Phase I Final Report

SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ

Evaluation and Assessment

FHWA-HEP-08-019 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

 

NOTICE 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the 

interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for its contents or use 

thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The U.S. Government 

does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers’ names appear in this report only 

because they are considered essential to the object of the document. 

Quality Assurance Statement 

The Federal Highway Administration provides high quality information to serve Government, industry, 

and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure 

and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews 

quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. 

SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

 

Contents 

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... i

1. Introduction............................................................................................................ 1

Purpose of the Study...............................................................................................................................1

Context for the CMAQ Program ............................................................................................................2

Relevant Literature and Studies..............................................................................................................6

Report Organization ...............................................................................................................................7

2. Study Approach....................................................................................................... 8

Project Categories and Distribution........................................................................................................8

Project Selection Procedures ................................................................................................................10

Data Collection Procedures ..................................................................................................................11

3. Impacts of Projects on Air Quality and Congestion.............................................. 13

General Observations ...........................................................................................................................13

Traffic Flow Improvements..................................................................................................................16

Shared Ride Programs ..........................................................................................................................23

Travel Demand Management ...............................................................................................................29

Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................................................................31

Transit Service Improvements..............................................................................................................33

Transit Vehicle Replacements and Related Infrastructure ...................................................................39

Dust Mitigation Projects.......................................................................................................................42

Freight/Intermodal Projects..................................................................................................................44

Diesel Emissions Reduction.................................................................................................................46

4. Project Analysis and Selection Practices that Support Effectiveness .................. 50

Emissions Reduction Cost-Effectiveness .............................................................................................50

Examples of Good Practices.................................................................................................................60

Next Steps.............................................................................................................................................66

Appendix A. List of State and Local Contacts ............................................................ 67

Appendix B. Emissions Factors and Assumptions Used in Emissions Reduction CostEffectiveness Calculations .................................................................................... 69

Appendix C. CMAQ Project Templates ....................................................................... 71

Appendix D. CMAQ Project Cost Effectiveness Calculations.................................... 145
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

 

List of Figures 

Figure 1: Share of CMAQ Projects Obligated FY 2000 to FY 2005 by Project Category ............................................8

Figure 2: Percentage of CMAQ Funding FY 2000 to FY 2005 by Project Category....................................................9

List of Tables 

Table 1: CMAQ Projects Included in the Study by Project Category and Subcategory..............................................10

Table 2: States Receiving Largest CMAQ Apportionments, FY 1991 – FY 2005......................................................11

Table 3. Consumer Price Index (CPI) Factors.............................................................................................................53

Table 4. Project Life Periods Used for Evaluating Projects ........................................................................................55

Table 5. VOC, NOx, and CO Cost-Effectiveness of Selected CMAQ Projects by Strategy .......................................57

Table 6. PM Cost-Effectiveness of Selected CMAQ Projects by Strategy..................................................................58

Table 7: Selected States and MPOs with Standardized Tools or Emission Calculation Methods ...............................61

Table 8: Identified States and MPOs with Transparent Project Selection Methods ....................................................63

Table 9: Selected States and MPOs that Conduct or Call for Post-Project Analysis...................................................65
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program provides funds to States for 

transportation projects designed to improve air quality and reduce traffic congestion, particularly in areas 

of the country that do not attain national air quality standards. Created by the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, the program was reauthorized under the Transportation 

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1997, and again as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005. Since 1991, the 

CMAQ Program has provided funding to over 16,000 projects, and has been a key mechanism for 

supporting investments that help urban areas meet air quality goals, encourage alternatives to driving 

alone, and improve traffic flow. 

In SAFETEA-LU Section 1808, Congress required the U.S. Department of Transportation, in 

consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to evaluate and assess the direct and 

indirect impacts of CMAQ-funded projects on air quality and congestion levels. This study responds to 

that request by analyzing 67 CMAQ-funded projects, using data supplied by States and metropolitan 

planning organizations (MPOs) in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) CMAQ database. From 

this information, the study team examined the estimated impacts of these projects on emissions of 

transportation-related pollutants, including carbon monoxide (CO), ozone precursors – oxides of nitrogen 

(NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) – and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), as well as on 

traffic congestion and mobility. The study team also conducted additional analyses of the selected set of 

CMAQ-funded projects to estimate their cost-effectiveness at reducing emissions of each pollutant. 

Congestion and Mobility Benefits 

As shown in the set of projects examined in this study, many CMAQ projects help to reduce traffic 

congestion and improve mobility. Traffic flow improvement projects, which include traffic signalization 

improvements, incident management programs, and intersection improvements, are designed to improve 

traffic speeds and minimize delays experienced by drivers. Although many of these projects are small in 

scope (e.g., an individual intersection improvement), they can have a sizable impact on travel times in 

specific locations. For instance, among the traffic flow projects that reported travel time savings – 

installation of coordinated signalized intersections along a roadway in Newark, Ohio; two intersection 

improvements in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana; and traffic signal optimization for arterial 

highways in Lexington, Kentucky – the projects were estimated to save from 702 to 6,360 vehicle hours 

of delay per day. In total, traffic flow improvement projects represented 42 percent of the CMAQ-funded 

projects (32 percent of CMAQ funding) during fiscal years (FY) 2000 to 2005, according to the FHWA 

CMAQ database. In addition to traffic flow improvements, freight and intermodal projects are frequently 

designed to shift goods movement from trucks to rail, and reduce congestion associated with truck traffic 

on major freight corridors. 

Other projects are designed primarily to enhance mobility by increasing travel options, such as transit, 

bicycling, walking, and ridesharing. Most of the vanpool, park-and-ride, bicycle/pedestrian, and transit 

bus service improvement projects examined in this study were estimated to remove from about one 

hundred to several hundred vehicle trips per day. The magnitude of congestion relief effects from this 

level of vehicle travel reduction is difficult to assess, and was typically not reported by project sponsors. 

The primary benefit from these projects is enhanced mobility for travelers, as travelers have a greater 

range of options to meet their travel needs and have greater access to employment, services, and 

recreational opportunities. These projects often also have other benefits such as reducing travel costs for 

individuals and supporting improved quality of life in communities. Mobility can also be enhanced 

through projects that improve incident management, freeway traveler information, and transit 

information, which improve travel time reliability and enable people to plan their travel routes, mode 

choice, and time of travel more effectively. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

ii 

Air Quality Benefits 

CMAQ projects typically reduce motor vehicle emissions one of three ways: 1) by encouraging changes 

in travel behavior that reduce motor vehicle miles traveled (VMT), such as shifts to ridesharing, transit, 

bicycling, or walking; 2) by improving traffic flow, thereby reducing vehicle idling and stop-and-start 

driving conditions that are associated with higher levels of emissions; and 3) by implementing 

technologies to reduce the rate of emissions, such as conversion to alternative fueled buses, or retrofits of 

diesel vehicles. In addition, in some locations, targeted approaches have been used to reduce wind blown 

particulate matter from roadways, such as funding street sweepers and application of de-icing chemicals 

instead of sand. 

Although the limited number of projects examined in this study does not allow for definitive conclusions 

about the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of different types of CMAQ projects, some general findings 

are noted below. 

First, since many CMAQ projects are small in scale (e.g., a single park-and-ride lot, a bicycle path, a 

transit shuttle), many of these projects yield small reductions in motor vehicle emissions. Among the 

projects reviewed in this study, the majority had emissions reduction estimates of less than 50 kg per day 

of both VOC and NOX, and less than 500 kg per day of CO. In the context of regional air quality 

concerns, these estimated emissions reductions are generally quite small. The combined impact of 

multiple projects, and longer-term, indirect benefits (e.g., supporting transit-oriented land use patterns), 

however, may be more substantial. 

Second, a wide variation in estimated emissions effects and cost-effectiveness occurs within project types. 

Some individual projects showed very strong cost-effectiveness, while other similar types of projects 

appeared to have poor cost-effectiveness at reducing specific pollutants. Within a given project category, 

estimated project cost-effectiveness typically varied by a factor of 10 or more (e.g., the most costeffective new bus service in the set of projects examined was estimated to cost $130,000/ton of VOC 

removed, while the least cost-effective new bus service was estimated to cost $1.5 million/ton of VOC 

removed). This high level of variability suggests that local context and project-specific factors are 

important determinants of the level of emissions reductions that can be expected from projects. 

Third, although there is a wide range of estimated emissions benefits and cost-effectiveness at reducing 

emissions across the set of projects examined, there are some patterns when looking at impacts on 

individual pollutants. Strategies that aim to reduce vehicle travel, such as shared ride programs, travel 

demand management, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, and transit improvements, typically reduce emissions 

of all major on-road transportation related pollutants – VOC, NOX, CO, and PM10 and PM2.5 – with the 

largest reductions occurring in ozone precursors and CO. PM reductions from these projects tended to be 

very small and in many cases were not reported by project sponsors. 

Traffic flow improvements, such as signal syncronization and freeway management projects, are typically 

implemented to improve travel speeds on congested roadways, or to reduce idling time. The emissions 

effects of traffic flow improvements depend on the overall speed improvement and initial speeds. VOC 

emissions generally decline with increasing speeds, but NOX and CO emissions can increase at higher 

speeds. As a result, a traffic flow project could reduce VOC emissions but yield a small increase in NOX, 

and may have little or no effect on PM. 

Finally, diesel emissions-focused strategies can be quite cost-effective at reducing PM emissions. Among 

the sample projects, dust mitigation-focused projects offered the most cost-effective means for reducing 

PM10 and PM2.5 from wind-blown dust in locations where they were practical. Diesel engine retrofits and 

truck idle reduction strategies tended to be the most cost-effective set of strategies for reducing particulate 

matter outside of the dust mitigation strategies. This is perhaps not surprising, given that diesel vehicles 

are large emitters of particulate matter, but it is also notable that some diesel engine retrofit projects 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

iii 

examined in this study were quite cost-effective at reducing ozone precursors and CO as well. For 

instance, one type of diesel soot filter used to retrofit transit buses was certified to reduce PM, VOC, and 

CO emissions each by 60 percent; another technology used in a project to retrofit trash collection trucks 

was estimated to reduce PM emissions by 80 percent, while also reducing CO by 67 percent and VOC by 

95 percent. 

Effective Implementation of the CMAQ Program 

In addition to determining the impacts of a sample of CMAQ projects on air quality and congestion, 

SAFETEA-LU Section 1808 directs an evaluation and assessment of CMAQ projects to “ensure the 

effective implementation of the program.” This report is the first phase of a two phase effort being 

undertaken by DOT, in consultation with EPA, to address the goals of this evaluation and assessment. 

This Phase I report focuses on an evaluation of a set of CMAQ projects for the purpose of determining 

their air quality and congestion benefits, while Phase II involves case studies to further explore 

approaches to CMAQ project selection and implementation that are effective in achieving air quality 

improvement and congestion relief. 

In the course of collecting data on the selected projects a variety of good practices that States and MPOs 

use to analyze and select projects for CMAQ funding were revealed. These approaches include: 

development of standardized templates, calculation guidebooks, and spreadsheets that help to ensure a 

consistent set of project inputs from project sponsors and to make calculations easier and less prone to 

error; development of systematic procedures for ranking projects, including consideration of project costeffectiveness at reducing air pollutant emissions of concern and other factors; and coordination with air 

agencies and local agencies in the project selection process. The information gathered for this Phase I 

report was used to help select locations for case study visits in Phase II. 

The analysis of emissions reduction cost-effectiveness in this study also provides a possible analytic 

framework that may help States and MPOs develop their own analysis when considering projects for 

funding. It is important to note, however, that CMAQ projects also generate other benefits beyond 

emissions reductions, such as congestion relief, travel time savings, energy savings, enhanced mobility, 

and other transportation system user benefits, which are not quantified in the emissions reduction costeffectiveness figures but are important considerations in the overall benefit-cost associated with each 

project. These many factors also are often important considerations in project selection. Many States and 

MPOs value the CMAQ Program for the flexible funding it provides to help them address air quality 

concerns from transportation sources and to help support a wide range of transportation objectives, such 

as enhancing multi-modal accessibility, improving transportation system reliability, and strengthening 

community livability. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

1 

1. INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Study 

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program provides funds to States for 

transportation projects designed to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality, particularly in areas 

of the country that do not attain national air quality standards. Created by the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, the program was reauthorized under the Transportation 

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998 and again as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005. From its beginning, 

the CMAQ program has been a key funding mechanism for helping urban areas meet air quality goals and 

supporting investments that encourage alternatives to driving alone and improve traffic flow. Since 1991, 

the Program has provided $22.7 billion in funding to States, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), 

and transit agencies to invest in projects that reduce criteria air pollutants regulated from transportationrelated sources. The CMAQ program is also credited with gaining State and regional support for the 

mandates of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA).1

 

In TEA-21, Congress funded a study to better understand the efficiency and effectiveness of the CMAQ 

program, which was undertaken by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). Building on this effort, the 

further reauthorization of the CMAQ program in Section 1808 of SAFETEA-LU requires the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, in consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to 

conduct an evaluation and assessment of a representative sample of CMAQ projects, for the purpose of: 

(A) determining their congestion and air quality benefits, and (B) ensuring effective implementation of 

the program. Moreover, SAFETEA-LU placed increased emphasis on funding cost-effective strategies, 

calling for States and MPOs to give priority in distributing funds to diesel retrofits and “cost-effective 

congestion mitigation activities that provide air quality benefits.”2

The language of SAFETEA-LU Section 1808 requiring an evaluation and assessment of CMAQ projects 

is included below. 

(f) EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT OF CMAQ PROJECTS.—Section 149 of such title (as amended by 

subsection (e)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

(h) EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT OF PROJECTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency, shall evaluate and assess a representative sample of projects funded under the 

congestion mitigation and air quality program to— 

(A) determine the direct and indirect impact of the projects on air quality and congestion levels; and 

(B) ensure the effective implementation of the program. 

(2) DATABASE.—Using appropriate assessments of projects funded under the congestion mitigation 

and air quality program and results from other research, the Secretary shall maintain and 

disseminate a cumulative database describing the impacts of the projects. 

(3) CONSIDERATION.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, shall consider the 

recommendations and findings of the report submitted to Congress under section 1110(e) of the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 144), including recommendations and 

findings that would improve the operation and evaluation of the congestion mitigation and air 

quality improvement program. 

This report is the first phase of a two phase effort being undertaken by FHWA, in consultation with EPA, 

in order to meet the requirements in Section 1808(f) of SAFETEA-LU. The purpose of this report is to 

 

1

 Transportation Research Board. Special Report 264: The CMAQ Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience. 2002. Page 19. 

2

 SAFETEA-LU 1808(d) amending 23 USC 149 (f)(3)(A)(ii). 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

2 

examine the direct and indirect impacts of CMAQ-funded projects on air quality and congestion levels. 

This evaluation was conducted by gathering data reported in FHWA’s national database of CMAQ 

projects, as well as additional background collected from States and MPOs to analyze the total annual 

costs (i.e., CMAQ and non-CMAQ funds), estimated annual emissions reductions, and congestion relief 

benefits for a small number of CMAQ funded projects. The report also contains an assessment of the air 

quality cost-effectiveness of these selected projects, and preliminary information on good practices being 

implemented by State DOTs and MPOs for prioritizing and selecting CMAQ projects. This preliminary 

information is followed by a Phase II report that involves case studies of a sample of State DOTs and 

MPOs to highlight approaches that advance the effective implementation of the program. 

Context for the CMAQ Program 

Any evaluation of CMAQ projects should recognize the magnitude of the air quality and congestion 

problems in the United States and have realistic expectations concerning the influence one program can 

have on reducing transportation-generated pollution and mitigating traffic congestion. Despite substantial 

progress in improving air quality nationally since the 1970s, over 100 million Americans still live in areas 

of the country that do not meet EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards for one or more 

pollutants. Traffic congestion is a growing problem affecting urban areas of all sizes, with congestion 

affecting more trips, over more hours of the day, on more roadways than in the past. According to Texas 

Transportation Institute’s Urban Mobility Study, traffic congestion creates a $78 billion annual drain on 

the U.S. economy in the form of 4.2 billion lost hours and 2.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel.3

 

While the CMAQ program provides targeted resources to address the role of transportation in these air 

quality and congestion challenges, the resources provided by the CMAQ program are modest in 

comparison to the overall Federal transportation program. In total, SAFETEA-LU provides $286.4 billion 

in guaranteed funding for Federal surface transportation programs over five years through FY 2009. This 

includes $193.6 billion in Federal-aid Highway program authorizations and $52.6 billion for Federal 

transit programs, as well as other projects. The CMAQ program is authorized at $8.6 billion, or 4.4 

percent of the total Federal-aid Highway program (three percent of the total Federal surface transportation 

program funding). Given other State and local sources of funding, which make up about half of all 

highway and transit capital expenditure and the majority of operating expenses, the Federal CMAQ 

program represents less than two percent of total transportation spending in many metropolitan areas. 

A single major transportation infrastructure project in an urban area can cost more than $1 billion, and 

there are a number of major highway and transit projects being constructed across the U.S. that cost in the 

multiple billions of dollars. At an authorized level of approximately $1.7 billion per year under 

SAFETEA-LU, the CMAQ program – which provides funding to all 50 States and the District of 

Columbia – is not able to substantially “solve” the air quality or congestion problems facing metropolitan 

areas across the country. However, the incremental benefits of the program are an important part of the 

solution. 

The CMAQ program provides funds that are targeted to areas of the country with the most severe air 

quality problems, which tend to be the largest metropolitan areas experiencing some of the worst traffic 

congestion. Many metropolitan areas rely on the CMAQ program as a flexible funding source to support a 

wide range of projects that improve air quality, reduce traffic congestion, and support a multi-modal 

transportation system, and as a mechanism to help fund air quality mandates under the Clean Air Act. 

CMAQ funded projects are often small in scale – e.g., a bicycle path, a park-and-ride lot, a new transit 

shuttle service, or a traffic signalization improvement. Still, they may have important benefits at a 

corridor or local level, where the benefits of a single project can make a difference. CMAQ funds also are 

 

3

 Texas Transportation Institute, 2007 Urban Mobility Report. September 2007. Available at: 

http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/report/. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

3 

used to leverage other Federal and State and local funding sources, and to support regional efforts such as 

regional ridesharing programs, incident management programs, and traveler information systems. 

Establishment of the CMAQ Program 

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 was a landmark surface 

transportation Act which, for the first time, emphasized intermodalism - the seamless linking of highway, 

rail, bicycle, pedestrian, and other modes. The Act included provisions and new programs designed to 

address the Nation’s growing transportation challenges, such as improving safety, reducing traffic 

congestion, improving efficiency in freight movement, increasing intermodal connectivity, and protecting 

the environment. ISTEA opened the transportation planning process to more public involvement than 

ever before, bringing new players to the table when decisions were being made and increasing 

collaboration among existing stakeholders. This diversity in transportation decision-making has resulted 

in additional positive benefits for communities, because transportation investment decisions are built 

upon input from transportation stakeholders and the general public. 

ISTEA also made funding available to new kinds of programs, and established the Congestion Mitigation 

and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program – the first federally funded transportation program 

explicitly targeting air quality improvement. Approximately 4 percent of total funding for the 1992–1997 

Federal surface transportation program, or $6 billion, was authorized for CMAQ projects that would offer 

alternatives to single occupant vehicle (SOV) travel, improve travel efficiency as a means of addressing 

traffic congestion, and promote cleaner motor vehicles in the Nation’s most polluted areas.4

From its inception, the primary policy focus of the CMAQ program has been on air quality improvement, 

reflecting the requirements placed on the transportation sector by the Clean Air Act Amendments 

(CAAA) of 1990 to help meet national air quality goals. It provides flexible funding for States to use in 

nonattainment areas to help them address air quality concerns from transportation sources. Over time, the 

CMAQ program has become a key funding mechanism to support investments that not only help urban 

areas meet air quality goals, but also help focus transportation planning on a more inclusive, 

environmentally sensitive, and multimodal approach. 

Apportionment and Eligible Projects 

Federal CMAQ funds are apportioned annually to each State according to the severity of the air quality 

problem and the population of each nonattainment or maintenance county (based upon Census Bureau 

data).5 Each State is guaranteed a minimum apportionment of one-half percent of the year's total program 

funding, regardless of whether the State has any nonattainment or maintenance areas. These minimum 

apportionment funds can be used anywhere in the State for projects eligible for either CMAQ or the 

Surface Transportation Program (STP). 

To be eligible for CMAQ funds, a project must be included in the MPO's current transportation plan and 

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (or the current Statewide TIP, or STIP in areas without an 

MPO).6

 In nonattainment and maintenance areas, the project also must meet the conformity provisions 

 

4

 See Transportation Research Board. Special Report 264: The CMAQ Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience. 2002. Page 

19. 

5

 23 USC 149(b)-(c). 

6

 23 USC 134-35, 149(d). 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

4 

contained in Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act and the transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR Part 

93. In general, there are three types of CMAQ eligible activities:7

• Capital Investment - CMAQ funds may be used to establish new or expanded transportation 

projects or programs that reduce emissions, including capital investments in transportation 

infrastructure, congestion relief efforts, diesel engine retrofits, or other capital projects. 

• Operating Assistance - Operating assistance is limited to new transit services, intermodal 

facilities, and travel demand management strategies (including traffic operation centers); and the 

incremental cost of expanding existing transit services. In using CMAQ funds for operating 

assistance, the intent is to help start up viable new transportation services that can demonstrate air 

quality benefits and eventually cover their costs as much as possible. Once these projects have 

become part of the baseline transportation network and no longer represent additional air quality 

benefits, other funding sources should supplement and ultimately replace their CMAQ funds for 

operating assistance (i.e., there is a three-year limit on the use of CMAQ operating assistance). 

• Planning and Project Development - Activities in support of eligible projects also may be 

appropriate for CMAQ investments. Studies that are part of the project development pipeline 

(e.g., preliminary engineering) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are eligible 

for CMAQ support, as are FTA's Alternatives Analyses. General studies that fall outside specific 

project development do not qualify for CMAQ funding. Examples of such efforts include major 

investment studies, commuter preference studies, modal market polls or surveys, transit master 

plans, and others. These activities are eligible for Federal planning funds. 

The CMAQ Interim Program Guidance dated October 31, 2006 lists 16 categories of projects eligible for 

CMAQ funding, which FHWA has traditionally grouped into the following categories: 

• Traffic flow improvements (e.g., traffic signalization, freeway management, high-occupancy 

vehicle lanes); 

• Shared ride programs (e.g., regional ridesharing, vanpool programs, and park-and-ride lots); 

• Travel demand management (e.g., regional marketing, employer trip reduction programs); 

• Bicycle/pedestrian facilities and programs; 

• Transit (e.g., new bus services, new rail services/equipment, service upgrades/amenities, bus 

replacements, alternative fuel buses); and 

• Other projects, including diesel engine retrofits, freight/intermodal projects, dust mitigation 

projects, and other qualifying projects, including experimental pilot projects, which are allowed 

under the law as demonstrations to determine their benefits and costs. 

CMAQ-funded projects or programs must reduce CO, ozone precursor (NOx and VOCs), PM, or PM 

precursor (e.g., NOx) emissions from transportation.8

 These reductions should contribute to the area’s 

 

7

 FHWA Memorandum. October 31, 2006. “Guidance on the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) 

Program Under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.” Pages 10 – 11, 

interpreting 23 USC 149(b). 

8

 23 USC 149(b). 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

5 

overall clean air strategy.9 The traditional Federal share for most eligible CMAQ projects has been 80 

percent. However, some projects that also focus on safety efforts have been funded at 100 percent 

Federal share.10 More recently, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act provides the option of 

100 percent Federal share for all CMAQ projects in FY 2008 and FY 2009.11

State DOTs and MPOs, the key agencies for transportation planning at the local and regional level, 

operate under broad guidance regarding project eligibility when they determine project selection and 

implementation decisions. Notwithstanding the statutory formula for determining the apportionment 

amount, the State may use its CMAQ funds in any ozone, CO, or PM nonattainment or maintenance area. 

States may do so according to local preference; there is no obligation to allocate CMAQ funds in the 

same way they are apportioned. 

CMAQ projects are usually proposed and evaluated at the MPO level and then chosen at the State level 

using a variety of selection processes. To support a transparent, open process, MPOs, State DOTs, and 

transit agencies are encouraged to establish and make available a project selection process that clearly 

identifies the basis for selecting projects, including emissions benefits, cost effectiveness, and additional 

selection factors such as congestion relief, greenhouse gas reductions, safety, system preservation, access 

to opportunity, sustainable development and freight, reduced SOV reliance, multi-modal benefits, or other 

criteria. At a minimum, projects should be identified by year and proposed funding source.12

Required Emissions Analyses 

The CMAQ statute includes emissions reduction as a requirement for CMAQ-invested projects or 

programs.13 Project sponsors must estimate the expected emissions reductions for projects funded under 

the program, with particular attention to the pollutants of concern in the project implementation area (CO, 

VOCs, NOx, PM2.5 and PM10).14 According to the Interim Program Guidance, quantified emissions 

benefits (i.e., emissions reductions) and emissions increases should be included in all project proposals, 

except where it is not possible to quantify emissions changes, in which case a qualitative assessment may 

be provided. Emissions effects should be estimated and reported in a consistent fashion (i.e., kg/day) 

across projects to allow accurate comparison during the project selection process. 

State and local transportation and air quality agencies may conduct CMAQ-project air quality analyses 

with different approaches; FHWA does not specify the emissions reduction methodologies to be used. 

However, FHWA stipulates that every effort should be taken to ensure that determinations of air quality 

benefits are credible and based on a reproducible and logical analytical procedure for inclusion in 

FHWA’s national CMAQ database.15 

 

9

 FHWA Memorandum. October 31, 2006. “Guidance on the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) 

Program Under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.” Page 11, 

interpreting 23 USC 149(b). 

10 23 USC 120(c). 

11 See Section 1131 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140, H.R. 6). 

12 See FHWA Memorandum. October 31, 2006. “Guidance on the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) 

Program Under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.” Page 26, 

interpreting 23 USC 149(b). 

13 The exception is for states receiving minimum apportionment that do not have, and have had, a nonattainment area designed 

under the Clean Air Act, in which case the State may use funds for any project eligible under the Surface Transportation 

Program. 23 USC 149(b)-(c). 

14 23 USC 149(b)-(c). 

15 See FHWA Memorandum. October 31, 2006. “Guidance on the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) 

Program Under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.” Page 25. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

6 

Relevant Literature and Studies 

While this study focuses on a set of CMAQ-funded projects from FHWA’s national CMAQ database, it 

also builds upon and is intended to supplement past efforts to assess the impacts of CMAQ projects. 

Since the program’s inception, FHWA and EPA have developed several documents that have described 

the emissions benefits, congestion benefits, and other positive effects of CMAQ funded projects. For 

instance, FHWA developed a document in 1996, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 

Program – Indirect Benefits, which highlights the CMAQ program’s indirect benefits to MPOs and other 

stakeholders in the transportation planning process, and provided examples of specific projects and their 

benefits.16 In 1999, EPA created a brochure on the CMAQ program, “Creating Transportation Choices: 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Success Studies,” which highlights a set of 

examples of CMAQ-funded projects.17 In 2003, FHWA developed a report, CMAQ: Advancing Mobility 

and Air Quality, which describes the ways in which CMAQ projects can improve mobility.18 The report 

documents nine examples of CMAQ projects and how they have enhanced mobility, and includes 

information on the emissions benefits reported for these projects. 

For over a decade, FHWA and EPA also have undertaken efforts to assess the effectiveness of the CMAQ 

program, to examine cost-effectiveness, and to provide information on recommended practices for 

estimating emissions effects. In 1997, FHWA sponsored a literature review on the Cost Effectiveness of 

Transportation Control Measures by CMAQ Category, which documented a range of studies 

summarizing the emissions benefits of projects funded under CMAQ.19 To address concerns about the 

effectiveness of the CMAQ program at reducing motor vehicle emissions during the deliberations that led 

to passage of TEA-21, the EPA in coordination with FHWA, conducted a detailed assessment of CMAQ 

project effects and costs (Costs and Emissions Benefits of CMAQ Project Types, 1999). The study 

documented emissions effects, costs, methodologies and assumptions for 24 CMAQ projects within six 

project categories.20 

In TEA-21, Congress called for an evaluation of the benefits and cost-effectiveness of projects funded 

under the CMAQ program. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) conducted this study, which 

examined the emissions benefits of CMAQ-funded projects, based on available literature and conducted a 

comparison against other pollution reduction measures to evaluate the program’s cost effectiveness. 

Overall, the TRB study (published as Special Report 264) concluded that the CMAQ program had been 

valuable to its designed objectives, and supported its continuation subject to some targeted findings and 

recommendations. Perhaps the most critical finding in the review was the inability to evaluate 

performance of funded projects due to poor or absent information. This resulted in a recommendation for 

a more formal evaluation component attached to future funding of the CMAQ program. The study noted 

that the CMAQ program had not been structured to be evaluated in a rigorous way (local flexibility was 

an important feature of the program), thus making it impossible to perform a rigorous scientific analysis 

of benefits of CMAQ-funded projects.21 

 

16 Federal Highway Administration, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Indirect Benefits. Publication 

No. FHWA-PD-97-045, 1997. 

17 Hagler Bailly, “Creating Transportation Choices: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Success 

Studies,” for U.S. EPA, 1999. 

18 Federal Highway Administration, CMAQ Advancing Mobility and Air Quality. Publication No. FHWA-EP-03-045, 2003. 19 Center for Transportation and the Environment (CTE), North Carolina State University, Cost Effectiveness of Transportation 

Control Measures by CMAQ Category, FHWA, 1997. 

20 Hagler Bailly, Costs and Emissions Impacts of CMAQ Project Types, U.S. EPA, 1999. 

21 Transportation Research Board. Special Report 264: The CMAQ Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience. 2002. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

7 

This study is designed to supplement the findings of previous research by examining a small number of 

CMAQ-funded projects, with a focus on projects funded in years 2000 and later. By examining CMAQ 

projects that have been implemented, this study provides information on the estimated impacts that have 

been achieved on congestion levels and air quality. 

Report Organization 

This report is organized into three major sections: 

• Study Approach (Section 2) discusses the parameters and methodology used for this study, including 

the approach and methodology used for gathering project information. 

• Impacts of Projects on Air Quality and Congestion (Section 3) presents the results of the review of 

67 projects. It reports on the estimated congestion benefits, emissions benefits, and costs of the 

selected projects, organized by project category for analysis purposes. This analysis relies on data 

provided by the project sponsors, used in their own analyses for reporting to FHWA’s CMAQ 

database. 

• Project Analysis and Selection Practices that Support Effectiveness (Section 4) uses information 

from the set of projects to assess cost-effectiveness at reducing emissions, and examines how State 

and local agencies are using this type of information for project prioritization and decision making. 

First, it examines the cost-effectiveness of the CMAQ projects by project category in dollars per ton of 

pollution reduced. For this analysis, emissions estimates of the projects were generally recalculated 

using standardized emissions factors (rates of emissions in grams per mile) in order to fill in gaps in 

reported emissions effects and to enable comparisons among projects that were implemented in 

different locations at different times. This section then includes a preliminary discussion of some 

approaches that have been used by States and MPOs to enhance the effectiveness of their project 

selection processes, drawing on the data collection effort conducted for this study. This preliminary 

information will form the basis for selecting locations for cases studies, which will be conducted in 

Phase II to examine program implementation at the State and local level. 

Appendixes provide additional information on assumptions used in the calculations, and include short 

write-ups of each project in a standardized template. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

8 

2. STUDY APPROACH

As noted previously, this evaluation responds to a desire by Congress to better understand the direct and 

indirect impact of CMAQ projects on air quality and congestion levels after more than 15 years of 

experience. Congress also wanted to ensure the effective implementation of the program, make sure the 

DOT maintain and disseminate a cumulative database of annual CMAQ reports and that the DOT and 

EPA consider recommendations to improve the operation and evaluation of the CMAQ program. 

The study team determined it was best to approach the request in two phases. This Phase I report is 

intended to satisfy the understanding of the air quality and congestion benefits of a sample of CMAQ 

projects. To conduct the evaluation, a small set of CMAQ projects was chosen, background data were 

collected, and analysis was conducted to determine the effects of these projects on emissions and on 

congestion levels. In addition, the research team collected data on the costs of these projects – both from 

CMAQ funding and other funding sources – and conducted additional analyses to assess the costeffectiveness of the sample projects at reducing emissions of each pollutant. In Phase II, FHWA, in 

consultation with EPA, conducted case studies of several States and metropolitan areas to understand 

project analysis, selection, and prioritization procedures. 

This section describes the approach to selecting the CMAQ projects and collecting data used in the Phase 

I study. 

Project Categories and Distribution 

The research team attempted to select a set of projects for evaluation that would reflect typical projects 

funded through the program. As noted earlier, the CMAQ program has traditionally organized projects 

into several large categories. Figure 1 presents a breakdown of the number of CMAQ funded projects by 

these major categories for FY 2000 to FY 2005. 

Traffic Flow 

Improvements

STP/CMAQ 42%

7%

Shared Ride

8%

Bicycle/Pedestrian

13%

I/M and Other

7%

Demand 

Management

6%

Transit

17%

Figure 1. Share of CMAQ Projects Obligated FY 2000 to FY 2005 by Project Category. 

Figure 2 presents a breakdown of the percentage of total CMAQ funding received by projects in these 

major categories for FY 2000 to FY 2005. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

9 

Transit

42%

Traffic Flow Improvements

32%

STP/CMAQ

7%

Shared Ride

4%

Pedestrian/Bicycle

5%

I/M and Other TCMs

6%

Demand Management

4%

Figure 2. Percentage of CMAQ Funding FY 2000 to FY 2005 by Project Category. 

As can be seen from these two diagrams, transit and traffic flow improvement projects together made up 

over half the total number of projects funded and received nearly three-quarters of total funding. Transit 

projects, in particular, made up a larger share of funding than share of projects because many transit 

projects were larger in scale and involved more capital funding (e.g., vehicle purchases, new transit lines, 

etc.). In contrast, pedestrian/bicycle projects made up a smaller share of funding than their proportion of 

total projects since these projects tended to be small and involved less funding per project. 

In developing a set of projects for analysis in this study, the CMAQ projects were organized into the 

major categories that FHWA has traditionally used to group CMAQ projects in its database. 

Subcategories were broken out where categories are larger and diverse, and additional categories were 

created for project types that currently are the focus of additional attention (e.g., diesel engine retrofits, 

freight/intermodal projects). 

Given that more than half the projects funded by CMAQ over this period were either traffic flow 

improvements or transit projects, the study team determined that in order to ensure an adequate number of 

projects across the various project categories, the number of projects analyzed in each category would not 

be proportional to the number of funded projects or total funding by category. Rather, to ensure a 

reasonable number of projects across all categories, the study team endeavored to include a minimum of 

three projects within each subcategory. Larger samples were included for categories that historically have 

had more CMAQ projects funded or that are currently the focus of additional attention. In two cases 

(High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes and Conventional Bus Replacements), fewer projects were collected, 

due to data limitations and relatively few projects that have been funded in recent years for these types of 

projects. 

Table 1 illustrates the project categories and subcategories, and the number of CMAQ projects that were 

analyzed. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

10 

Table 1. CMAQ Projects Included in the Study by Project Category and Subcategory. 

Category Subcategory Number of 

Projects 

Traffic Signalization/ 

Intersection Improvements 

6 

Traffic Flow Improvements Freeway Management 4 

High-Occupancy Vehicle 

Lanes 

1 

Regional Ridesharing 3 

Shared Ride Programs Vanpool Programs 4 

Park and Ride lots 5 

Travel Demand Management 4 

Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects 4 

New Bus Services 3 

New Rail Services 3 Transit Service 

Improvements Service Upgrades/Amenities 5 

Conventional Bus 

Replacements 

2 Transit Vehicle 

Replacements and Related 

Infrastructure Alternative Fuel 

Vehicles/Fueling Facilities 

4 

Dust Mitigation 3 

Freight/Intermodal 6 

Diesel Engine Retrofits 7 Diesel Emissions Reduction Truck Idle Reduction 3 

 Total 67 

Project Selection Procedures 

Once the broad organization of projects was determined, a screening analysis based solely on information 

contained in the CMAQ database was conducted. The CMAQ database is a tool developed by FHWA to 

capture information about CMAQ projects, including funding information, emissions reduction estimates, 

the MPO, nonattainment or maintenance area, and a brief project description. 

The process of selecting a small set of projects for analysis focused on identifying entries in the database 

which met the following selection criteria: 

• Projects funded in the FY 2000 funding cycle or later; 

• Quantitative emissions reductions were reported for at least one of the following pollutants: 

NOX, VOC, CO, or PM; 

• Reported emissions effects appeared “reasonable”, based on judgment of the study team (i.e., 

eliminating projects with suspect or unusual emissions results); and 

• Projects represented “typical” projects within the category (i.e., eliminating specialized or 

unusual project examples, based on project description). 

In addition to the above selection criteria, the initial screening focused largely, but not exclusively, on 

States that are apportioned the highest levels of CMAQ funding. This was done to achieve a 

representative sample of projects, since these States fund a larger number of projects; also, staff within 

these States would be able to provide information on more projects per contact should follow-up be 

needed. (See Table 2 for a list of States with the largest CMAQ apportionments over the period FY 1991 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

11 

to FY 2005, along with the amount obligated.) A final consideration was the overall geographic diversity 

of the sample, and balance between large projects and small projects. The CMAQ funds received by the 

selected projects ranged in scope from $33,000 for a signal synchronization project in Tennessee to $36.2 

million for a transit improvement project that involved double tracking segments of a commuter rail line 

between Dallas and Ft. Worth. In some cases, CMAQ funded only a small portion of the total project 

costs, helping to leverage other Federal (specifically, FTA) or state and local funds; this was the case in 

particular for some of the larger transit projects and HOV project. In many other cases, CMAQ provided 

the majority or sole source of funding. 

Table 2. States Receiving Largest CMAQ Apportionments, FY 1991 – FY 2005. 

State 

Amount 

Apportioned 

(Million $)

Amount 

Obligated 

(Million $)

California $ 4,019.1 $ 3,637.8 

New York $ 1,698.6 $ 1,401.7 

Texas $ 1,469.8 $ 1,208.7 

New Jersey $ 1,084.2 $ 987.4 

Illinois $ 950.1 $ 817.1 

Pennsylvania $ 858.8 $ 821.2 

Ohio $ 774.8 $ 731.5 

Maryland $ 614.2 $ 539.9 

Massachusetts $ 582.1 $ 475.7 

Florida $ 521.2 $ 506.0 

Michigan $ 478.5 $ 427.1 

Connecticut $ 476.9 $ 434.4 

Georgia $ 445.1 $ 387.5 

Arizona $ 412.2 $ 381.6 

Source: Memo from April Marchese, Director, Office of Natural Environment to FHWA Division Administrators on 

March 23, 2007 Available online at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs/msgobsrec1.htm. 

Data Collection Procedures 

After using the project selection criteria identified above to identify a reasonable set of projects from the 

CMAQ Database, a combination of methods was used to gather missing or incomplete information on 

the selected projects. For example, Internet searches were conducted to find project-specific information 

that might be available online, as well as to obtain the contact information for the State or MPO CMAQ 

representative. In several cases, information on CMAQ projects was available from Transportation 

Improvement Program (TIP) reports, congestion mitigation reports, and posted evaluation reports online. 

If data were still missing and accurate contact information could be obtained, CMAQ representatives at 

the State DOT or MPO were contacted. Representatives were provided information on the purpose of the 

evaluation project and the specific CMAQ ID numbers of interest, and were asked for reports on the 

emissions reduction methodology originally used to calculate the emissions benefit, project cost 

information, and any available project evaluations. A list of the State and local project sponsors 

consulted for backup information for this report is listed in Appendix A. 

In several cases, initial projects for which data and methodologies were gathered were eliminated from 

the study. This occurred due to limited or incomplete documentation of assumptions, which made it 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

12 

difficult to determine how precisely the emissions benefits were calculated; or due to assumptions that 

appeared unusually high or low and did not appear to be representative of typical projects within the 

project category. In a couple of cases, it was found that the project sponsor incorrectly calculated 

emissions effects based on the documentation provided (i.e., due to a mathematical error, or improper 

conversion). In these cases, the reported values were corrected. 

Once missing or incomplete CMAQ reports, TIP reports, and/or emissions calculations were provided by 

the local representative to supplement data from the CMAQ database, the data were entered into 

individual project “templates.” These one-page project profiles are designed to capture in one place all 

the critical facts, such as calculated travel impacts, emissions factors used, and the non-Federal and 

Federal costs related to the example. The individual profiles for each of the CMAQ-funded projects 

analyzed in this report can be found in Appendix C. 

In selecting projects for inclusion in this study, emphasis was placed on profiling to the fullest extent 

possible, the costs, impacts on congestion and air quality, and other benefits for each project. While the 

selected projects are intended to be representative of typical CMAQ-funded projects, the emissions 

effects and congestion effects estimated for these projects are not statistically significant indicators of the 

effects of projects that have been funded through the CMAQ program. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

13 

3. IMPACTS OF PROJECTS ON AIR QUALITY AND CONGESTION

This section describes the reported impacts of the selected CMAQ projects on transportation emissions 

and congestion levels. The data reported in this section are based on the materials reported by the 

sponsors of CMAQ-funded projects, or by the State DOT or MPO responsible for reporting to FHWA. 

These estimates of project effects reflect project-specific factors and local conditions, such as typical 

vehicle trips lengths and factors that affect vehicle emissions rates (such as temperatures, vehicle fleet 

mix, and vehicle speeds and operating conditions). They often utilize data from past local studies 

reflecting local factors (e.g., park-and-ride lot utilization rates, transit ridership levels on new services). 

While these data are generally the best estimates of expected emissions benefits available to the project 

sponsors, the data have some limitations that that should be noted. Specifically, the reported effects are 

forecasts of expected effects, typically based on sketch planning analysis methods. In most cases, the 

effects have not been validated based on before-and-after studies or other post-project evaluations. For 

some types of projects, such as bicycle and pedestrian projects and transit service amenities, it is difficult 

to predict effects, given limited scientific studies, analysis tools, and established approaches for 

estimating travel and emissions impacts. As a result, there is a fairly high degree of uncertainty in some 

of the results. Another limitation is that in many cases, State DOTs or MPOs reported emissions benefits 

only for pollutants of concern in the local area, such as ozone-precursors. Consequently, effects on 

emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter were not reported for many projects, even in cases 

where the projects would be expected to reduce emissions of these pollutants. 

Overall findings are summarized below, followed by a brief discussion of the project impacts organized 

in major project category and subcategory groupings. For each project type, a table summarizing 

quantitative findings is accompanied by a commentary on findings and trends. 

General Observations 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Congestion and Mobility 

Some CMAQ projects are designed to reduce traffic congestion and to minimize delay experienced by 

drivers. Traffic flow improvement projects - such as traffic signalization improvements, incident 

management programs, and intersection improvements - reduce recurring and/or nonrecurring traffic 

delay on the transportation system. Project sponsors used a range of different techniques, from simulation 

modeling to simplified sketch planning, to estimate changes in travel delay or speeds. 

Although many traffic flow improvement projects are small in scope (e.g., an individual intersection 

improvement), targeted investments can yield significant improvements in roadway level of service and 

intersection performance in specific locations. Consequently, these projects can have a large impact on 

the daily travel conditions experienced by individual drivers in the area where the project is implemented. 

Moreover, on highly-traveled corridors, even small changes in travel speeds can result in substantial 

travel time savings when multiplied over thousands of vehicles. For instance, an intersection 

improvement project in Louisiana estimated that travel conditions would improve from Level of Service 

(LOS) F, reflecting heavy congestion, to LOS C, and would yield a reduction of 1,459.2 vehicle-hours of 

delay per weekday. 

