SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ

Evaluation and Assessment

Phase II Final Report

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

FHWA-HEP-09-026
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 the use of 

the information contained in this document. 

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of the document. 

QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 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. 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

 OMB No. 0704-0188 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the 

time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other 

aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters 

Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, 

VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), 

Washington, DC 20503. 

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 

July 2009 

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED 

CMAQ Evaluation and Review 2008 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

SAFETEA-LU 1808: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program 

Evaluation and Assessment: Phase II Final Report 

5. FUNDING NUMBERS 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Terrance Regan, Elizabeth Murphy, Mary Beth Hines 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

55 Broadway 

Cambridge, MA 02142 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER 

FHWA-HEP-09-026 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

Office of Natural and Human Environment 

Federal Highway Administration 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 

HEPN-1 

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

This report was overseen by a review panel composed of representatives of the Federal 

Administration, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Highway Administration, Federal Transit 

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

No restrictions. This document is available to the public electronically through the Federal 

Highway Administration Office of Natural and Human Environment, Washington, DC 

20590, at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmap=qpgs/index.htm. 

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) 

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 to ensure the program’s effective implementation. Phase II of the CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment responds to 

that request by exploring different practices and approaches that select agencies Nationwide use in CMAQ project selection and 

implementation. The study team conducted 1-day site interviews with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and State 

Departments of Transportation (DOTs) at seven locations around the country. The Phase II Report highlights effective CMAQ 

implementation practices and identifies benefits, challenges, and opportunities encountered by the agencies interviewed as they

program CMAQ funds from the information collected and analyzed during the site visit interviews.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), air quality, evaluation, 

assessment, cost-effectiveness, SAFETEA-LU 1808, Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO) 

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

76 

16. PRICE CODE 

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

 OF REPORT 

Unclassified 

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

 OF ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 

Unlimited 
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

in 

ft 

yd 

mi 

in2

ft2 

yd2 

ac 

mi2

fl oz 

gal 

ft3 

yd3 

oz 

lb 

T 

o

F 

fc 

fl 

lbf 

lbf/in2

 

LENGTH 

inches 25.4 millimeters 

feet 0.305 meters 

yards 0.914 meters 

miles 1.61 kilometers 

AREA 

square inches 645.2 square millimeters 

square feet 0.093 square meters 

square yard 0.836 square meters 

acres 0.405 hectares 

square miles 2.59 square kilometers 

VOLUME 

fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters 

gallons 3.785 liters 

cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters 

cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters 

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS ounces 28.35 grams 

pounds 0.454 kilograms 

short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) 

Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius 

or (F-32)/1.8 

ILLUMINATION 

foot-candles 10.76 lux 

foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

poundforce 4.45 newtons 

poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals 

Mm 

M 

M 

Km 

2 mm2 m2 m

Ha 

km2

ML 

L 3 m3 m

G 

Kg

Mg (or "t") 

o

C 

Lx 

cd/m2 

N 

Kpa 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

mm 

m 

m 

km 

2 mm2 m2 m

ha 

km2 

mL 

L 3 m3 m

g 

kg 

Mg (or "t") 

o

C 

lx 

cd/m2

N 

kPa 

LENGTH 

millimeters 0.039 inches 

meters 3.28 feet 

meters 1.09 yards 

kilometers 0.621 miles 

AREA 

square millimeters 0.0016 square inches 

square meters 10.764 square feet 

 square meters 1.195 square yards 

hectares 2.47 acres 

square kilometers 0.386 square miles 

VOLUME 

milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces 

liters 0.264 gallons 

cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet 

cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards 

MASS 

grams 0.035 ounces 

kilograms 2.202 pounds 

megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit 

ILLUMINATION 

lux 0.0929 foot-candles 

 candela/m2

 0.2919 foot-Lamberts 

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

newtons 0.225 poundforce 

kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch 

In 

Ft 

Yd 

Mi 

in2 

ft2 

yd2 

Ac

mi2 

fl oz 

Gal 

ft3 

yd3 

Oz

Lb

T 

o

F 

Fc 

Fl

Lbf 

lbf/in2

 

*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. 

