental environmental
programs or in partnership with fleet owners.
Administration Resources
Based on other heavy-duty vehicles programs including the current TERP, drayage loan, and
Clean Cities/Clean Vehicles programs, administration costs are expected to be 3 to 6% of the
funding levels. Administration costs are incorporated into the overall program funding and are
required to fund staff to verify the projects are completed, and money spent appropriately.
Project Funding (Other Costs)
The recent DOE projects however show that additional emission reductions projects can still be
identified. The DOE share for zero emission trucks is nearly $6,000,000 while the contractor
share is $7,000,000 with H-GAC identified as the lead agency to verify the program’s progress.
The contractor is likely to see a significant fuel savings perhaps equal to their cost.
Because of the success of TERP and Clean Cities/Clean Vehicles programs, additional heavy-duty
programs have an example of how to implement such programs, but the current programs have
also identified many of the most willing participants and cost effective projects. The current
programs have often funded the highest use and largest on-road and off-road vehicles. The
DOE project indicates that additional fleets may still be identified by focusing on other types of
fleets than those identified by TERP and Clean Cities/Clean Vehicles.
Multi‐pollutant Reduction Analysis
The expected emissions reductions will depend upon the program funding and project specifics
including the base engine and activity.
43
http://www4.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/resources/merit-review/sites/default/files/vss116_smith_2013_o.pdf and
Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Electric Hybrid Truck Demonstration (http://www4.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/resources/meritreview/sites/default/files/vss117_smith_2013_o.pdf)
52
April 2014
DRAFT
For the DOE demonstration project, replacing a 2014 diesel model with a zero emissions truck
results in less than optimal cost effectiveness because new diesel trucks are low emissions.
Future projects may not require the same level of funding if it can be proved that the energy
costs are substantially lower.
To estimate emissions reductions, we used as an example UPS trucks averaging about 20,000 –
25,000 miles per year44, and combined with the emission rates for late model medium heavyduty trucks shown in Table A-13. The 10-year emission rate of a new diesel truck is estimated
at 0.1 tons of VOC and CO, 0.2 tons NOx, and 0.005 tons PM2.5 per truck.
Replacing older vehicles with higher emission rates results in greater emission reductions, and
those are the types of projects funded by TERP and Clean Cities/Clean Vehicles.
Costs and Cost Effectiveness
The NOx reductions cost effectiveness of the TERP programs for the projects started from 2008
– 2013 has been about $9,000 per ton reduced with on-road vehicle projects more expensive
than off-road projects to date. As this program continues, it is possible that projects will
become more expensive as the most cost effective projects have been identified.
The total cost of the DOE zero emission replacement divided by the emission reduction results
in a cost effectiveness of over $600,000 per NOx-only ton reduced and $30 million per PM-only
ton reduced using the entire DOE cost.
Ultimately the cost of the program will be dictated by the funding sources identified and level
of participation. For many grants (especially federal grants), the participants need to partner
with agencies to apply for grants. The intention of these DOE programs was not to provide cost
effective emission reduction, but to demonstrate technologies that may be employed without
as much or any subsidy in the future.
Other Benefits or Considerations
Benefits for heavy-duty programs are usually reduction in all pollutants including VOC, CO, NOx,
and PM. In addition, using alternative fuels or zero-emission electric power, fuel cost savings
may be realized that can dramatically reduce the cost and cost effectiveness. Table 3-4 provides
a summary of the potential for other Heavy-Duty vehicle projects.
Table 3-4.
Other Heavy-Duty Vehicle Programs Summary.
Input
Administration
Other Costs
Emissions
Cost Effectiveness
Other Benefits or
44
Estimate
Typically 3 – 6% cost for project oversight.
Direct funding of vehicles or fuel facilities may be required.
Emission benefits depend on fleet specifics.
TERP average costs have been $9,000 per ton of NOx reduced. And PM costs
about $90,000 to $360,000 per PM2.5 reduced.
Most pollutant emissions are reduced, and some heavy-duty programs can reduce
http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/fleettest/pdfs/31227.pdf
53
April 2014
DRAFT
Considerations
fuel costs depending upon the alternatives.
54
April 2014
DRAFT
Control Measure 5: Cleaner Diesel Fuel
This measure consists of changing a portion of the diesel-fueled fleet from using Texas Low
Emission Diesel fuel (TxLED) to cleaner diesel fuels such as cetane additive enhanced (CAE) or
Fischer-Tropsch (FT, also known as gas-to-liquid fuel, GTL) diesel fuel. Currently, the availability
of CAE and FT diesel suppliers is limited, but a fuel program could be implemented as a local
demonstration project on specific heavy-duty truck fleets or a centrally-fueled fleet such as
refuse trucks. Switching a fraction of the diesel-fueled fleet to a cleaner alternative would yield
PM and NOx reductions.
It has been demonstrated that higher cetane numbered diesel fuel use result in lower NOx and
PM emissions. FT and CAE fuels are examples of diesel-fuel alternatives with higher cetane
numbers. TxLED fuel currently sold in Texas has a minimum cetane number of 48 and a
maximum aromatic hydrocarbons allowance of 10% by volume. CAE diesel would consist of
TxLED that is supplemented with additives, producing a cetane number increase of 5 points
with no changes in other parameters from TxLED fuel. Typical FT fuel has a cetane number of 74
and an aromatic content of 0.1 percent.45 Other alternative diesel fuels may be available,
including diesel blends with ethanol, ethers (for example diethyl ether,46 often used to assist in
cold-starting diesel engines), diesel/water emulsions (such as PuriNOx™), and hydrogenationderived renewable diesel (HDRD). The emission reductions potential for these fuels is similar to
that of FT fuel.
Each alternative diesel fuel has advantages and limitations. For instance, large-scale production
of FT fuels is currently still in the research and development stage by several oil companies
(EPA, 2002a; US DOE, 2013) so production is currently scarce and costly in the United States.
For CAE fuels, cetane additives are not widely available; therefore distribution issues may limit
the use of cetane enhancers. One disadvantage of diesel/water emulsion fuel is that it can incur
a fuel economy penalty of ten to fifteen percent depending on the engine and application. In
addition, fuel/water emulsions are high maintenance fuels in that they should not be left
standing beyond a certain amount of time due to the risk of separation of the emulsified
components (ARB, 2004). On the other hand, PuriNOx™ fuel/water emulsion summer grade
diesel is one of few alternative fuels verified by EPA and California’s Air Resources Board (ARB).
Verification (by either EPA or ARB) provides sufficient proof to EPA of the technology’s
capability to achieve specific emission reductions.
Administration Resources
Because the program is not ongoing, administrative burdens have not been considered.
45
Clark et al., 1999 Clark, N., M. Gautam, D. Lydons, C. Atkinson, and W. Xie, 1999. “On-Road Use of Fischer-Tropsch Diesel
Blends”, SAE Technical Paper Series, 1999-01-2251, Washington D.C., April 1999.
46 Bailey et al. 1997 Bailey, B., J. Eberhardt, S. Goguen, and J. Erwin, 1997. “Diethyl Ether as a Renewable Diesel Fuel,” Society
of Automotive Engineers, Paper no. 972978.
55
April 2014
DRAFT
Project Funding (Other Costs)
The cost of FT fuel can exceed the cost of standard diesel by up to $0.25 per gallon (CEC, 2003).
Advances in FT technology and economies of scale may reduce the price of these fuels in the
future. In other areas (such as California), FT fuels are sold as neat fuel or a blend to produce
reformulated diesel fuel. (CEC, 2003) Costs widely vary and given recent trends of low natural
gas costs, the feedstock for FT fuels, may reduce clean diesel costs. Estimates from vendors
indicate that cetane additives that increase cetane levels by 5 points would cost approximately
$0.08 per gallon (ENVIRON, 2013c).
EPA’s National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program
(http://www.epa.gov/diesel/prgnational.htm) grants extended funding for cleaner fuel use
resulting from retrofit/repower/replacement projects. The program covers the cost differential
between the cleaner fuel and conventional diesel fuel if that cleaner fuel is used in
combination, and on the same vehicle, with a new eligible verified control technology retrofit,
or an eligible certified engine repower, or an eligible certified vehicle replacement funded
through this program.
Multi‐pollutant Reduction Analysis
Table 3-5 demonstrates that alternative diesel fuel formulations can reduce tailpipe NOx
emissions by as much as 20% from the vehicles using the cleaner fuel. The costs would be
accrued for each gallon consumed; therefore the cost effectiveness shown is the same whether
considered over the life of the project or each year of its use.
Table 3-5.
Emissions Reductions and Cost-effectiveness of Alternative Fuels.
Fuel
Fischer-Tropsch
FT or GTL Diesel
TxLED with
Cetane Additive
Enhanced (CAE)
Lubrizol’s
PuriNOx
Description
Stand-alone diesel or diesel
blend from Fischer-Tropsch
process
Additives to available diesel
fuel
Diesel/water emulsion –
registered and verified by EPA
(summer grade) and verified by
ARB
% Reduction in
Tailpipe PM
Emissions
201
% Reduction in
Tailpipe NOx
Emissions
121
Reduced
emission not
quantified
583
1.32
143
1
Clark et al, 1999
2003
3 EPA, 2002b
2 EPA,
The emission reduction from using cleaner diesel fuels will be the emission reduction fraction
applied to base emission rates for vehicles. As fleets replace vehicles with cleaner engines, the
benefits of clean diesel fuels decrease.
56
April 2014
DRAFT
For calendar year 2018, emissions from diesel vehicles were estimated to be 44.90 tons of NOx,
1.86 tons of PM, and 24,705 tons of CO2 for 12.7 million miles of driving. Converting the CO2
to fuel consumption (using the molecular weight ratio of 44 CO2 to 13.8 for fuel carbon and a
fuel density of 7.05 pounds per gallon), the average fuel consumption rate was 5.8 miles/gallon
for all diesel vehicles. Also we estimated the emissions rates for NOx at 18.5 grams per gallon
and PM at 0.8 grams/gallon. The emission reduction for FT fuels then would be 2.2 grams NOx
per gallon (18.5 x 12%) and 0.16 grams PM per gallon of FT fuel used.
Costs and Cost Effectiveness
Cost for the alternatives available is usually high compared with the benefits as shown in Table
3-5, however as natural gas (the feedstock for FT diesel fuel) prices come down in relation to oil
prices, FT fuels become more viable alternatives with less cost disadvantage.
Using the emission results for FT fuels with a $0.25 per gallon cost and the per gallon mass
emissions benefit, the cost effectiveness is $100,000 per ton of NOx reduced and $1.4 million
per ton of PM reduced. Cetane enhancer benefits are much lower, and so will have higher $
per ton benefits.
Other Benefits or Considerations
Usually all emission are reduced with these fuels. The FT fuel and cetane enhancer fuel
additives can have benefits for the vehicle operator in better and more responsive operation.
Table 3-6.
Cleaner Diesel Fuel Summary.
Input
Administration
Other Costs
Emissions
Cost Effectiveness
Other Benefits or
Considerations
Estimate
Unknown
Direct fuel cost per gallon increase.
Fractional reduction in emissions, 20 – 50% PM; 1 – 14% NOx.
$100,000 per NOx ton and $1.4 million per PM ton reduced.
May result in improved engine operation.
57
April 2014
DRAFT
Control Measure 6: Encourage Off-Peak Deliveries
Heavy-duty vehicle emissions on a per-mile basis are higher during weekday peak traffic hours
compared to overnight or midday periods. During peak hours of 7-9 AM and 4-7 PM, overall
traffic speed is slower and includes more stop and go pattern driving. The slower average
speeds results in higher emission factors of PM2.5 and NOx for all vehicles including heavy-duty
trucks. To mitigate the impact of higher heavy-duty vehicle emissions during peak travel times,
off-peak deliveries and other freight movements might be scheduled or otherwise encouraged
to be accomplished during periods of less traffic congestion. Types of heavy-duty vehicles that
this would affect are short-haul trucks (heavy-duty, locally-operating) and light commercial
trucks.
Administration Resources
H-GAC staff would administer the program gathering together suppliers and owners, such as
restaurants, stores, and other retail outlets, to plan for off-peak deliveries.
Project Funding (Other Costs)
An incentive has yet to be determined to encourage a change in behavior.
