Rogue Valley
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Air Quality Conformity Determination
2001-2023 Regional Transportation Plan
and
2002-2005 Transportation Improvement Program
Adopted April 25, 2002
Prepared by:
Rogue Valley Council of Governments
155 North First Street
Central Point, OR 97502
(541) 664-6674
www.rvcog.org
Who is the RVMPO?
Following the 1980 Census, the Greater Medford urbanized area was designated a Metropolitan
Statistical Area (an urbanized area with a population in excess of 50,000 persons).
Transportation planning activities in such areas must be coordinated through a Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO). The Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) was
designated by the Governor of Oregon as the Rogue Valley MPO (RVMPO) on July 27, 1982.
Local jurisdictions involved in the planning activities of the RVMPO include Central Point,
Jackson County, Medford, Phoenix, and the Rogue Valley Transportation District. In addition,
the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Transportation,
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Federal Highway Administration,
and Federal Transit Administration participate in the MPO process.
Federal and state transportation planning responsibilities for the RVMPO can generally be
summarized as follows:






Develop and maintain a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) consistent with state and federal planning requirements.
Perform regional air quality conformity analyses for carbon monoxide (CO) and
particulate matter (PM10).
Review specific transportation and development proposals for consistency with the RTP.
Coordinate transportation decisions among local jurisdictions, state agencies, and area
transit operators.
Develop an annual work program.
House and staff the regional travel demand model for the purposes of assessing, planning,
and coordinating regional travel demand impacts. (NOTE: The RVMPO currently
contracts with ODOT’s Transportation Planning Analysis Unit for modeling services).
The RVCOG Board of Directors has delegated responsibility for RVMPO policy functions to a
committee of elected and appointed officials from Central Point, Medford, Phoenix, Jackson
County, the Oregon Department of Transportation, and the Rogue Valley Transportation District.
The Policy Committee considers recommendations from advisory committees as an integral part
of its decision-making process. RVMPO advisory committees include: the Public Advisory
Council (PAC), made up of representatives from a broad range of constituencies; and the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), made up of jurisdictional staff.
RVMPO Policy Committee:
Carol Bennett .......................................................RVTD
Otto Caster ...........................................................City of Phoenix
Monte Grove ........................................................ODOT
Skip Knight, Chair ...............................................City of Medford
Dale Petrasek .......................................................Jackson County
Bill Walton, Vice-Chair .......................................City of Central Point
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ ii
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................3
Carbon Monoxide ............................................................................................................................3
Particulate Matter .............................................................................................................................4
Exempt Projects ...............................................................................................................................4
Travel Demand Model .....................................................................................................................4
TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES............................................................................6
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...........................................................................................................7
METHODOLOGY FOR CONFORMITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................8
Carbon Monoxide (CO) ...................................................................................................................9
Particulate Matter (PM10).................................................................................................................9
Modeled VMT .....................................................................................................................9
Off-Model VMT ..................................................................................................................9
VMT Reduction Credits – Bicycle Network Improvements .............................................10
VMT Reduction Credits – Sidewalk Network Improvements ...........................................12
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
i
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: Summary of SIP CO and PM10 Attainment Strategies ..................................................6
TABLE 2: Summary of CO and PM10 Analysis Findings ...............................................................7
TABLE 3: CO Build vs. Budget Analysis .......................................................................................8
TABLE 4: Off-Model PM10 Analysis – Categories and Descriptions ...........................................10
TABLE 5: VMT Reduction Calculations – Bicycle Improvements ..............................................11
TABLE 6: VMT Reduction Calculations – Sidewalk Improvements ...........................................12
TABLE 7: PM10 Analysis – Model and Off-Model Calculations..................................................14
TABLE 8: Regional Emissions Analysis Project ..........................................................................24
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: RVMPO and AQMA Boundaries.................................................................................2
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Resolution Adopting RTP and TIP Conformity Determinations .........................15
APPENDIX B: PM10 Intergovernmental Agreement ....................................................................16
APPENDIX C: Criteria and Procedures for Determining Conformity ..........................................20
APPENDIX D: No-Build (Baseline) Scenario vs. Build (Action) Scenario .................................23
APPENDIX E: Mobile 5b Cold CO Emission Factors ..................................................................25
APPENDIX F: Transportation Planning Acronyms and Terms ....................................................26
ii
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
INTRODUCTION
The Rogue Valley has two air quality analysis boundaries. Medford’s Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) was established as the boundary for carbon monoxide (CO) in 1978, and the MedfordAshland Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA) was designated for particulate matter (PM10) in
1987. The Medford UGB has been designated as a non-attainment area for CO and the AQMA is
designated as a non-attainment area for PM10. Both boundaries are illustrated in Figure 1.
This document provides a “conformity determination” for projects included in the 2001-2023
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the 2002-2005 Transportation Improvement Program.
The conformity determination, based on detailed analyses, illustrates that projects scheduled in
the RTP and TIP will result in CO emissions lower than the budgeted amount and in lower PM 10
emissions when compared to no-build scenarios. As a result, the RTP and TIP comply with
specific requirements of the federal Clean Air Act and Oregon State Conformity Rule (OAR
340-252-0010 through OAR 340-252-0290).
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality maintains the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for both CO and PM10. The SIP specifies the measures that will be taken to attain or
maintain federal air quality standards. Control measures that reduce vehicle traffic, or
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), must be given top priority under state and federal
regulations. TCMs were identified in the 1982 CO SIP, 1998 CO SIP, 1991 PM 10 SIP, and 1998
PM10 SIP to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. All of the measures outlined in the
CO SIPs have been implemented. The region is currently implementing the control measures
(both projects and programs) contained in the 1998 PM10 SIP. Those that have not been
implemented are included in the 2002-2005 TIP. The status of specific TCMs is included in
Table 1.
The best available information was used to prepare this conformity determination. The RVCOG
EMME/2 travel demand model was used to establish build (action) and no-build (baseline)
traffic information for the analysis years of 2005, 2015 and 2023 (planning horizon). Land use
forecasts were prepared for the model based on current and planned land uses for Central Point,
Medford, Phoenix, and Jackson County. Detailed model documentation used to calculate CO and
PM10 emissions is available from the Rogue Valley Council of Governments.
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
1
FIGURE 1 – RVMPO AND AQMA BOUNDARIES
2
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
BACKGROUND
The Clean Air Act (CAA) and its subsequent amendments created the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS specify allowable concentrations and exposure limits
for various pollutants. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with developing
criteria for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. NAAQS have been established for the
following pollutants: ozone (O3); carbon monoxide (CO); and small particulate matter (PM10 and
PM2.5). Any geographic region not meeting the NAAQS receives a “non-attainment” designation
from EPA. Depending on the severity of the air quality problem, officials in each non-attainment
area must develop and implement strategies that will reduce emissions so the region can attain
the NAAQS. Necessary actions become more numerous and stringent if the air quality problem
fails to improve.
Transportation plans and improvement programs are subject to federal and state conformity
rules. The purpose of the rules is to require that emissions produced by the expansion of a
transportation system are consistent with the amounts anticipated by the air quality plans (SIPs).
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air
quality standards.
Generally speaking, determining conformity requires the comparison of the emissions resulting
from a future “build” (or action) scenario with an approved emissions budget in an adopted SIP.
In the absence of an approved emissions budget, the build (action) scenario must be compared
with a “no-build” (or baseline) scenario. The build scenario must result in lower emissions when
compared to the emissions budget or no-build scenario.
The Rogue Valley has two non-attainment designations. The Medford Urban Growth Boundary
is designated as non-attainment for CO, and the Medford-Ashland Air Quality Maintenance Area
(AQMA) is designated non-attainment for PM10. The most recent CO SIP for the Medford Urban
Growth Boundary (adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission in March, 2001) contains
an emissions budget that has recently been officially approved by EPA as being adequate for
conformity analyses. The build scenarios for both the 2001-2023 Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and the 2002-2005 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are compared against this
adopted budget. A budget has not been approved for PM10 in the Medford-Ashland AQMA
(expected in late 2002). Therefore, the conformity test used for PM10 will be the build vs. nobuild test. For both tests, analysis years include 2005, 2015 and 2023.
CARBON MONOXIDE
Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from transportation sources are tied exclusively to tailpipe
emissions and are generated from the combustion of fuel. The Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program was established to require automobile manufacturers to produce more efficient, lower
pollutant emitting automobiles. The program has resulted in the design of vehicles that are less
polluting than those built only 10 years ago. The change in vehicle emissions expected to result
from construction of the projects in the 2001-2023 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the
2002-2005 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) must be consistent with the CO
emissions budget in the approved SIP (March, 2001).
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
3
Carbon monoxide tailpipe emissions are highest when vehicles are idling or traveling at low
speeds. Emissions rates decrease as speeds increase, reaching a minimum rate between 45 and
50 mph. Carbon monoxide emissions slowly increase as speeds surpass 50 mph. It is estimated
that transportation emissions represented 74% of the total CO emissions generated in the
Medford-Ashland AQMA in 1980. In 1987, it is estimated that 56% of the CO emissions were
from transportation sources. This number decreases to 48% in 1993 and is projected to remain
near 49% of total emissions in 2015.
The CO non-attainment boundary is the Medford Urban Growth Boundary. The CO conformity
determination must consider CO emissions within this boundary. Those projects deemed
“regionally significant” (see Appendix C for definition) in the conformity rules are included in