(Revised March 2003) 

ii
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................v

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

Context for the Report: CMAQ History..............................................................................................1

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

Study Objectives .................................................................................................................................2

Study Methodology.............................................................................................................................2

Report Organization............................................................................................................................3

2. Effective Field Practices in CMAQ Implementation ............................................. 5

Transparent Project Solicitation, Prioritization, and Selection Processes...........................................5

Effective Practices from the Field.......................................................................................................6

Standardized Approaches to Project Evaluation and Ranking............................................................8

Effective Practices from the Field.....................................................................................................11

Adaptability in Response to Evaluations and Changing Conditions.................................................12

Effective Practices from the Field.....................................................................................................13

3. Observations from the Field: Benefits, Challenges, and Opportunities............. 15

Links to the Bigger Picture ...............................................................................................................15

State DOT Involvement ....................................................................................................................16

Air Quality Agency Involvement......................................................................................................18

Data and Analysis Requirements ......................................................................................................19

4. Putting it all Together: Legislation and Guidance Translate into Projects........ 21

Birmingham Truck Stop-Electrification............................................................................................22

Statewide School Bus Retrofits in Massachusetts.............................................................................24

Denver’s Traffic Signal System Improvement Program (TSSIP).....................................................26

Fort Collins Community Bicycle Library .........................................................................................28

Medford, Oregon Diesel Retrofits.....................................................................................................30

Pittsburgh Downtown Car-Sharing Program ....................................................................................31

Bay Area Freeway Service Patrol (FSP)...........................................................................................33

5. Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 35

6. Site-Visit Case Studies ....................................................................................... 39

Birmingham, Alabama: Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham (RPCGB) ..........39 

Boston, Massachusetts: Boston MPO ...............................................................................................42 

Denver, Colorado: Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG).......................................44 

Fort Collins, Colorado: North Front Range MPO (NFRMPO).........................................................47 

Medford, Oregon: Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG).............................................49 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC) .....................................52 

San Francisco, California: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) .................................55 

Appendix A: CMAQ Phase II Site-Visit Locations and MPO Points of Contact........... 59

Appendix B: CMAQ Phase II Site Visits—Interview Guide......................................... 61

Appendix C: Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................. 65

iii
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

iv

List of Tables 

Table 1: Summary of Quantitative Measures to Evaluate CMAQ Proposals............ ...............................9 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CMAQ: Strengthening National Efforts to Meet Air Quality Standards 

In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act (CAA) to strengthen National efforts to attain the National 

air quality standards. Among other strengthening provisions, the amendments required stronger 

coordination and linkages between transportation and air quality planning. Shortly thereafter, in 1991, 

Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), which realigned the 

focus of transportation planning toward a more inclusive, environmentally sensitive, and multimodal 

approach. This included the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program, 

which was created to help fund transportation projects that reduce emissions. 

CMAQ was reauthorized in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998, and 

again in 2005 with the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU). 

In 2007, in consultation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) began a two-phased study as required by 

SAFETEA-LU Section 1808(f). Section 1808(f) calls for an evaluation and assessment of the direct and 

indirect impacts of CMAQ-funded projects on air quality and congestion levels to ensure the program’s 

effective implementation. 

The following report presents results from the second phase of that study and should be read in 

conjunction with SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment, Phase I Final Report.

1

 The 

primary objectives of the Phase II study were to: 

 Explore practices and approaches to CMAQ project selection and implementation. 

 Provide information for use by local, regional, and State transportation agencies for the purpose 

of ensuring effective CMAQ implementation. 

Using Case Studies to Explore CMAQ Project Selection and Implementation 

As part of the Phase II research, a Federal CMAQ Team conducted 1-day interviews with Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (MPOs) and State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) at the following seven 

locations Nationwide: 

 Birmingham, Alabama 

 Boston, Massachusetts 

 Denver, Colorado 

 Fort Collins, Colorado 

 Medford, Oregon 

 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

 San Francisco, California 

This report highlights effective practices and identifies benefits, challenges, and opportunities 

encountered by agencies as they program CMAQ funds from the information collected and analyzed at 

these site visits. The exploration of effective practices may be useful and instructive to other MPOs and 

State DOTs around the country as they build their own experience with the CMAQ program and seek to 

improve their project implementation. 

 

1 SAFETEA-LU 1808: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Evaluation and Assessment, Phase I Final 

Report; available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs/safetealu1808/safetealu1808.pdf. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Effective Practices—Highlights 

Processes for selecting, programming, and evaluating CMAQ projects varied by site location so 

effectiveness was broadly defined to reflect the range of circumstances observed in the field. 

Effectiveness was also assessed in relation to FHWA’s CMAQ program guidance and results from Phase 

I of the study. Effective practices were identified in the three areas highlighted below. 

Transparent project solicitation, prioritization, and selection processes

Two broad types of transportation planning processes were used for evaluating and selecting CMAQ 

projects, and good practices were found within each. The two process types were: 

 A stand-alone CMAQ process, with its own CMAQ-specific outreach efforts. 

 An integrated process, where projects are solicited, evaluated, and selected as part of an overall 

planning and programming process. 

Standardized approaches to project evaluation and ranking 

MPOs developed a variety of methodologies for project evaluation. Effective practices were found in the 

following areas: 

 Developing quantitative and qualitative measures. 

 Estimating air quality or congestion benefits. 

 Determining cost-effectiveness. 

 Evaluating and ranking projects. 