Multi‐pollutant Reduction Analysis
Deliveries are primarily made by short-haul single-unit and combination trucks, and some light
commercial vehicles. How much travel can be persuaded to be moved from peak periods
depends upon the willingness of companies to provide incentives to their employees. The
travel affected by the measure will depend upon the incentive to reorganize the schedules and
may require incentives to employees to shift their schedules. The benefits would be less time
in transit, perhaps lower fuel consumption, and emissions reductions.
The primary effect of congestion is to reduce the average speed of travel during peak periods
due to more stop and go driving, which increases NOx by about 10% over off-peak periods as
shown in Figure 2-4. Not all deliveries can be made during off-peak periods, so only a fraction
of the emissions can be affected.
The total light commercial and short-haul single-unit and combination trucks are expected to
emit approximately 0.9 tpd PM2.5, 30.0 tpd NOx, and 7.1 tpd VOC in the 8-county area. Of this
perhaps 10% of the travel could be shifted to off-peak periods, resulting reducing emission
rates by 10%, so overall 0.09 tpd PM2.5, 0.30 tpd NOx and 0.07 tpd VOC could be realized.
58
April 2014
DRAFT
Figure 2-4. NOx Emission Rates for Delivery Vehicles as a Function of Hour of Day for a
Weekday.
Figure 2-5. PM2.5 Emission Rates for Delivery Vehicles as a Function of Hour of Day for a
Weekday.
59
April 2014
DRAFT
Emissions Affected
The emissions affected by this measure are likely limited to delivery trucks that can reschedule
their drop-off and pick-up trips. For this measure, this was determined for the MOVES vehicle
types of light commercial (LC), single-unit short-haul (SUSh), and combination gasoline and
diesel short-haul trucks (CShT). These vehicles are responsible for 0.9 tpd of PM2.5, 7.1 tpd of
VOC and 30.0 tpd of NOx emissions.
Emissions Benefit
The emissions benefits derive from shifting trips from peak periods when emission factors are
relatively high to off-peak when they are lower. Table 3-7 summarizes the change in the
average emission factors during (1) peak period, 7-9 AM and 4-7 PM, and (2) off-peak periods
(midday and overnight). The emission factors of NOx, VOC, and PM 2.5 decrease on average by
4%, 10%, and 10%, respectively, if trips are moved to an off-peak period.
Table 3-7. Average Delivery TruckA Emission Factors during Peak Period (7-9AM and 4-7PM)
and Off-Peak Period (midday 9AM-4PM and overnight 7PM to 7AM).
Pollutant
NOx
VOC
PM2.5
Peak EF
(g/mi)
1.4
0.18
0.058
Off-Peak EF
(g/mi)
1.3
0.16
0.052
Percent Change in EF from
Peak to Off-Peak
-4%
-10%
-10%
A
Average Delivery Truck includes Light Commercial Trucks, Single Unit Short-haul Trucks, and Combination Unit Long-haul
Trucks.
The precise amount of delivery truck VMT that could be moved from peak to off-peak periods is
unknown, but if 10% of these trips could be shifted then the overall benefit would be 0.12 tpd
NOx, 0.071 tpd VOC, and 0.009 tpd PM2.5. Expressed as a percent the on-road emissions
benefits from this measure would be 0.4%, 1%, and 1%, for NOx, VOC, and PM2.5, respectively.
Costs and Cost Effectiveness
The cost of this measure is unknown because it is difficult to determine if an incentive is
required to encourage companies and drivers to use off-peak conditions to complete their
deliveries.
Other Benefits or Considerations
This approach may cause difficulty because deliveries may need to occur outside of normal
business hours. There may be a cost to the supplier or receiver to pay for extra staff or an
incentive to work non-normal business hours. Additional noise in areas where people reside
could also be an issue.
60
April 2014
DRAFT
Table 3-8.
Encourage Off-Peak Deliveries Off-Peak Delivery Summary.
Input
Administration
Other Costs
Emissions
Cost Effectiveness
Other Benefits or
Considerations
Estimate
Unknown
Incentives for shippers and customers.
30 tpy NOx and 2 tpy for PM for a 10% Change in peak VMT of these vehicles.
Unknown.
Travel time and ease of parking for deliveries and less traffic congestion.
61
April 2014
DRAFT
Control Measure 7: Parking Cash Out Program
Parking costs in the Houston region are free or nearly free for many commuters, providing an
unseen subsidy for driving alone. While some people who drive alone would do so whether or
not they had to pay for parking, others would be willing to forgo driving alone if they weren’t
granted the free spaces. A recent report on parking costs and subsidies47 presented seven case
studies and a statistical model suggesting that when compared with driver paid parking,
employer-paid parking increases driving to work by about 33 percent. An obvious corollary
implication is that 33 percent of SOV commuters who get free parking would be willing to use
alternate modes. This is the type of reasoning that led, in the early 1990s, to a parking cash out
law in California.
California’s parking cash out law applies to employers in air quality nonattainment areas with
more than 50 employees who provide subsidized parking to their employees (covering all or
part of the parking cost paid by the employer). In the California law, employers had to (1) lease
the parking spots they provided to the employees and (2) be able to change to the terms of
their parent lease in a way that avoided any financial penalty of paying the employee the
amount they were previously paying as a subsidy for the parking. Generally this simply meant
that if a lease term already in effect when the law became effective in 1992 was not flexible
enough to change, an otherwise eligible employer was not subject to the law until the lease
term was over and they successfully negotiated a new lease that allowed them to join the
parking cash out program.
Although this is the model California followed, other states are not precluded from
implementing it differently, For example instead of a law, employers could participate
voluntarily, as some already do in Houston and other areas around the U.S., often dating back
to the Best Workplaces Program. If an employer participates voluntarily they do not necessarily
have to lease the parking supply. In any area where parking demand is high, even owned
parking could potentially be sold to other users. This is being proposed in nearby Austin, where
parking supply for downtown city government workers has become too tight. After a successful
pilot program in July – October, 2012, the City of Austin is proposing to offer city employees a
$100 month payment not to park downtown in order to ease congestion and parking supply.
Houston is potentially a perfect area in which to significantly expand parking cash out. Two
employers are currently known to offer it in an explicit form, and many of the Commute
Champions employers are offering an implicit version of it. However there is no regional
program. It is cost neutral to implement, it’s perceived favorably by employees, it’s
environmentally beneficial, it can reduce congestion, and can save on frustration, gas costs, and
commute times.
In Houston, paid parking is only common in a few locations like Central Houston and a few large
employment centers, like the Texas Medical Center. Commuters are most likely to pay all or
47
Dr. Don Shoup, “Parking Cash Out” American Planning Association Report 532
62
April 2014
DRAFT
part of the cost of parking in the Houston CBD. Interestingly, downtown Houston also has the
lowest SOV commute rate in the region (48%). The norm in the rest of the region is 82%.
48According to parking inventories from 2005, there are almost 75,000 structured parking
spaces in downtown Houston and another 27,000 spaces in surface lots. In 2003, the average
daily price of parking in downtown Houston was $8.00, with monthly unreserved spaces
averaging $165.00 and reserved spaces averaging $245.00 per month.
Since October, 2011, there are also 7,000 on-street metered spaces that allow residents,
workers and visitors to pay for parking at all of the spaces with their mobile phones 49.
In 2012-13, H-GAC requested parking information from local Transportation Management
Associations (i.e. availability of free employee parking, the number of employees, the average
monthly cost of parking, and the amount of parking supply that was unutilized). The results of
this data indicate that about 75 percent of employees in the Houston region do receive free or
subsidized parking from their employers and are therefore potential participants in a parking
cash-out program. Follow up emails were sent to the same personnel by the Environ Team in
late February, 2014 and it appears that the surveys have not been expanded upon since 2012.
In addition, only two companies currently offer a formal parking cash-out program to
employees, based on Best Workplaces data50. However, many companies have long offered
other incentives to reduce employee travel, such as transit and vanpool subsidies, alternative
work schedules, carpool incentives and travel allowances.
The downtown Houston survey conducted in 2009 found that 36% of respondents indicated
their employer provides free parking for them at their work site51. This value is more robust
than the 75% because of the formal nature of the survey. It is much smaller because it focuses
on a part of Houston where parking is very tight, and only on free parking. The analysis below
uses this 36% value as the high end potential population of employees that could be offered
parking cash-out.
We also restrict potential parking cash-out participants to those who are currently SOV users
most of the time. Regionally 82% of commuters rely on driving alone to get to work. This value
is similar for many parts of the region. For example, as shown in Table 2-3 the East End SOV
percentage is 68 percent; the energy corridor is 82 %, and the Houston MSA is 79.2%. The
downtown Houston area differs: it is only 48% there. This variation is taken into account in the
analysis.
48
It is important to note how well this difference corresponds with the national finding that there is about a 35% decrease in
SOV use among commuters who have to pay for parking. Later in the analysis we apply 50% of this difference to provide an
estimate of the potential benefits of parking cash out programs.
49 www.houstonparking.org
50 These companies are Porter and Hedges, LLP and the UT Health Science Center of Houston.
51 51 http://downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2010-04-22/9A2009_Downtown_Houston_Commute_Survey_Report.pdf conducted by Central Houston, Inc. (CHI)
63
April 2014
DRAFT
The proportion of parking that is most readily applicable to parking cash out as defined in the
California law (leased by employer and unbundled from the office portion of the lease) ranges
from 4% – 7%. The previously referenced Shoup APA document shows one study with 4% and
provides a national estimate of 7%. Other researchers have used a 5 percent rate52
Below we estimate emission benefits for two scenarios. The first uses the lower of the Shoup
estimate (4%) of employers who also provide free parking. The second uses a base of all
employers who provide free parking to their employees. Both scenarios assume that 1/5 of
the potential employers actually offer a formal voluntary program to their SOV employees.
Implementation of Parking Cash-Out
To implement parking cash-out, H-GAC would design a short fact sheet describing the program
administration and potential benefits. The fact sheet would also describe the specific steps an
employer would take to implement a program. H-GAC would then reach out to applicable
employers to request participation and ongoing documentation and discuss benefits. The fact
sheet would be used in these conversations for follow-up purposes. The goal would be to
engage a full 20% of potential employers who provide free parking to their employees in
implementing a program with a specified time frame such as 2016.
Analysis
For conservatism, this analysis assumes that only a portion of employees currently offered free
parking are offered a parking cash-out payment, and also that the potentially applicable
employees are separate from those already commuting to work in a carpool, vanpool or via
transit. Regionally, according to the Houston Household Travel Survey, 20% of work trips are
via shared mode, with an 80% single occupant vehicle mode. However, the 2009 Downtown
Houston Commute Survey Report53 found that 52% of employees used shared modes as a
primary means of transportation to work. The analysis described below uses this larger
percentage in order to ensure conservatism in the parking cash-out results. In other words the
analysis described below assumes that only 48% of employees offered parking cash-out are
potentially going to change from their current drive-alone mode to a shared mode of
transportation as their primary commuting option. It also assumes that, in the low scenario, 4%
of them represented by the low end of employers who lease parking, and can unbundle the
parking part of their lease from the remainder of the lease can possibly change behavior.
In the high scenario it is assumed that 20% of the SOV commuters who also receive free parking
from the 4% of employers who lease parking are offered parking cash-out. As discussed above,
35% of these are likely to change their behavior. It is assumed that 17% (less than half) actually
do so.
52
Personal communication, Chris Porter, Cambridge Systematics International, February 27, 2014.
64
April 2014
DRAFT
According to the projections in the most recent conformity determination, 54 regional
employment in 2018 will be 3,183,000 with 2,522,000 of that in Harris County. Major
employment centers include Downtown Houston (150,000 employees currently55) and the
Texas Medical Center (93,50056). However, many parking cash-out proponents note that
restructuring parking policies anywhere, and especially in suburban areas, will also result in
lower VMT and congestion. Therefore the analysis below assumes the entire workforce
receiving parking subsidies and not already participating in alternative modes has potential to
participate in a parking cash-out program, as modified by the data and assumptions described
above.
Emissions Affected
This measure affects commuting emissions in the region, so a significant fraction of the lightduty vehicle emissions of 45.96 tpd VOC and 48.88 tpd NOx57 during weekdays would be
affected. Note these emissions were estimated using the EPA MOBILE6 model and do not
include PM2.5 as they are not yet available.