the CO conformity analysis and final determination.
PARTICULATE MATTER
Particulate matter (PM10) emissions from transportation sources primarily result from on-road
dust (fugitive dust) from both paved and unpaved roads, unpaved road shoulders and “track-out”
from construction/development projects. In addition to fugitive dust emissions, there are specific
transportation related pollutants from tailpipe emissions, tire wear particulate that remains on the
road surface, and other re-entrained dust particles (e.g., sand and gravel). Fugitive dust emissions
are related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and the amount of dust abatement for road travel and
construction operations (provisions to minimize dust from construction activities to alleviate
track-out dust/dirt).
An Intergovernmental Agreement for the PM10 conformity determination was developed and
approved by the Governor, RVMPO, RVCOG, ODOT, ODEQ, RVTD, Jackson County and the
jurisdictions outside of the MPO, but within the AQMA (see Appendix B). The particulate
matter non-attainment boundary extends beyond the MPO boundary and encompasses the
communities of Ashland, Eagle Point, Jacksonville and Talent. The PM10 conformity
determination must consider PM10 emissions from the entire non-attainment area. Those projects
deemed “regionally significant” (see Appendix C for definition) in the conformity rules are
included in the PM10 conformity analysis and final determination.
EXEMPT PROJECTS
Specific highway and transit projects are exempt from the requirement that a conformity
determination be made. Appendix C provides a full overview of exempt projects.
TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL
A regional travel demand model using EMME/2 software was developed by RVCOG, ODOT’s
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU), and Parsons Brinkerhoff, Inc. The model is used
to predict future transportation patterns resulting from population and transportation system
changes. The model uses a mode choice methodology to assign trip distribution. It was calibrated
to 1995 ground counts. Travel times were calculated per link with delays as assigned to simulate
stop and intersection controls. The model generates peak-hour and 24-hour traffic volumes,
which were used to calculate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the RVMPO area. Land use
forecasts were prepared for the model based on plans developed by Central Point, Medford,
4
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
Phoenix, and Jackson County. The data was allocated to individual transportation analysis zones
(TAZs) within the EMME/2 model.
The model was used to produce base and future year VMT estimates. The EMME/2 software
includes a transit mode split model, so emission impacts of transit system improvements can be
estimated through its use. Pedestrian and bicycle projects cannot be appropriately modeled with
the EMME/2 software, and must therefore be examined “off-model.” VMT reduction “credit”
has been taken for these projects/modes for the PM10 analysis only, as outlined in the
Methodology for Conformity Determinations section of this document.
Documentation for development and evaluation of the model is included in the following
document:
Title:
Author:
Date:
RVCOG Travel Demand Model Development Document
ODOT Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
October 1999
A copy of the document is available for review at the RVCOG offices.
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
5
TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES
The Clean Air Act and its amendments list various Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
that must be implemented to improve air quality in non-attainment areas. Table 1 provides a brief
summary of the TCMs and other strategies that have been included in previously adopted CO
and PM10 SIPs for the Medford Urban Growth Boundary (CO) and the Medford-Ashland Air
Quality Maintenance Area (PM10).
TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIP CO AND PM10 ATTAINMENT STRATEGIES
SIP Jurisdiction Project Type
Prior to 1982 SIP
1982 SIP
1991 PM10 SIP
1998 PM10 SIP
Particulate Matter (PM10)
Other
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Medford
6
RVTD
ODOT
Traffic Flow
Improvements
Bikeways
TCM?
Yes
Yes
Transit Service
Yes
Carpool Programs
Traffic Flow
Improvements
Yes
Yes
Project
Signalization and other improvements
near N. Medford Interchange
Implement bicycle plans
Expand transit service and increase
daily ridership
TDM/Rideshare program
Hwy 62/I-5 improvements; Hwy 238
Unit 1
RVMPO
Staggered Work
Hours
Yes
Promote staggered work hours in
RVMPO
Medford
Parking and
Circulation Plan
No
Implement TDM programs and
alternative transportation projects
RVMPO
AQMA
AQMA
Road Improvement
Projects
Oxygenated
Gasoline
Inspection /
Maintenance
No
No
No
Medford
Misc. dust abate
No
Central Point
Misc. dust abate
No
Phoenix
Misc. dust abate
No
Misc. dust abate
No
Clean Fuels
No
Ashland
Misc. dust abate
No
Eagle Point
Jacksonville
Misc. dust abate
Misc. dust abate
No
No
Talent
Misc. dust abate
No
Paving
Maintenance
Paving
Paving
Paving
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Jackson
County
RVTD
Jackson
County
Medford
Improve traffic flow near N. Medford
Interchange
Sell in AQMA between Nov. 1 and
Mar. 1
Inspect vehicles for emissions
Paving projects, ordinances to control
dust, street sweeping, multi-use paths
Paving projects
Paving projects, ordinances to control
dust, street sweeping
Paving projects, ordinances to control
dust, street sweeping, multi-use paths
Conversion to Natural Gas buses
Paving projects, ordinances to control
dust, street sweeping, multi-use paths
Paving projects, bike paths
Paving projects, multi-use paths
Paving projects, street sweeping,
multi-use paths
Pave Ave. F
White City Street Sweeper
Pave parking lot at Denman Refuge
Pave misc. streets
Pave misc. alleys
Status
Complete
On-going
On-going
On-going
Complete
Policy
adopted in
RTP
Policies and
plans
adopted
Complete
On-going
(until 2002)
On-going
On-going
On-going
On-going
On-going
On-going
On-going
On-going
On-going
On-going
In progress
Complete
Pending
In progress
In progress
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Table 2 summarizes the estimated air quality emissions for the future year baseline (PM10) and
action (CO and PM10) scenarios. Also shown are the adopted CO emissions budget figures for
2005, 2015 and 2023. Figures shown for CO include estimated daily emissions in pounds per day
within the Medford Urban Growth Boundary. Figures shown for PM10 include estimated daily
emissions in pounds per day within the Medford-Ashland Air Quality Maintenance Area.
The regional emissions analysis of the 2001-2023 RTP and the 2002-2005 TIP demonstrates that
all regionally significant projects in the 2005, 2015 and 2023 action scenarios had lower
emissions for CO as compared to the approved CO SIP budget for those years. PM 10 emissions
for the action (build) scenarios are similarly lower when compared to the baseline (no build)
scenarios.
The results for the action scenarios in Table 2 include emission credits taken for the expected
effect of reduced vehicle travel in the region through implementation of improvements to the
bicycle and pedestrian systems (PM10 analysis only). The procedure for taking emission credits
for these projects and programs are described in the following section, methodology for
conformity determinations.
TABLE 2 – SUMMARY OF CO AND PM10 ANALYSIS FINDINGS
Scenario
2005 Action (Build)
2005 Baseline (No Build)
2015 Action (Build)
2015 Baseline (No Build)
2023 Action (Build)
2023 Baseline (No Build)
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
Build CO
(lbs./day)
33,929
N/A
20,031
N/A
22,237
N/A
CO SIP
Budget
(lbs./day)
51,471
26,693
32,640
PM10
Build/No
Build
(lbs./day)
11,217
11,808
13,376
14,068
15,163
15,962
7
METHODOLOGY FOR CONFORMITY DETERMINATIONS
The CO air quality conformity analyses compare 2005, 2015 and 2023 build (action) scenarios
with an adopted emissions budget for those same years. In addition, the CO analyses compare
these build scenarios with an established base year (1995). The PM10 air quality conformity
analyses compare 2005, 2015 and 2023 build scenarios with no-build (baseline) scenarios of the
same years. Build scenarios used for 2005, 2015 and 2023 contain those projects listed in the TIP
and/or the RTP for their respective years. The no-build scenario uses identical population and
employment assumptions but contains only those facilities currently in existence and those that
are currently committed. A more detailed discussion of the projects contained in the baseline
scenario is presented in Appendix D.
CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)
To be in conformance with federal standards, the RTP and TIP must meet specific tests. For CO
analysis it is required that the estimated emissions calculated for a future year build scenario be
lower than the on-road mobile source emissions (transportation) budget contained in the CO SIP.
The RTP and TIP must also meet one of the following conformity tests: 1) The estimated
emissions calculated for a future year build scenario must be lower than the no-build scenario of
the same future year; or 2) The estimated emissions calculated for a future year build scenario
must be lower than the estimated base year (1995) emissions.
Computer modeling has been performed for the build network scenarios over three different
forecast years – 2005, 2015 and 2023. No VMT reduction credits have been taken for
improvements contained in the build network scenarios.
Carbon monoxide emission factors were developed using the EPA Mobile 5b Cold CO model
(see Appendix E). Carbon monoxide emission factors for Medford’s fleet of vehicles when
operated at specific speeds were multiplied by the amount of vehicle miles that traveled at those
speeds. The EMME/2 regional transportation model predicted travel speeds and traffic volumes
for each analysis scenario. Table 3 summarizes the results of the conformity analyses for CO. A
copy of the spreadsheet used for the analysis is available for review at the RVCOG offices.
TABLE 3 – CO BUILD vs. BUDGET ANALYSIS
Scenario
(Medford Urban
Growth Boundary)
8
Build CO
(lbs./day)
CO SIP
Budget
(lbs./day)
2005 Build
33,929
51,471
2015 Build
20,031
26,693
2023 Build
22,237
32,640
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10)
Due to the boundary differences between the RVMPO area and the Medford-Ashland AQMA
(see Figure 1, p. 2) and the related fact that only the MPO area is modeled to predict future
traffic growth and congestion, a complex methodology exists for calculating PM10 emissions in
the AQMA. The standard that must be met for PM10 emissions is the “build/no build test, ”
where the action network - or street network that includes the projects from the TIP and RTP - is
compared to the baseline network. Calculation of PM10 emissions has been estimated for the
AQMA using two separate data sets – modeled VMT and off-model VMT.
Modeled VMT
The RVMPO area is computer “modeled” to estimate the regional congestion impacts of
transportation and land use changes in future years. The MPO model provides a forecast of
average daily traffic on each link. The daily traffic assignment for each link is multiplied by the
link’s length to yield vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, for each link. VMT is multiplied by a PM10
emission factor (supplied by ODEQ) to estimate the PM10 pollution associated with traffic in the
MPO area.
The RVMPO model network contains approximately 565 one-way link miles. For analysis
purposes, this network of links has been divided, based on varying PM10 emission factors, into
six categories. These six categories include: Interstate 5, High ADT streets (state highways,
arterials and freeway ramps), Low ADT streets (collectors) and three separate categories for the
White City area – an area of high priority for PM10 monitoring.
Computer modeling has been performed for six separate analyses over three different forecast
years – 2005, 2015 and 2023. For each forecast year, two analyses, representing both the
“action” and “baseline” networks for each respective year, have been completed. For the baseline
analyses, direct model output has been used to calculate PM10 emissions. In the 2005, 2015 and
2023 action network analyses, VMT reduction credits have been taken for bicycle and pedestrian
network improvements (explained below).
Off Model VMT
For all of the roadways outside of the MPO area, and for those within the MPO but not included
on the model, an “off-model” calculation is used to estimate PM10 emissions. The methods used
to calculate VMT for these roadway segments are summarized below in Table 4.
Six street types are included in the off-model calculation. In Table 4, these street types are listed
under “PM10 Analysis Category.” The first two, “White City” and “Other MPO,” make up all the
streets (with the exception of unpaved roads) in the MPO area that were not included on the
model. The third category, “Unpaved,” represents all the unpaved roads in the AQMA, including
those in the MPO area. The fourth category, “Non-MPO Low ADT,” represents all the paved
roads outside the MPO area, except arterials, state highways, freeway ramps and Interstate 5.
These street types have been included in the last two categories listed.
Table 1 describes how VMT (and then PM10 emissions) have been estimated for off-model
roadway segments. For some of the analysis categories, calculations have been made using
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
9
assumptions developed by ODOT’s Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit (TPAU). Such
assumptions include:

Local street system VMT is equal to 10% of the modeled VMT (MPO Area).

Two-way Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on unpaved roads will be 20 vehicles in 1998,
increasing at 1.2% per year.
The ratio of VMT on high and low volume roadways outside the MPO is assumed to be the same
as it is inside the MPO.
TABLE 4 – OFF-MODEL PM10 ANALYSIS CATEGORIES AND DESCRIPTIONS
Off-Model VMT
PM10 Analysis Category
Description
How VMT Calculated
White City
Local streets in White City area
10% of Modeled VMT in White City area1
Other MPO
Local streets in MPO area
(outside White City)
10% of Modeled VMT in MPO, excluding
White City1
Unpaved
All unpaved streets (all AQMA)
ADT2 X Segment Length
Non-MPO Low ADT
Collectors and local streets
outside MPO
Assumed proportional to MPO area3
Non-MPO High ADT
Arterials, state highways and
ramps outside MPO
ADT4 X Segment Length
Interstate 5 segments outside
ADT4 X Segment Length
MPO
1
Assumption that local street system VMT is equal to 10% of modeled VMT developed by Oregon Department of
Transportation’s Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit (TPAU).
2
ADT is assumed to be 20 on unpaved roads in 1998, increasing 1.2% per year (TPAU, 12/00).
3
Off-model local streets in the MPO are added to the modeled Low ADT streets in order to make a proportional
comparison of VMT for off-model Low ADT roads to MPO High ADT roads.
4
Jackson County Smartmap GIS provides ADT information for Interstate 5 and High ADT roads outside the MPO
(1998). Annual traffic growth rates developed by TPAU were applied to these segments in order to estimate future
VMT.
Interstate 5
VMT Reduction Credits - Bicycle Network Improvements
The 2001-2023 RTP contains several projects that include development of bicycle facilities.
These projects represent a total of 106 added miles of bike lanes or wide shoulders (4 foot plus)
during the planning period. The travel demand model used to estimate VMT is not sensitive to
the presence of bike lanes and therefore cannot predict any benefits that may result from the
construction of new bicycle facilities. Analyses performed by the Salem-Keizer MPO (SKATS
TIP and Air Quality Conformity Determination, May 2001) assume that:
10

the overall number of bicycle trips can be expected to increase proportionally to increases
in the number of bicycle lane miles;