Adaptability in response to evaluations and changing conditions 

One success factor to developing a good CMAQ program was found to be an organization’s willingness 

and ability to adapt and change in response to a variety of shifting factors. Those factors included 

evolving local conditions, new Federal guidance/legislation, and the results of project outcome 

evaluations. Effective practices were found in the following areas: 

 Conducting a periodic, broad-level assessment of the CMAQ program. 

 Conducting post-project analysis and evaluation of CMAQ projects. 

Benefits, Challenges, and Opportunities 

The site visits also provided a better understanding of the broader planning and funding context within 

which transportation agencies develop CMAQ programs. MPOs reported several benefits, challenges, and 

opportunities related to their CMAQ program development. For example, MPOs reported that the CMAQ 

program improved their capabilities to: 

 Increase their planning capacity overall due to the oversight and operations required at the MPO 

level. 

 Test innovative projects on a small scale for demonstrable success before scaling up. 

 Allow broader policies to evolve that reflect the nexus between transportation and other issues. 

 Open the transportation planning and programming process to nontraditional partners. 

 Build stronger relationships with and obtain involvement from air quality agencies. 

The CMAQ program’s requirements to estimate and document project benefits presented common 

challenges. For example, some MPOs noted that data requirements associated with CMAQ added to 

project costs. On the other hand, these requirements had a positive side in that they brought a higher 

degree of analytical rigor and justification to the planning and programming process. Other MPOs 

suggested that just meeting the minimum analytical requirements did not provide accurate estimates of 

emissions reductions over the life of the project. Still others noted that it was a challenge to allocate the 

vi
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

staff time required for administering CMAQ to a funding source that represents a small portion of their 

overall transportation budgets. 

Many agencies agreed that CMAQ’s additional requirements can be seen as positive at a broad level and 

as a model for using analysis to identify projects with clearly defined and measurable benefits. 

Conclusions 

While the CMAQ program is Federally funded, no National standard or set of regulations exists for how a 

CMAQ program should be structured and operated at the State or MPO level. It is intentionally left to the 

State or MPO to develop a process and operate a program that best responds to local or regional needs. 

Reflecting this, the Federal CMAQ Team found differences in structure and operations at each of the 

seven sites visited. 

The agencies interviewed for this study represent a very small sample of CMAQ programs across the 

country but allowed the Federal CMAQ Team to draw several conclusions about potential effective 

practices as well as benefits, challenges, and opportunities presented by the CMAQ program. These are: 

 Transparent project solicitation, prioritization, and selection processes play important roles in 

engaging citizens and increasing stakeholder involvement. 

 Standardized processes to evaluate and rank multiple project types are important for increasing 

transparency and giving public confidence, but can be challenging especially due to CMAQ’s 

emphasis on nontraditional projects. 

 Effective processes for evaluating program impact and the ability to adapt in response to 

evaluations and/or changing conditions are important for continual program improvement. 

 State DOTs play an important role in shaping CMAQ program development at the MPO level. 

 CMAQ engages air quality agencies as valuable partners in the transportation planning process. 

 CMAQ’s data and analysis requirements present both significant challenges and opportunities. 

 CMAQ legislation and guidance are translated and applied to meet local transportation and air 

quality requirements and concerns, resulting in a range of innovative projects. 

 Positive impacts go beyond stated CMAQ program goals. 

To demonstrate by specific examples the range and variety of CMAQ projects that have arisen from the 

legislation and guidance, this report includes seven brief summaries of CMAQ-funded projects. The 

summaries highlight projects that the MPOs interviewed felt were successful in areas such as providing 

air quality benefits, strengthening interagency cooperation, increasing economic vitality, improving 

quality of life, and leveraging funds to maximize impact across geographic boundaries. The summaries 

will help readers to gain insight into the benefits, challenges, and opportunities reported by agencies 

involved with CMAQ project selection and evaluation. 

vii
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

viii

This page intentionally left blank.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Context for the Report: CMAQ History 

A short history of the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program provides an 

important context for this report. In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act (CAA)2 to strengthen 

National efforts to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The amendments 

required reductions in tailpipe emissions, initiated stronger control measures in areas that failed to attain 

the NAAQS (nonattainment areas [NAAs]), and provided for a stronger connection between 

transportation and air quality planning. Shortly thereafter, in 1991, the CMAQ program was created with 

the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act3 (ISTEA) in order to realign the focus of 

transportation planning toward a more inclusive, environmentally sensitive, and multimodal approach to 

addressing transportation problems. 