The emission benefits are estimated using the EPA MOVEs model.
Emissions Benefit
The emissions analysis utilized the basic process suggested by the MOSERs methodology, as
follows:
Variables:
EFA:
Speed-based exhaust emission factor after implementation (NOx ,
VOC, CO, PM2.5, CO2) grams/mile) for light duty vehicles
EFB:
Speed-based running exhaust emission factor before implementation
(NOx , VOC, CO, PM2.5, CO2) (grams/mile) for light duty vehicles
TEFAUTO:
Auto start emission factor (NOx , VOC, or CO) (grams/trip)
TLA:
Average auto trip length after implementation (miles)
TLB:
Average auto trip length before implementation (miles)
VMTA:
Vehicle miles travelled after implementation
VMTB:
Change in VMT as a result of implementation
It is assumed that emission factors and trip length before and after implementation are the
same.
54
http://www.h-gac.com/taq/airquality_model/conformity/2013_Phase3/docs/CONFORMITY%20DETERMINATION.pdf Table 4
contains socioeconomic projections.
55 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Houston#Demographics
56 http://texasmedicalcenter.org/facts-and-figures/
57 2013 Conformity analysis emission estimates for 2018 http://www.hgac.com/taq/airquality_model/conformity/2013_Phase3/docs/CONFORMITY%20DETERMINATION.pdf , Table 3 starting on
Page 12.
65
April 2014
DRAFT
In this analysis, VMTB is derived by multiplying the number of employees offered parking cashout (12,223 in the low scenario and 110,004 in the high scenario) by their average round trip
work length (26.6 miles58) and applying a 17 percent reduction in driving. For simplicity, trips
are assumed not to be affected. Although some mode shift entails a trip reduction, many times
individuals drive somewhere to access an alternate mode such as a park and ride lot.
Results:
Daily Weekday Emission Reduction Example for NOx:
C = VMTB * EFA =
Low scenario: 12,223 employees = VMT of 325,132 * 0.155 gram/mile NOx/454 = 111
lb/day, and 0.056 tpd NOx
Higher scenario: 110,004 employees = VMT of 2,926,106 * 0.155 gram NOx/mile /454
= 999 pounds and 0.5 tpd NOx.
Table 3-9.
Emission Factors and Results for Parking Cash-Out in 2018 (tons).
Pollutant
Vehicle emissions (g/mile)
Reduction Low Scenario (tons/day)
Reduction Low Scenario (Tons/year)59
Reduction High Scenario (tons/day)
Reduction High Scenario (tons/year)
VOC
0.055
0.005
1.27
0.18
46.1
NOx
0.155
0.056
14.4
0.50
129.9
CO
1.9
0.68
176.9
6.1
1,592
PM2.5
0.0095
0.003
0.88
0.03
8.0
CO2
369.8
132.4
34,428
1,192
309,845
Cost and Cost Effectiveness
Given employer savings on reduced parking lease costs, or parking income from charging for
owned parking, the cost to employers could be positive or neutral (i.e., cost of the cash out
equal or even less than the parking lease cost savings). Depending on program structure, cost
per ton could be as low as $0. However, there would be costs incurred due to outreach to
inform and assist employers in implementing the program. These costs would be borne under
the Commute Solutions program. Since parking cash-out is a new program, it is assumed here
that 25% of the Commute Solution program costs would be allocated to Parking Cash-Out.
Commute Solutions costs are $2.5 million per year. Parking Cash-out is assumed to require
25%, or $625,000/yr. Average annual emission reductions are 73 tpy of VOC, 182.5 tpy of
NOx,and 10.95 tons of PM2.5. A method for evaluating cost effectiveness for VOC, NOx and
PM2.5 needs to be discussed. The cost effectiveness for PM2.5 alone is $0 - $57,078 per ton
removed. The cost effectiveness for VOC plus NOx is $0 - $2,446 per ton.
58
TTI analysis of the 2009 Houston Household Travel Survey File TLFD.Hou.Reg.3WayWith.Proxy.Adj transmitted by H-GAC on
1/24/12 via email to Earth Matters with note that the file was a frequency distribution of trip lengths for trip purpose prepared
by TTI.
59 Assumes 260 work-days per year
66
April 2014
DRAFT
Table 3-10. Parking Cash-Out Air Emissions Benefit and Cost Effectiveness Summary.
Measure
ID
8
Name
Parking
Cash-Out
Description
20% of SOV
users at the 4%
of companies
who lease
parking spots
respond with
17% mode shift
Affected
Source
On-Road
Lightduty
vehicles
67
Affected
Emissions
(tpd)
40.44 tpd
VOC
47.21 tpd
NOx; 1.3 tpd
PM2.5
Expected
Emission
Reduction
(higher scenario)
%
Tpd
0.4%
0.2
1.0%
0.5
2.0%
0.03
Cost
Effectiveness
($/ton)
<$0 -
April 2014
DRAFT
Control Measure 8: Optimal Traffic Flow (Adaptive Traffic Signal Cycles/Timing
to Optimize Traffic Throughput and Reversible Traffic Lanes)
On-road motor vehicles which operate at steady cruise conditions and moderate speed have
lower emissions compared to slower and more stop and go driving because engines are more
efficient at higher loads and there is less wasted energy from braking. Improved signal cycling
and timing can optimize the traffic flow. Infrastructure projects may also improve the traffic
flow by allowing for extra capacity during peak periods. Project options include reversible lanes,
such as utilizing a conditional middle left turn lanes for an extra lane, eliminating left turns and
other grade separation projects.
These projects may have additional traffic flow improvements, so the air pollutant emission
reductions may not be the sole or primary reason for the project. However, emissions benefits
are expected from improving traffic flows in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area.
Administration Resources
These programs are administered as part of overall transportation planning. It is difficult to
determine the administration costs for individual projects because the primary purpose of the
projects is to improve traffic flow.
Project funding (Other Costs)
Projects are identified and funded individually as part of the regional road network planning.
The funding is determined for each project and let to contractor.
Multi‐pollutant reduction analysis
ENVIRON (2013) analyzed a sample traffic signalization project and determined the benefits
shown in Table 3-11. The same benefit can be assumed for the PM period for simplification,
however the PM period had higher traffic volumes and slower speeds and so should have
realized greater improvement from the project. Some benefit may also be realized during nonpeak periods. Therefore the project and likely most other similar types will reduce NOx by
more than 1 ton per year and PM2.5 by 0.04 tons per year.
Table 3-11. MOVES Model Annual Emissions Benefits Before and After Woodlands Parkway
Traffic Signal Timing for the AM Period.
MOVES2010a
Pollutant
VOC
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
CO2
SO2
NH3
Before
(TPY)
0.99
8.46
34.6
0.80
0.46
7,307
0.07
0.36
After
(TPY)
0.94
7.80
34.2
0.76
0.44
6,999
0.07
0.34
Benefit
-0.045
-0.66
-0.46
-0.034
-0.019
-307.6
-0.003
-0.017
68
Percent Benefit
-4.6%
-7.8%
-1.3%
-4.3%
-4.1%
-4.2%
-4.3%
-4.9%
April 2014
DRAFT
Costs and Cost Effectiveness
Because of the wide range of project costs and benefits, the costs and cost effectiveness of
these projects has a wide range. Traffic signal timing projects are probably the least costly, and
infrastructure projects that require construction of new infrastructure can be orders of
magnitude more costly.
The sample project was expected to cost $239,000 for a three-year benefit. The annualized
costs and benefits results in $60,000 per NOx ton reduced and over $2 million per ton of PM2.5
benefit.
Other Benefits or Considerations
The main purpose of the projects is to reduce travel times, and emission benefits are a
secondary benefit.
Table 3-12. Optimal Traffic Flow Summary.
Input
Administration
Other Costs
Emissions
Cost Effectiveness
Other Benefits or
Considerations
Estimate
Part of transportation plans.
Direct project costs vary by the scope of each project.
Emission benefits for NOx and PM depend upon each project.
$60,000 - $600,000 per NOx ton; $2 - $20 million per PM2.5 ton reduced.
Traffic flow improvements are the primary reason for these types of projects.
69
April 2014
DRAFT
Control Measure 9: Expand the Emissions Testing Program to the Three Counties
not Currently Included in the Program
This measure would expand the vehicle emissions testing program (Air Check Texas) into
Chambers, Liberty and Waller counties. The program as currently operated in Harris, Brazoria,
Fort Bend, Galveston and Montgomery counties requires all 2-24 year old gasoline powered
vehicles to be emissions tested.
The vehicle emissions testing program could be implemented in Chambers, Liberty, and Waller
counties if both the county and the largest city in the county agree that such action is
necessary. Should the counties decide to opt into the vehicle emissions testing program and
also wish to implement the Drive A Clean Machine Program which provides funding to retire,
repair and replace vehicles, the counties would have to opt into this program in a similar
manner.
The analysis of this measure included in the ENVIRON March 2013 Report for H-GAC highlighted
the following implementation issues.
1. If an ASM/OBD testing program is implemented:


As each year goes by there are less MY 1995 and older vehicles that fit within
the
requirement to test 2-24 year old vehicles.
There may be difficulties in having sufficient ASM/OBD testing stations to carry out ASM
testing as the number of MY 1995 and older vehicles decreases.
2. If an OBD only program is implemented (i.e. only MY 1996 and newer vehicles are tested):



The vehicle emissions test fee of $27.00 for ASM/OBD testing in the 5 counties was
based on the costs of ASM testing. If an OBD only program is implemented, vehicle
owners in the 3 counties may be unhappy to be charged the same fee as owners whose
vehicles are required to be tested where both tests must be offered.
If the test fee is reduced in the 3 counties, owners of OBD vehicles in the 5 counties may
be unhappy with a lower test fee being charged for OBD testing in the 3 counties
Public acceptance of an OBD only program may be compromised regarding the fairness
of allowing older more highly polluting gasoline vehicles to avoid emissions testing.
In addition, the current program rules require that stations in program areas offering safety
inspections must also offer the emissions inspection. The rules do allow stations an exception
from offering ASM testing if they do less than 1800 tests per year. There are currently 53 safety
inspection stations in the 3 counties. In 2015, the estimated number of MY 1996 and newer
vehicles is 117,018. If the number of stations remains at 53, that would mean each station
doing 2,207 tests. To allow this, the TCEQ rule allowing the OBD test only exception would
have to be changed. However, if the OBD only test fee were to be $27, this would be more
profitable for the OBD only inspection stations as they would not be investing in the more
70
April 2014
DRAFT
expensive ASM equipment. This, in turn, could result in more inspection stations offering the
safety and emissions test, thus avoiding the over 1800 tests issue.
If an OBD only testing program is introduced in the 3 counties, testing of diesel vehicles could
feasibly be added to the program (testing any MY 95 and older vehicle greater than 8500 lbs is
not possible with the ASM test equipment used in the current vehicle emissions testing
program). Diesel vehicles less than 8,500 lbs GVWR must be equipped with OBD systems since
the 1997 MY, vehicles 8,500 – 14,000 lbs GVWR must be equipped with OBD systems since MY
2005 and OBD is required for all HDDVs over 14,000 GVWR beginning with the 2010 model year
Administration Resources
The administration of the additional counties inspection program would be covered under the
AirCheck program.
Project funding (Other Costs)
Registration inspection fees would be used to fund the administration and on-going program
costs.
Multi‐pollutant Reduction Analysis
Currently, MOVES does not quantify PM emission reduction benefits from the vehicle emissions
testing program. However, it is possible that the exhaust PM emissions reduction would be
similar to the VOC emissions benefit. The source characterization of PM2.5 at the Aldine
monitor in the H-GAC area shows Organic Carbon, and lately scientists have found a lot of this
to be secondary organic aerosol, for example xylene or toluene found in gasoline can convert to
carboxylic acids and condense as PM. However, inclusion of exhaust PM reduction or PM
reduction by reducing VOC emissions requires further study to be able to quantify the effects.
The NOx and VOC emissions and the cost effectiveness calculations for an ASM/OBD program
as set out in the March 2013 analysis are still valid.
