HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1991 0501 CC REG ITEM 08GITEM& - C7•
MOORPARK
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
C:4= of 199
ACTION;
M E M O R A N D U M
By
To: The Honorable City Council
From: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development
Date: April 23, 1991 (City Council Meeting 5 -1 -91)
Subject: Traffic Systems Management (TSM)
BACKGROUND
Under provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act and in an attempt to
meet adopted Federal Clean Air Standards, Ventura County has
developed an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) which is a
comprehensive planning document intended to provide guidance to the
APCD, the County, and other local agencies on how to progress
toward attainment of the ozone standard. The original AQMP was
prepared in 1979 and was revised and updated in 1982 and 1987.
The AQMP focuses on the ozone non - attainment problem in Ventura
County. The AQMP includes stationary source, area sources, mobile
source, and transportation control measures to reduce emissions of
air pollutants. In addition to implementing these controls,
progress toward achieving the national ambient air quality
standards for ozone depends upon adherence to population and
industrial growth forecasts outlined in the AQMP. Even with
adoption of recommended control measures, the AQMP projects that
emissions of ozone precursors will begin to increase in the County
over the next decade. After 1995, emissions are projected to
increase because emissions associated with population and economic
growth in the County will overtake decreases associated with
anticipated emission controls (1987 AQMP, pages VII -3 and VII -4).
The plan does not address control strategies for particulate
matter.
PAUL W.LAWRASON JR. BERNARDO M.PEREZ SCOTT MONTGOMERY
ROY
E. TALLEY JR. Mayor JOHN E WOZNIAK a or Pro Tern
Councilmember Councilmember Counr 'member
a
Compliance with Federal Clean Air Act
In accord with the Federal Clean Air Act, as with all non -
attainment areas, Ventura County was required to attain the
national ozone standard by December 1987 to avoid Federal sanctions
for violation. Since attainment appeared unlikely, in 1984 the
APCD agreed to participate in EPA's Reasonable Extra Efforts
Program as part of the District's commitment to do everything
technically feasible and economically reasonable to reduce
emissions and improve air quality in Ventura County. District
programs were improved to reflect EPA recommendations resulting
from the program. Several areas, including Ventura County, did not
attain the ozone standard by the 1987 deadline.
However, sanctions were not imposed because the deadline was
extended to August 31, 1988, while members of Congress and the EPA
formulated varying policy packages regarding post -1987 guidelines
for attainment of the Federal ozone standard. As possible
amendments to the Clean Air Act, these policy packages generally
require attainment of the standard by a specific date, and emission
reductions by about 3 percent per year based on the implementation
of different control measures. A policy package was not adopted by
August 31, 1988.
The EPA recently disapproved the 1982 County AQMP because it was
unable to demonstrate attainment of the Federal Ozone Standard by
December 31, 1987. The EPA imposed a major source construction ban
that became effective October 1988. This ban on volatile organic
compounds precludes any large new emission sources or major
modifications to existing emission sources on the scale of a
refinery or other large facility. In a letter to the County APCD
dated September 15, 1987, the EPA stated that more aggressive
binding commitments must be shown by all local jurisdictions in the
County to implement transportation control measures with specific
adoption schedules before the EPA can conclude that all "reasonable
efforts" are being made to avoid Federal funding sanctions.
Compliance with California Clean Air Act
On January 1, 1989, the California Clean Air Act (AB2595) became
effective. This State legislation imposes many new requirements on
areas of California (including Ventura County) that do not meet
State and Federal Clean Air Standards. Pending review by the State
Air Resources Board (ARB) by August 30, 1989, Ventura County is
likely to be classified as a severe non - attainment area, because
the 1987 AQMP is not able to specify an attainment date for meeting
the State or Federal standards as discussed above. As a severe
non - attainment area, Ventura County would be required to implement
several measures necessary to reach attainment, including among
others, TSMs to achieve an average commute ridership of 1.5 by
1999, and no net increase in vehicle emissions after 1997.
