ARB 1998 Criteria and Guidelines for the
Use of Motor Vehicle Registration Fees
Approved
June 25,1998
State of California
California Environmental Protection Agency
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
ARB 1998 Criteria and Guidelines for the
Use of Motor Vehicle Registration Fees
Table of Contents
Page
I.
INTRODUCTION
1
II.
AIR RESOURCES BOARD’S
1995 CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES
3
III.
1998 ADDENDUM TO CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES
10
IV.
DESIGN OF SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATED PROJECTS
13
APPENDIX A: EXAMPLES OF SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS
APPENDIX B: 1998 STATUTES APPLICABLE TO THE
MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE PROGRAM
ARB 1998 Criteria and Guidelines for the
Use of Motor Vehicle Registration Fees
I.
INTRODUCTION
In June 1995, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) first reviewed the local
air quality programs funded by motor vehicle registration fees. State law authorizes air
districts to assess these fees to fund implementation of the California Clean Air Act
(CCAA) and to support motor vehicle air pollution control programs at the local level.
The Board found that the portion of the fees used for CCAA implementation supports
necessary district programs such as air monitoring, modeling, and development of
emission inventories, control strategies, and air quality plans. The Board also found
that these funds support many varied programs that reduce motor vehicle emissions
and demonstrate new clean air technologies. However, the Board also found that
program improvements could be made as more information about successful, costeffective projects is compiled and shared statewide.
To provide guidance to recipient agencies, which include various cities, counties,
congestion management agencies and air districts, the ARB approved “Criteria and
Guidelines for the Use of Motor Vehicle Registration Fees” at a public meeting in
June 1995. The guidelines outline four criteria for designing a local program that meets
the statutory goals for use of motor vehicle registration fees. The ARB guidelines were
adopted to provide a framework for local decision-making and recognize that the criteria
should be applied with consideration of the nature of each district’s air quality problem.
The guidelines also recognize that supplementary criteria may be useful in determining
what projects to fund.
ARB staff presented a status report to the Board in 1997 on statewide progress
in addressing the 1995 Criteria. Staff concluded that air districts are using the money to
meet clean air plan goals; that districts are applying cost-effectiveness criteria in the
selection and evaluation of projects; and that accountability in the use of the funds has
improved. While the overall implementation of the program was found to be sound,
staff did find that an increased emphasis on cost-effectiveness would help achieve
greater emission reductions.
In response, the Board directed staff to work with recipient agencies to
strengthen the cost-effectiveness of the motor vehicle fee program and thus maximize
the air pollution reduced by the program. Specifically, the Board directed staff to meet
with stakeholders, develop further guidance on cost-effective projects, and convene a
statewide technical working group to assist in the effort. In addition, the Board also
Page 1
directed staff to hold a conference on cost-effective projects, investigate the use of
incentives to encourage cost-effectiveness, and report back to the Board.
Outreach Process
In response to the Board’s direction, ARB staff invited representatives from
recipient agencies to participate on a Technical Working Group. The Working Group
first met in November 1997. The staff provided a draft concept paper and received
feedback from the Working Group. Staff also met with smaller groups of recipient
agencies to discuss their specific concerns. In response to comments received, staff
redrafted the paper into its current form.
Statutory Requirements
The purpose of the motor vehicle registration fees as defined by state law is twofold. Revenue from these fees is to be used “solely to reduce air pollution from motor
vehicles and for related planning, monitoring, enforcement, and technical studies
necessary for the implementation of the California Clean Air Act of 1988.” (Health &
Safety Code (HSC) section 44220(b)). Specific statutory requirements applicable to
Sacramento pre-dated this statewide program. These requirements are consistent with
the statewide requirements relative to reducing motor vehicle emissions. Funds
received by Sacramento shall be used to “implement the strategy with respect to the
reduction in emissions from vehicular sources, including, but not limited to, a clean fuels
program and motor vehicle use reduction measures.” (HSC section 41081(b). Separate
statutes related to the Bay Area became effective in 1992. The Bay Area funds may be
used for specific types of projects specified in HSC section 44241(b). These include
clean fuel buses, shuttles, traffic management, vehicle scrappage, smoking vehicle
programs, ridesharing, and bicycle facilities. (See Appendix B for the text of the
authorizing statutes.)
Purpose of Addendum
The Addendum approved by the Board in June 1998 provides further ARB
guidance to recipient agencies regarding the portion of the fees used to fund emission
reduction projects. The 1998 Addendum builds on the existing criteria while taking into
account what has been learned about successful projects over the past several years.
Page 2
II.
AIR RESOURCES BOARD’S 1995 CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES
The Air Resources Board adopted criteria and guidelines for the use of motor
vehicle registration fees by air districts and other recipients at its June 30, 1995,
meeting. The goal of the guidelines is to ensure that these funds are being used
effectively to reduce motor vehicle emissions.
The criteria reflect considerations identified by members of the Board. These
include the need to implement measures in districts' clean air plans, maximize motor
vehicle emission reductions through cost-effective measures, leverage other public and
private funds where possible, and advance new technology.
The criteria reflect the fact that recipient agencies vary in terms of size and
program responsibilities. Air districts are the primary agencies responsible for
developing comprehensive clean air plans that define the strategies necessary to attain
state and federal air quality standards. Transportation, congestion management, and
local government agencies are partners in the planning process, and are responsible
for implementing many of the mobile source measures in the district plans.
The criteria and guidelines serve as a framework for use of the funds. The ARB
supports local flexibility and decision-making in the use of the revenues and intends
that districts and other recipient agencies have the opportunity to justify other
approaches to prioritizing use of the funds based on special circumstances. ARB also
recognizes that supplementary criteria such as total emission reductions, rate of
reduction, public acceptability, and enforceability may be useful in determining what
projects to fund.
The criteria and guidelines are consistent with the statutory requirements for use
of funds as described below. State law clearly specifies that these funds be used to
reduce mobile source emissions and to carry out related California Clean Air Act
activities. This guidance is intended to help recipient agencies prioritize the use of the
funds in accordance with these requirements.
In the development of these guidelines, staff also evaluated typical programs
and projects in several categories to determine cost-effectiveness. The results are
detailed in a separate technical support document. Projects funded by air districts, the
cities and counties of the South Coast Air Basin, the Bay Area congestion management
agencies (CMAs), and the South Coast Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review
Committee (MSRC) are included. The cost-effectiveness analyses, in conjunction with
the criteria and guidelines, should help recipient agencies select the most beneficial
projects and programs for future funding.
Page 3
The ARB recommends that recipient air districts and local agencies adopt criteria
and guidelines for use of the funds that are consistent with those promulgated by ARB.