Projects that reduce vehicle travel may also have impacts on congestion, but these effects are generally 

not quantified, and the primary travel benefit of these projects is generally enhanced mobility and 

multimodal choices. Projects such as bike and pedestrian facilities, shared ride programs, travel demand 

management (TDM) programs, and transit improvements may reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 

passenger vehicles, particularly during peak periods, and, therefore, may contribute to reduced traffic 

congestion. Freight/intermodal projects are often designed to shift goods movement from trucks to rail, 

and thereby reduce congestion associated with truck traffic on corresponding freight corridors. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

14 

These individual projects, however, often have limited impacts on travel demand in specific corridors or 

on a region-wide basis. For instance, several projects examined (including vanpool projects, park and ride 

lots, bicycle and pedestrian projects, and transit service improvements) were estimated to reduce less than 

200 vehicle trips each day. Reductions of this level of trips may not have measurable effects on traffic 

congestion. Moreover, changes in travel speeds and delay depend on the volume of traffic by time of day, 

and impacts are non-linear (i.e., a reduction in 1,000 cars will not necessarily have twice the effect of a 

reduction in 500 cars on travel speeds). As a result, the magnitude of congestion relief due to VMTreduction projects is difficult to predict or assess. There also are no standardized and simple 

methodologies to assess these effects. Given the lack of a specific funding for this type of analysis, and 

other demands placed on the program, it is perhaps not surprising that quantitative data on congestion 

benefits are very limited. 

A primary purpose of bicycle and pedestrian projects, share ride programs, TDM programs, and transit 

service improvements is to enhance mobility by allowing greater travel choices. Over the long term and in 

combination other projects, projects such as bicycle paths and transit shuttles may improve mobility 

further by supporting transit-oriented development, an improved pedestrian environment, and enhanced 

multi-modal choices. 

Some eligible CMAQ projects will not have any effects on traffic congestion or mobility. For instance, 

diesel engine retrofits and bus replacements are designed to reduce emissions rates from on-road vehicles 

without changing travel patterns. Similarly, dust mitigation projects are designed to reduce wind-blown 

dust on roadways without any changes in traffic congestion or mobility. 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Air Quality 

Overall, the analysis of selected projects suggests that emissions reductions have been achieved across the 

wide range of projects funded through the CMAQ Program, and that ultimately, each project helped 

contribute to some extent toward air quality goals. CMAQ projects can help reduce emissions through: 

1) improving traffic flow, thereby reducing vehicle idling and stop-and-start driving conditions that 

are associated with higher levels of emissions; 

2) encouraging changes in travel behavior that reduce motor vehicle miles traveled (such as shifts to 

ridesharing, transit, bicycling, or walking); and 

3) using technologies to reduce the rate of emissions (such as through purchases of cleaner buses, or 

retrofits of diesel vehicles). 

Given the small scale and localized nature of many CMAQ projects (e.g., a park-and-ride lot, a bicycle 

path, a transit shuttle), many CMAQ projects only yield small direct reductions in motor vehicle 

pollution. Among the projects reviewed in this study, the majority had emissions reduction estimates of 

less than 50 kg per day of both VOC and NOx, and less than 500 kg per day of CO. Although these 

estimated reductions are generally quite small, the combined effect of many small projects and those that 

are more regional in nature may help in achieving regional air quality goals. In fact, a number of regions 

take emissions reduction credit for regional demand management programs and other CMAQ-funded 

projects as part of their regional conformity analyses. 

Moreover, the combined effect of many similar projects may help to achieve longer-term and more 

substantial indirect benefits to air quality. For instance, by contributing to development of a more multimodal transportation system, by supporting access to transit, and by focusing attention to operational 

strategies, CMAQ projects can help support longer-term changes in travel behavior, land use, and 

attitudes toward transportation that support air quality goals and other related planning goals. These 

effects are very difficult to assess, and are not quantified for purposes of reporting to FHWA. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

15 

Additional Considerations on Air Quality Impacts 

It should be noted that although project sponsors reported estimates of emissions benefits in the CMAQ 

database, and a consistent metric of kg per day is used, there are limitations associated with reporting a 

single emissions figure for each pollutant for each project. In considering the overall benefits of CMAQ 

projects on air quality, it is important to consider the following factors: 

• Days of Effectiveness – Some projects have impacts every day of the year, while others only have 

effects on weekdays (such as projects that affect peak period traffic), and others have effects on even 

fewer days. For instance, bicycle projects might only be effective in encouraging shifts from driving 

during days when the weather is mild (for instance, the analysis of a bike path in Indiana assumed use 

132 days per year), and analysis of a dust mitigation project that involved use of de-icing chemicals 

rather than sand would only be effective during winter months. The analysis of an ozone action days 

program in Rhode Island reported emissions effects based on changes in transit ridership due to a free 

transit program, and noted that the free transit days occurred on 4 days in 2005. Consequently, the 

reported emissions benefits in the CMAQ database are not sufficient to compare the impacts of 

projects at a national level. Many project sponsors estimate emissions benefits on an annual basis, in 

addition to daily effects, and this is particularly important to States and MPOs that rank projects on the 

basis of effects or cost-effectiveness as part of their selection process. 

• Duration of Benefits – Some project benefits are expected to occur in the short-term, such as 

operational programs, like a ridesharing program or travel demand management incentives program. 

Other project benefits may have longer lasting impacts, notably infrastructure projects, like park-andride lots, transit rail, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, which would be expected to last for perhaps 

more than 10 years and continue to generate emissions benefits over this time period. 

• Changes in Effectiveness over Time – Since the CMAQ database only requires reporting of one 

emissions figure for each pollutant, emissions benefits were typically calculated or reported for one 

year in time. However, in reality, the stream of emissions benefits for a project is not likely to be 

constant over time. Overall, emissions rates from motor vehicles are declining, and so a project that 

produces a near constant travel impact, such as a park-and-ride lot or transit shuttle service (which are 

capacity constrained), is likely to have declining emissions benefits over time. On the other hand, 

some projects, such as regional employer trip reduction programs, might achieve increasing benefits 

over time as population and congestion in a region grow. Although not reported to the FHWA CMAQ 

database, some project sponsors estimated a stream of benefits over time, which is useful for purposes 

of project ranking and selection. 

The following sections summarize congestion and emissions benefit findings for the projects reviewed in 

this study by project category. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

16 

Traffic Flow Improvements 

Traffic flow improvements are designed specifically to meet the dual goals of the CMAQ program: 

decreasing congestion and reducing air pollution. In this report, traffic flow improvements are broken into 

three subcategories: 

• Traffic Signalization and Intersection Improvements; 

• Freeway Management; and 

• High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes. 

Examining the emissions impacts of these strategies typically involves estimating travel speeds with and 

without the improvement in order to develop two different emissions factors for each situation. These 

emissions factors are then applied to VMT along the facility. In some cases, emissions benefits are 

calculated by estimating the reduction in vehicle delay and applying an idle emissions factor (grams per 

hour).22 Some of these project analyses also account for changes in vehicle volumes associated with the 

improvements. 

Traffic Signalization and Intersection Improvements 

Seven CMAQ-funded traffic signalization and intersection improvement projects were reviewed in this 

analysis; quantitative cost and emissions findings are summarized in the table below. 

STATE CMAQ 

FUNDING 

TOTAL 

COST 

PROJECT 

TITLE 

YEAR 

Funded 

VOC 

(kg/day) 

CO 

(kg/day) 

NOx 

(kg/day) 

PM10 

(kg/day) 

PM2.5 

(kg/day) 

Michigan $660,000 $660,000 

Signal Timing 

along Ryan Rd. 2002 -40.1 NR NR NR NR 

Louisiana $4,400,000 $5,500,000 

Continuous Flow 

Intersection at 

Airline and 

Sherwood Forest 2004 - 20.1 NR - 5.2 NR NR 

Kentucky $320,000 $400,000 

Fiber Optic Cable 

Installation for 

Traffic Signal 

Optimization 2005 - 33.5 - 378.0 - 9.1 NR NR 

Ohio $355,302 $639,543 

Signal Timing 

along West Main 

Street 2005 - 5.1 -90.7 - 3.9 NR NR 

Tennessee $33,000 $33,000 

Signal Timing on 

SR-169 from 

Cedar Bluff to 

College St. 2005 - 15.0 NR + 2.2 NR NR 

Kentucky $400,000 $500,000 

Installation of 

Reversible Lanes 

on Nicholasville 

Road (US 27) 2006 - 2.9 -45.0 -1.1 NR NR 

New 

York $2,000,000 $4,870,000 

Construction of a 

two lane 

roundabout at 

Fuller St. and 

Washington St. 2007 -24.2 -24.2 -1.9 NR NR 

NR – Values were not reported by the local project sponsor or State DOT in the CMAQ database or other materials for the 

project. 

 

22 Calculated based on the emissions factor (in grams per mile) at 2.5 miles per hour, the slowest speed in MOBILE6, multiplied 

by 2.5 miles per hour, to generate an idle emissions factor in grams per hour. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

17 

Congestion/Mobility Benefits 

Traffic signalization and intersection improvement projects are typically designed to reduce traffic 

congestion, increase travel speeds, and/or reduce delay. Congestion benefits were reported for each of the 

signalization and intersection improvement projects in the study, as described briefly below: 

• Interconnection and modernization of 15 traffic signals along an urban minor arterial (Ryan 

Road) in Macomb County, Michigan, which borders the City of Detroit to the South and Lake St. 

Clair to the east, was estimated to improve travel speeds by 4 mph in both peak and off-peak 

periods, due to reduced delay at intersections. 

• A modification to two intersections in East Baton Rouge Parish (Airline Highway – US 61 – and 

Siegen Lane/Sherwood Forest Boulevard) was undertaken to increase traffic flow and reduce 

congestion and delay. The intersections were operating at level of service F during peak hours, 

and a new design called a Continuous Flow Intersection would improve traffic operations at the 

intersection to acceptable levels of service. Simulations conducted using the VISSIM 

Microscopic Simulation Model, which estimates average delay in seconds per vehicle for each 

approach to the intersections, showed that the proposed improvements would enhance the 

throughput at the intersection for two hours during the morning peak period and two hours 

during the evening peak period while reducing delay time. For instance, in the evening peak at 

the intersection of Siegen/Sherwood and Airline, existing conditions were 6,200 vehicles per 

hour each experiencing an average of 178.3 seconds of delay, for a total of 368.5 vehicle hours 

of delay per peak hour; with the improvements, it was estimated that 6,700 vehicles per hour 

would experience an average of 34.4 seconds of delay, for a total of 64.0 vehicle-hours of delay 

per peak hour. In total, the two components of the intersection would reduce delay by 299.3 

vehicle-hours in each morning peak hour and 429.9 vehicle hours in each evening peak hour, for 

a total of 1,459.2 vehicle hours saved per weekday. 

• In Lexington, Kentucky, the installation of fiber optic cable for traffic signal optimization for the 

arterial highway network was estimated to reduce delay by 4 minutes per vehicle (determined by 

using an average reduction for a sample of 18 intersections), resulting in an estimated 6,360 

vehicle hours of delay per day saved throughout the entire network.23

• Installation of coordinated signalized intersections to replace stop control at several intersections 

along Main Street in the City of Newark, Ohio was estimated to reduce delay by 702 vehicle 

hours per day at four of the main intersections involved in the project, based on analysis using a 

traffic simulation model. 

• Tennessee DOT estimated an increase in average speed of 34 mph to 38 mph after traffic signal 

timing synchronization for a roadway in Knoxville, affecting 25,935 average daily vehicle trips. 

• Installation of reversible lanes along Nicholsonville Road (US 27) in Fayette County, Kentucky, 

to allow three northbound lanes during the morning peak period was estimated to result in a 17 

percent reduction in delay, or 63 vehicle hours saved during the morning and evening peak hour 

each day. According to the region’s Congestion Management System report, for approximately 

1.5 hours each morning, a queue of traffic bound for Lexington extended for a distance of nearly 

one-half mile, and often further due to incidents or inclement weather. The project would take 

advantage of unutilized median space and low early morning left turning volumes to create a 

 

23 Hours of delay was not reported directly by the project sponsors, but was calculated by the study team based on information 

provided in the project sponsor’s emissions analysis. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

18 

third northbound traffic lane in the morning peak period by reassigning one of the left turn lanes 

on each side of an intersection as a through lane during this period. 

• In Albany, New York, conversion of a signalized intersection into a roundabout was estimated to 

increase average speeds from 15 mph to 29 mph, and affect 48,670 vehicles over a quarter mile. 

These figures were calculated based on changes in vehicle delay, which were estimated to fall 

from an average of 31 to 47 seconds per vehicle at each approach to an average of 6 to 16 

seconds. 

Emissions Benefits 

In general, traffic signalization and intersection projects that reduce vehicle delay will reduce emissions 

across all types of pollutants. However, traffic flow projects that increase travel speeds may have different 

effects on different pollutants. VOC emissions generally decline with increasing speeds, while CO and 

NOx emissions can begin to increase at speeds beyond 32 to 35 mph. As a result, some projects that 

increase speeds around certain ranges may actually increase CO and NOx emissions. 

For the selected projects, the project sponsors estimated daily emissions reductions ranging from 2.9 kg to 

40.1 kg of VOC. Daily NOx emissions reductions associated with each project show a smaller effect 

(from 1.1 kg to 9.1 kg reduced), with one project exhibiting a 2.2 kg increase in NOx emissions due to 

speed increases beyond 35 mph. CO reductions reported by sponsors indicate 24.2 kg to 378.0 kg 

emissions reductions each day. 

None of the sponsors reported reductions in PM for these projects. Since EPA’s MOBILE6 model does 

not account for the effects of changes in vehicle operating speeds on PM emissions, one would expect no 

reportable change in PM emissions for projects that alter vehicle operating speeds. Several project 

sponsors, however, calculated emissions benefits based on reduced vehicle idling time (e.g., calculating 

reduction in delay time due to the project and multiplying by idle emissions factors), in which case, PM 

emissions reductions could be calculated. 

Costs 

The total project costs for the signalization and intersection improvement projects ranged in magnitude 

from $33,000 to $5.5 million. The non-CMAQ share of project funding ranged from 0 to 20 percent of 

the total project cost. The total cost of signal timing projects will vary greatly depending on a number of 

local and project-specific factors, including the methods for coordinating signals, the number of signals 

included in the project, and the length of the roadway. The most expensive two projects both involved 

capital projects to redesign intersections. At $4.87 million and $5.5 million, respectively, the development 

of a continuous flow intersection in Louisiana and the construction of a roundabout in New York required 

substantially more funding than the signal timing projects. Although the capital costs are relatively 

expensive, the infrastructure and emissions benefits, associated with these types of projects could be long 

lasting. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

19 

Freeway Management 

Four CMAQ-funded freeway management projects were documented in this analysis; quantitative 

findings are summarized in the table below. 

STATE CMAQ 

FUNDING 

TOTAL 

COST 

PROJECT 

TITLE 

YEAR 

Funded 

VOC 

(kg/day) 

CO 

(kg/day) 

NOx 

(kg/day) 

PM10 

(kg/day) 

PM2.5 

(kg/day) 

Louisiana $2,712,940 $2,712,940 

ITS on I-10 

from Acadian 

St. to Highland 

Blvd. 2003 -189.6 NR -489.0 NR NR 

Washington $998,037 $2,000,000 

Duwamish ITS 

System 2004 -76.0 -939.0 -4.0 NR NR 

Connecticut $1,279,246 $1,421,384 

Incident 

Management 

System on I-95 2005 -6.1 NR -3.00 NR -0.004 

Alabama $240,000 $800,000 

Alabama 

Service Patrols 

Program 2007 -31.3 NR -11.9 NR -0.12 

NR – Values were not reported by the local project sponsor or State DOT in the CMAQ database or other materials for the 

project. 

Freeway management projects improve traffic flow along major highways and often target travel impacts 

during peak periods when delays most often occur. These projects include service patrols that assist or 

remove disabled vehicles from blocking travel lanes, computer systems that control traffic flow onto 

freeways, monitoring devices that scan for incidents and provide motorist assistance or reroute traffic 

around the incident, and other Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) components. In most metropolitan 

areas, traffic incident-related delay (not including other non-recurring delay caused by weather, work 

zones, etc.) is estimated to account for between 25 and 30 percent of total congestion delay.24 When 

vehicles are cleared from the motorway and/or other vehicles are alerted to incidents ahead, idling is 

reduced and traffic speeds along freeways can return to more optimal levels. 

Congestion/Mobility Benefits 

Freeway management projects can reduce recurring and/or nonrecurring delay associated with incidents. 

For example, an ITS system project in Seattle, Washington included interconnection of traffic signals and 

controller equipment upgrading, installation of variable message signs and other driver information 

systems, and implementation of traffic control strategies to monitor traffic conditions and accidents. This 

project was designed to minimize the conflicts among freight movement, transit travel, commuter traffic, 

and ferry access, while enhancing safety and mobility for people and goods. The project sponsors 

estimated a 10 percent increase, or 2 mph, in both peak and off peak speeds due to the program. 

In Connecticut, development of a 13.94 mile portion of an incident management system on I-95 included 

the installation of a fiber-optic communication system, video surveillance, traffic flow monitors, and a 

link to the Bridgeport Operations Center. The incident management project was designed to allow 

operational problems to be identified sooner and enable faster dispatch of the proper response equipment 

and medical services to a site. Based on data from the “Connecticut Freeway Management System” 

report, which reported effects for a 65 mile length corridor, it is estimated that this type of system will 

result in annual delay savings of 368,000 vehicle hours, assuming proportional benefits for the 13.94 mile 

corridor (based on an assumption of a congested incident speed of 5 mph, and a free flow speed of 55 

mph). 

 

24 FHWA. 2003. Freeway Management and Operations Handbook. 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/publications/frwy_mgmt_handbook/toc.htm. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

20 

The Alabama Service and Assistance Patrol (ASAP) Program, an incident management program of the 

Alabama DOT and Alabama State Troopers, offers services to disabled motorists to reduce response time 

and to minimize major disruption of interstate traffic flow. This program was estimated to result in a 

savings of 3,849 vehicle hours of delay per incident for an estimated 111 incidents per year, resulting in a 

savings of over 427,000 vehicle hours per year. An advanced traffic management center in the Baton 

Rouge metropolitan area, including incident detection and response, motorist assistance, and surveillance 

components along I-10, also was designed to reduce incident-based delay, but did not report hours of 

delay reduced. 

Emissions Benefits 

As with other traffic flow improvements, freeway management projects that cause an increase in travel 

speeds may have varying effects on different pollutants, depending on the magnitude of the overall speed 

change. Emissions reductions reported by project sponsors for the four projects indicated daily VOC 

emissions reductions ranging from 6.1 kg to 189.6 kg per day, and daily NOx emissions reductions 

ranging from 4.0 kg to 489.0 kg per day. One project sponsor estimated a 939.0 kg CO emissions 

reduction; the three other projects did not report CO reductions. Two projects reported PM2.5 emissions 

benefits of 0.004 and 0.12 kg per day. Due to reduced vehicle idling, one would expect reductions of CO 

and PM for each project. 

It should be noted that the Louisiana project, which reported the highest emissions reductions, assumed 

that the incident detection and response, motorist assistance, and surveillance components of the ITS 

project along I-10 would result in a 4.41 percent reduction in total emissions for traffic along the I-10. 

This assumption appears to be somewhat high in comparison to the other analyses, and is based on data 

showing that 4.9 percent of freeway emissions are associated with nonrecurring congestion, and an 

assumed 90 percent reduction in incident-based emissions. The 90 percent effectiveness factor is based on 

an effectiveness rate of 50 percent for incident detection and response, 25 percent for motorist assistance, 

and 15 percent for surveillance. 

Costs 

The total project costs of the selected projects ranged in magnitude from $800,000 to $2,712,940. In 

general, most freeway management projects involve major corridors or a network of roadways and so 

have substantial capital and/or operating costs. The non-CMAQ share of project funding ranged from 0 

percent to about 50 percent of the total project cost. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

21 

High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes 

Although the CMAQ program has helped to fund a number of HOV projects throughout the history of the 

program, only a small number of HOV projects have used CMAQ funding since FY 2000, which is the 

focus of this representative analysis. Consequently, only one project was identified for analysis in this 

study – construction of an HOV interchange in Dallas. Quantitative findings are summarized in the table 

below. 

STATE CMAQ 

FUNDING 

TOTAL 

COST 

PROJECT 

TITLE 

YEAR 

FUNDED 

VOC 

(kg/day) 

CO 

(kg/day) 

NOx 

(kg/day) 

PM10 

(kg/day) 

PM2.5 

(kg/day) 

Texas $17,152,000 $254,570,093 

Dallas 

HOV 

Interchange 2002 -68.8 NR -135.3 NR NR 

NR – Values were not reported by the local project sponsor or State DOT in the CMAQ database or other materials for the 

project. 

An HOV lane is a travel lane usually reserved for use by vehicles with more than one occupant, such as 

carpools, vanpools and buses, during peak periods or longer periods. They are often located next to the 

regular or general purpose lanes. Most users of HOV facilities can expect a substantial savings in travel 

time, as well as a commute time that is more reliable and predictable on a daily basis. Because HOV lanes 

carry vehicles with a higher number of occupants, the amount of vehicles needed to transport those 

occupants is reduced, resulting in fewer vehicle trips and lower overall VMT. 

There are approximately 126 HOV freeway projects in 27 metropolitan areas in the U.S. These HOV 

facilities include over 1,000 miles of roadway, most often on interstate freeways. HOV lanes have also 

been implemented on arterial roads, especially those related to bus-only applications.25

Congestion/Mobility Benefits 

HOV lanes improve mobility for people who choose to rideshare and for transit users by allowing a faster 

trip compared to being in general purpose lanes. HOV lanes also offer congestion benefits primarily by 

encouraging more passengers to travel in fewer vehicles, and can provide more person throughput on a 

fixed amount of transportation infrastructure. Additionally, some States open HOV lanes to unrestricted 

traffic during non-peak hours, increasing the overall capacity for vehicle movement. 

In Dallas, the HOV interchange project sponsors estimated that 2,929 daily vehicle trips would be 

reduced due to the HOV facility, based on an estimate that 56 percent of transit and rideshare users on the 

facility previously drove alone. Effects on overall congestion levels and speeds on the highway were not 

quantified, although the calculation of emissions effects took into account the differences in speeds 

between the general purpose lanes and HOV lane. 

Emissions Benefits 

HOV lanes affect air pollution emissions in several ways. First, restricting the lanes to certain vehicles 

encourages ridesharing among commuters and results in fewer vehicle trips and an overall reduction in 

emissions of all pollutants. HOV lanes also increase travel speeds for HOV traffic, and sometimes along 

the entire roadway. Increases in travel speeds, as noted previously, will have different effects for different 

pollutants depending on the magnitude of the increase. 

The Dallas HOV interchange project was estimated to reduce 68.8 kg of VOC and 135.3 kg of NOx per 

day. CO and PM reductions were not reported for this project, but might occur due to the reduction in 

vehicle travel. The calculation accounted for both a reduction in VMT due to people shifting to transit and 

 

25 FHWA. “Frequently Asked HOV Questions” http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/faq.htm#faq7 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

22 

ridesharing, and an increase in vehicle speeds for the traffic shifting from general purpose lanes to the 

HOV lane. The analysis did not take into account the potential speed changes that occur for the vehicles 

remaining in the general purpose lanes.

Costs 

The construction of a new HOV lane and the ramps and other infrastructure required for an HOV system 

can be expensive. The total public cost of the reviewed project was $254,570,093, but the CMAQ 

program only paid for approximately 7 percent of the total project cost. The bulk of funding came from 

National Highway System (NHS) funding, along with a lesser amount from State and local sources. 

Although HOV projects incur large capital costs upfront, the infrastructure and corresponding emissions 

benefits, may be long-lasting. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

23 

Shared Ride Programs 

Shared ride programs encompass a wide variety of projects that focus on changing travel behavior to 

reduce air pollutant emissions from light-duty vehicles. These programs offer services that encourage 

single-occupant vehicle travelers to group rides with other travelers, generally in carpools or vanpools, 

thus increasing the average number of occupants per vehicle trip and reducing total vehicle trips and 

VMT. Projects analyzed include: 

• Regional Ridesharing Programs; 

• Vanpool Programs; and 

• Construction of Park and Ride Lots. 

Regional Ridesharing 

Three CMAQ-funded regional ridesharing programs were documented in this analysis. 

STATE CMAQ 

FUNDING 

TOTAL 

COST 

PROJECT 

TITLE 

YEAR 

FUNDED 

VOC 

(kg/day) 

CO 

(kg/day) 

NOx 

(kg/day) 

PM10 

(kg/day) 

PM2.5 

(kg/day) 

Maryland $956,000 $956,000 

11 County 

Ridesharing 

Program 

Operations 2002 -35.0 NR -110.0 NR NR 

Pennsylvania $480,000 $600,000 

University of 

Pittsburgh TDM 

Program 2005 -26.2 -187.4 -30.9 NR NR 

Alabama $700,000 $700,000 

CommuteSmart 

Commuter 

Services 

Program 

Operations 2007 -10.2 NR -12.0 NR -0.1 

NR – Values were not reported by the local project sponsor or State DOT in the CMAQ database or other materials for the 

project. 

Regional ridesharing programs provide ride-matching services, employer outreach, and incentives to 

commute by carpool or vanpool. These incentives can include free gas cards, award programs, and travel 

subsidies. Ride-matching may encourage people to establish regular carpool routines or can be dynamic 

and create systems to match individuals who want to travel to/from similar locations in real-time. These 

programs largely serve a supportive or facilitative role, and help to optimize use of existing transportation 

infrastructure and services. Their success depends, in part, on the commute options existing in the 

community, such as HOV lanes and transit services. 

Congestion/Mobility Benefits 

Regional ridesharing programs can improve mobility by giving people greater options in meeting their 

travel needs, and can reduce travel costs for people who choose to rideshare. The congestion benefits of a 

regional ridesharing program will depend on the number of new carpools and vanpools that are formed 

and the extent to which participants previously drove alone. It should be noted, however, that if some of 

the persons who choose to rideshare previously rode transit, this mode switch would not necessarily be 

beneficial to congestion or emissions. Reductions in VMT are also dependant on the length of the trips, 

and the length of the carpool trip to pick up riders. 

The Birmingham MPO estimated that its regional CommuteSmart Commuter Services Program – which 

includes a ridesharing database, a vanpool program with 34 vans in 2007, and a carpool program – would 

result in a reduction of about 312 vehicle trips per weekday. The primary users of these services have 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

24 

longer-than average commutes. At an average one-way trip length of 39.5 miles, the program reduces a 

total of 9,470 vehicle miles of travel per weekday. 

The TDM program in the Oakland area of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania surrounding the University of 

Pittsburgh, offers ridesharing coordination, employer-sponsored vanpools, and carpool programs. This 

program was estimated to reduce 2,024 vehicle trips per day at an average one-way trip distance of 5.45 

mile, for a total of 22,062 vehicle miles reduced per day. 

The Maryland program - which funds a ridesharing program in eleven counties in the Baltimore and 

Washington, DC metropolitan areas - was estimated to reduce about 3,000 vehicle trips per weekday, 

based on data showing 12,360 rideshare applicants in the programs and an estimate that 24 percent will 

take part in ridesharing each day. At an average one-way trip distance of 14 miles, this program results in 

about 84,000 vehicle miles reduced per day. 

None of the project sponsors for the three projects submitted information on delay reductions or travel 

speed improvements anticipated with the projects. 

Emissions Benefits 

By encouraging people who would normally drive alone to share trips, ridesharing programs reduce 

motor vehicle travel and associated emissions. Daily emissions reductions associated with the selected 

projects range from 10.2 kg to 35.0 kg of VOC and from 12.0 kg to 110.0 kg of NOx. One project was 

estimated to result in a CO emissions reduction of 187.4 kg per day. PM2.5 emissions effects were 

reported in the analysis of one project, showing a reduction of 0.1 kg per day. However, since these 

projects reduce VMT, all three projects would likely reduce emissions of all pollutants. 

Costs 

The CMAQ program is a key funding source for many regional ridesharing programs, with grants used to 

cover operating expenses, such as advertisements, outreach materials, and commute incentive purchases. 

The total public cost of these projects ranged in magnitude from $600,000, for two years of the Pittsburgh 

program ($300,000 per year) to $956,000 for the annual costs of the eleven-county Maryland program. 

The non-CMAQ share of project funding ranged from 0 to 20 percent of the total project cost. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

25 

VANPOOL PROGRAMS

Three CMAQ-funded vanpool programs were reviewed in this analysis. Findings are summarized in the 

table below. 

STATE CMAQ 

FUNDING 

TOTAL 

COST 

PROJECT 

TITLE 

YEAR 

FUNDED 

VOC 

(kg/day) 

CO 

(kg/day) 

NOx 

(kg/day) 

PM10 

(kg/day) 

PM2.5 

(kg/day) 

Utah $448,000 $448,000 

15 new vans for 

vanpool leasing 

program 2002 -12.2 -136.9 -14.9 NR NR 

Utah $148,866 $180,866 

5 new vans for 

vanpool leasing 

program 2005 -3.2 -37.2 -4.0 NR NR 

Kentucky $96,000 $120,000 

6 new vans for 

LexTran 

Vanpool 2006 -10.4 -80.2 -5.3 NR NR 

NR – Values were not reported by the local project sponsor or State DOT in the CMAQ database or other materials for the 

project. 

Vanpool programs provide vehicles that are owned by an organization or public agency to commuters 

who live in a common geographic area and who share an employment destination. Each vanpool carries 

between seven and fifteen passengers on a van or bus, operates on weekdays, and typically travels 

between one or two common pick-up locations and the place of work. The vehicles may be operated by a 

paid driver or by the commuters themselves, depending on local or program preferences. Employers or 

institutions frequently enable vanpool operations in any of a variety of supportive or financial ways. 

Each of the selected projects involved the purchase of passenger vans: 15 new 8-passenger vans for the 

Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Vanpool Leading Program in 2002 to be used in the Salt Lake City and 

Ogden areas; five new 8-passenger vans for the UTA Vanpool Leasing Program in 2005 to be used in the 

Ogden and Layton area; and six new 12-passenger vans for LexVan, a commuter vanpool program 

managed by the Lexington Bluegrass Mobility Office in Kentucky. 

Congestion/Mobility Benefits 

Vanpool projects can improve mobility by giving people an option to meet their commuting needs at 

lower cost than driving alone. The congestion benefits of vanpool programs will vary depending on the 

number of vanpools established through the program, the number of passengers, and the length of a trip. 

Typically, vanpools are successful in areas with longer commutes and where they utilize established park 

and ride lots as the common pick up location. For small vanpool programs serving a limited number of 

passengers, the net reduction in vehicle trips is small: the three reviewed projects were estimated to 

remove from 40 to 120 drivers from the road each day, and reduce overall VMT by 3,000 to 6,600 vehicle 

miles traveled per day. Consequently, congestion benefits would be too difficult to quantify. These 

projects, however, can result in important benefits to individual passengers, including reduced fuel and 

vehicle maintenance costs, and improved quality of life due to reduced commuting stress and time that 

can be spent reading or in other activities during the vanpool trip. 

Emissions Benefits 

Vanpools reduce VMT on the roads, and therefore should reduce emission of all pollutants. Although the 

vanpool vehicle may produce more emissions than an individual automobile, the emissions are 

considerably less than the total of the seven to fifteen individual vehicle trips that are typically replaced. 

Among the three projects, estimated daily VOC emissions reductions associated with each project ranged 

from 3.2 kg to 12.2 kg, daily NOx emissions reductions ranged from 4.0 kg to 14.9 kg, and daily CO 

reductions ranged from 37.2 kg to 136.9 kg. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

26 

Costs 

CMAQ funding for vanpool programs may be used for capital costs, such as purchase of new or 

replacement vans, or for operating expenses, such as paid advertisements and printing outreach materials. 

For these three projects, CMAQ funding was used for the purchase of additional vans and does not 

include any operating costs. The total public cost of the selected projects ranged in magnitude from 

$120,000 to $448,000. The non-CMAQ share of funding ranged from 0 percent to 20 percent of the total 

project cost, and in some cases, included the vanpool fares. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

27 

Park and Ride Lots 

Five CMAQ-funded park and ride lot projects were reviewed in this analysis. 

STATE CMAQ 

FUNDING 

TOTAL 

COST 

PROJECT 

TITLE 

Year 

Funded 

VOC 

(kg/day) 

CO 

(kg/day) 

NOx 

(kg/day) 

PM10 

(kg/day) 

PM2.5 

(kg/day) 

Maryland $132,817 $132,817 

Two new 25 

space lots 2000 - 0.01 NR -0.06 NR NR 

Wisconsin $48,000 $48,000 

Lake Geneva 

and Root 

Creek Lots 2000 - 1.5 NR - 3.8 NR NR 

Maryland $1,218,831 $1,218,831 

MD 210 and 

MD 373 500 

space lot 2002 - 1.4 NR - 5.9 NR NR 

Kentucky $844,800 $1,056,000 

Walton/Union 

Lot with 200 

spaces 2005 -0.9 - 33.8 - 3.2 NR -0.1 

Washington $4,150,000 $20,000,000 

Expansion of 

Terrace 

Station 

Transfer Lot 

to 880 spaces 2005 - 18.0 - 145.0 - 9.0 NR NR 

NR – Values were not reported by the local project sponsor or State DOT in the CMAQ database or other materials for the 

project. 

Park and ride lots are transportation facilities that provide people a secure location to park their vehicles 

before joining a carpool, vanpool, or transit service. Typically located in suburban areas, these projects 

provide commuters the flexibility of driving to a central location near their home and then completing the 

majority of their commute using transit or ridesharing. The selected projects range widely in size and 

include: 

• Construction of two new 25-space lots in Cecil County, Maryland; 

• Construction of 300 spaces at two lots in Southeastern Wisconsin; 

• Addition of 500 spaces at an existing lot in suburban Maryland; 

• Development of a new 200-space lot, along with improvements to existing lots, including 

improving signage, adding bicycle parking racks, and providing information kiosks in Kentucky; 

and 

• Construction of a new multi-level parking structure over an existing park-and-ride lot in Seattle, 

Washington, increasing capacity from 388 to 880 spaces. 

Congestion/Mobility Benefits 

The congestion benefits of park and ride lots are associated with reductions in freeway and arterial VMT 

during peak periods when commuters use the park and ride lots. The reductions are dependent on the 

number of spaces that will be created as part of the project, and the utilization of the available spaces. 

The projects generally reported 126 to 738 vehicle trips reduced per day (the exception is the small park 

and ride project in Cecil County, Maryland). More precisely, vehicle trips are not eliminated since users 

still drive to the lot; these trips are shorter in length since commuters drive to the park and ride facilities. 

Since carpool trips, however, tend to be longer than average regional vehicle trip lengths, VMT reduction 

typically is larger than for other types of programs affecting a similar number of trips (e.g., bicycle 

projects, bus services). 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

28 

Emissions Benefits 

These projects improve air quality by reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled each day. Because 

motorists are required to drive to the park and ride lots, these projects will not reduce the number of 

vehicle cold starts, when the highest levels of CO, NOx, and VOCs are emitted. 

Estimates of daily VOC emissions reductions associated with each project ranged from 0.01 kg to 18.0 

kg. Daily NOx emissions reductions associated with each project ranged from 0.06 kg to 9.0 kg. 

It should be noted that the project with the smallest impacts (two park and ride lots in Maryland funded in 

2000) only involved the addition of 50 parking spaces, and assumed a very low utilization rate (15 

percent) and a low percentage of users who are new riders (15 percent). The 2002 Maryland park and ride 

project used more typical assumptions, estimating that 56 percent of spaces would be utilized and 45 

percent would be new riders; using similar assumptions for the 2000 park and ride project would result in 

emissions estimates approximately 11 times larger (e.g., -0.13 kg/day VOC, -0.65 kg/day NOx). Park and 

ride lot projects would be expected to reduce emissions of all motor vehicle-related pollutants. CO 

reductions reported by two projects indicate 33.8 kg to 145.0 kg emissions reductions each day, and PM2.5

emissions reductions were reported by one project in Kentucky to be 0.1 kg each day. 

Costs 

CMAQ funding is usually provided as a portion of the total cost of construction of new facilities or the 

expansion and/or resurfacing of park and ride lots. The total public cost of these projects ranged widely, 

from $48,000 for two park and ride lots in Wisconsin to $20 million for construction of a multi-level 

parking garage in the Seattle region. In the case of the $20 million project, $4.15 million in capital costs 

were funded through CMAQ over two different funding years. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

29 

Travel Demand Management 

Travel demand management (TDM) programs typically focus on reducing the number of vehicle trips by 

commuters during peak hours. TDM strategies are often linked to employer-based strategies and include 

encouragement of alternative work schedules, telework programs, guaranteed ride home initiatives, and 

Ozone Alert Days. They also may involve regional marketing efforts to support transit, ridesharing, and 

other travel options. 

Four CMAQ-funded TDM projects were reviewed in this analysis, two of which are part of the 

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments’ (MWCOG) Commuter Connections Program. 

STATE CMAQ 

FUNDING 

TOTAL 

COST 

PROJECT 

TITLE 

Year 

Funded 

VOC 

(kg/day) 

CO 

(kg/day) 

NOx 

(kg/day) 

PM10 

(kg/day) 

PM2.5 

(kg/day) 

Colorado $73,000 $91,250 

Coordinate 

Telework 

Program 2001 -2.0 -14.0 -2.0 NR NR 

DC, 

Maryland, 

Virginia $9,000 $15,000 

Regional 

Employer 

Outreach, 

Bicycles 2002 -1.0 NR -1.0 NR NR 

DC, 

Maryland, 

Virginia $772,110 $1,678,500 

Regional 

Guaranteed 

Ride Home 

Program 2005 -95.2 NR -216.8 NR NR 

Rhode 

Island $168,000 $168,000 

Ozone Alert 

Days 2005 -23.0 -251.3 -26.5 NR NR 

NR – Values were not reported by the local project sponsor or State DOT in the CMAQ database or other materials for the 

project. 

TDM strategies often are implemented through directing marketing, services, and informational tools to 

encourage the use of available travel options. Commuters frequently are the focus of TDM actions 

because of their regular, predictable driving patterns, the possibilities of employer partnerships, and 

expanded opportunities for ridesharing programs. 

Congestion/Mobility Benefits 

Travel demand management programs improve mobility by supporting a range of travel options, 

including not only choices of alternatives modes to driving alone, but also telecommuting and changes in 

work schedules to avoid travel during peak period hours. The congestion benefits of TDM strategies can 

be attributed to shortened vehicle trips, the shifting of peak-period trips to non-peak hours, and the 

elimination of trips altogether. For the four selected projects, estimated vehicle trip reductions ranged 

from 125 vehicle trips per day for the Washington, DC-area bicycle outreach effort to 12,350 vehicle trips 

per day for the region’s Guaranteed Ride Home Program. Since these programs are part of an integrated 

TDM program involving multiple elements, and credit is being taken for this program as a Transportation 

Emissions Reduction Measure (TERM) as part of the region’s conformity determination, the regional 

MPO (MWCOG) has taken care to analyze the impacts utilizing surveys and other tracking data. As with 

other types of VMT reduction programs, impacts on travel speeds are generally difficult to assess and 

were not quantified by the project sponsors. 

Emissions Benefits 

Emissions reductions estimated by project sponsors were generally small for the selected projects, with 

the exception of the Washington, DC region’s Guaranteed Ride Home program. Daily VOC and NOx 

emissions reductions associated with two of the projects were at or under 2.0 kg/day; in the case of the 

DC region’s Guaranteed Ride Home program, emissions reductions were estimated at 95.2 kg/day of 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

30 

VOC and 216.8 kg/day of NOx reduced. The Rhode Island program is an example of an “episodic” type 

program which is not in effect every day, but only on occasions when an ozone alert day is called. Hence, 

its benefits – associated with a fare free transit program on ozone alert days – only accrue on those few 

days a year when these events occur. 

Costs 

CMAQ funding is usually provided as an operating subsidy for TDM strategies. The total public cost of 

these projects ranged from $15,000 for the Washington, DC regional outreach on bicycling to more than 

$1.67 million programmed for the regional Guaranteed Ride Home program, including the costs of 

marketing, payment for rides, and staff labor. Total funding for the Commuter Connections program has 

ranged from $4.28 million to $5.11 million annually over the period FY 2002 to FY 2008, and includes 

seven related TDM program elements: Metropolitan Washington Telework Resource Center (TRC), 

Expanded Telecommuting, Guaranteed Ride Home, Integrated Rideshare, Employer Outreach, Employer 

Outreach for Bicycling, and Mass Marketing (a large-scale, comprehensive media campaign). Funding 

comes from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, of which CMAQ funding makes up at least 

half. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

31 

Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities 

Bicycle and pedestrian projects and programs include a wide range of investments and strategies to 

facilitate and encourage non-motorized travel. Some examples of these projects include bicycle paths and 

lanes, sidewalks, bicycle racks or lockers, pedestrian urban design enhancements, bicycle/pedestrian 

marketing materials, and bicycle sharing projects. 

Four CMAQ-funded bicycle and pedestrian projects were reviewed in this analysis. 

STATE CMAQ 

FUNDING 

TOTAL 

COST 

PROJECT 

TITLE 

Year 

Funded 

VOC 

(kg/day) 

CO 

(kg/day) 

NOx 

(kg/day) 

PM10 

(kg/day) 

PM2.5 

(kg/day) 

Massachusetts $639,008 $1,300,000 

8.3 mile 

Swansea 

Bikeway 

Facility 2002 -0.5 -3.0 -1.1 NR NR 

Indiana $1,600,000 $2,000,000 

4.3 mile Bike 

Path to Pinhook 

Park 2005 -0.4 -2.7 -0.5 NR NR 

Colorado $63,910 $600,000 

Construction of 

a Transit Bike 

Depot 2006 -0.9 -6.7 -0.9 NR NR 

New York $2,400,000 $3,000,000 

NYC 

CyclistNET 

Marketing 

Program 2007 -2.4 -38.4 -2.0 -0.9 -0.04 

NR – Values were not reported by the local project sponsor or State DOT in the CMAQ database or other materials for the 

project. 

Bicycle and pedestrian projects often serve multiple goals, including improving mobility and safety. By 

providing bicycle and pedestrian access across barriers such as arterial roads, freeways, and/or train 

tracks, these projects can not only substitute for driving trips but also can improve mobility and access for 

non-drivers. Projects can also improve the safety of walkers and bicyclers by filling in gaps on existing, 

planned, or proposed routes and addressing potential hazards in existing facilities. Non-motorized forms 

of transportation require no fossil fuels, and are often considered in the context of goals such as 

sustainability, reducing energy consumption, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Congestion/Mobility Benefits 

Bicycle and pedestrian projects can contribute to improvements in mobility by providing additional 

options for people who might choose walking or biking. These projects improve the ability to reach 

desired goods, services, activities and destinations using non-motorized forms of transportation and may 

help diminish the need for automobile travel. 

Bicycle and pedestrian projects may reduce congestion to the extent they shift mode choice from single 

occupancy vehicles to bikes and walking, and often are more successful in reducing VMT in locations 

where short driving trips, such as trips to local shopping areas, schools, or commercial districts, are 

common. While bicycle and pedestrian projects can reduce vehicle trips during both peak and off-peak 

times, congestion benefits are usually limited due to the relatively short distances of trips and to seasonal 

limitations on bicycling in some areas. The four projects reviewed had estimated reductions of 83 to 902 

vehicle trips per day, with the largest figure reported for the New York bicycling program. Given the 

relatively small impacts at reducing vehicle travel, the bicycle and pedestrian projects assessed for this 

study did not provide estimates for changes in speed or delay times on the system. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

32 

Emissions Benefits 

Bicycle and pedestrian projects generally have modest effects on emissions. Typically, pedestrian trips 

have a maximum distance of 1 mile and bicycle trips a limit of 5 miles, which reduces the ability of these 

projects to substitutes for driving for many commuters. Bicycle and pedestrian projects may be more 

effective when designed to enhance access to transit, so that longer trip lengths may be reduced. 