bike to work trips replace drive to work trips on a one to one basis; and

all other bike trips replace auto trips on a one to four basis.
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
The same assumptions are used for the VMT reduction calculations made for bicycle network
and sidewalk network improvements described below.
In order to estimate the VMT reduction benefits attributable to improvements in the MPO
regional bicycle network several assumptions were required. These assumptions are described in
detail in the Table Notes/Assumptions section following Table 3. Improvements in the regional
bicycle network (added bike lanes and wide shoulders) were mapped in GIS and coded according
to implementation period.
TABLE 5 – VMT REDUCTION CALCULATION – BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS
Daily VMT Reduction Calculation
Journey to work trips
2000
2005
2015
72,954
78,866
92,085 103,366
802
868
1,013
1,137
9,229
9,977
11,649
13,076
Bike to work trips (no network improvements)
Other bike trips (no network improvements)
Average bicycle trip length – work (in miles)
4.0
Average bicycle trip length – other (in miles)
2.8
Regional bicycle network (in miles)
68
2023
91
132
167
Percentage growth in regional bicycle network
n/a
33%
93%
145%
Bicycle work trip increase (no network improvements)
n/a
65
210
335
Bicycle work trip increase due to added bike lanes
n/a
21
197
484
Other bicycle trip increase (no network improvements)
n/a
748
2,420
3,847
Other bicycle trip increase due to added bike lanes
n/a
247
2,260
5,563
VMT reduction from added bike lanes
n/a
258
2,368
5,830
Table 5 Notes and Assumptions:
Journey to work trips – Determined from MPO model output.
Bike to work trips - 1990 Census shows 1.1% of journey to work trips by bicycle in MPO. This
percentage is assumed to remain constant given no network improvements over the "baseline" or
year 2000 scenario.
Other bike trips - The 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) shows that bike to
work trips comprise 8% of all bicycle trips. This percentage is assumed to apply to the MPO
area. Non-work (other) trips have been calculated using this assumption.
Average bicycle trip length – work - NPTS shows an average round trip distance for bike to
work trips of 4.0 miles. This figure is assumed to apply to the MPO area.
Average bicycle trip length – other - NPTS shows an average round trip distance of 2.8 miles for
all bike trips. This figure is assumed to apply to the MPO area for "other" bike trips.
Regional bicycle network - Assumes continuous implementation of Tier 1 projects in RTP.
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
11
Percentage growth in regional bicycle network - Percent growth in bicycle network is compared
to baseline (year 2000).
Bicycle work trip increase - Increases due primarily to population growth, holding proportional
to journey to work trips. Baseline bike to work trips subtracted from analysis year.
Bicycle work trip increase due to added bike lanes - Assumes an increase over baseline trip
increases proportional to bicycle network improvements.
Other bicycle trip increase - Increases due primarily to population growth, holding proportional
to journey to work trips. Baseline other bike trips subtracted from analysis year.
Other bicycle trip increase due to added bike lanes - Assumes an increase over baseline trip
increases proportional to bicycle network improvements.
VMT reduction from added bike lanes - Assumes that bike to work and other bike trip increases
due to added bike lanes replace auto trips on 1 to 1 and 1 to 4 basis, respectively. Trip lengths are
assumed to be equal to the average trip lengths shown in the table. Only trip increases owing to
added bike lanes are counted toward VMT reduction credits.
VMT Reduction Credits - Sidewalk Network Improvements
As with bicycle facilities, the travel demand model used to estimate VMT is not sensitive to the
presence of sidewalks and therefore cannot predict any benefits that may result from the
construction of new sidewalks planned in the 2001-2023 RTP. As with bicycle improvements, it
has also been assumed for sidewalks, that the overall number of daily walk trips can be expected
to increase proportionally to increases in sidewalk miles. Further assumptions used to estimate
the VMT reduction benefits are described in detail in the Table Notes/Assumptions section
following Table 6. Improvements in the sidewalk network were mapped in GIS and coded
according to implementation period.
TABLE 6 – VMT REDUCTION CALCULATION – SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
Daily VMT Reduction Calculation
Journey to work trips
Walk to work trips (no network improvements)
2000
2005
72,954
78,866 92,085 103,366
1,970
Other walk trips (no network improvements)
26,178
Average walking trip length – work (in miles)
2,129
2023
2,486
2,791
28,299 33,043
37,091
1.0
Average walking trip length – other (in miles)
1.1
Regional sidewalk network (in miles)
12
2015
24
41
67
80
Percentage growth in regional sidewalk network
n/a
71%
177%
232%
Walk to work trip increase (no network improvements)
n/a
160
517
821
Walk to work trip increase due to added sidewalks
n/a
113
914
1,908
Other walking trip increase (no network improvements)
n/a
2,121
6,865
10,913
Other walking trip increase due to added sidewalks
n/a
1,504 12,141
25,351
VMT reduction from added sidewalks
n/a
527
4,252
8,879
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
Table 6 Notes and Assumptions:
Journey to work trips – Determined from MPO model output.
Walk to work trips - 1990 Census shows 2.7% of journey to work trips by walking in MPO. This
percentage is assumed to remain constant given no network improvements over the "baseline" or
year 2000 scenario.
Other walk trips - The 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) shows that walk to
work trips comprise 7% of all walking trips. This percentage is assumed to apply to the MPO
area. Non-work (other) walk trips have been calculated using this assumption.
Average walking trip length – work - NPTS shows an average round trip distance for walk to
work trips of 1.0 miles. This figure is assumed to apply to the MPO area.
Average walking trip length – other - NPTS shows an average round trip distance of 1.1 miles
for all walking trips. This figure is assumed to apply to the MPO area for "other" walk trips.
Regional sidewalk network - Assumes continuous implementation of Tier 1 projects in RTP.
Percentage growth in regional sidewalk network - Percent growth in sidewalk network is
compared to baseline (year 2000).
Walk to work trip increase - Increases due primarily to population growth, holding proportional
to journey to work trips. Baseline walk to work trips subtracted from analysis year.
Walk to work trip increase due to added sidewalks - Assumes an increase over baseline trip
increases proportional to sidewalk improvements.
Other walking trip increase - Increases due primarily to population growth, holding proportional
to journey to work trips. Baseline other walk trips subtracted from analysis year.
Other walking trip increase due to added sidewalks - Assumes an increase over baseline trip
increases proportional to sidewalk improvements.
VMT reduction from added sidewalks - Assumes that walk to work and other walk trip increases
due to added sidewalks replace auto trips on 1 to 1 and 1 to 4 basis, respectively. Trip lengths are
assumed to be equal to the average trip lengths shown in the table. Only trip increases owing to
added sidewalks are counted toward VMT reduction credits.
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
13
Table 7 summarizes the results of the PM10 analyses prepared for the 2005, 2015 and 2023 action
and baseline networks. The analyses show that, even prior to taking credit for VMT reduction
measures in the action network scenarios, the action networks result in a reduction in VMT and
PM10 emissions over the baseline networks.
TABLE 7 – PM10 ANALYSIS – MODEL AND OFF-MODEL CALCULATIONS
Modeled VMT
Off-Model VMT
PM10 Analysis
Category
PM10
Emission
Factor
(g/VMT)
2005
Action
(Build)
2005
Baseline
(No Build)
2015
Action
(Build)
2015
Baseline
(No Build)
2023
Action
(Build)
2023
Baseline
(No Build)
White City
6.74
17,862
25,171
21,304
29,536
24,392
33,469
Other MPO
1.72
142,445
135,216
173,799
164,809
193,022
187,795
521.63
2,477
2,477
2,807
2,807
3,104
3,104
Non-MPO Low ADT
1.72
181,012
195,440
221,734
242,271
258,010
279,826
Non-MPO High ADT
0.87
316,419
316,419
373,435
373,435
424,749
424,749
Interstate 5
0.33
345,667
345,667
422,709
422,709
492,047
492,047
White City Low ADT
6.74
68,470
67,924
83,706
84,906
98,289
99,491
White City High ADT
3.7
105,847
179,361
124,884
205,590
141,489
229,504
14.46
4,392
4,428
5,171
4,866
5,796
5,690
MPO Low ADT
1.72
416,579
417,138
526,867
530,627
608,510
612,451
MPO High ADT
0.87
1,008,565
935,018
1,217,025
1,117,465
1,367,484
1,265,498
Interstate 5
0.33
667,453
666,253
784,656
802,662
902,920
917,920
3,277,187
3,290,509
3,958,096
3,981,682
4,523,085
4,551,544
Unpaved
White City Ave. G
Sub Total VMT
VMT Reduction Credits
Total VMT
Total PM10 Emissions (lbs./day)
14
PM10 Analysis Scenario - VMT
785
n/a
6,620
n/a
14,709
n/a
3,276,402
3,290,509
3,951,476
3,981,682
4,508,376
4,551,544
11,217
11,808
13,376
14,068
15,163
15,962
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
Appendix A:
Resolution Adopting RTP and TIP Conformity Determinations
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
15
Appendix B:
PM10 Intergovernmental Agreement
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
ROGUE VALLEY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION; THE OREGON