2
3
The role of the APCD and the State ARB in achieving attainment of
the standards is outlined in the Act, which also outlines the
progress schedule that must be included in district plans for
attainment (these plans are due to the Air Resources Board in July,
1991). If a plan cannot show attainment and the ARB agrees, the
ARB will determine whether the plan contains all feasible measures
to ensure progress toward attainment. The ARB can return deficient
plans for revision and resubmittal. If conflicts cannot be
resolved, the ARB has authority to revise the plan as necessary.
Impact Assessment Guidelines and Thresholds
The 1988 AQMP indicates that the ozone standard will not be
attained any time in this century in the Oxnard Plain Airshed given
current emission controls and controls scheduled for adoption.
Based on this finding, a determination of consistency with the AQMP
no longer provides an acceptable method for determining the air
quality impact of an individual project. Thus, in response to
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and
conditions of approval for the 1988 AQMP required by the Air'
Resources Board, the APCD has revised local guidelines for
preparing air quality impact analyses. These revised Guidelines
were adopted by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors in October,
1989. All proposed projects are studied pursuant to both Ventura
County and CEQA guidelines to determine if the project would have
either short or long term effects on the ambient air quality of the
area.
STATE CEQA Guidelines state that a project will have a significant
effect on the environment if it will violate any ambient air
quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations. Recently revised and adopted
Ventura County impact assessment guidelines recommend that a
determination of significant project specific and cumulative
effects should be made in cases where sensitive receptors are
exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. Explicit criteria
for determining if a project exceeds an air quality threshold are
provided in the Ventura County Air Ouality Impact Analyses
Guidelines (October 1989). Relevant thresholds are highlighted in
bold print. A project exceeds County thresholds if any of the
following conditions are met:
3
4'
la. Any general development project located in the Ojai
Valley Clean Air Ordinance area and Ventura 1 Nongrowth
area capable of daily emissions of:
Reactive Organic Compounds: 5 pounds
Nitrogen Oxides: 5 pounds
lb. Any general development project located in the remainder
of the ozone non - attainment area of the County capable of
daily emission of:
Reactive Organic Compounds: 25 pounds
Nitrogen Oxides: 25 pounds
These are thresholds for projects that the Ventura County
Air Pollution Control Board has determined will
individually and cumulatively jeopardize attainment of
the ozone standard and thus have a significant adverse
impact on air quality in the County.
2. A project which may cause an exceedance of any ambient
air quality standard (State or Federal), or makes a
substantial contribution to an existing exceedance of an
air quality standard. Substantial is defined as making
measurably worse an existing exceedance of a State or
Federal ambient air quality standard.
3. Any project with emissions greater than two pounds per
day of ROC, or two pounds per day of NOx, that are found
to be inconsistent with the Ventura county Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) will have a significant cumulative
adverse air quality impact. Projects with emissions
below two pounds per day of ROC, and two pounds per day
of NOx, are not required to assess consistency with the
AQMP. Inconsistent projects are usually those which
cause the existing population to exceed the population
forecasts contained in the most recently adopted AQMP
beyond 1995.
4. Any General Plan Amendment or revision which would
provide directly or indirectly for increased population
growth above that forecasted in the most recently adopted
AQMP will have a significant cumulative adverse air
quality impact.
4
5
Contribution to an Off -Site TSM Fund
Any project which will have a significant air quality impact should
attempt to fully mitigate the impact through the mitigation
measures described previously. If a project still has a
significant impact after all other quantifiable mitigation measures
have been applied, emissions should be bought down through a
contribution to the city's TSM fund established specifically to
reduce emissions from transportation sources. That is, the
remaining emissions in excess of the significance threshold are to
be mitigated by funding TSM programs or clean -fuel vehicle
programs, which will reduce trips and VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled).
This buydown applies to commercial, industrial, and residential
projects.