Project sponsors generally estimated small reductions in motor vehicle emissions – typically under 1.0 

kg/day for VOC and NOx. CO reductions reported by sponsors indicate a range of benefits from 2.7 kg to 

38.4 kg emissions reductions each day. PM10 emissions reductions were reported by one project to be 0.9 

kg each day. The same project reported daily PM2.5 emissions reductions of 0.04 kg. All of the projects, 

however, would be expected to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 from motor vehicle exhaust. 

Costs 

CMAQ funding is usually provided for capital improvements, but can also be an operating subsidy for the 

operation of marketing or bike sharing programs. The total public cost of these projects range in 

magnitude from $600,000 to $3 million. The non-CMAQ share of project funding ranged from 0 percent 

to 89 percent of the total project cost in the case of the Colorado bike depot (CMAQ costs reported were 

for architectural design and engineering documents to create the site design). 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

33 

Transit Service Improvements 

CMAQ funds may be used to support projects that increase the use of public transportation systems. 

Generally, there are three broad categories of transit service-related projects or programs: provision of 

new or expanded bus services, provision of new or expanded rail services, and service upgrades and rider 

amenities on existing transit services. Routine maintenance and rehabilitation of existing transit facilities 

are not eligible for CMAQ funding. However, substantial changes to transit stations or facilities that are 

likely to increase ridership and reduce emissions are eligible.26 

New Bus Services 

These strategies include the establishment of new routes, increased frequency of vehicles, expanded hours 

of operation, or increased coverage of routes. Three CMAQ-funded projects that provide new bus 

services were analyzed. 

STATE CMAQ 

FUNDING 

TOTAL 

COST 

PROJECT 

TITLE 

Year 

Funded 

VOC 

(kg/day) 

CO 

(kg/day) 

NOx 

(kg/day) 

PM10 

(kg/day) 

PM2.5 

(kg/day) 

Wisconsin $157,382 $196,727 

City of Racine 

New Sunday 

Bus Service 2001 -2.9 NR -3.2 NR NR 

New York $264,000 $420,000 

Expanded S92 

Bus Route 2005 -6.7 -153.4 +7.2 +1.0 +1.0 

Rhode 

Island $440,000 $550,000 

Expanded 

Route 30 and 

New Route 12 2005 -6.7 -191.0 -11.1 NR NR 

NR – Values were not reported by the local project sponsor or State DOT in the CMAQ database or other materials for the 

project. 

Bus service improvement projects improve both air quality and congestion levels in the local community 

by increasing the use of transit services and reducing the number of auto trips. New bus routes make 

transit a more convenient transportation option and may reach areas of the community that were 

previously underserved or not served at all. Reductions in wait times for transit vehicles may lead to a 

faster overall trip for passengers, further increasing the number of transit users. Finally, increasing the 

hours of transit service along certain routes allows people to use the transit system at hours that were not 

previously available, thus allowing them more latitude in scheduling their trips and allowing for 

unforeseen changes in itinerary. 

Congestion/Mobility Benefits 

New bus service can reduce congestion by reducing vehicle trips and VMT. The extent of benefits will 

depend on several factors, including the extent to which new transit users drive to bus stops, the length of 

the new service, and the number of additional buses in operation in mixed-traffic. New bus services 

provide mobility improvements, to the extent that the services provide additional transportation options 

for users to choose. Mobility benefits will likely be greatest when land-use patterns and other supporting 

strategies, such as bicycle/pedestrian connections and rider amenities, are already in place. The projects 

selected for this study reduced between 72 to 358 vehicle trips per day, and project sponsors did not 

assess impacts on delay and travel speeds. 

Emissions Benefits 

Bus service improvements can reduce emissions of all pollutants by reducing the number of trips by 

single-occupancy vehicles and VMT. However, the new bus services also produce emissions, which may 

 

26 FHWA “Guidance on the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program Under the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.” Page 11. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

34 

offset some of the emissions reductions from personal vehicles and in some cases, NOx and PM 

emissions could increase due to emissions from the diesel engines in buses if the new services do not 

attract a sufficient number of new riders who previously drove. Emissions reductions reported by project 

sponsors indicate a range of anticipated benefits from implementation of these projects. Daily VOC 

emissions reductions associated with each project ranged from 2.9 kg to 6.7 kg. Daily NOx emissions 

reductions associated with each project ranged from 3.2 kg to 11.1 kg. Due to increased emissions from 

the new bus services, the New York project estimated a NOx emissions increase of 7.2 kg per day and 

PM10 and PM2.5 increase of 1.0 kg/day. The other two projects did not account for the increase in 

emissions due to the new bus services, only the reduced emissions from personal vehicles. 

Costs 

CMAQ funding is usually provided for the operating costs associated with new bus services, but can also 

be available as a portion of the capital costs to purchase new buses. Only one of the projects, the S92 bus 

route on Long Island, included estimates of transit fares in determining project costs. The project sponsors 

estimated a total project cost of $420,000 and farebox revenues equal to $90,000, resulting in a net public 

cost of $330,000. The total public costs of the selected projects, without consideration for farebox 

revenues, ranged in magnitude from $196,727 to $550,000. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

35 

New Rail Services 

New passenger rail services include establishing new routes, increasing the frequency of service, 

expanding the hours of operation, or the overall coverage of transit corridors. Three CMAQ-funded rail 

service projects were reviewed in this analysis. 

STATE CMAQ 

FUNDING 

TOTAL 

COST 

PROJECT 

TITLE 

Year 

Funded 

VOC 

(kg/day) 

CO 

(kg/day) 

NOx 

(kg/day) 

PM10 

(kg/day) 

PM2.5 

(kg/day) 

Utah $4,000,000 $4,000,000 

Purchase of 5 

New Light 

Rail Vehicles 2002 -27.0 -305.0 -33.0 NR NR 

Texas $36,253,821 $70,472,342 

TRE Double 

Tracking of 

Segments 2003 -67.2 NR -110.0 NR NR 

Connecticut $2,400,000 $3,000,000 

Construct 

Rail Station 

Platforms 

and Bridge 2005 -6.0 NR -6.0 NR -1.0 

NR – Values were not reported by the local project sponsor or State DOT in the CMAQ database or other materials for the 

project. 

Projects to expand rail services can improve both air quality and congestion levels by reducing the 

number of auto trips, as well as bus transit trips, which may contribute to congestion and emissions. The 

projects include purchase of new light rail vehicles for the TRAX North/South line in Salt Lake City to 

enable additional services; double tracking segments of the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) commuter rail 

line between Dallas and Fort Worth to enable expanded capacity; and construction of a new commuter 

rail station along the Metro-North commuter rail line to serve Fairfield, Connecticut, including students of 

Fairfield University and nearby areas within the city of Bridgeport. 

Congestion/Mobility Benefits 

New and expanded rail services may provide mobility improvements in the form of increased 

transportation mode options for users in the community, and often will provide faster travel times than 

existing bus services. Improvements in mobility will likely be greatest when land-use patterns, intermodal connections, and other supporting strategies, such as bicycle/pedestrian connections and rider 

amenities, are already in place. New or expanded rail services also may reduce congestion by attracting 

riders who previously drove their own vehicles. The congestion benefits will depend on several factors, 

including the extent to which new transit riders drive to the station, the length of vehicle trips reduced, 

and the existence of supporting land use patterns and bicycle, pedestrian, and parking access to stations. 

The three selected projects were estimated to reduce from 400 (Connecticut) to 5,400 (Dallas) vehicle 

trips per day. The project sponsors did not assess impacts on delay and travel speeds. 

Emissions Benefits 

New rail services and routes may reduce emissions of all pollutants by reducing VMT. These types of 

projects are often most effective when implemented in areas that have a large, established transit network. 

Daily VOC emissions reductions estimated by project sponsors ranged from 6.0 kg to 67.2 kg. Daily 

NOx emissions reductions ranged from 6.0 kg to 110.0 kg. CO emissions reductions were reported by one 

project sponsor as 305.0 kg per day. PM2.5 emissions reductions were reported by one project sponsor to 

be 1.0 kg per day. These emissions effects only take into account the reduction in personal vehicle travel. 

The emissions benefits of projects to provide new diesel rail services should include consideration of the 

increase in off-road emissions from operating locomotives. In the case of the Utah and Connecticut 

reviewed projects, there were no new diesel emissions, since these involved light rail and construction of 

a new rail station but no new service. The documentation for the Dallas project noted that there will not 

be any new emissions of NOx and VOC from diesel locomotives due to the double-tracking project; 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

36 

however, presumably the calculation of emissions benefits accounts for new ridership associated with 

higher service levels. 

Costs 

All three of the projects had costs that were several million dollars, reflecting the high capital costs of 

transit rail cars, track, and stations. The Texas project, which was the largest at $70.4 million, received 

substantial funding from other sources. This is often the case for large capital investment projects which 

receive funding from multiple sources, including Federal, State, and local programs. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

37 

Service Upgrades/Amenities 

This category of CMAQ projects includes strategies to increase transit marketing, provide more widely 

accessible transit information, improve transit passenger amenities, and create new intermodal 

connections at transit stations (e.g., improved bus circulation, parking, and interface between bus and 

rail). Five CMAQ-funded service upgrades/amenities were reviewed in this analysis. 

STATE CMAQ 

FUNDING 

TOTAL 

COST 

PROJECT 

TITLE 

Year 

Funded 

VOC 

(kg/day) 

CO 

(kg/day) 

NOx 

(kg/day) 

PM10 

(kg/day) 

PM2.5 

(kg/day) 

Massachusetts $388,000 $625,000 

Fitchburg 

Intermodal Trans. 

Center Parking 

Garage 2002 -14.0 -143.0 -27.0 NR NR 

Missouri $960,000 $1,200,000 

Operation 

Welcome Aboard 

Infrastructure 

(bus shelters) 

2004 - 

2006 -2.5 NR -3.4 NR NR 

New York $160,000 $200,000 

Suffolk County 

Transit Marketing 

Program 2004 -2.4 -40.7 -2.2 -0.07 -0.03 

Ohio $2,800,000 $3,500,000 

Laketran AVLMDT System 2005 -4.0 -47.0 -13.0 NR NR 

Connecticut $89,000 $111,000 

Rail Utility 

Construction & 

Parking Spaces 2007 -6.0 NR -6.0 NR -1.0 

NR – Values were not reported by the local project sponsor or State DOT in the CMAQ database or other materials for the 

project. 

Increased marketing, provision of more widely accessible transit information, additional customer 

service, and availability of parking may increase the number of people using public transportation. For 

instance, Operation Welcome Aboard in Missouri is a passenger amenity project to construct bus shelters 

at 100 highly utilized stops throughout the Kansas City transit service area. The new facilities will have a 

coordinated look and feel with the bus fleet and feature valuable route and schedule information. While 

the project will not expand existing bus routes or create new transit services, the project sponsors estimate 

that an additional 450 individuals will ride transit each day as a result. The installation of Automatic 

Vehicle Location (AVL) and Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) systems on Laketran transit vehicles in Ohio 

is designed to improve the system’s paratransit operations, by improving schedule adherence, improving 

route planning and scheduling, and reducing operating costs; it is estimated to result in a 17.5 percent 

increase in paratransit ridership. 

Congestion/Mobility Benefits 

Transit service upgrades and amenities may improve mobility if they make it easier for the public to use 

public transportation and rely less on their personal vehicles. Since these projects focus on increasing the 

number of transit riders, they potentially can reduce traffic congestion by reducing the number of personal 

vehicle trips taken each day. Travel behavior studies have long shown that transit riders respond 

positively to service improvements that reduce travel or waiting time. Adding more vehicles so as to 

reduce headways and wait time, or providing routing improvements that reduce travel time or increase 

reliability are all strategies that can increase ridership. Providing riders with a seat or less crowding can 

also make the trip more enjoyable, comfortable, and safe, helping to increase the number of transit trips 

(and reduce the use of SOVs) by encouraging more frequent use by existing riders and attracting 

individuals who would otherwise drive private vehicles. 

Project sponsors for the selected projects reported reductions in vehicle trips ranging from 176 per day 

(for the Suffolk County Transit Marketing) to 490 per day (for the Fitchburg parking garage at the MART 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

38 

intermodal transportation center). However, since benefits from service upgrades are typically indirect, 

the projects selected for this study did not assess impacts on delay and speed. 

Emissions Benefits 

Emissions reduction estimates reported by project sponsors were generally small to moderate. Daily VOC 

emissions reductions associated with each project range from 2.4 kg to 14.0 kg. Daily NOx emissions 

reductions associated with each project range from 2.2 kg to 27.0 kg. CO reductions reported by sponsors 

indicate a range of benefits from 40.7 kg to 143.0 kg emissions reductions each day. CO, PM10, and PM2.5

emissions were not reported for some of the projects, but would be expected to drop for each of the 

selected projects. 

Costs 

The total public cost of these projects ranged in magnitude from $200,000 to $3,500,000. The nonCMAQ share of project funding ranged from 20 percent to 38 percent of the total project cost. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

39 

Transit Vehicle Replacements and Related Infrastructure 

Vehicle replacements are designed to reduce the emissions rates of vehicles due to improved technologies 

or switching to cleaner alternative fuels. While this category is primarily dominated by transit bus 

purchases, it can also include other public vehicles, such as school buses or government fleets, and related 

infrastructure, such as fueling stations. Generally, these strategies do not affect congestion levels; instead, 

they focus primarily on emissions reductions. 

Alternative Fuel Vehicles/Fueling Facilities 

Projects to purchase alternative fuel vehicles or construct refueling facilities and related other 

infrastructure are included in this category. Four CMAQ-funded alternative fuel projects were reviewed 

in this analysis. 

STATE 

CMAQ 

FUNDING 

TOTAL 

COST 

PROJECT 

TITLE 

Year 

Funded 

VOC 

(kg/day) 

CO 

(kg/day) 

NOx 

(kg/day) 

PM10 

(kg/day) 

PM2.5 

(kg/day) 

Maine $150,000 $1,305,903 

Compressed 

Natural Gas 

Fueling 

Station 2002 -2.8 NR -2.1 NR NR 

Pennsylvania $5,608,000 $7,010,000 

Purchase 12 

Alternative 

Fuel Buses 2002 -3.0 -12.0 -91.0 NR NR 

Connecticut $688,800 $861,000 

CT Clean 

Fuels 

Program 2005 -6.8 NR -12.5 NR NR 

New York $1,000,000 $1,250,000 

Purchase 3 

CNG Transit 

Buses 2007 -1.5 -7.6 -4.3 NR -1.4 

NR – Values were not reported by the local project sponsor or State DOT in the CMAQ database or other materials for the 

project. 

Vehicles that use non-conventional fuels, such as CNG, LNG, electric, or hybrid electric, will reduce 

emissions while generally having little to no impact on overall VMT. Vehicles that operate using these 

fuels generally emit fewer pollutants than similar vehicles which run using gasoline or diesel. Other 

projects provide funding to construct facilities to service, fuel, or provide maintenance for the vehicles in 

order to encourage their continued use. Alternative fuel vehicle projects provide States and MPOs the 

opportunity to use high-profile fleets, such as public transit and school districts, to increase public 

awareness and approval of alternative fuels. This may lead to interest in other fleet operators in switching 

to alternative fuels. 

To encourage alternative fuel vehicle projects to be undertaken in partnership with the private sector, the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century contained special provisions for alternative fuel projects 

that are part of a public-private partnership. For purchase of privately owned vehicles or fleets using 

alternative fuels, CMAQ funds may be used for only the incremental cost of an alternative fuel vehicle 

compared to a conventionally-fueled vehicle. Furthermore, if other Federal funds are used for vehicle 

purchase, such funds should be applied to the incremental cost before CMAQ funds are applied.27

Congestion/Mobility Benefits 

These strategies are unlikely to reduce congestion since they are not changing transit service in a manner 

that would be expected to affect ridership. However, bus replacements may increase transit ridership to a 

 

27 See Federal Highway Administration Guidance. CMAQ and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Projects. (2005)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs/altfuel/index.htm. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

40 

small degree by improving the ease and comfort of transit or improving the reliability of service. These 

effects are very difficult to determine, and none of the sponsors of the selected projects estimated this 

effect. 

Emissions Benefits 

Emissions reductions estimates associated with the replacement of transit vehicles are attributable solely 

to the lower emissions rates of the new vehicles, not to any effects on transit ridership and diversion of 

trips from private vehicles. An important consideration with these types of projects is the service life of 

urban transit buses, which is generally at least 12 years. According to FTA regulation, Federal funds 

cannot be used to replace vehicles before the end of their useful service life.28 However, according to 

EPA guidance for taking credit for emissions reductions, credit can only be taken for the remaining years 

of service of the older vehicle, not the entire service life of the new vehicle.29 Consequently, transit 

vehicle replacement projects will have an immediate emissions benefit when the older vehicle is replaced; 

however, they likely only have a few years of emissions benefits, over the period of time when the 

vehicle has reached the end of its service life but might still be continuing in service. The emissions 

benefits calculations presented in the selected examples only reflect the first year of benefit, and probably 

should only be assumed for a maximum of a few additional years. 

Emissions reductions reported by project sponsors for this set of projects generally indicate the largest 

emissions reductions from NOx. Daily VOC emissions reductions associated with each project range 

from 1.5 kg to 6.8 kg. Daily NOx emissions reductions associated with each project range from 2.1 kg to 

91.0 kg. CO reductions reported by sponsors indicate a range of benefits from 7.6 kg to 12.0 kg emissions 

reductions each day. Two project sponsors did not report any CO emissions benefits. PM2.5 emissions 

reductions were reported by one project to be 1.4 kg each day. 

Costs 

The total public cost of these reviewed projects ranged in magnitude from $861,000 to $7,010,000. The 

non-CMAQ share of project funding was 20 percent of total project cost for most of the analyzed 

projects. A natural gas fueling station for public and private fleets operating in the Greater Portland area, 

Maine, received most of its funding from sources other than CMAQ. 

 

28 See 49 U.S.C. 5309. 

29 This approach is consistent with EPA guidance on diesel engine retrofits (“Diesel Retrofits: Quantifying and Using Their 

Benefits in SIPs and Conformity - Guidance for State and Local Air and Transportation Agencies”, June 2006) and on early 

retirement of vehicles (“Guidance for the Implementation of Accelerated Retirement of Vehicles Programs”, February 1993). 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

41 

Conventional Bus Replacements 

Conventional bus replacement projects replace older diesel buses with new diesel vehicles that emit fewer 

pollutants. Two bus replacement projects were reviewed in this analysis. 

STATE CMAQ 

FUNDING 

TOTAL 

COST 

PROJECT 

TITLE 

Year 

Funded 

VOC 

(kg/day) 

CO 

(kg/day) 

NOx 

(kg/day) 

PM10 

(kg/day) 

PM2.5 

(kg/day) 

Maryland $5,000,000 $26,500,000 

100 Replacement 

Local Buses 2002 -17.0 NR -188.9 NR NR 

Ohio $4,864,440 $6,949,200 

61 Replacement 

Local Buses 2003 -9.6 -35.5 -11.6 NR NR 

NR – Values were not reported by the local project sponsor or State DOT in the CMAQ database or other materials for the 

project. 

The projects included in this category take advantage of improvements in heavy duty diesel technology. 

Diesel engines today are cleaner and emit fewer pollutants than similar engines more than 10 years ago, 

so in principle, retiring the older, more-polluting buses will reduce emissions. The new, less polluting 

vehicles run along existing routes and do not change overall vehicle mileage or service levels, so have no 

claimed effect on transit ridership. Conventional bus replacement projects have historically comprised a 

large share of CMAQ funding requests; however, in recent years States and MPOs have opted to replace 

aging bus fleets with CNG or other alternative fueled vehicles whose emissions rates are even lower than 

current generation diesel buses.30 These projects were captured in the Alternative Fuel Vehicles/Fueling 

Facilities project category. 

Congestion/Mobility Benefits 

These strategies are unlikely to have congestion or mobility benefits since they are not changing transit 

service in a manner that would be expected to affect ridership. However, conventional bus replacements 

may increase transit ridership to a small degree by improving the ease and comfort of transit or improving 

the reliability of service. These effects are very difficult to determine, and neither of the sponsors of the 

selected projects estimated this effect. 

Emissions Benefits 

The emissions benefits from these strategies would be subject to the same caveats applied to alternative 

fuel vehicle projects. Specifically, if replacement buses are purchased for the purpose of replacing buses 

that have remaining service life, the emissions credit can only extend to the period of remaining service 

life of the vehicle being replaced, and with the presumption that the older vehicle will not still be 

operated. 

With these caveats in mind, emissions reported by the sponsors of the example projects indicated daily 

VOC emissions reductions from 9.6 kg to 17.0 kg. Daily NOx emissions reductions associated with the 

projects ranged from 11.5 kg to 188.9 kg. CO reductions reported by one project indicated a benefit of 

35.5 kg emissions reductions each day. 

Costs 

CMAQ funding is provided for the capital investment in the new transit vehicles. The total public cost of 

these projects ranged in magnitude from $6,949,200 to $26,500,000. However, given the expense of bus 

purchases, CMAQ funds are often used only to supplement FTA funding and are a small share of the 

overall funding. In the case of the Maryland bus replacement project, more than 80 percent of funding 

came from sources other than CMAQ. 

 

30 Transportation Research Board. Special Report 264: The CMAQ Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience. 2002. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

42 

Dust Mitigation Projects 

Road dust reduction strategies are designed to reduce the amount of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) that is 

suspended into the air by tires on roadways. Three CMAQ-funded dust mitigation projects were reviewed 

in this analysis. 

STATE 

CMAQ 

FUNDING 

TOTAL 

COST 

PROJECT 

TITLE 

Year 

Funded 

VOC 

(kg/day) 

CO 

(kg/day) 

NOx 

(kg/day) 

PM10 

(kg/day) 

PM2.5 

(kg/day) 

California $174,360 $197,360 

Graaf Avenue 

Paving Project 2004 NR NR NR -143.0 NR 

Idaho $319,600 $319,600 

Lincoln Ave 

Paving Project 2004 NR NR NR -175.5 NR 

Idaho $152,889 $165,000 

Purchase of a 

Liquid De-Icer 

Truck 2005 NR NR NR -6,292.0 NR 

NR – Values were not reported by the local project sponsor or State DOT in the CMAQ database or other materials for the 

project. 

Particles suspended by vehicular movement on paved and unpaved roads are a major contributor to 

fugitive dust emissions. The origins of this particulate matter differ from the particulate matter that is 

emitted from vehicles’ tailpipes. Exhaust particulate emissions are created from engine combustion while 

dust mitigation projects control particulate matter originating from the roadway. When vehicles travel 

along roads, the force of the wheels on the road surface causes the pulverization of surface material. The 

particles are lifted and dropped from the rolling wheels, and the road surface is exposed to strong air 

currents in turbulent shear with the surface. The air disturbance behind the vehicle continues to act on the 

road surface after the vehicle has passed.31

Typical dust mitigation projects include paving shoulders, curbs and gutters, roads, and access points. 

When paving is not feasible, such as for industrial roads with heavy vehicles and/or spillage of material in 

transport, watering or chemical suppressants may be used. Other CMAQ projects to address the amount 

of particulate matter released into the air include adding street sweepers, replacing non-certified sweepers 

with newer vehicles, using new vehicles to increase the frequency of sweeping in existing areas, or using 

new vehicles to expand the area that is regularly swept. Regular street sweeping on paved roads removes 

sand and/or other de-icing materials, and other deposition of dirt on roads, reducing the level of road dust. 

Congestion/Mobility Benefits 

These strategies will have limited, indirect impact on congestion levels, though some benefits may be 

observed through speed improvements on previously unpaved or icy roads. Since dust mitigation projects 

are not intended to improve congestion, the sponsors for projects selected for this study did not assess 

travel impacts. 

Emissions Benefits 

The quantity of dust emissions from a given segment of road depends on various factors such as whether 

it is paved or unpaved, precipitation levels, and traffic volumes. Emissions reductions reported by project 

sponsors at the local level indicated a range of daily PM10 emissions reductions from 143.0 to 6,292.2 kg. 

Costs 

CMAQ funding is usually provided for capital improvements, such as the paving of a road shoulder or 

purchase of a new street sweeper. The total public cost of the selected projects ranged in magnitude from 

 

31 See U.S. EPA. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources. Unpaved Roads. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/draft/d13s0202.pdf. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

43 

$165,000 to $319,600. The non-CMAQ share of funding ranged from 0 percent to 11 percent of the total 

cost. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

44 

Freight/Intermodal Projects 

An intermodal system includes both origins and destinations (for example, ports railheads and 

warehouses), as well as the links between them (such as roads or rail).32 Strategies that reduce emissions 

from the movement of freight and cargo through air quality nonattainment areas are grouped together in 

the category of freight/intermodal projects. Six CMAQ-funded freight/intermodal projects were reviewed 

in this analysis. 

STATE 

CMAQ 

FUNDING 

TOTAL 

COST 

PROJECT 

TITLE 

Year 

Funded 

VOC 

(kg/day) 

CO 

(kg/day) 

NOx 

(kg/day) 

PM10 

(kg/day) 

PM2.5 

(kg/day)

Maine $283,941 $355,180 

South Portland 

Truck to Rail 

Intermodal Facility 2000 -0.7 NR -4.2 NR NR 

Maine $128,501 $494,098 

South Portland – 

Rail Line Rehab 

for Freight 

Shipping 2002 -0.2 NR -2.0 NR NR 

Pennsylvania $7,600,000 $9,500,000 

Westmoreland 

Intermodal Freight 

Facility 

2002-

2003 NR -1.9 -13.3 NR NR 

New York $1,700,000 $9,000,000 

Arlington 

Intermodal Yard 2004 -209.0 -1,712.2 -1,008.8 -37.0 -30.1 

Pennsylvania $10,000,000 $12,500,000 

Norfolk Southern 

Rail Extension and 

Rehabilitation 2004 -11.5 -64.7 -53.5 NR NR 

Connecticut $1,409,600 $1,762,000 

Freight Rail 

Construction along 

Waterfront Street. 2006 -0.5 NR -18.4 NR -0.2 

NR – Values were not reported by the local project sponsor or State DOT in the CMAQ database or other materials for the 

project. 

Emissions from heavy-duty trucks and large-scale freight facilities can contribute significantly to the 

overall air pollution in urban areas. Projects that shift movement to a more efficient mode of transport or 

improve the efficiency of freight transfers between modes will reduce emissions. Some strategies will 

shift trips from road to rail, reducing emissions and congestion caused by heavy duty vehicles. Other 

intermodal projects improve the efficiency of transfers between water-borne, truck, and/or rail vehicles. 

By reducing the amount of time vehicles are required to wait at these transfer stations, idling emissions 

will be reduced. 

Congestion/Mobility Benefits 

Reducing the movement of freight by heavy-duty trucks through urban areas can result in congestion 

relief benefits. Each of the sample projects was designed to reduce truck vehicle travel by shifting freight 

movement to rail. For instance: 

• The sponsors of the Maine projects estimated reductions of up to 2,250 trucks per year by 2006 

due to construction of two projects: rail siding as part of an intermodal transfer and rehabilitation 

and/or replacement of tracks. 

• The Westmoreland Intermodal Freight Facility, a project to reduce the amount of freight cargo 

traveling through downtown Pittsburgh, was estimated to reduce 14 miles of travel for 20,000 

truck loads. 

 

32 See Federal Highway Administration Guidance. CMAQ and Intermodal Freight Transportation. (2005) 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs/intermodal/index.htm. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

45 

• In New York, capacity improvements to a rail yard were expected to increase rail efficiencies and 

reduce the movement of freight shipments by truck though the metropolitan New York area. The 

project sponsors estimated that 10,268 truck trips per day would reduce 6 miles of travel for one 

segment (Visy Paper Mill – Bayonne Bridge and Transfer Station), and 15,786 truck trips per day 

would reduce 5 miles for the other segment. 

• The Norfolk Southern rail extension and rehabilitation project in Pennsylvania was designed to 

fund the construction of 5.25 miles and rehabilitation of 7 miles of train track in Indiana County 

to create a more direct route for delivery of coal. The sponsors estimated the project would reduce 

43,478 truck trips per year. 

• In Connecticut, the installation of additional railroad track and the associated utility relocations 

was expected to reduce congestion by shifting an estimated 4,000 truck shipments per year to rail. 

The effects on roadway congestion and speeds, however, were not quantified in the analyses provided to 

the study team. 

Emissions Benefits 

Emissions reduction estimates reported by project sponsors vary, depending on the modes of 

transportation affected by the project and the amount of freight that is moved. The Arlington Intermodal 

Yard in New York, in particular, reported very large emissions reductions, based on assumptions of 

significant diversions of truck traffic to rail. Most of the calculations do not account for increased railroad 

diesel emissions, or any congestion or idling associated with transfers between truck and rail. 

Costs 

Funding under CMAQ has been used to improve efficiency of truck, rail and marine operations, as well as 

intermodal freight facilities where air quality benefits can be shown. Capital improvements that increase 

the efficiency of freight movement between truck and rail, for example, as well as up to three years 

operating assistance for these types of projects, are appropriate for CMAQ funding if emissions reduction 

can be demonstrated.33 The total public cost of these projects ranged from $355,180 to $12,500,000. The 

non-CMAQ share of project funding ranged from 20 percent to 81 percent of the total project cost. 

 

33 23 USC 149(b)(1), (3). See FHWA Factsheet. “CMAQ and Intermodal Freight Transportation” Available at: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs/intermodal/index.htm. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

46 

Diesel Emissions Reduction 

Diesel emissions reduction strategies are designed to reduce emissions from on-road and off-road diesel 

engines (e.g., those used in construction equipment, locomotives, marine vessels), and include use of 

retrofit technologies and idle reduction technologies. 

Diesel Engine Retrofits 

The term “retrofit” is broadly defined by EPA to include any technology, device, fuel or system that, 

when applied to an existing diesel vehicle or engine, achieves emissions reductions beyond that required 

by EPA regulations at the time of a vehicle or engine’s certification. Retrofit technologies may include 

EPA verified emissions control technologies and fuels and CARB-verified emissions control 

technologies.34 Seven CMAQ-funded diesel engine retrofit projects were reviewed in this analysis. 

STATE 

CMAQ 

FUNDING 

TOTAL 

COST 

PROJECT 

TITLE 

Year 

Funded 

VOC 

(kg/day) 

CO 

(kg/day) 

NOx 

(kg/day) 

PM10 

(kg/day) 

PM2.5 

(kg/day) 

Maryland $5,458,000 $23,036,000 

142 Bus Engine 

Upgrades 2001 NR NR NR NR -34.8 

New York $1,200,000 $1,500,000 

WCDOT Diesel 

Engine Retrofit of 

177 Transit Buses 2004 -3.0 -45.9 +14.61 NR -2.32

Pennsylvania $1,793,520 $2,242,520 

Install 235 

Emissions 

Reduction Devices 

on Local Buses 2004 -7.3 -111.2 0 NR NR 

Oregon $49,692 $62,115 

Install filters on 9 

trash collection 

vehicles 2005 -1.4 -2.5 0 -0.3 NR 

Michigan $3,360,000 $4,200,000 

3 Locomotive 

Diesel Engine 

Retrofits 2007 -10.0 NR -132.1 NR -3.7 

New York $424,000 $530,000 

Diesel Engine 

Retrofits of 53 

County Vehicles 2007 -0.4 -1.7 0 -0.2 -0.1 

New York $1,368,000 $1,710,000 

Rockland County 

retrofit of on-road 

diesel vehicles 2007 -140.3 -969.9 0 -138.4 -125.9 

NR – Values were not reported by the local project sponsor or State DOT in the CMAQ database or other materials for the 

project. 

1

 Project sponsor calculated an increase in NOx emissions based on data from retrofits and existing emissions from tailpipe 

testing. The project sponsors noted that the increase in NOx emissions is highly unusual and it is widely accepted that these 

retrofits have no impact on NOx. 

2

 Project sponsor did not report PM reductions in CMAQ database but included information on emissions rates in project backup 

information to enable calculation. 

Diesel engine retrofits are typically aimed especially at reducing particulate matter from heavy-duty 

diesel engines, as well as other pollutants. Verified technologies purchased and installed through these 

projects included the Englehard DPX soot filter and bus engine overhauls. As with all CMAQ projects, 

 

34 A list of the EPA verified technologies can be accessed at: www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/verif-list.htm. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

47 

retrofitted vehicles must operate predominantly within or in close proximity to nonattainment or 

maintenance areas.35

CMAQ-funded diesel retrofit projects include a wide range of measures to reduce diesel emissions by 

retrofitting vehicles/equipment with new or improved emissions control equipment, upgrading engines, 

replacing older engines with newer/cleaner engines, and using cleaner fuels. The selected projects 

included installation of retrofit devices on transit buses, trash collection vehicles, a range of countyowned vehicles, and locomotives. 

Congestion/Mobility Benefits 

Diesel engine retrofits are not designed to provide congestion benefits and do not affect travel. 

Emissions Benefits 

Project sponsors reported that daily VOC emissions reductions ranged from 0.4 kg to 140.3 kg. One 

project sponsor did not report any VOC emissions effects. Most of the selected projects were not expected 

to reduce NOx (i.e., particulate filters, such as the Englehard DPX soot filter, reduce emissions of PM, 

VOC, and CO, but not NOx), according to EPA’s Diesel Retrofit Technology Verification.36 However, 

the Michigan locomotive repowering project was estimated to reduce a substantial amount of NOx, due to 

lower fuel use and an 86 percent estimated reduction in ozone precursors. A reported increase in NOx 

emissions from a diesel engine retrofit project is highly unusual. The project sponsor for the New York 

project that reported noted that it is widely accepted that these retrofits have no impact on NOx; however, 

an increase was reported based on data from the retrofit manufacturers and emissions from tailpipe testing 

of the subject vehicles. 

PM reductions of 0.1 to 138.4 kg/day were reported for the sample retrofit projects. In the case of the 

Pennsylvania bus retrofit project, no PM emissions reductions were reported; however, EPA reports a 60 

percent reduction in PM emissions associated with the Englehard DPX soot filter. The CO reductions 

reported by sponsors indicate a range of benefits from 1.7 kg to 969.9 kg emissions reductions each day. 

Two projects did not report any CO emissions benefits. 

Costs 

CMAQ funding is usually provided for equipment such as new diesel engines, truck stop electrification 

infrastructure, or purchase of retrofit devices. Funding may also be provided to offset a portion of the 

cost of installation or operation of a regional retrofit program. The total public cost of these projects range 

in magnitude from $530,000 to $23,036,000, depending on the number of vehicles to be retrofitted and 

the type of device used. The non-CMAQ share of project funding ranged from 20 percent to 76 percent 

of the total project cost. 

 

35 23 USC 149(b)-(c). See FHWA, 2003. “Eligibility of Freight Projects and Diesel Engine Retrofit Programs” Memorandum. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs/retrom.htm. 

36 For a listing of verified retrofit technologies and their emissions reductions, see: http://www.epa.gov/oms/retrofit/verif-list.htm. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

48 

Truck Idle Reduction 

Unnecessary idling often occurs when trucks wait for extended periods of time to load or unload materials 

or supplies, or when equipment is left on overnight when it is not being used. Idle reduction strategies 

eliminate this unnecessary idling by heavy duty vehicles which can save fuel, prolong engine life, and 

reduce emissions. There are several technologies available to address idling. Some of these technologies 

are mobile and attach onto the truck (mobile Auxiliary Power Units (APUs)), and provide air 

conditioning, heat, and electrical power to operate auxiliaries such as a microwave. Another technology 

involves electrifying truck parking spaces (stationary Truck Stop Electrification (TSE)) with or without 

modifying the truck. This involves power from the electrical grid providing energy to operate stationary 

equipment or on-board truck equipment to provide cab heating, cooling, and other needs.37 Three truck 

idling reduction projects were reviewed in this analysis. 

STATE 

CMAQ 

FUNDING 

TOTAL 

COST 

PROJECT 

TITLE 

Year 

Funded 

VOC 

(kg/day) 

CO 

(kg/day) 

NOx 

(kg/day) 

PM10 

(kg/day) 

PM2.5 

(kg/day) 

Tennessee $1,000,000 $1,000,000 

100 Auxiliary 

Power Units 2003 -4.5 NR -60.4 NR NR 

Kentucky $500,000 $835,000 

50 Auxiliary 

Power Units 2005 -6.7 - 46.7 -110.2 NR NR 

Tennessee $788,240 $985,300 

59 Auxiliary 

Power Units 2006 NR NR -79.7 NR 2.2 

NR – Values were not reported by the local project sponsor or State DOT in the CMAQ database or other materials for the 

project. 

For long haul trucks, the truck driver must have l0 hours off duty after driving 11 hours.38 Surveys have 

found that 70 to 80 percent of truck drivers say the need for heating or air conditioning is the main reason 

they idle their trucks while off duty. They also cite the need to operate on-board electrical appliances, 

such as a television or refrigerator, and to ensure the engine block, fuel, and oil remain warm. Long 

duration truck idling occurs at truck stops, travel centers, distribution hubs, airports, borders, ports, and 

roadsides. 39 

Congestion/Mobility Benefits 

Truck stop idle reduction projects are not designed to provide congestion benefits and do not affect travel. 

Emissions Benefits 

Truck stop idle reduction projects are designed primarily to reduce NOx and PM emissions. While some 

project sponsors in the past estimated reductions in VOC and CO using MOBILE idle emissions factors, 

EPA’s "Guidance for Quantifying and Using Long Duration Truck Idling Emission Reductions in State 

Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity” (January 2004) provides long-duration idling 

emissions factors only for NOx and PM. At the time the emissions calculations were conducted for the 

2003 Tennessee project and the 2005 Kentucky project, this guidance had not yet been available or used. 

The three projects reported NOx emissions reductions estimates of 60.4 to 110.2 kg/day.40 Only the 2006 

Tennessee projects have estimated PM2.5 emissions reductions of 2.2 kg/day. Using long-duration truck 

 

37 See Federal Highway Administration Guidance. CMAQ and Idle Reduction Technologies. (2005) 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs/idlereduct/index.htm. 

38 See 49 CFR, Part 395. For additional information: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/hos/hos-2005.htm. 

39 See Federal Highway Administration Guidance. CMAQ and Idle Reduction Technologies. (2005). 

40 The 2003 Tennessee project had an estimated 60.4 kg/day in NOx based on MOBILE emissions factors; using long-duration 

idle emissions factors available from the EPA guidance, released in 2004, the project would reduce 135.0 kg/day. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

49 

idling emissions factors currently available from EPA, the 2003 Tennessee and 2005 Kentucky projects 

would have had PM emissions reductions of 3.7 kg/day and 1.8 kg/day, respectively. 

Costs 

CMAQ funding is usually provided for truck stop electrification infrastructure and equipment. The total 

public cost of these projects ranged in magnitude from $835,000 to $1,000,000. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

50 

4. PROJECT ANALYSIS AND SELECTION PRACTICES THAT SUPPORT 

EFFECTIVENESS

In the previous section of this report, data gathered from the national CMAQ database and local project 

sponsors were presented to document reported congestion and emissions benefits, as well as 

characteristics of the broad types of strategies. This section focuses on using information from the 

selected set of projects to assess the projects’ air quality cost-effectiveness and to examine how some 

areas are using this type of information for program prioritization and decision making. 

This section is divided into two parts. First, a discussion of the cost-effectiveness of the selected projects 

at reducing emissions of each of the primary pollutants – VOC, CO, NOx, and PM10 and PM2.5 – is 

provided. In order to calculate air quality cost-effectiveness in a way that allows appropriate comparisons, 

project costs and emissions effects have been recalculated to fill in gaps in reported emissions reductions 

and to “normalize” the results to a common year, 2008. 

Second, initial observations on good practices that States and MPOs have used to analyze, prioritize, and 

select CMAQ projects; including use of cost-effectiveness analysis and consideration of other factors are 

provided. Phase II of this evaluation and assessment study further expand upon this information through 

development of case studies of specific locations to understand State DOT and MPO practices and to help 

enhance the effectiveness of the program. 

Emissions Reduction Cost-Effectiveness 

The Role of Cost-Effectiveness Assessment 

Understanding the cost-effectiveness of CMAQ projects should be an important consideration in project 

selection decisions at the State and local level. SAFETEA-LU directs that States and MPOs give priority 

to “diesel retrofit projects and. . .other cost-effective emission reduction activities, taking into 

consideration air quality and health effects” and to “cost-effective congestion mitigation activities that 

provide air quality benefits.”41 Moreover, States and MPOs, as good stewards of public dollars, will 

maximize the value of their investment of CMAQ funds by targeting it toward projects that provide the 

most benefit per dollar. Indeed, conducting a cost-effectiveness assessment provides States and MPOs 

with the ability to stretch limited transportation funding resources across a wide range of projects that 

demonstrate congestion, energy, environment, air quality, and mobility benefits. 

Given the role of the CMAQ program as a key funding source to help transportation agencies meet air 

quality goals consistent with attainment of regional air quality plans, cost-effectiveness at reducing air 

pollutant emissions is often considered an important metric of CMAQ program effectiveness. At the same 

time, it is important to recognize that the benefits of the CMAQ program go well beyond emissions 

reduction, and States and MPOs often take into account these other considerations in making project 

selection decisions. In this study, cost-effectiveness for the 67 sample projects was calculated in regard to 

emissions reductions alone due to the availability of information on emissions reduction estimates for a 

wide variety of CMAQ-funded transportation projects. However, emissions reduction cost-effectiveness 

may not be the only measure of cost-effectiveness for a project, just as air quality is not the only benefit 

that may be considered in project selection. 

In many urban areas and states with severe traffic congestion problems, a project’s cost-effectiveness at 

alleviating traffic congestion will often be an important consideration. A project that reduces traffic 

congestion in a targeted corridor may be viewed as more beneficial than another project that reduces the 

same level or more emissions but does not provide congestion relief benefits. These congestion relief 

 

41 SAFETEA-LU 1808(d). 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

51 

benefits are difficult to quantify using a standard metric (such as hours of traveler delay reduced) across 

all projects, based on the complexities of modeling and assessing these impacts, particularly for small 

projects. 

CMAQ projects generate a wide range of other benefits, which may also be important factors in project 

selection. These benefits include, among others, enhancing mobility and access, creating more reliable 

travel times and transit services, encouraging physical activity, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, 

creating better connections between transportation and land use, and fostering a more multi-modal 

transportation system. Most of these benefits are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify in a standard 

metric, and thus are not usually considered in a cost-effectiveness framework. However, these benefits 

may be very important in the context of regional transportation goals. The flexibility inherent in the 

CMAQ program allows local areas to determine their own procedures and criteria for project assessment. 

States and MPOs are using a suite of evaluation criteria, including air quality and energy conservation 

benefits, local cost participation share, and intermodal, multi-modal, and social mobility concerns, to 

ensure all are being addressed in regional transportation planning and programming.42 

Methodology for Analyzing Emissions Reduction Cost-Effectiveness of the Selected Projects 

The study team calculated cost-effectiveness of the sample projects with respect to reductions of VOC, 

NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Cost-effectiveness figures were developed for each pollutant independently, 

rather than as a composite figure. This was done for two primary reasons: 1) At the national level, it is 

difficult to determine the most appropriate means of weighting each pollutant, given that some pollutants 

are of more concern in some parts of the country than others. 2) Some strategies are targeted toward 

reducing individual pollutants, such as dust mitigation projects, which focus on PM10 reduction. Lumping 

together the reduction of a full set of pollutants, therefore, would not show how different types of 

strategies can be more or less effective at reducing different pollutants. 