However, by 2018, it is estimated that the difference in NOx reductions if ASM tailpipe testing is
eliminated would be 1.6%.60 The estimated emissions reductions from implementing an
ASM/OBD program in the 3 counties are 0.37 tpd NOx and 0.28 tpd VOC. Implementing an OBD
only program that would reduce these numbers by 1.6% is a small loss given how much “easier”
the program would be to implement without having to require inspections stations to purchase
and operate ASM emissions testing equipment.
Costs and Cost Effectiveness
Repair costs would be borne by the vehicle owners.
60
ERG Report : Eliminate Tailpipe Testing from the Inspection and Maintenance Program: July 2010.
71
April 2014
DRAFT
Other Benefits or Considerations
Multiple pollutant benefits, fuel economy improvements, and more reliable operation should
be realized. Table 3-13 provides a summary of expanding inspection and maintenance to the
remaining counties.
Table 3-13. Expand I/M to Three Counties Summary.
Input
Administration
Other Costs
Emissions
Cost Effectiveness
Other Benefits or
Considerations
Estimate
AirCheck Texas would run the program from inspection fees.
Repair costs.
130 tons NOx and 100 tons VOC per year reduced.
Not detailed.
Multiple pollutant benefits.
72
April 2014
DRAFT
Control Measure 10: Off-Road Equipment Idle Reduction
Idling is an inefficient use of equipment in general and generates unnecessary emissions. Idling
however cannot be avoided in all cases, such as during normal work when work is performed
intermittently, and the time to restart the engine would be considered a significant delay. This
measure would seek to limit excessive idling when equipment is not required immediately.
Suggested periods for limiting idling could be as low as 15 minutes maximum. Many on-road
trucks have factory-installed engine shut down devices that automatically shut down the engine
after a set period, or devices could be added to existing equipment.
To implement this measure, idle shut-off devices could be employed with idle timers set to a
period that would not cause typical operational problems. But operator training could provide
significant idle reduction perhaps beyond idle shut-off devices or for small or little used
equipment where additional hardware is not cost effective.
Administration Resources
If implemented, H-GAC along with agencies such as TxDOT would work with construction
partners to implement an idle reduction program, and may identify federal or State grant
opportunities.
Project Funding (Other Costs)
The scope of the program is unknown at this time. Idle shut-off devices are commercially
available and funding may be available to retrofit high use equipment. Otherwise, reduced
idling can be accomplished without a cost through best practices or other initiatives.
Multi‐pollutant Reduction Analysis
Analysis of this measure is based on estimated time in idle and relative emissions rates while at
idle. Based on the EPA test procedure for off-road engines, it is estimated that nonroad engines
are at idle 15% of the time they are in operation. Using emission results for two diesel engines
(Gautam, 2002) as shown, for example, in Table 3-14, the idle emissions are responsible for
about 2% of all emissions. Not all engines operate with the same profile as the 8-mode testing
cycle shown in Table 3-14 and so may idle more or less than that shown. On the other hand, it
is not possible to eliminate all engine idling as some of the idle time occurs in short duration
intervals between non-idle modes that occur during normal operations. For new engines,
especially those meeting the Tier 4 NOx emission standards, selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
is likely to be used on most of these engines, and SCR does not work well at idle because the
exhaust temperature can be too cool to keep the catalysts within its operating range. With SCR
engines, the fraction of idle emissions may be considerably higher (e.g. 10% of NOx emissions)
if the idle emission rate stays the same as older engines when NOx is reduced for other modes.
73
April 2014
DRAFT
Table 3-14. Mode Weightings and Emissions by Mode for a Sample Engines.
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Idle
Time
Weighting
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.15
Speed
Rated
Rated
Rated
Rated
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
0
Torque
100%
75
50
10
100
75
50
0
105 Hp
NOx
PM
(g/hour)
(g/hour)
1,231
20
813
29
415
18
97
9
1,110
9
523
3
444
3
107
2
250 hp
NOx
PM
(g/hour)
(g/hour)
1,832
91
1,202
55
657
41
196
36
1,471
112
1,076
62
659
35
121
10
Common types of construction equipment such as excavators, loaders, and dozers average
nearly 1000 hours of year, and may idle as much as 150 hours per year. If 100 hours of idling
were reduced per piece of equipment, up to 0.013 tons of NOx and 0.001 tons of PM would be
reduced. Several thousand pieces of equipment would need to be enlisted to generate
emission reductions of more than 10 tons of NOx and 1 ton of PM.
Costs and Cost Effectiveness
The benefit of idle reduction would almost always be positive in terms of cost because of the
fuel savings alone. Only in the case where the engine is not often used would the return on the
capital cost of added equipment result in a net cost, and, in that case, operator training would
be a better option.
Costs of idle limiters for construction equipment have been estimated to be $500 -$1,00061,
however fuel consumption reductions would reduce the cost to the operator. Using a sample
engine, idle fuel consumption is about 0.5 gallons per hour, saving nearly $200 per year when
idle is reduced by 100 hours a year. The fuel cost savings would then save money over a 5 – 10
year life of the equipment.
Other Benefits or Considerations
Reduced idle time should also reduce maintenance costs as well as fuel costs. Table 3-15
provides a summary of the potential and considerations for an off-road idle reduction program.
61
http://www.constructionequipment.com/no-time-idling
74
April 2014
DRAFT
Table 3-15. Off-Road Equipment Idle Reduction Summary.
Input
Administration
Other Costs
Emissions
Cost Effectiveness
Other Benefits or
Considerations
Estimate
H-GAC and other agencies would assist contractors applying for grants or through
cooperative programs.
Cost may be incurred for idle shutoff hardware offset by fuel and maintenance cost
reductions.
Emission reductions for all pollutants though only about 2% of emissions are at idle.
Costs for hardware may be recovered with lower fuel costs.
Fuel and maintenance cost reductions.
75
April 2014
DRAFT
Control Measure 11: Electric Lawn Equipment Exchange Program
These types of programs are seasonal, scheduled events where members of the public may
trade in working gas-powered lawnmowers to receive a discount on a new electric-powered
lawnmower.
In an example program designed for the South Coast, consumers wishing to take part in this
trade-in/incentive program must pre-register on the SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality
Management District) website (www.aqmd.gov) or by phone. This pre-registration provides
AQMD with an estimate of how many electric mowers to purchase and have on hand. People
registering are probably also given instruction and an understanding of the specifics of the
program as well as information for determine if their mower qualifies for the trade-in discount.
This prevents mowers being brought to the event that do not qualify for a discount.
Trade-in events take place on specific days and locations. In the case of this specific program,
events took place on four different days in May through July at various cities within SCAQMD’s
operating area including Long Beach, Pasadena, Riverside, and Anaheim.
Administration Resources
The program will have some administrative costs including time spent working with vendors on
the program and arranging locations for the trade-in and purchase. Advertising and outreach
are also likely elements in order for the public to be made aware of the program. Staff would
also be needed to operate the trade-in setup areas.
Project Funding (Other Costs)
The program is sponsored by SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District) and CARB
(California Air Resources Board). These agencies work with vendors (in this case Greenstation
and Black&Decker) to provide a monetary incentive for consumers. The consumers receive a
discount on their new lawnmower purchase when they trade in an old, working gas-powered
lawnmower.
The difference between regular price and the discounted price for the new electric
lawnmowers is likely paid by SCAQMD and CARB, although the vendor may also reduce the
price as an incentive for their products to be chosen for the program.
Direct costs include the cost of incentivizing the discounted purchase price of the lawnmowers.
Multi‐pollutant Reduction Analysis
Table A-10 shows annual emissions per mower of a typical 3-6 horsepower gas-powered
lawnmower that would be exchanged in 2018 in Texas. The average lifetime is estimated to be
6 years, and lifetime emissions represent the amount to be reduced for each mower that was
exchanged.
76
April 2014
DRAFT
While most programs target lawnmowers, other equipment could be replaced with electric
versions. Table A-11 shows that blowers produce more VOC and PM2.5 over their five year
lifetime than lawn mowers, and would be good candidates for an electric replacement
program.
Costs and Cost Effectiveness
The cost per unit was estimate base on the price reduction from regular retail price.
Table 3-16. Sample Costs of Electric Lawnmowers.
Cost Rebate
(per unit)
$280
$250
$279
$249
$229
$257
Lawnmower Model
Greenstation 20” 24v lawnmower
Greenstation 20” 24v, self-propelled lawnmower
Black&Decker 18” 36v lawnmower
Black&Decker 19” 36v lawnmower
Black&Decker 19” 36v, self-propelled lawnmower
Average cost reduction:
Using the average lifetime emissions for lawnmowers and the rebate costs, the cost
effectiveness ($/ton of emissions) is shown below in Table 3-17.
Table 3-17. Lawnmower exchange cost effectiveness ($/ton).
Avg. Cost Effectiveness ($/ton):
VOC
$66,657
CO
$5,358
NOx
$609,310
PM
$4,053,466
Other Benefits or Considerations
In addition to reduced emissions, electric lawnmowers have the added benefit of reducing
noise pollution. According to the event flier, these lawnmowers are 50% quieter than a gaspowered lawnmower.
Additionally, as more members of the public purchase and use electric lawnmowers, the option
for electric mowers will become more known. This may influence others to buy an electric
mower next time they are in the market for a new lawnmower.
Table 3-18 provides a summary of the likely benefits of a lawn equipment exchange program.
77
April 2014
DRAFT
Table 3-18. Electric Lawn Equipment Exchange Program Summary.
Input
Administration
Other Costs
Emissions
Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)
Other Benefits or
Considerations
Estimate
Working with vendor to create program and administering the
exchange as well as advertising and outreach.
$229-$280 per lawnmower.
(1,000 lawnmowers: 5 VOC, 0.42 NOx, 0.06 tons PM)
(1,000 blowers: 4 VOC, 0.15 NOx, 0.54 tons PM)
VOC - $66,657
NOx - $609,310
PM - $4,053,466
Reduction in noise as well as increased public awareness of
the electric option.
Control Measure 12: Circulator service to major trip generators
We propose evaluating specific examples such as suggested in the Energy Corridor study. A
realistic scenario needs to be defined to evaluate this measure.
Control Measure 13: Increase HOV Occupancy to 3 or More Per Vehicle
Nearly all the HOV lanes in the Houston region operate for two+ person carpools and therefore
there is room to tighten these requirements to apply to 3 or more people per pool. The high
congestion levels in the region, along with the greater acceptance of carpooling as a means to
get around (more than 11% of work trips in the region are made via carpool) mean that a
change in requirements could increase the number of carpoolers and decrease vehicular traffic.
The current requirements and schedules for HOV lanes are listed in Table 3-19.
Table 3-19. HOV Lanes Studied.
Location
I-45 North
North Freeway
US 59 North
Eastex Freeway
I-45 South
Gulf Freeway
US 59 South
Southwest Freeway
US 290 West
Northwest Freeway
Day
Monday - Friday
Monday - Friday
Monday - Friday
Monday - Friday
Monday - Friday
Time
5 - 11 a.m.
1 - 8 p.m.
5 - 11 a.m.
1 - 8 p.m.
5 - 11 a.m.
1 - 8 p.m.
5 - 11 a.m.
1 - 8 p.m.
5 - 6:30 a.m.
6:30 - 8 a.m.
8 - 11 a.m.
1 - 8 p.m.
Direction
Inbound
Outbound
Inbound
Outbound
Inbound
Outbound
Inbound
Outbound
Inbound
Outbound
HOV Free
2+
2+
2+
2+
2+
2+
2+
2+
2+
3+
2+
2+
Solo Drvers
See HOT Lanes for
Schedule and Toll
Rates.
Source: http://www.ridemetro.org/Services/HOV.aspx and http://www.ridemetro.org/Services/HOTLanes.aspx
To evaluate this measure it would be necessary to estimate the number of people currently
carpooling in vehicles carrying only two people who would switch to a 3+ carpool. Noting that
all carpoolers are aware of how much time they save by pooling and that they are accustomed
78
April 2014
DRAFT
to carpooling, it is difficult to imagine that a significant number would cease carpooling.
Instead it is likely that most two-person carpools would find a way to change to 3 or more
person pools.