The ARB staff is committed to work with recipient agencies in adopting and
implementing these criteria.
Statutory Requirements
Assessment of motor vehicle registration fees by air districts in California is
authorized under several provisions of state law. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air
Quality Management District (SMAQMD) program was the first to be established
(Statutes of 1988, Chapter 1541). The SMAQMD is authorized to collect these fees
under HSC Section 41016, which specifies the fees be used to implement strategies
reducing emissions from vehicular sources, including but not limited to a clean fuels
program and measures to reduce motor vehicle use.
Later legislation authorized other districts to assess the same fees and specified
similar uses for the funds (AB 2766, Statutes of 1990, Chapter 1705; and AB 434,
Statutes of 1991, Chapter 807). AB 2766 authorized other districts (except Bay Area)
to assess motor vehicle registration fees to reduce motor vehicle emissions and
implement the California Clean Air Act. One year later, AB 434 established a program
specific to the Bay Area.
Legislative findings regarding the use of the funds are found in HSC Section
44220. These findings apply to all districts except Sacramento, which is subject to its
own authorizing statute. The findings are as follows:
(a)
"This chapter is intended to ensure that ... districts, and, in the South
Coast Air Quality Management District, other implementing agencies,
have the necessary funds to carry out their responsibilities for
implementing the California Clean Air Act."
(b)
"The revenues from the fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall
be used solely to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles and for
related planning, monitoring, enforcement, and technical studies
necessary for the implementation of the California Clean Air Act of
1988" (emphasis added).
Page 4
Criteria and Guidelines
1.
Development and Implementation of Clean Air Plans: The first priority for use
of the funds is to implement emission reduction measures and strategies that are
included in districts' clean air plans. At least 50 percent of the total funds spent
in a region should be used for projects that directly reduce mobile source
emissions. A lesser portion of the funds should be used for technical work
necessary to develop and update clean air plans, and monitor progress towards
attainment of air quality standards.
Emission Reduction Programs and Projects
Emission reduction programs and projects should support mobile source
measures and strategies in the district clean air plans. These plans establish the
strategies, timeframe, and quantities of emission reductions needed to attain (and
maintain) air quality standards. That framework should be the basis for expenditure of
these funds.
Air districts, cities and counties, and congestion management agencies should
identify their uses of the motor vehicle fees each year as part of the budget process.
The relative allocation of these dollars for emission reduction projects and technical
support activities should be clearly shown. This will help ensure that the majority of the
funds are used to achieve direct emission reductions.
In the case of air districts, the budgets or expenditure plans should identify the
amount of money allocated to grant programs and to district activities such as air quality
planning and monitoring. Cities and counties that are direct recipients (South Coast)
should include expenditure plans within their budgets. The local governments should
specify the projects and programs to be funded, and demonstrate a clear link to the air
quality plan. Congestion management agencies (counties) in the Bay Area should also
identify the uses of the funds in enough detail to demonstrate that projects meet the
statutory requirements specific to the region.
Detailing use of the funds in the budget processes of the recipient agencies will
help ensure governing board involvement in the allocation process. Once the
allocations are approved by the local governing boards, this information should be
provided to the ARB for inclusion in the statewide biennial review. Recipient agencies
should provide the information to ARB on an annual basis.
For air districts, the primary mechanism for funding emission reduction projects
is through a grant process. Most districts have criteria in place for evaluating potential
projects. These criteria should be expanded, if necessary, to ensure that priority is
given to emission reduction projects that support the clean air plan. State law
specifically provides for a grant program in the South Coast to be implemented by the
South Coast MSRC. The MSRC's grant program should be aligned with the South
Page 5
Coast Air Quality Management District's (South Coast AQMD's) clean air plan.
Most cities, counties, and congestion management agencies do not have criteria
in place that ensure projects are tied to the district air quality plan. Such criteria should
be adopted by the governing boards based on the ARB-developed criteria and
guidelines. Local agencies should familiarize themselves with strategies and measures
in the air district clean air plans and apply funds to implement them. For example, the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has developed a list of
transportation projects for the South Coast Air Basin that are part of the air district plan.
It is also appropriate to use the funds on measures in district plans for which other local
agencies have accepted delegation or provided substitute measures
(e.g., transportation control measures).
As grant programs are administered, priority strategies in district plans should be
identified and funds allocated accordingly. The districts and the MSRC should identify
priority strategies before requests for proposals (RFPs) are prepared. The maximum
amount of funds awarded in each category of RFPs should reflect these priorities;
awards should not be based on the number of grant requests.
In prioritizing projects, all recipient agencies should consider the timing, duration,
and magnitude of emission reductions needed to attain and maintain air quality
standards. Most district plans include a combination of near term and long term
strategies. In regions such as the South Coast, long term strategies are a crucial
element of attainment plans given the persistent air quality problem. Long term
strategies should also be considered in the context of anticipated growth in population
and vehicle travel.
The magnitude of emission reductions from individual projects should also be
considered from an efficiency standpoint. It is more desirable to administer a few
projects with large emission reductions than numerous projects with small individual
benefits.
Grant programs in rural air districts are small or nonexistent since these areas
generally receive less than $150,000 per year. This is appropriate since a grant
program may not be the best use of these limited funds in these cases. Rather than
applying a strict formula for use of the funds, rural districts should assess program
needs and the air quality benefits of proposed projects, and allocate the funds
accordingly. District staff should prepare an allocation plan for consideration by the
governing board in a public process. Allocation plans adopted by governing boards
should demonstrate the air quality benefits associated with the expenditure of these
funds.
All recipient agencies should allocate the funds in a timely manner. If it is
necessary to save some or all of the funds to accumulate adequate funds for a specific
project, it is important that the agencies identify the implementation date and project.
Page 6
Evaluating the results achieved is the final step in assuring accountability.
Planning and Technical Activities
The primary purpose of the funds is to reduce emissions from the use of motor
vehicles. However, state law also recognizes the need to develop clean air plans that
identify the strategies for meeting air quality standards. Ambient air monitoring and
technical studies needed to implement the California Clean Air Act are other eligible
uses of the funds.
To maintain the emphasis on emission reduction programs, less than 50 percent
of the funds spent should be used to develop clean air plans and carry out other
technical work. In the South Coast region, this limitation is statutory; by law the air
district receives 30 percent of the regional funds. Thirty percent is allocated to the
MSRC for emission reduction projects. The largest portion (40 percent) is allocated to
cities and counties, which should spend the vast majority on emission reduction
projects.
The allocation of motor vehicle fees for district planning and technical work
should be detailed in district budgets and approved by governing boards. These
technical activities should not be funded entirely by motor vehicle fees; at most, the
funding should be proportionate to the relative contribution of mobile source emissions.