In order to increase the comparability of emissions and cost figures across the sample projects, the study 

team recalculated project costs and emissions effects. Recalculations were conducted largely because for 

many projects, data were missing on specific pollutants – commonly CO and PM. In addition, the 

projects were implemented in a wide range of different locations, at different times, and emissions 

benefits were reported for different years. Since the U.S. vehicle fleet is on average, much cleaner today 

than it was 10 years ago, a project that eliminates a mile of travel will have less emissions reduction 

benefit in 2010 than the same project in 2000. Consequently, it was useful to standardize the emissions 

effects to a common year using a standard set of default emissions factors for purposes of analyzing costeffectiveness across the selected projects. Project costs, including operating and capital costs, were also 

adjusted to reflect constant 2008 dollars to enable better comparisons. Costs were standardized using the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI) which may result in reduced cost-effectiveness for multi-year projects. 

The following discussion provides more detail on the calculation procedures used in this study. The 

procedures for “normalizing” emissions and costs are described below first. This is followed by a 

description of the general steps in conducting cost-effectiveness analysis, which could be used for any 

calculations of project cost-effectiveness, including those conducted at the State or local level. In fact, the 

study team found that a number of State DOTs and MPOs were using the same basic approach to 

calculate cost effectiveness for their proposed projects. 

PROCEDURES TAKEN TO ENSURE COMPARABILITY OF COST AND EMISSIONS DATA FROM SAMPLE PROJECTS

The “normalization” procedures used to standardize the projects in this study included three main steps. 

 

42 Integrating Air Quality and Transportation Planning: A Compendium of Workshop Summaries for Regional Councils and 

metropolitan planning organizations. 2001-2005. Available at: 

www.narc.org/uploads/File/01Workshop_Summaries_2005_Edit.pdf. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

52 

1. Establish baseline running and trip start emissions factors for 2008 across multiple pollutants. 

2. Recalculate emissions reductions using standardized calculation methodologies and 2008 

emissions factors. 

3. Recalculate project costs in 2008 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). 

These steps are described below. 

1) Develop “Normalized” Emissions Factors. In order to improve comparability of results, a common 

set of emissions factors for CO, NOx, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions was developed using 

MOBILE6.2 for analysis year 2008. MOBILE is EPA’s approved model for estimating pollution from 

highway vehicles. The model calculates emission factors (in grams per vehicle-mile) for a variety of 

pollutants from passenger cars, motorcycles, light- and heavy-duty trucks. Some of the emissions factors 

are based on testing of tens of thousands of vehicles and account for changes in vehicle emission 

standards over time, changes in vehicle populations and activity levels, and variation in local conditions 

such as temperature, humidity and fuel quality.43 

In the data collected from State DOTs and MPOs, some projects’ emissions effects had been calculated 

with an earlier version of the model, MOBILE5a, or EMFAC, the California emissions model. In this 

analysis, the 2008 emissions factors from MOBILE6.2 were applied to all the selected projects, where 

feasible, reducing differences due to the time the project was implemented, local weather and vehicle fleet 

mix, and/or region-specific modeling assumptions. For additional information on the assumptions and 

inputs used to develop the normalized emissions factors, please see Appendix B. It should be noted that 

while this normalization was helpful for purposes of this study, State DOTs and MPOs should not apply 

this procedure in their own project assessments. They should use the best available data at the local level 

to develop appropriate emissions factors for conditions in their area. 

Emissions factors for some types of CMAQ projects, such as diesel engine retrofits, bus replacement, and 

dust mitigation projects, were not standardized. These technologies vary widely in their ability to achieve 

emissions reductions and depend on specific local conditions (e.g., road dust levels depend on 

precipitation and silt loadings). Consequently, the emissions factors reported by project sponsors, or the 

most recent EPA certification data for retrofits, were used in the calculation of cost-effectiveness. 

2) Recalculate Emissions Reductions, as appropriate. Using the normalized emissions factors, 

emissions reductions were then recalculated (as kg/day). This generally was done using the project’s 

reported travel impacts (e.g., VMT reductions, speed changes), using the methodologies that the project 

sponsors had used. 

3) Adjust Total Public Costs to Constant Dollars. CMAQ and non-CMAQ project costs reported by 

local sponsors were converted to a 2008 base by using the average annual Consumer Price Index 

published monthly by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.44 CPI values for respective years in relation to 

2008 are shown in Table 3, along with the corresponding adjustment factor. The CPI for January 2008 is 

211.08. To convert dollar values in one year to constant dollars in a second year, multiply the first-year 

dollar value by a factor whose numerator is the average annual CPI of the second year and whose 

denominator is the average annual CPI of the first year. For instance, to convert $10,000 in 2000 dollars 

to 2008 constant dollars, multiply $10,000 by the average annual CPI in 2008 divided by the average 

annual CPI in 2000: 

 

43 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Description and History of the MOBILE 

Model. (2004) http://www.epa.gov/OMS/mobile.htm. 

44 U.S. Department Of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers - (CPI-U), U.S. city 

average, All items. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

53 

$10,000 * (211.1 / 172.2) = $10,000 * 1.226 = $12,259 in 2008 constant dollars. 

Table 3. Consumer Price Index (CPI) Factors. 

Year CPI Factor Year CPI Factor 

1999 166.6 1.267 2004 188.9 1.118 

2000 172.2 1.226 2005 195.3 1.081 

2001 177.1 1.192 2006 201.6 1.047 

2002 179.9 1.173 2007 207.3 1.018 

2003 184.0 1.147 2008 211.1 1.000 

CALCULATING EMISSIONS REDUCTION COST-EFFECTIVENESS USING THE NORMALIZED RESULTS

Once normalized emissions figures and costs were developed, cost-effectiveness at reducing each type of 

emissions was calculated using a standard approach, as listed in the three steps below: 

1) Calculate average annual emissions reduction; 

2) Calculate annualized cost of the project; 

3) Divide the annualized cost of the project by the annual emissions reduction. 

The cost figures used in the calculations represent the total public costs associated with implementing a 

project. This includes funding from the CMAQ program for capital and operating costs, as well as any 

other Federal, State, or local sources. Some individual projects were funded over multiple years or 

multiple States, and so the cost used in the calculations reflected all of these components. In some cases, 

CMAQ only paid for a small portion of a project’s total costs. Some State and MPO analyses that the 

study team reviewed involved calculations of both overall project cost-effectiveness (based on the full 

costs of the project) and cost-effectiveness associated with CMAQ dollars alone (not including other 

Federal, state, and local funding sources). However, the results presented in this study reflect full project 

cost-effectiveness at reducing emissions using total public funds. The measure of cost-effectiveness 

reported in this study is dollars per ton (although it can also be reported as dollars per kg, or another 

similar metric). The steps in this process are described below. 

1) Convert to Annualized Emissions Reductions. Emissions reductions per day should be converted 

into annualized values as kg per year (which the study team converted to tons per year). Although the 

national CMAQ database reports emissions reductions in kg per day, in most cases the emissions benefits 

are not realized on all 365 days of the year, but are restricted to only work travel/weekdays or to a smaller 

number of days when the program is in effect (e.g., on ozone exceedance days, days when bicycling is 

considered most feasible, or days of application of de-icing chemicals). In most of the project examples, 

the project sponsor included an estimate of the number of days during which the strategy would be 

effective. In these situations, the local figure was used. However, in instances where it was not provided, 

the following standard scaling factors were used: 

• For projects that affect only peak period or weekday commuter travel, daily effects were 

multiplied by 250. 

• For projects that affect all traffic, daily effects were multiplied by 365.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

54 

2) Calculate Annualized Cost of the Project. To calculate the annualized cost of the project, two pieces 

of information are needed: 

• Project funding – The total project funding cost is needed. This should include funding 

from the CMAQ program, as well as any other Federal, state, or local sources. 

• Capital recover factor (CRF) – The capital recovery factor is used to determine how to 

annualize funding dollars over the life of the project, assuming that projects with service 

lives beyond 1 or 2 years represent an opportunity cost in the use of those public 

resources equal to the value of those resources if invested for the same time period at a 

societal rate of interest. The capital recovery factor is calculated using the following 

equation: 

CRF = (1 + i)

n

 x (i) 

(1 + i)

n

 – 1

Where i = discount rate (as a decimal fraction) 

n = project life (in years) 

The annualized cost of the project is calculated by multiplying total project funding by the CRF, as shown 

in the following equation: 

 Annualized cost = Project funding x CRF 

The discount rate reflects the rate at which society (taxpayers) values future benefits in terms of resources 

that it must give up now. As a result, it “discounts”, or places a lower value on, future benefits from the 

investment compared to current benefits. A lower discount rate increases the effective value of future 

benefits (emissions reductions) by lowering the annualized cost used in the comparison.45 A 7 percent 

discount rate was used in this analysis, which is the value used by the Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA) in its New Starts program, and is the rate recommended by the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for Federal investment analysis. 

“Project life” represents the period of time over which a project remains effective at reducing emissions 

and congestion levels, and varies by the type of project. For example, a standard transit bus is expected to 

provide service for 12 years, whereas the service life of a vanpool vehicle may be only 5 years. For some 

projects, effects last for many years; in other cases, the effects continue only for the length of time when 

direct funding is provided. Individual project life periods, determined by the specific circumstances of 

each project and local jurisdiction, were sometimes reported by project sponsors, and these were typically 

used in the calculations. However, some general rules are provided in Table 4, based on a review of 

project life periods used by other sources, and these were generally used where no other data were 

provided.46 

 

45 For example, imagine two projects, each reducing 1 pound of emissions per year. The first project costs $1,000 and has 5 years

of effects; the other project costs $2,800 but has 20 years of effects. At a 7 percent discount rate, the first project appears more 

cost effective, while with a 5 percent discount rate, the second project appears more cost effective. 

46 See: California Air Resource Board, “Methods to Find the Cost-Effectiveness of Funding Air Quality Projects,” 1999; 

Birmingham Regional Planning Commission, “A Guide for Estimating the Emissions Effects and Cost-Effectiveness of 

Projects Proposed for CMAQ Funding,” 2002; Maricopa Association of Governments, “Methodology for Evaluating 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Projects”; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary Review of 

Cost and Emissions Information for 24 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Projects,” 1999; Transportation 

Research Board Special Report 264, “The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years 

of Experience.” 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

55 

Table 4. Project Life Periods Used for Evaluating Projects. 

CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY PROJECT LIFE 

EXPECTANCY (YEARS) 

Traffic Signalization 10 

Traffic Flow Improvements Freeway Management 10 

High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes 20 

Regional Ridesharing 1 to 2 

Vanpool Programs 

- ongoing assistance 

- purchase of vans 

1 to 2 

5 

Shared Ride Programs 

Park-and-Ride lots 12 

Travel Demand Management Regional Approaches/Employer Trip 

Reduction programs 

1 to 2 

Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities - 15 

New Bus Services 

- purchase of new buses 

- operations 

12 

1 

New Rail Services 

- Railcars 

- Track/stations 

20 

30 

Transit Improvements 

Service Upgrades 

- Amenities 

- Bus shelters, etc. 

2 

10 

Technology Improvements 

(primarily transit) 

Conventional Bus Replacements and 

Alternative Fuel Buses (assumed remaining 

life of vehicles) 

4 

Dust Mitigation Projects - 20 

Freight/Intermodal Projects - 20 

Diesel Engine Retrofits Varies Engine Retrofit Technologies Truck Stop Electrification 10 

3) Calculate Cost-effectiveness. Once air pollutant emissions and costs were standardized into 

annualized values, a cost-effectiveness calculation was determined for each project sample. Cost 

effectiveness is calculated using the following equation: 

 Cost Effectiveness ($/ton) = (Annualized Cost) / (Annual Emissions Reduction) 

A project is more cost effective when it achieves its results at the lowest possible cost. For each project, 

cost effectiveness was calculated according to the estimated reductions of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and 

PM2.5 emissions individually. 

Results 

The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis for each pollutant are presented below, in Tables 7 and 8, 

which summarize the minimum and maximum cost-effectiveness figures for individual projects studied 

within each category and subcategory. Given the small number of projects studied, the median value has 

not been provided. 

In examining emissions reductions by individual pollutant, it is important for State DOTs and MPOs to 

consider the specific air quality issues that are faced in their areas. Moreover, the health effects, emissions 

inventories, and control sources for each pollutant are also different. For instance, transportation sources 

produce significantly more CO than PM; correspondingly, reducing a ton of PM often costs more than 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

56 

reducing a ton of CO. The benefits of reducing a ton of PM may also be more valuable, based on health 

studies showing the significant effects of PM on human health. 

Across the project categories, some patterns emerge, although the results are limited due to the small 

number of projects studied, and cannot be used to determine statistically significant median costeffectiveness values or confidence intervals. The projects profiled in this study are intended to be 

illustrative of typical projects funded through the CMAQ program, but do not represent a statistical 

sampling of the CMAQ database. The largest sample category size in this study is seven diesel engine 

retrofit projects. It is important to note that these figures are not directly comparable to the results from 

some other studies, such as the TRB study on the CMAQ program, cited in the Appendix to the CMAQ 

Interim Guidance.47 

 

47 For instance, in the TRB study, emissions benefits for NOx and VOC were combined and weighted, resulting in a composite 

cost-effectiveness figure, whereas this study presents separate figures for each pollutant. Moreover, in the TRB study, 

emissions benefits expected to occur in the future were “discounted”, but for this study, all emissions benefits were counted 

equally. The inherent economic logic of discounting presumes that short-term benefits are preferable to benefits in the longterm. This study, however, values a ton of emissions reduction in year 1 as equivalent to a ton of emissions reduction in year 

10. This approach makes the reporting of dollars per ton reduced more intuitive when reporting emissions reductions for 

individual pollutants. It also is consistent with the fact that emissions reductions in a nonattainment area need to be continued 

into the future in order for compliance with the ambient air quality standards. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

57 

Table 5. VOC, NOx, and CO Cost-Effectiveness of Selected CMAQ Projects by Strategy. 

VOC ($/ton) NOx ($/ton) CO ($/ton) 

Category 

No. 

Projects

Low High Low High Low High 

Traffic Flow Improvements 

Traffic Signalization 7 $2,000 $5.6 M $5,000 + $500 + 

Freeway Management 4 $1,000 $98,000 $10,000 + $2,000 + 

High-Occupancy Vehicle 

Lanes 

1 $18.9 M $40.5 M $1.3 M 

Shared Ride Programs 

Regional Ridesharing 3 $86,000 $494,000 $78,000 $440,000 $7,000 $39,000 

Vanpool Programs 4 $34,000 $158,000 $29,000 $160,000 $3,000 $13,000 

Park-and-Ride Lots 5 $14,000 $8.5 M $12,000 $4.9 M $1,000 $384,000 

Travel Demand Management 4 $16,000 $2.9 M $15,000 $2.9 M $1,000 $223,000 

Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities 4 $551,000 $6.0 M $667,000 $7.4 M $46,000 $453,000 

Transit Improvements 

New Bus Services 3 $130,000 $1.5 M $222,00 $1.4 M $9,000 $15,000 

New Rail Services 3 $88,000 $416,000 $89,000 $380,000 $7,000 $33,000 

Service 

Upgrades/Amenities 

5 $11,000 $1.5 M $7,000 $1.5 M $1,000 $116,000 

Bus Replacements/Technologies 

Conventional Bus 

Replacements 2 $852,000 $1.5 M $134,000 $231,000 $706,000 

Alternative 

Vehicles/Fueling Facilities 4 $152,000 $2.9 M $82,000 $316,000 $124,000 $734,000 

Dust Mitigation Projects 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Freight/Intermodal Projects 6 $37,000 $424.2 M $2,000 $213,000 $7,000 $3.7 M 

Diesel Emissions Reduction 

Diesel Engine Retrofits 7 $7,000 $677,000 $21,000 $1,000 $174,000 

Truck Idle Reduction 3 -- -- $2,900 $4,600 $6,800 

NOTE: Cost-effectiveness calculations noted with a plus sign (+) indicate that project(s) in the category 

showed an increase in the pollutant of concern. Projects with (--) indicate categories where a cost 

effectiveness calculation was not applicable due to zero pollution reduced. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

58 

Table 6. PM Cost-Effectiveness of Selected CMAQ Projects by Strategy. 

PM10 ($/ton) PM2.5 ($/ton) 

Category 

No. 

Projects

Low High Low High 

Traffic Flow Improvements 

Traffic Signalization 7 $287,000 $68.9 M $442,000 $106.2 M 

Freeway Management 4 $279,000 $15.7 M $430,000 $135.9 M 

High-Occupancy Vehicle 

Lanes 

1 -- -- -- -- 

Shared Ride Programs 

Regional Ridesharing 3 $2.0 M $11.1 M $4.2 M $24.1 M 

Vanpool Programs 4 $695,000 $3.8 M $1.5 M $8.3 M 

Park-and-Ride Lots 5 $285,000 $128.2 M $616,000 $277.5 M 

Travel Demand Management 4 $390,000 $79.8 M $845,000 $172.9 M 

Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities 4 $22.8 M $259.6 M $49.4 M $562.1 M 

Transit Improvements 

New Bus Services 3 $6.1 M $6.1 M $13.3 M (+) 

New Rail Services 3 $2.3 M $9.7 M $5.0 M $21.2 M 

Service 

Upgrades/Amenities 

5 

$184,000 $41.6 M $398,000 $90.1 M 

Bus Replacements/Technologies 

Conventional Bus 

Replacements 

2 

-- -- -- -- 

Alternative 

Vehicles/Fueling Facilities 

4 

-- -- $676,000 

Dust Mitigation Projects 3 $15 $700 -- -- 

Freight/Intermodal Projects 6 $66,000 $10.8 M $80,000 $13.2 M 

Diesel Emissions Reduction 

Diesel Engine Retrofits 7 $7,000 $1.7 M $8,000 $2.1 M 

Truck Idle Reduction 3 $110,300 $173,600 $110,300 $173,600 

NOTE: Cost-effectiveness calculations noted with a plus sign (+) indicate that project(s) in the category 

showed an increase in the pollutant of concern. Projects with (--) indicate categories where a cost 

effectiveness calculation was not applicable due to zero pollution reduced. One figure reported between 

the high and low categories indicates that only one project reported emissions effects for that pollutant. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

59 

As seen in the tables, a high level of variability is found in the results for each individual category of 

projects, indicating that local context and project-specific factors are an important determinant of costeffectiveness. The range of estimated figures for air quality cost-effectiveness within individual categories 

is very large, with some individual projects showing very strong cost-effectiveness for certain pollutants, 

while others clearly appear to have lower cost-effectiveness for certain pollutants, as indicated by costs of 

several million dollars per ton. 

This finding seems to indicate that some projects are better suited for reducing certain pollutants and 

likely were selected for reasons other than emissions reductions (e.g., congestion mitigation, social 

effects). Indeed, while air quality cost-effectiveness is an important aspect of transportation agencies’ 

project selection, these other benefits can have significant impacts on overall urban mobility, livability, 

and sustainability initiatives. 

Observations regarding the various categories of projects are noted below. 

TRAFFIC FLOW, SHARED RIDE, AND DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROJECTS.

Some traffic flow improvements and projects that target reductions in single-occupancy vehicle travel – 

such as shared ride and travel demand management programs – were very cost-effective in reducing the 

ozone precursors, VOC and NOx, as well as CO. Due to the relatively limited contribution of personal 

motor vehicles to PM, in comparison to VOC, NOX, and CO, none of these strategies appeared to be very 

cost-effective at reducing PM. Moreover, the MOBILE6 model used to generate the emissions changes 

for this analysis does not take into account the impact of changes in vehicle speeds on PM emissions 

levels.48 Therefore, the PM emissions reductions reported from traffic flow projects in this analysis were 

only calculated based on reductions in vehicle idling due to reductions in incident-based or intersection 

delay. These projects often have important non-emissions benefits, including travel time savings, 

reductions in greenhouse gases, and supporting increased non-motorized travel. 

TRANSIT AND TECHNOLOGY/FUELS PROGRAMS

Transit improvements that target reductions in motor vehicle travel, such as new rail or bus services and 

service upgrades/amenities, appear to offer the potential for relatively high cost-effectiveness at reducing 

VOC, NOx, and CO emissions, but fared poorly in reducing PM. Overall, bus replacement projects fared 

poorly in cost-effectiveness at emissions reduction. The costs are used to purchase vehicles that will last 

12+ years in service, but emissions benefits can only be credited for a limited number of years, not the full 

service life of the new bus. 

DUST MITIGATION

Projects focused on dust mitigation offered some of the most effective means measured in this study for 

reducing PM10 and PM2.5 emissions in locations where they were practical. These projects, including 

paving unpaved roads and application of deicing chemicals to reduce sand application, achieved 

substantial reductions in particulate matter (in the form of wind-blown dust) for far less public resources 

than other types of project categories. 

DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION AND FREIGHT/INTERMODAL PROJECTS

Diesel retrofits, truck idle reduction, and freight/intermodal projects are categories of projects that have 

received increased emphasis in recent years. These categories had some of the most cost-effective projects 

within the reviewed projects at reducing both ozone precursors and particulate matter. However, there 

was a very large range, with some projects fairing poorly when focusing solely on the cost-effectiveness 

of emissions reductions. This may be due in part to the fact that different retrofit technologies target 

different pollutants. For instance, one retrofit project showed high cost-effectiveness at reducing NOx, 

 

48 See Preamble to 40 CFR Part 93 for additional discussion of EPA’s conformity decisions. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

60 

whereas some retrofits showed no impact on NOx.49 Use of idling reduction technology to reduce longduration truck idling showed the best cost-effectiveness at reducing NOx emissions. 

Examples of Good Practices 

States use a variety of processes and procedures to identify, select, and evaluate projects for inclusion in 

the CMAQ program. Drawing on the observations and results of the project analysis and information from 

State and local project sponsors, the following sections provide examples to illustrate the range of 

approaches taken by States and MPOs. Examples of good approaches identified through this research 

include: 

• Use of standardized emissions calculation methodologies and tools in order to help ensure 

validity and comparability of emissions reduction estimates; 

• A documented, transparent project prioritization/selection process, including consultation of 

States and MPOs with State and local air quality agencies; and 

• Collection of post-project data to determine whether projected impacts were achieved. 

These practices are discussed below. 

Standardized Tools or Emission Calculation Methods 

State and local transportation and air quality agencies have the flexibility to conduct CMAQ project air 

quality analyses with different analytical approaches. While FHWA does not specify a single set of 

methods for use in CMAQ emissions estimation, every effort should be taken to ensure that 

determinations of air quality benefits are credible and based on reproducible and logical analytical 

procedures. 

USE OF ACCEPTED EMISSIONS CALCULATION APPROACHES

An important first step in making decisions is to base those decisions on appropriate methodologies and 

reasonable assumptions. There are several online resources and published guides available to State and 

local transportation practitioners that describe the modeling tools and other methods that can be used to 

assess the emissions benefits of projects applying for CMAQ funds. 

The most recent and comprehensives of these is a guidebook, Multi-pollutant Emissions Benefits of 

Transportation Strategies (2006). This compendium includes sketch planning methods for 35 different 

categories of transportation strategies, based on a review of many guidance documents and analytical 

tools. The report includes calculations of emissions impacts for sample projects, based on real project 

examples, and identifies EPA and FHWA guidance documents that should be referenced. It also reports 

on the direction of emissions impacts (increase, decrease, neutral or uncertain) that are typically expected 

for each transportation strategy on the following seven pollutants: CO, PM10, PM2.5, NOx, VOCs, SOx, 

and NH3. The report is available at: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conformity/mpe_benefits. 

The report A Sampling of Emissions Analysis Techniques for Transportation Control Measures (2000) 

includes a brief overview of 19 methods which include pre-packaged and customizable software tools as 

well as worksheets or other procedures for calculating benefits. They collectively address a wide range of 

potential CMAQ projects, including travel demand management, traffic flow improvements, and vehicle 

 

49 For comparison purposes, EPA’s document, “The Cost-Effectiveness of Heavy-Duty Diesel Retrofits and Other Mobile Source 

Emission Reduction Projects and Programs,” May 2007, and “Diesel Retrofit Technology: An Analysis of the Cost 

Effectiveness of Reducing Particulate Matter and Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Heavy-Duty Nonroad Diesel Engines 

through Retrofits,” May 2007, estimated a range of $18,700 to $87,600 per ton of PM emissions reduced, and a range of 

$1,900 to $19,000 per ton of NOx reduced for various retrofit scenarios. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

61 

and fuel technology strategies. The report also includes references to other sources of information on 

CMAQ program effectiveness. The report, including information on the source and availability of the 

methods is available online at: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqeat. 

EPA has published a number of methodology guides for calculating emissions impacts of different types 

of strategies, notably diesel retrofits and program to reduce long-duration truck idling. The national Clean 

Diesel Program sponsored by EPA has published information and materials that relate to on- and off-road 

diesel engines. In particular, the Diesel Emissions Quantifier is an interactive tool developed by EPA to 

help State/local governments, fleet owners/operators, and others estimate emissions reductions and cost 

effectiveness for clean diesel projects. The Quantifier uses emissions factors and other information from 

EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) which includes the MOBILE 6.2 and NONROAD2005 

models. For further information access: www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/publications. 

A number of the methodologies identified through the review of the selected projects referenced these 

documents, particularly EPA guides and certification data related to emissions benefits of diesel retrofits 

and long-duration idle reduction. 

STANDARDIZED APPROACHES FOR COMPARISONS OF PROJECTS

Some State DOTs and MPOs have developed their own guidebooks or emissions modeling tools to assist 

in documenting and evaluating proposed CMAQ projects and programs. These tools can help the State 

DOT or MPO in evaluating projects, reduce calculation errors, and ensure that local project sponsors 

provide information that is consistent and comparable with other similar projects. Several States have 

provided project sponsors with a spreadsheet into which sponsors can enter project-specific assumptions 

and receive back emissions benefits calculations. These guidebooks and tools often contain default 

parameters viewed as appropriate to the region. 

Table 7 highlights several States and MPOs that provide emissions calculation aids or tools. 

Table 7. Selected States and MPOs with Standardized Tools or Emission Calculation Methods. 

State DOT or MPO Standardized Tools or Emission Calculation Methods 

Maricopa Association of 

Governments (Phoenix area, 

Arizona) 

"Methodology for Evaluating Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

Improvement Projects" report provides standardized methodologies 

for calculating direct emissions effects (kg/day reduced) and costeffectiveness at reducing emissions ($/metric ton) 

Birmingham Regional Planning 

Commission (Alabama) 

“A Guide for Estimating the Emissions Effects and CostEffectiveness of Projects Proposed for CMAQ Funding” includes 

standardized methodologies that are used to assess emissions 

impacts of different types of CMAQ projects, as well as costeffectiveness 

California 

"Methods to Find the Cost-Effectiveness of Funding Air Quality 

Projects" guidebook and automated database contains standardized 

methods for estimating the emissions benefits and cost-effectiveness 

of different types of CMAQ projects; Access database files automate 

calculation procedures. 

North Front Range MPO (Fort 

Collins area, Colorado) 

A CMAQ Air Quality Benefit Program Excel workbook that 

includes a spreadsheet which allows project sponsors to select the 

Type, Area, and Category for the project being submitted. Based on 

those selections, the spreadsheet directs the sponsor to provide 

category-specific evaluation criteria and then it automatically 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

62 

calculates the emissions benefits and cost-effectiveness of the 

project. Two measures of cost-effectiveness are used: total current 

year project cost/annual emissions reduced, and CMAQ 

funds/annual emissions reduced. Although the calculation is 

automatic, within the workbook is another spreadsheet that provides 

the formulas used for the calculations. 

Massachusetts Executive Office 

of Transportation 

Excel workbook automatically calculates emissions benefits based 

on sponsor-provided assumptions; also provides sample air quality 

analysis methods. 

New York State DOT 

"CMAQtraq" application feeds into the DOT's database tool to 

determine air quality results. Local project sponsor provide input 

data with the application, and the DOT enters the information into 

the Microsoft Access database tool to determine the project’s air 

quality results. The current version of CMAQtraq (ver. 6.2) has 

MOBILE6.2 emissions factors embedded in the calculations. 

Pennsylvania DOT "PAQONE" software analyzes a variety of transit, non-motorized 

travel, and roadway improvements using standardized methods 

Wasatch Front Regional 

Council (Salt Lake City area, 

Utah) 

Excel workbook automatically calculates emissions benefits based 

on default values or sponsor-provided assumptions. 

Cost-Effectiveness Calculations 

Analyzing the cost-effectiveness of CMAQ projects for both emissions reductions and congestion 

mitigation effects should be an important step in the project selection process, both in terms of the 

benefits that accrue to the States or MPOs receiving CMAQ funding and the net benefits achieved 

nationally by the funds distributed through the Federal CMAQ program. Broad statements about the types 

of projects that will or will not be funded in certain areas should be avoided because the types of 

strategies that are most cost-effective will vary due to local factors. Rather, States and MPOs may use 

cost-effectiveness calculations as a mechanism to objectively compare projects during review and 

selection. Examining project cost effectiveness can also be a way of bringing attention to the design or 

proposed application of the project, and can provide help in judging its suitability or most effective 

implementation strategy. 

Several of the State DOTs and MPOs that provided project information for this study also had calculated 

cost-effectiveness, and were using standardize procedures to calculate cost-effectiveness. While the 

estimates of project duration, discount factors, and pollutants of concern varied, these methods allow 

projects to be evaluated across strategies and geographies to determine the most appropriate for funding. 

For instance, in Alabama, standardized emissions calculation worksheets for common CMAQ strategies 

are provided to local project sponsors by the Birmingham MPO. The MPO, State DOT, and other 

agencies input information and assumptions for their projects into the spreadsheet model to determine 

travel impacts, emissions reductions, and cost effectiveness. The cost effectiveness is calculated using the 

following equation: Cost Effectiveness = (Annualized cost) / (Annual Emissions Reduction). Annualized 

costs include a 7 percent discount rate and a capital recovery factor to account for the project service life 

multiplied by the total capital cost of the project to estimate the average annual cost. Cost effectiveness 

calculations are provided for HC, NOx, PM10, (HC + NOx), (PM10 – NOx), and (PM10 + NOx) in both 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

63 

dollars per lb per year and dollars per kg per year. In the case of the North Front Range MPO in 

Colorado, two measures of cost-effectiveness were calculated: total project cost/annual emissions 

reduced, and CMAQ funds/annual emissions reduced. The second calculation takes into account the 

source of project funding, and enables projects with a higher non-CMAQ funding share to shower better 

cost-effectiveness. 

Transparent, Inclusive Selection Processes 

While the CMAQ program is intended to enable local agencies the flexibility to select projects that meet 

the transportation infrastructure, political, and geographic needs of local areas, FHWA CMAQ Interim 

Guidance includes language requiring that, 

“The CMAQ project selection process should be transparent, in writing, and 

publicly available. The process should identify the agencies involved in rating 

proposed projects, clarify how projects are rated, and name the committee or group 

responsible for making the final recommendation to the MPO board or other 

approving body.”50

Although the collection of data did not reveal readily available documentation of the CMAQ project 

selection process in most cases, it did identify several States and MPOs that appear to have consistent and 

robust project selection procedures. In addition, SAFETEA–LU encourages State DOTs and MPOs to 

consult with State and local air quality agencies about the estimated emissions reductions from CMAQ 

proposals. States which seek guidance and/or evaluation assistance from these agencies will also ensure 

more accurate air quality analyses for CMAQ projects. Table 8 provides examples of State DOTs and 

MPOs that appear to have documented, transparent project selection methods. 

Table 8. Identified States and MPOs with Transparent Project Selection Methods. 

State DOT or 

MPO Selection Process 

North Front 

Range MPO 

(Fort Collins, 

Colorado) 

Current process utilizes a three-tiered scoring system to rank projects: 50 percent of 

the score is assigned to short-term air quality impacts (rankings based on VMT and 

carbon monoxide reduction estimates for year one); 20 percent for long-term benefits 

(estimated for years two through five), and 30 percent for bonus features (e.g., 

overmatch, multi-agency or public/private partnerships, and multi-modal projects). 

Standardized calculation procedures are used to analyze emissions effects. CMAQ 

Project Selection Committee includes representatives form the Colorado Department 

of Transportation, Colorado Air Pollution Control Division, FHWA, FTA, and U.S. 

EPA. Selection Committee develops list of recommended projects based on project 

scoring, as well as other intangible elements (which may include regional equity, 

project readiness, synergies with projects funded from STP or other sources, and 

project mix). 

Hillsborough 

MPO (Tampa, 

Florida) 

CMAQ projects are evaluated by a committee of representatives of the MPO, FDOT, 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the Hillsborough County 

Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) based on a series of qualitative and 

quantitative measures. Final project ranking is based on the average total score 

 

50 Sec. 1808: Addition to CMAQ Eligible Projects. Publication of Interim Guidance on the Congestion Mitigation and Air 

Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program. Dec. 19, 2006 Federal Register. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

64 

assigned by each of the four reviewing agencies. The ranking is based on 5 criteria, 

each scored on a scale one to five: 1) projects that remove vehicles from the road or 

reduce travel delay; 2) outreach projects that change the public’s driving behaviors; 

3) projects with the most efficient dollar per ton cost/benefit figure for reducing NOx; 

4) projects with air quality benefits to be realized within 3 years of funding; and 

5) projects identified in CMS Study and/or 2025 LRTP Interim Plan. 

Georgia DOT 

A project selection process, developed by GDOT, the Environmental Protection 

Division, the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, and Georgia Environmental 

Facilities Authority – together known as State Air Quality Partners – is used 

consistently across the State. Previously, CMAQ funds were confined to Atlanta area, 

but with PM2.5 designations, a new approach was developed. The process does not 

sub-allocate funding to specific MPOs but instead seeks to support the most beneficial 

projects for reducing emissions and meeting air quality goals across the state. 

Rouge Valley 

MPO 

(Oregon) 

The Rouge Valley MPO awards points for meeting certain evaluation criteria outlined 

in a Project Evaluation Questions & Intent questionnaire form. Criteria include 

emissions reduction, and other considerations, such as: long-term air quality 

improvement, potential to reduce reliance on automobiles, potential to mitigate 

congestion, completes a multi-modal transportation system, located in city limits or 

inside Urban Containment Boundary, and diesel retrofits. Points awarded for the 

criteria are used to develop an overall score for each project. 

Southwestern 

Pennsylvania 

Commission 

(Pittsburgh 

MPO) 

The MPO provides potential project sponsors with a CMAQ application and 

instruction package, including schedule, guidelines, and selection criteria to guide 

sponsors of candidate projects through the CMAQ process. Application forms can be 

filled out electronically. Candidate CMAQ projects are placed into appropriate 

investment categories and sent to appropriate SPC members, PennDOT Districts, and 

transit agencies as well as SPC’s CMAQ Evaluation Committee. Projects are 

evaluated for effects on emission and cost-effectiveness based on standardized models 

developed for PennDOT. A scorecard is completed by SPC staff for each project 

rating each candidate project on consistency with priority project types (e.g., diesel 

retrofits, traffic signal improvements, TDM, commuter bicycle/pedestrian 

improvements) and 9 ancillary selection factors to develop total weighted score. 

CMAQ Evaluation Committee members use this information to develop 

recommendations for each investment category. 

Wasatch Front 

Regional 

Council (Salt 

Lake City, 

Utah MPO) 

The MPO has adjusted its evaluation criteria and procedures over time. In the past, a 

score was calculated using a weighted ranking system that considered the following: 

(10%) Project in a congested corridor 

(15%) Length (years) of project effectiveness 

(25%) Emissions reduction 

(25%) Congestion reduction (VHT) 

(25%) Cost 

This objective ranking was then combined with subjective rankings by staff and 3 

different committees consisting of city planners and elected officials. 

Currently, the MPO uses air quality cost-effectiveness rankings as a primary criterion 

for project selection within different categories of projects. The MPO generally 

allocates a certain percentage of funding for each major project category (e.g., 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

65 

bicycle/pedestrian projects, transit projects) in order to ensure a variety of project 

types are implemented, and ranks project cost-effectiveness within each category. 

Field visits are also conducted of projects proposed for funding. 

Collecting Project-Specific Data and Conducting Project Evaluation Studies 

Regardless of the model or methodology used to calculate emissions benefits of CMAQ-funded projects, 

good inputs are needed to produce good outputs. States and MPOs should take efforts to gather data 

through surveys and other data collection methods to justify and/or make assumptions. Some States, such 

as Michigan and New York, require project sponsors to provide the source and justification of all inputs 

and assumption used in the emissions calculations. Not only does this ensure that the project demonstrates 

an air quality benefit, but it allows the State to evaluate the accuracy of the analyses. Many of the project 

samples cited local data in their calculations, including factors such as average trip lengths, park-and-ride 

utilization rates, number of actual vanpool riders, transit riders, number of rideshare matches, etc. 

A comparison of forecasted impacts (via project selection methodologies) to actual results (based on ex 

post evaluation) can help inform the rigor and accuracy of calculation methodologies and project 

selection procedures. State DOTs report the status and effectiveness of the CMAQ programs in their 

States to the U.S. Department of Transportation. The information from these reports is entered into the 

CMAQ database and can provide States with an effective tool for monitoring and evaluating the results of 

CMAQ-funded projects. Performing project evaluation studies allows States to periodically review their 

project selection criteria to ensure it remains appropriate and up-to-date. Evaluation studies also provide 

States and MPOs with new and more accurate data to be used in future emissions analysis calculations. 

For example, data on the actual speed improvements along freeways due to an ITS system 

implementation may lead to an increase in the baseline speeds along freeways in the entire region. 

Although post-project analysis is not commonly conducted on a program-wide basis for all CMAQ 

projects within a state or MPO area, in some cases, post-project evaluations are conducted by States and 

MPOs for specific projects or types of projects, especially those that are included as part of a regional 

conformity analysis. Post-project evaluation is a good practice in helping to provide information on the 

accuracy of emissions forecasts and assumptions used in emissions calculations. In some cases, however, 

post-project analysis may not be practical, such as for a small project where conducting a rigorous 

evaluation might cost nearly as much as the project itself. Some examples of post-project evaluations that 

have been conducted are listed in Table 9 below. 

Table 9. Selected States and MPOs that Conduct or Call for Post-Project Analysis. 

State or MPO Types of Post-Project Analysis Conducted 

California 

The California Air Resources Board uses post-project evaluation reports generated by 

regional air districts as part of a state grant process to update the California emissions 

methodology guidebook. 

Georgia DOT Detailed evaluations have been conducted for the regional Clean Air/TDM program. 

New York 

State DOT 

New York State DOT conducts an annual evaluation of its Clean Air / Ozone Action 

Days outreach program. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

66 

Metropolitan 

Washington 

Council of 

Governments 

(Washington, 

DC area) 

MWCOG conducts a regular evaluation of its Transportation Emissions Reduction 

Measures (TERMs), which include a number of programs funded in part by CMAQ 

(from allocations from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia). The 

TERMs report includes collection of data on participation rates in programs, including 

collection of survey data. 

Next Steps 

The study team’s collection of data on the selected set of projects revealed a number of strengths and 

limitations in the analysis of CMAQ projects. On the one hand, many of the project analyses were 

conducted based on relatively limited data, using sketch planning methodologies, with limited verification 

of results. This is perhaps not surprising given the limited scope of many projects, limited data and tools 

available for analyzing many of these projects, and the costs and effort associated with conducting 

detailed evaluation studies. On the other hand, it appears that a number of states and MPOs have 

implemented good practices to help standardize the emissions analyses, collect local data for use in 

calculations, rank project cost-effectiveness, and implement systematic procedures for evaluation. These 

procedures often take into account multiple factors beyond emissions reduction cost-effectiveness. 

In Phase II of this evaluation project, FHWA, in consultation with EPA, conducted a set of limited on-site 

case studies and/or program analyses. These case studies add to the national understanding of how the 

CMAQ program operates at the state and local levels, and may build on five case studies (Los Angeles, 

Chicago, Houston, Washington, DC, and Albany) conducted as part of the TRB study on the CMAQ 

Program. The Phase II case studies provide information on how States and MPOs are analyzing, 

prioritizing, and selecting projects, and implementing the CMAQ program to meet State and local 

objectives. The insights gained from these studies will help to inform States and MPOs about best 

practices, and a variety of potential ways to improve the effectiveness of their CMAQ program 

implementation efforts. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

67 

APPENDIX A. LIST OF STATE AND LOCAL CONTACTS

STATE CONTACT AGENCY EMAIL 

Alabama Harry Hee Birmingham DOT hhe@rpcgb.org 

Arizona Beverly Chenausky Arizona DOT bchenausky@azdot.gov 

Arizona Dean Giles Maricopa Association of 

Governments 

dgiles@MAG.maricopa.gov 

California Jody Tian Caltrans Jody.Tian@dot.ca.gov 

California Sookyung Kim SANDAG ski@sandag.org 

California Raquel Pacheco KCOG rpacheco@kerncog.gov 

California Harold Brazil MTC hbrazil@mtc.ca.gov 

California Jason Paukovits COFCG jasonp@fresnocog.org 

Colorado Steve Cook Denver Regional COG scook@drcog.org 

Colorado Tia Raamot North Front Range MPO tramot@nfrmpo.org 

Connecticut Judy Raymond Connecticut DOT Judy.Raymond@po.state.ct.us 

District of 

Columbia 

Daivamani 

Sivasailam Metropolitan Washington COG siva@mwcog.org 

Florida David Lee Florida DOT David.Lee@dot.state.fl.us 

Florida Brian Pessaro Florida DOT Brian.Pessaro@dot.state.fl.us 

Idaho Lisa Josleyn Idaho DOT Lisa.Josleyn@itd.idaho.gov 

Indiana Cory Hull Mid-America COG chull@macog.com 

Indiana Jerry Halperin Indiana DOT JHalperin@indot.IN.gov 

Indiana Gary Evers Northwestern Indiana RPC gevers@nirpc.org 

Kentucky David Schaars Lexington Area MPO Davids3@lfucg.com 

Louisiana Huey Dugas Baton Rouge MPO hdugas@brgov.com 

Maine Duane Scott Maine DOT Duane.scott@maine.gov 

Maryland Howard Simons Maryland DOT hsimons@mdot.state.md.us 

Massachusetts Ethan Britland Executive Office of 

Transportation 

Ethan.Britland@eot.state.ma.us 

Michigan Pete Porciello Michigan DOT Porciellop@michigan.gov 

Missouri James Joerke Mid-America RC Jjoerke@marc.org 

New York John Zamurs New York DOT jzamurs@dot.state.ny.us 

New York Christa Ippoliti New York DOT cippoliti@dot.state.ny.us 

Ohio Dave Moore Ohio DOT Dave.Moore1@dot.state.oh.us 

Ohio Andy Reser Ohio Kentucky Indiana Regional 

COG 

areser@oki.org 

Oregon Matt Hermen Rogue Valley COG mhermen@rvcog.org 

Pennsylvania Michael Baker Pennsylvania DOT michaelba@state.pa.us 

Rhode Island Katherine Trapani State Planning Council 

Tennessee Mike Conger Knoxville Regional TPO Mike.Conger@knoxtrans.org 

Tennessee Matt Meservy Nashville MPO Matt.meservy@nashville.gov 

Texas Christie Jestis North Central Texas COG cjestis@nctcog.org 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

68 

Texas Shelley Whitworth Houston-Galveston Area Council Shelley.whitworth@h-gac.com 

Texas Andrew DeCandis Houston-Galveston Area Council Andrew.DeCandis@h-gac.com 

Utah Kip Billings Wasatch Front RC kbillings@wfrc.org 

Washington Kelly McGourty Puget Sound RC kmcgourty@psrc.org 

Wisconsin John Duffe Wisconsin DOT John.Duffe@dot.state.wi.us 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

69 

APPENDIX B. EMISSIONS FACTORS AND ASSUMPTIONS USED IN EMISSIONS 

REDUCTION COST-EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS

Most CMAQ projects and programs can be analyzed in multiple ways, and variations of these approaches 

are available. The methods described in this report are generally simple sketch planning approaches that 

involve three main factors: 1) estimating the travel, speed, or vehicle changes associated with the strategy; 

2) estimating emissions impacts; and 3) calculating cost effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness calculation 

is described in further detail in Section 4. This appendix describes the emissions factors used to 

recalculate normalized emissions reductions using data provided by the project sponsor. 