The travel modeling section provided estimates of VMT by SOV, 2+, 3+ and 4+ carpools for 2019
and 2025 in January, 201462. Using these figures, the estimate being made by the travel model
for 2018 is that 32,841,645 miles per day of VMT are by carpools of 2 people. This means that 2
person carpools are removing 32,841,645 miles of travel daily with respect to SOV. If these
were all 3 person carpools this implies 65,683,290 miles per day removed. However this figure
also would represent 36.8 percent of area VMT which is not realistic.
Since there is no logical method to adjust total VMT we could instead assume the 3 person
requirement is only applied to peak period travel, which is almost a given anyway.
Peak period VMT by 2 person carpools was estimated using travel model output (see footnote
below) as 17,788,700. If a third person joined these 2 person carpools, an additional
17,788,700 miles could be eliminated relative to the baseline which already accounts for the
first (one driver means one set of VMT not eliminated). Because this measure would be
implemented by law, with violation fees applicable to those not complying, and it would apply
to all applicable traffic, the measure would be far more effective than anything voluntary such
as employer buy-in to Commute Solutions approaches.
Another file provided in the set referenced above provided VMT by facility class in the region.
This file shows that 46 percent of area VMT occurs on freeway facilities. However, only 1.83%
occurs on HOV, HOT, or diamond lanes. The 3 person carpools will be formed for users who
cross over any portion of an HOV type facility where the number of people in their car might be
policed. This amount is unknown. Knowing the area, it is difficult to imagine that many trips
made via shared mode are short enough not to utilize a facility where the 3+ requirement
would be in effect. This analysis assumes that all highway VMT potentially reduced by the
requirement will be. It leaves out all the non-highway VMT, which is probably quite
conservative in any case.
If only the freeway travel VMT is eliminated the measure could remove 46.6% of the
17,788,700 miles travelled by 2 person carpools, which is 8,289,534 miles daily. Ignoring any
potential trip reductions, this measure will reduce VOC by 0.53 tpd; NOx by 1.64 tpd; PM2.5 by
0.09 tpd; CO by 18.9 tpd; and CO2 by 3,371 tpd.
62
Personal communication, email January 3, 2014 from H-GAC, to ENVIRON transmitting travel model output file
tceq2_data.xlsx
79
April 2014
DRAFT
Control Measure 14: Managed Lanes to Accommodate Some Single Occupant
Vehicles (HOT lane conversions)
Managed lanes are a type of congestion pricing, and the manner in which they’re implemented
in the Houston region is a good example. Congestion pricing or congestion charges is a system
of surcharging users of a transportation network in periods of peak demand in order to reduce
traffic congestion. By providing drivers a financial incentive to take mass transit or other
alternative modes during congested times or to shift their time of travel, congestion pricing can
be a viable way to manage the number of vehicles on the road. There are two general types of
congestion pricing. One, operated primarily internationally, is to charge all users of certain
facilities by time of day. H-GAC evaluated a hypothetical application of this measure in 2006,
and concluded that the program would result in very small emission reductions and for a very
high price because of feasibility and mobility issues.
The other, being implemented in many areas of the U.S., is conversion of High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes. H-GAC, in conjunction with Metro and
TXDOT, has been operating high occupancy vehicle lanes since the first one on I-45 in 1979.
Nearly all require only two people per vehicle to qualify although some sections of 290 West
have a 3+ requirement. Currently these lanes are offered along sections of I-10, US290, I-45,
and US59. Houston is unique in that the periods in which these lanes operate are nearly all day.
Actually they would be all day except that because highway space is limited, the lanes operate
in different directions depending on the principal flow of traffic.
Most urban areas operate the lanes from hours such as 7 am to 10 am for the morning peak
period, and 3 pm to 7 pm for the evening peak period. Houston hours of operation for these
lanes is nearly all day: 5 am to 11 am for the morning peak, and 2 pm to 8 pm for the evening
peak.
Under HOV to HOT lane conversions, motorists may pay a fee to use the HOV lanes, often over
a dollar per mile. This latter application is somewhat controversial as it discourages carpooling
by allowing single occupancy vehicles to utilize facilities. It’s also criticized as favoring higher
income people who can afford the often high tolls. Although some motorists in areas that have
already converted HOV to HOT lanes complain that their commute times in the free lanes have
doubled, dozens of areas are implementing this measure with federal grant money.
The reasoning is that the additional use of the HOV lanes helps improve traffic flow in the nonHOV lanes and produces revenue. It also improves the use of underutilized HOV lanes. The
first HOT lane experiment in Houston began with QuickRide in 1998 on the Katy freeway,
followed by a 2000 HOT lane on the Northwest freeway. As a measure of the Houston area’s
forward thinking, by 2004 when “Value Pricing” was just becoming a watchword and of national
interest, these two HOT lanes were the only ones operating in the U.S. with the exception of
two in California.
80
April 2014
DRAFT
For example, Houston METRO has begun or completed conversion to dual direction tolled
facilities in 83 miles of major corridors in existing Bus/HOV Corridors begun in January 2011.
HOT lanes will be established on I-45 North and South, US 59 North and South and US 290. The
HOT Lanes will include toll points on - I-45S Gulf Freeway, US59S Southwest Freeway, - I-45N,
North Freeway, - US290, Northwest Freeway, -US59N, Eastex Freeway. All are single lanes,
reversible, closed at night and weekends, designed principally to provide extended peak hours
congestion avoidance.
Currently, METRO HOT Lanes Corridors are in operation along

IH 45 South

IH 45 North

US 59 South

US 59 North

US 290
Tolls are based on time of day and the congestion level of each of the METRO HOT Lanes
corridors. The toll rates for specific corridors are prominently displayed along each corridor at
the entrances.
Drivers without passengers are allowed to use the system by paying a toll with an authorized
toll tag. This includes a METRO HOT Lanes Toll Tag, Harris County EZ TAG, TxDOT’s TxTAG or the
Dallas NTTA Toll Tag. Traffic monitoring systems help METRO maintain traffic speeds to ensure
optimal travel times for existing HOV Lane users, as well those using the METRO HOT Lanes.
The HOT Lanes are not open during the peak periods of traffic. The HOV/HOT Lane system is
intended to give precedence to HOV users. The METRO HOT Lanes were designed to make
better use of available space on the HOV lanes during periods of time when traffic is not at its
peak. However, if the HOT lanes were open at the peak periods, so many people would be in
the lane, it would eliminate any time-savings for everyone involved.
81
April 2014
DRAFT
Figure 3-1. HOT Lane Network.
Evaluating Emission Changes from HOT Lanes
HOT lanes can decrease congestion by allowing SOV users to use underutilized capacity. In the
Houston region, this is only allowed during off-peak hours, since the use of the HOV lanes by
carpoolers results in full and over-capacity usage of the HOV lanes during peak period. This
benefit can be swamped by exogenous changes in travel. For example, as described below, an
increase in the economic vibrancy and growth in population and employment in the region
have resulted in a slowing of traffic speeds along all the highway corridors irrespective of
whether HOV lanes were converted.
An ongoing study measuring the effects of HOT lane conversions in several U.S. cities is also
indicating that the ability to use toll lanes by SOV drivers can lower the number of carpools.
However this result was most prominent when a simultaneous change was made in the
required number of passenger to qualify as a carpool, making it difficult to determine the
source of the decrease in the number of multi-passenger cars.
The primary benefit of HOV/HOT lanes is improvements to traffic flow. It is recommended that
before and after estimates of traffic volumes and speeds by lane be evaluated in order to
determine the emission changes from these measures. This has been discussed with the H-GAC
travel modeling section and travel model or possibly traffic sensor data (observed data as being
used in a national study of the benefits in 5 cities) could be used to determine before and after
traffic volumes and speeds. It would take significant resources for the travel modeling section
to model the scenarios but they have indicated that it is technically feasible.
Agencies in the region have been monitoring traffic and speeds along the converted highways.
They have concluded that daily traffic data does not suggest that speeds in the HOV Lanes have
82
April 2014
DRAFT
dropped due to solo drivers; however, speeds on the HOV Lanes - even corridors that have not
been converted to HOT Lanes - have dropped in general.
For example, the average speed on the IH-45 South HOV/HOT lane is 59 mph from 5 - 6 a.m.
and 54 mph from 6 - 7 a.m. Between 5 - 6 a.m., there is an average of 32 solo drivers and 240
solo drivers between 6 - 7 a.m. Even with the significant increase in METRO HOT Lanes users
during the 6 - 7 a.m. period, the average speed changes very little.
One of the key reasons for slower speeds is additional cars/drivers on the roads (HOV/HOT
Lanes and the main lanes), due to a pick-up in the economy. Traffic counts for all corridors are
up almost 10 percent in the lanes. With more people going to work each day, the additional
cars create slower speeds across every corridor.
Control Measure 15: Clean Cities Technical Coalition
The clean cities technical coalition provides the forum for the Clean Cities program efforts. It is
comprised of fleet administrators, fuel providers, automobile manufacturers, and others who
are interested in seeing an increased use of alternative fuels, extend refueling infrastructure,
and educate benefits of using alternative fuels. Furthermore, the coalition supports the use of
hybrid vehicles, fuel blends, fuel economy practices and idle-reduction technology. The
Coalition is a fuel-neutral, community-based advisory board that supports the use of alternative
fuels and clean technology options to improve air quality and create energy diversity.
Control Measure 16: Heavy-duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
In general, heavy-duty vehicles are not part of the current inspection and maintenance (I/M)
program, but there may be an emission reduction opportunity with heavy-duty vehicles.
All gasoline vehicles 2-24 years old are subject to inspection in the current I/M program. MY
1995 and older vehicles over 8,500 lbs receive a Two-Speed Idle (TSI) inspection rather than the
ASM inspection required for light-duty gasoline vehicles. MY 1996 and newer vehicles are onboard diagnostic (OBD) tested, if available, and the emissions inspection consists of checking
whether or not the vehicle’s malfunction indicator light (or check engine light) is on plus a gas
cap test. To date, the program has not been evaluated for emission reduction potential for
heavy-duty gasoline vehicles as OBD was not required on these vehicles until the 2004 model
year.
Diesel vehicles less than 8,500 lbs GVWR must be equipped with OBD systems since the 1997
MY, vehicles 8,500-14,000 lbs GVWR must be equipped with OBD systems since MY 2005 and
OBD is required for all HDDVs over 14,000 GVWR beginning with the 2010 model year.
Programs that use opacity testing only for HDDVs are operated in a number of states.
However, even the snap acceleration test has limitations such as insensitivity to fine PM
generated by modern diesel engine systems and the fact that the opacity measurement is
during unloaded engine operation rather than under load. As tuning for PM by making the fuel-
83
April 2014
DRAFT
air mixture leaner can increase NOx emissions, an inspection program that controls for opacity
but not for NOx may raise NOx levels.
In the Greater Vancouver study referenced below63, Envirotest Canada demonstrated two
technologies for HDV I/M; the Heavy Duty Emissions Tunnel (HDET) and Remote Sensing Device
(RSD), with the tunnel serving as a practical HDV I/M emissions test and RSD serving as a
complimentary on-road screening tool just as it serves in LDV I/M. Both test technologies
detect NOx VOC and PM emissions. The RSD uses UV light (~230nm) to measure opacity
because of its far greater sensitivity to fine particle matter than the traditional green light
(550nm) used in opacity meters, and because the channel at that wavelength is more sensitive
to the particles comprising most of the particulate mass emitted by today’s diesel vehicles.
The HDET Test used a long tent as a sampling chamber and some of the same analyzers used at
LDV dynamometer testing facilities to collect and integrate an exhaust sample of a 7-10 second
real-world drive cycle. The sampling tent was 50 feet long, 15 feet wide and 18 feet high at it
apex. The structure overlay a section of road populated with HDV traffic – in this case at a
weigh station. The length of the tunnel allowed exhaust from an accelerating high-tailpipe HDV
to be contained and collected. At the apex of the tunnel there was a pipe about 16 feet above
the roadway with 50 holes drilled one foot apart. An inline air fan drew air from inside the tent
(along with truck exhaust) through the holes and down the pipe to a set of emission analyzers
for integral measurement. The collected exhaust sample included the emissions from multiple
accelerator positions as the HDV up-shifted gears while gaining speed.