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; THE ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT;
AND THE CITIES LISTED BELOW AS PART OF THE DESIGNATED MEDFORDASHLAND AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE AREA.
This agreement is entered into by the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization,
hereinafter referred to as “RVMPO”, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), the cities of Ashland, Talent,
Jacksonville, and Eagle Point, the Rogue Valley Council of Governments, and Jackson County,
hereinafter referred to as “AFFECTED AGENCIES”. These cities are not located within the
RVMPO boundary but are located within the designated Medford-Ashland Air Quality
Maintenance Area for particulate matter. This agreement governs the relationship between these
affected agencies in achieving cooperative transportation planning as required by the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and making conformity determinations required by the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the state and federal conformity regulations.
WHEREAS, the Rogue Valley Council of Governments, is a voluntary association of local
governments formed under ORS Chapter 190, serving Jackson and Josephine Counties Oregon;
and
WHEREAS, RVCOG has been designated as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the
Greater Medford Urban Area with specific member agencies including: Jackson County, the
Rogue Valley Transportation District, the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Cities of
Medford, Central Point and Phoenix; and
WHEREAS, the area within Medford Urban Growth Boundary has been designated as a nonattainment area for carbon monoxide and is within the MPO boundary; and
WHEREAS, the Medford-Ashland AQMA has been designated as a non-attainment area for
particulate matter and encompasses and goes beyond the MPO boundary.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above, the parties agree as follows:
1. COOPERATIVE PLANNING: RVMPO, AFFECTED AGENCIES, ODOT and ODEQ
agree to cooperatively carry out regional transportation planning including corridor and subarea
studies; and programming as established by the requirements of the Oregon Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Authority, 23 (CFR) Part 450
and 23 CFR Part 613.
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
16
(a) Transportation system planning in rural AQMA areas shall be the joint responsibility
of ODOT, the County and Cities, with facility ownership establishing specific project-level
responsibility. Demographic assumptions used in the planning process, both historical and
projected, shall be developed by RVCOG in consultation with Affected Agencies. RVCOG shall
be responsible for transportation system planning (pursuant to the federal Metropolitan Planning
Regulations) within the established MPO boundary of the AQMA unless otherwise amended
pursuant to applicable state law. Transportation modeling for the area outside of the MPO
boundary, but within the AQMA, shall be the responsibility of RVCOG in consultation with
ODOT.
2. CONFORMITY DETERMINATIONS: RVMPO, Affected Agencies, ODOT and ODEQ
agree to cooperatively determine the need for air quality analysis of all projects outside the
metropolitan planning area but within the non-attainment or maintenance areas; and ensure all
regionally significant projects will be analyzed for total transportation emissions within the nonattainment or maintenance areas, including areas both within and outside the metropolitan
planning area, for the purposes of determining conformity in accordance with the state
conformity regulation, OAR 340-020-0710 et. seq.
(a) ODOT Region 3, RVTD, the County and Cities are responsible for providing a list of
planned transportation projects proposed in the non-MPO portion of the AQMA to the RVMPO.
The RVMPO Technical Advisory Committee shall review the project list to determine the
presence of regionally significant transportation projects. Failure to provide a list of projects
shall cause any regionally significant projects to be omitted from RVCOG’s regional emissions
analysis. Local agency approval of any regionally significant transportation project not analyzed
as part of a regional emissions analysis, would constitute a violation of the Clean Air Act and the
State Implementation Plan.
Therefore, upon discovery that a federally or non-federally funded, regionally significant
transportation project outside of the MPO boundary but within the AQMA has not been assessed
for conformity with the SIP, parties to this agreement shall withhold right-of-way and
construction funding until the project has been included in a regional emissions analysis. Upon
discovery that privately funded, regionally significant transportation project within the AQMA
has not been assessed for conformity with the SIP, parties to this agreement shall deny approval
of the project until the project has been included in a regional emissions analysis.
(b) Project declarations shall specify when facility construction and operation are
expected. Project declarations shall define project design concept, scope and phasing sufficient
to permit analysis of air quality impacts and, to the extent feasible, shall provide estimates of cost
and source(s) of committed and/or anticipated revenue. The interpretation of engineering
specifications for purposes of defining system modeling parameters shall be conducted by
ODOT and RVCOG staff pursuant to reasonable professional practice and in consultation with
project sponsors.
(c) Regionally significant projects within the AQMA shall have the meaning defined in
40 CFR Part 51.392, as augmented by the list of exempt projects contained in Parts 51.460 and
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
17
51.462, or such other definition as agreed to in consultation among RVCOG, ODEQ, ODOT and
Affected Agencies. RVCOG's consultation with ODOT, ODEQ and Affected Agencies
regarding non-MPO area projects selected for analysis shall occur at the same time as RVCOG's
consultation regarding overall system definitions used in making conformity determinations.
(d) Emissions resulting from regionally significant projects occurring both inside and
outside the MPO boundary shall be computed by RVCOG in a combined quantitative analysis
satisfying the applicable conformity requirements.
3.
SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF TRANSPORTATION CONTROL
MEASURES (TCMs): RVMPO and Affected Agencies, in consultation with ODOT and ODEQ,
agree to cooperatively select projects that help the AQMA attain and maintain meet national
ambient air quality standards.
(a) The RVMPO Policy and Technical Advisory Committees, in consultation with ODEQ
and ODOT, will be responsible for identifying and implementing transportation control measures
within the MPO necessary to attain and maintain national ambient air quality standards.
(b) The RVMPO and Affected Agencies, in consultation with ODEQ and ODOT, will be
responsible for identifying and implementing transportation control measures outside the MPO
but within the AQMA necessary to attain and maintain national ambient air quality standards.
4. CONFLICT RESOLUTION
(a) Quantification of emissions attributable to regionally significant projects will result in
the TIP and/or RTP either passing or failing the conformity requirements. In the event of a
failure to demonstrate conformity, the affected agencies will cooperate in defining actions both
within and outside of the MPO boundary but within the AQMA, that are necessary to achieve
conformity of proposed projects with the SIP. The RVCOG Policy and Technical Advisory
Committees, in consultation with the Affected Agencies, ODOT and ODEQ, will be relied on to
identify TIP/RTP amendments needed to demonstrate SIP conformity. Appropriate amendments
or actions may include deletion of highway expansion projects, programming of transportation
control and/or demand management measures or a combination thereof.
(b) To the extent that deletion of highway expansion projects is pursued to demonstrate
conformity, due weight in the selection process shall be given to the relative contribution of nonMPO and MPO area emissions to total AQMA emissions. Countervailing considerations may
include safety and preservation benefits of modernization proposals together with such other
technical and administrative criteria as may be deemed appropriate by the RVMPO, ODOT,
ODEQ and Affected Agencies.
5. AIR QUALITY STANDING COMMITTEE
Pursuant to the requirements contained in OAR 340-20-710 et. seq., the RVMPO
Technical Advisory Committee is designated as the standing committee to advise the MPO on air
quality issues. The Air Quality Standing Committee, in consultation with Affected Agencies,
ODOT, and ODEQ, shall meet on a quarterly basis.
18
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
Medford-Ashland Air Quality Maintenance Area
Particulate Mattter (PM10) Intergovernmental Agreement
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
19
Appendix C:
Criteria and Procedures for Determining Conformity
340-252-0030 Regionally Significant Project
A transportation project, other than an exempt project, that is on a facility which serves regional
transportation needs, such as access to and from the area outside the region, major activity
centers in the region, major planned developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes,
etc., or transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves, and would normally be