In terms of priorities, districts should ensure that clean air plans are complete
and updated as required. Planning and technical work necessary to meet statutory
timelines should be considered as priorities are set. In major metropolitan districts with
complex air quality problems, technical activities will need to continue between revisions
to clean air plans. As new information regarding emission inventories, air quality
models, and control strategies becomes available, plans may need refinement between
planning cycles. The need for technical work to support plan revisions should be
considered each year as fees are allocated as part of the budget process.
Local government agencies participate in the air quality planning process since
they are involved in implementing measures in district plans, particularly in the South
Coast. SCAG has a statutory responsibility for developing portions of the district clean
air plan and local agencies participate in that activity. However, local agencies should
spend no more than ten percent of the funds for air quality planning activities since their
responsibilities are limited.
In determining expenditures, districts and other agencies should differentiate
clearly between air quality planning and planning related to measure implementation.
Public Education
The California Clean Air Act requires that districts include a public education
Page 7
element in their attainment plans. HSC Section 40918 states that, "Each district with
moderate air pollution shall, to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the
plan developed pursuant to Section 40913, include the following measures in its
attainment plan: ... Provisions for public education programs to promote actions to
reduce emissions from transportation and areawide sources."
Public education programs can result in behavioral changes that reduce motor
vehicle travel and emissions. However, it is difficult to quantify such reductions and
apply typical cost-effectiveness criteria. For that reason, public education programs
may need to be evaluated with different criteria than are applied to direct emission
reduction programs.
Districts should ensure that public education programs effectively deliver a
focused message that targets behavioral changes that reduce motor vehicle emissions.
The results of public education programs should also be monitored to assess program
effectiveness. Parameters such as reduced travel or changes in travel mode can be
examined through survey techniques.
2.
Cost-Effectiveness: Projects should be prioritized and funded primarily on the
basis of cost-effectiveness. A range of acceptable cost-effectiveness should be
applied for screening purposes, and cost-effectiveness should be a primary
consideration in final funding decisions.
The California Clean Air Act set a precedent for using cost-effectiveness to
prioritize emission reduction measures in clean air plans. The Act requires air quality
plans to assess and list control measures in terms of cost-effectiveness. The air
districts are to consider cost-effectiveness in developing their schedule for
implementing measures, along with other factors including technological feasibility, total
emission reduction potential, rate of reduction, public acceptability, and enforceability
(HSC Section 40922(a)&(b)).
A similar emphasis should be placed on cost-effectiveness as projects are
considered for funding with motor vehicle registration fees. Cost-effectiveness should
be high to ensure the greatest emission reductions possible per dollar spent.
Page 8
As air pollution control programs have been implemented, a generally accepted
range of cost-effectiveness has emerged. The cost of ARB mobile source measures is
typically less than $10,000 per ton of pollutant reduced, although sometimes much
lower. District stationary source measures have at times had higher costs (up to
$20,000), and air pollution offset transactions have resulted in costs as high as $37,000
per ton.
The projects funded over the first years of the motor vehicle registration fee
program have also varied. However, most fall within the range of $5,000 to $20,000 per
ton. Projects under $20,000 per ton should be considered eligible for funding. Projects
with much higher costs should not proceed past the screening process, with the
exception of research or demonstration projects involving new technologies.
Districts and the MSRC should review their grant processes to ensure that costeffectiveness is a high priority as projects are scored and selected. Cost-effectiveness
should be emphasized as requests for proposal are developed.
3.
Leveraging Funds: Emission reduction projects that have co-funding from other
sources (private or public) should be given priority over those that do not, if
leveraging results in a greater benefit per dollar spent.
Federal funds are available to the State to fund transportation programs that
have air quality benefits. Use of district or other air quality funds to attract those funds
is appropriate. Grant programs should be designed (as many are) to give priority to
those programs and projects that have co-funding from one or more sources.
Similarly, co-funding of projects by multiple jurisdictions can "leverage" the effect
of motor vehicle fees. Such efforts can result in efficiencies of scale and avoid
duplication of effort. Cities and counties should pursue co-funding opportunities to
maximize the effectiveness of the dollars spent in a region.
In terms of public education programs, cost sharing among organizations can
increase the efficiency of public education campaigns. In addition, such coordination
helps ensure that the public does not receive competing, overlapping or otherwise
confusing messages.
Projects that are co-funded must be designed to ensure that emission reduction
credits are not generated for sale through use of motor vehicle registration fees. The
sale of emission credits does not clean the air since the credits are used to offset other
emissions. Emission credits should only be generated by co-funders of projects in
proportion to their funding contribution. Where emission reductions are sold or used by
others, the cost-effectiveness of the project is reduced and no true "leveraging" occurs.
Page 9
4.
Demonstration and Introduction of New Technology: The need to develop,
demonstrate, and introduce new technologies (as identified in clean air plans)
should be considered as projects are prioritized for funding. Grant programs
should balance the need to achieve short term emission reductions with the
need for new strategies for the future.
Allocating a portion of motor vehicle fees to new technologies is a good use of
the funds, particularly in areas with long term air quality problems. While near term
measures are needed to clean the air as quickly as possible, longer term strategies that
will provide future benefits are also needed. The clean air plan for the South Coast
region relies on new technology to deliver a significant portion of the emission
reductions after the year 2000. The measures are for the most part undefined and
reliant on technology advances. Other areas will also need new technologies as
population and vehicle travel continue to grow.
It is well recognized that cost-effectiveness of new technology projects may be
poor in the short term because of research and development costs. Longer-term costeffectiveness may be estimated based on the potential for successful implementation
beyond the demonstration stage.
III.
1998 ADDENDUM TO CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES
Setting Project Funding Priorities
Recipient agencies should prioritize project funding based on established criteria
that include ARB’s four criteria and other criteria necessary to address specific local
needs. Strategies for reducing motor vehicle emissions are identified in district clean air
plans. Funding priorities should be consistent with these plans from both a near-term
and long-term perspective. Priorities should also reflect the nature and scope of each
district’s air quality problem and potential multi-pollutant benefits. Air districts should
continue to implement ARB’s 1995 criteria; South Coast cities and counties should
work more closely with the South Coast AQMD to use motor vehicle fees consistent
with ARB criteria and the region’s clean air priorities; and Bay Area congestion
management agencies should prioritize projects within the statutory list based on ARB
criteria and local clean air needs.
Cost-Effectiveness and Leveraging Funds
Cost-effectiveness is expressed as dollars per ton of pollution eliminated. ARB’s
1995 criteria recommend that project cost-effectiveness be $20,000/ton or less. The
criteria also encourage leveraging of the funds. When applying ARB’s criteria, it is
appropriate that leveraged funds be taken into account when estimating costeffectiveness. This can be done by calculating cost-effectiveness based solely on
motor vehicle funding.