Texas A&M Transportation Institute in a study for North Central Texas Council of Governments
(NCTCOG) used a similar tunnel, referred to in their study as Streamlined Heavy-Duty Emissions
Determination (SHED).64 The conclusion of the tunnel study was that the accuracy and the
ability to measure more emissions parameters make it a very promising technology. In
addition, the control over the test process is reasonably high. If the truck does not accelerate
properly through the test, the inspector can require it to go through again thus allowing one
reading to be used as the screen.

While concluding that OBD (which is now standard on all MY 2010 and newer HDDVs) is a
viable long-term solution to HDDV emissions testing, the SHED testing approach evaluated
as part of the Texas A&M/NCTCOG study was deemed to be a useful technology for the
short term in the following scenarios:

Implementation of a conventional I/M program based on SHED only – in which all HDDVs
registered in the program area need to pass SHED testing.
63
Greater Vancouver Regional District Remote Sensing Device Trial for Monitoring Heavy Duty VehicleEmissions. Envirotest
Canada, March 2013
64 Texas A&M Institute for North Central Texas Council of Governments and Texas Department of Transportation: Heavy Duty
Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Pilot Program: May 2013 (revised Oct 2013).
84
April 2014
DRAFT

Conventional remote sensing deployed at checkpoints to screen for potential High Emitters,
similar to the light-duty vehicle (LDV) on-road inspection program, followed by SHED testing
at a test facility.

SHED testing used for preliminary screening, followed by chassis dynamometer testing for
high-emitting HDDVs. This can be conducted through an approach similar to the LDV onroad inspection program, where vehicles screened as HEs (either through SHED or
conventional remote sensing) are notified and required to pass an emissions test at a
testing facility. Alternatively, vehicles can be made to pass through the SHED for real-time
screening, followed by immediate testing of HEs using a chassis dynamometer set-up.
Administration Resources
The administration of an inspection program for heavy-duty would likely build off the light-duty
vehicle AirCheck program.
Project Funding (Other Costs)
Registration or inspection fees would be used to fund the administration and on-going program
costs.
Multi‐pollutant Reduction Analysis
Currently, MOVES modeling does not quantify PM benefits from emissions testing gasoline
fueled vehicles. There is, however, an implicit acknowledgement that I/M for gasoline fueled
vehicles is likely to have a beneficial impact on emissions beyond HC, CO, and NOx such as
toxics and PM.
There is also currently no emissions credit in MOVES for emissions testing of diesel fueled
vehicles because it is unclear that there is a positive impact on PM emissions as a result of some
of the tests currently used to screen diesel vehicles, like the snap-idle opacity test. Regarding
diesel OBD based I/M testing, the vehicles in question are either too few (OBD-equipped lightduty diesel vehicles) or too new (OBD-equipped medium to heavy duty diesel vehicles) to be
included in MOVES runs.
This analysis is not able to assess project funding and cost effectiveness.
Costs and Cost Effectiveness
Costs and benefits are unknown.
Other Benefits or Considerations
Unknown until program is implemented.
85
April 2014
DRAFT
SECTION 4: ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION RELATED EMISSION REDUCTION
MEASURES
H-GAC and its oversight committees have sought to better understand the emission reduction
potential of a wide range of potential programs. To date, the potential program list includes
the following, listed in Table 4-1 along with our qualitative estimate of the potential of each
measure. The measures listed here are unlikely to produce large emissions reductions, except
for paving high fugitive dust areas near sensitive receptors.
Table 4-1. Summary of Additional Measures with Qualitative Emission Reduction and Cost
Effectiveness Rankings.
Measure
Overweight trucking route
Barge transport/return of empty shipping containers from the Port of Freeport
to Port of Houston
First and last mile deliveries: bottlenecks and emission reduction potential
INVEST self-assessment tool to evaluate and improve the sustainability of plans
and projects
PM2.5 reductions for paving projects
Buffer zones
Automated gates optical character recognition (OCR) and drayage truck driving
directions at the Port of Houston
Corridor Specific TDM Planning: Real World Example
Eco-Driving
86
Emission
Reduction
Low
Low
Cost
Effectiveness
Poor
Unknown
Low
N/A
Unknown
N.A
High
N/A
Low
Medium
N.A
Medium
Low
Low
Poor
Poor
April 2014
DRAFT
Dedicated Overweight Truck Routes
An overweight or dedicated truck route can improve emission by reducing stop and go
emissions, and allowing overweight trucks may reduce the number of truck trips. This measure
would create dedicated routes able to allow overweight trucks.
Dedicated routes can provide a benefit without an overweight allowance by smoothing the
traffic flow. In other transportation measures, such as traffic signal improvements, traffic flow
improvements have been shown to reduce emissions rates by 5 – 10% for regional fleets. The
relative benefit may be higher with heavy-duty trucks than for light-duty vehicles because
braking, idling, and acceleration are high emissions modes for trucks.
How overweight trucks affect emissions depends upon the incremental increase in emissions
due to the extra truck loading and the reduced truck trips from normal weight trucks. The
incremental increase in overweight truck emissions requires further study, but the MOVES
model provides methods to evaluate the effect of increased vehicle loads on emission rates. An
investigation of the extra weight on the trucks will be required to estimate the reduction in the
number of normal weight trucks trips.
Overall emission reductions will also depend on the dedicated truck routes and the expected
usage of those routes. Other considerations of this measure include whether infrastructure
costs are incurred to allow overweight trucks, create grade separation or other network
planning will allow such trucks routes to be constructed. Traffic congestion mitigation benefits
of dedicated truck routes could be important separate of the emissions reductions.
Barge Transport
Barge transport or short sea shipping has been offered as an alternative to over the road
trucking to reduce road congestion and reduce emissions. One such operation suggested is to
move empty shipping containers from Freeport to the Port of Houston via tug and barge rather
than by truck as has been done to date.
Data required are number of containers per barge and per truck trip, average age distributions
of tugs and trucks, trip speed and engine load, and mileage. The mileage appears to be similar
but shorter by land than by sea based on typical road routes (60 miles to Bayport and 67 miles
to Barbours Cut) and by inland waterway in Google Earth (68 miles to Bayport and 71 miles to
Barbours Cut) .
Because marine engine emission standards have lagged those for on-road trucks, tug and barge
transport may have higher emissions rates until the marine engines have been upgraded to
similar emission reduction technology as those for on-road vehicles.
87
April 2014
DRAFT
First and Last Mile Deliveries
The end of long trips (whether by ship, train, or long-haul truck) is often at a large distribution
center and then ultimate delivery is accomplished by short trips to customer. For example,
intermodal rail or port trips involve local drayage trucks at the beginning or end of the rail trip
and could be used as an example of such activity. However, this proposed measure needs to
better define the specific bottleneck reduction and proposed improvement.
INVEST Self-Assessment Tool
The INVEST (Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Tool) self-assessment tool is a
newer Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) web-based collection of voluntary best
practices, called criteria, designed to help transportation agencies integrate sustainability into
their programs (policies, processes, procedures and practices) and projects. INVEST is not a
measure to evaluate, nor does it suggest measures or evaluate them at the level of detail
appropriate for a multi-pollutant analysis. Therefore it is not likely that it will be of great
interest in Task 3. We will explore the possibility of applying Project Development Criteria for
PD-06: Tracking Environmental Commitments; PD-10: Pedestrian Access; and PD-11: Bicycle
Access on project specifications that add pedestrian and bicycle capacity or use (such as new
bicycle technology that gives bikes a mechanical boost for longer distances and use on hills) as
part of a scoring analysis to determine the potential applicability of additional measures to
reduce PM2.5 or ozone precursors. Because the tool does not provide the level of detail
normally used in emission control measure assessments it may not be applicable to the H-GAC
multi-pollutant program. The tool does not constitute a measure in and of itself.
Road Dust
Fugitive road dust entrainment rates, whether from parking lots or on the network, depend
upon the dust loading, vehicle speed and number of vehicles. Dust loading has been controlled
by paving unpaved surfaces and regular pavement cleaning or watering or other treatment of
unpaved surfaces. The benefits of these programs are proportional to the activity on those
surfaces. Analysis of these projects is relatively straightforward given the level of activity and
understanding of the dust loading of those areas.
In recent years, the Port of Houston Authority (PHA) established and began implementation of
dust suppression programs. Dust suppression materials are regularly applied to unpaved lots
and several unpaved lots and roads have been paved since 2008. Additional dust suppression
paving projects are planned along with continued dust suppression material application.
Buffer Zones
Buffer zones, barriers and planted vegetation have been suggested as options to reduce
exposure to vehicle emissions. Baldauf et al. (2013) report a reduction of near roadway
particulate matter due to roadside barriers. However little study has been conducted to
determine how regional air quality can be affected by such buffer zones.
88
April 2014
DRAFT
Automated Gates at Intermodal Yards
Ports and rail intermodal yards have been employing optical character recognition (OCR) and
gate or cell phone applications to provide drayage truck driving directions. These innovations
have been shown to reduce queuing times and may reduce in yard driving that will reduce truck
emissions.
PHA implemented an automated gate system with OCR portal to automate equipment
identification, traffic processing and damage inspection imaging at the entry gate of the
Barbours Cut and Bayport container terminals. The system automatically identifies containers,
chassis, and license plates associated with the equipment. Since implementation, PHA has
transformed the gate into a free-flowing process – processing takes about half the time it did
prior to gate automation. Gate OCR installation enabled PHA to process trucks twice as fast
and reduced truck idling time by 48%, dramatically reducing emissions.
Corridor Specific TDM Planning: Real World Example
Corridor specific travel demand management is a targeted way to decrease emissions through
the encouragement of alternative mode use for specific areas or situations. A December, 2013
CMAQ proposal for the 290 corridor65 included plans to utilize a real-time ridesharing
application by Northern California based Carma (also called Avego) to shift a significant portion
of commuters in the Hwy 290 corridor from driving alone to carpooling.
With regard to the energy corridor, the construction activity on highway 290 is expected to
exacerbate existing traffic congestion problems as commuters seek alternate routes to final
destinations, including traffic arteries into I-10W.
Carma is a commercial off-the shelf software application that can be accessed from a desktop
browser or smartphone, somewhat similar to the NuRide application. Carma enables private
cars to become part of the public transport network by providing a marketplace for drivers to
offer their unused seats to other people in real time. The Carma system combines gps-enabled
real-time ride matching with fully automated payment transaction management, instant
messaging, push notifications, safety features, and commute reporting to enable more flexible
and verifiable carpooling.
Through this approach drivers are offered a means of saving time and money on their commute
without having to stick to rigid carpooling schedules, while riders get the benefit of a
convenient, safe and affordable alternative to driving alone.
The proposers based their estimates are based on TXDOT’s 2012 traffic counts along the
Highway 290 corridor, and participation rates experienced in the San Francisco Carma project
(1.75 percent participation rates). Using these estimates the proposers estimated that a fully
65
Highway 290 Construction Zone Congestion Mitigation Plan Submitted to The Texas Department of
Transportation By The Energy Corridor District and TREK December 2, 2013
89
April 2014
DRAFT
implemented Carma Project would result in a reduction of more than 2.7 million vehicle trips
over the 5-year grant period and a reduction of more than 30.9 million vehicle miles traveled
over the same period. In year 5 they estimated a trip reduction of 1,065,427 and a VMT
reduction of 11,717,319. Because the construction along 290 will be as untenable as it is
expected to be, and drive alone modes could result in a several hour one-way commute, we
assume here that the rate of new ridesharing is equivalent to the area wide carpooling rate of
11 percent instead of 1.75%.
If commuters along I-290 shift to carpooling at the regional rate of 11%, daily trip reductions
will be 18,348 and daily VMT reductions will be 201,785. Table 4-2 presents the associated
emission reductions based on the activity and vehicles involved.
Table 4-2. Emission Factors and Results for Corridor Specific Carpooling Along 290
Construction Corridor.
