### NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION **Imple mentation of a Statewide Series of T** **D M Program** **s**

**RACM Analysis**

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Page 1 

### Control Measure: Encourage people to choose alternative modes to travel to work through the adoption a package of programs aimed at existing auto commuters. Rather than trying to define w hat the actual programs would consist of, this analysis looks at t he total potential for such programs to reduce emissions throughout the state. **Description:** Transportation Control Measures (TCM) and Transportation Demand Measures (TDM) are generic terms describing a range of programs and policies that government agenci es and businesses can adopt to help reduce the total number of work trips made by autos . These programs cover a broad range of potential projects including examples such as :

 Carpool/Rideshare Matching
 Transit passes/reduced fares
 Tax Incentives to Transi t Users
 Parking Management/pricing schemes
 Tele

- commuting
 Compressed work week programs These programs are all designed to eliminate some auto trips. At the same time it must be recognized that some programs are already in place in the state, and that no matter how good the incentive a large proportion of the population will be unable to partake in the m
. Wh ile it is possible to analyze each program individual ly , there are several items to be cautious of when doing so. First, TCM/TDM programs often ove rlap and care must be taken not to double count the impact on a particular segment of the population. For example, the sample people which are eligible for reduced fare transit passes might also benefit from a tax credit for transit use. These programs a re independent yet target the same population. Analyzing them separately may yield erroneously high results. Since the specifics of all possible programs for New Jersey have not been identified, assumptions were made in order to describe a “general” prog ram representing the maximum impact that TCM/TCM programs are likely to have in each county

. To overcome these issues , the TCM/TDM programs were analyzed as a single, large scale program across each county using EPA’s Commuter model . Inputs were adjusted as appropriate to each area , using reasonable but conservative inputs

. Since care must be taken when applying the COMMUTER model to an entire county, a nd a significant proportion of the population was excluded to account for those unabl e to participate in any program and those taking advantage of the TCM/TDM programs already in place. After the total trip and

### NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION **Imple mentation of a Statewide Series of T** **D M Program** **s**

**RACM Analysis**

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Page 2 

### vehicle travel reductions were calculated, the air quality impacts were estimated using the NJAQONE software, specifically the “Emissions Only” a nalysis routines. **Methodology :**  To analyze the impact of these TDM/TCM program s , EPA’s COMMUTER M odel spreadsheet tool was employed. First step in applying the commuter model was to define the total employment that would be considered in the analysis. O nly e mployees in firms larger than 100 employees , those working regular business hours, those not already in existing TCM/TDM programs, and those with reasonable access to transit can be included

. It was estimated that t his left 10 % of the total employmen t in each county to be considered in the analysis. The total employment considered in each county is shown in the T able 1 below. Also, the COMMUTER Model requires the users enter a value of 1

- 3 depending on how urban a given area is, with 1 being a small urban area, 3 being large. This assignment was done manually with counties oriented to New York City or Philadelphia considered part of a large urban area, remaining counties considered small. The Metro Area Size is also shown in Table 1.

County County Em ployme nt Population Metro Area Size Potential Market: 10% of Total

Em ployme nt* Total Office/Non Office Total Office/Non Office

44% 56% 44% 56% Atlantic 169,794 74,709 / 95,085 251,590 3 16,979 7,471 / 9,508 Bergan 465,719 204,916 / 260, 803 896,181 3 46,572 20,492 / 26,080 Burlington 216,919 95,444 / 121,475 438,766 1 21,692 9,544 / 12,147 Camden 237,431 104,470 / 132,961 511,803 1 23,743 10,447 / 13,296 Cape May 45,939 20,213 / 25,726 112,371 3 4,594 2,021 / 2,573 Cumberland 68,490 3 0,136 / 38,354 146,922 3 6,849 3,014 / 3,835 Essex 370,583 163,057 / 207,526 805,291 1 37,058 16,306 / 20,753 Glouchester 104,260 45,874 / 58,386 265,504 3 10,426 4,587 / 5,839 Hudson 259,515 114,187 / 145,328 629,951 1 25,952 11,419 / 14,533 Hunterdon 61,537 27,076 / 34,461 129,173 3 6,154 2,708 / 3,446 Mercer 242,141 106,542 / 135,599 362,141 1 24,214 10,654 / 13,560 Middlesex 445,463 196,004 / 249,459 779,191 3 44,546 19,600 / 24,946 Monm outh 242,182 106,560 / 135,622 657,072 3 24,218 10,656 / 13, 562 Morris 290,734 127,923 / 162,811 481,289 1 29,073 12,792 / 16,281 Ocean 146,383 64,409 / 81,974 527,010 3 14,638 6,441 / 8,197 Passaic 183,652 80,807 / 102,845 501,305 1 18,365 8,081 / 10,285 Salem 29,360 12,918 / 16,442 64,285 3 2,936 1,292 / 1,64 4 Sommerset 196,648 86,525 / 110,123 308,283 1 19,665 8,653 / 11,012 Sussex 41,039 18,057 / 22,982 178,537 3 4,104 1,806 / 2,298 Union 267,004 117,482 / 149,522 527,115 1 26,700 11,748 / 14,952 Wa rren 40,585 17,857 / 22,728 106,819 3 4,059 1,786 / 2,27 3

### NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION **Imple mentation of a Statewide Series of T** **D M Program** **s**

**RACM Analysis**

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Page 3



### Table 1: Employ**ment and Metro A rea Size A** **ssumptions** Existing mode shares and Average trip lengths specific to every county were readily available and were used in this analysis

. These county specific values were assumed more accurate than the EPA suppl ied default values and were entered as appropriate. A summary of the mode shares and trip lengths entered into the COMMUTER model spreadsheets can be found in Tables 2 and 3 , respectively. **Table 2: County Specific Mode Share Data**  **County Drive** 

**Al one**  **Carp ool**  **Vanpool Transit**  **Bike Other**  Atlantic 51.6% 20.1% 2.2% 2.1% 17.7% 6.4% Bergen 74.1% 10.5% 0.4% 10.7% 0.2% 4.1% Burlington 85.2% 8.3% 1.2% 3.0% 0.2% 2.2% Camden 75.8% 11.7% 0.0% 8.9% 0.2% 3.5% Cape May 45.5% 19.1% 2.1% 1.6% 28.2% 3.5% Cumberland 63. 4% 20.6% 2.3% 1.4% 8.0% 4.4% Essex 62.6% 13.3% 1.1% 17.1% 0.1% 5.8% Gloucester 84.3% 8.9% 1.3% 2.6% 0.2% 2.8% Hudson 43.1% 14.3% 1.7% 29.3% 0.1% 11.6% Hunterdon 85.5% 9.9% 0.3% 1.3% 0.1% 2.9% Mercer 75.8% 10.6% 0.8% 7.0% 0.5% 5.4% Middlesex 76.5% 10. 9% 0.6% 8.0% 0.2% 3.8% Monm outh 76.8% 11.4% 0.6% 7.4% 0.3% 3.6% Morris 83.5% 9.8% 0.4% 3.5% 0.2% 2.7% Ocean 81.1% 13.2% 0.6% 1.9% 0.3% 2.9% Passaic 71.9% 14.3% 0.7% 6.7% 0.2% 6.2% Salem 63.9% 22.1% 2.5% 0.8% 7.7% 3.1% Som erset 83.8% 9.3% 0.4% 4.0% 0. 2% 2.4% Sussex 82.9% 12.6% 0.5% 1.5% 0.1% 2.3% Union 73.8% 12.2% 0.7% 8.4% 0.3% 4.6% Wa rren 79.6% 14.1% 0.6% 0.9% 0.2% 4.6%

### NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION **Imple mentation of a Statewide Series of T** **D M Program** **s**

**RACM Analysis**

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Page 4 

### Table 3: A

**verage Trip Lengths County**  **Name Al**  **l Trips Carpool**  Atlantic 13.56 14.82 Bergen 6.51 9.79 Burlington 6.61 12.71 C am den 5.47 10.17 Cape May 17.88 25.52 Cumberland 12.74 15.45 Essex 7.96 10.79 Gloucester 6.8 13.41 Hudson 7.06 9.5 Hunterdon 9.76 20.35 Mercer 4.85 9.05 Middlesex 7.61 11.74 Monm outh 7.56 14.4 Morris 9.1 14.12 Ocean 7.24 17.7 Passaic 7.49 10.26 Salem 15.52 23.88 Som erset 8.66 13.05 Sussex 9.7 22.42 Union 7.36 10.61 Wa rren 8.04 20.47 