The CMAQ program was reauthorized in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)4

in 1998 and again in 2005 with the Safe, Accountable Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Each of these subsequent bills resulted in a shift of priorities within 

the CMAQ program at the Federal, State, and regional levels. A provision within SAFETEA-LU 

established priority consideration for cost-effective emissions reduction and congestion mitigation 

activities. Between Fiscal Years (FYs) 2005 and 2009, CMAQ represented 4.3 percent of the Federal 

Highway Administration’s (FHWA) total authorizations Nationwide.5

 In October 2008, FHWA issued 

Final Program Guidance (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaq08gm.htm) for the CMAQ 

program.6

 The guidance notes that the CMAQ program supports two important goals of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (USDOT): improving air quality and relieving congestion. In addition, the 

guidance provides information on project eligibility, project selection, and program administration. 

Purpose of the Study 

This report documents the second part of a two-phased study of the CMAQ program. The study was led 

by FHWA in consultation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). It was undertaken in response to requirements in Section 1808(f) of 

SAFETEA-LU (Pub. L. 109-59, Aug. 10, 2005) to evaluate and assess the CMAQ program.7

 The text of 

this legislation is as follows: 

(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 

 

2 Clean Air Act 1990 Amendment; available at http://www.epa.gov/air/caa. 3 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 199, Public Law 102-240; available at 

http://www.bts.gov/laws_and_regulations. 4 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) of 1998, Public Law 105-178; available at 

http://www.bts.gov/laws_and_regulations. 5 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Public Law 109-59, 

Funding Tables, August 2005; available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/fundtables.htm. 6

 Federal Highway Administration. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program under the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Final Program Guidance; available at 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaq08gm.htm. 7 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Public Law 109-59, 

August 2005; available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ059.109.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

2

(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 TEA-21 (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 should be read in conjunction with SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment: 

Phase I Final Report.

8

Study Objectives 

Phase II of the CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Study was designed to respond to Congress’s direction 

to ensure the effective implementation of the program. It was also designed to provide important 

information about CMAQ implementation to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and State 

Departments of Transportation (DOTs), which can use the information highlighted to assess and improve 

their programs. 

Study Methodology 

Phase I of the study evaluated 67 CMAQ-funded projects from the FHWA database, using emissions and 

cost-effectiveness data in response to the SAFETEA-LU requirement to determine the impacts of a 

sample of CMAQ projects. The Phase I report noted a variety of good practices that States and MPOs 

used to analyze and program CMAQ projects. These practices included: 

 Development of standardized methods to calculate benefits. 

 Development of procedures for ranking projects, including consideration of cost-effectiveness. 

 Coordination with air and local agencies in the project selection process. 

Phase II of the study responds to the SAFETEA-LU requirement to ensure effective implementation of 

the CMAQ program. The FHWA/EPA study team, referred to as the Federal CMAQ Team throughout 

this report, conducted Phase II by selecting MPOs that were implementing some or all of these practices 

and then conducting interviews and developing case studies to document effective CMAQ project 

selection and implementation practices in the field. The Phase II report also provides observations from 

the field about challenges and opportunities for improvement in CMAQ program implementation. 

The Federal CMAQ Team conducted 1-day site visits to seven locations across the country between June 

and September 2008. The seven locations were chosen on the basis of criteria and findings from the Phase 

I study. The Federal CMAQ Team identified sites that (1) had relatively high obligation rates for CMAQ 

funds and (2) warranted deeper analysis because they were found to have one or more of the following 

characteristics identified as good practices during the Phase I analysis: 

 Transparent project prioritization/selection processes. 

 Standardized tools or emissions calculation methods. 

 Effective processes for evaluating project or program impact. 

In choosing the locations for site visits, the Federal CMAQ Team also considered both geographic and 

MPO size diversity and included some locations that had experience with diesel engine retrofit projects, 

 

8 SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ: Phase I Final Report; available at 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs/safetealu1808/safetealu1808.pdf. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

since this type of project was specifically encouraged under the SAFETEA-LU legislation due to its air 

quality benefits. The seven sites were: 

 Birmingham, Alabama 

 Boston, Massachusetts 

 Denver, Colorado 

 Fort Collins, Colorado 

 Medford, Oregon 

 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

 San Francisco, California 

Appendix A provides more detail on the points of contact for each site visit agency, along with the 

locations of their regional offices of FTA, FHWA, and EPA. 

The Federal CMAQ Team developed and used a standard questionnaire for all site visits. The questions 

and agendas were sent to the State, regional, and local representatives of each MPO prior to the visit. Sitevisit participants included staff from the MPOs and State DOTs as well as representatives from one or 

two local CMAQ project-sponsoring agencies. Where possible, participants also included representatives 

from the State or regional air quality/natural resource agencies. Federal staff in attendance included 

representatives from FHWA Headquarters and field offices, EPA Headquarters and regional offices, FTA 

regional offices, and USDOT’s Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center). The 

questions, which can be found in Appendix B, focused on the following areas: 

 CMAQ program objectives. 

 CMAQ program procedures, including project initiation, analysis, and selection. 

 CMAQ program and project funding. 

