《NCHRP-RPT-462-a.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《NCHRP-RPT-462-a.pdf（28页珍藏版）》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD Quantifying Air-Quality and Other Benefi ts and Costs of Transportation Control Measures NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAMNCHRP REPORT 462 NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Program Staff ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research Programs CRAWFORD F. JENCKS, M
2、anager, NCHRP DAVID B. BEAL, Senior Program Officer HARVEY BERLIN, Senior Program Officer B. RAY DERR, Senior Program Officer AMIR N. HANNA, Senior Program Officer EDWARD T. HARRIGAN, Senior Program Officer TIMOTHY G. HESS, Senior Program Officer RONALD D. McCREADY, CHARLES W. NIESSNER, Senior Progr
3、am Officer Senior Program Officer EILEEN P. DELANEY, Managing Editor HILARY FREER, Associate Editor ANDREA BRIERE, Assistant Editor BETH HATCH, Editorial Assistant CHRISTOPHER HEDGES, Senior Program Officer TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2001 OFFICERS Chair: John M. Samuels, Senio
4、r Vice President-Operations Planning it possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation
5、 staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the fi ndings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identifi ed by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees
6、of AASHTO. Each year, specifi c areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfi ll these needs are defi ned by the Board, and qualif
7、i ed research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative H
8、ighway Research Program can make signifi cant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Note:The Transporta
9、tion Research Board, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the individual states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade
10、 or manufacturers names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. NCHRP REPORT 462 Project B8-33 FY95 ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 0-309-06713-8 Library of Congress Control Number 2001-135526 2001 Transportation Research Board Price $28.00 NOTICE The project tha
11、t is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval refl ects the Governing Boards judgment that the program concerned i
12、s of national importance and appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for
13、the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and, while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical committee, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Re
14、search Board, the National Research Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical committee according to procedures estab
15、lished and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council. FOREWORD By Staff Transportation Research Board This report presents potential improvements to the analytical framework for assess- ing the air quality and other be
16、nefi ts and costs of transportation air quality control strategies. Short- and long-range improvements are included that will enhance the met- ropolitan planning models being used and considered in major metropolitan areas. The report also discusses how a monitoring program can augment quantitative
17、analysis to provide a fuller understanding of the air quality impacts of transportation control mea- sures. A CD-ROM containing more detailed research results is included with the report. Air quality specialists will fi nd the report helpful, particularly when considering improvements to their analy
18、sis systems. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) identify transportation control measures (TCMs) that are expected to provide emission-reduction benefi ts and other measures intended to modify motor vehicle use. In addition, depending on the areas nonattainment status, the CAAA mandates impl
19、ementation of some of the TCMs. States and metropolitan planning organizations require specifi c, quantitative informa- tion on the benefi ts, costs, and expected air-quality improvements of various TCMs in order to select those TCMs that will best meet agency needs. Under NCHRP Project 8-33, Cambri
20、dge Systematics evaluated current analysis techniques for estimating the impacts of TCMs on emissions. The research team then developed and tested a comprehensive framework for analyzing TCMs, including those designed to produce mode shifts, operational traffic changes, and reductions in motor vehic
21、le usage. The testing used data from Sacramento, California, and Portland, Ore- gon. The framework is also useful for assessing other types of benefi ts and costs. Cambridge Systematics also examined how air quality monitoring could augment emissions analysis in determining the effectiveness of TCMs
22、. This effort consisted of a thorough assessment of the issues and a careful analysis of the transportation and mea- sured air quality changes associated with the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, Georgia. The report summarizes the research conducted and presents a list of recommended improvements to t
23、hose modeling methods that are in common use. Priorities are assigned to each improvement based on its importance to TCM analysis and the ease of implementation. The report describes alternative methods of monitoring air quality and assesses their appropriateness for evaluation of TCMs. Findings fro
24、m throughout the research effort are included to promote better understanding of the issues. In the interest of brevity, considerable technical material has been consigned to a companion CD-ROM included with the report. The CD-ROM contains the following documents: Appendix A: Portland Pilot Testing
25、Appendix B: Analytical Framework for the Evaluation of Air Quality Trans- portation Control Strategies Appendix C: Summary of Ambient Air Measurement Evaluation Studies Interim Report: Feasibility of Using Advanced Air Quality Monitoring Systems Interim Report: Use of Remote Sensing and Personal Exp
26、osure Monitors Interim Report: Relationships Between Monitored Air-Quality and Traffic During the Atlanta Olympics Interim Report: Freeway Speed Correction Factors Interim Report: Immediate Improvements to Current Analysis Techniques NCHRP Research Results Digest 217: Relationships Between Implement
27、ed Transportation Control Measures and Measured Pollutant Levels NCHRP Research Results Digest 223: Development of an Improved Frame- work for the Analysis of Air Quality and Other Benefi ts and Costs of Trans- portation Control Measures NCHRP Research Results Digest 230: Review of Travel Assumption