included in the modeling of a metropolitan area's transportation network, including at a
minimum:
(a) All principal arterial highways;
(b) All fixed guideway transit facilities that offer an alternative to regional highway travel; and
(c) Any other facilities determined to be regionally significant through interagency consultation
pursuant to OAR 340-252-0060.
340-252-0270 Exempt Projects
Notwithstanding the other requirements of this rule, highway and transit projects of the types
listed in Table 2 are exempt from the requirement that a conformity determination be made. Such
projects may proceed toward implementation even in the absence of a conforming transportation
plan and TIP. A particular action of the type listed in Table 2 of this section is not exempt if the
MPO or ODOT in consultation with other agencies under OAR 340-252-0060(3)(b) & (d), and
the EPA, and the FHWA (in case of a highway project) or the FTA (in the case of a transit
project) concur that it has potentially adverse emissions impacts for any reason. States and MPOs
must ensure that exempt projects do not interfere with TCM implementation.
Table 2 - Exempt Projects
Safety
Railroad/highway crossing.
Hazard elimination program.
Safer non-Federal-aid system roads.
Shoulder improvements.
Increasing sight distance.
Safety improvement program.
Traffic control devices and operating assistance other than signalization projects.
Railroad/highway crossing warning devices.
Guardrails, median barriers, crash cushions.
Pavement resurfacing and/or resurfacing.
Pavement marking demonstration.
Emergency relief (23 U.S.C. 125).
Fencing.
Skid treatments.
Safety roadside rest areas.
Adding medians.
Truck climbing lanes outside the urbanized area.
Lighting improvements.
Widening narrow pavements or reconstructing bridges (no additional travel lanes).
Emergency truck pullovers.
20
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
Mass Transit
Operating assistance to transit agencies.
Purchase of support vehicles.
Rehabilitation of transit vehicles.
Purchase of office, shop, and operating equipment for existing facilities.
Purchase of operating equipment for vehicles (e.g., radios, fareboxes, lifts, etc.).
Construction or renovation of power, signal, and communications systems.
Construction of small passenger shelters and information kiosks.
Reconstruction or renovation of transit buildings and structures (e.g., rail or bus buildings, storage and maintenance
facilities, stations, terminals, and ancillary structures).
Rehabilitation or reconstruction of track structures, track, and trackbed in existing rights-of-way.
Purchase of new buses and rail cars to replace existing vehicles or for minor expansions of the fleet.
Construction of new bus or rail storage/maintenance facilities categorically excluded in 23 CFR 771.
Air Quality
Continuation of ridesharing and vanpooling promotion activities at current levels.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Other
Specific activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction such as:
-Planning and technical studies.
-Grants for training and research programs.
-Planning activities conducted pursuant to titles 23 and 49 U.S.C.
-Federal-aid systems revisions.
Engineering to assess social, economic, and environmental effects of the proposed action or alternatives to that
action.
Noise attenuation.
Advance land acquisitions (23 CFR 712 or 23 CFR 771).
Acquisition of scenic easements.
Plantings, landscaping, etc.
Sign removal.
Directional and informational signs.
Transportation enhancement activities (except rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings,
structures, or facilities).
Repair of damage caused by natural disasters, civil unrest, or terrorist acts, except projects involving substantial
functional, locational, or capacity changes.
340-252-0280 Projects Exempt from Regional Emissions Analyses
Notwithstanding the other requirements of this rule, highway and transit projects of the types
listed in Table 3 of this section are exempt from regional emissions analysis requirements. The
local effects of these projects with respect to CO or PM10 concentrations must be considered to
determine if a hot-spot analysis is required prior to making a project-level conformity
determination. These projects may then proceed to the project development process even in the
absence of a conforming transportation plan and TIP. A particular action of the type listed in
Table 3 is not exempt from a regional emissions analysis if the MPO or ODOT in consultation
with other agencies (see OAR 340-252-0060), the EPA, and the FHWA (in the case of a highway
project) or the FTA (in the case of a transit project) concur that it has potential regional impacts
for any reason.
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
21
Table 3
Intersection channelization projects.
Intersection signalization projects at individual intersections.
Interchange reconfiguration projects.
Changes in vertical and horizontal alignment.
Truck size and weight inspection stations.
Bus terminals and transfer points.
340-252-0290 Traffic Signal Synchronization Projects
Traffic signal synchronization projects may be approved, funded, and implemented without
satisfying the requirements of this division. However, all subsequent regional emissions analyses
required by OAR 340-252-0190 and 340-252-0200 for transportation plans, TIPs, or projects not
from a conforming plan and TIP must include such regionally significant traffic signal
synchronization projects.
340-252-0220 Requirements for Adoption or Approval of Projects by Other Recipients of
Funds Designated under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws
(1) Except as provided in section 2 of this rule [Not Applicable to MPO areas], no recipient of
federal funds designated under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws shall adopt or approve
a regionally significant highway or transit project, regardless of funding source, unless the
recipient finds that the requirements of one of the following are met:
(a) The project was included in the first three years of the most recently conforming
transportation plan and TIP (or the conformity determination’s regional emissions analyses),
even if conformity status is currently lapsed; and the project’s design concept and scope has not
changed signficantly from those analyses;
(b) There is a currently conforming transportation plan and TIP, and a new regional emissions
analysis including the project and the currently conforming transportation plan and TIP
demonstrates that the transportation plan and TIP would still conform if the project were
implemented (consistent with the requirements of OAR 340-252-0190 and/or 340-252-0200 for a
project not from a conforming transportation plan and TIP); or
(c) Where applicable, as established in OAR 340-252-0240, project level hot-spot analyses have
been satisfied.
22
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
Appendix D:
No-Build (Baseline) Scenario vs. Build (Action) Scenario
Baseline Scenario - Definition
The future transportation system that would result from current programs composed of the
following (except exempt projects listed in Section 460 & 462):
1.
2.
3.
All in place regionally significant highway and transit facilities, services and activities.
All ongoing travel demand management (TDM) and transportation system management
(TSM) activities.
Completion of all regionally significant projects (regardless of funding source) which:
a.
Are currently under construction or are undergoing right-of-way acquisition.
b.
Come from the first three years of the previously conforming TIP.
c.
Have completed the NEPA process.
For the first conformity analysis after November 23, 1993, a project cannot be in the baseline if
one of the following major steps has not occurred in the last three years.
1.
2.
3.
4.
NEPA process completion.
Start of final design.
Acquisition of significant R.O.W.
Approval of PS&E package.
(ref. 51 CFR Sections 436, 438, 442, 444, 460 and 462)
Action Scenario - Definition
The future transportation system that will result from the implementation of the proposed TIP
(for TIP analysis) or Plan (for Plan analysis) and other expected regionally significant projects in
the time frame of the transportation plan. Specifically, it will include the following (except for
exempt projects listed in Sections 460 & 462):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
All facilities, services and activities in the baseline scenario.
Completion of all TCMs and regionally significant projects included in the proposed TIP
(for TIP analysis) of Plan (for Plan analysis).
All TDM and TSM activities adopted or modified since the TIP conformity determination
(for TIP analysis) or Plan conformity determination (for Plan analysis).
Completion of all expected regionally significant projects not from a conforming
transportation plan and TIP.
Completion of all expected regionally significant non FHWA/FTA projects having clear
funding sources and commitments.
(ref. 51 CFR Sections 428, 430, 436, 438, 442, 444, 460 and 462)
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
23
Table 8 shows the specific 2002-2005 TIP and 2001-2023 RTP projects included in the modeling
for the baseline (no-build), 2005, 2015 and 2023 action (build) scenarios. Projects are taken from
the 2001-2023 RTP and are listed in numeric order by jurisdiction.
TABLE 8 – REGIONAL EMISSIONS ANALYSIS PROJECTS
RTP #
Project Location
Project Description
Conformity Analysis
Base
2005
2015
2023
ODOT
1
Hwy 62/I-5 Unit 1
Construct 5-lane overpasses, widen bridge, re-config. interchange