### The COMMUTER Model analysis was done using a generic package of voluntary programs rather than defining several individual programs and trying to eliminate th e overlap between them. In summary, the package analyzed in every county consisted of: **Site A ccess Improvements** 
 A 2 minute inc rease in drive alone walk times to model preferential parking for carpools and vanpools
 A 2 minute decrease in Bicycle access ti me to model improved bicycle parking/more racks **Transit Improvements**
 A 10 minute decrease in headways affecting 30% of the employment served **Financial Incentives (Default 30% Employ er Participation rate assumed)** 
 $2/day increase in Drive Alone to represent a parking charge
 $2.30/day decrease in Vanpool costs to represent a vanpool subsidy
 $3.00/day decrease in transit costs to represent a transit/tax incentive program

### NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION **Imple mentation of a Statewide Series of T** **D M Program** **s**

**RACM Analysis**

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Page 5 

### Al **ternative Work Week**
 A Telecommuting program offered 1.8 days/week (default)
 Flex time of

fered to 20% of eligible employees Data was entered into the EPA COMMUTER Model spreadsheet and the results calculated. Estimates of Vehicle Trip (VT) and Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) were taken from the results and used in this analysis. The emissions estimates provided by the COMMUTER Model were not used as the NJ

-AQONE tool could provide more accurate results using inputs to model specific to each county and the state . Summaries of the VT and VMT reduction estimated by the commuter model can be foun d in Table 4 **Table 4: Travel Impacts E**  **stimated by the EPA** 

**COMMUTER Model**
**County Name Transportation Impacts**  **( Daily**  **Reductions) VMT**  **VT At**  **lantic** 16,246 1,925 **Bergen** 38,928 5,864 **Burlington** 6,748 853 **Camden** 6,913 1,172 **Cape May** 8,160 566 **Cumberlan d**  8,110 698 **Essex** 78,122 9,645 **Gloucester** 3,379 409 **Hudson** 53,113 7,214 **Hunterdon** 3,937 304 **Me rcer**  6,388 1,186 **Mi ddlesex**  38,880 4,936 **Monmouth** 21,427 2,593 **Morris** 31,222 3,262 **Ocean** 9,165 982 **Passaic** 24,071 3,223 **Salem** 4,647 286 **Somerset** 20,942 2,311 **Sussex** 3,073 250 **Union** 37,467 4,986 **Warren** 2,678 256 

### Daily emissions were then calculated using the “Emissions Only” analysis found in the NJ

-AQONE program. Annual emissions were calculated by multiplying the daily emissions by 250, approximately the average number of working days in a year. Results of the analysis are shown in Tables 5a, 5b and 5c below.

### NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION **Imple mentation of a Statewide Series of T** **D M Program** **s**

**RACM Analysis**

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Page 6 

### Table 5a: **Statewide Benefits** 
**Pollutant Ty**  **pe An**  **aly sis Year 20**  **09**

Tons/Day T ons/Ye ar **VOC** 0. 31

- **NOx** 0.2 6 97.9 **PM 2.5** 

- 2.9 **SOx**

- 1.8


### Table 5b: **Ozone A naly** **sis**
**– Daily**  **Benefits in New Jersey**

**Benefits (Reductions) Ozone Non**  **- At** **tainment A rea**  **New York -**  **N. New Jersey****** **Long Island, NY** **- NJ**  **- CT**  **Philadelphia -** **Wilmington**   ** At** **lantic City PA** **- NJ**  **- MD**  **- DE**  **VT** 46,126 7,095 **VMT** 363,025 60,591 **VOC (Tons/Day)** 0.27 0.04 **NOx (Tons/Day)**  0.23 0.03


### Table 5c: **PM2.5 A naly** **sis**
**– An**  **nual Benefits in New Jersey**
**Benefits (Reductions) PM**  **2.5 Non**  **- At** **tainment A rea**  **New York -**  **N. New Jersey****** **Long Island, NY -**  **NJ -** **CT Philadelphia**  **- Wilmington**  **PA -**  **NJ -**  **DE VT**  11,531,500 1,773,750 **VMT** 9 0,756,250 15,147,750 **NOx (Tons/Year)** 56.25 2.71 **PM 2.5 (Tons/Year)**  1.68 0.08 **SO 2**  **(Tons/Year)** 1.02 0.05

### NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION **Imple mentation of a Statewide Series of T** **D M Program** **s**

**RACM Analysis**

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Page 7 

### Cost/Benefit A**naly sis**  From various sources, the average annual cost per employee/participant in a TCM program is estimated between $100 and $350. The upper end of this range was used to be conservative. The number of participants in each county was estimated using output from the COMMUTER model runs. The total number of eligible employees was multiplied by the percentage of mode share shifted from the drive alone mode in order to estimate the number of employees participating in the program. The number of participants was multiplied by the average annual costs ($350) to get to total cost per county. The county costs were then aggregated by non

- attainment area. The cost/benefit ratio was calculated by dividing the estimated total cost by the benefits estimated. The results of these calculations are show in Tables 6, 7 and 8 below.

### NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION **Imple mentation of a Statewide Series of T** **D M Program** **s**

**RACM Analysis**

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Page 8



### Table 6 **: Estimate of**  **Participants and Cost by**  **County**

**County Co** **st Estimate Calculation**

**Eligible Employees**  **% Shift from**

**SOV Mode Estimated** 

**Number of Participants**  **Total Cost**

**At lantic**  16,979 6.4% 1,087 $380,330 **Bergen** 46,572 6.8% 3,167 $1,108,414 **Burlington** 21,691 2.3% 499 $174,613 **Camden** 23,743 2.8% 665 $232 ,681 **Cape May** 4,594 7.4% 340 $118,985 **Cumberland** 6,849 6.4% 438 $153,418 **Essex** 37,059 13.7% 5,077 $1,776,979 **Gloucester** 10,426 2.3% 240 $83,929 **Hudson** 25,952 14.3% 3,711 $1,298,898 **Hunterdon** 6,154 3.3% 203 $71,079 **Me rcer**  24,214 2.8% 678 $237,29 7 **Mi ddlesex**  44,546 6.1% 2,717 $951,057 **Monmouth** 24,218 6.0% 1,453 $508,578 **Morris** 29,073 6.3% 1,832 $641,060 **Ocean** 14,638 4.1% 600 $210,055 **Passaic** 18,366 9.7% 1,782 $623,526 **Salem** 2,936 6.2% 182 $63,711 **Somerset** 19,665 6.6% 1,298 $454,262 **Susse x**  4,104 3.7% 152 $53,147 **Union** 26,700 10.1% 2,697 $943,845 **Warren** 8,523 3.9% 332 $116,339 **Total 417,002**  **29,149 $10,202,200** 

### NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION **Imple mentation of a Statewide Series of T** **D M Program** **s**

**RACM Analysis**

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Page 9



### Table 7: Estimated C **ost by Non**  **- At** **tainment A rea** 

**County Ozone Non**  **- At** **tainment A rea**  **PM 2.5 Non**  **- At** **tainment Area**

**New York -**  **N. New Jersey** **** **Long Island Philadelphia**  ****

**Wilmington**   ** At** **lantic City New York**  **- N.** 

**New Jersey****** **Long Island Philadelphia**  ****

**Wilmington**
**NY -**  **NJ -** **CT PA** **- NJ**  **- MD**  **- DE**  **NY -**  **NJ -** **CT PA** **- NJ**  **- DE**  **At lantic**  $380,330 **Bergen** $1,108,414 $1,108,414 **Burlington** $174,613 $174,613 **C amden**  $232,681 $232,681 **Cape May** $118,985 **Cumberland** $153,418 **Essex** $1,776,979 $1,776,979 **Gloucester** $83,929 $83,929 **Hudson** $1,298,898 $1,298,898 **Hunterdon** $71,079 **Me rcer**  $380,330 $237,297 **Mi ddlesex**  $951,057 $951,057 **Monmouth** $508,578 $508,578 **Morris** $641,060 $641,060 **Ocean** $210,055 **Passaic** $623,526 $623,526 **Salem** $63,711 **Somerset** $454,262 $454,262 **Sussex** $53,147 **Union** $943,845 $943,845 **Warren** $116,339 **To tal**  **$8,547,182 $1,798,051**  **$8,543,914 $491,223** 

### NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION **Imple mentation of a Statewide Series of T** **D M Program** **s**

**RACM Analysis**

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Page 10 

### Table **8 Cost/Benefit**  **R atio**  **by Non**  **- At** **tainment A rea** 

**Pollutant Cost/Benefit for Each Pollutant**  **Ozone******* **PM 2.5 NY** **- NJ**  **- CT**  **PA -**  **NJ -**  **DE**  

** MD** **NY -**  **NJ -** **CT PA** **- NJ**  **- DE**  VOC ($/Ton/Day) $127,181 $926,213

- - 

### NOx ($/Ton/Day) $149,389 $1,014,522

- - 

### NOx ($/Ton/Year)

- - $153,158 $181,113 

### PM2.5 ($/Ton/Year)

- - $5,122,067 $5,927,864 

### SO2 ($/Ton/Year)

- - $8,484,113 $9,942,869 *Daily Costs used in calculation of cost/benefit ratio are Annual costs divided by 250