Unless otherwise noted in each of the report sections, all of the on-road projects presented in this report 

were recalculated using emissions factors generated from MOBILE6.2. Factors were generated using 

standard defaults for Year 2008. Emissions were generated for start (trip-based factors assuming 100 

percent cold start) and running emissions (per mile factors). The recognition of a difference between trip 

starts emissions and running emissions is significant, since emissions control equipment does not function 

as effectively from a "cold start" causing the release of more pollutants during the first few miles of a trip. 

Finally, the modeling employed the "NO REFUELING" command in MOBILE6.2, since refueling 

emissions are associated with gas stations and are not normally affected by the types of projects outlined 

in this report. 

Guidance is available from EPA and FHWA on the use of MOBILE6.2 for further information. 

Table B-1. Major Input Parameters for MOBILE6.2 Emissions Factor Modeling.

Parameter or Variable Values or Sources

Vehicle Fleet and Activity Inputs

VMT mix EPA national average (default) 

Mileage accrual rates EPA national average (default) 

Vehicle model year (registration) distribution EPA national average (default) 

Diesel sales fractions EPA national average (default) 

Soak time distribution EPA national average (default), or All soak times 

>720 minutes (corresponds to 100% cold starts). 

Starts per day distribution EPA national average (default), or 

Zero starts per day (for running emissions only) 

Region Low altitude 

Vehicle speeds Varied 2.5 mph and 3-65 mph by integers, with single 

average speed per scenario. 

Roadway facility (functional classes) Arterial (allows use of specific average speeds) 

Seasonal/Meteorological Inputs

Month of evaluation July 

Temperatures for all pollutants Minimum: 68.0° F 

Maximum: 94.0° F 

(Representative summer temperatures only. Actual 

source for these values is high-ozone-day data from 

Boston, MA nonattainment area SIP.) 

Absolute humidity MOBILE6.2 default 

Fuel Inputs
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

70 

Parameter or Variable Values or Sources

ASTM Class MOBILE6.2 default 

Oxygenated fuels No (MOBILE6.2 default) 

Reformulated gasoline No (MOBILE6.2 default) 

Gasoline RVP 8.7 psi 

(Representative summer RVP only. Actual source for 

this value is Philadelphia, PA nonattainment area SIP.)

Diesel fuel sulfur content 15 ppm 

State Program Inputs

Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program No program (MOBILE6.2 default) 

Low Emitting Vehicle (LEV) Program No program (MOBILE6.2 default) 

Anti-tampering program (ATP) No program (MOBILE6.2 default) 

Stage II refueling controls Not modeled (NO REFUELING command used). 

Other Inputs

Particulate matter emissions parameters EPA national average (default) 

All other inputs EPA national average (default) 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

71 

APPENDIX C. CMAQ PROJECT TEMPLATES

This appendix provides information about the reviewed projects gathered in the research phase of this 

study. The information provided by project sponsors was transcribed into individual project “templates.” 

The project template was designed to compile all the critical detail about particular project facts in one 

place to ease subsequent reviews, comparisons, and analysis. 

The project templates record the following information reported by project sponsors about each CMAQ 

project: 

• Indentifying Information: Category and Subcategory, State, Year, and CMAQ ID number; 

• Description of critical project characteristics and background; 

• Impacts on travel: change in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), transit trips, creation of 

vanpools, and congestion (speed and delay); 

• Emissions reductions: change in emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), NOx, CO, 

PM2.5, and PM10, measured in kilograms per day; and 

• Project Costs and cost-effectiveness: Capital (annualized) and operating costs, from CMAQ and 

non-CMAQ sources, Annualized costs, and a cost-effectiveness calculation, if provided by the 

local project sponsor. 

The profiles were designed to record supporting information concerning the methodologies employed in 

any of the steps (travel, emissions, costs), such as assumptions, time frames, service lives, and discount 

rates. Notes were also entered at the bottom of the templates to document the general quality of the 

information and to note any discrepancies between the CMAQ database and the information provided by 

the project sponsor. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

72 

Category: TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: Traffic Signalization

CMAQ Project ID: MI20020058 Project Year: 2002 

Location: Macomb County, Michigan MPO: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments 

Description: Signal Timing along Ryan Rd. 8 Mile to 23 Mile - This project will fund the coordination of traffic 

signals along Ryan Rd. from 8 mile to 23 mile in Warren, Sterling Heights, and Shelby Township in Michigan. 

Macomb County borders the City of Detroit to the South and Lake St. Clair to the east; Ryan Rd. serves as a major 

North-South arterial in the area. As a result of this project, vehicle travel speeds are expected to increase 4 mph 

during both peak and off-peak periods. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: + 4 mph 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Miles of urban minor arterial affected: 15 miles 

Daily, 2-way traffic volume = 23,519 vehicles with 40% of travel occurring in peak 

periods. 

Peak VMT = 15 miles * 23,519 vehicles * 0.4 = 141,114 miles 

Off Peak VMT = 15 miles * 23,519 vehicles * 0.6 = 211,671 miles 

Travel Speeds before project are 31 mph in peak, and 41 mph in off-peak. 

Travel Speeds after project are 35 mph in peak, and 45 mph in off-peak. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 40.076 kg/day 

 NOX NA

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 40.076 kg/day 

(0.0442 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions calculated using Mobile 5a running emissions factors (g/mile) 

for VOC at the following speeds: 

Peak: 31 mph: VOC = 1.843 35 mph: VOC = 1.697 

Off Peak: 41 mph: VOC = 1.526 45 mph: VOC = 1.434 

Calculate daily emissions reduced = (change in peak emissions * Peak VMT) + 

(change in off-peak emissions * Off-peak VMT) 

VOC Emissions = ((1.697 - 1.843) * 141,114 miles) + ((1.434 - 1.526) * 

211,671 miles) / 1,000 = - 40.076 kg/day 

COSTS 

Project life:__10__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $660,000 $0 $660,000 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $660,000 $0 $660,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: $110,256 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $660,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $660,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Materials provided by the local sponsor indicate no local 

match for this project. 

The cost effectiveness analysis provided by the project 

sponsor assumes the service life of the project and 

amortization period are 15 years. 

NOTE: Emissions reductions reported by the project sponsor do not match the emissions reductions in the CMAQ database 

(-57 kg/day VOC). 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

73 

Category: TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: Traffic Signalization

CMAQ Project ID: LA20040001 Project Year: 2004 

Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana MPO: Capital Regional Planning Commission 

Description: Continuous Flow Intersection at Airline and Sherwood Forest Blvd. - The project involves the 

modification of an intersection – Airline Highway @ Sherwood Forest Blvd. – in order to increase traffic flow and 

reduce congestion and delay using an innovative intersection improvement concept called continuous flow 

intersection (CFI). This concept eliminates volume build-up due to the left-turn cycle of the traffic signals by moving 

the left-turn out of the main intersection, thus allowing through-traffic and left-turning traffic to move through the 

intersection at the same time. The improvements will reduce total traffic delay by 3 hours during both the morning 

and evening peak hours. The improvements will also enhance traffic flow and reduce emissions during off-peak 

times, but the benefit will be greatest during peak hours. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: - 388 

vehiclehours/hour 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS: 

Travel analysis performed by VISSIM Microscopic Simulation model used recent 

traffic counts and traffic signal information to give an average delay in seconds per 

vehicle at the intersection. (Total Delay = Peak Hour volume * Average Delay in 

sec/veh/3600.) Hourly reduction in delay is calculated separately for the AM and 

PM peak periods and summed. 

The analysis showed that the proposed improvements would enhance traffic flow 

during peak hours – increasing from 5,800 to 6,500 VPH in the AM peak, and from 

6,200 to 6,700 VPH in the PM peak. Average delay would drop from 92.6 to 36.0 

sec/veh in the AM peak, and 178.3 to 34.4 sec/veh in the PM peak. Net reduction 

in delay is 84.2 veh-hr/hr in the AM peak and 304.5 veh-hr/hr in the PM peak. 

Intersection analysis also shows change in LOS for each intersection segment. 

Emissions 

 VOC - 20.12 kg/day

 NOX - 5.18 kg/day

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 25.30 kg/day 

(0.028 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS: 

Emissions reductions calculated from changes in delay. 

Emissions factors were developed using MOBILE6, using 2.5 Mph speed, and 

converted into idle emissions factors. 

Emissions factor for VOC = 10.35 g/mi 

Emissions factor for NOX= 2.67 g/mi 

Emissions reduction = Delay in vehicle-hours/hour * Emissions Factor * 2.5 

(conversion of gm/mi to gm/hr) * 2 hours per day (calculated for 2-hour Am peak 

and 2-hour Pm peak separately, and summed) 

Costs 

Project life:__ 10 _ yrs Interest rate: __ 7 __% 

 CMAQ Non-CMAQ Total 

Capital $4,400,000 $1,100,000 $5,500,000 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $4,400,000 $1,100,000 $5,500,000 

Total annualized public cost: $904,773 

Annual revenues: NONE 

Net public cost: $5.5 M 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $5.5 M 

Methodology/Assumptions: 

Assumes that project has benefits 260 days per year. To 

calculate overall cost-effectiveness, need to develop 

assumptions regarding useful life of project (could be 20 

years for an infrastructure project of this nature, although 

it’s not clear that delay reductions will remain constant over 

this long of a period). 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

74 

Category: TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: Traffic Signalization

CMAQ Project ID: KY20050008 Project Year: 2005 

Location: Lexington, Kentucky MPO: Lexington Area MPO 

Description: Fiber Optic Cable Installation For Traffic Signal Optimization - This project will fund an expansion of the 

fiber optic cable installation for the arterial road network in Fayette County. Fiber optic cables provide a more reliable and 

dependable communication medium for the current traffic signal system data and video needs. It also provides the needed 

communications infrastructure into the foreseeable future for roadside subsystems like vehicle detection and surveillance. Fiber 

optic cable installation greatly reduces maintenance requirements of the existing, aging copper wire and analog telephone 

communication infrastructure and it all but eliminates the interruption of service due to lightning strikes and electrical power 

surges. Thus, this technology has helped to eliminate most of the need to block traffic lanes for repairs, thereby improving the 

safety of the roadway for all users and lessening delays caused by lane blockages. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: - 4 

min/vehicle 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Delay = 4 minutes per vehicle, based on a report on the Integrated Traffic Signal 

System from 2001, which determined the reduction in delay and corresponding 

emissions savings by using an average reduction for 18 intersections and 

projecting it throughout the total system. 

Vehicle counts provided by Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Division of Planning. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 35.5 kg/day

 NOX - 9.1 kg/day 

 CO - 378.0 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 44.6 kg/day 

(0.05 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions factors are based on EPA calculations for general vehicle fleet mix. The 

percentage of vehicle types or classifications was used to determine the grams of 

pollutant reduced per minute by the reduction in delay, using Our Nation’s 

Highways, from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 

(average of vehicle counts per arterial) x (minute of delay reduced by fiber optic) x 

(g/min per VOC, NOx, CO) = total grams VOC, NOx, CO per day 

COSTS 

Project life:__ NA _ yrs Interest rate: __ 7 __% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $320,000 $80,000 $400,000 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $320,000 $80,000 $400,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

NA 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $400,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $400,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Cost-effectiveness was not provided by the project sponsor. 

NOTE: Emissions reductions reported in CMAQ database differ from estimates provided or calculated from sponsor-provided 

documentation. Reductions reported in the CMAQ database were reported in the template. The project calculation showed much 

higher values (-200.94 kg/day VOC, -54.89 kg/day NOx, -2,272 kg/day CO); however, a more recent, similar project reported 

figures closer to the values reported in the CMAQ database. The project specifics seem to indicate that the delay reduction (4 

min/vehicle) is an extrapolation of the effects of the project across the entire system, not just for the 18 intersections.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

75 

Category: TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: Traffic Signalization

CMAQ Project ID: OH20050033 Project Year: 2005 

Location: Newark, Ohio MPO: Licking County Area Transportation Study 

Description: Signal Timing along West Main Street – This project will coordinate the signals at intersections along 

Main Street in Newark, Ohio. The data for this study were taken directly from a 1999 traffic study, which determined 

which intersections should qualify for signal timing to reduce the amount of delay and emissions. The intersections 

are Main street and Williams Street, Fulton Street, SR79 south bound ramps, SR79 north bound ramps, Union Street, 

and Eleventh Street. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: - 702 

hours/day 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Modeling done using Syncro Version 5 for the PM period. There is minor 

congestion during the entire business day, so the AM and PM Peak Periods are 

similar. The change in delay was calculated for four (4) intersections using the 

following formula: (Approach Volume * Stop Control Delay) – (Approach Volume * 

Signalized Delay) = Total Delay Reduction 

SR79S (1,568 veh * 26.1 veh/sec) – (1,568 veh * 6.5 veh/sec) = -8.54 hours/day 

SR79N (1,523 veh * 1,579 veh/sec) – (1,523 veh * 15.5 veh/sec) = -661.7 hour/day 

Union St. (1,580 veh * 9.2 veh/sec) – (1,580 veh * 22.6 veh/sec) = +5.88 hours/day 

11th St. (1,536 veh * 95.4 veh/sec) – (1,568 veh * 7.2 veh/sec) = -37.63 hour/day 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 5.115 kg/day 

 NOX - 3.909 kg/day

 CO - 90.710 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -9.02 kg/day 

(0.0099 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions calculated using Mobile6. Idle emissions calculated using 

exhaust emissions for a 2.5 mile/hour average speed. 

The Mobile Factors used Main Street as a Minor Arterial Urban – Class 16 and all 

intersecting streets as Local Urban – Class 19 to determine emissions. 

COSTS 

Project life:_5-10__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $355,302 $284,241 $639,543 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $355,302 $284,241 $639,543 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$98,414 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $639,543 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $639,543 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Documentation provided by the State indicates the project 

was funded in FY 2005 and 2006 and some portion of funds 

de-obligated in FY 2007. Cost-effectiveness was not 

provided by sponsor. 

FFY 05 FFY 06 FFY 07 Total 

Obligated 

$55,214.50 $359,563.00 -$59,475.57 $355,301.93 

Project sponsor assumes service life is 5 years. The costeffectiveness analysis in this study used 10 years for 

consistency with other signalization projects. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

76 

Category: TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: Traffic Signalization

CMAQ Project ID: TN20050016 Project Year: 2005 

Location: Knoxville, Tennessee MPO: Knoxville Urbanized Area MPO 

Description: Signal Timing on SR 169 Cedar Bluff to College St. - This project will fund the traffic signal timing and 

synchronization of traffic signals along Middlebrook Park from Cedar Bluff St. to College St. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: + 4 mph 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Daily VMT = 25,935 average daily traffic x 9.47 mile corridor length = 245,065 VMT 

on corridor. 

An average improvement in speed/travel of 12% for traffic signal upgrades of this 

type is noted in the publication “A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion and 

Enhancing Mobility” from ITE. 

Average speed increased from 34 mph to 38 mph. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 14.969 kg/day 

 NOX + 2.206 kg/day 

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 12.763 kg/day 

(0.014 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions factors for before project implementation and after project 

implementation based on MOBILE6 and average speeds of 34 mph and 38 mph, 

respectively. 

Emissions reduction = VMT x (Emissions Factor before project – Emissions Factor 

after project) 

VOC Emissions reduction = 245,065 VMT x (1.883 – 1.826) / 1000 = 14.969 kg/day 

NOx Emissions reduction = 245,065 x (1.847 – 1.856) / 1000 = -2.206 kg/day 

COSTS 

Project life:__10__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $33,000 $0 $33,000 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $33,000 $0 $33,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$5,078 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $33,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $33,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Cost-effectiveness was not provided by the project sponsor. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

77 

Strategy: TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS Category: Traffic Signalization 

CMAQ Project ID: KY20060009 Project Year: 2006 

Location: Kentucky MPO: Lexington Area MPO 

Description: Installation of Reversible Lanes on Nicholasville Road (US 27) - This project will create a third 

northbound traffic lane for the morning peak period using reversible lane controls on Nicholasville Road (US 27) from 

Southpoint Drive to Tiverton Way. By taking advantage of unutilized median space and low early morning left-turning 

volumes at the intersection, reversible lane control methods can be used to reassign one of the left-turn lanes as a 

through-lane during the high-volume period. The project will also require the expansion of the computerized traffic 

signal system to add new reversible lane signals. This project will improve the traffic flow on Nicholasville Road, 

which will in turn reduce traffic congestion, accidents, and delays, and ultimately improve air quality. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: - 63 

vehiclehours 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Delay (vehicle-hours): 

 2006 No-build = 362 vehicle-hours of delay 

 2006 Build = 299 vehicle-hours of delay 

Change in delay due to project implementation = 362 - 299 = 63 vehicle-hours = 

17% reduction in delay. 

Reduction in delay determined by the Synchro model output, based on a one-hour 

simulation. These one hour peak delay reductions, per day, were used to 

determine an average delay for two hours of peak travel reductions. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 2.889 kg/day

 NOX - 1.089 kg/day 

 CO - 44.95 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 4 kg/day 

(0.0044tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The delay reductions were used to calculate the emissions savings using 

emissions factors provided by US EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 

Reduction in delay * average of vehicle mix for kg/min per CO, NOx, VOC * 255 

days per year. 

COSTS 

Annualized public costs Project life:__ 10 _ yrs Interest rate: __7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $400,000 $100,000 $500,000 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $400,000 $100,000 $500,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$74,536 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $500,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $500,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assumes benefits 255 days/year. 

Cost-effectiveness was not provided by project sponsor. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

78 

Category: TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: Traffic Signalization

CMAQ Project ID: Not Yet Assigned Project Year: 2007 

Location: Albany, New York MPO: Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC) 

Description: Construction of a Two Lane Roundabout at Fuller and Washington - This project will fund the 

construction of a two-lane roundabout at the intersection of Washington Avenue and Fuller Road (County Road 156) 

in the City of Albany, Albany County. The intersection currently operates under the control of a traffic signal. The 

roundabout intersection will include the construction of sidewalks. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: + 14 mph 

 Delay: - 6.5 

sec/veh. 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

48,670 average traffic volumes for Year 2009 were calculated using the CDTC 

STEP Model. The CDTC STEP Model forecast was validated using a 1999 

intersection count and used to calculate seconds of delay for approach vehicles 

with the existing signalized intersection. The RODEL Roundabout Capacity Model 

was used to conduct an analysis of the Washington Avenue/Fuller Road 

intersection and was used to calculate seconds of delay for approach vehicles 

under the new, roundabout build scenario. (11.5 sec avg “No Build” delay – 5 sec 

avg “New Roundabout” delay = 6.5 sec avg change in delay. 

VMT was estimated using a quarter mile approach for each leg of the intersection. 

Speeds were calculated over that same distance as 15 mph under existing 

conditions and 29 mph with the roundabout. 

The STEP model was also used to calculate seconds of delay for vehicles with the 

existing signalized intersection for the no-build scenario. The NYSDOT 

Roundabout Design Unit conducted an analysis of the proposed improvement 

using the RODEL Roundabout Capacity model to calculate seconds of delay for 

approach vehicles under the build scenario. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 24.17 kg/day

 NOX - 1.94 kg/day

 CO - 24.17 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 26.11 kg/day 

(0.029 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The NYSDOT software package CMAQtraq was used to estimate emissions, using 

the “Traffic Flow Improvements” module. Effects were calculated for 250 days/year 

with the following emissions factors (g/mile): 

CO = Before: 18.01 After: 16.02 

VOC = Before: 1.01 After: 0.71 

NOx = Before: 0.95 After: 0.79 

COSTS 

Project life:__NA__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

79 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $2.0 M $2.87 M $4.87 M 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $2.0 M $2.87 M $4.87 M 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$467,981 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $4.87 M 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $4.87 M 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Funding will include planning, design, and construction of 

the intersection improvement. A cost effectiveness 

calculation was not provided by the project sponsor. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

80 

Category: TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: Freeway Management 

CMAQ Project ID: LA20030008 Project Year: 2003 

Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana MPO: Capital Regional Planning Commission 

Description: ITS on Interstate 10 from Acadian St. to Highland Blvd. - Project will continue phase II of the Baton 

Rouge ITS plan, and include installing freeway ITS components along I10 from Acadian St. to Highland Blvd. to 

assist with incident detection and response, motorist assistance, and surveillance. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS: 

The overall level of VMT and vehicle trips is not assumed to be affected. 

Emissions reductions will occur through a reduction in nonrecurring congestion. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 189.601 

kg/day

 NOX - 488.972 

kg/day

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -678.573 

kg/day 

(0.748 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS: 

Emissions factors for baton rouge based on MOBILE Model; assumed running speed of 40 

MPH. Emissions reductions were applied to the length of I10, as follows: 

1) Freeway emissions = freeway VMT (from Tranplan model) * Emissions factor (from 

MOBILE in grams/mile) 

2) Freeway emissions due to nonrecurring congestion = freeway emissions * 0.049 

(assumes 4.9% of freeway emissions are caused by nonrecurring congestion using 

data from Lindley, J. A. “Urban Freeway Congestion: Quantification of the Problem and 

Effectiveness of Potential Solutions.” 1987.) 

3) Emissions reduced due to program = freeway emissions due to nonrecurring 

congestion * effectiveness factor. Effectiveness factor assumed to be 0.90, based on 

effectiveness rate of 50% for Incident Detection and Response, 25% for Motorist 

Assistance, and 15% for Surveillance.

COSTS 

Project life:__ 10 _ yrs Interest rate: __ 7___% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL 

Capital $2,712,940 $0 $2,712,940 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $2,712,940 $0 $2,712,940 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$443,109 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $2,712,940 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $2,712,940 

Methodology/Assumptions: 

Assumes that project has benefits 260 days per year (all 

weekdays). Cost-effectiveness calculation will need to take 

into account the life of the capital equipment. 

NOTE: Assumption that 4.9% of freeway emissions are due to nonrecurring congestion is based on old source and there may 

be more recent data available. Calculation seems to assume 90% reduction in emissions associated with non-recurrent 

congestion, and it is not clear that the effectiveness of each ITS component should be additive.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

81 

Category: TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: Freeway Management

CMAQ Project ID: WA20040027 Project Year: 2004 

Location: Seattle, Washington MPO: Puget Sound Regional Council 

Description: Duwamish ITS System - This project will minimize the conflicts among freight movement, transit travel, 

commuter traffic, and ferry access, while enhancing safety and mobility for people and goods. The project will 

include, among other things: interconnection of traffic signals and controller equipment upgrading, installation of 

variable message signs and other driver information systems, implementation of traffic control strategies, and CCTV 

and roadway signs to monitor traffic conditions and accidents. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: + 2 mph 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS: 

The assumptions for input into TCM Tools included the expectation that the project 

will improve both peak and off-peak period speeds by 10% (from 19 to 21 mph), 

with an average daily traffic (ADT) of 200,000 in 2010. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 76 kg/day

 NOX - 4 kg/day

 CO - 939 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 80 (kg/day) 

(0.088 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions calculated using the TCM Tools program created by Parsons 

Brinkerhoff and Sierra Research in 1994, which applies project data to the project 

year’s (2004) MOBILE emissions factors and regional data to produce the 

emissions reductions for CO, VOCs, and NOx. 

COSTS 

Project life:__10__ yrs Interest rate: __7___% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $998,037 $1,001,963 $2.0 M 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $998,037 $1,001,963 $2.0 M 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$318,190 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $2.0 M 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $2.0 M 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Total Project Cost: ~$2,000,000 (other funds in the project 

include other Federal and State/local funds). Costeffectiveness was not provided by the project sponsor. 

Project assumes benefits 252 days per year. 

NOTE: The CMAQ project amount in the CMAQ database is $862,192 for this project. Total project costs and CMAQ 

funding provided by the State were used to calculate the amounts in the table. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

82 

Category: TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: Freeway Management

CMAQ Project ID: CT20050001 Project Year: 2005 

Location: Connecticut MPO: South Central Regional COG MPO 

Description: Incident Management System on I-95 - This project will fund the construction of a 13.94 mile portion of 

an incident management system on I-95 from exit 56 to exit 64. The overall project will include the installation of a 

fiber-optic communication system, video surveillance, traffic flow monitors, and a link to the Bridgeport Operations 

Center. The incident management project will provide an effective means of managing traffic congestion by allowing 

operational problems to be identified sooner and by enabling faster dispatch of the proper response equipment and 

medical services to a site. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: - 23,561 

/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Length is 13.94 miles, 10.22 in Fairfield County and 3.72 miles in Greater 

Connecticut. 

The “Connecticut Freeway Management System” report documents the effects of 

incident management systems. Based on the report, this type of system will result 

in annual delay savings of 1.72 million vehicle hours (MVH) for a corridor length of 

65 miles, based on a congested incident speed of 5 mph, and a free flow speed of 

55 mph. The daily VMT traveled without an IM system in place is 1.72 MVH x 5 

mph / 365 days = 23,561 VMT. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 6.11 kg/day 

 NOX - 3.00 kg/day

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 - 0.004 kg/day 

 Total - 9.11 kg/day 

(0.01 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

For Fairfield County: 

VOC reduction = (1.700 – 0.490) x 23,561 / 65 miles x 10.22 miles = 4.48 kg/day 

NOx reduction = (1.988 – 1.395) x 23,561 / 65 miles x 10.22 miles = 2.20 kg/day 

PM2.5 reduction = (0.288 – 0.287) x 23,561 / 65 miles x 10.22 = 0.004 kg/day 

For Greater Connecticut Area: 

VOC reduction = (1.700 – 0.490) x 23,561 / 65 miles x 3.72 miles = 1.63 kg/day 

NOx reduction = (1.988 – 1.395) x 23,561 / 65 miles x 3.72 miles = 0.80 kg/day 

COSTS 

Annualized public costs Project life:_10__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $1,279,246 $142,138 $1,421,384 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $1,279,246 $142,138 $1,421,384 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$218,725 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $1,421,384 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $1,421,384 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

NOTE: Emissions reductions reported in CMAQ database differ from estimates provided or calculated from sponsor-provided 

documentation (-9.1 kg/day VOC, -4.6 kg/day NOx). 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

83 

Category: TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: Freeway Management

CMAQ Project ID: Not Yet Assigned Project Year: 2007 

Location: Birmingham, AL MPO: Birmingham RPC 

Description: Alabama Service Patrols Program - The Alabama Service and Assistance Patrol, or “A.S.A.P” has 

been a program of the Alabama Department of Transportation and the Alabama State Troopers since 1997. A.S.A.P 

service trucks offer a variety of free services to disabled motorist to reduce response time by appropriate authorities 

responding to traffic related incidents and to minimize major disruption of interstate flow at an incident location. In 

addition, video cameras placed along interstate routes permit the State Troopers to monitor traffic flow at priority, 

high-traffic flow locations, which are more likely to have a traffic incident. A.S.A.P. operators patrol from 6 am to 10 

pm. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: 

(vehicle 

hours/incident) 

- 3,849 / 

incident 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

306 total vehicles were relocated to ramps and 69 accidents were relocated from a travel 

lane. Data provided by Alabama DOT for 7/3/2006-6/29/2007 period. 

Estimated percentage of disabled vehicles which occur during peak period = 25% 

Estimated percentage of incidents which occur in peak period = 50% 

Total numbers of accidents (travel lane opened during project) = 111 accidents 

Traffic volume prior to project = 1400 vehicle/hour/lane 

Average number of blocked lanes during incidents = 1.1 lanes 

Average number of lanes for the InterState highway = 3 lanes 

Incident duration prior to project = 1.10 hours 

Incident duration after project implementation = 0.71 hours 

Incident Delay = Traffic volume * (Average number of blocked lanes during incidents / total 

lanes in corridor) * Incident duration 

Change in delay = Incident delay without project – Incident delay with project 

 (7,126 vehicle hours – 3,277 vehicle hours = 3,849 vehicle hours)

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 31.25 kg/day 

 NOX - 11.88 kg/day

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 - 0.12 kg/day 

 Total -43.1 kg/day 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

HC Idle Emissions Factor during incident 19.018 grams/hour 

NOx Idle Emissions Factor during incident 7.230 grams/hour 

PM 2.5 Standard PM idle emissions factor 0.072 grams/hour (2005) 

PM 2.5 Standard NOx idle emissions factor 6.618 grams/hour (2005) 

For each pollutant, the Change in delay * Emissions Factor / 1,000 * 111 annual incidents / 

260 working days = kg of emissions reduced per day. 

COSTS 

Annualized public costs Project life:__1__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $0 $0 $0 

Adm/oper $240,000 $560,000 $800,000 

Total $240,000 $560,000 $800,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$800,000 

Annual revenues: $800,000 

Net public cost: $800,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $800,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Cost information is provided for 1 year of operating funding, or 260 

days per year. 

Project sponsor calculated cost effectiveness as: the Annual 

project cost / (Emissions reduced * 260 days) 

VOC Cost Effectiveness: $105 dollars/kg/year 

NOx Cost Effectiveness: $277 dollars/kg/year 

PM2.5 Cost Effectiveness: $27,827 dollars/kg/year
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

84 

Category: TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVMENTS Subcategory: HOV Lanes

CMAQ Project ID: TX20020069 Project Year: 2002 

Location: Dallas, Texas MPO: North Central Texas Council of Governments 

Description: Dallas HOV Interchange - This project will fund the construction of an HOV Interchange at IH635 and US75 in 

Dallas. The project was selected by the Regional Transportation Council (Dallas-Fort Worth MPO policy body) in 2001. The project 

was originally funded almost entirely through the National Highway System (NHS) program, but in 2001, CMAQ funding was added for 

the construction of the HOV portion of the interchange. The project was selected during a strategic assessment of regional priorities 

by the Regional Transportation Council. The reduction methodology is adapted from “The Texas Guide to Accepted Mobile Source 

Emissions Reduction Strategies” published by Texas Transportation Institute, 2003.

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 2,929 /day 

 VMT: - 58,589 

/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assume the number of HOV users per day is 10053.72 and the average vehicle occupancy of 

rideshares is 2.14 persons per vehicle. Also assume the percentage of people attracted to the 

HOV which: 

Use transit = 0.14 

Use transit and previously drove alone= 0.56 

Use ride share = 0.83 

Use ride share and previously drove alone = 0.56 

Calculate daily vehicle trip reduction = 10053.72 users * (0.14 * 0.56 + 0.83 * 0.56) * (1 – 1 / 2.14 

persons/vehicle). 

Calculate VMT reduction = 2,929 trips reduced * 20 mile average auto trip length.

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 68.78 kg/day 

 NOX - 135.32 kg/day

 CO Kg 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 204.10 kg/day) 

(0.22 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions calculated using Mobile6 running emissions factors, assuming a 43 mph 

running speed on freeways before the project = NOx: 1.22 and VOC 0.53 grams/mile. Speedbased running exhaust emissions factor for the HOV facility, assuming a 51 mph speed = NOx: 

1.32 and VOC 0.51 grams/mile. Speed-based running exhaust emissions factor for general 

purpose lanes, assuming a 43 mph speed = NOx: 1.22 and VOC 0.53 grams/mile. 

Calculate change in running exhaust emissions from vehicles shifting from general purpose 

lanes to HOV lanes. Assume Average Peak Traffic on HOV lanes after project is 783 

vehicles/hour and 6 peak hours per day. The HOV length is 20.9 miles. Calculate change in 

running exhaust emissions from vehicles in general purpose lanes as a result of vehicles shifted 

away from general purpose lanes. Assume Average Peak Traffic on general purpose lane before 

project is 10,358 vehicles/hour and the Average Peak Traffic on general purpose lane after 

project is 10,797 vehicles/hour. 

Calculate the reduction in auto start emissions from trip reductions using an auto trip end 

emissions factor for NOx: 0.39 grams/mile and VOC: 1.25 grams/mile and the trip reductions. 

Calculate the reduction in auto running exhaust emissions from trip reductions using the 

emissions factor before project implementation and the vehicle miles reduced. 

COSTS 

Project life: 20 yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NON-CMAQ TOTAL

Capital $17.152 M $237,418,093 $254,570,093 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $17.152 M $237,418,093 $254,570,093 

Total annualized public cost: $28,194,000 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $254,570,093 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $254,570,093 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The funding details for this project are as follows: 

$254,570,093 total at letting ($229,853,137 Category 2 

funds (NHS account in Texas), $17,152,000 CMAQ, 

$4,288,000 State funds, $122,856 TxDOT Green Ribbon 

Funds, and $3,154,100 local). A cost effectiveness 

calculation was not provided by the project sponsor. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

85 

Category: SHARED RIDE PROGRAMS Subcategory: Regional Ridesharing

CMAQ Project ID: MD20020010 Project Year: 2002 

Location: Maryland MPO: No MPO Identified – State-sponsored Project 

Description: 11 County Ridesharing Program Operations - This project will promote and encourage the 

establishment of carpools and vanpools in eleven Maryland Ridesharing Programs. The programs are operated by 

Anne Arundel County, Baltimore Metropolitan Council, Calvert Frederick, Harford, Howard, Montgomery and Prince 

George’s counties AND Tri-County Council. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 3,000 /day 

 VMT: - 84,000 

/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS: 

Assumes 12,360 individual rideshare applicants in the eleven programs (based on 

actual data from past years). 

Vehicle trips reduced = 12,360 applicants * 0.24 formation rate = 3,000 vehicle trips 

reduced per day (assumes 24 percent of total applicants will take part in 

ridesharing each day). 

VMT reduced = 3,000 vehicle trips * 28 miles = 84,000 vehicle miles per day 

(assumes one-way trip is 14 miles). 

Emissions 

 VOC - 35.0 kg/day 

 NOX - 110.0 kg/day

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 145 kg/day 

(0.16 tpd) 

Methodology/Assumptions: 

Emissions reductions were calculated by multiplying VMT reduction by per-mile 

emissions factors. Emissions were calculated based on 2005 stabilized running 

emissions factors developed for Baltimore region based on MOBILE Model 

(11/16/1999 run). The assumed running speed is 35 MPH. 

VOC Emissions Factor: 0.4 grams/mile 

NOx Emissions Factor: 1.3 grams/mile 

Note: emissions factor assumes no cold start or hot soak emissions are affected. 

COSTS 

Project life:__ 1 _ yrs Interest rate: __ 7 __% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL 

Capital $0 $0 $0 

Adm/oper $956,000 $0 $956,000 

Total $956,000 $0 $956,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$956,000 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $956,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $956,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS: 

This project has been funded with CMAQ over multiple 

years. All calculations apply to 1 year of operating costs and 

emissions reductions. 

NOTE: Methodology assumes that all new carpoolers/vanpoolers previously drove alone (this may be reasonable, but perhaps 

should be confirmed through surveys). Carpool/vanpool formation rate should account for the fact that all new carpools/vanpools

may not operate each day (this may be imbedded in the calculation of this rate). 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

86 

Category: SHARED RIDE PROGRAMS Subcategory: Regional Ridesharing

CMAQ Project ID: PA20050202 Project Year: 2005 

Location: Oakland, Pennsylvania MPO: Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission MPO 

Description: University of Pittsburgh TDM Program - The Oakland Area TDM Program will fund the operation, 

marketing, and administration of a ridesharing program for employees and employers in Oakland, part of metropolitan 

Pittsburgh. Sponsored by the University of Pittsburgh, the program expanded existing ridesharing coordination, 

employer-sponsored vanpools, and carpool programs. The promotional budget will include 20% print media, 20% 

signage, 30% radio, and 30% promotional brochures. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 2,024 

/day 

 VMT: - 22,062 

/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Annual Program Budget = $300,000 - $50,000 overhead 

Average work trip length = 10.9 miles 

Estimate the number of vehicle trips reduced per $1 of the program = 2.04 trips day 

Vehicle Trip Reduction = ($250,000 * 2.04) / 252 = - 2,024 trips per day 

Round trip VMT Reduction = -2,024 * 10.9 miles = -22,062 miles per day 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 26.2 kg/day 

 NOX - 30.9 kg/day

 CO -187.4 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -57.1 kg/day 

(0.063 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Total VMT was distributed into Rural and Urban locations and Freeway, Arterial, 

and Local facility types using data from a 1996 County Percent VMT by Facility and 

Area Type document. Emissions reductions calculated using Mobile 5a emissions 

factors for each of these locations and facility types. 

COSTS 

Project life:__2__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $0 $0 $0 

Adm/oper $480,000 $120,000 $600,000 

Total $480,000 $120,000 $600,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: $358,670 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $600,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $1.08 M 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Funding is for 2 years of operating subsidy for the program 

 

NOTE: The documentation is unclear on details about the cost assumptions. The travel methodology suggests that the program 

budget on which the trip reduction benefits are estimated is $250,000/year, though this is supposed to be the budget without 

overhead; for this project. Moreover, the effectiveness calculation is based on an assumption of 2.04 vehicle trips reduced per

day for each $1 of the program, but documentation was not provided; it is unclear where this metric was derived and whether it 

is appropriate for this program. .
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

87 

Category: SHARED RIDE PROGRAMS Subcategory: Regional Ridesharing

CMAQ Project ID: Not Yet Assigned Project Year: 2007 

Location: Birmingham, AL MPO: Birmingham Regional Planning Commission 

Description: CommuteSmart Commuter Services Program Operations - The project will fund the continuing 

operation of the CommuteSmart Commuter Services Program in Birmingham, Alabama. The program includes a 

ridesharing database, a vanpool program with up to 34 vans in 2007 and a carpool program. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 311.78 /day 

 VMT: - 9,469.98 /day 

 Speed: 

 Delay: 

 SOV 

 CP/VP - 76 carpool 

trips/day 

 Transit 

 Walk 

 Bike 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Number of Vanpool vans = 34 vehicles 

Average van occupancy = 9.64 people per van 

Estimated percent of vanpoolers previously took carpools = 9% 

Annual Van trips = 17,380 trips/year 

Annual Van miles = 1,078,692 miles/year 

Annual Passenger Trips = 107,303 trips/year 

Annual Passenger Miles = 4,241,282 miles/year 

Passenger trip length per trip (one way) = 39.53 miles per trip 

Average auto occupancy = 1.09 people per car 

Number of days project affected per year = 260 days per year 

Daily Vehicle Trip Reduction: (107,303 passenger trips / 1.09 average auto occupancy 

– 17,380 van trips) / 260 days/year = 311.78 daily vehicle trip reduction. 

Of those trips, carpool trip reduction = 76 trips/day. 

VMT reduction (taking into account the van miles): 4,241,282 passenger miles / 1.09 

auto occupancy x ((1 – 9% percent of vanpoolers previously took carpools) - 1,078,692 

van miles) / 260 days/year = 9,469.98 daily VMT. 

Of that VMT reduction, carpool VMT reduction = 188,929 miles/year / 260 days/year = 

726.65 daily carpool VMT reduction.

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 10.21 kg/day 

 NOX - 11.96 kg/day

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 - 0.133 kg/day 

 Total -22.17 kg/day 

(0.024 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions calculated using Mobile6 emissions factors for 2005 at a 35 mph 

average operating speed. 

Auto HC emissions factor 1.1640 grams/mile 

Auto NOx emissions factor 1.2720 grams/mile 

Van HC emissions factor 1.5630 grams/mile 

Van NOx emissions factor 1.5160 grams/mile 

Auto PM2.5 emissions factor, 0.0133 grams/mile 

Van PM2.5 emissions factor, 0.0140 grams/mile 

COSTS 

Project life:__1__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $0 $0 $0 

Adm/oper $700,000 $0 $700,000 

Total $700,000 $0 $700,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$700,000 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $700,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $700,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Total project cost = 1.07 Capital recovery factor * $700,000 = 

$749,000 / year 

Cost Effectiveness Calculation: $749,000 project annual cost / 

(Emissions reduced (kg/day) * 260 days of effect) 

HC Cost Effectiveness = $282 per kg/year 

NOx Cost Effectiveness = $241 per kg/year 

PM2.5 Cost Effectiveness = $21,707 per kg/year
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

88 

Category: SHARED RIDE PROGRAMS Subcategory: Vanpool Programs

CMAQ Project ID: UT20020006 Project Year: 2002 

Location: Salt Lake and Ogden, Utah MPO: Wasatch Front Regional Council 

Description: 15 New Vans for Vanpool Leasing Program - This project is the purchase of 15 8-passenger vans for 

Salt Lake City and Ogden areas. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: Na 

 VMT: - 5,520 /day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit + 15 vans 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assumes 8 passengers per van and 46 miles average daily round trip. 

Daily VMT reduction = 8 passengers/van x 15 vans x 23 miles one-way trip x 2 trip 

lengths reduce reduced/day = 5,520 VMT reduced. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 12.2 kg/day 

 NOX - 14.9 kg/day

 CO - 136.9 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 27.1 kg/day 

(0.03 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assumes that project has benefits 250 days/year. 

Emissions reductions calculated by applying passenger car CO, NOx, and VOC 

g/mile rates for freeways and arterials. 

COSTS 

Project life:_5___ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $448,000 $0 $448,000 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $448,000 $0 $448,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$128,200 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $448,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $448,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Cost benefit was calculated using a weighted ranking 

system that considered the following: 

1) (10%) Project in a congested corridor 

2) (15%) Length (years) of project effectiveness 

3) (25%) Emissions reduction 

4) (25%) Congestion reduction (VHT) 

5) (25%) Cost 

This objective ranking was then combined with subjective 

rankings by staff and 3 different committees consisting of 

city planners and elected officials.

NOTE: The project description provided by the sponsor lists a purchase of 15 vehicles, while the project description in the 

CMAQ database describes this project as the purchase of 70 vans. The project cost provided by the sponsor lists the project 

cost as $377,582, while the database lists the CMAQ-allotted funds as $448,000. The discrepancy might stem from the 

difference in the amount of vehicles purchased. The calculation does not explicitly account for any increase in emissions from 

the vans operating. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

89 

Category: SHARED RIDE PROGRAMS Subcategory: Vanpool Program

CMAQ Project ID: UT20050005 Project Year: 2005 

Location: Ogden and Layton, Utah MPO: Wasatch Front Regional Council MPO 

Description: 5 New Vans for Vanpool Leasing Program - This project is the expansion of the UTA Vanpool Leasing 

Program through the purchase of 5 vans for the Ogden and Layton area. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: - 3,000 /day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP + 5 vans 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Daily VMT reduction = 5 vans x 8 passengers per van x 45 mile one-way trip x 2 

trip lengths reduced/day / 1.2 personal auto occupancy rate = 3,000 VMT reduced. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 3.2 kg/day

 NOX - 4.0 kg/day

 CO - 37.2 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 7.2 kg/day 

(0.008 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Passenger car CO, NOx, VOC g/mile rates for freeways and arterials applied. 

Freeway: 

VOC emissions factor = 1.38 g/mile 

NOx emissions factor = 1.98 g/mile 

CO emissions factor = 14.32 g/mile 

Arterial: 

VOC emissions factor = 2.32 g/mile 

NOx emissions factor = 2.03 g/mile 

CO emissions factor = 29.61 g/mile 

COSTS 

Project life:____ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $148,000 $32,866 $180,866 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $148,000 $32,866 $180,866 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$47,676 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $180,866 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $180,866 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Cost/benefit calculation – Projects were ranked from first to 

last for cost/congestion benefit (VHT reduced) and cost/air 

quality benefit (tons emissions). The benefits were multiplied 

by the project life – the number of years the benefits would 

be returned. The two rank scores were then added together 

and all projects were ranked again based on this composite 

score. The objective ranking was then combined with 

subjective rankings by staff and 3 different committees 

consisting of city planners and elected officials. 