Pollutant
Running Emissions (g/mile)
Start Emissions (g/start)
Emission Reduction (tons/day)
VOC
0.058
0.66
0.026
NOx
0.18
0.54
0.051
CO
2.07
5.7
0.58
PM2.5
0.0095
0.007
0.002
CO2
369.5
59.8
83.3
Eco-Driving
The definition of eco-driving can include a number of techniques and behaviors to reduce the
emissions during operation. A succinct description of eco-driving is provided here:
“Eco-driving, sometimes called green driving, refers to techniques drivers can use to
maximize their mileage while saving fuel and minimizing tailpipe emissions. Simple ecodriving maneuvers include accelerating slowly, avoiding sudden braking, keeping tires
properly inflated, and maintaining a steady speed.” http://its.berkeley.edu/node/3532/
Essentially, eco-driving could include a number of initiatives from operator education, fleet
management, and technology to provide operator feedback and route planning. Ecodriving can
result in reducing braking and idling events thus providing measureable emissions reductions.
Insurance companies are promoting eco-driving while calling it pay-as-you-drive. Participating
motorists install mechanisms such as OnStar in their vehicles and the incidence of slow
acceleration, proper braking, and steady speeds, as well as maintenance factors such as tire
pressure are recorded electronically. Because motorists who drive this way have been shown
to be of less risk than the general population of drivers, insurance rates can be lowered. In
conversations with the insurance industry in 2012 it became clear that the amount of driving is
not as great a factor in driving risk as the style of driving. The insurance companies are calling
programs that promote smoother driving the wave of the future and are certain that a large
proportion of insured drivers will be utilizing this type of program in the future.
90
April 2014
DRAFT
A study of Eco Driving in California presented at the 2013 TRB conference66 evaluated the
behavioral modifications that drivers can make to improve their fuel economy. In this study,
dynamic ecodriving comprised the use of real-time feedback information that informed the
driver of vehicle performance.
The study evaluated the performance of an aftermarket real-time feedback device that
reported instantaneous fuel economy to drivers while driving. 18 study participants drove with
the device for two months. During the first month, the device provided no feedback, but
collected data on driving activity. During the second month, the device continued to collect
data, but also provided the participant with feedback on real-time fuel economy. Participants
could then use the information to self-teach how to improve their fuel economy. The
participants took two surveys to evaluate their response to the device, and vehicle activity data
was analyzed to ascertain the degree to which driving behavior changed.
A majority (56%) reported in surveys that the device changed how they drove during the
second month. Vehicle activity data showed that different participants modified different
behaviors in response to the feedback. Half the participants made some reduction to their
acceleration from a stop, and eight made some reduction in the magnitude of their
deceleration to a stop. Eleven participants reduced their average highway speeds. Across the
broader sample, average highway speeds declined from 65.9 to 65.4 mph. Overall changes
observed in fuel efficiency were small across the sample, which when excluding outliers,
constituted a 1.4% improvement in fuel economy.
If a similar approach were utilized in the Houston region with similar effects, we could
hypothesize that a 1.4 percent improvement in fuel economy in 50% of participants could
result. A rough estimate of the effects is analyzed as follows:
1. Assume 0.1 percent of Houston driving improves fuel economy by 1.4 percent (a 1.4
percent reduction in emissions is assumed)
2. Total daily VMT in the region is 178,317,400. 0.1 percent (the hypothesized participation
rate) is 0.047 tpd of NOx, 0.040 tpd of VOC, 0.001 tpd of PM2.5, 65 tpd of CO2, and 0.52tpd
of CO.
3. A 1.4 percent reduction in these emissions would be equivalent to negligible emission
reductions.
4. If the participation rate were increased to 1 percent the emission decrease would rise to 5.6
thousandths of a ton of NOx, still quite small.
Because the likely emission reductions are so small and the program is hypothetical and not yet
under discussion by any committees in the region, an estimate of possible costs and cost
effectiveness is not available at this time.
66
“Dynamic Ecodriving in Northern California: A Study of Survey and Vehicle Operations Data from an Ecodriving Feedback
Device” Martin, Boriboonsomsin, Chan, Williams, Shaheen and Barth, 2013 TRB annual Meeting.
91
April 2014
DRAFT
REFERENCES
ARB, 2004. Executive Order DE-04-008. Technology Verification for Lubrizol’s PuriNOx.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/level2/eopurinox080404.pdf.
Baldauf , Richard, G. McPherson , L. Wheaton , M. Zhang , T. Cahill, C. Bailey, C. Hemphill Fuller ,
E. Withycombe , and K. Titus, 2013. “Integrating Vegetation and Green Infrastructure
into Sustainable Transportation Planning.” Transportation Research News, September–
October 2013.
CEC, 2003. “Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence”, A Joint Report of the California
Energy Commission and California Air Resources Control Board, P600-03-005F, August
2003.
ENVIRON, 2013c. “Evaluation of Mobile Source Control Measures,” prepared for: HoustonGalveston Area Council, March 2013.
EPA, (1994), “Determination of Significance for Nonroad Sources and Emission Standards for
New Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines At or above 37 Kilowatts; Final Rule,”
Federal Register, v. 59, n. 116, June 17, 1994.
EPA, (1998), “Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad Diesel Engines; Final Rule,”
Available Online; http://www.epa.gov/oms/nonroad.htm, Federal Register v.63 n. 205,
October 23, 1998.
EPA, 2001. “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements,”
EPA, 2002a. “Impacts of Lubrizol’s PuriNOx Water/Diesel Emulsion on Exhaust Emissions from
Heavy Duty Engines.” Draft Technical Report. EPA 420-P-02-007. December.
http://www.epa.gov/oms/models/p02007.pdf
EPA, 2002b. “Fact sheet: Clean Alternative Fuels: Fischer-Tropsch”, EPA420-F-00-036,
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/420f00036.pdf
EPA, 2003. “The Effect of Cetane Number Increase Due to Additives on NOx Emissions from
Heavy-Duty Highway Engines, Final Technical Report”, EPA420-R-03-002, February 2003.
Gautam, M. 2002. “Testing for Exhaust Emissions of Diesel Powered Off- Road Engines,” Project
Reference Number: ARB Contract Number 98-317, Final Project Report, May 29, 2002,
prepared for the California Air Resources Board and the California Environmental
Protection Agency.
US Department of Energy, 2013. Alternative Fuels Data Center. xTL Fuels. Accessed online at:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/emerging_xtl_fuels.html
92
April 2014
DRAFT
APPENDIX
Supplemental Information
April 2014
DRAFT
Supplemental Information
Table A-1.
Emission Standards for New Compression-ignition Engines.
Engine Power
kW<8
(hp<11)
8kW<19
(11hp<25)
19kW<37
(25hp<50)
19kW<56
(25hp<75)
37kW<75
(50hp<100)
75kW<130
(100hp<175)
Tier
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 4
Tier 1
1998
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
(<75 hp)
Tier 4
(≥75 hp)
2004
2008
2008
2013
2011 –
2013
Tier 1
1997
Tier 2
Tier 3
2003
2007
2011 –
2013
225kW<450
(300hp<600)
CO g/kW-hr
(g/hp-hr)
8.0 (6.0)
8.0 (6.0)
--6.6 (4.9)
6.6 (4.9)
--5.5 (4.1)
5.5 (4.1)
4.7 (3.5)
---
5.0 (3.7)
5.0 (3.7)
0.40 (0.30)
4.7 (3.5)
---
0.30 (0.22)
0.03 (0.02)
---
0.013 (0.01)
None
None
(smoke)
5.0 (3.7)
5.0 (3.7)
0.30 (0.22)
---
0.013 (0.01)
8.5
0.54 (0.4)
1996
Tier 2
2003
Tier 3
2006
4.0 (3.0)
Tier 4
2011 –
2014
Tier 1
1996
Tier 2
Tier 3
2001
2006
2011 –
2014
0.4 (0.3) NOx
0.19 (0.14) NMHC
9.25 (6.9) NOX
1.3 (1.0) HC
6.4 (4.8)
4.0 (3.0)
0.4 (0.3) NOx
0.19 (0.14) NMHC
9.25 (6.9) NOX
1.3 (1.0) HC
6.4 (4.8)
4.0 (3.0)
0.4 (0.3) NOx
0.19 (0.14) NMHC
Tier 1
1996
Tier 2
Tier 3
2002
2006
2011 –
2014
Tier 4
PM g/kW-hr
(g/hp-hr)
1.0 (0.75)
0.80 (0.60)
0.40 (0.30)
0.80 (0.60)
0.80 (0.60)
0.40 (0.30)
0.80 (0.60)
0.60 (0.45)
0.30 (0.22)
0.03 (0.02)
None
(smoke)
9.25 (6.9) NOX
1.3 (1.0) HC
7.5 (5.6)
4.7 (3.5)
Tier 1
Tier 4
450kW560
(600hp750)
NMHC + NOX
g/kW-hr (g/hp-hr)
10.5 (7.8)
7.5 (5.6)
--9.5 (7.1)
7.5 (5.6)
--9.5 (7.1)
7.5 (5.6)
0.4 (0.3) NOx
0.19 (0.14) NMHC
9.25 (6.9) NOX
1.3 (1.0) HC
6.6 (4.9)
4.0 (3.0)
0.4 (0.3) NOx
0.19 (0.14) NMHC
9.25 (6.9) NOX
1.3 (1.0) HC
6.6 (4.9)
Tier 4
130kW<225
(175hp<300)
Model
Year
2000
2005
2008
2000
2005
2008
1999
2004
2008
2013
A-1
None
3.5 (2.6)
0.20 (0.15)
3.5 (2.6)
---
0.013 (0.01)
8.5
0.54 (0.4)
3.5 (2.6)
3.5 (2.6)
0.20 (0.15)
---
0.013 (0.01)
8.5
0.54 (0.4)
3.5 (2.6)
3.5 (2.6)
0.20 (0.15)
---
0.013 (0.01)
April 2014
DRAFT
Engine Power
kW>560
(hp>750)
Tier
Model
Year
Tier 1
2000
Tier 2
2006
Tier 4A
2011
Tier 4B
2015
NMHC + NOX
g/kW-hr (g/hp-hr)
9.25 (6.9) NOX
1.3 (1.0) HC
6.4 (4.8)
3.5 (2.6) NOx
0.40 (0.30) NMHC
0.67 (0.5)†
0.67 (0.5)††
0.19 (0.14) NMHC
CO g/kW-hr
(g/hp-hr)
PM g/kW-hr
(g/hp-hr)
8.5
0.54 (0.4)
3.5 (2.6)
0.20 (0.15)
---
0.10 (0.075)
0.027 / 0.40
(0.02 / 0.03)*
Table A-2.
Emission Factors for Combination Short Haul Trucks at an Area-wide Average
Speed of 40 mph.
Model Year
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
NOx
(g/mile)
33.612
33.612
25.958
23.986
23.986
23.986
23.986
23.986
23.986
23.986
21.508
15.641
15.745
15.899
15.431
8.119
8.119
8.119
8.119
4.060
4.058
4.058
1.441
1.441
1.441
1.267
1.267
0.912
0.912
0.912
0.912
PM2.5
(g/mile)
1.277
1.280
1.294
1.282
1.256
1.301
1.372
1.371
1.372
1.370
0.824
0.827
0.835
0.847
0.810
0.732
0.732
0.732
0.732
0.040
0.034
0.034
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.028
0.028
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
A-2
April 2014
DRAFT
Table A-3.
Model Year
<2000
<2000
<2000
<2000
<2000
<2000
<2000
<2000
<2000
<2000
<2000
<2000
Tier 1 >2000
>2000
>2000
>2000
>2000
>2000
>2000
>2000
>2000
>2000
>2000
>2000
Emission Factors for Diesel Marine Engines.67
Power and Displacement
(l/cylinder)
And disp. <0.9
<0.9
<0.9
<0.9
0.9 ≤ disp. < 1.2
1.2 ≤ disp. < 2.5
2.5 ≤ disp. < 3.5
3.5 ≤ disp. < 5.0
5.0 ≤ disp. < 15
15 ≤ disp. < 20
20 ≤ disp. < 25
25 ≤ disp. < 30
And disp. <0.9
<0.9
<0.9
<0.9
0.9 ≤ disp. < 1.2
1.2 ≤ disp. < 2.5
2.5 ≤ disp. < 3.5
3.5 ≤ disp. < 5.0
5.0 ≤ disp. < 15
15 ≤ disp. < 20
20 ≤ disp. < 25
25 ≤ disp. < 30
Power (kW)
<8
<16
<37
37 or more
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
<8
<16
<37
37 or more
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
Emission Factor (g/kW-h)a
HC
CO
NOx
PM10
2.01
6.71
13.41
1.341
2.28
6.71
11.4
1.207
2.41
6.71
9.25
1.073
0.41
1.6
10
0.54
0.32
1.6
10
0.47
0.27
1.6
10
0.34
0.27
1.6
10
0.3
0.27
1.8
11
0.3
0.134
2.48
13.36
0.32
0.134
2.48
13.36
0.32
0.134
2.48
13.36
0.32
0.134
2.48
13.36
0.32
1.02
5.51
7.013
0.603
0.59
2.9
5.95
0.362
0.375
2.05
6.34
0.456
0.41
1.6
9.8
0.54
0.32
1.6
9.8
0.47
0.27
1.6
9.8
0.34
0.27
1.6
9.1
0.3
0.27
1.8
9.2
0.3
0.134
2.48
10.55
0.32
0.134
2.48
10.55
0.32
0.134
2.48
10.55
0.32
0.134
2.48
10.55
0.32
a - VOC and PM2.5 emissions are derived from HC and PM10 emissions as per NONROAD model
(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonrdmdl.htm)
67
EPA, 2008. “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine
Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters Per Cylinder,” EPA420-R-08-001, March; reviewed via personal communication
with Penny Carey, EPA 2011.