 Reporting. 

 Program and project evaluation. 

 In-depth description of at least two recently programmed CMAQ projects. 

The seven case studies are not intended to provide a statistically significant representation of the overall 

CMAQ program Nationally. Rather, they provide examples of the challenges facing agencies as they 

program CMAQ funds as well as examples of how agencies have effectively responded to Federal 

legislation and guidance as they develop methods to program and evaluate projects to meet the program’s 

goals. The MPOs served as the main points of contact for the site visits. The term MPO is used 

throughout the document as opposed to region, agency, or another similar descriptor. 

Report Organization 

The report is organized into six major sections and three appendices: 

 Section 1: Introduction 

 Section 2: Effective Field Practices in CMAQ Implementation 

 Section 3: Observations from the Field: Benefits, Challenges, and Opportunities 

 Section 4: Putting It All Together: Legislation and Guidance Translate into Projects 

 Section 5: Conclusions 

 Section 6: Site-Visit Case Studies 

 Appendix A: CMAQ Phase II Site-Visit Locations and Points of Contact 

 Appendix B: CMAQ Phase II Site Visits—Interview Guide 

 Appendix C: Acronyms and Abbreviations 

3
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

4

This page intentionally left blank.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

5

2. EFFECTIVE FIELD PRACTICES IN CMAQ IMPLEMENTATION

There is no single National standard or set of regulations dictating how a CMAQ program should be 

structured and operated at the State or MPO level, and the CMAQ authorizing legislation does not require 

the issuance of such regulations. FHWA offers CMAQ program guidance, but intentionally leaves 

discretion to MPOs and State DOTs to develop a process that best responds to needs at the regional or 

local level. Accordingly, the Federal CMAQ Team found differences in structure and operations at every 

one of the sites visited. Processes for selecting, programming, and evaluating CMAQ projects are highly 

diverse from region to region and may even vary within a single State. Agencies also varied in their 

strengths as well as in the challenges they faced to effective CMAQ implementation. 

This section of the report documents effective CMAQ implementation practices found in the seven field 

locations where interviews were conducted. The Federal CMAQ Team identified effective practices 

across a diverse set of agencies, where each agency is working to implement a CMAQ program that best 

responds to local needs and conditions. Effectiveness was assessed in relation to FHWA’s CMAQ 

program guidance and the practices identified during the Phase I analysis. Generally, effective CMAQ 

programs are those that exhibit some or all of the following characteristics: 

 Transparent project solicitation, prioritization, and selection processes. 

 Standardized approaches to project evaluation and ranking. 

 Adaptability in response to evaluations and changing conditions. 

The exploration of effective practices and noteworthy examples described below may be useful and 

instructive to other MPOs around the country as they build their own experience with the CMAQ 

program and seek to improve their own implementation of CMAQ funded projects. Readers are 

encouraged to delve more deeply by reading the case study of each site visit (included in Section 6) to 

identify which practices may be applicable to their own organizations and to contact the organizations for 

information-sharing. 

Transparent Project Solicitation, Prioritization, and Selection Processes 

Federal guidance for the CMAQ program states the need for a selection process that is “transparent, in 

writing, and publicly available.”9

 How MPOs or States structure their CMAQ process may vary widely, 

but in every case it is important that there be clearly understood, documentation and guidance on: 

 The operation of the CMAQ program. 

 How projects are solicited and proposed. 

 Who is able to propose a project. 

 How projects are evaluated and ranked. 

 How funding decisions are made. 

In line with Federal guidance and the findings from Phase I, information gathered during the Phase II 

study confirmed that adopting transparent project solicitation, prioritization, and selection processes is a 

critical success factor for effectively implementing a good CMAQ program. Common attributes of open, 

understandable CMAQ program processes were: 

 The program’s vision, goals, solicitation, evaluation, and selection processes are clear, 

understandable, reliable, and documented. 

 

9 Federal Highway Administration. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program under the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Final Program Guidance, p. 29; available at 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaq08gm.htm.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

6

 The program’s vision, goals, solicitation, evaluation, and selection processes are easily accessible 

by the public and supported by strong education and outreach efforts. 

 The operation of the program and the decisionmaking process are transparent and reliable. 

The above characteristics are important to gaining and maintaining trust by policy-makers and the public. 

Greater understanding of, familiarity with, and trust in MPO processes by potential project sponsors (i.e., 

applicants to the CMAQ program) translates into more project submittals, better competition, and ideally, 

the selection of better projects for funding. When project sponsors do not understand how projects rise to 

the top of the selection process, they may feel that decisions are made for nonmerit reasons, thereby 

undermining community trust in the MPO planning process. 

The results from the site interviews suggest that the public process used to solicit and program CMAQ 

projects is closely tied to an MPO’s overall approach to programming Federal transportation funds. 