Page 10
Leveraging, or co-funding, can stretch air quality dollars. Co-funding offers the
opportunity to partner with other organizations and agencies to increase the air quality
benefit of these funds. This is a particularly useful approach for small jurisdictions with
limited funds. For example, a district may wish to fund a project that if totally funded
with motor vehicle fees would cost $80,000/ton for emissions reduced. If the district
funds just one fourth of the project cost, the cost-effectiveness of the motor vehicle fees
would be $20,000/ton.
By calculating cost-effectiveness based on the amount funded with motor vehicle
fees, many types of projects that would otherwise exceed the recommended costeffectiveness range, can meet ARB’s criteria. These include non technology-based
demand management and transportation projects in addition to cleaner vehicle
technology-based projects.
Incentive Programs
Recipient agencies may also want to consider the need to incentivize small scale
projects in order to stimulate investment in full scale projects with good costeffectiveness. An incentive program can help jump-start the implementation of a
particular clean air strategy. This is particularly useful when introducing new
technology. Incentive approaches give the “early adopter” a financial advantage to
offset their real or perceived risk and inconvenience for adopting the new technology.
Once the technology is established and meets the needs of the purchasing
organizations, incentives may be reduced or eliminated. For this reason, incentive
programs should be for a limited duration and be re-evaluated periodically as to their
priority for funding.
For example, recipient agencies may accelerate the introduction of low-emitting
vehicles through incentive programs. The differential cost between a conventional and
low-emitting vehicle is generally less than 25% of the total purchase price. The most
cost-effective use of the fees would be to fund only this differential. However,
incentives may be needed to interest fleet operators in converting their fleets. It is
appropriate for recipient local government agencies to fund more than the differential
cost if there is a commitment to convert a large portion of their fleet.
Commitment is key to the success of fleet conversions, as is training. A portion
of project funding can be designated for training so that implementation will go
smoothly. Examples of local government fleet conversions to electric or compressed
natural gas (CNG) include: police vehicles, refuse haulers, street sweepers, transit
vehicles, parking meter surveillance vehicles, delivery trucks, park maintenance
vehicles, and off-road city vehicles.
New Technology and Infrastructure
New technology and supporting infrastructure needed to achieve cost-effective
Page 11
emission reductions should also be considered in selecting projects for funding. A
priority for use of the motor vehicle funds is to implement emission reducing strategies
and projects that are included in air district clean air plans. For some projects to be
successful, supporting infrastructure and programs may be needed. Examples of
supporting projects include infrastructure for low-emission vehicles such as refueling
stations and recharging facilities; public education; and transit projects that improve
access and convenience, eliminate barriers, or provide automated schedule information.
Supporting projects may be difficult to evaluate for cost-effectiveness, but can be
evaluated with respect to their consistency with the clean air plan, the degree of local
need for the project, project location, etc. ARB recommends that air districts develop
additional project selection criteria for supporting projects which cannot be evaluated on
the basis of direct cost-effectiveness.
Demonstration Projects
While many demonstration projects are new technology related, there are other
kinds of demonstration projects that may fall within a district’s priorities. A project may
demonstrate an approach to providing up-to-the-minute transit information to enable
people to make last minute transit decisions, thereby increasing their travel options and
encouraging them to use transit for some of their trips. In funding demonstration
projects, it is important to outline the specific objectives of the project, preferably in
quantitative terms (vehicles trips and vehicle miles traveled reduced, for example), and
to include a plan for monitoring the results.
Rural District Programs
Programs in rural districts will need to take into account the more limited project
opportunities and lower funding levels. Rural districts should assess program needs
and the air quality benefits of proposed projects and allocate funds accordingly. District
staff should prepare an allocation plan for consideration by the governing board in a
public process. It is appropriate for rural districts to establish project selection criteria
that reflect the local air quality and district program needs.
Reporting on Program Effectiveness
Accountability by recipient agencies in the use of these funds is important to
ensure the maximum air quality benefit. Statewide, the program provides
approximately $60 million for funding projects. The remaining $25 million funds CCAA
implementation portions of district budgets. (An exception is the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District which is prohibited by state law from using funds in this way.) The
ARB has directed staff to compile the statewide data on an annual basis and to assist
recipient agencies in assessing the cost-effectiveness and overall quality of the projects
funded.
Page 12
In accounting for revenues used to fund projects, recipient agencies should
report on the cost-effectiveness achieved. Where projects are funded outside the
range of cost-effectiveness recommended by ARB, the criteria applied to project
selection should be identified. Some examples are projects that fall in the new
technology or supporting infrastructure category. From an accountability standpoint, it
is important that all criteria for project selection be clearly specified as part of a public
process.
SIP Credits
California’s air quality planning process integrates the requirements of the
Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and the California Clean Air Act. Federally required State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) define the emission reduction targets for achieving
national air quality standards by specific deadlines. These plans also ensure steady
progress toward state air quality standards. It is important, as emphasized in ARB’s
1995 criteria, that projects support the implementation of clean air plans and, in doing
so, support achievement of emission reduction targets defined in the SIPs. For funding
agencies that may lack air quality expertise, this supplementary guidance provides
some assurance that if they implement emission reducing projects as defined in these
criteria, a cost-effective air quality benefit will result for which credit can be taken in
clean air plans (SIPs).
IV.
DESIGN OF SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATED PROJECTS
As directed by the Board, the primary objective of the 1998 Addendum is to
define the parameters of projects shown to be successful and to provide examples.
This Addendum, which was undertaken in cooperation and collaboration with air
districts, cities and counties and congestion management agencies, is intended to
increase knowledge and awareness of how to design cost-effective projects.
The ARB in cooperation with the California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association has provided Methods to Find Cost-Effectiveness of Air Quality Projects,
January 1998 as a tool to be used by recipient agencies and project proponents to
access cost-effectiveness.
The following examples illustrate design parameters recipient agencies should
consider when evaluating projects. Each example contains a set of specific design
parameters that achieve a cost-effectiveness of $10/lb ($20,000/ton) or less. These
specific design parameters are based on actual project information. Evaluations of
actual projects funded with motor vehicle registration fees that meet the $10/lb goal are
included in Appendix A. The examples given in this document are not intended to be all
inclusive of projects that achieve a cost-effectiveness of $10/lb.
Page 13
Transit Bus Replacement Purchases
Description: Purchase new low-emitting alternative fueled transit buses in place
of typical new diesel fueled vehicles that meet current certification standards.
Design Parameters: (1) Minimize project costs. Funding is typically limited to
the cost difference between the lower-emitting bus and a typical new bus. (2) Select
engines that run cleaner than applicable certification standards.