A-3
April 2014
DRAFT
Table A-4.
Model
Year
2005
2004
2004
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
Table A-5.
Power Density
All
EPA Tier 2 Exhaust Emission Standards for US Flagged Vessels.
THC + NOx
CO
PM
Power and Displacement
(l/cylinder)
g/kW-hr
g/kW-hr
g/kW-hr
Power < 37 kW
7.5
5.0
0.40
And disp. <0.9
0.9 ≤ disp. < 1.2
7.2
5.0
0.30
1.2 ≤ disp. < 2.5
7.2
5.0
0.20
2.5 ≤ disp. < 5.0
7.2
5.0
0.20
5.0 ≤ disp. < 15
7.8
5.0
0.27
15 ≤ disp. < 20
8.7
5.0
0.50
Power <3300 kW
15 ≤ disp. < 20
9.8
5.0
0.50
Power >3300 kW
20 ≤ disp. < 25
9.8
5.0
0.50
25 ≤ disp. < 30
11.0
5.0
0.50
EPA Tier 3 Exhaust Emission Standards for US Flagged Vessels.
Displacement
(l/cylinder)
disp. < 0.9
disp. < 0.9
0.9 ≤ disp. < 1.2
1.2 ≤ disp. < 2.5
Engine with
kW/L ≤ 35
Maximum Engine
Power
kW < 19
19 ≤ kW < 75
kW ≥ 75
All
kW < 600
kW ≥ 600
2.5 ≤ disp. < 3.5
kW < 600
kW ≥ 600
3.5 ≤ disp.< 7.0
Engines with
kW/L > 35
disp. < 0.9
0.9 ≤ disp. < 1.2
1.2 ≤ disp. < 2.5
2.5 ≤ disp. < 3.5
3.5 ≤ disp. < 7.0
7.0 ≤ disp. < 15.0
All
15.0 ≤ disp. < 20.0
20.0 ≤ disp. < 25.0
25.0 ≤ disp. < 30.0
kW < 600
kW ≥ 600
kW ≥ 75
All
kW < 2000
2000 ≤ kW < 3700
kW < 2000
kW < 2000
kW < 2000
A-4
Model Year
2009+
2009-2013
2014+
2012+
2013+
2014-2017
2018+
2014+
2013-2017
2018+
2013+
2012-2017
2018+
2012+
2012+
2013+
2014+
2013+
2012+
2013+
2013+
2014+
2014+
2014+
HC+NOx
(g/kW-hr)
7.5
7.5
4.7
5.4
5.4
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
6.2
7.8
7.0
9.8
11.0
PM
(g/kW-hr)
0.40
0.30
0.30
0.14
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.15
0.14
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.14
0.14
0.34
0.27
0.27
April 2014
DRAFT
Table A-6.
EPA Tier 4 Exhaust Emission Standards for US Flagged Vessels.68
Maximum Engine
Power
600 ≤ kW < 1400
1400 ≤ kW < 2000
2000 ≤ kW < 3700
kW ≥ 3700
Table A-7.
Year.
Short Term
Model Year
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
Displacement
(l/cylinder)
All
All
All
disp. <15.0
15.0 ≤ disp.< 30.0
All
Model Year
2017+
2016+
2014+
2014-2015
2014-2015
2016+
HC
(g/kW-hr)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
NOx
(g/kW-hr)
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
PM
(g/kW-hr)
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.12
0.25
0.06
MOVES2010a (March, 2012 MOVES) PM2.5 Idle Emission Rates (g/hr) by Model
Single Unit
Short Haul
Long Haul
0.171
0.171
0.171
0.171
0.171
0.171
0.171
0.171
0.248
0.248
0.248
0.248
0.294
0.294
0.294
0.294
0.294
0.294
0.311
0.311
0.311
0.311
0.370
0.370
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.0
8.0
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
Combination
Short Haul
Long Haul
0.180
0.183
0.180
0.183
0.180
0.183
0.180
0.183
0.257
0.259
0.257
0.259
0.294
0.294
0.294
0.294
0.294
0.294
0.311
0.311
0.311
0.311
0.370
0.370
6.9
6.7
6.9
6.7
6.9
6.7
6.9
6.7
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.9
7.8
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
68
Extended Idle
Model Year
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
Comb.
Long Haul
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
3.9
4.0
3.9
3.9
6.8
7.0
7.0
7.6
7.7
7.8
Code of Federal Regulations 2008. “PART 1042-CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE MARINE COMPRESSIONIGNITION ENGINES AND VESSELS,” U.S. EPA; Office of Transportation and Air Quality; Assessment and Standards Division,
February 27, 2008.
A-5
April 2014
DRAFT
Table A-8.
Year.
MOVES2010a (March, 2012 MOVES) NOx Idle Emission Rates by (g/hr) Model
Short term (<1 hour) by Source Type
Single
Single
Comb.
Model Year
Short Haul Long Haul Short Haul
2018
4.475
4.475
5.217
2017
4.475
4.475
5.217
2016
4.475
4.475
5.217
2015
4.475
4.475
5.217
2014
6.287
6.287
7.240
2013
6.287
6.287
7.240
2012
7.361
7.361
8.213
2011
7.361
7.361
8.213
2010
7.361
7.361
8.213
2009
20.731
20.731
23.132
2008
20.731
20.731
23.132
2007
20.741
20.741
23.143
2006
41.5
41.5
46.3
2005
41.5
41.5
46.3
2004
41.5
41.5
46.3
2003
41.5
41.5
46.3
2002
95.4
95.4
120.6
2001
93.0
93.0
126.0
2000
94.0
94.0
124.2
1999
93.5
93.5
123.0
1998
99.7
99.7
99.7
1997
118.7
118.7
118.7
1996
118.7
118.7
118.7
1995
118.7
118.7
118.7
1994
118.7
118.7
118.7
1993
118.7
118.7
118.7
1992
118.7
118.7
118.7
1991
118.7
118.7
118.7
1990
126.3
126.3
126.3
1989
163.5
163.5
163.5
1988
163.5
163.5
163.5
Comb.
Long Haul
5.468
5.468
5.468
5.468
7.562
7.562
8.501
8.501
8.501
23.944
23.944
23.955
47.9
47.9
47.9
47.9
129.1
129.5
130.6
129.6
99.7
118.7
118.7
118.7
118.7
118.7
118.7
118.7
126.3
163.5
163.5
A-6
Extended Idle
Comb.
Model Year
Long Haul
2018
158.6
2017
158.6
2016
158.6
2015
158.6
2014
158.6
2013
158.6
2012
158.6
2011
158.6
2010
158.6
2009
158.6
2008
158.6
2007
158.7
2006
179.2
2005
179.2
2004
179.2
2003
179.2
2002
179.2
2001
179.9
2000
182.0
1999
180.2
1998
176.9
1997
178.4
1996
175.0
1995
177.7
1994
177.6
1993
168.4
1992
176.4
1991
176.1
1990
81.3
1989
87.8
1988
89.0
April 2014
DRAFT
Table A-9.
Emissions Factors for Retired and Replaced Passenger Cars.
Model Year
1998
2012
Reduction
Table A-10.
1998
2012
Reduction
PM2.5
(g/mile)
0.023
0.009
0.014
VOC
(g/mile)
2.750
0.184
2.566
NOx
(g/mile)
3.201
0.297
2.904
PM2.5
(g/mile)
0.033
0.014
0.019
Annual Reductions for 2013 Projects (Annual miles, 11,812)
Vehicles Replaced
438 passenger cars
219 passenger trucks
Total grams per year
Table A-12.
NOx
(g/mile)
1.525
0.095
1.430
Emission Factors for Retired and Replaced Passenger Trucks
Model Year
Table A-11.
VOC
(g/mile)
1.157
0.108
1.049
VOC (g)
5,427,258
6,637,801
12,065,059
NOx (g)
7,398,696
7,512,149
14,910,845
PM 2.5 (g)
72,708
49,150
121,858
Total Annual Reductions (5-year Project Life)
Emission Reductions
Tons per year
(1-year 2013 projects))
Tons per year (5-years)
VOC
(tons/year)
NOx
(tons/year)
13.3
66.5
A-7
16.44
82.2
PM
(tons/year)
0.138
0.675
April 2014
DRAFT
Table A-13.
Model
Year
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Single Unit Short-haul Truck Emission Rates in 2018 (g/mile).
VOC
1.070
1.093
1.111
1.137
1.086
1.122
1.116
1.116
1.123
1.136
1.106
1.451
1.441
1.459
1.417
0.859
0.859
0.859
0.859
0.072
0.070
0.070
0.041
0.041
0.041
0.038
0.038
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.033
CO
3.719
3.645
3.587
3.503
3.669
3.553
3.573
3.571
3.552
3.508
3.607
4.334
4.338
4.331
4.347
3.133
3.133
3.133
3.133
0.627
0.625
0.625
0.367
0.367
0.367
0.335
0.335
0.296
0.296
0.296
0.296
NOx
15.562
15.562
12.018
11.062
11.062
11.062
11.062
11.062
11.062
11.062
10.046
5.945
5.976
5.920
6.050
4.909
4.909
4.909
4.909
2.455
2.454
2.454
0.871
0.871
0.871
0.741
0.741
0.527
0.527
0.527
0.527
PM10
0.934
0.949
0.961
0.601
0.626
0.608
0.875
0.875
0.879
0.888
0.467
0.457
0.459
0.456
0.463
0.418
0.418
0.418
0.418
0.022
0.018
0.018
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.015
0.015
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
A-8
PM2.5
0.906
0.921
0.932
0.583
0.607
0.590
0.849
0.849
0.853
0.861
0.453
0.443
0.445
0.442
0.449
0.406
0.406
0.406
0.406
0.021
0.018
0.018
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.014
0.014
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
April 2014
DRAFT
Table A-14.
Model Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Avg. Lifetime
Table A-15.
Model Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Avg. Lifetime
Residential Lawn Mowers (3 – 6 Hp) Emissions (Grams/Year/Piece).
Area Population
(Texas)
9,590
26,850
47,188
70,723
105,386
177,641
403,844
453,633
491,023
520,757
548,703
574,259
VOC
2,299
1,405
1,368
1,344
1,319
631
623
597
588
578
566
551
3,503
Emissions (grams/year/mower)
CO
NOx
PM2.5
18,923
138
17
9,131
115
20
9,094
114
19
9,055
113
19
9,013
112
18
7,497
71
12
7,457
70
12
7,337
66
11
7,290
65
10
7,237
63
9
7,173
61
8
7,090
58
7
43,585
383
58
Residential Leaf Blowers (1 – 3 Hp) Emissions (Grams/Year/Piece).
Area Population
(Texas)
0
3,189
9,741
17,830
30,880
96,885
116,482
128,201
137,364
145,290
VOC
1,190
1,036
1,036
934
934
956
938
876
813
745
4,329
CO
3,400
3,400
3,400
3,400
3,400
3,400
3,349
3,166
2,962
2,718
15,596
A-9
NOx
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
137
PM2.5
106
106
106
106
106
106
104
98
93
87
488