Approaches typically fall in one of two major categories: 

1. A stand-alone CMAQ process with its own CMAQ-specific outreach efforts, as found in: 

 Birmingham, Alabama 

 Fort Collins, Colorado 

 Medford, Oregon 

 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

2. An integrated process where CMAQ monies are pooled with other funding sources and all 

projects are solicited, evaluated, and selected as part of an overall planning and programming 

process, as found in: 

 Boston, Massachusetts 

 Denver, Colorado 

 San Francisco, California 

Both approaches can support effective CMAQ implementation. Of the seven agencies interviewed for this 

report, smaller MPOs, with smaller budgets, fewer staff, and relatively less severe air quality challenges, 

tended to run CMAQ as a stand-alone program. The larger MPOs, with longer-standing programs and 

more complex congestion mitigation and air quality improvement challenges, tended to integrate CMAQ 

into the overall planning process. However, whether an MPO runs CMAQ as a stand-alone program or 

treats it as just one funding source among many, every State and MPO must integrate projects 

programmed through CMAQ into its regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and then its 

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). As such, CMAQ project solicitation typically follows 

the same schedule as TIP updates. 

Effective Practices from the Field 

CMAQ Program Guidance and Consolidated CMAQ Calendar 

North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO), Fort Collins, Colorado

In Fort Collins, NFRMPO has produced and put on its Web site a 41-page document that describes the 

purpose of the CMAQ program, enumerates the agency’s priorities for using CMAQ funds, lists project 

eligibility, and details the project selection process.10 This clear outline of the CMAQ program goals, 

operating procedures, and selection process allows an interested citizen or organization with a project idea 

to read and understand how to get involved. In addition, the Web site has a consolidated calendar for 

CMAQ projects under consideration for the FY 2010–2011 funding cycle. 

 

10 North Front Range Metropolitan Organization (NFRMPO). Project Submittal and Evaluation Process Guidebook for 

FY 10–11, March 2009; available at: http://www.nfrmpo.org/Projects/CCFP.aspx. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Reformulation of the CMAQ Process 

Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

In order to improve the openness and transparency of the CMAQ selection process for project sponsors, 

planning partners, and the public, the SPC board and staff worked to reformulate the Pittsburgh region’s 

CMAQ process. In 2007, SPC hired an independent facilitation team to assist with the CMAQ review to 

help ensure a fair and unbiased process. As a result, SPC updated its CMAQ evaluation and selection 

procedures and established a new CMAQ Evaluation Committee (CEC) to help review applications, 

prioritize projects, and make recommendations on which projects to fund. The CEC is composed of more 

than 20 members representing SPC’s member counties, transportation management associations (TMAs), 

the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), local environmental agencies, and SPC 

modal committees (freight forum, pedestrian/bicycle, transit operators). The revised process was endorsed 

by the SPC board and used to develop the recommended CMAQ Program for the 2009–2012 TIP. 

Online Application Process 

Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

SPC developed a revised CMAQ application that project sponsors can download from the Web, complete, 

and return to SPC electronically. The application is an interactive PDF file that allows project sponsors to 

attach documents or maps. It includes detailed instructions for applicants and provides a description of the 

project evaluation criteria used in the scoring, ranking, and selection process. SPC spent considerable 

effort in updating the application questions to ensure that all pertinent information is supplied for each 

project and to provide background information about the CMAQ program and guidance to help applicants 

understand the criteria that will be used to evaluate their projects. 

Diesel Retrofit Public Outreach 

Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO), Medford, Oregon 

When the RVMPO Policy Committee decided that diesel retrofit projects should be a priority for how to 

spend CMAQ funding, RVCOG staff organized a public open house specifically to reach out to local 

businesses operating diesel fleets in the area. The open house received media coverage from two 

television stations and a newspaper. The open house informed companies that Federal funding was 

available to support retrofitting their fleets’ engines to burn cleaner, provided educational materials to 

show that retrofits do not adversely affect vehicle operations, and gave tips on how to apply for a CMAQ 

grant. A product of this outreach led to a successful public-private partnership (PPP) with a private 

company in the area, Rogue Disposal & Recycling, to begin retrofitting its fleet. 

Air Quality Outreach 

Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham (RPCGB), Birmingham, Alabama 

The CMAQ program’s emphasis on innovative and nontraditional projects provides an opportunity for 

MPOs to foster partnerships with organizations that have not typically been involved in the metropolitan 

transportation planning process, such as air quality agencies, community organizations, and private firms. 

In Birmingham, RPCGB dedicates about $1.4 million of CMAQ funding annually to support the work of 

the Alabama Partners for Clean Air (APCA), a consortium of 14 public, private, and nonprofit 

organizations working to implement projects and programs that improve air quality in the RPCGB area. 