NOTE: Emissions reductions provided by the State sponsor do not match those reported in the CMAQ database (-5 VOC, -54 

CO, and -6 NOx). The calculation does not explicitly account for any increase in emissions from the vans operating..
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

90 

Category: SHARED RIDE PROGRAMS Subcategory: Vanpool Program

CMAQ Project ID: KY20060004 Project Year: 2006 

Location: Lexington, Kentucky MPO: Lexington Area MPO 

Description: 6 New Vans for LexTran Vanpool Service - This project is the purchase of six new 12-passenger vans 

for LexVan, a commuter vanpool program managed by the Lexington Bluegrass Mobility Office. LexVan leases these 

passenger vans to groups of people who vanpool to work. The passengers are matched to a vanpool group using 

ridesharing computer software and each passenger pays a monthly fare which covers all operating costs, fuel, and 

insurance. This program has a direct effect in reducing the number of single occupant vehicles (SOVs) during peak 

hours. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 132 /day 

 VMT: - 3,300 /day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP + 6 vans/day 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Each new van removes a maximum of 11 SOVs from the road system and has 

a 50 mile average LexVan round trip. 

Vehicle trip reduction = 6 vans x 11 SOV removal x 2 trips = 132 vehicle trips 

removed per day. 

VMT reduction = 132 vehicle trips removed x 25 miles per trip (based on 50 

mile round trip) = 3,300 VMT reduction/day. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 10.40 kg/day 

 NOX - 5.28 kg/day 

 CO - 80.19 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 15.68 kg/day 

(0.017 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The emissions rates are for hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and 

oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and are from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) highway vehicle emissions factor models. They assume an average properly 

maintained vehicle on the road in July, operating on typical gasoline on a warm 

summer day (72-96 degrees F). 

VOC: 3.15 g/mile x 50 mile vanpool round trip x 66 SOV reduction / 1000 = 10.40 

kg/day 

NOx: 1.60 g/mile x 50 mile vanpool round trip x 66 SOV reduction / 1000 = 5.28 

kg/day 

CO: 24.30 g/mile x 50 mile vanpool round trip x 66 SOV reduction / 1000 = 80 .19 

kg/day 

COSTS 

Project life:__ 5 _ yrs Interest rate: __ 7 __% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $96,000 $24,000 $120,000 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $96,000 $24,000 $120,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$30,643 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $120,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $120,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The per day reductions based on an average of 21 

work/school days in a given month or 252 days in the 12 

months per year period used for the emissions analysis. 

The cost for the purchase of 6 new 12-passenger vans is 

estimated at $20,000 each. This includes the installation of 

extra equipment. Such as side steps, striping, grab handles, 

etc. The entire local match is paid from the LexVan 

(vanpool) program fares. 

NOTE: The calculation does not explicitly account for any increase in emissions from the vans operating.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

91 

Category: SHARED RIDE PROGRAMS Subcategory: Park and Ride Lots

CMAQ Project ID: MD20000017 Project Year: 2000 

Location: Maryland MPO: Baltimore Metropolitan Council 

Description: Two New 25-Space Lots - Construction of two new park and ride facilities at I-95 interchanges at MD 

272 and MD 279. Each park and ride lot will contain 25 parking spaces. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: 0 

 VMT: - 23/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Vehicle trip reduction = 50 parking spaces * 15% utilization rate * 15% new riders = 

1.15 vehicle trips reduced per day (zero change in trip starts). 

VMT reduction = 1.15 vehicle trips reduced * 20 mile round trip = 23 vehicle miles 

reduced per day. 

Lot utilization rates and the percentage of new riders were determined from 

surveys at existing park and ride lots. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 0.012 kg/day

 NOX - 0.058 kg/day

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -0.070 kg/day 

(0.000077 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions were calculated by multiplying VMT reduction by per-mile 

emissions factors. Emissions were calculated based on 1999 emissions factors 

developed for the Baltimore region based on the MOBILE model. Assumed running 

speed is 60 mph. 

VOC Emissions Factor: 0.552 g/mi 

NOx Emissions Factor: 2.559 g/mi 

COSTS 

Project life:__ 12 _ yrs Interest rate: __ 7 __% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $132,817 $0 $132,817 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $132,817 $0 $132,817 

Total annualized public 

cost: $12,537 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $132,817 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $132,817 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Cost-effectiveness was not provided by sponsor. In order to 

calculate cost-effectiveness, assume the project has 

benefits 250 days per year for 12 years. 

NOTES: Assumptions regarding travel impacts seem very low. In particular, a 15% utilization rate means that on average only 

7.5 of the 50 new spaces are utilized, and only about one person per day is assumed to reducing a vehicle trip. Also, the 

assumption of a 20 mile round trip (10 miles each way) for a park and ride trip sounds low, particularly given that the lots are 

located in Cecil County, about 20 miles from Wilmington, DE and from Aberdeen, MD, and 40 miles from close-in Baltimore 

suburbs. In the CMAQ database, this project appears to have been improperly listed as in the Metropolitan Washington Council 

of Governments’ MPO. Current Maryland State Highway Administration web site shows 25 spaces at I-95 @ MD 279 (Elkton) lot 

and 17 spaces at I-95 @ MD 272 (Elkton) lot. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

92 

Category: SHARED RIDE PROGRAMS Subcategory: Park and Ride Lots

CMAQ Project ID: WI20000034, WI20000035 Project Year: 2000 

Location: Southeastern Wisconsin MPO: Southeastern Wisconsin RPC 

Description: Lake Geneva and Root Creek Lot - These are two out of a group of three park and ride lots being 

implemented by the WisDOT District 2 office out of a group of four candidate sites recommended in the Regional 

Transportation Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin. The lots are designed to encourage carpooling and use of existing 

public transportation. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: 0 

 VMT: - 3,600/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assumes 450 spaces constructed for all 3 lots, average occupancy of 40%, and 

an average one-way commute of 10 miles. Lot-specific calculations were not 

conducted. 

Vehicle trip reduction = 450 spaces * 40% utilization rate = 180 vehicle trips per 

day (zero change in trip starts). 

VMT reduction = 180 vehicle trips reduced * 20 mile roundtrip length = 3,600 

daily VMT reduced. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 1.52 kg/day

 NOX - 3.81 kg/day

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 5.33 kg/day 

(0.0059 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions were calculated by multiplying VMT reduction by per-mile 

emissions factors for a typical summer day, based on MOBILE. 

Assumes speed = 35 mph. 

COSTS 

Project life:__ 12 _ yrs Interest rate: __ 7 __% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $48,000 $0 $48,000

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0

Total $48,000 NA $48,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

NA 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $48,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $48,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

CMAQ cost of $24,000 per lot was listed in documentation 

provided by State and FHWA CMAQ database (cost noted 

here is for two lots listed in CMAQ database for FY 2000). 

Cost-effectiveness was not provided by sponsor. In order to 

calculate cost-effectiveness, assume the project has 

benefits 250 days per year for 20 years. Cost should be 

scaled up to reflect full cost of all three park and ride 

facilities – assume $72,000 ($24,000 x 3).

NOTE: Calculated emissions reductions are based on all three park and ride lots, although separate CMAQ projects were listed 

only for these two park and ride lots in FY 2000. Travel calculation assumes that all users of the park and ride facility previously 

were driving alone (no adjustment to account for share of users who previously carpooled, unless that is somehow incorporated 

into the utilization factor). 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

93 

Category: SHARED RIDE PROGRAMS Subcategory: Park and Ride Lots

CMAQ Project ID: MD20020001 Project Year: 2002 

Location: Maryland MPO: Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments 

Description: MD210 and MD 373 500-Space Lot - Replace/expand existing park and ride facility at MD 210 / MD 373 

by adding 500 spaces. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: 0 

 VMT: - 5,393/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Vehicle trip reduction = 500 parking spaces * 56% utilization rate * 45% new riders 

= 126 vehicle trips reduced per day (zero change in trip starts). 

VMT reduction = 126 vehicle trips reduced * 42.8 mile round trip = 5,393 vehicle 

miles reduced per day. 

Lot utilization rates and the percentage of new riders were determined from 

surveys at existing park and ride lots. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 1.375 

kg/day

 NOX - 5.889 

kg/day

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 7.264 

kg/day 

(0.00801 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions were calculated by multiplying VMT reduction by per-mile 

emissions factors. Emissions were calculated based on 2005 (year of service 

opening) emissions factors developed for Baltimore region based on Mobile model. 

Assumed running speed is 50 mph, based on posted speed limit. 

VOC Emissions Factor: 0.255 grams/mile 

NOx Emissions Factor: 1.092 grams/mile 

COSTS 

Project life:__ 12 _ yrs Interest rate: __ 7 __% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $1,218,831 $0 $1,218,831 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $1,218,831 $0 $1,218,831 

Total annualized public 

cost: $180,050 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: NA 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Cost-effectiveness was not provided by sponsor. In order to 

calculate cost-effectiveness, assume the project has 

benefits 250 days per year for 12 years.

NOTE: In the CMAQ database, this project appears to have been improperly listed as in the Pedestrian/Bicycle category. 

Current Maryland State Highway Administration web site shows MD 210 @ MD 373 (Aceokeek) park and ride lot contains 489 

spaces. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

94 

Category: SHARED RIDE PROGRAMS Subcategory: Park-and-Ride Lots

CMAQ Project ID: KY20050012 Project Year: 2005 

Location: Union/Walton, Kentucky MPO: Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional COG 

Description: Walton/Union Lot with 200 Spaces - This project is the continued expansion and development of parkand-ride facilities in Northern Kentucky, along fixed transit routes in Boone, Kenton, and Campbell Counties. 

Improvements to existing lots include improving signage, adding bike parking racks, providing information kiosks, and 

updating Park & Ride brochures. Acquisitions of a new site for a new lot will provide approximately 200 new parking 

spaces for area commuters. These improvements and expansions will attract more riders to the system; thereby 

reducing single-occupancy automobile trips, reducing emissions, improving air quality, and reducing congestion. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: 0 

 VMT: - 3,840 /day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

# of parking spaces at 1 lot = 200 

Utilization rate = 60% 

Average round-trip distance = 32 miles 

VMT reduction = 200 parking spaces x 60% utilization rate x 2 trip lengths 

reduced/day x 16 mile round trip = 3,840 vehicle miles reduced per day. 

 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 0.88 kg/day

 NOX - 3.19 kg/day 

 CO - 33.83 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 - 0.12 kg/day 

 Total - 4.07 

(0.0044 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions were calculated by multiplying VMT reduction by per-mile emissions 

factors. 

Emissions factors based on local 2003 parameters, using MOBILE6 model. Assumes 

running speed is 41 mph (Weighted average running speed = 41 mph using OKI Travel 

Forecasting Model). 

VOC Emissions Factor: 0.23 grams/mile 

NOx Emissions Factor: 0.83 grams/mile 

CO Emissions Factor: 8.81 grams/mile 

PM2.5 Emissions Factor: 0.03 grams/mile

COSTS 

Project life:__ 12 _ yrs Interest rate: __ 7 __% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $844,800 $211,200 $1,056,000 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $844,800 $211,200 $1,056,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$143,695 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $1,056,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $1,056,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Land Acquisition: $711,000 

Construction: $325,000 

Marketing and Outreach: $20,000 

Future operating expenses will be funded through local 

revenue source and fare revenue. Cost-effectiveness was 

not provided by the project sponsor. 

NOTE: The emissions reductions reported for VOC and PM2.5 in the documentation are slightly different from the amounts 

calculated using the methodology reported (-1 VOC, No Data PM2.5).
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

95 

Category: SHARED RIDE PROGRAMS Subcategory: Park and Ride Lots

CMAQ Project ID: WA20010004, WA20050035 Project Year: 2005 

Location: Seattle, Washington MPO: Puget Sound Regional Council 

Description: Expansion of Terrace Station Transfer Lot to 880 Spaces - This project will fund the construction 

of a multi-level parking structure on the lower-level of an existing park-and-ride lot located at I-5 and 236th Street 

SW.. The new garage will increase parking capacity from 388 to 880 spaces. Improvements will also be made to 

the elevators, pedestrian walkways, landscaping, lighting, bicycle racks, and security features. The Terrace Station 

park and ride primarily serves downtown Seattle and the University of Washington, for an average one-way 

distance of 12 miles. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: 0 

 VMT: - 8,856 

/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

VMT reductions were calculated using a 12 mile average one-way trip distance from 

the lot to a final destination and the number of additional parking stalls added (492). 

Daily VMT reduction = 492 spaces x 75% utilization x 12 miles one-way trip length x 

2 trips = 8,856 VMT reduction). 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 18.0 kg/day

 NOX - 9.0 kg/day

 CO - 145.0 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 27.0 kg/day 

(0.030 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions calculated using the TCM Tools program created by Parsons 

Brinkerhoff and Sierra Research in 1994, which applies project data to MOBILE 

emissions factors and regional data to produce the emissions reductions for CO, 

VOCs, and NOx. 

COSTS 

Project life:__30__ yrs Interest rate: __7___% 

 CMAQ NON-CMAQ TOTAL

Capital $4.15 M $15.85 M $20 M 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $4.15 M $15.85 M $20 M 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$1,742,000 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $20 M 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $20 M 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

CMAQ funding for this project was $865,000 for 

WA20010004 and $3,285,000 for WA20050035 in the 

CMAQ database. (For a total of $4.15M.) 

The Total Project Cost is estimated as $20,000,000. Other 

funds in the project include other Federal and State/local 

funds besides CMAQ. Cost-effectiveness was not provided 

by the project sponsor. 

NOTE: It is unclear how old the emissions factors used for this project are. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

96 

Category: TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT Subcategory: TDM 

CMAQ Project ID: CO20010042 Project Year: 2001 

Location: Denver, Colorado MPO: Denver Regional COG 

Description: Coordinate Telework Program - This project funds a free telework consulting service for employers in 

the Denver metro area. The DRCOG’s RideArrangers program provides consultations, design, implementation, 

evaluation, and training session assistance for interested employers. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 16,031 

/week 

 VMT: - 223,413 

/week 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Vehicle trip reduction = 87,127 employees at companies with a telework program 

x 0.05 percentage of employees that telework x 1.84 average days per week that 

employees telework instead of commute x 2 = 16,031 vehicle trips reduced 

weekly. 

VMT reduction = 87,127 employees at companies with a telework program * 0.05 

percentage of employees that telework * 26 mile average trip distance * 1.84 

average days per week that employees telework instead of commuting = 223,413 

weekly VMT reduction. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 2.0 kg/day

 NOX - 2.0 kg/day 

 CO - 14.0 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 4 kg/day 

(0.0044 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions calculated using 2006 MOBILE6 factors. 

COSTS 

Project life:__ NA__ yrs Interest rate: __ 7 __% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $0 $0 $0 

Adm/oper $73,000 $18,250 $91,250 

Total $73,000 $18,250 $91,250 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$91,250 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $91,250 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $91,250 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assumes 240 work days per year. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

97 

Category: TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT Subcategory: TDM

CMAQ Project ID: DC20020006, VA 20020072 Project Year: 2002 

Location: District of Columbia MPO: Metropolitan Washington COG 

Description: Employer Outreach, Bicycles - This project provides information to businesses to encourage their 

employees to bike to work. Information provided to the employer would include: a list of maps and other resources; 

bike-on-transit and bike-to-transit information; descriptions of bicycle parking types and rack vendors; information on 

installing showers and lockers for employees; the name of a person or organization that would teach classes on 

bicycle commuting; and the names of contact people for questions on a range of subjects. The overall project and 

information provided will be integrated into ongoing Commuter Connection activities. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 125 /day 

 VMT: - 500 /day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assumes 7% of all employers contacted will participate in the program, with 3.5% 

promoting biking as a part of their voluntary program. Assumptions based on M47c analysis assumptions. 

3580 employers * 7% participation = 251 new employer participants. 

Assumes 2% of the employees at those firms will participate; 31 employees will 

participate. Assumes a 4 mile average trip length and 2 trips per day. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 1.0 kg/day 

 NOX - 1.0 kg/day

 CO Kg 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -2.0 kg/day 

(0.0022 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Used MOBILE6 emissions factors. 

Measurement of air quality impacts used modeling assumptions of measure M-47c 

“Employer Outreach.” 

COSTS 

Project life:__1__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $0 $0 $0 

Adm/oper $9,000 $6,000 $15,000 

Total $9,000 $6,000 $15,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$15,000 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $15,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $15,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assumes benefits 250 days/year. 

NOTE: Project costs in CMAQ database do not match with total costs due to how project costs are categorized by DC, 

Maryland, and Virginia. According to the Commuter Connections annual work program for 2002, the total cost is $15,000 

($5,000 from each jurisdiction). DC uses 100% CMAQ funds; VA uses 80% CMAQ, 20% other funds; and MD uses100% other 

funds.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

98 

Category: TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT Subcategory: TDM

CMAQ Project ID: DC20050008 Project Year: 2005 

Location: District of Columbia MPO: Metropolitan Washington COG MPO 

Description: Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) - This program is an added incentive to employers and employees 

participating in the Commuter Connections program. It provides the security of a ride home in the event of an emergency, 

unscheduled overtime, or early leave departure. The program provides up to four free rides home per year in a taxi or rental car 

for commuters that use alternative modes of transportation at least two days per week. Since a sizeable portion of GFH 

applicants are already ridesharing before they apply for GFH benefits, the most common benefit of GRH may be the continuation 

and extension of existing ridesharing arrangement. The transportation and emissions impacts of the GRH program were 

measured through data from a survey conducted in the spring of 2004, which polled 1,000 commuters who had registered for 

GRH at some point between 2001 and 2004. The survey asked detailed questions regarding commute patterns, the permanence 

of mode changes, and the overall importance of the program to commuters’ decisions to start/continue use of alternative modes.

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 12,350 /day 

 VMT: - 348,283/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Based on surveys, new participants were grouped into those who work and live 

within the DC Metropolitan Statistical area (11,574) and those who work within 

the MSA but live outside (2,245). For those living within the MSA, assume 0.91 

vehicle trips reduced per new participant and a 28.2 mile one-way trip length. For 

participants living outside the MSA, assume a 0.81 vehicle trip reduction per new 

participant and a 28.2 mile one-way trip length within the MSA. 

Vehicle trips reduction = (11,574 participants * 0.91 VTR per new participant) + 

(2,245 participants * 0.81 VTR per new participant) = 12,350 trips reduced/day. 

VMT reduction = 12,350 VTR * 28.2 miles one-way trip length = 348,283 miles 

reduced per day. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 95.25 kg/day 

 NOX - 216.82kg/day

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 312 kg/day 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions calculated using Mobile6. 

COSTS 

Project life:____ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $0 $0 $0 

Adm/oper $772,110 $906,390 $1,678,500 

Total $772,110 $906,390 $1,678,500 

Total annualized public cost: $1,678,500 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $1,678,500 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $1,678,500 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Cost-effectiveness was not provided by the project sponsor. 

NOTE: Project costs in CMAQ database do not match with total costs due to how project costs are categorized by DC, 

Maryland, and Virginia. According to the Commuter Connections annual work program for 2005, the total cost is $1,678,500 for 

($167,850 from DC; $755,325 from Maryland; $755,325 from Virginia). DC uses 100% CMAQ funds; VA uses 80% CMAQ, 20% 

other funds; and MD uses100% other funds. Results are based on survey data but appear to be quite large for a GRH program 

when considered independently from other regional TDM outreach elements that are quantified separately.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

99 

Category: TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT Subcategory: TDM

CMAQ Project ID: RI20050010 Project Year: 2005 

Location: Rhode Island MPO: Rhode Island State Planning Council 

Description: Ozone Alert Days - This program informs the public when ground level ozone will reach unhealthy levels 

and provides free transit service as an alternative to driving on those days. It is an effort by the State to develop public 

information explaining the relationship between transportation and air quality. The free transit program is only 

implemented on days when ground level ozone will reach unhealthy levels; in FY 2005, the program was implemented 

on 4 days. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS

 Vehicle trips: - 2,509/day 

 VMT: - 21,875/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit + 3,010 

persons/day 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS: 

Utilization rates determined from existing ridership. (60,207 persons/day) 

Assumes 5% increase in ridership on ozone alert days. (This increase is based 

on a FY2004 statistically valid review). There were 4 ozone alert days in FY 2005 

(60,207 persons/day * 5% = 3,010 persons/day increase for 4 days). 

Daily vehicle trip reduction = 3,010 persons/day ÷1.2 persons/vehicle = 2,509 

vehicles/day reduced. 

Assumes average round trip distance = 8.72 miles 

Daily VMT reduction = 2,509 daily vehicle reduction * 8.72 miles = 21,875 daily 

VMT removed. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 23.0 kg/day

 NOX - 26.5 kg/day

 CO - 251.3 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 49.5 kg/day 

(0.05 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS: 

Emissions reductions were calculated by multiplying VMT reduction by per-mile 

emissions factors. 

Assumes speed = 35 mph. 

NOTE: Emissions reduction only is for 4 days. 

COSTS 

Project Life: __1 year_____ Interest rate: __ 7 __% 

 CMAQ Non-CMAQ Total 

Capital $0 $0 $0 

Adm/oper $168,000 $0 $168,000 

Total $168,000 $0 $168,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$168,000 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $168,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $168,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS: 

Calculations apply to 1 year of operating costs and 

emissions reductions. Note that to calculate annual 

emissions reductions, the daily total should be multiplied by 

only 4 (since effects are estimated only for episode days). 

NOTE: This project is listed in CMAQ database under the “Transit” category since it largely involves transit fares. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

100 

Category: BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN Subcategory: Bicycle Pedestrian

CMAQ Project ID: MA20020040 Project Year: 2002 

Location: Swansea, Massachusetts MPO: Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic 

 Development District 

Description: 8.3 mile Swansea Bikeway Facility - The Swansea bike path project forms an essential part of the 

future link between the Taunton River Trail and the East Bay Trail in Rhode Island. The proposed route along Old 

Warren Rd. is primarily a bike facility located on streets, with a few bicycle path segments. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: -212 /day 

 VMT: - 633 /day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike + 1.0% 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Work trips = 3,929 workers in service area x 1.0% bicycle commuting mode share 

= 39 one-way trips. Non-work trips = 67 one-way trips 

Daily vehicle trips = (39 one-way work trips + 67 one-way non-work trips) x 2 = 212 

daily trips. 

Assume average trip is half the length of the bike facility. 

Daily VMT reduction = (2 x 39 one-way trips) + (2 x 67 one-way trips) * (0.5 x 8.3 

miles facility length) = 633 daily VMT reduction 

Work trips were calculated by estimating a 1 mile service area radius around the length of the 8.3 mile 

facility and then calculating the proportion of the total land of the community, the total population of 

the community, the number of households in the community, and the number of workers per 

household that would be served. 

The Bicycle Commuting Mode Share was estimated using the population density for the service area 

and a "Percent Bike Use for Commuting" table published by MassHighway Planning Department.

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 0.5 kg/day 

 NOX - 1.1 kg/day

 CO - 3.0 kg/day 

 PM10 QA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -1.6 kg/day 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions factor calculated from MOBILE5A, using 35 mph average commuter 

travel speed. 

VOC emissions factor = 0.819 g/mile 

NOx emissions factor = 1.672 g/mile 

Summer CO emissions factor = 5.096 g/mile 

COSTS 

Project life:__15__ yrs Interest rate: __7___% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $639,008 $660,902 $1,300,000 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $639,008 $660,902 $1,300,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$167,471 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $1,300,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $1,300,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assumes benefits 200 days/year. 

Cost-effectiveness was provided by the project sponsor, 

but calculated only on first year costs (not annualized).

NOTE: A qualitative analysis for CO is listed for this project in the CMAQ database. However, a quantitative emissions reduction 

calculation for CO was provided by the State sponsor.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

101 

Category: BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Subcategory: Bicycle/Pedestrian 

CMAQ Project ID:IN20050009 Project Year: 2005 

Location: Indiana MPO: Michiana Area COG 

Description: 4.3 Mile Bike Path to Pinhook Park - Project constructed phase 1 of the Riverside Trail, a paved bike path 

from Angela Boulevard to Oakwood Boulevard. Phase 2 will begin early in 2008 and will complete the trail north to Darden Road 

where St. Joseph County is building a paved bike path to Indiana 933. When completed, the trail system will run 4.3 miles and 

allow cyclists and pedestrians located in the northwest portion of the city to access the downtown business district via 

connections with the East Race Walkway. It also provides pedestrians easier access to educational facilities at the University of 

Notre Dame and Indiana University South Bend using the River North Bikeway/Walkway.

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle 

trips: 

- 83 /day (weekday, 

in-season) 

 VMT: -249/day (weekday, 

in-season) 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike + 116 trip/day 

(weekday, inseason) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Methodology based on guidance “Estimating the Effect of Bicycle Facilities on VMT and 

Emissions” prepared by the Seattle Engineering Department. Documentation notes 

uncertainty and difficulty in estimating new bicycle riders. 

Assume new bicycle riders equivalent to 1% of current drive alone workers in 

surrounding census tracks: 8,939 drive alone commuters x 1% x 2 trips each = 179 

new bicycle trips diverted from driving. 

Assume that commuters divert 65% of the time: 179 bicyclists x .65 = 116 average new 

bike trips per day during season. 

Decreased autos = 116 new bike trips / 1.4 passengers per vehicle = 83 vehicle trips 

reduced per day during season. 

Assume 3 mile average trip length: Decreased VMT = 83 vehicle trips reduced x 3 mile 

average trip length = 249 VMT reduced per day during season. 

Assumes seasonal use: 6 months per year.

EMISSIONS 

 VOC (HC) - 0.37 kg/day

 NOX - 0.45 kg/day

 CO - 2.65 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 0.82 kg/day 

(0.00090 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions Factors from MACOG’s Conformity Analysis from the Mobile 5A model 

with year 2000 socioeconomic data were used. 

COSTS 

Project life:__ 15 _ yrs Interest rate: __ 7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $1,600,000 $ 400,000 $2,000,000 

Adm/oper 0 0 0 

Total $1,600,000 $ 400,000 $2,000,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$237,332 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $2,000,000

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $2,000,000

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Estimated seasonal use is 132 days each year (6 months 

per year x 22 days per month). Multiple daily figures by 132 

to get annual emissions effects. 

The total project cost for phases I and II will be $3,500,000. 

CMAQ funding for Phase II will be $1,200,000 with an 

additional $300,000 local match. 

In order to calculate cost-effectiveness, assume the project 

life is 20 years.

NOTE: Although project methodology and assumptions are well documented in an analysis report, the presentation of the 

calculation varies slightly from what is presented above. The calculation steps provided by the project sponsor were reordered to 

make the results clearer. In the reported evaluation, the results are presented in annual figures and order of steps differs.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

102 

Category: BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Subcategory: Bicycle Pedestrian

CMAQ Project ID: Not Yet Assigned Project Year: 2006 

Location: Fort Collins, Colorado MPO: North Front Range MPO 

Description: Construction of a Transit Bike Depot - This project will fund the construction of a secure bicycle 

parking facility which will encourage the use of bicycling trips for work and to everyday destinations. The bike depot 

will have an attendant to oversee the area, and will also provide rentals, repairs, maintenance and safety information, 

restrooms and changing areas, bus pass sales, and other services geared toward bicyclists and transit users. The 

site may host community events and contain a small cafe or retail business in the future; the facility’s location would 

provide easy access to other multi-modal connections. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 120 /day 

 VMT: - 480 /day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assumes an increase of 160 average total daily trips by bicycle. 

Assumes the proportion of users that formerly commuted by SOV is 0.75. 

Assumes average one-way trip distance is 4 miles. 

Daily vehicle trip reduction = 160 x 0.75 = 120 vehicle trips reduced daily. 

Daily VMT reduction = 160 added participants x 0.75 x 4 miles = 480 daily miles 

reduced. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 0.9072 kg/day 

 NOX - 0.9072 kg/day

 CO - 6.6768 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 1.8144 kg/day 

(0.0020000 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Average Fort Collins Network Vehicle speed is 25.4 mph. 

Emissions reductions calculated by multiplying VMT reduction by vehicle emissions 

VOC emissions reduction = 480 VMT x 0.00189 kg/mile = 0.9072 kg/day 

NOx emissions reduction = 480 VMT x 0.00189 kg/mile = 0.9072 kg/day 

CO emissions reduction = 480 VMT x 0.01391 kg/mile = 6.6768 kg/day 

COSTS 

Project life:__6__ yrs Interest rate: __7___% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $ 63,910 $536,090 $600,000

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $ 63,910 $536,090 $600,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: $131,797 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $600,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $600,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Project assumes benefits 252 days per year and a total 

project life of 6 years. 

2 measures of cost-effectiveness were reported: 

Total Program Cost-Effectiveness (kg/$) 

 CMAQ Cost-Effectiveness (kg/$) 

NOTE: The State provides a spreadsheet that automatically calculates emissions reductions, based on several set assumptions, 

as well as assumptions entered by the MPO. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

103 

Category: BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS Subcategory: Bicycle Pedestrian

CMAQ Project ID: Not Yet Assigned Project Year: 2007 

Location: New York MPO: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council 

Description: NYC CyclistNET Marketing Program - This project will fund the creation of NYCyclistNet, a Web-based 

application consisting of a cycling parking locator, cycling tour maps, and an interactive routing system. NYCyclistNet 

will allow cyclists to create and plan bicycle routes, as well as to find up-to-date bicycle parking information and 

download a series of bicycle tours of the city from the Internet. The project will also provide City bike planners to 

collect and analyze information about the bicycle network and improve system performance. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 902 /day 

 VMT: - 3,608 /day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assume the average diverted bike trip is 4 miles and the number of daily bike users 

in NYC increases from 120,000 before the project to 121,200 after implementation. 

Auto trip reduction = 1,200 new riders / 1.33 average vehicle occupancy = 902. 

Existing AADT for affected roadways in all five boroughs is 143,900. Calculate the 

decrease in AADT after implementation = 1,200 new bike users / 1.33 average 

vehicle occupancy / 0.627 short trip factor/ 0.01 diversion factor = 142,998. 

VMT reduced = 902 trips reduced * 4 mile trip = 3,608 miles. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 2.37 kg/day

 NOX - 1.96 kg/day

 CO - 38.43 kg/day 

 PM10 - 0.9482 kg/day 

 PM2.5 - 0.0426 kg/day 

 Total - 4.33 kg/day 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions calculated using the CMAQtraq program developed by 

NYSDOT using the “BikePed Bikeway” module. Running emissions factors were 

used at 25 mph in each of the boroughs of New York City. Analysis assumes 190 

work days per year. 

 COSTS 

Project life:__10__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $0 $0 $0 

Adm/oper $2.4 M $600,000 $3.0 M 

Total $2.4 M $600,000 $3.0 M 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$434,800 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $3.0 M 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $3.0 M 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The project will be funded and implemented over four years 

(FY2007 – 2010). The total project life is 10 years and 

assumes benefits 190 work days per year. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

104 

Category: TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: New Bus Services

CMAQ Project ID: WI20000004 Project Year: 2001 

Location: Racine, Wisconsin MPO: Milwaukee-Racine 

Description: City of Racine New Sunday Bus Service - This project will expand the current bus service in the City 

of Racine by instituting Sunday service hours. It is expected that service would run from 8 AM to 4 PM, and would be 

provided over eight routes within the City of Racine on an hourly basis, using nine buses. Morning trips would focus 

on church-related activities and afternoon trips on shopping and social activities. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 72/day (Sunday 

only) 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit + 72/day 

(Sunday) 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assumes that 9 new bus trips per vehicle hour will be generated on the new 

service, and would replace drive alone trips. 

Vehicle trip reduction = 9 new bus trips per vehicle hour x 8 hours of service 

= 72 trips reduced each Sunday. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 2.9 kg/day

 NOX - 3.2 kg/day

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -6.1 kg/day 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

 

Emissions reductions were calculated by multiplying VMT reduction by per-mile 

emissions factors for a typical summer day, based on MOBILE.

COSTS 

Project life:__ 1 _ yrs Interest rate: __ 7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $0 $0 $0 

Adm/oper $157,382 $39,345 $196,727 

Total $157,382 $39,345 $196,727 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$196,727 

Annual revenues: NA 

Net public cost: $196,727 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $196,727 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Cost-effectiveness was not provided by sponsor. In order to 

calculate cost-effectiveness, assume the project has 

benefits 52 days per year, since emissions reductions were 

calculated for each Sunday. 

NOTE: The project documentation could not provide the assumptions for average trip length and how they estimated 9 new bus 

trips per vehicle hour. The value seems low, given that the service will include 8 routes, implying only about one passenger per 

each bus. It should be noted that the daily emissions reduction is for each Sunday (emissions rates are based on summer 

weather conditions). 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

105 

Category: TRANSIT IMPROVMENTS Subcategory: New Bus Service

CMAQ Project ID: NY20050028 Project Year: 2005 

Location: Long Island, New York MPO: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council 

Description: Expanded S 92 Bus Route - This project will fund upgrades to the current Monday – Saturday Suffolk 

County Transit (SCT) bus route S 92, improving bus frequencies during AM and PM peak periods from 1 hour to 30 

minutes. Prior to July 2004, this bus route operated approximately 1,505 miles of daily revenue service between 

Orient Point/Greenport and East Hampton via Riverhead, Southampton Village, and Sag Harbor. The 70 mile long 

bus line regularly reaches capacity halfway along the route, leaving riders behind to catch taxis and carpool rides 

from other drivers. In some instances, employers from Southampton would travel to Riverhead and the North Fork to 

collect workers due to the uncertainty of the transit service. This project would provide additional AM and PM peak 

period bus trips at 30 minute frequencies – 4 AM trips and 4 PM trips in each direction. The added trips will increase 

passenger capacity and the 30 minute interval will offer more flexible travel times. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 358 /day 

 VMT: - 6,640 /day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit + 2 bus 

trips/day 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The additional ridership with this project is estimated at 200 passengers/day on 

weekdays and 160 on Saturdays. The estimated average passenger trip length is 

19 miles. Travel speeds along the route are estimated as 40 mph. 

Autos daily vehicle trip change = - 200 weekday passengers + 160 weekend 

passengers = 360 trips 

Autos daily VMT change = 360 trips x 19 mile trip length = 6,840 VMT 

reduction. 

There will be 2 new roundtrip bus trips each day with the new service. The bus 

travels 140 miles on each roundtrip and averages 40 mph. 

Bus daily trip change = + 2 bus trips/day 

Bus daily VMT change = + 280 miles/day 

Total daily vehicle trip change = 360 auto trips reduced – 2 new bus trips = 358 

daily vehicle trip reduction. 

Total daily VMT change = 6,849 auto VMT reduction – 280 bus VMT increase = 

6,640 daily VMT reduction. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 6.66 kg/day

 NOX + 7.22 kg/day

 CO - 153.39 kg/day 

 PM10 + 0.96 kg/day 

 PM2.5 + 1.00 kg/day 

 Total NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The NYSDOT software package CMAQtraq was used; the “Vehicle Reduction due 

to Transit” module to estimate emissions reductions from passenger vehicles and 

the “New Transit Bus” module to estimate emissions increases from the new bus 

service. Effects were calculated for 260 days/year with the following emissions 

factors (g/mile): 

CO: Autos = 16.07 Bus = 6.30 

VOC: Autos = 0.72 Bus = 0.98 

NOx: Autos = 0.71 Bus = 17.13 

PM2.5: Autos = 0.0133 Bus = 1.4543 

PM10: Autos = 0.0269 Bus = 1.5926 

Total Emissions = (Autos emissions factor * 988,000 Autos miles) - (Bus emissions 

factor * 72,800 bus miles) / 1,000 

COSTS 

Project life:__3__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

106 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $0 $0 $0 

Adm/oper $264,000 $156,000 $420,000 

Total $264,000 $156,000 $420,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: $135,907 

Annual revenues: $90,000 

Net public cost: $330,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $330,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

This project will have 260 days of operation. The project 

cost is for 3 years of operating subsidy. The non-CMAQ 

portion of the project cost will be funded by the local 

government with $90,000 in transit fares and county funding 

for $66,000. 

NOTE: The $264,000 CMAQ funding amount provided by the project sponsor does not match the $336,000 listed in the CMAQ 

database. The emissions reductions estimates provided by the project sponsor also do not match those listed in the database (-

2.5 kg/day VOC, +2.1 kg/day NOx, -59.3 kg/day CO, -0.3 kg/day PM10, and -0.4 kg/day PM2.5). The calculations in the document 

provided for this project did not account for the additional 160 weekend passengers; it only calculated Vehicle Trip Reduction (- 

200/day) and VMT Reduction (-3,800/day) for 200 additional passengers. Within the project documentation, the project is 

described as providing an additional four AM trips and four PM trips; however, the project calculations only account for 2 

additional trips per day. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

107 

Category: TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: New Bus Services

CMAQ Project ID: RI20050003 Project Year: 2005 

Location: Rhode Island MPO: Rhode Island State Planning Council 

Description: Expanded Route 30 and New Route 12 - This program developed and implemented new transit 

operations expected to increase transit usage. A new express portion was added to Route 30, and a new Route 12 

was created. 

Travel impacts (For New Express Portion of Route 30):

 Vehicle trips: - 53/day 

 VMT: - 771/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV - 874 /day 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit + 64 

person/day 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

Methodology/Assumptions (For Route 30): 

Calculate daily ridership increase due to new express portion of Route 30 service: 

64 persons (1,049 with new service – 985 with old service). 

Daily vehicle reduction = 64 new ÷1.2 persons/vehicle = 53 daily vehicle 

reduction. 

Assumes average Route 30 round trip = 14.42 mi (calculated based on half of nonexpress portion of route + express portion of route). 

Daily VMT reduction = 53 vehicle trips reduced * 14.42 miles = 771 VMT reduction 

per day. 

Emissions (For New Express Portion of Route 30):

 VOC - 0.92 kg/day 

 NOX - 1.05 kg/day 

 CO - 17.89 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -2.0 kg/day 

Methodology/Assumptions (For Route 30): 

Emissions reductions were calculated by multiplying VMT reduction by per-mile 

emissions factors. 

Assumes speed = 35 mph. 

CO emissions calculated for winter. 

Travel impacts (For New Route 12)

 Vehicle trips: - 156 /day 

 VMT: - 6,638 /day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit + 187 /day 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

Methodology/Assumptions (For Route 12): 

CALCULATE TRAVEL ON OLD ROUTE: Utilization rates determined from existing 

ridership. (448 persons). Daily vehicle reduction = 448 persons/day ÷1.2 

persons/vehicle = 373 daily vehicle reduction. 

Roundtrip length of old Route 12 trip = 15.9 mi. 

Daily VMT reduction = 373 daily vehicle reduction * 15.9 miles = 5,932 daily VMT 

reduction 

Calculate Travel on New Route: Total daily ridership for Expanded Route 12 = 635 

persons/day. Daily vehicle reduction = 635 persons/day ÷1.2 persons/vehicle = 

529 daily vehicle reduction 

NEW Route 12 Roundtrip length = 23.74 mi. 

Daily VMT reduction = 529 vehicle reduction * 23.74 miles = 12,570 daily VMT 

reduction 

Difference equals net change due to new route. 

Emissions (For New Route 12):

 VOC - 5.78 kg/day 

 NOX - 10.00 kg/day 

 CO - 173.11 kg/day 

Methodology/Assumptions (For Route 12): 

Emissions were calculated by multiplying VMT by per-mile emissions factors from 

MOBILE in the base case (with old route) and with the expanded route. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

108 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total NA 

Assumes: Speed = 35 mph for roadways where miles reduced under old route; 

Speed = 55 mph for roadways where miles reduced with expanded route. 

Emissions reductions with old route: 7.06 kg/day VOC, 137.69 kg/day CO (winter), 

8.07 kg/day NOx. 

Emissions reductions with expanded route: 12.84 kg/day VOC, 310.79 kg/day CO 

(winter), 18.07 kg/day NOx. CO emissions only for winter. 

 

Emissions (for Route 30 + Route 12)

 HC NA 

 VOC - 6.7 kg/day 

 NOX - 11.1 kg/day 

 CO - 191.0 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -17.8 kg/day 

Methodology/Assumptions: 

Sum totals from both routes 

Costs 

Project life:_2_ yrs Interest rate: __ 7 __% 

 CMAQ Non-CMAQ Total 

Capital $440,000 $110,000 $550,000 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $440,000 $110,000 $550,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$328,780 

Annual revenues: NA 

Net public cost: $550,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $550,000 

Methodology/Assumptions: 

Annualized cost depends on whether costs include capital or 

only operating expenses. 

NOTE: Calculation methodology does not take into account changes in bus emissions associated with changes to the bus 

services. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

109 

Category: TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: New Rail Services

CMAQ Project ID: UT20020001 Project Year: 2002 

Location: Utah MPO: Wasatch Front Regional Council 

Description: Purchase of 5 New Light Rail Vehicles - This project is the expansion of the current Light Rail service 

through the purchase of 5 new Light Rail Vehicles for its TRAX North/South line. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 2,046 /day 

 VMT: - 24,552 

/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assumes 1,023 daily new light rail round-trip riders x 2 trips per day = 2,046 vehicle 

trips reduced. 

Daily VMT reduction = 1023 new riders * 24 average round trip = 24,552 VMT 

reduced. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 27.0 kg/day 

 NOX - 33.0 kg/day

 CO - 305.0 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -60.0 kg/day 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions calculated by applying passenger car CO, NOx, and VOC 

g/mile rates for freeways and arterials. 

Congestion was measured by converting VMT reduction to Annual Vehicle Hours 

reduced: 75% on congested freeways @ 35 mph, 25% on congested arterials @ 

17 mph. 

COSTS 

Project life:_20_ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $4,000,000 $0 $4,000,000 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $4,000,000 $0 $4,000,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$443,012 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $4,000,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $4,000,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Cost benefit was calculated using a weighted ranking 

system that considered the following: 

6) (10%) Project in a congested corridor 

7) (15%) Length (years) of project effectiveness 

8) (25%) Emissions reduction 

9) (25%) Congestion reduction (VHT) 

10) (25%) Cost 

This objective ranking was then combined with subjective 

rankings by staff and 3 different committees consisting of 

city planners and elected officials. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

110 

Category: TRANSIT IMPROVMENTS Subcategory: New Rail Services

CMAQ Project ID: TX20030147 Project Year: 2003 

Location: Dallas, Texas MPO: North Central Texas Council of Governments 

Description: TRE Double Tracking of Segments - This project will fund the construction of double tracking segments of the 

Trinity Railway Express (TRE) route between Dallas and Fort Worth. This project was selected during the 1999 Call for Projects

held by the Dallas-Ft. Worth MPO and selected based on the demonstrated costs per ton of NOx emissions reduced. The project is

part of a long-range plan by TRE to continue adding capacity through new siding construction. The strategy reduces emissions by

providing new rail system services and/or expanding existing services to increase overall system ridership. The reduction 

methodology is adapted from “The Texas Guide to Accepted Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Strategies” published by Texas 

Transportation Institute, 2003.

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 5,400 /day 

 VMT: - 108,000/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assume 80% of new transit riders were previously vehicle drivers. Estimate new transit 

ridership will be 6,750 people. (6,750 riders * 0.8 = 5,400 vehicle trips reduced) 

Assume the average auto trip length is 20 miles (5,400 vehicle trips reduced x 20 miles = 

108,000 vehicle miles reduced per day). 

Assume each transit vehicle takes 5 trips per day and travels an average of 679 miles. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 67.18 kg/day 

 NOX - 110 kg/day

 CO Kg 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions calculated using Mobile6 emissions factors, assuming a 34 mph 

running speed on all roadway types. Speed-based running exhaust emissions factor for 

roadways before project = NOx: 1.00 and VOC 0.56 grams/mile. Auto trip-end emissions 

factors = NOx: 0.39 and VOC: 1.25 grams/trip. Transit trip-end emissions factors for NOx and 

VOC are 0.0 grams/mile because starting emissions factors are not associated with the 

diesel locomotives that will be used in the TRE system equipment. 

Reduction in daily auto start emissions from trips reduced = 5,400 trips x auto trip-end 

emissions factor for NOx and VOC. Reduction in daily auto running emissions = 108,000 

miles x speed based running exhaust emissions factor for roadways for NOx and VOC. 

Increase in daily emissions from additional train starts = 5 transit trips * transit trip-end 

emissions factor (zero).