Public transit and ridesharing are two obvious TSM strategies which
could reduce motor vehicle trips and emissions if provided
additional funding. In the eastern half of the County, the cities
of Moorpark, Camarillo, Fillmore, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks
operate fixed -route transit services primarily within their cities.
In the western half of the County, South Coast Area Transit
operates fixed -route service in the cities of Ojai, Oxnard, Port
Hueneme, Santa Paula, and Ventura, plus unincorporated areas of the
County. All of these services have fiscal constraints which limit
their ability to expand services. Even with a substantial increase
in funding, it is highly unlikely that public transit will be used
for home -to -work commuting by more than about 5% of commuters, and
it is unlikely that public transit will be used widely for other
types of trips when an automobile is available. However, public
transit will undoubtedly continue to be a very valuable, highly
utilized service for those without access to automobiles.
Ridesharing offers more promise for reducing motor vehicle trips
than public transit since it has the potential of attracting up to
25% or more of commuter trips. In Ventura County, Commuter
Computer provides computerized rideshare matching services. In
fiscal year 1988 -89, Commuter Computer received approximately
$81,000 for computerized ridshare matching services. Caltrans
matched this money for a total of $162,000. Based on a 1990 County
employment level of 236,477, this is less than $0.69 per employee
annually to reduce and consolidate trips. In order to
significantly reduce emissions in Ventura County, it is imperative
that adequate funding be provided to reduce motor vehicle trips
which represent nearly 50% of the County's air pollution problem.
In fiscal year 1987 -88, the cost to Commuter Computer was
approximately $129.00 to place one person in a ridesharing
arrangement. This figure is derived by dividing Commuter
Computer's annual budget by the number of people placed in
ridesharing arrangements during the fiscal year. According to a
1987 Commuter Computer Placement Evaluation Report, the average
ridesharing arrangement lasts 2.75 years, and based on the 1987
AQMP Appendix R -87, the average ridesharing commute distance is
15.8 miles.
5
(0
In
Determining the Amount of Contribution
The cost of reducing emissions through a contribution to an off -
site TSM fund can be determined using the Equation 1 shown below.
The cost should be calculated separately for ROC and NOx. The
amount of the contribution is based on only the higher of the two
costs since TSM funding will result in implementation of programs
which reduce both pollutants. Usually, the cost to mitigate ROC
emissions will be greater than the cost to mitigate NOx emissions
because the cost per pound reduced through TSM funding is greater
for ROC emissions than for NOx emissions.
Equation 1•
AC
(ROC or NOx)
where:
AC
(ROC or NOx)
EE
= EE
(ROC or NOx)
x UC
(ROC or NOx)
xD
= Annual cost of ROC or NOx reduced
= Excess emissions in lbs. per day
UC = Unit cost per lb. of ROC reduced
(ROC or NOx) or per lb. of NOx reduced
D = Days of operation per year
This method of determining a TSM contribution results in an annual
cost to fully mitigate both ROC and NOx emissions associated with
a project to below the 5 pounds per day threshold in the Ojai
Valley Clean Air Ordinance (CAO) area and the Ventura 1 Nongrowth
area, or below the 25 pounds per day threshold in the remainder of
the ozone nonattainment area of 'the County (this includes
Moorpark). In fact, because the contribution will usually be based
on the cost to mitigate ROC emissions, there is likely to be a net
air quality benefit for NOx emissions. In theory, the funding
should occur for the life of the project, or until the federal and
state air quality standards have been achieved. At a minimum, the
Ventura County APCD recommends that all projects with significant
air quality impacts fully mitigate the excess emissions through a
TSM buydown for at least three years. A project which uses a
three -year buydown is considered to have lessened or reduced the
significant environmental impact.