As such, the CMAQ program helps RPCGB to broaden public awareness of the metropolitan planning 

process by reaching out to and partnering with a wider range of organizations than it might have 

otherwise. 

7
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

8

Standardized Approaches to Project Evaluation and Ranking 

One of the distinguishing features of the CMAQ program is that project sponsors must estimate their 

proposed project’s air quality benefits in order to be eligible for Federal funding. As described in the 

CMAQ Program Final Guidance issued in November 2008, agencies are expected to give priority 

consideration to cost-effective projects.11 This requires that MPOs and State DOTs have the capacity to 

develop multiple methodologies to quantify outcomes and then apply cost-benefit analyses across a wide 

range of project categories and types. One of the most effective ways that agencies can accomplish these 

objectives is to standardize approaches. Developing standardized calculations also helps to clarify the 

methodologies by which CMAQ project proposals are ranked and selected, thereby increasing the 

transparency and openness of the programming process. 

Site-visit interviews revealed that, while each agency had developed some type of standardized 

calculations, no two methodologies were the same. Several common components were identified, 

however, that helped to make the development and use of standardized methodologies more effective. 

These components were: 

1. Developing quantitative and qualitative measures. 

2. Estimating air quality or congestion benefits. 

3. Determining cost-effectiveness. 

4. Evaluating and ranking projects. 

Developing quantitative and qualitative measures: Agencies use both quantitative and qualitative 

measures to estimate project costs and benefits and to evaluate CMAQ proposals. The development and 

choice of which measures to use is typically an iterative process, with the MPO board providing policy 

guidance and the staff developing the analytical formulas on which quantitative measures are based. Each 

MPO interviewed had its own unique set of quantitative and qualitative measures that it used to evaluate 

project submissions. 

Quantitative measures include assumptions and standardized formulas that are tailored to regional 

characteristics, needs, and goals and used to calculate project benefits. Common quantitative measures 

among agencies interviewed were: 

 Emissions reduction. 

 Reduction in number of automobile trips. 

 Change in vehicle-miles traveled (VMT). 

 Cost-effectiveness (e.g., per-unit reduced emissions, per-unit change in reduced number of 

automobile trips, per-unit change in VMT). 

In some cases, State DOTs provide technical support to MPOs to develop standardized calculation 

methodologies. For example, while CMAQ projects are programmed at the MPO level in Pennsylvania, 

PennDOT has a statewide consultant who creates spreadsheets that can be used to calculate estimated air 

quality benefits for a wide range of CMAQ-type projects. The consultant remains on call to help MPOs 

with new or nonstandard project proposals (i.e., those for which a methodology has not yet been created). 

In other areas, the MPO relies on its own staff or an outside consultant to help formulate the quantitative 

measures. Table 1 provides a summary of how each of the seven MPOs interviewed developed its 

existing quantitative calculation measures. (More detailed information is included in Section 6: Site Visit 

Case Studies.) 

 

11 Federal Highway Administration. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program under the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Final Program Guidance; available at 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaq08gm.htm.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Table 1: Summary of Quantitative Measures to Evaluate CMAQ Proposals 

Boston MPO Standardized spreadsheet developed by State DOT 

Birmingham (RPCGB) Standardized formulas developed by consultant 

Denver (DRCOG) Standardized formulas developed by MPO 

Fort Collins (NFRMPO) Standardized formulas developed and refined by consultant 

Medford (RVCOG) Standardized calculations performed by MPO 

Pittsburgh (SPC) Standardized formulas developed by Statewide consultant 

San Francisco (MTC) Supplements State calculations with its own MPO work 

Qualitative measures are more subjective and difficult to standardize. They are typically criteria that 

respond to MPO policy board goals by awarding points to proposals during the project evaluation process 

to encourage: 

 Desired project types (e.g., diesel retrofits, new/innovative projects). 

 Projects in particular geographic areas (e.g., within urban growth boundary or transit corridor). 

 Multimodal system connectivity (e.g., intermodal centers). 

 New project partners (e.g., air quality agencies, private sector, or community-based organization). 

Qualitative measures can be built into the evaluation and ranking process by giving bonus points either 

upfront in the analysis of benefits or toward the end. They usually are developed on the basis of policy 

goals and popular support for certain types of projects or programs that support the region’s long-range 

transportation vision but whose quantitative benefits are harder to estimate. For example, a number of 

MPOs noted that they use CMAQ funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects because they enjoy broad 

public and political support within the MPO even though they may not compete as successfully as other 

project types on a strictly quantitative basis, such as those focused on traffic signalization or intersection 

improvements. 