Emission benefits are predominately from nitrogen oxides (NOx) reductions. The
NOx standard applicable to the 1998-99 funding cycle is 4.0 grams/brake horse power
hour (g/bhp-hr). Engines certified by the ARB to NOx levels less than 4.0 g/bhp-hr have
an emission benefit equal to the difference between the standard and the lower
certification level.
During ARB engine certification testing, some vehicles emit less NOx than the
official certification level indicates. Cost-effectiveness evaluations can be based on the
lower level achieved during the ARB certification testing. For example, Cummins
manufactures a heavy-duty L/CNG engine (280 hp) for urban bus service that is
certified to 4.0 g/bhp-hr of NOx. During certification testing the engine emitted only
2.4 g/bhp-hr of NOx. Cost-effectiveness can be based on the 2.4 g/bhp-hr level.
For a transit bus purchase with a useful life of 12 years and annual vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) of 40,000 miles, the following parameters yield project costeffectiveness of $4 per pound:
Project funding
NOx level of project engine
$40,000
2.0 g/bhp-hr
Here’s how changing one parameter changes the cost-effectiveness:
Increase project funding to $80,000
Increase project funding to $120,000
Increase NOx level to 2.5 g/bhp-hr
Page 14
$ 8/lb
$13/lb
$ 5/lb
Implementation Information: Examples of manufacturers are:
Bus Engine Manufacturers--Caterpillar Inc./Power Systems Assoc., Cummins
Engine Co., Detroit Diesel Corp.
Electric Bus Manufacturers--Advanced Vehicle Systems, APS Systems,
Bus Manufacturing USA, Inc., Electric Vehicles International.
Hybrid Electric Bus Manufacturers--Nova BUS, Orion Bus Industries,
APS Systems, Advanced Vehicle Systems, Blue Bird Body Company, BMI, Gillig,
El Dorado National, Neoplan USA.
Fuel Cell Buses--Ballard Power Systems, Daimler-Benz.
School Bus Purchases
Description: Purchase new, low-emitting alternative fueled school buses in place
of typical new diesel fueled vehicles that meet current certification standards.
Design Parameters: (1) Minimize project costs. Funding is typically limited to
the cost difference between the lower-emitting bus and a typical new bus. (2) Select
engines that run cleaner than applicable certification standards.
Emission benefits are predominately from NOx reductions. The NOx standard
applicable to the 1998-99 funding cycle is 4.0 g/bhp-hr. Engines certified by the ARB to
NOx levels less than 4.0 g/bhp-hr have an emission benefit equal to the difference in
the standard and the lower certification level. For example, Cummins manufactures
engines certified to 2.5 g/bhp-hr of reactive organic gases (ROG) + NOx for three
engine classes.
Also, during ARB engine certification testing, some vehicles emit less NOx than
the official certification level indicates. Cost-effectiveness evaluations can be based on
the lower level achieved during the ARB certification testing. For example, if an engine
certified to 4.0 g/bhp-hr emits only 2.0 g/bhp-hr during certification testing, the costeffectiveness evaluation can be based on the 2.0 g/bhp-hr level. John Deere
manufactures an engine for school buses that emits only 2.17 g/bhp-hr of NOx.
Page 15
For a typical school bus purchase using useful life of 20 years and annual VMT
of 15,000 miles, the following parameters yield project cost-effectiveness of $10 per
pound:
Project funding
NOx level of project engine
$45,000
2.0 g/bhp-hr
Here’s how changing one parameter changes the cost-effectiveness:
Increase project funding to $50,000
Increase project funding to $100,000
Increase NOx level to 2.5 g/bhp-hr
$12/lb
$23/lb
$14/lb
Implementation Information: Examples of manufacturers are:
Bus Engine Manufacturers--John Deere, Caterpillar Inc./Power Systems Assoc.,
Cummins Engine Co., Detroit Diesel Corp.
Electric Bus Manufacturers--Advanced Vehicle Systems, APS Systems,
Bus Manufacturing USA, Inc., Electric Vehicles International.
Hybrid Electric Bus Manufacturers--Nova BUS, Orion Bus Industries,
APS Systems, Advanced Vehicle Systems, Blue Bird Body Company, BMI, Gillig,
El Dorado National, Neoplan USA.
Fuel Cell Buses--Ballard Power Systems, Daimler-Benz.
Heavy-Duty Truck Purchases and Re-powering
Description: Projects are: (1) Purchase of new heavy-duty alternative fueled
trucks that have lower emissions than a typical new diesel truck. (2) Re-powering of a
heavy-duty truck with a cleaner burning alternative fueled engine instead of a typical
new diesel engine. In both cases, the alternative fueled engine would emit less NOx
than the new diesel engine certified to 4.0 g/bhp-hr.
Design Parameters: (1) Minimize project costs. Funding is typically limited to
the cost difference between the lower-emitting engine and the typical new or rebuilt
engine. (2) Select engines that run cleaner than applicable certification standards.
Emission benefits are predominately from NOx reductions. The NOx standard
applicable to the 1998-99 funding cycle is 4.0 g/bhp-hr. Engines certified by ARB to
NOx levels less than 4.0 g/bhp-hr have an emission benefit equal to the difference in
the standard and the lower certification level. During ARB engine certification testing,
some vehicles emit less NOx than the official certification level indicates. Costeffectiveness evaluations can be based on the lower level achieved during the ARB
Page 16
certification testing. For example, during certification testing an engine that was
certified to 4.0 g/bhp-hr actually emitted only 3.0 g/bhp-hr of NOx. Cost-effectiveness
evaluations can be based on the 3.0 g/bhp-hr level.
The following parameters yield project cost-effectiveness of $10 per pound to
repower a heavy-duty truck with a cleaner burning engine instead of a new diesel
engine certified at 4.0 g/bhp-hr and assuming the engine life is 290,000 miles:
Project funding
NOx level of project engine
$ 35,000
2.0 g/bhp-hr
Here’s how changing one parameter changes the cost-effectiveness:
Increase project funding to $70,000
Reduce NOx level to 1.5 g/bhp-hr
$20 /lb
$ 9 /lb
Implementation Information: Examples of heavy-duty engine manufacturers
are: Caterpillar Inc./Power Systems Assoc., Cummins Engine Co., Deere Power
Systems Group, Detroit Diesel Corp., Mack Trucks, Inc., and Navistar International.
Off-Road Agricultural Equipment Purchase and Re-powering
Description: Replacing uncontrolled diesel engines in off-road agricultural
equipment with lower emitting controlled diesel engines or alternative fueled engines.
Repowering with cleaner new engines is done instead of rebuilding the old engine.