A buydown program of this nature is an important mechanism for
reducing emissions from motor vehicles because funding for TSM
programs also serves to increase public awareness of air quality as
a valuable resource. The cost may seem high for a large project,
but considering the significant unmitigatable air quality impacts
over the life of the project, a contribution which fully mitigates
the impacts for just three years is very reasonable. Furthermore,
the three year contribution is still very cost effective when
compared to stationary source controls whose annualized cost can be
several times as much per pound of emissions reduced.
VA
Guidelines for Use of Off -Site TSM Funds
A jurisdiction which requires a project to contribute to a TSM fund
may, for example, choose to fund Commuter Computer. Generally, the
funding of ridesharing assistance programs will result in the
largest reduction of air pollutants. A jurisdiction may also use
funds collected on the basis of contribution necessary to mitigate
emissions for the construction of off -site TSM facilities,
including park and ride lots, bicycle paths, transit shelters and
bus pullouts, freeway High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, and HOV
ramp metering bypass lanes. TSM funds may also be used for
programs to reduce emissions from motor vehicles such as a clean
fuels vehicle acquisition program if collected for that purpose.
The funds may also be used for operational programs including
public transit services, or vanpool subsidies. Decisions regarding
which TSM programs are supported are made by the local jurisdiction
not APCD.
According to the APCD the following conditions should apply to the
use of TSM funds and all accumulated interest earned from the
funds:
1. The approving jurisdiction should determine the basis for
collection and how the funds are to be spent. The funds
should be spent or committed to a project within five years of
receipt of the funds.
2. TSM funds must be used for projects or programs in the airshed
in which the proposed project will be located (i.e. either the
Oxnard Plain Airshed or the Ojai Valley Airshed). Ridesharing
arrangements or public transit services which originate
outside the airshed but which serve the airshed are also
eligible uses of the funds.
3. The approving jurisdiction should establish a TSM fund to
receive and hold the funds until such time as the funds are
spent on an approved project or program.
4. Moorpark TSM funds should not be used for traffic engineering
projects, including signal synchronization, intersection
improvements, and channelization, as the benefits from these
projects are primarily traffic - related and not air quality -
related.
5. Any TSM facilities provided by a project to mitigate its
emissions prior to determining the buydown contribution should
not be credited toward the funds paid by the project as a
buydown mitigation measure.
6. A project which is to be developed in phases should calculate
the pro -rata share of funding from each phase of development
based on emissions for the year of complete buildout. Such
pro -rata share of funding should be paid in one lump sum or
spread out evenly over three years in order to minimize the
initial cost and provide a stable funding source.
7
In
7. The calculation and use of a contribution to a TSM fund must
be in accordance with all applicable statutory requirements.
Attached is additional information related to Traffic Systems
Management from Appendix "D" of the APCD Guidelines.
Staff Recommendation
Receive and file this report.
Attachments: ITEMS WHICH SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN TDM PLANS FOR
COMMERCIAL /INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING THE TARGET COMBINATION
OF TRIP REDUCTION MEASURES PROJECTED TO ACHIEVE A
1.35 AVR
ITEMS WHICH SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN TDM PLANS FOR
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS:
EXHIBIT A: EXAMPLE OF TARGET COMBINATION OF
TRIP REDUCTION STRATEGIES FOR A
HYPOTHETICAL COMPANY WITH 300
EMPLOYEES & TRAVEL PATTERNS
APPENDIX E: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR MITIGATING
EMISSIONS THROUGH AN ON -SITE TDM
PROGRAM AND CONTRIBUTION TO AN OFF-
SITE TDM FUND
PJR /CCIMAY91
cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager
E':
9 so
ITEMS WHICH SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN TDM PLANS FOR COMMERCIAL/
INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS:
1. General description of the project:
A- Types of businesses and projected employment by business type. Where
information is available, TDM plans should include an approximation of the
percent of employees by type (e.g. clerical, professional, part-time, etc.).
B. Description of any unique aspects of the project (e.g. project phasing,
relocation of existing businesses, peak business season, etc.).