COSTS 

Project life:__20__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NON-CMAQ TOTAL

Capital $36,253,821 $34,218,521 $70,472,342 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $36,253,821 $34,218,521 $70,472,342 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS: 

11449 - TRE Quiet Zones and Quad Gates 

$4,174,000 total ($3,339,200 STP-MM, $834,800 local) 

Total annualized public 

cost: $7,631,000 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $70,472,342 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $70,472,342 

TRE Elevated Double Tracked Section from West of Irby 

to Gilbert Rd: $66,298,342 total ($36,253,821 CMAQ, 

$1,328,585 STP-MM, $2,519,859 TxDOT PASS Funds, 

$26,196,077 local). 

A cost effectiveness calculation was not provided by the 

project sponsor. 

NOTE: Emissions reductions reported in the CMAQ database are different than those reported by the State because 

assumptions and emissions factors have been updated since the original calculations (-458 kg/day VOC, -78.1 kg/day NOx, -

479.3 CO). The calculation does not account for any increase in emissions from the commuter rail. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

111 

Category: TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: New Rail Services 

CMAQ Project ID: CT20050027 Project Year: 2005 

Location: Fairfield, Connecticut MPO: Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency 

Description: Construct Rail Station Platforms and Bridge - This project will fund the construction of a new 

commuter rail station, the Fairfield Metro-North Railroad station. The project will serve the residents of Fairfield, 

Connecticut, including students of Fairfield University — as well as nearby areas such as Black Rock within the city of 

Bridgeport — via the New Haven Line. The station will be a joint development, with a developer providing parking 

spaces and the State providing the railroad platform and an access roadway. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: 0 

 VMT: - 15,792 

/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assumes 1,200 new parking spaces for rail patrons. 

Assumes 1/3 of the total ridership would be from new riders (based on rail ridership 

forecasts prepared by the Department for the new West Haven/Orange Rail Station 

Study). 

Roundtrip distances based on data from the Department’s 2000 AM Peak Rail 

Survey. Of the Fairfield resident users, 21% destined to points within Connecticut, 

79% destined to New York. 

Vehicle trip reduction =1,200 parking spaces x 1/3 new ridership utilization = 400 

daily round trips reduced (no trip starts reduced). 

VMT reduction = (400 vehicle trips reduced x 21% x 30 miles) + (400 vehicle trips 

reduced x 79% x 42 miles) = 2520 + 13,272 = 15,792 VMT reduced daily. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 6.0 kg/day

 NOX - 6.0 kg/day

 CO Kg 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 - 1.0 kg/day 

 Total - 12.0 kg/day 

(0.0132 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions calculated using Mobile6.2 with an average speed of 50 mph. 

Trips within Connecticut (30 miles roundtrip): 

Daily emissions reduction = VMT x emissions factor. 

New York-destined trips (42 miles roundtrip): 

Daily emissions reduction = VMT x emissions factor. 

COSTS 

Project life:__30__ yrs Interest rate: __7___% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $2.4 M $600,000 $3.0 M 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $2.4 M $600,000 $3.0 M 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$261,300 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $3.0 M 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $3.0 M 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assume benefits 260 days per year. 

Cost-effectiveness was not provided by the project sponsor. 

Annualized Cost = $3.0M x 0.081 CRF = $37,000 (assuming 

no private costs and no parking revenue). 

C/E = $37,000 / (0.0132 x 260) = $10,781/ton. 

NOTE: Emissions reductions reported in CMAQ database differ from estimates provided or calculated from sponsor-provided 

documentation (-12 kg/day VOC and -12 kg/day NOx). This project description does not distinguish between public and private 

costs and revenues, although there will presumably be cost-sharing and/or revenues (i.e. Parking fee revenues) between the 

public and private sectors.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

112 

Category: TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: Service Upgrades/Amenities

CMAQ Project ID: MA20020069 Project Year: 2002 

Location: Fitchburg, Massachusetts MPO: Montachusett Regional Planning Commission 

Description: Fitchburg ITC Parking Garage - This project is the construction of a multi-level bus circulation/parking 

garage adjacent to the existing MART Intermodal Transportation Center on Main Street in Fitchburg. The project will 

provide parking spaces for about 387 cars, intra- and inter-city bus circulation system, fare collection system, and 

interface with the regional bus service and commuter rail station. The project will also provide an additional 13,000 

square feet of retail space in the new facility to be rented out to commercial establishments, including banking, 

restaurants, and dry cleaners. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: 0 

 VMT: - 21,070 

/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

387 total parking spaces – 25 spaces for MART staff – 35 spaces for commercial 

development = 327 new spaces for commuter rail passengers. Assume 100% utilization 

rate of all 327 new spaces, because demand at the Fitchburg Commuter Rail Station will 

increase 6% per year and eventually reach an estimated 410 one-way rail passengers. 

Using a 1999 survey of rail riders in the Montachusett area, 89.5% of passengers travel to 

the Cambridge/Boston area, a one-way trip of 43 miles. Based on the survey, 

conservatively assume that 75% of the 327 new vehicles parked at the facility will have as 

their final destination Cambridge/Boston. 327 vehicles * 75% = 245 vehicle round trips 

removed = 490 vehicle trips removed (no trip starts reduced). 

Daily VMT reduction = 245 vehicle round trips removed * 86 mile round trip = 21,070 VMT 

reduced.

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 14.0 kg/day 

 NOX - 27.0 kg/day

 CO - 143.0 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -41 kg/day 

(0.0451 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions calculated using Mobile 5a emissions factors. Assumes 

average travel speed along the Route 2 corridor is 50 mph. 

Note: The calculated CO emissions reduction is only for winter months. 

COSTS 

Project life:____ yrs Interest rate: __7___% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $388,000 $237,000 $625,000

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $388,000 $237,000 $625,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$625,000 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $625,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $625,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assumes benefits 250 days/year. 

The following cost-effectiveness was provided by the project 

sponsor. First year cost per kg of emissions reduced = 

Project cost / Adjusted net change (kg/year). 

VOC cost effectiveness = $625,000 / 3,483 kg/year = $179 

NOx cost effectiveness = $625,000 / 6,805 kg/year = $91 

Winter CO cost effectiveness = $625,000 / 35, 197 kg/year = $18 

Annualized cost = $625,000 x 0.081 CRF = $50,625 

C/E = $50,625 / (0.0451 x 250) = $4,490/ton 

NOTE: The emissions reduction methodology for the Intermodal Transportation Center does not account for the additional 

revenues from renting commercial space on the facility or the additional operating cost of the new facility. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

113 

Category: TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: Service Upgrades/Amenities

CMAQ Project ID: MO20040023 Project Year: 2004 - 2006 

Location: Kansas City, Missouri MPO: Mid-American Regional Council 

Description: Operation Welcome Aboard Infrastructure - Operation Welcome Aboard is a program designed to 

increase transit ridership by improving the comfort, attractiveness & usefulness of bus shelters. The project will 

install 100 bus shelters and pads featuring the new paint scheme of Metro buses. Signage at stops will also be 

improved to tie in with color and provide valuable route and schedule information. By making bus stops more inviting 

and useful, new riders will be more likely to find out about transit services and use them. 

Travel impacts 

 Vehicle trips: - 405/day 

 VMT: - 4,050/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit + 450/day 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

Methodology/Assumptions: 

Assume New Bus Ridership will be 450 people/day and the average Bus Trip 

Length is 10 miles. Estimate that 90 percent of the new bus riders will be switching 

from autos. Estimates were derived from internal analysis. 

Vehicle trips reduced = 450 people/day * 0.9 new ridership factor = 405 vehicle 

trips/day 

VMT reduced = 405 vehicle trips x 10 miles = 4,050 VMT reduction 

Methodology based on December 1995 guidance from CARB entitled “Emissions 

Reduction Calculation Methodologies.” 

Emissions 

 HC NA 

 VOC - 2.49 kg/day 

 NOX - 3.38 kg/day 

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total NA 

Methodology/Assumptions: 

Emissions reductions were calculated by multiplying VMT reduction by per-mile 

emissions factors. Emissions factors developed for the Kansas City region based 

on MOBILE model; assumed running speed is 35 mph. 

Costs 

Project life: _10__ yrs Interest rate: __7__% 

 CMAQ Non-CMAQ Total 

Capital $960,000 $240,000 $1.2 M 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $960,000 $240,000 $1.2 M 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$190,900 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $1.2 M 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $1.2 M 

Methodology/Assumptions: 

The multi-year project has joint sponsorship by Kansas and 

Missouri. Kansas will provide 10% of the CMAQ and local 

match, while Missouri assumes 90% of the CMAQ and local 

match funding. 

2004 2005 2006 

KS20040011 $60 KS20040011 $20 KS20040011 $16 

MO20040023 $540 MO20050009 $180 MO2006006 $144 

To calculate cost effectiveness, need to assume life of 

project (recommend 10 years). 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

114 

Category: TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: Service Upgrades/Amenities

CMAQ Project ID: NY20040006 Project Year: 2004 

Location: Suffolk County, New York MPO: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council 

Description: Suffolk County Transit Marketing Program - The project will fund a suite of service upgrades and 

transit marketing tasks to inform the public of available transit options. These tasks will entail (1) review current 

marketing materials (2) schedule ads in local radio and newspaper outlets (3) inform the public of the new SCT color 

scheme (4) develop additional paratransit marketing materials and (5) develop and administer a rider survey. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 176 /day 

 VMT: - 2,499.20 

/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Through these efforts SCT estimates the system will attract 176 new riders each 

day. The average trip length per rider is 14.2 miles per day and the average travel 

speed on local network is 18 mph. The system operates 307 days per year. 

Daily Trip Reduction = - 176 trips/day x 14.2 miles = 2,499.2 VMT reduced. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 2.39 kg/day

 NOX - 2.19 kg/day

 CO - 40.72 kg/day 

 PM10 - 0.067 kg/day 

 PM2.5 - 0.033 kg/day 

 Total - 4.58 kg/day 

(0.0050 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The NYSDOT software package CMAQtraq was used to estimate emissions for the 

project, using the “Transit Vehicle Reduction” module at 18 mph running speeds. 

Effects were calculated for 307 days/year with the following emissions factors 

(g/mile): 

CO: 16.29 

VOC: 0.96 

NOx: 0.87 

PM2.5: 0.0133 

PM10: 0.0269 

COSTS 

Project life:_2__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $0 $0 $0 

Adm/oper $160,000 $40,000 $200,000 

Total $160,000 $40,000 $200,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$123,600 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $200,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $200,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

115 

Category: TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: Service Upgrades/Amenities

CMAQ Project ID: OH20050008 Project Year: 2005 

Location: Cuyahoga County, Ohio MPO: Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency 

Description: Laketran AVL-MDT System - Installation of automatic vehicle location (AVL) and mobile data terminal 

(MDT) systems on Laketran vehicles will improve transit vehicle operations as part of the system’s paratransit 

program. These benefits may include improving schedule adherence, reducing operations cost, improving efficiency, 

increasing ridership, reducing the number of vehicles needed, and improving routes planning and scheduling. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: -465,553 

/year 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assumes a 7% reduction in the number of vehicles required to serve the same 

routes and passengers and a 15-18% decrease in travel time on transit. 

Assume a 17.5% increase in Paratransit ridership (54,387 passengers) traveling an 

average of 8.56 miles per passenger. (465,553 VMT reduced) 

Annual VMT reduction = 54,387 passengers * 8.56 miles of service provided = 

465,553 VMT reduction 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 4.0 kg/day

 NOX - 13.0 kg/day

 CO - 47.0 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -17.0 kg/day 

(0.0187 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions were calculated using VMT reductions and EPA Standards in 

g/mile for HC, CO, NOx and PM in 2004. 

COSTS 

Project life:__10__ yrs Interest rate: __7___% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $2,800,000 $700,000 $3,500,000 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $2,800,000 $700,000 $3,500,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$538,580 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $3,500,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $3,500,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The project is split between two years, $1.1 M in funding 

will be used in 2004 and $2.4 M in 2005. Costeffectiveness was not provided by sponsor. 

Assume technology lasts 10 years. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

116 

Category: TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: Service Upgrades/Amenities

CMAQ Project ID: Not Yet Assigned Project Year: 2007 

Location: Connecticut MPO: South Central Regional COG 

Description: Commuter Rail Utility Construction - This project will fund the construction of an additional 199 

parking spaces at the Guilford Station-Woodruff Farms station along the Shoreline East Line. An AM Peak Rail 

Origin/Destination Survey was conducted in 2000 to determine the destination towns for and percentage of trips 

made by patrons boarding at the Guilford rail station. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 298 /day 

 VMT: - 10,702 

/year 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS: 

VMT reductions were calculated using the length of highways in each county for 

each trip destination. Fairfield County had 30% of the VMT reduction (3,172 

miles) and New Haven County had 70% of the VMT reduction (7,530 miles). 

Assume a 100% utilization of the proposed 199 parking spaces in Year 2007. 

Vehicle trip reduction = 199 spaces x 100% utilization x 2 trips per day = 298 

vehicle trips reduced daily. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 6.0 kg/day 

 NOX - 6.0 kg/day

 CO Kg 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 - 1.0 kg/day 

 Total -12.0 kg/day 

(0.0132 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions factors from MOBILE model with 50 mph traveling speed. 

Fairfield County: 

VOC emissions factor = 0.544 g/mile 

NOx emissions factor = 0.508 g/mile 

PM2.5 emissions factor = 0.011 g/mile 

New Haven County: 

VOC emissions factor = 0.546 g/mile 

NOx emissions factor = 0.524 g/mile 

PM2.5 emissions factor = 0.011 g/mile 

COSTS 

Project life:__12__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $89,000 $22,000 $111,000 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $89,000 $22,000 $111,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$14,227 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $111,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $111,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assumes project benefits 260 days each year. 

Cost-effectiveness was not provided by the project sponsor. 

NOTE: Project cost information taken from 2007 STIP. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

117 

Category: TECHNOLOGY IMPROVMENTS Subcategory: Conventional Bus Replacements

CMAQ Project ID: MD20020008 Project Year: 2002 

Location: Maryland MPO: Metropolitan Washington COG 

Description: 100 Replacement Local Buses - Purchase of 100 conventionally fueled local buses for the Maryland 

Transit Administration (MTA) fleet. The new buses will replace 100 buses older buses that have been in operation 

since 1988. 

Travel impacts 

 Vehicle trips: 0 

 VMT: 0 

 Speed: 0 

 Delay: 0 

 SOV 0 

 CP/VP 0 

 Transit 0 

 Walk 0 

 Bike 0 

Methodology/Assumptions: 

MTA buses operate an average of 330 days and travel an average of 26,650 miles 

each year. (26,650 miles * 100 buses = 2,665,000 VMT) 

Because the buses will replace existing buses, there are no estimated travel 

impacts. 

Emissions 

 VOC - 17.0 kg/day 

 NOX - 188.9 kg/day 

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total NA 

Methodology/Assumptions: 

Emissions savings were estimated using the difference between the emissions 

factors for the 1988 buses and the 2002 replacement buses: 

 VOC: 4.660 g/mi (1988 bus) – 2.560 g/mi (2002 bus) = 2.100 g/mi savings 

 NOx: 36.24 g/mi (1988 bus) – 12.88 g/mi (2002 bus) = 23.36 g/mi savings 

VOC reduced = (2,665,000 VMT * 2.1 g/mi savings) / 330 days = 17.0 kg/day 

NOX reduced = (2,665,000 VMT * 23.36 g/mi savings) / 330 days = 188.9 kg/day 

Costs 

Project life:__ 4 _ yrs Interest rate: __ 7 __% 

 CMAQ Non-CMAQ Total 

Capital $5.0 M $21.5 M $26.5 M 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $5.0 M $21.5 M $26.5 M 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$9,180,000 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $26,500,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $26,500,000 

Methodology/Assumptions: 

Cost-effectiveness was not provided by sponsor. In order to 

calculate cost-effectiveness, estimate the remaining useful 

life of the older vehicles. 

NOTE: Emissions reductions that come from replacing an older vehicle with a newer, cleaner vehicle will not provide emissions 

reduction credit longer than the period of time that the older vehicle would have been kept in service without the replacement 

program (per EPA's Diesel Retrofit SIP and Conformity guidance, http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/publications.htm.) The 

duration of benefit will therefore depend on the remaining life of the vehicles. This causes some difficulty in calculating costeffectiveness, since the buses will be used for perhaps another 12+ years (and will allow for continued transit services), but the 

emissions benefits associated with replacement may only last for a couple years. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

118 

Strategy: TECHNOLOGY IMPROVMENTS Category: Conventional Bus Replacements

CMAQ Project ID: Not Yet Assigned Project Year: 2003 

Location: Southwest Ohio MPO: Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional COG 

Description: 61 Replacement Buses - This project will fund the purchase of 61 new 40-foot coaches to replace 15-year old 

ones. The new coaches will reduce air pollution because they are manufactured to adhere to much stricter air quality standards

than the coaches they replace. The coaches will be equipped with security cameras and bike racks to increase security and 

provide multimodal connectability. The coaches are lift-equipped for disability accessibility. They also come equipped with ITS

equipment and METRO, which are connected to ARTIMIS, allowing the transfer of information on highways to aid in congestion 

relief.

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: + 45 bus 

miles/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Methodology does not account for any reduction in person motor vehicle travel, simply the 

replacement of existing buses. The methodology actually assumes an increase in VMT 

from the buses, as the new buses travel more. 

Average daily VMT for old buses = 77 VMT is the default value for 15-year old urban transit 

buses using MOBILE 6.2. 

Average daily VMT for new buses = 122 VMT is the default value for 1-year old urban 

transit buses using MOBILE 6.2. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC -9.639 kg/day

 NOX -11.639 kg/day 

 CO -35.530 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Calculation used MOBILE 6.2 emissions factors for 15-year old and 1-year old urban transit 

buses operating on local streets. 

Emissions factors for 15-year old urban transit buses: 

VOC = 2.74 g/mile; NOx = 24.20 g/mile; CO = 12.61 g/mile 

Emissions factors for 1-year old urban transit buses 

VOC = 0.44 g/mile; NOx = 10.59 g/mile; CO = 6.44 g/mile 

Bus emissions are calculated by multiplying VMT by emissions factor. 

Total old bus emissions – Total new bus emissions = Total emissions reduction 

VOC: 12934 – 3295 = 9.639 kg/day 

CO: 59499 – 47860 = 11.639 kg/day 

NOX: 114234 – 78704 = 35.530 kg/day

COSTS 

Project life:__ 4 _ yrs Interest rate: __ 7 __% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $4,864,440 $2,084,760 $6,949,200 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0

Total $4,864,440 $2,084,760 $6,949,200 

Total annualized public 

cost: $2,353,000 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $6,949,200 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $6,949,200 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

A cost effectiveness calculation was not provided by the 

project sponsor. Emissions reductions that come from 

replacing an older vehicle with a newer, cleaner vehicle will not 

provide emissions reduction credit longer than the period of 

time that the older vehicle would have been kept in service 

without the replacement program (per EPA's Diesel Retrofit 

SIP and Conformity guidance.) The duration of benefit will 

therefore depend on the remaining life of the vehicles. This 

causes some difficulty in calculating cost-effectiveness, since 

the buses will be used for perhaps another 12+ years (and will 

allow for continued transit services). 

NOTE: The methodology uses MOBILE6.2 defaults, but do not appear to be based on actual travel data for these buses. It is 

unclear why the new buses would travel more than the old buses, so this seems to be a very conservative assumption (reduces 

the amount of emissions benefit). Emissions reductions reported in the CMAQ database differ from estimates provided or 

calculated from sponsor-provided documentation (-1 kg/day VOC, -60 kg/day CO, and -22 kg/day NOx). 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

119 

Category: TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: Alternative Fuel Vehicles/Fueling 

Facilities

CMAQ Project ID: ME20020020 Project Year: 2002 

Location: Cumberland County, Maine MPO: Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation 

Study 

Description: Compressed Natural Gas Fueling Station - This project will fund the construction of a fast fill 

compressed natural gas facility for public and private fleets based in, or operating from the Greater Portland area. 

This project will be implemented in conjunction with an effort by METRO to convert the transit bus fleet to natural gas. 

The agency anticipates converting 4 buses by 2004 and a total of 21 buses by 2015. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

METRO’s existing buses use an average of 32 gallons of diesel fuel per day. 

2004: 4 buses * 32 gallons of fuel = 128 gallons/day 

2015: 21 buses * 32 gallons of fuel = 672 gallons/day 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 2.768 kg/day

 NOX - 2.13 kg/day

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -4.90 kg/day 

(0.0054 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assumes that diesel engines emit 27.04 g/gal of VOC and 83.2 g/gal of NOx. 

Assumes that natural gas reduces VOC emissions by 80% over diesel fuel 

Assumes that natural gas reduces NOx emissions by 20% over diesel fuel 

2004 VOC: 128 gallons/day * 27.04 g/gal * 0.8 = 2.768 kg/day 

2004 NOx: 128 gallons/day * 83.2 g/gal * 0.2 = 2.13 kg/day 

2015 VOC: 672 gallons/day * 27.04 g/gal * 0.8 = 14.536 kg/day 

2015 NOx: 672 gallons/day * 83.2 g/gal * 0.2 = 11.182 kg/day 

COSTS 

Project life:__12__ yrs Interest rate: __7___% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $150,000 $1,155,903 $1,305,903 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $150,000 $1,155,903 $1,305,903 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$192,912 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $1,305,903 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $1,305,903 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

120 

Category: TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: Alternative Vehicles/ Fueling 

Facilities

CMAQ Project ID: PA20020062 Project Year: 2002 

Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania MPO: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

Description: Purchase 12 New Alternative Fuel Bus - This project will fund the acquisition of 12 forty-foot, low floor 

hybrid/electric-powered buses with an option to purchase 20 additional buses. These buses, through the combination 

of an internal-combustion engine to produce electricity, storage batteries, and an electric propulsion system, will 

provide a quieter ride for riders, reduce exhaust emissions and fuel consumption, and improve brake life through 

regenerative braking. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The 12 buses being retired used diesel fuel and had an annual 27,207 vehicle 

revenue miles per bus. 

The 12 replacement buses are hybrid/electric vehicles and will still have an annual 

27,207 vehicle revenue miles per bus. 

Total revenue miles are multiplied by a 1.15 deadhead factor to account for vehicle 

travel to and from the programmed bus routes. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 3.0 kg/day

 NOX - 91.0 kg/day

 CO - 12.0 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -94 kg/day 

(0.1035 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions factors were calculated from the Mobile model using an average running 

speed of 13.5 mph for both conventional and replacement buses. 

Emissions reductions were calculated for the year 2002, assuming operation 250 

days per year using an interim version of PAQONE created specifically for DVRPC to 

calculate air quality benefits. A diesel fuel type was selected for the older buses and 

a CNG fuel type for the newer ones. 

COSTS 

Project life:__4__ yrs Interest rate: __7___% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $5.608 M $1.402 M $7.010 M 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $5.608 M $1.402 M $7.010 M 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Cost-effectiveness was not provided by sponsor. 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$2,428,000 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $7,010,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $7,010,000 

NOTE: The calculations provided in the documentation are unclear and might suggest that the formula for vehicle travel to/from 

bus routes = 108.8 daily mileage per bus x 12 buses x difference in emissions rates x 1.15 deadhead 

factor. Emissions reductions that come from replacing an older vehicle with a newer, cleaner vehicle will not provide emissions

reduction credit longer than the period of time that the older vehicle would have been kept in service without the replacement 

program (per EPA's Diesel Retrofit SIP and Conformity guidance). The duration of benefit will therefore depend on the remaining

life of the vehicles. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

121 

Strategy: TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS Category: Alternative Vehicles/ Fueling Facilities

CMAQ Project ID: CT20050025 Project Year: 2005 

Location: Connecticut MPO: No MPO Identified/State-sponsored project 

Description: CT Clean Fuels Program - This project is the funding of provision of technical assistance to 

municipalities and other entities that implement alternate fuel projects in the NY/NJ/CT non-attainment area – these 

include purchases of diesel particulate filters for buses and other equipment. The purchase and/or conversion of 

alternate fuel vehicles in the public or private sector are aimed primarily at air quality improvement. Alternate fuel 

vehicles replace conventionally powered vehicles, resulting in lower levels of controlled emissions. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Type of equipment = Diesel Particulate Filters. 

# of DPFs installed = 9, with plans to install 31 more. 

Average daily distance driven based on MOBILE6.2 estimates: 

 Light duty trucks/vans = 34.3 miles/day 

 Passenger cars = 28.8 miles/day 

Average number of days/week vehicle is used = 5 days/week. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 6.75 kg/day 

 NOX -12.49 kg/day

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -19.2 kg/day 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reduction benefits calculated using the Department of Energy’s “AirCRED” 

model, with variables such as the number of vehicles, the type of vehicles, an estimate of 

average daily distance driven, and the average number of days per week the vehicle is 

used, entered into the model. 

NY/NJ/CT Moderate Ozone Non-Attainment Area: 

 VOC emissions reduction = 0.10 lbs NMHC/day x 0.4536 lb/kg x 153 days = 6.94 

kg/day. Then, convert NMHC to VOC = 6.94 kg/day / 0.93 x 0.45 = 3.36 kg/day. 

 NOx emissions reduction = 0.06 lbs/day x 0.4536 lb/kg x 153 days = 4.16 kg/day. 

Greater Connecticut Moderate Ozone Non-Attainment Area: 

 VOC emissions reduction = 0.11 lbs MHC/day x 0.4536 lb/kg x 153 days = 7.63 kg/day. 

Then, convert NMHC to VOC = 7.63 / 0.93 x 0.45 = 3.39 kg/day 

 NOx emissions reduction = 0.12 lbs/day x 0.4536 lb/kg x 153 days = 8.33 kg/day

COSTS 

Project life:__7__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $688,800 $172,200 $861,000 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $688,800 $172,200 $861,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$172,670 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $861,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $861,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assumes benefits for 153 days/year. 

A cost effectiveness calculation was not provided by the 

project sponsor. 

NOTE: Emissions reductions reported in CMAQ database (-11.4 kg/day VOC, -40.3 kg/day NOx) differ from estimates provided 

or calculated from sponsor-provided documentation. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

122 

Category: TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS Subcategory: Alternative Fuel Vehicles/ Fueling 

Facilities

CMAQ Project ID: Not Yet Assigned Project Year: 2007 

Location: Nassau County, New York MPO: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council 

Description: Purchase 3 Forty-Foot Urban Transit CNG Buses - This project will fund the purchase of three 

replacement, 40-foot CNG transit buses. The present buses will be at the end of their useful life and continued use 

would result in increased maintenance, increased costs, and poor, inefficient service. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The three buses being replaced are 1997 CNG buses which average 14 mph. 

Each bus travels 160 miles each day and operates 360 days per year. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 1.50 kg/day

 NOX - 4.34 kg/day

 CO - 7.62 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 - 1.40 kg/day 

 Total NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

“After” analysis conducted using CO, VOC, and PM emissions factors from a 2004 model 

year 6081H John Deere engine test conducted by University of West Virginia for 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). 

“Before” emissions factors for CO, NOx, and VOC derived from 1990 and 2000 NYSDOT 

emissions factor tables for Nassau County. “Before” emissions factors for PM10 and 

PM2.5 are default 2000 values from the CMAQtraq program from NYSDOT. 

Emissions factors used in calculations: 

 BEFORE AFTER 

CO (g/mi) 15.79 0.13 

VOC (g/mi) 3.14 0.05 

NOx (g/mi) 25.54 16.62 

PM2.5 (g/mi) 2.88 0.0061 

PM10 (g/mi) 3.1570 ---

COSTS 

Project life:__4__ yrs Interest rate: __7___% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $1.0 M $250,000 $1.25 M 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $1.0 M $250,000 $1.25 M 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$375,700 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $1.25 M 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $1.25 M 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The project life of the new CNG buses is 8 years. However, 

since comparison is against old buses which are near the 

end of their useful life, the cost-effectiveness analysis in this 

study accounts for fewer years. 

No cost effectiveness calculations were provided by the 

project sponsor. 

NOTE: Typically, replacement projects should only account for remaining useful life of the old buses, or the different in cost and 

emissions associated with a CNG bus vs. a conventional diesel bus. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

123 

Category: DUST MITIGATION Subcategory: Dust Mitigation

CMAQ Project ID: CA20040439 Project Year: 2004 

Location: Ridgecrest, California MPO: Kern Council of Governments 

Description: Graaf Ave. Paving Project - The “Graaf Avenue Paving Project” will provide funding for the City of 

Ridgecrest to pave 2 lanes of moving traffic, pave 2 lanes of parking, and install curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both 

sides of the street. This project includes the last unpaved section of Graaf Avenue within the city limits. It serves as a 

direct route to Immanual Christian School and other commercial activity centers. The total length of the project is 0.25 

miles, along Graaf Avenue between Norma St. and Wayne St. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Using visual observation, there are about 300 average daily trips (ADT). 

The total project length is 1,320 feet. 

27,375 annual VMT = 300 ADT * 365 days per year * (1,320 feet / 5,280 feet per 

mile) 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC NA 

 NOX NA

 CO NA 

 PM10 - 143 kg/day 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Using visual observation, the average traffic speed on the road is 30 mph. The silt 

content of the road material was estimated as 28.5%. The road carries residential 

traffic, comprised mostly of cars, SUVs, and trucks; therefore, the mean vehicle 

weight was estimated 2.5 tons. Data from the Western Regional Climate Center 

indicates the number of days with at least 0.01 inches of precipitation was 19 in 

1998. The particle size multiplier was 0.36, from PM10 guidelines. 

The following equation was used to calculate the quantity of size specific 

particulate emissions from the unpaved road. 

COSTS 

Project life:__20__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $174,360 $22,637 $197,360 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $174,360 $22,637 $197,360 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$20,817 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $197,360 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $197,360 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Engineering costs were comprised of $16,909 CMAQ and 

$2,191 in local funding. Construction costs were split 

between $157,814 in CMAQ funding and $20,446 in local 

match. 

The cost effectiveness calculation provided by the project 

sponsor uses a 0.071 capital recovery factor. 

(0.071 * $197,360) / 143 kg/day = $97.98 per kg of PM10 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

124 

Category: DUST MITIGATION Subcategory: Dust Mitigation

CMAQ Project ID: ID20040003 Project Year: 2004 

Location: Sandpoint, Idaho MPO: Bannock Planning Organization 

Description: Lincoln Ave. Sandpoint - This project will fund the paving of Lincoln Avenue from Pine Street to Main 

Street in order to reduce the generation of PM10. Emissions inventory studies have shown that fugitive road dust 

emissions are a major source of PM10 emissions in most western US communities, contributing to 53% of the annual 

emissions and 37% of the winter-time daily emissions. The air quality improvement plan for the Sandpoint 

Nonattainment Area includes reducing fugitive road dust by paving and resurfacing. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Project length = 0.48 miles 

Average Daily Traffic (ADT) = 1,030 vehicles/day 

The project sponsor supplied ADT using vehicle counts. VMT was based on data 

obtained from Bannock Planning Organization 1998 Household Survey, 

COMPASS 1997-98 Valley Origin and Destination Study, and Northern Idaho 

Corridor Plans. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC NA 

 NOX NA

 CO NA 

 PM10 - 175.512 kg/day 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -175.512 kg/day 

(0.193 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS: 

Particulate matter for unpaved roads = 0.360 kg/VMT 

Particulate matter for paved roads = 0.005 kg/VMT 

Emissions reduction = (0.360 kg/VMT – 0.005 kg/VMT) x (1,030 vehicles) x (0.48 

miles) = 175.512 kg/day 

COSTS 

Project life: 20 yrs Interest rate: __7___% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $319,600 $0 $319,600 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $319,600 $0 $319,600 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$33,710 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $319,600 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $319,600 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Annual emissions reduction = 177 kg/day x 260 days = 

46,020 kg/year emissions reduction 

The statewide average number of days with less than 0.01 

inches precipitation is 260 days. 20-year project life was 

determined by the average life of maintained paved roadway 

in Idaho. 

NOTE: Emissions reductions for PM10 reported in the CMAQ database (255.11 kg/day) differ from those calculated 

and provided by the State (175 kg/day). A cost benefit calculation was provided by the State which assumed 

emissions benefits 260 days/year for 20 years. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

125 

Category: DUST MITIGATION Subcategory: Dust Mitigation

CMAQ Project ID: ID20050017 Project Year: 2005 

Location: Bannock County, Idaho MPO: Bannock Planning Organization 

Description: Purchase of a Liquid De-Icer Truck - Project to purchase a liquid de-icing truck to reduce application of 

sand and salt in the winter months thereby reducing PM10 emissions. The truck will use a combination of Magnesium 

Chloride on gravel roads and anti-icing chemicals on paved roads. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: 141,845.5 

/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Length of gravel road = 33.45 miles 

VMT on gravel = 2,247.3 miles/day 

Length of paved road = 191.06 miles 

VMT = 139,598.2 miles/day 

VMT was based on data obtained from Bannock Planning Organization 1998 

Household Survey, COMPASS 1997-98 Valley Origin and Destination Study, and 

Northern Idaho Corridor Plans. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC NA

 NOX NA

 CO NA 

 PM10 - 6,292 kg/day 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 6,292 kg/day 

(6.93 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions factors were obtained from the EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant 

Emissions Factors (AP-42, September, 1998). Environmental staff at the Idaho 

Transportation Department determined the control efficiency was 0.70. 

Reduction in PM10 by application of Magnesium Chloride = 0.7073 PM emissions 

factor * 0.70 * 2,247 VMT = 1,113 kg/day 

Reduction in PM10 by application of Anti-icing chemical = 0.053 PM emissions 

factor * 0.70 * 139,598 VMT = 5,179 kg/day 

Total PM10 reduction = 1,113 kg/day + 5,179 kg/day = 6,292 kg/day 

COSTS 

 Project life:__8_ yrs Interest rate: __ 7 __% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $152,889 $12,111 $165,000 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $152,889 $12,111 $165,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$29,865 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $165,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $165,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The project life was determined by the average life of similar 

equipment. Days of Activity per year = 200 days per year for 

Magnesium Chloride and 90 days per year for the anti-icing 

chemicals 

NOTE: Costs include purchase of the trucks, but does not account for on-going operating costs. Assumption of 200 

days of application per year sounds high, but is presumably accurate for the local area.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

126 

Category: FREIGHT/ INTERMODAL Subcategory: Freight/Intermodal

CMAQ Project ID: ME20000004 Project Year: 2000 

Location: Cumberland and York Counties, Maine MPO: Lewiston-Auburn Comprehensive Transportation 

Study 

Description: South Portland Truck to Rail Intermodal Facility - The South Portland Truck to Rail Intermodal 

Facility will provide funding to construct rail siding as part of an intermodal transfer. Inbound kaolin clay is currently 

transloaded from ships onto trucks for transport to paper mills. After completion of this project, the raw materials will 

be transported via rail, reducing the number of heavy duty vehicle trips required. The emissions analysis was 

conducted in 1999 and assumed the project would reach full capacity by 2006. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 2,250 

/year 

 VMT: - 225,000 

/year 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assume the rate of usage is a constant 2,250 trucks per year by 2006 and one 

third of the trucks go North, one third South and one third West. Assume the 

average mileage per truck is 100 miles round trip and all truck emissions from 

heavy duty diesel vehicles (HDDV) traveling at 40 mph. The facility will operate 365 

days per year. 

1999 750 trucks removed = 75,000 miles reduced 

2006: 2,250 trucks removed = 225,000 miles reduced 

2015: 2,250 trucks removed = 225,000 miles reduced 

2018: 2,250 trucks removed = 225,000 miles reduced 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 0.71 kg/day 

 NOX - 4.22 kg/day

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 4.93 kg/day 

(0.0054 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions calculated using Mobile running emissions factors for HDDV 

at 40 mph. Emissions were calculated for 2006, 2015, and 2018 for comparison 

purposes. 

COSTS 

Project life:__20__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $283,941 $71,239 $355,180 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $283,941 $71,239 $355,180 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$41,096 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $355,180 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $355,180 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

NOTE: Analysis does not account for any increase in railroad emissions.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

127 

Category: FREIGHT/ INTERMODAL Subcategory: Freight/Intermodal

CMAQ Project ID: ME20020005 Project Year: 2002 

Location: Cumberland and York Counties, Maine MPO: Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation Study 

Description: South Portland – Rail Line Rehab for Freight Shipping - This project will fund the rehabilitation and/or 

replacement of tracks on the Sprague Industrial Spur. The rehab of the rail will allow freight to be shipped by rail 

instead of truck. Existing train traffic will not be impacted as additional freight will be added to existing trains. The 

project assuming that the existing truck traffic is traveling along the interstate south to reach Boston and beyond. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 1,000/ 

year 

 VMT: - 70,000 

/year 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The number of trucks being removed from the highway is approximately 1,000 

annually. Assumes that the trucks would normally travel down I-95 to Kittery 

traveling at an average speed 50 mph in Cumberland County and 60 mph in York 

County on the interstate. Assumes each round trip truck trip would be 

approximately 70 miles. Assume all truck emissions are from heavy duty diesel 

vehicles (HDDV) and the siding works 5 days a week 52 weeks a year. 

2006: 1,000 trucks removed per year = 70,000 miles reduced 

2015: 1,000 trucks removed per year = 70,000 miles reduced 

2020: 1,000 trucks removed per year = 70,000 miles reduced 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 0.18 kg/day

 NOX - 1.96 kg/day

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 2.14 kg/day 

(0.0024 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions calculated using Mobile running emissions factors for HDDV 

at 50 and 60 mph. Emissions were calculated for 2006, 2015, and 2018 for 

comparison purposes. 

COSTS 

Project life:__20__ yrs Interest rate: __7___% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $128,501 $365,597 $494,098 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $128,501 $365,597 $494,098 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$54,720 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $494,098 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $494,098 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

NOTE: Analysis does not account for any increase in railroad emissions.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

128 

Category: FREIGHT/INTERMODAL Subcategory: Freight/Intermodal

CMAQ Project ID: PA20020059, PA20030090 Project Year: 2002 - 2003 

Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania MPO: Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning 

Commission 

Description: Westmoreland Intermodal Freight Facility - The Westmoreland Intermodal Center is a project to 

reduce the amount of freight cargo traveling through downtown Pittsburgh. A portion of the cargo currently entering 

and leaving the region on trucks will be diverted onto rail freight carriers at the Facility, reducing congestion on the 

region’s freeways and major arterials. Currently, cargo either enters the region on trucks via major radial highways 

and is delivered to various points through the region or is picked-up at various points and leaves the region on trucks 

via the highways. By diverting a portion of the cargo to rail freight carriers serving the Intermodal Facility, the cargo 

will be transloaded to/from trucks at the facility for pick-up/delivery through the region. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: - 897/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS: 

Assume 500,000 tons of cargo each year will be diverted to the Facility, the 

equivalent of 20,000 truck loads per year. Assume an average 1-way freight trip in 

the region without the facility is 94 miles, and with the facility will be 80 miles. 

Daily VMT reduction = 20,000 year truck trips / 312 operating days per year * 14 

miles per trip = 897.4 VMT. 

Calculate the change in truck VMT to deliver cargo with and without construction of 

the Facility. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 0.001 kg/day 

 NOX - 13.3 kg/day

 CO - 1.90 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -13.3 kg/day 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions calculated using heavy duty diesel emissions factors from Mobile 

5a_H emissions model for years 2001, 2004, and 2012 to compare emissions with and 

without construction of the facility. (Emissions change due to implementation of project = 

Yearly VMT x Emissions factor / 1000.) 

Emissions reductions reported are for 2001 only. Travel speeds determined from the SPC 

travel demand model. Note that the average speed for a truck trip from the Intermodal 

Facility to the average pick-up/delivery point (38 mph) is lower than the average speed for a 

truck trip from a highway entering into the region to the average pick-up/delivery point (47 

mph). 

No Build Emissions @ 47.0 mph: 

 VOC = 1,872,000 x 1.06 / 1000 = 1,982.32 kg/year 

 NOx = 1,872,000 x 9.44 / 1000 = 17,671.68 kg/year 

 CO = 1,872,000 x 5.24 / 1000 = 9,809.28 kg/year 

Build Emissions @ 38.0 mph: 

 VOC = 1,600,000 x 1.24 / 1000 = 1,984.00 kg/year 

 NOx = 1,600,000 x 8.45 / 1000 = 13,520.00 kg/year 

 CO = 1,600,000 x 5.76 / 1000 = 9,216.00 kg/year 

Emissions Change = Build – No Build Emissions. 

 VOC emissions change = 1,984.00 - 1,982.32 = -0.32 kg/year 

 NOx emissions change = 13,520.00 – 17,671.68 = -4,151.68 kg/year 

 CO emissions change = 9,216.00 – 9,809.28 = -593.28 kg/year

COSTS 

Project life:__20__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $7.6 M $1.9 M $9.5 M 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assume trucks operate at the facility 6 days/week and the 

total service life of the project is 10 years. The cost-
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

129 

Total $7.6 M $1.9 M $9.5 M 

Total annualized public 

cost: $1,028,000 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $9.5 M 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $9.5 M 

effectiveness analysis in this study assumes a 20-year 

service life. 

Cost-effectiveness calculations were not provided by 

sponsor. 

NOTE: State provided information indicates total CMAQ funding of $7.6 M and a $1.9 M local match. The CMAQ 

database lists the project in FY 2002 ($8,750,000) and 2003 ($1,357,000) for a CMAQ funding total of $10,107,000. 

Analysis does not account for any increase in rail emissions. In the CMAQ database, kg/year figures were incorrectly 

reported as kg/day. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

130 

Category: FREIGHT/INTERMODAL Subcategory: Freight/Intermodal

CMAQ Project ID: NY20040036 Project Year: 2004 

Location: Staten Island, New York MPO: Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council 

Description: Arlington Intermodal Yard - This project will fund intermodal capacity improvements to the Staten 

Island Railroad’s(SIRR) Arlington Yard. The project will improve the efficiency of rail shipments to and from Staten 

Island and the continental United States by increasing the reliability of the rail service and reduce the movement of 

freight shipments by truck through the NY metropolitan area. The project will extend rail track an additional 3,500 

feet, construct a runaround track adjacent to the tail track, and construct a new right-hand crossover between the 

west end of the tail track and the runaround track. These seemingly minor improvements will greatly increase rail 

efficiencies at the yard by allowing one locomotive to be housed in the yard to classify and haul traffic for pickup or 

delivery. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 26,054 

/day 

 VMT: - 140,538 

/day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The emissions calculation breaks the project into two segments: Visy Paper Mill – 

Bayoone Bridge and Transfer Station – Goethal Bridge. 

Visy/Bayoone Segment 

Average speed of 30 mph assumed for the transportation of freight by 10,268 

heavy duty trucks per day. The average miles of vehicle travel per day is 6, 

for 302 days/year. 

Daily VMT Reduction = 10,268 trucks x 6 miles = 61,608. 

Yearly VMT Reduction = 61,608 x 302 days = 18,605,616 

Trans/Goethal 

Average speed of 30 mph assumed for the transportation of freight by 15,786 

heavy duty trucks per day. The average miles of vehicle travel per day is 5, for 302 

days/year. 

 Daily VMT Reduction = 15,786 trucks x 5 miles = 78,930. 