2
Hwy 238 Unit 1
Construct new three lane road with bike lanes and sidewalks




3
South Medford Interchange
Construct new interchange - ODOT Share


12
Fern Valley Rd, interchange with I-5
Widen bridge structure to six lanes

Jackson County
200
Table Rock Rd, Pine St / Biddle Rd to Wilson Rd
Widen to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks




208
Leigh Way, Hwy 62 to Agate
Construct three lane street with bike lanes and sidewalks




215
Table Rock Rd, Wilson Rd to Antelope Rd
Widen to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks


222
Antelope Rd, Table Rock Rd to 7th Street
Widen to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks

226
Leigh Way, Agate to Antelope
Construct new three lane road with shoulder bikeway

227
Vilas Rd, Haul Rd to Crater Lake Ave
Widen to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks

400
McAndrews, Foothill to Tamarack/Hillcrest
Construct new five lane road with sidewalk & bike path




401
Garfield, Holly to Rogue Valley Hwy
Construct new five lane road with bike lanes and sidewalks




402
Lozier Ln, Cunningham (Garfield) to Stewart Ave
Construct new three lane road with bike lanes and sidewalks




403
Garfield, Peach to King
Widen to four lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes and sidewalks



404
Coker Butte Rd, Crater Lake Hwy to Lear Way
Construct new five lane road with bike lanes and sidewalks




405
Juanipero, Olympic to Golf View
Construct new three lane road with bike lanes and sidewalks




406
N. Phoenix, Cherry to Hillcrest
Construct new five lane road with bike lanes and sidewalks




408
Barnett Rd, Alba to Highland
Widen to six lanes with bike lanes, and sidewalks



411
Lear Way, Lear Way Plaza to Coker Butte Rd.
Construct new two lane road with bike lanes and sidewalks



412
S. Holly, Garfield Rd to Holmes
Construct new two lane road with bike lanes and sidewalks



413
Columbus Ave., Service Center to Sage
Realign & widen to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks




415
Delta Waters Rd, Haul Rd to Lear Way
Construct new three lane road with bike lanes and sidewalks




444
N. Front St., Jackson to Edwards
Construct new three lane road with bike lanes and sidewalks


466
Spring, Crater Lake Ave to Sunrise
Widen to five lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes and sidewalks

467
Lear Way, Coker Butte to Vilas
Construct new two lane road with bike lanes and sidewalks

471
Spring, Pierce to Foothill
Construct new three lane road with bike lanes and sidewalks

475
Coker Butte Rd, Hwy 62 to east
Move Coker Butte Rd north and realign Crater Lake Ave

478
Coker Butte Rd, Crater Lake Hwy to Foothill
Realign and widen to rural two-lane with shoulder bikeway

Medford

Central Point



601
W. Pine Street, Haskell St. to Highway 99
Widen to 5 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, urban upgrade
619
Grant Rd., Taylor Road to Beall Lane
Realign and widen to three lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks

620
Grant Rd., Scenic Ave. to Taylor Road
Realign, widen to three lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks

800
S. Phoenix Rd., Fern Valley to Pear Tree Ln.
Construct new four lane street with bike lanes and sidewalks




801
Furry Rd., Pear Tree Ln. to S. Phoenix Rd.
Construct new two lane street with sidewalks




814
Third St., Terminus to Bear Creek Dr.
Construct new street with bike lanes and sidewalks


824
Fern Valley Rd., Hwy 99 to Phoenix UGB (East)
Widen to five lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks

825
Parking St., Bear Creek Dr. to Third St.
Construct new street with bike lanes and sidewalks

826
Hwy 99 @ Tiger Mart/Ray's Parking Lot
Re-alignment of Cheryl Rd

Phoenix
24
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
Appendix E:
Mobile 5b Cold CO Emission Factors
87% CO emiss. factors (gm/mile)
MPH
2005
2023
13% CO emiss. factors (gm/mile)
MPH
2005
2015
The table at right shows the
5
50.47
27.93
28.11
5
51.79
30.31
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
6
44.34
24.74
24.84
6
45.50
26.82
emission factors used to
7
39.88
22.38
22.42
7
40.91
24.24
8
36.46
20.56
20.54
8
37.40
22.26
calculate daily CO emmisions
9
33.76
19.10
19.05
9
34.63
20.67
in the Medford Urban Growth
10
31.56
17.91
17.82
10
32.38
19.37
11
29.74
16.91
16.79
11
30.51
18.28
Boundary (UGB) area for this
12
28.20
16.05
15.91
12
28.93
17.36
air
quality
conformity
13
26.89
15.32
15.16
13
27.58
16.57
determination. The emission
14
25.75
14.68
14.51
14
26.41
15.88
15
24.76
14.13
13.93
15
25.39
15.27
factors have been output from
16
23.88
13.63
13.42
16
24.50
14.74
the “Mobile 5b Cold CO”
17
23.10
13.19
12.97
17
23.70
14.26
18
22.41
12.80
12.56
18
22.99
13.83
emissions model used by the
19
21.78
12.44
12.20
19
22.35
13.45
US EPA and ODEQ. The left
20
21.12
11.97
11.71
20
21.66
12.94
series of columns shows the
21
20.38
11.40
11.12
21
20.89
12.31
22
19.71
10.87
10.59
22
20.19
11.74
factors (by 1 mile per hour
23
19.10
10.40
10.10
23
19.56
11.22
increments) used for 87% of
24
18.53
9.96
9.65
24
18.97
10.74
the vehicle fleet (assumed to
25
18.02
9.56
9.23
25
18.43
10.30
26
17.54
9.19
8.85
26
17.94
9.90
be part of an inspection and
27
17.10
8.85
8.50
27
17.48
9.52
maintenance program) for the
28
16.69
8.53
8.17
28
17.05
9.18
29
16.31
8.24
7.87
29
16.66
8.85
analysis years, 2005, 2015
30
15.96
7.96
7.59
30
16.29
8.55
and 2023. The right series of
31
15.63
7.71
7.33
31
15.95
8.27
columns shows the factors
32
15.32
7.47
7.08
32
15.63
8.01
33
15.03
7.25
6.85
33
15.33
7.77
assumed for the remaining
34
14.77
7.04
6.64
34
15.05
7.54
13% of the vehicle fleet
35
14.51
6.84
6.44
35
14.79
7.33
36
14.28
6.66
6.25
36
14.54
7.13
(assumed to not be part of an
37
14.05
6.49
6.07
37
14.31
6.94
inspection and maintenance
38
13.85
6.33
5.91
38
14.09
6.76
program). Total emissions are
39
13.65
6.17
5.75
39
13.89
6.60
40
13.46
6.03
5.60
40
13.69
6.44
calculated by using the
41
13.29
5.90
5.47
41
13.51
6.29
RVCOG
travel
demand
42
13.13
5.77
5.34
42
13.34
6.15
model to estimate VMT and
43
12.97
5.65
5.21
43
13.18
6.02
44
12.83
5.54
5.10
44
13.03
5.90
travel speed along individual
45
12.69
5.44
4.99
45
12.88
5.78
lengths of the modeled street
46
12.56
5.34
4.89
46
12.75
5.67
47
12.44
5.24
4.79
47
12.62
5.57
network in the Medford UGB.
48
12.32
5.16
4.70
48
12.50
5.47
For each link of an estimated
49
12.33
5.16
4.71
49
12.51
5.48
speed
(there
are
50
12.34
5.17
4.71
50
12.52
5.48
51
12.35
5.17
4.72
51
12.53
5.49
approximately 2,025 links in
52
12.36
5.18
4.73
52
12.54
5.50
the Medford UGB), the VMT
53
12.37
5.20
4.74
53
12.55
5.52
54
12.39
5.21
4.76
54
12.57
5.53
is multiplied by the 87%
55
12.41
5.23
4.78
55
12.59
5.55
emission factors and then by
the 13% emission factors. These amounts are then added to get the total CO emissions.
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
2015
2023
29.13
25.73
23.21
21.27
19.72
18.44
17.38
16.47
15.69
15.01
14.42
13.89
13.42
13.00
12.63
12.12
11.51
10.95
10.44
9.98
9.55
9.15
8.78
8.45
8.13
7.84
7.57
7.31
7.07
6.85
6.64
6.45
6.26
6.09
5.93
5.77
5.63
5.49
5.37
5.25
5.13
5.03
4.93
4.84
4.84
4.85
4.85
4.86
4.88
4.89
4.91
25
Appendix F:
Transportation Planning Acronyms and Terms
ACT:
ADA:
ADT:
AQMA:
CAAA:
CBD:
CMAQ:
CO:
COATS:
DLCD:
EMME/2:
EPA:
FFY:
FHWA:
FTA:
FTZ:
FY:
GCP:
GIS:
HOT:
HOV:
HPMS:
I/M or I & M:
ISTEA:
ITS:
JJTC:
LOS:
LRT:
MIS:
MOU:
MPO:
MTIP:
NAAQS:
NARC:
NHS:
NPTS:
NTI:
OAR:
ODFW:
ODOT:
26
Area Commission on Transportation
Americans with Disabilities Act
Average Daily Traffic
Air Quality Maintenance Area
Clean Air Act Amendments
Central Business District
Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality
Carbon Monoxide
California Oregon Advanced Transportation Systems
Department of Land Conservation and Development
Computerized Transportation Modeling Software
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Fiscal Year: from October 1 to September 31.
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Foreign Trade Zone
Fiscal Year: (Oregon state fiscal year from July 1 to June 30)
General Corridor Planning
Geographic Information Systems
High Occupancy Toll lane with extra charge for single occupants
High Occupancy Vehicle lane for cars with more than one occupant
Highway Performance Monitoring System
Inspection and Maintenance Program for emissions control
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (1991)
Intelligent Transportation Systems
Jackson-Josephine Transportation Committee
Level of Service, a measure of traffic congestion from A (free-flow) to F
(grid-lock)
Light Rail Transit, self-propelled rail cars such as Portland’s MAX
Major Investment Study
Memorandum of Understanding
Metropolitan Planning Organization, a planning body in an urbanized area
over 50,000 population which has responsibility for developing
transportation plans for that area
Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (same as TIP)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Association of Regional Councils
National Highway System
Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey
National Transit Institute
Oregon Administrative Rules
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Oregon Department of Transportation
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
ORS:
OTC:
OTP:
PC:
PL Funds:
PM10:
PM2.5:
RTP:
RVACT:
RVCOG:
RVIA:
RVTD:
SIP:
SMSG:
SMP:
SOV:
STA:
STIP:
STP:
TAC:
TAZ:
TCM:
TDM:
TEA-21:
TIP:
TOD:
TPAU:
TPR:
TRADCO:
TSM:
TSP:
UGB:
UPWP:
US DOT:
VMT:
Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Transportation Commission, ODOT’s governing body
Oregon Transportation Plan
MPO Policy Committee
Public Law 112, Federal Planning Funds
Particulate Matter of less than 10 Micrometers
Particulate Matter of less than 2.5 Micrometers
Regional Transportation Plan
Rogue Valley Area Commission on Transportation
Rogue Valley Council of Governments
Rogue Valley International Airport
Rogue Valley Transportation District
State Implementation Plan
Statewide Modeling Steering Group
Statewide Modal Planning
Single Occupancy Vehicle
Special Transportation Area
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
Surface Transportation Program
Technical Advisory Committee
Transportation Analysis Zones
Traffic Control Measures
Transportation Demand Management
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
Transportation Improvement Program
Transit Oriented Development
Transportation Planning Analysis Unit
Transportation Planning Rule
Transportation Advisory Committee
Transportation Systems Management
Transportation System Plan
Urban Growth Boundary
Unified Planning Work Program
U.S. Department of Transportation
Vehicle Miles of Travel
Appropriation - Legislation that allocates budgeted funds from general revenues to programs
that have been previously authorized by other legislation. The amount of money appropriated
may be less than the amount authorized.
Authorization - Federal legislation that creates the policy and structure of a program including
formulas and guidelines for awarding funds. Authorizing legislation may set an upper limit on
program spending or may be open ended. General revenue funds to be spent under an
authorization must be appropriated by separate legislation.
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
27
Capital Costs - Non-recurring or infrequently recurring cost of long-term assets, such as land,
buildings, vehicles, and stations.
Conformity Analysis - A determination made by the MPOs and the US DOT that transportation
plans and programs in non-attainment areas meet the “purpose” of the SIP, which is to reduce
pollutant emissions to meet air quality standards.
Emissions Budget - The part of the SIP that identifies the allowable emissions levels for certain
pollutants emitted from mobile, stationary, and area sources. The emissions levels are used for
meeting emission reduction milestones, attainment, or maintenance demonstration.
Emissions Inventory - A complete list of sources and amounts of pollutant emissions within a
specific area and time interval (part of the SIP).
Exempt / Non-Exempt Projects - Transportation projects which will not change the operating
characteristics of a roadway are exempt from the Transportation Improvement Program
conformity analysis. Conformity analysis must be completed on projects that affect the distance,
speed, or capacity of a roadway.
Federal-aid Highways - Those highways eligible for assistance under Title 23 of the United
States Code, as amended, except those functionally classified as local or rural minor collectors.
Functional Classification - The grouping of streets and highways into classes, or systems
according to the character of service that they are intended to provide, e.g., residential, collector,
arterial, etc.
Key Number - Unique number assigned by ODOT to identify projects in the TIP/STIP.
Maintenance - Activities that preserve the function of the existing transportation system.
Maintenance Area - “Any geographical region of the United States that the EPA has designated
(under Section 175A of the CAA) for a transportation related pollutant(s) for which a national
ambient air quality standard exists.” This designation is used after non-attainment areas reach
attainment.
Mobile Sources - Mobile sources of air pollutants include motor vehicles, aircraft, seagoing
vessels, and other transportation modes. The mobile source related pollutants of greatest concern
are carbon monoxide (CO), transportation hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and
particulate matter (PM10). Mobile sources are subject to a different set of regulations than are
stationary and area sources of air pollutants.
Non-attainment Area - “Any geographic region of the United States that the EPA has
designated as non-attainment for a transportation related pollutant(s) for which a national
ambient air quality standard exists.”
28
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
Regionally Significant – From OAR 340-252-0030 (39) "Regionally significant project" means
a transportation project, other than an exempt project, that is on a facility which serves regional
transportation needs, such as access to and from the area outside the region, major activity
centers in the region, major planned developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes,
etc., or transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves, and would normally be
included in the modeling of a metropolitan area's transportation network, including at a
minimum:
(a) All principal arterial highways;
(b) All fixed guideway transit facilities that offer an alternative to regional highway travel; and
(c) Any other facilities determined to be regionally significant through interagency consultation
pursuant to OAR 340-252-0060.
3C - “Three C’s” = continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative - This term refers to the
requirements set forth in the Federal Highway Act of 1962 that transportation projects in
urbanized areas be based on a “continuing, comprehensive transportation planning process
carried out cooperatively by states and local communities.” ISTEA’s planning requirements
broaden the framework for such a process to include consideration of important social,
environmental and energy goals, and to involve the public in the process at several key decision
making points.
F:\TR\RTP Update 00-01\Final Documents\Final_AQCD.doc
TIP and RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination
29