Design Parameters: (1) Minimize project costs. Funding is typically limited to
the cost difference between the lower-emitting engine and a rebuild of the older engine.
(2) Select engines that run as clean as possible given the needs of the application.
Emission benefits are predominately from NOx reductions. Prior to 1996, offroad heavy-duty engines were uncontrolled. The NOx standard applicable to the 199899 funding cycle for new off-road engines is 6.9 g/bhp-hr.
The average uncontrolled engine emits 11 to 13 g/bhp-hr. When these old
engines are rebuilt they should run more efficiently and emit fewer emissions; however,
there are little data to establish emission levels or the duration of these benefits.
Therefore, for the purposes of evaluation, we will assume that a rebuilt engine emits the
same level of emissions on average, as before the rebuild. This establishes the
baseline for evaluating the re-powering of the vehicle with a cleaner, newer engine.
Uncontrolled CNG engines for off-road applications emit 9 g/bhp-hr. Cleaner
CNG engines can be considerably cleaner, for example 2.5 g/bhp-hr. The following
table provides conservative default values for an off-road agricultural application.
Operating hours can range from 110 to 814 hours per year and the load factor can vary
Page 17
between 0.48 and 0.7.
Agricultural Equipment
Engine Category
(hp)
Operational Hrs
(Hrs/yr)
Load
(%)
Uncontrolled
Diesel NOx
(g/bhp-hr)
NOx Standard
(g/bhp-hr)
Applicable 1998-2000
Uncontrolled CNG NOx
(g/bhp-hr)
50 to 175
110
0.50
13
6.9
9
176 +
110
0.50
11
6.9
9
Source: ARB s Mobile Source Control Division Off-Road Model, 1997
The following is a sample evaluation of an off-road project with parameters that
yield a cost-effectiveness of $10/lb:
An agricultural sprayer with 150 hp, average operational hours are 110 hrs/yr,
load is 0.5, useful life is 10 years, and funding is $11,000. The uncontrolled, old diesel
engine if rebuilt is assumed to emit 13 g/bhp-hr. The new diesel repowering emits only
6.9 g/bhp-hr.
NOx reduced (lbs) = [hp * Load * Operational Hours * (Uncontrolled Diesel NOx emissions – Controlled
Diesel NOx emissions or Uncontrolled CNG NOx emissions or Certified NOx
emissions)] * Useful Life / 454 g/lb
= [150 hp * 0.5 * 110 hrs/yr * (13 g/bhp*hr – 6.9 g/bhp*hr)] * 10 yrs / 454 g/lb =
1108 lbs.
Here’s how changing one parameter changes the cost-effectiveness:
Reduce project funding to $6,000
Increase project funding to $20,000
Reduce NOx level to 2.5g/bhp-hr
$ 5/lb
$ 18/lb
$ 6/lb
Implementation Information: Examples of manufacturers that sell CNG and/or
diesel agricultural equipment are: Alturdune, Baytech Corp, Caterpillar Inc. /Power
Systems Assoc., Cummins Engine Co., Deere Power Systems, Detroit Diesel Corp.,
Navistar International, TecoDrive/Crusader Engines, Thermo Power Corp.
Page 18
Off-Road Construction Equipment Purchase and Re-powering
Description: Replacing uncontrolled diesel engines in off-road construction
equipment with lower emitting controlled diesel engines or alternative fueled engines.
Repowering with cleaner new engines is done instead of rebuilding the old engine.
Design Parameters: (1) Minimize project costs. Typically, funding is limited to
the cost difference between the lower-emitting engine and a rebuild of the older engine.
(2) Select engines that run as clean as possible given the needs of the application.
Emission benefits are predominately from NOx reductions. Prior to 1996, offroad heavy-duty engines were uncontrolled. The NOx standard applicable to the 199899 funding cycle for new off-road engines is 6.9 g/bhp-hr.
The average uncontrolled engine emits 11 to 13 g/bhp-hr. When these old
engines are rebuilt they should run more efficiently and emit fewer emissions; however,
there are little data to establish emission levels or the duration of these benefits.
Therefore, for the purposes of evaluation, we will assume that a rebuilt engine emits the
same level of emissions on average, as before the rebuild. This establishes the
baseline for evaluating the re-powering of the vehicle with a cleaner, newer engine.
Uncontrolled CNG engines for off-road applications emit 9 g/bhp-hr. Cleaner
CNG engines can be considerably cleaner, for example 2.5 g/bhp-hr. The following
table provides conservative default values for an off-road construction application.
Operating hours can range from 130 to 1836 hours per year and the load factor can
vary from 0.43 to 0.78.
Construction Equipment
Engine Category
(hp)
Operational Hrs
(Hrs/yr)
Load
(%)
Uncontrolled
Diesel NOx
(g/bhp-hr)
NOx Standard
(g/bhp-hr)
Applicable 1998-2000
Uncontrolled CNG NOx
(g/bhp-hr)
50 to 175
130
0.68
13
6.9
9
176 +
130
0.68
11
6.9
9
Source: ARB s Mobile Source Control Division Off-Road Model, 1997
The following is a sample evaluation of an off-road project with parameters that
yield a cost-effectiveness of $10/lb:
A concrete paver with 300 hp, average operational hours are 130 hrs/yr, load is
0.68, useful life is 10 years, and funding is $25,000. The uncontrolled, old diesel engine
if rebuilt is assumed to emit 11 g/bhp-hr. The new diesel re-powering emits only 6.9
g/bhp-hr.
NOx reduced (lbs) = [hp * Load * Operational Hours * (Uncontrolled Diesel NOx emissions – Controlled
Page 19
Diesel NOx emissions or Uncontrolled CNG NOx emissions or Certified NOx
emissions)] * Useful Life / 454 g/lb
= [300 hp * 0.68 * 130 hrs/yr * (11 g/bhp*hr – 6.9 g/bhp*hr)] * 10 yrs / 454 g/lb =
2395 lbs.
Here’s how changing one parameter changes the cost-effectiveness:
Increase project funding to $50,000
Decrease project funding to $10,000
Reduce NOx level to 2.5g/bhp-hr
$ 21/lb
$ 4/lb
$ 5/lb
Implementation Information: Examples of manufacturers that sell CNG and/or
diesel construction equipment are: Alturdune, Baytech Corp, Caterpillar Inc. /Power
Systems Assoc., Cummins Engine Co., Deere Power Systems, Detroit Diesel Corp.,
Navistar International, TecoDrive/Crusader Engines, Thermo Power Corp.
Voluntary Early Retirement of Light-Duty Vehicles
Description: Implement a voluntary program for early retirement of light-duty
vehicles. These programs provide short-term emission reductions because older
vehicles have less emission control than newer models and are typically more polluting.