28、s Employed in Emission Factor Models 1SUMMARY 16CHAPTER 1Introduction 21CHAPTER 2Findings 2.1Introduction, 21 2.2TCMs and Their Impacts, 22 2.3Potential Near-Term Improvements, 26 2.4Longer-Range, More Fundamental Analytical Enhancements, 38 2.5Emissions, 41 2.6Air Quality, 46 54CHAPTER 3Interpretat
29、ion, Appraisal, and Conclusions 3.1Summary, 54 3.2Adequacy of Existing and Projected Future Analysis Capabilities, 54 3.3Where Are We Heading?, 55 3.4Next Steps, 57 59REFERENCES 61APPENDIX APortland Pilot Testing 61APPENDIX BAnalytical Framework for the Evaluation of Air Quality Transportation Contr
30、ol Strategies 61APPENDIX CSummary of Ambient Air Measurement Evaluation Studies CONTENTS AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 8-33 by Cambridge Systematics, Inc., in collaboration with Sierra Research, Inc., Envair, and eight other subcontractors and
31、individual consultants. John H. Suhrbier, a Principal of Cambridge Systematics, served as the principal investigator. Other Cambridge Systematics participants included Yoram Shiftan, Chris Porter, Steve Decker, Maren Outwater, Rich Kuzmyak, Vassili Alexiadis, Nageswar Jonnalagadda, Elizabeth Harper,
32、 Xudong Jia, Douglas Sallman, and Esther Kim. Other subcontractor and consultant contributors included Robert Dulla, Tom Carlson, and Richard Joy of Sierra Research; Philip Roth and Steven Reynolds of Envair; Prof. Randall Guensler of the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Georgia
33、Institute of Technology; Prof. Michael Rodgers of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Insti- tute of Technology; Mark Bradley of Mark Bradley Research and Consulting; Prof. Elizabeth Deakin of the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of California at
34、 Berkeley; James Wilson of Pechan-Avanti, Inc.; Prof. Michael Meyer of the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology; Thomas Wholley of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin; and Gary Davies of Garmen Associates. OBJECTIVE State departments of transportation (DOTs) and M
35、etropolitan Planning Organiza- tions (MPOs) are facing numerous analytical challenges in their attempts to evaluate transportation control measures (TCMs) and to conduct other associated transportation air quality analyses. While numerous advances have been made in recent years and examples of good
36、analyses can be cited, there are many other examples where the underlying analysis is defi cient in one or more respects. Combined with improvements in the understanding of transportation, emissions, and air quality interrelationships, far- reaching improvements are needed in the analytical methodol
37、ogies used to conduct TCM and related transportation air quality analyses. The objective of NCHRP Project 8-33 was to develop and test potential improve- ments to the analytical framework for assessing the air quality and other benefi ts and costs of TCMs within the context of an areas total transpo
38、rtation system. Initial empha- sis was given to identifying the important causal variables, examining their inherent uncertainty, and determining the degree to which they are correctly represented in cur- rent analysis procedures. Attention then was given to identifying improvements that could be im
39、mediately implemented by state DOTs and MPOs, as well as to evaluating more fundamental enhancements that would require a longer time frame to fully develop and implement. Because the interest is in identifying TCMs whose emissions reduction credit is sufficiently large enough to result in an improv
40、ement in regional ambient air quality levels, primary attention was given to analytical approaches that could be applied on an areawide basis rather than to site-specifi c methods. Most of the fi ndings, though, also are applicable to analyses of specifi c sites. The basic outline of the recommended
41、 analytical framework is broad in scope. Although numerous improvements to current analysis methodologies can be immedi- ately implemented and although these will result in more accurate estimates of trans- portation, emissions, and other impacts, critical shortcomings will still remain. The long-te
42、rm need is essentially for an entirely new set of analytical capabilities rather than just improvements to current modeling approaches. These new analytical capabilities, however, generally can be implemented incrementally. SUMMARY QUANTIFYING AIR-QUALITY AND OTHER BENEFITS AND COSTS OF TRANSPORTATI
43、ON CONTROL MEASURES Transportation, emission, and air quality analyses need to be more effectively linked than they are at present in order to include the variables required to produce spatially and temporally distributed emission inventories of the desired accuracy. This requires a combination of n
44、ew analytical approaches with expanded and better monitoring data. Improved analytical capabilities, to be effective, will require new and different types of data. Although doing a better job of developing the data needed to support current analytical methods is important, it is not by itself suffic
45、ient to overcome the defi cien- cies in todays analyses. Equally important, this new generation of transportation air quality analytical capabilities should take advantage of emerging computational envi- ronments, rather than continue to rely on outdated batch-mode computer programming techniques. W
46、ORK PROGRAM Beginning with a comprehensive assessment of recently completed and ongoing research combined with a workshop of potential users, the research Identifi ed improvements in transportation, emissions, and air quality analysis capa- bilities which can be immediately implemented by state DOTs
47、 and MPOs; and Defi ned more fundamental changes to todays current analysis approaches, which can be implemented incrementally over a number of years. Testing conducted in cooperation with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) focused on a set of transportation and emissions modeling im
48、provements that easily can be immediately implemented to current network-based, four-step travel demand forecasting analytical methodologies. These include the incorporation of peak spreading, the incorporation of traffic speed-fl ow relationships defi ned by facility type and geographic area, recod
49、ing of the highway network, the use of facility-specific speed correction factors to estimate emissions, and the separation of trip-end from run- ning emissions. These enhancements were then used to evaluate the impacts of a pro- posed regional system of high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes and ramp metering. Testing conducted in Portland, Oregon, in contrast, concentrated on methodologies that are longer range for most transportation planning organizations in terms of the likely timehorizon for their implementation. Major elements tested in Portland included