C. Parking spaces:
- Total number of.off- street spaces and proposed parking fees
- Number of carpool /vanpool spaces and proposed fees
- Availability of free on- street parking
-r
l
E
D, Site map showing buildings by type of business. Where applicable, site map
should show location of preferential carpool / vanpool parking and placement
of bicycle lockers and /or racks.
E. Project vicinity map showing street network, and any existing and proposed
bicycle lanes /paths and, park and ride facilities. Project vicinity map should
also indicate any impediments to bicycle or pedestrian travel (e.g. railroad
tracks, flood control channels, etc.).
F. Description of public transit services serving project.
2. Description of any design features and facilities to encourage TDM. For example:
- On -site banking services or automatic teller machine
- On -site postal services
- Cafeteria or restaurants
3
u
/b
10
- Participation with nearby employers /developers in a transportation
management organization (TMO)
E. Annual performance reporting and TDM plan updates. Performance reports
to the local jurisdiction and APCD should include the current AVR and a
description of the TDM incentives provided. See Rule 210, Trip Reduction
Plan, for a description of the survey methodology used for determining
current AVR.
4. Other items to be addressed in a TDM plan:
A. The plan should specify a stable funding mechanism (e.g. tenant lease
agreements, parking fees, association dues, etc.) for staffing the TDM
program and the ongoing incentives.
B. Exact - wording of all proposed Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
(CC&Rs) and /or lease agreements which relate to TDM.
C. Description of any proposed program to reduce the impacts of motor vehicle
emissions from public travel to the project. For example, delaying public
business hours to after 10:00 a.m. whereby the traffic emissions are less likely
to form ozone later that day than emissions from the early morning peak
commute hours.
D. Discussion of the methodology and emission reductions from anv other
proposed mitigation measure which reduces trips and /or vehicle miles.
travelled.
0
C. The TDM plan should include the target combination of trip reduction
measures which will achieve the 135 AVR. The target combination should
project the number of employees who will commute to work by each
ridesharing mode and by bicycling and walking. It should project the number
of employees who will be on a compressed work week indicating the type of
schedule and it should project the number of employees who will
telecommute, indicating the frequency they will work at home. See the last
section of this Appendix on Instructions for Preparing Target Combination of
Trip Reduction Measures Projected to Achieve 135 AVR and Exhibit A for
an example of a worksheet and target combination of strategies for a
hypothetical company.
D. List of ongoing incentives which will be provided in order to achieve the 135
AVR target. The Iist should specify when incentives will be provided, a
s description of how each incentive will be marketed to the employees, and the
estimated costs. Examples of ongoing TDM incentives include:
- Provision of ridematching services (e.g. Commuter Computer)
- Marketing of TDM services with direct financial incentives
- Operation of a commuter information center ( ridesharing store)
- Use of fleet vehicles for personal needs by ridesharing employees
- Provision of day care facilities
- Parking management including employee parking fees
- Employer- sponsored and /or subsidized vanpools
- Provision of shuttle bus and /or extension of existing public transit services
- Subsidized transit passes available to employees
- Flexible work schedules for transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians
- Compressed work schedules and telecommunications
- Longer business hours in support of compressed work weeks
/4R
40
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING THE TARGET COMBINATION OF TRIP
REDUCTION MEASURES PROJECTED TO ACHIEVE A 1.35 AVR
The target combination of trip reduction measures projected to achieve a 1.35 AVR should
be based on a weekly averaging period to reflect the fact that employees rideshare only
part -time. The target combination should utilize the following assumptions:
- Average of 2.2 persons per carpool
- Average of 9.0 persons per vanpool
- Transit vehicles are not counted in trip totals
- Carpool, transit, walk, bicycle mode frequency 4 days per week; 5th day employees
drive alone.
- All telecommuting employees drive alone
- All employees on compressed work weeks drive alone
See F_ hibit A for an example of a worksheet and target combination of strategies projected
to achieve a 1.35 AVR for a hypothetical company of 300 employees..