Design Parameters: ARB has provided guidance on voluntary accelerated
retirement of older vehicles in the document, Mobile Source Emission Reduction
Credits Guidelines (February 1996). Vehicles that qualify for early retirement are
typically driven in the program area, are registered with the California Department of
Motor Vehicles, and must be permanently dismantled. There are other recommended
requirements discussed in the guidelines document. Effective programs follow these
guidelines and air district regulations very carefully and work closely with auto
dismantlers to insure against fraud.
In December 1998, ARB will adopt statewide regulations governing voluntary
“scrappage” programs. The law requires that ARB conduct a pilot voluntary scrappage
program and evaluate its potential to reduce emissions. This work should be
completed in 1999 and will shed more light on the effectiveness of voluntary scrappage
programs in clean air plans. ARB’s efforts are targeted primarily to implementing the
1994 California SIP measure M-1 to reduce light-duty motor vehicle emissions in the
South Coast AQMD.
The cost-effectiveness of voluntary scrappage programs is typically under $5 per
pound; however, the emission reductions are available for only 3 years as a result of
the natural turnover of the vehicle fleet. Before setting funding priorities, it is important
to evaluate the need for short-term emission reductions compared to long-term
strategies within the context of clean air plans for each area.
Page 20
Implementation Information: Most recipient agencies will want to take advantage
of voluntary scrappage programs already operated by large air districts. This is not the
type of program that can easily be implemented by small rural air districts or cities.
Long-Distance Commuter Bus Projects
Description: Funding to subsidize the capital and operating expenses of a longdistance commuter bus service.
Design Parameters: (1) Reduce long-distance commute vehicle trips, (2) use
low-emitting buses, (3) achieve high average ridership, and (4) control costs. For
example, the cost-effectiveness of the following long-distance commuter bus is $10 per
pound.
Average commute distance
Type of bus
NOx level of bus engine
Average daily ridership
Capital funding per bus
Operating funding per bus per year
55 miles
CNG (compressed natural gas)
2.0 g/bhp-hr
40
$250,000
$13,250
Supporting assumptions: 250 days of operation per year; 80% ex-solo drivers; and 50% access trips of 5 miles;
operating costs assume $245/day for fuel, maintenance, insurance and driver salary, minus $100/month fee per
rider; project life 15 years due to highway use of bus; emission factors for auto trips eliminated are ROG 0.36 g/mi
and 3.26 g/trip, NOx 0.71 g/mi and 1.56 g/trip, PM10 0.45 g/mi (source: Methods to Find Cost-Effectiveness of Air
Quality Projects, January 1998, Table 3, commute trips); emission factors for CNG bus are ROG 1.10 g/mi, NOx
6.30 g/mi, PM10 0.50 g/mi (source: EMFAC/BURDEN7G with 2 g/bhp-hr NOx, average speed 45 mph).
Here’s how changing one parameter changes the cost-effectiveness:
Increase average commute distance to 80 miles
Use Diesel bus (NOx 4.0 g/bhp-hr) instead of CNG bus
Decrease average ridership to 30
Decrease operating funding per bus by 50%
Decrease capital funding per bus to cost difference between
CNG bus compared to diesel bus ($40,000)
$ 7/lb.
$12/lb.
$19/lb.
$ 8/lb.
$ 4/lb.
Along with determining average daily ridership and commute distance, commuter
bus riders should be surveyed to assess what percentage previously used alternative
modes, what percentage drive to the commuter bus stop, and the average length of
access trips. Costs generally include vehicle purchase or lease, insurance and
maintenance, and operating costs, along with marketing and administration expenses.
Operating cost offsets include per month passenger fee.
Implementation Information: Contracts for vehicle lease/purchase, insurance,
maintenance and fuel are usually coordinated by larger regional agencies (e.g., air
Page 21
districts, transportation or transit agency), while marketing and subscription services are
often performed by local grassroots commuter transportation organizations
(e.g., transportation management associations (TMA's)). Projects are typically initiated
only upon commitment of a predetermined number of riders.
Long-Distance Commute Vanpool Programs
Description: Funding to subsidize the cost of developing and operating longdistance commute vanpools.
Design Parameters: (1) Reduce long-distance commutes, (2) use low-emitting
vans, (3) achieve high average ridership, and (4) control costs. For example, the costeffectiveness of the following vanpool is $10 per pound.
Average commute distance
Model year of van
Average daily ridership
Funding per van per year
25 miles
1997
10
$4,000
Supporting assumptions: Subsidy to vanpool is $300/mo plus 10% administration costs; vanpoolers pay remaining
costs; 250 days of operation per year; 70% of participants drove alone to work prior to joining vanpool; 50% of the
ex-solo drivers drive an average of 2 miles to the vanpool access point; project life 1 year; emission factors for auto
trips eliminated are ROG 0.55 g/mi and 4.98 g/trip, NOx 1.02 g/mi and 2.05 g/trip, PM10 0.45 g/mi; emission factors
for van are ROG 0.36 g/mi and 3.26 g/trip; NOx 0.71 g/mi and 1.56 g/trip, PM10 0.45 g/mi (source: Methods to Find
Cost-Effectiveness of Air Quality Projects, January 1998, Table 3 commute trips and Table 2 van model year 1997).
Here’s how changing one parameter changes the cost-effectiveness:
Decrease commute distance to 15 miles
Increase commute distance to 40 miles
Use older vans - 1990 model year
Decrease average ridership to 6
Increase average ridership to 14
Decrease funding to $2600 per year per van
($200/mo plus 10% admin.)
$17/lb.
$ 6/lb.
$12/lb.
$18/lb.
$ 7/lb.
$ 7/lb.
Along with determining average daily ridership and commute distance, vanpoolers
should be surveyed to assess what percentage previously used alternative modes, what
percentage drive to the vanpool access point, and the average length of access trips.
Costs generally include vehicle purchase or lease, insurance and maintenance, and
operation costs, along with marketing and administration expenses.
Implementation Information: Contracts for vehicle lease/purchase, insurance
and maintenance are usually coordinated by larger regional agencies (e.g., air districts,
transportation agencies, regional ridesharing agencies), while marketing and vanpool
formation is usually handled by local grassroots commuter transportation organizations
(e.g., TMAs). In cost-effective projects, average ridership has been high due largely to
Page 22
TMAs providing initial marketing groundwork, carpool/vanpool formation experience and
the motivated assistance of TMA employer-members.
Transit Use Subsidies
Description: Funding to provide subsidies for transit riders.
Design Parameters: (1) Reduce vehicle trips by increasing transit use, (2) target
longer trips, and (3) maximize the subsidy’s value. For example, the cost-effectiveness
of the following transit use subsidy program is $10 per pound.