 Yearly VMT Reduction = 78,930 x 302 days = 23,836,860.00 

 Daily VMT Reduction = 23,836,860 / 302 days/year = 78,930 VMT reduction. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 209.01 kg/day

 NOX - 1,008.80 kg/day

 CO - 1,712.21 kg/day 

 PM10 - 37.00 kg/day 

 PM2.5 - 30.07 kg/day 

 Total NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The NYSDOT software package CMAQtraq was used to estimate emissions for 

both segments, using the “Goods Vehicle Reduction” module. Effects were 

calculated for 302 days/year with the following emissions factors (g/mile): 

CO emissions factor = 12.18 PM2.5 emissions factor = 0.2184 

VOC emissions factor = 1.49 PM10 emissions factor = 0.2633 

NOx emissions factor = 7.18 

Total Emissions reduced = (Emissions factor * Visy/Bayoone miles reduced) + 

(Emissions factor * Trans/Goethal miles reduced) 

COSTS 

Project life: 20_ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $1.7 M $7.3 M $9.0 M 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $1.7 M $7.3 M $9.0 M 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$949,300 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $9.0 M 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The NY Economic Development Commission will provide the 

local share of funding, as well as provide for the ancillary 

development costs. A cost effectiveness calculation was not 

provided by the project sponsor. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

131 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $9.0 M 

NOTE: The $1.7 Million CMAQ funding total provided by the project sponsor does not match the $1.3 Million listed in 

the CMAQ database. The analysis seems to assume a very large number of trucks reduced, and does not account 

for rail emissions. It is not entirely clear if the truck assumptions were meant to be annual estimates rather than daily. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

132 

Category: FREIGHT/INTERMODAL Subcategory: Freight/Intermodal

CMAQ Project ID: PA20040076 Project Year: 2004 

Location: Indiana County, Pennsylvania MPO: Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission MPO 

Description: Norfolk Southern Rail Extension and Rehabilitation - This project will fund the construction of 5.25 miles 

and rehabilitation of 7 miles of rail track between Saltsburg and Shelocta, in Indiana County in order to create a more direct route 

for delivery of coal to the Keystone Power Station at Shelocta. Currently, coal is delivered by a combination of truck and rail 

freight movement. Increasing the amount of coal delivered via rail, will reduce the amount delivered by trucks. The new rail route 

is 106 miles less than the current route and has an easier grade, higher speed, and higher capacity than the existing rail line. 

Locomotive power required to haul 130 loaded coal cars per train over the new route will be less than that required to operate 

over the existing route with only 100 loaded coal cars per train; therefore, it is estimated that the new route will enable a 

decrease in the locomotive power required while, at the same time, increase by 30% the tonnage hauled per train.

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 174 /day 

 VMT: - 8,970 /day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS: 

Average Mine-based 2-way trip length = 41.26 miles 

Average Home-based 2-way trip Length is assumed to be 25% of the Mine-based length = 

10.315 miles 

Number of yearly 2-way truck trips before project = 107,396 

Number of yearly 2-way truck trips after project = 63,918 

Total Daily Truck VMT = Daily Mine-based VMT + Daily Home-based VMT 

Daily Truck VMT Savings = VMT before project – VMT after project 

VMT before = 5,538,967/year = 22,156/day; VMT after = 3,296,575/yr = 13,186/day 

∆ VMT = 8,970/day 

Assumes that 1⁄2 of the total coal delivered by truck to the power station originates in the 

project area, and consequently, 1⁄2 of the total truck VMT. Delivery occurs 250 days of the 

year. Estimated tons of coal that will be diverted from truck to rail = 1,000,000 tons/year.

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 11.48 kg/day 

 NOX - 53.46 kg/day

 CO - 64.67 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -64.94 kg/day 

(0.0715 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions were calculated for heavy duty diesel trucks at an average 

speed of 36 mph using MOBILE6 emissions factors for 2004 and 2012. 

Reported emissions reductions are for 2004 only. 

Emissions factors: 

VOC = 1.28; NOx = 7.21; CO = 5.96 

COSTS 

Project life:__20__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $10 M $2.5 M $12.5 M 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $10 M $2.5 M $12.5 M 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$1,318,500 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $12.5 M 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $12.5 M 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Cost-effectiveness was not provided by sponsor. 

Annualized cost = $12.5 m x 0.081 CRF = $1.0125 mil 

C/E = $1.0125 mil / (0.0715 x 250) = $56,643/ton

NOTE: The travel and emissions impact calculations did not include train emissions effects due to the increased 

tonnage of coal being carried by the rail cars.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

133 

Category FREIGHT/INTERMODAL Subcategory: Freight/Intermodal

CMAQ Project ID: CT20060022 Project Year: 2006 

Location: New Haven, Connecticut MPO: South Central Regional COG 

Description: Freight Rail Construction along Waterfront Street - This project will advance the railroad track 

installation on Waterfront St. in New Haven and the associated utility relocations. The track work will be performed by 

force account and the right of way for this work will be transferred from another project ( 92-541). The railroad track 

installation will improve air quality and reduce congestion by diverting some share of the transportation of freight and 

cargo through New Haven from truck to rail. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: - 15.38/day 

 VMT: - 1,408 /day 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Travel impact information was provided by the operator of the rail service in the area. 

Assumes 1,000 railcar shipments annually are diverted from truck to rail. 

Vehicle trips removed per year = 1,000 railcar shipments annually x 4 truck-equivalent 

per railcar / 260 days per year = 15.38 vehicle trips removed per day. 

50% of truck trips are one-way (61 miles average) and 50% of truck trips are round-trip 

(122 miles average) from the Port of New Haven. 

Daily VMT reduction = (50% x 4000 annual truck trips x 61 miles / 260 days/year) + 

(50% x 4000 truck trips x 122 miles / 260 days/year ) = 1,408 VMT reduced daily. 

In the PM2.5 non-attainment areas, 50% of truck trips are one-way (27 miles average) and 

50% of truck trips are round trip (43 miles average). 

Daily VMT reduction = (50% x 4000 annual truck trips x 27 miles / 260 days/year) + (50% x 

4000 truck trips x 54 miles / 260 days/year) = 623 VMT reduced daily in PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 0.460 kg/day

 NOX - 18.437 kg/day

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 - 0.162 kg/day 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS: 

Assumes 90% of a typical truck trip is on expressway and 10% is on arterial. 

Emissions factors, expressway: 

VOC = 0.314 g/mile; NOx = 13.630 g/mile; PM2.5 = 0.261 g/mile 

Emissions factors, arterial: 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

134 

 Total NA VOC = 0.453 g/mile; NOx = 8.300 g/mile; PM2.5 = 0.260 g/mile 

VOC emissions reduction = (1,408 VMT reduction x 0.314 g/mile x 90%) + (1,408 VMT 

reduction x 0.453 g/mile x 10%) = 461 g/day VOC reduction 

NOx emissions reduction = (1,408 VMT reduction x 13.630 x 90%) + (1,408 VMT reduction 

x 8.3 g/mile x 10%) = 18,441 g/day NOx reduction 

PM2.5 emissions reduction = (623 VMT reduction x 0.261 g/mile x 90%) + (623 VMT 

reduction x 0.260 g/mile x 10%) = 162 g/day PM2.5 reduction 

Additional locomotive emissions due to increased train trip length to service the additional 

trackage (Additional emissions = gallons consumed x emissions factor): 

Estimate 15 gallons of additional fuel consumed per day. Use EPA emissions factors, 

based on the age of the locomotive fleet. 

VOC = 15 gallons x 21.0 g/gal = 0.32 g/day of additional VOC emissions. 

NOx = 15 gallons x 262.0 g/gal = 3.93 g/day of additional NOx emissions. 

PM2.5 = 15 gallons x 9.2 g/gal = 0.14 g/day of additional PM2.5 emissions. 

Overall emissions reductions: 

VOC emissions reduction = 461 – 0.32 = 460.68 g/day 

NOx emissions reduction = 18,441 – 3.93 = 18,437.07 g/day 

PM2.5 emissions reduction = 162 – 0.14 = 161.86 g/day 

COSTS 

Annualized public costs Project life:__20__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $1,409,600 $352,400 $1,762,000 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $1,409,600 $352,400 $1,762,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$174,100 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $1,762,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $1,762,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Assumes project has movement 260 days/year. 

Cost-effectiveness was not provided by the project 

sponsor. 

NOTE: Sponsor’s calculation incorrectly showed value in kg rather than grams, overstating emissions effects. The analysis could 

also consider what portion of the truck’s VMT is occurring in the impact area. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

135 

Category DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION Subcategory: Diesel Engine Retrofits

CMAQ Project ID: MD20010025 Project Year: 2001 

Location: Baltimore, Maryland MPO: Baltimore Metropolitan Council 

Description: 12 Bus Engine Upgrade - This project will fund 142 engine overhauls on the MTA bus fleet, including 

the installation of catalytic converters using an EPA certified engine rebuild kit. Each bus engine’s rebuild is 

scheduled as needed or after 300,000 miles of service. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

MTA has 794 buses available for service and the total vehicle miles in FFY 2001 

were 21,774,843. 

(21,774,843 miles / 794 buses * 142 Buses = 3,894,241 overhaul bus miles) 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC NA 

 NOX NA 

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 - 34.77 kg/day 

 Total NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Southwestern Research and MTA data indicates that each gram per brake 

horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) is equal to 1.5 tons of PM per 100,000 bus-miles. 

(3,894,241 overhaul bus miles / 100,000 miles * 1.5 tons = 58.41 tons of PM per 

g/bhp-hr) 

Data provided by the Engelhard Automotive Emissions Systems indicates that 

depending on the age of a bus and engine type, the PM can be reduced between 

0.46 and 0.05 g/bhp-hr. The average will vary around 0.255 g/bhp-hr of PM. 

0.255 g/bhp-hr x 58.41 (conversion of g/bhp-hr to tons)= 14.9 tons of PM per year 

14.9 tons of PM per year * 2.4837895 conversion factor = kilograms / day 

COSTS 

Project life:_7_ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $5.458 M $17.578 M $23.036 M 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $5.458 M $17.578 M $23.036 M 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$5,095,000 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $23.036 M 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $23.036 M 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The total cost budgeted for the MTA fleet is $23.036 million; 

funds requested from the CMAQ program total $5.458 

million, or 23.69 % of the total cost. Cost-effectiveness was 

not provided by the project sponsor. 

NOTE: The CMAQ funding portion listed in the CMAQ database for this project is $4,366,000.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

136 

Category: DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION Subcategory: Diesel Engine Retrofits

CMAQ Project ID: NY20040032 Project Year: 2004 

Location: New York MPO: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council 

Description: WCDOT Diesel Engine Retrofit of 177 Transit Buses - This project will fund the retrofit of 177 BeeLine buses with USEPA verified Englehard DPX filters, a class of equipment known as passive regenerative 

catalyzed diesel PM filters. The fleet consists of 99 standard 40’ Orion buses and 78 Neoplan articulated buses. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Orion buses travel 10,944 weekday miles and 9,784 weekend miles. Neoplan 

buses travel 7,056 weekday miles and 9,500 weekend miles. This schedule 

reflects peak vehicle use and includes both revenue miles and dead-head miles 

provided by the Westchester DOT and the service contractor. 

Assume 254 weekdays per year and 104 weekend days per year. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 2.96 kg/day

 NOX + 14.64 kg/day*

 CO - 45.94 kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions were calculated from emissions with the retrofits provided by 

the Transit Resource Center and existing emissions from tailpipe testing. The 

average speed from testing Bee-Line bus duty cycle is 20 mph. 

Testing Condition Emissions Factors (g/mi) 

Orion: CO VOC NOx PM 

Existing: 7.94 0.31 39.4 0.62 

Retrofit: 0.36 0.0 38.5 0.062 

Neoplan: CO VOC NOx PM 

Existing: 1.59 0.34 31.4 0.29 

Retrofit: 0.11 0.0 36.4 0.034 

Total emissions reduced = (Number of Orion buses x Orion Bus VMT x (Existing 

emissions rate – retrofit emissions rate)) + (Number of Neoplan buses x Neoplan 

Bus VMT x (Existing emissions rate – retrofit emissions rate))

COSTS 

Project life:_7_ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $1.2 M $300,000 $1.5 M 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $1.2 M $300,000 $1.5 M 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$311,000 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $1.5 M 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $1.5 M 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

NOTE: The project sponsor noted that the increase in NOx emissions found is highly unusual, and it is widely 

accepted that this technology will have no impact on NOx. The other reductions also do not match with EPA’s 

estimates: 60% reduction in HC, CO, and PM; no impact on NOx. The project sponsor did not calculate PM 

emissions reductions, but the cost-effectiveness analysis determined these values should be (2.3 kg/day reduced) 

The CMAQ funding portion listed in the CMAQ database for this project is $4,366,000.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

137 

Category: DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION Subcategory: Diesel Engine Retrofits

CMAQ Project ID: PA20040011 Project Year: 2004 

Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania MPO: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

Description: Install 235 Emissions Reduction Device on Local Buses - This project includes the purchase and 

installation of 235 emissions reduction devices in SEPTA’s bus fleet. The proposed retrofit device is an Englehard DPX 

soot filter, an exhaust emissions filter. 155 buses are Neoplan Articulated buses with a 1999 Detroit Diesel Series 50 

engine and mileages ranging from 70,942 to 110,361 miles. 80 of the buses are Eldorado buses with a 2000 Cummins 

ISB engine and mileages ranging from 38,733 to 149,199 miles. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The average annual vehicle revenue miles for each of the 235 buses is 27,207 miles, 

with a deadhead factor of 1.15, and an average bus speed of 13.5 mph. Assumes each 

bus operates an average of 250 days per year. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC -7.33 kg/day 

 NOX NA

 CO -111.22 

kg/day 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -7.33 kg/day 

(0.008 tpd) 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The EPA has certified this device to reduce HC and CO emissions by 60%, with no 

impact on NOx. Emissions reductions were calculated by multiplying the total emissions 

for the 1999 and 2000 buses using MOBILE6 emissions factors and then multiplying the 

VOC and CO emissions by 0.60. 

COSTS 

Project life:__7-8__ yrs Interest rate: __7___% 

 CMAQ NON-CMAQ TOTAL

Capital $1,793,520 $449,000 $2,242,520 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $1,793,520 $449,000 $2,242,520 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

NA 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $2,242,520 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $2,242,520 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Selected through the 2002 DVRPC Competitive CMAQ 

Program by the MPO, for funding in 2004. Costeffectiveness was not provided by sponsor. 

NOTE: Emissions reductions provided by the State sponsor do not match those reported in the CMAQ database. 

Reported values are – 0.77 VOC, - 6.29 CO, and - 0.57 NOx. EPA reports a 60% reduction in PM emissions, which 

are included in the cost-effectiveness calculations as 6.5 kg/day PM10 reduction and 5.7 kg/day PM2.5. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

138 

Category: DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION Subcategory: Diesel Engine Retrofits

CMAQ Project ID: OR20050011 Project Year: 2005 

Location: Medford, Oregon MPO: Rogue Valley COG 

Description: Install Filters on 9 Trash Collection Vehicles – This project will fund the installation of advanced 

exhaust after-treatment controls on 9 diesel-powered trash collection trucks owned by Rogue Disposal and Recycling 

refuse collection company. The EPA’s Retrofit Calculator was used to identify those 9 vehicles in the garbage hauling 

fleet’s trucks that would be most cost effectively fitted with these devices. The filters will effectively reduce emissions 

of diesel particulate by over 80 percent, while also reducing CO and VOC emissions by 67 percent and 95 percent, 

respectively. Additional toxin reductions will include benzene, formaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS: 

Rogue Disposal’s fleet of eighteen diesel-powered trash collection trucks consume 

over 400,000 gallons of fuel per year, emit a total of 2.13 tons of CO, 0.86 tons of 

VOCs, and 0.2 tons of PM, and travel up to 855,000 total miles annually. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 1.43 kg/day 

 NOX NA 

 CO - 2.49 kg/day 

 PM10 - 0.28 kg/day 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total -1.7 kg/day 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The Rogue Valley MPO provided Mobile6 inputs for EPA’s Retrofit Calculator. 

Based on the manufacturer’s report, the following manual calculations were used: 

VOC reductions: 0.86 tons VOC per year x 9/18 x 95% reduction x 907 conversion 

factor / 260 days = 1.43 kg reduced per day 

CO reductions: 2.13 tons VOC per year x 9/18 x 67% reduction x 907 conversion 

factor / 260 days = 2.49 kg reduced per day 

PM reductions: 0.2 tons VOC per year x 9/18 x 80% reduction x 907 conversion 

factor / 260 days = 0.28 kg reduced per day 

 COSTS 

Project life:__7__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ Total

Capital $49,692 $12,423 $62,115 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $49,692 $12,423 $62,115 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$12,457 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $62,115 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost 62,115 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The project received an increase in funds to retrofit nine 

additional vehicles in July 2007. The grand total of this 

project has been amended to $124,615. CMAQ is funding 

80% of this project, $99,692. 

NOTE: Emissions reductions calculated above slightly differ from values reported in the CMAQ database (VOC: 1.39 

kg/day, CO: 2.31 kg/day, PM10: 0.28 kg/day). EPA’s retrofit calculator has since been replaced by new modeling 

tools: the Diesel Emissions Quantifier and the National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM).
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

139 

Category: DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION Subcategory: Diesel Engine Retrofits

CMAQ Project ID: Not Yet Assigned Project Year: 2007 

Location: Detroit, Michigan MPO: Southeast Michigan Council of Governments 

Description: Locomotive Diesel Engine Retrofits - This project will fund the repowering of six switcher (4-axle) 

locomotives at the CSXT Rougemere Rail Yard with ultra-clean Generator Set (GENSET) diesel locomotive engine technology. 

The repowered locomotives will operate within the CSXT Detroit rail yard for five years. Each existing locomotive is stripped from 

the deck up, removing the large, single diesel engine that provides power. The engine is replaced with three smaller, ultra-clean 

diesel generators, which are fitted onto the platform, along with new control, and operating equipment. The Southeast Michigan 

Council of Governments (SEMCOG) anticipates repowering three locomotives in 2007 and another three in 2008; this analysis 

only accounts for the three 2007 repowerings. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

None. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 9.96 kg/day 

 NOX - 132.1 kg/day

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 - 3.68 kg/day 

 Total NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Baseline NOx emissions are calculated using the USEPA emissions standard for a Tier 0 

switch engine. Baseline PM and VOC emissions are conservatively calculated using the 

lower uncontrolled USEPA emissions factors of 0.44 g/bhp-hr PM and 1.01 g/bhp-hr VOC 

in lieu of the Tier 0 standards of 0.72 g/bhp-hr PM and 2.1 g/bhp-hr VOC. Conventional 

switcher fuel use is 60,000 gal/yr. According to USEPA, the Brake-Specific Fuel 

Consumption (BSFC) is 20.8 bhp-hr/gal. GENSET locomotive emissions factors are based 

on Tier 3 nonroad engine standards (grams/bhp-hr) since the locomotive is powered by 

these engines. NMHC has the same meaning as VOC and HC. The GENSET fuel use is 

25% less than a conventional switcher (45,000 gal/yr). The Brake-Specific Fuel 

Consumption (BSFC) for a GENSET engine is reported as 19.5 bhp-hr/gal. 

NOX Emissions (kg/yr) = BSFC * Fuel Used * Emissions Factor * 3 Locomotives 

Baseline NOx = 20.8 * 60,000 * 14.0 * 3 = 52,416 kg/year 

GENSET NOx = 19.5 * 45,000 * 2.85 * 3 = 7,503 kg/year 

Daily reduction in NOx = (52,416 - 7,503) / 340 days per year = 132.1 kg/day 

Calculation also assumes 86% reduction in ozone precursors and 76% reduction in PM. 

COSTS 

Project life:__5__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NON-CMAQ TOTAL

Capital $3.36 M $840,000 $4.2 M 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $3.36 M $840,000 $4.2 M 

Total annualized public 

cost: $1,042,000 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $4.2 M 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $4.2 M 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

A separate emissions and cost effectiveness analysis was 

conducted for the three locomotives scheduled for repowering in 

2008. Assumes the three locomotives operate 340 days per year 

with a 5 year design life. 

Cost effectiveness = Total project cost / (Emissions reduction * 5 

years * 340 days) 

Cost per Kg over the design life for VOC = $248.05 

Cost per Kg over the design life for NOx = $18.70 

Cost per Kg over the design life for PM2.5 = $671.36

NOTE: The VOC and PM1.5 emissions reductions were calculated using similar methods as the NOx calculation shown. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

140 

Category: DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION Subcategory: Diesel Engine Retrofits

CMAQ Project ID: Not Yet Assigned Project Year: 2007 

Location: Orangetown, New York MPO: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council 

Description: Diesel Engine Retrofits of 53 County Vehicles - This project will fund the diagnostic review and 

installation of retrofit devices on all on-road diesel fueled vehicles over 8,500 pounds that are owned by the City of 

Orangetown. Each vehicle type will require a different treatment and diagnostic review to ensure that the retrofits 

meet the needs of the vehicle’s documented usage and performance. All of the retrofit technologies will be verified 

by the US EPA or the California Air Resources Board (CARB). 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

This project will retrofit approximately 53 on-road diesel powered vehicles and 

heavy duty equipment: 

HDDV8A: 25 Vehicles 

HDDV8B: 6 Vehicles 

HDDV7: 14 Vehicles 

HDDV6: 1 Vehicle 

HDDV5: 2 Vehicles 

HDDV4: 1 Vehicle 

HDDV3: 4 Vehicles 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 0.44 kg/day

 NOX NA

 CO -1.71 kg/day 

 PM10 - 0.18 kg/day 

 PM2.5 - 0.14 kg/day 

 Total NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions calculated using Mobile6, EPA, and CARB emissions factors 

for a variety of heavy duty vehicles traveling at 23 mph for 4.43 miles per day for 

305 days/year with and without the retrofits. The assumed speed, operating days, 

and travel distance was reported by Rockland County Highway Dept. as an 

average of their fleet vehicles equipped with GPS technology. 

COSTS 

Project life:__7__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $424,000 $106,000 $530,000 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $424,000 $106,000 $530,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: $100,100 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $530,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $530,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Sponsor assumes $10K/vehicle/retrofit for all 53 vehicles. 

A constant flow of benefits were assumed for 7 years 

following project completion. Cost effectiveness was 

calculated as kg of pollution reduced for each CMAQ dollar 

of funding. 

CO effectiveness: - 1.23 kg per CMAQ$(thousands) 

VOC effectiveness: - 0.32 kg per CMAQ$(thousands) 

PM2.5 effectiveness: - 0.10 kg per CMAQ$(thousands) 

PM10 effectiveness: - 0.13 kg per CMAQ$ 

NOTE: Benefits were estimated for 7 years (2011-2017). The calculation only assumes the vehicles travel 4.43 miles per day 

per vehicle, which sounds conservative. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

141 

Category: DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION Subcategory: Diesel Engine Retrofits

CMAQ Project ID: Not Yet Assigned Project Year: 2007 

Location: Rockland County, New York MPO: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council 

Description: 3 Locomotive Repowers - This project will fund the diagnostic review and installation of retrofit devices 

on 134 on-road diesel powered vehicles, public transit buses, and DPW vehicles. Rockland County has passed a 

law requiring all County-owned on-road diesel fueled vehicles that have a gross weight over 8,500 pounds to be 

retrofitted with the best available technology verified by EPA or CARB. This project is a direct result of that law, 

though only vehicles with replacement years of 2010 and beyond will be retrofitted with the project. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 140.33 kg/day

 NOX NA

 CO - 969.84 kg/day 

 PM10 - 138.35 kg/day 

 PM2.5 - 125.88 kg/day 

 Total NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions calculated using Mobile6, EPA, and CARB emissions factors 

for a variety of vehicle types traveling at posted speeds. The assumed speed, 

operating days, and travel distance was reported by Rockland County Highway 

Dept. as an average of their fleet vehicles equipped with GPS technology. 

COSTS 

Project life:__7-15__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $1.368 M $342,000 $1.71 M 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $1.368 M $342,000 $1.71 M 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$323,000 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $1.71 M 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $1.71 M 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Sponsor assumes $10K/vehicle/retrofit for all vehicles. 

A constant flow of benefits were assumed for 7-15 years 

following project completion. Cost effectiveness was 

calculated as kg of pollution reduced for each CMAQ dollar 

of funding. 

CO effectiveness: - 242.21 kg per CMAQ$ 

VOC effectiveness: - 34.92 kg per CMAQ$ 

PM2.5 effectiveness: - 31.03 kg per CMAQ$ 

PM10 effectiveness: - 34.10 kg per CMAQ$ 

NOTE: The cost-effectiveness analysis used in this study accounts for a stream of benefits over 7 years. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

142 

Category: DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION Subcategory: Truck Idle Reduction

CMAQ Project ID: TN20030011 Project Year: 2003 

Location: Knoxville, Tennessee MPO: Knoxville Urbanized Area MPO 

Description: TSE: IdleAire 100 Units at Watt Rd. - This project will provide funding for the installation of 100 IdleAire 

units at various truck stops at InterState 40 and Watt Rd. The IdleAire devices are capable of providing heating, airconditioning, and other services to a truck cab, as an alternative to using the truck’s engine to provide continuous 

power. Emissions reductions will be achieved due to the fact that the trucks no longer have to idle their engines in 

order to have access to heating or air-conditioning. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

None. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC - 4.47 kg/day 

 NOX - 60.4 kg/day

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 NA 

 Total - 64.87 kg/day 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Emissions reductions were calculated using a truck idle emissions factor from 

MOBILE6. Emissions for one truck idling for 10 hours each day are estimated to 

be removed by each IdleAire unit, as reported by the IdleAire company. 

VOC emissions reduction = 44.7 g/unit * 100 units / 1000 = 4.47 kg/day 

NOx emissions reduction = 604 g/unit * 100 units / 1000 = 60.4 kg/day 

COSTS 

Project life:__10__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $1.0 M $0 $1.0 M 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $1.0 M $0 $1.0 M 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$163,300 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $1,000,000 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $1,000,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Cost-effectiveness was not provided by the project 

sponsor. 

Note: When the figures were recalculated using EPA’s current guidance on long duration truck idling; this results in a 135.0 

kg/day reduction of NOx and 3.68 kg/day reduction of PM.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

143 

Category: DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION Subcategory: Truck Idle Reduction

CMAQ Project ID: KY20060013 Project Year: 2006 

Location: Oak Grove, Kentucky MPO: Clarksville MPO 

Description: Advance Travel Center Electrification (IdleAire) - The City of Oak Grove hired IdleAire to install 50 

ATE units at Pilot Travel Center #49, a site conveniently located off of I-24 at Exit 89, in Christian County, Kentucky. 

These IdleAire units provide heating and air conditioning, as well as a wide range of communication and 

entertainment options, directly into the cab of a parked truck. This allows a truck driver to completely shut down the 

truck’s engine, eliminating the air pollution associated with idling. This such ATE project will save 182,500 gallons of 

diesel fuel annually, remove over 1,700 tons of emissions annually, and remove existing barriers to the quality of 

driver rest, such as noise, vibrations, and fumes. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

EMISSIONS 

 VOC -6.68 kg/day 

 NOX -110.17 kg/day

 CO - 46.74 kg/day 

 PM10 Na 

 PM2.5 Na 

 Total Na 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The emission factors for CO and VOC come from EPA’s Mobile6 Emissions Model 

to estimate the emissions from idling trucks. NOx and PM factors are calculated 

based on 2004 EPA Guidance. 

Emissions Reduction = Emission Factor (g/unit) x 50 units / 1000 (g to kg 

conversion factor) = Emissions Reduction (kg/day). 

An IdleAire utilization rate of 10 hours per day / 365 days per year is assumed. 

COSTS 

Project life:__15-20__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $500,000 $355,000 $835,000 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $500,000 $355,000 $835,000 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

NA 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $835,000 

Annual private cost Na 

Total net cost $835,000 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

The CMAQ funds will satisfy the capital needs of the initial 

installation of these units. The IdleAire Corp will pay for the 

on-going operational costs. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT

144 

Category: DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION Subcategory: Truck Idle Reduction

CMAQ Project ID: TN20060026 Project Year: 2006 

Location: Jefferson County, Tennessee MPO: Knoxville Urbanized Area MPO 

Description: TSE: IdleAire Units in Jefferson Co. - This project will provide funding for the installation of 59 IdleAire 

units at one travel center truck stop in Jefferson County. The IdleAire devices are capable of providing heating, airconditioning, and other services to a truck cab, as an alternative to using the truck’s engine to provide continuous 

power. Emissions reductions will be achieved due to the fact that the trucks no longer have to idle their engines in 

order to have access to heating or air-conditioning. 

TRAVEL IMPACTS 

 Vehicle trips: NA 

 VMT: NA 

 Speed: NA 

 Delay: NA 

 SOV NA 

 CP/VP NA 

 Transit NA 

 Walk NA 

 Bike NA 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

None. 

EMISSIONS 

 VOC NA 

 NOX -79.65 kg/day

 CO NA 

 PM10 NA 

 PM2.5 - 2.17 kg/day 

 Total - 81.8 kg/day 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Idle emissions factors for trucks are taken from the EPA guidance document – 

“Guidance for Quantifying and Using Long Duration Truck Idling Emissions 

Reductions in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity.”

Emissions for one truck idling for 10 hours each day are estimated to be removed 

by each IdleAire unit, as reported by the IdleAire company. 

NOx emissions reduction = 135 g/hr/unit * 10 hours * 59 units = 79.65 kg/day 

PM2.5 emissions reduction = 3.68 g/hr/unit * 10 hours * 59 units = 2.17 kg/day 

COSTS 

Project life: __10__ yrs Interest rate: ___7__% 

 CMAQ NONCMAQ TOTAL

Capital $788,240 $197,060 $985,300 

Adm/oper $0 $0 $0 

Total $788,240 $197,060 $985,300 

Total annualized public 

cost: 

$146,900 

Annual revenues: None 

Net public cost: $985,300 

Annual private cost NA 

Total net cost $985,300 

METHODOLOGY/ASSUMPTIONS:

Cost-effectiveness was not provided by the project sponsor. 

Annualized Cost = $985K x 0.142 CRF = $139,870 

C/E = $139,870 / (0.088 x 365) = $4,355/ton 

NOTE: Assume that these facilities would be demanded all days of the year, consistent with Interstate trucking activity.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT 

145 

APPENDIX D. CMAQ PROJECT COST EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS 

Annual Emissions Reduction (kg/year) Cost Effe

Category Subcategory CMAQ PROJECT ID PROJECT DESCRIPTION VOC CO NOX PM10 PM2.5 Annualized Project Cost VOC CO N

Traffic Flow Improvements Traffic Signalization MI20020058 

Ryan Rd. 8 Mile Rd. To 23 Mile Rd. 2,715.0 -16,858.9 -1,706.1 0.0 0.0 $110,256 $36,840 -$5,933 -

Traffic Flow Improvements Traffic Signalization LA20040001 

Continuous Flow IntersectionAirline @Sherwood Forest 1,916.6 7,052.1 649.3 11.9 7.7 $904,773 $428,247 $116,390 $1,

Traffic Flow Improvements Traffic Signalization KY20050008 

Fiber Optic Cable Installation 31,311.2 115,206.8 10,607.7 194.4 126.3 $61,553 $1,783 $485 

Traffic Flow Improvements Traffic Signalization OH20050033 

West Main Street New Signals 3,461.5 12,736.2 1,172.7 21.5 14.0 $98,414 $25,792 $7,010 

Traffic Flow Improvements Traffic Signalization TN20050016 

Sr-169 Cedar Bluff To College St 1,975.2 -14,400.0 -828.3 0.0 0.0 $5,078 $2,332 -$320 

Traffic Flow Improvements Traffic Signalization KY20060009 

Lane Use Control - Reversible Lanes 304.7 1,121.0 103.2 1.9 1.2 $74,536 $221,937 $60,319 $

Traffic Flow Improvements Traffic Signalization Not yet assigned 

2 Lane Roundabout At Fuller And Washington 113.8 601.5 86.7 0.0 0.0 $467,981 $3,730,970 $705,808 $4,

Traffic Flow Improvements 

Freeway Management LA20030008 Baton Rouge Phase 2 Its 15,300.6 197,991.9 39,702.2 1,438.4 934.5 $443,109 $26,272 $2,030 

Traffic Flow Improvements 

Freeway Management WA20040027 Duwamish Its 2,973.6 16,228.8 2,268.0 0.0 0.0 $318,190 $97,073 $17,787 $

Traffic Flow Improvements 

Freeway Management CT20050001 

I/M System Design And Construction 4,173.7 15,560.5 1,322.4 0.0 1.5 $218,725 $47,541 $12,752 $

Traffic Flow Improvements 

Freeway Management MI20050090 

3 Changeable Message Boards On I-75 28,431.5 -78,068.8 -942.5 0.0 0.0 $23,082 $737 -$268 -

Traffic Flow Improvements 

Freeway Management 

Not yet assigned 

Alabama 

Service And Assistance 8,102.6 29,812.7 2,745.0 50.3 32.7 $871,432 $97,568 $26,517 $
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT 

146 

Patrol 

Traffic Flow Improvements 

High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes TX20020069 

Dallas Hov Interchange Ih 635 Us 75 1,351.7 18,950.6 632.2 0.0 0.0 $28,194,393 $18,922,053 $1,349,691 $40,

Shared Ride Programs 

Regional Ridesharing MD20020010 

Maryland Ridesharing Program 12,214.8 153,913.7 13,830.8 551.0 254.5 $1,200,211 $89,139 $7,074 

Shared Ride Programs 

Regional Ridesharing PA20050202 University Of Pitt Tdm 3,778.6 48,421.7 3,899.3 144.7 66.8 $358,669 $86,112 $6,720 

Shared Ride Programs 

Regional Ridesharing 

Not yet assigned 

Rideshare Program 1,400.0 17,674.1 1,570.0 62.1 28.7 $762,503 $494,078 $39,138 $

Shared Ride Programs Vanpool Programs UT20020006 

Expansion Of Uta Vanpool Leasing Program (Salt Lake And Ogden) 733.9 8,871.4 725.2 30.3 14.0 $128,200 $158,471 $13,110 $

Shared Ride Programs Vanpool Programs UT20050005 

Expansion Of Uta Vanpool Leasing Program (Ogden/ Layton) 781.1 9,061.0 837.8 34.9 16.1 $47,676 $55,372 $4,773 

Shared Ride Programs Vanpool Programs KY20060004 

New Passenger Vans For Lextran 820.9 10,440.1 944.4 40.0 18.5 $30,643 $33,865 $2,663 

Shared Ride Programs Park-and-Ride Lots MD200017 

I-95/Md 279 And I-95/Md 272 2.2 48.4 3.8 0.1 0.1 $20,497 $8,453,705 $384,182 $4,9

Shared Ride Programs Park-and-Ride Lots WI20000034, WI20000035 Lake Geneva Park And Ride 464.2 5,764.4 565.0 23.6 10.9 $7,408 $14,478 $1,166 Shared Ride Programs Park-and-Ride Lots MD20020001 

Md 210 At Md 373 Peak And Ride Construction 563.5 10,071.3 852.9 34.0 15.7 $180,050 $289,871 $16,218 $

Shared Ride Programs Park-and-Ride Lots KY20050012 

Tank - Walton/Union Park And Ride Development 460.7 6,677.2 612.1 25.2 11.6 $143,695 $282,971 $19,523 $

Shared Ride Programs Park-and-Ride Lots WA20010004; WA20050035 Mountlake Terrace Station 1,487.7 18,475.8 1,810.9 75.7 35.0 $1,741,954 $1,062,245 $85,532 $
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT 

147 

TDM TDM CO20010042 

Coordinate Telework Program 6,683.7 85,192.1 7,112.0 270.5 125.0 $116,371 $15,795 $1,239 

TDM TDM DC20020006 

Employer Outreach And Bicycles Fy 2003 117.5 1,547.5 101.4 3.2 1.5 $18,832 $145,450 $11,040 $

TDM TDM DC20050008 

Fy06 Guaranteed Ride Home 50,604.3 637,587.5 57,326.3 2,284.5 1,055.2 $1,941,109 $34,798 $2,762 

TDM TDM RI20050010 Ozone Alert Days 61.2 788.6 61.1 2.2 1.0 $194,284 $2,879,727 $223,494 $2,Bicycle Pedestrian Bicycle Pedestrian MA20020040 

Swansea Old Warren Rd. Bikeway Facility 138.0 1,834.8 111.6 3.2 1.5 $167,471 $1,100,607 $82,804 $1,

Bicycle Pedestrian Bicycle Pedestrian IN20050009 Bike Path To Pinhook Park 35.7 475.1 28.9 0.8 0.4 $237,332 $6,023,188 $453,217 $7,Bicycle Pedestrian Bicycle Pedestrian Not yet assigned Bike Depot 126.2 1,504.1 104.3 3.1 1.4 $131,797 $947,239 $79,494 $1,Bicycle Pedestrian Bicycle Pedestrian Not yet assigned NYC Cyclistnet 715.4 8,524.0 591.0 17.3 8.0 $434,833 $551,441 $46,278 $Transit Improvements New Bus Services WI20000004 

City Of Racine New Sunday Bus Service 150.8 0.0 166.4 0.0 0.0 $250,886 $1,509,283 $0 $1,

Transit Improvements New Bus Services NY20050028 S92 New Bus Route 951.2 13,525.2 229.6 20.1 -0.4 $135,907 $129,618 $9,116 $Transit Improvements New Bus Services RI20050003 

Service Initiatives Route 30 And Route 12 729.2 18,952.9 1,343.8 48.6 22.4 $328,780 $409,027 $15,737 $

Transit Improvements New Rail Services UT20020001 Light Rail Vehicles 4,592.3 54,122.7 4,524.7 161.0 74.4 $443,012 $87,514 $7,426 Transit Improvements New Rail Services TX20030147 

TRE Double Tracking Of Segments 16,644.3 207,403.7 18,194.1 708.4 327.2 $7,631,105 $415,928 $33,378 $

Transit Improvements New Rail Services CT20050027 

Rail Station Platforms And Bridge 1,716.0 30,670.7 2,597.5 103.6 47.8 $261,293 $138,134 $7,729 

Transit Improvements 

Service Upgrades/Amenities MA20020069 

Fitchburg ITC Parking Garage 2,201.5 39,347.5 3,332.4 132.9 61.4 $92,327 $38,046 $2,129 

Transit Improvements 

Service Upgrades/Amenities MO20040023 

Operation Welcome Aboard Infrastructure 709.1 9,105.4 723.0 26.6 12.3 $190,914 $244,252 $19,021 $
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT 

148 

Transit Improvements 

Service Upgrades/Amenities NY20040006 

Suffolk County Transit Marketing Program 666.4 6,564.8 595.1 19.0 8.8 $123,607 $168,276 $17,081 $

Transit Improvements 

Service Upgrades/Amenities OH20050008 Laketran AVL- MDT System 327.4 4,220.6 326.2 11.7 5.4 $538,585 $1,492,350 $115,766 $1,

Transit Improvements 

Service Upgrades/Amenities 

Not yet assigned 

Commuter Rail And Utility Construction 1,162.9 20,785.1 1,760.3 70.2 32.4 $14,227 $11,098 $621 

Technology and Fuel Programs 

Conventional Bus Replacements MD20020008 

100 Replacement Local Buses 5,610.0 0.0 62,337.0 0.0 0.0 $9,179,510 $1,484,405 $0 $

Technology and Fuel Programs 

Conventional Bus Replacements 

Not yet assigned 

Ham - Sorta - 61 Replacement Buses 2,506.1 3,026.1 9,237.8 0.0 0.0 $2,353,541 $851,946 $705,551 $

Technology and Fuel Programs 

Alternative Fuel Vehicles/Fueling Facilities 

ME20020020 

Fast Fill Compressed Natural Gas Facility 719.7 0.0 553.8 0.0 0.0 $192,912 $243,173 $0 $

Technology and Fuel Programs 

Alternative Fuel Vehicles/Fueling Facilities 

PA20020062 Alternative Fuel Buses 

750.0 3,000.0 22,750.0 0.0 0.0 $2,428,240 $2,937,150 $734,288 

Technology and Fuel Programs 

Alternative Fuel Vehicles/Fueling Facilities 

CT20050025 Ct Clean Fuels Program 

1,032.8 0.0 1,911.0 0.0 0.0 $172,670 $151,676 $0 

Technology and Fuel Programs 

Alternative Fuel Vehicles/Fueling Facilities 

Not yet assigned 

Purchase 3 Forty Foot Urban Transit Cng Buses 540.0 2,743.2 1,562.4 0.0 504.0 $375,688 $631,146 $124,241 $

Dust Mitigation Dust Mitigation CA20040439 Graaf Avenue Paving Project 0.0 0.0 0.0 52,195.0 0.0 $20,817 $0 $0 Dust Mitigation Dust Mitigation ID20040003 Lincoln Ave Sandpoint 0.0 0.0 0.0 45,633.1 0.0 $33,710 $0 $0 Dust Mitigation Dust Mitigation ID20050017 Liquid De-Icer Truck 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,824,680.0 0.0 $29,865 $0 $0 Freight/Intermodal Freight/Intermodal ME20000004 Rail Siding Construction 

97.2 488.0 2,038.7 69.2 56.9 $41,096 $383,558 $76,393 

Freight/Intermodal Freight/Intermodal ME20020005 

Rehab/Replace Tracks On Sprague Industrial Spur 24.9 148.3 830.6 21.5 17.7 $54,723 $1,997,735 $334,684 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT 

149 

Freight/Intermodal Freight/Intermodal PA20020059 PA20030090 Westmoreland Itc 2.2 250.8 4,374.3 86.2 70.8 $1,028,708 $424,194,830 $3,721,007 $Freight/Intermodal Freight/Intermodal NY20040036 

Arlington Intermodal Yard 23,385.8 117,353.4 378,629.3 13,059.5 10,729.5 $949,286 $36,825 $7,338 

Freight/Intermodal Freight/Intermodal PA20040076 

Norfolk Southern Rail Ext 1,058.5 5,256.4 19,944.8 690.0 566.9 $1,318,453 $1,130,019 $227,547 

Freight/Intermodal Freight/Intermodal CT20060022 Rail And Utility Construction 176.8 876.4 3,238.3 112.6 92.5 $174,141 $893,459 $180,259 Engine Retrofit Technologies 

Diesel Engine Retrofits MD20010025 Bus Engine Upgrade 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9,040.2 $5,094,530 $0 $0 

Engine Retrofit Technologies 

Diesel Engine Retrofits NY20040032 

Wcdot Diesel Engine Retrofit Of 177 Transit Buses 1,059.7 16,446.5 0.0 0.0 823.4 $311,010 $266,254 $17,155 

Engine Retrofit Technologies 

Diesel Engine Retrofits PA20040011 

Emissions Reduction Device 1,832.5 27,805.0 0.0 1,635.0 1,432.5 $371,869 $184,095 $12,133 

Engine Retrofit Technologies 

Diesel Engine Retrofits OR20050011 

Exhaust AfterTreatment Controls On Trash Collection Trucks 371.8 647.4 0.0 72.8 0.0 $12,457 $30,395 $17,456 

Engine Retrofit Technologies 

Diesel Engine Retrofits 

Not yet assigned 

3 Locomotive Repowers 3,386.4 0.0 44,914.0 0.0 1,251.2 $1,042,808 $279,358 $0 

Engine Retrofit Technologies 

Diesel Engine Retrofits 

Not yet assigned 

Orangetown Diesel Vehicle Retrofits 134.2 521.6 0.0 54.9 42.7 $100,116 $676,780 $174,142 

Engine Retrofit Technologies 

Diesel Engine Retrofits 

Not yet assigned 

Diesel Engine Retrofits Of Rockland County Vehicles 42,800.7 295,801.2 0.0 42,196.8 38,393.4 $323,016 $6,847 $991 

Engine Retrofit Technologies 

Truck Stop Electrification TN20030011 

Tse: Idleaire 100 Units Watt Rd. 0.0 0.0 49,275.0 1,343.2 1,343.2 $163,332 $0 $0 

Engine Retrofit Technologies 

Truck Stop Electrification KY20060013 

50 Advance Travel Center Electrification (Idle Aire) 0.0 17,060.1 40,212.1 671.6 671.6 128,490.99 $0 $6,833 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT 

150 

Engine Retrofit Technologies 

Truck Stop Electrification TN20060026 

Install Idleaire At Sites In Jefferson Co 0.0 0.0 29,072.3 792.1 792.1 $146,881 $0 $0