0
/3
Milo
ITEMS WHICH SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN TDM PLANS FOR RESIDEti'ITAL
PROJECTS:
1. General description of project:
A. Number and type of residential units.
B. Description of any unique aspect of the project (e.g. project phasing, etc.).
C. Project vicinity map showing street network, local public and private primary
and secondary schools, any existing and proposed bicycle lanes /paths, and
park and ride facilities. Project vicinity map should also indicate any
impediments to bicycle travel (e.g. railroad tracks, flood control channels,
etc.).
D. Description of public transit services serving the project.
l
2• Description of any design features to encourage TDM. For example:
1
- Bike lanes /paths
1
- Sidewalks
- Bus pullouts, bus stop shelters and benches
- Pedestrian access to bus stop
- Park and ride facilities
3. Other items to be addressed in a TDM plan:
A. Exact wording of all proposed CC &Rs and /or lease agreements -hich relate
to TDM.
r
Iq
Now
EXHIBIT A: Example of target combination of trip reduction strategies for a hypothetical
company with 300 employees and the following travel patterns:
84 employees (28 %) commuting in a mode other than drive alone or motorcycling
30 employees (10 %) telecommuting 2 days per week
90 employees (30 %) on 4/40 work schedules
Employee
Total (F) 300
Number
A.M.
Persons
Mode
Commute
Parti-
(D) = A(5-B)
per
Freq.
—)-lode
ci atin
55
vehicle
per week
(A)
+ ( 55x 1) =
155
5
(B)
Drive alone
205
/
1.0
x 5 =
Motorcycle
11
/
1.0
x 5 =
Carpool
55
/
2.2
x 4 =
Vanpool
9
/
9.0
x 5 =
Transit
9
4
`Valk
5
4
Bicycle
6
4
Employee
Total (F) 300
Less number telecommuting:
30 employees x 2 telecommuting days per week x 1 trip per day = ( 60
Less number on 4/40 work schedules:
90 employees x 1 day per week x 1 trip per day = ( 90)
AVR Calculation (F x 5 divided by G):
300 employees x 5 trips per week
1,110 Total A.M. vehicle trips per week
Total A.M. Vehicle
trips per week (G) 1,110
= 1.35 AVR
i
Correction
A.M.
Subtotal
for drive
alone days
Vehicle
trips per meek
(C)
(D) = A(5-B)
(E) = C= D
1,025
+ (205 x 0) =
1,025
55
+ ( 55 x 0) =
55
100
+ ( 55x 1) =
155
5
+ ( 9x0) =
5
0
+ ( 9x1) =
9
0
+ ( 5x1) =
5
0
+ ( 6x1) _
6
1
Subtotal A.M.
Vehicle trips per week
1,260
Less number telecommuting:
30 employees x 2 telecommuting days per week x 1 trip per day = ( 60
Less number on 4/40 work schedules:
90 employees x 1 day per week x 1 trip per day = ( 90)
AVR Calculation (F x 5 divided by G):
300 employees x 5 trips per week
1,110 Total A.M. vehicle trips per week
Total A.M. Vehicle
trips per week (G) 1,110
= 1.35 AVR
i
/5
APPENDIX E
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR (MITIGATING EMISSIONS THROUGH AN ON -SITE
TDM PROGRAIM AND CONTRIBUTION TO AN OFF -SITE TDM FUND
r
. f -
1
/6
goo=
APPENDIX E: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR MITIGATING EMISSIONS
THROUGH AN ON -SITE TDM PROGRAM AND CONTRIBUTION TO
AN OFF -SITE TDM FUND
Project Description:
300,000 sq. ft. light Industrial open 250 days per year
25,000 sq. ft. Shopping Center open 308 days per year
9,000 sq. ft. High Turnover Restaurant open 365 days per year
Year of Completion: 1990
Project Location: Simi Valley
Sample Calculations:
Step 1: Estimate the emissions for each land use using [he Emission Rate Tables
(Appendices B and C) or URBEMIS -2 computer model as described in
Chapter 5.