Subsidy per transit rider
Average length of vehicle trip reduced
$26 per month
15 miles
Supporting assumptions: 250 commute days per year; 75% of participants drove alone to work prior to
obtaining the transit subsidy; 25% of the ex-solo drivers drive an average of 2 miles to the bus stop;
project life 1 year; emission factors for auto trips eliminated are ROG 0.55 g/mi and 4.98 g/trip, NOx 1.02
g/mi and 2.05 g/trip, PM10 0.45 g/mi (source: Methods to Find Cost-Effectiveness of Air Quality Projects,
January 1998, Table 3 commute trips).
Here’s how changing one parameter changes the cost-effectiveness:
Increase subsidy to $50/month per transit rider
Increase subsidy to $30/month per transit rider
Decrease subsidy to $20/month per transit rider
Decrease trip length to 10 miles
Increase trip length to 20 miles
$20/lb.
$12/lb.
$ 8/lb.
$14/lb.
$ 8/lb.
Along with determining the number of participants in the program, transit riders
should be surveyed to assess what percentage previously used alternative modes, what
percentage drive to the transit stop and average length of access trips. Project costs
generally include the cost of the subsidies, plus marketing and administrative costs.
Implementation Information: Funding and coordinating agencies are typically air
districts and regional transit and transportation agencies. Participating employers are
also funding sources for commute transit subsidy programs. Implementing agencies
are often regional rideshare agencies and transportation management associations.
Maximizing the subsidy’s value: Funding a project that has an infrastructure of
marketing, administrative functions and transportation management already in place will
increase cost-effectiveness by allowing the bulk of the funds to be used for actual
transit subsidies. The market must also be analyzed to determine if subsidies will
attract new transit riders. If transit isn’t available and convenient in the target area, or if
transit information is not readily available to potential users, a subsidy program may
have little effect. Marketing that emphasizes long-distance express routes can also
increase project cost-effectiveness. If parking is scarce and/or expensive, a monthly
Page 23
transit subsidy has more value than if parking is plentiful and cheap. Funding transit
subsidies for worksites where parking is heavily subsidized would not be cost-effective.
Employee Trip Reduction Programs
Description: Funding for rideshare incentives and major program elements of
employee trip reduction programs.
Design Parameters: (1) Reduce vehicle commute trips, (2) target longer
commute trips, and (3) maximize value of incentives. For example, the costeffectiveness of the following employee trip reduction program is $10 per pound.
Funding per round trip reduced
Average round trip commute trip length
$1.80 / day
30 miles
Supporting assumptions: 250 commute days per year; project life 1 year; emission factors for auto trips eliminated
are ROG 0.55 g/mi and 4.98 g/trip, NOx 1.02 g/mi and 2.05 g/trip, PM10 0.45 g/mi (source: Methods to Find CostEffectiveness of Air Quality Projects, January 1998, Table 3 commute trips).
A trip reduction program funded at $62,250 per year and reducing an average of
145 vehicle round trips per day would have a $10 per pound cost-effectiveness.
(Reducing 145 round trips per day is the equivalent of a 1,000-employee worksite
increasing average vehicle ridership (AVR) from 1.15 to 1.38.)
Here’s how changing one parameter changes the cost-effectiveness:
Decrease funding to $1.25 / day per round trip reduced
Increase funding to $3.00 / day per round trip reduced
Increase average round trip commute length to 38 miles
Decrease average round trip commute length to 25 miles
$ 7/lb.
$ 17/lb.
$ 8/lb.
$ 12/lb.
To determine vehicle trips and miles reduced, baseline and ongoing employee
commute surveys should be administered which gather information on commute mode
and length of commute, as well as any access trips and their length (e.g., drive alone
two miles to express bus stop). Costs generally include administrative costs, marketing,
and rideshare incentives.
Implementation Information: Employee trip reduction programs are no longer
required in most regions. Air districts and transportation agencies typically co-fund
rideshare program elements, with employers bearing the major costs of the program.
Motor vehicle registration fee revenues subvened to cities and counties are used by
some to support government facility-based trip reduction programs with services or
incentives. Private firms, regional ridesharing agencies, and transportation
management associations are often contracted to provide program analysis and
support services.
Page 24
Although there are no “one-size-fits-all” program designs, the majority of costeffective programs do have a few common elements, which include assessment of
employee travel needs, parking management and pricing, alternate commute subsidies
and incentives, and ongoing rideshare support and coordination.
Commuter-Oriented Bicycle Paths, Lanes, and Routes
Description: Construct bicycle paths, lanes, or routes (Class I, II, or III) targeted
to reduce commute and other non-recreational auto travel by increasing the use of
bicycles to meet basic transportation needs. In particular, bicycle facilities that complete
missing links to area-wide bicycle circulation plans are critical to increasing overall
usage of bicycles to meet multi-purpose travel needs. Class I facilities are physically
separated from motor vehicle traffic. Class II facilities are striped bicycle lanes giving
preferential or exclusive use to bicycles. Class III facilities are bicycle routes identified
by signs.
Design Parameters: Projects with the greatest benefit for air quality connect
residential areas with employment centers, schools and colleges, transit centers,
downtown areas, and other major activity centers. Safety and bicycle storage are also
important. The following parameters yield project cost-effectiveness of $10 per pound
for a one-mile Class II bicycle project:
Construction funding
Annual maintenance funding
Annual vehicle trips reduced
Average bicycle trip length
$150,000 per mile of bike lane
$ 2,000 per mile of bike lane
65,000 trips per mile of bike lane
1.8 miles (Source: National Personal Travel
Survey, 1990)
Supporting assumptions: project life 15 years; emission factors for auto trips eliminated are ROG 0.36 g/mi and 3.26
g/trip; NOx 0.71 g/mi and 1.56 g/trip, PM10 0.45 g/mi (source: Methods to Find Cost-Effectiveness of Air Quality Projects,
January 1998, Table 3 commute trips).
Here’s how changing one parameter changes the cost-effectiveness:
Increase construction funding to $200,000
Increase vehicle trips reduced to 150,000
Increase bicycle trip length to 4 miles
$13/lb
$ 4/lb
$ 7/lb
It is difficult to estimate the number and length of vehicle trips reduced from
bicycle projects. The most accurate evaluations are based on bicycle rider surveys.
The methodologies provided in “Methods to Find the Cost-Effectiveness of Air Quality
Projects, April 1997” and in “Emission Reduction Calculation Methodologies for
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program Projects” provide
conservative estimates in the absence of survey data.
Implementation Information: Bicycle projects implement bicycle transportation
Page 25
plans targeted at reducing commuter trips, school trips, and other regularly made
vehicle trips. Projects should be supported by livable community development designs
and street calming.
Page 26