1
Land Use
300,000 sq. ft- Light Industrial
25,000 sq. ft. Shopping Center
9,000 sq. ft_ High Turnover Restaurant
1990 Emissions
Jpounds per day)
ROC NOx
36S 48.0
50 -7 69.1
22-1 30.0
109-3 147.1
Step 2: Reduce emissions associated with a TDM program by multiphrirg the
emissions for the project by the TDM credit factor as liven in Appendix C.
Less On -Site TDM Program Credit -2.7 -3.6
106.6 143.5
i
ti
1*7
Step 3: Determine excess emissions in ounds
P per day by subtracting applicable
significance threshold.
1990 Emissions
(pounds per day)
Less applicable significance threshold
-25.0 -z5A
Excess emissions (EEROC and EENOx) 81.6 1185
Step 4: Determine the unit cost per pound of ROC reduced and per pound o 1`Ox
reduced by using Tables 7 -3 and 7-4 in Chapter 7 for the year of project
completion (this amount will vary with the type of facility or service
proposed).
Unit Cost (UCROC) = S621 per lb. in 1990
Unit Cost (UCNOx) = $2.87 per lb. in 1990
Step 5: 1 Estimate the weighted average number of daysper year of operation. Light
industry and office development usually trips and e
Y ene to g � P missions 250
days per year. Retail commercial is open from 308 to 359 days per year.
High turnover restaurants are often open 365 days per year. For mixed use
projects, use a weighted average based on the number of trips generated per
land use as given in Appendix C and calculated as follows:
Number of Trips
er day er near
Light Industrial (6.97 trips / 1000 sq. ft.) 2,090
522 , _ �_�
Shopping Center (166 trips /1000 sq. ft.) 4,159
1,_SO,S9.;
High Turnover Rest. (201 trips /1000 sq. ft.) 1.848
69 9,40 ..
Total: 8,057 2,463,360
Days (D) = 2,463,360 / 8,057 = 306
A
Step 6: Insert excess emissions, unit cost, and days of operation into Equation 1 to
estimate the 1990 annual cost of buying down the emissions through a
contribution to a TDM fund..
Equation 1:
AC(ROC or NOx) = EE(ROC or NOx) x UC(ROC or NOx) x D
where:
AC(ROC or NOx) = Annual cost of ROC or NOx reduced
EE = Excess emissions in lbs. per day
UC(ROC or NOx) = Unit cost per lb. of ROC reduced
or per lb. of NOx reduced
D = Days of operation per year
Therefore,
Annual Cost (ACROC) = 81.6 x $6.21 x 306 = $155,061
Annual Cost (ACNOx) = 1185 x S2.87 x 306 = $104,069
J T
Step 7: Compare the annual cost of reducing ROC emissions with the annual cost of
reducing NOx emissions_ and select the higher of the two. The contribution
should be made based on only the higher of the two costs as TDM funding
would result in implementation of programs which reduce both pollutants.
Therefore, in the example, the recommended 1990 year annualized
contribution to an Off -site TDM fund is 5155,061.
Step 8. Repeat Steps 1 through 7 to determine the 1991 and 1992. annualized
contribution to an Off -site TDM fund. For 1991, the contribution is
$157,942, and for 1992, the contribution is 5160,811. An alternate and
simpler method to calculate the contribution for the second and third years is
simply to increase the one year contribution by 4% per year to reflect
inflation. Using this method, the amounts are slightly higher (5161,263 and
s
Iq
$167,714) because the total emissions to be "bought down" are actually less in
the second and third years. A jurisdiction may require the total three vear
contribution at completion of the project and prior to occupancy or it may
spread the buydown over three years in order to minimize the initial cost and
to provide a stabilized revenue stream.
M
I