Estimating air quality or congestion benefits: Once an MPO agrees on which quantitative and 

qualitative measures and methods to use, project benefits can be quantified. Most MPOs require that 

project sponsors provide the assumptions and related information needed to calculate a project’s projected 

benefits; staff then provide a review to verify the assumptions and results. In Pittsburgh, for example, a 

project sponsor is able to download an electronic application, use the online tools to calculate benefits, 

and then submit the completed application to the MPO for review. Other MPOs perform all calculations 

in-house, using information provided by project sponsors on their applications. 

In interviews, agencies emphasized that the use of quantitative analysis to summarize the benefits of 

projects helps to validate the selection process with the public and project sponsors by allowing everyone 

to see the calculated benefits. However, several agencies cautioned that the quality of benefits 

calculations is only as good as the assumptions built into the formulas. While a formula for a certain type 

of project may be applicable at the State or National level, many of the default variables need to be 

changed to reflect conditions that exist at the local or regional level. 

In addition to the question of how to calculate benefits is the question of which benefits to calculate from 

the standpoint of improving air quality regionwide and what timeframe to use. Most MPOs follow FHWA 

guidance that only requires the calculation of benefits in Year 1 of project implementation. The timeframe 

that is used impacts the types of projects that rise to the top in evaluation. For example, an intersection 

improvement may show a relatively high benefit in Year 1, but this benefit may erode over time. A bike 

lane, new bus service, or outreach and educational program, on the other hand, may not show any 

quantifiable benefits in Year 1 but may have benefits that accrue and build over time. The timeframe of 

analysis will impact whether a project appears good or not, while the underlying reality may be more 

subtle or context-dependent. In the State of Colorado, the DOT and MPOs are addressing this challenge 

9
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

10

by calculating life-cycle benefits for projects for inclusion in the State CMAQ Reporter in addition to the 

Year 1 calculations reported to FHWA for inclusion in the CMAQ database. 

Determining cost-effectiveness: SAFETEA-LU directs States and MPOs to give priority to (1) diesel 

retrofits and other cost-effective emissions reduction activities and (2) cost-effective congestion 

mitigation activities that provide air quality benefits. The determination of cost-effectiveness requires 

calculation of both the benefits and costs for each project. This is usually expressed as the amount in 

kilograms of air pollutant reduced divided by the cost of the project. In Medford, Oregon, project costeffectiveness accounts for 16 percent of the total possible score during the project evaluation phase. The 

next section, on effective practices, provides greater detail on how the RVCOG in Medford awards points 

in determining which projects to fund. 

A separate cost-effectiveness measurement is usually calculated for each of the identified pollutants 

within the air quality district. Different categories of projects are typically better at reducing different 

types of pollutants. For example, the CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase I Final Report found that 

diesel retrofits can be some of the most cost-effective projects in reducing both ozone precursors and 

particulate matter (PM).12 Traffic flow improvements can be cost-effective in reducing carbon monoxide 

(CO) and ozone precursors. In the Pittsburgh area, SPC utilizes a set of standardized models to compare 

benefits and costs in order to develop a cost-effectiveness rating for each CMAQ candidate. 

Evaluation and ranking of projects: Once the quantitative and qualitative measures for each project are 

documented, the evaluation and ranking of projects can be accomplished. Most MPOs incorporate 

qualitative measures into this step by giving bonus points for certain types of projects. The stated and 

publicized decision to favor certain types of projects over others gives project sponsors important 

information about what types of projects are likely to be funded. Each of the seven locations studied 

develops its own evaluation methodology, with different combinations of points and mixes of qualitative 

and quantitative measures. This flexibility enables tailoring of the program to meet local needs. 

Once projects have been evaluated and ranked, the MPO policy board or its designated committee will 

typically review the list of eligible CMAQ projects to ensure a balanced funding program. This review 

will often look at the geographic distribution of project proposals and also will check to ensure that 

regional policy goals are met by the mix of recommended proposals. MPOs with many project 

submissions will often organize applications within project-type categories and then reevaluate and rank 

proposals within these categories to ensure fair and logical comparisons. These agencies have developed 

multiple evaluation methodologies tailored to each project-type category since, for example, a bicycle 

project has different assumptions and characteristics than an intersection improvement or diesel retrofit 

project. 

Several of the MPOs have revised the types of project categories that are emphasized over the years to 

better serve changing needs. In Medford, for example, paving projects were highly ranked with use of 

quantitative measures because they led to quantifiable reductions in PM, which was the MPO’s major air 

quality challenge. However, when diesel retrofits became a CMAQ funding priority in SAFETEA-LU, 

the board decided to emphasize these types of projects and revised its ranking process by awarding points 

explicitly for diesel retrofits. 

 

12 SAFETEA-LU 1808: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Evaluation and Assessment: Phase I Final 

Report, p. 50; available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqpgs/safetealu1808/safetealu1808.pdf.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Effective Practices from the Field 

Sample Project Evaluation Framework 

Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG), Medford, Oregon 

Maximum Points 

Project Evaluation Criteria Points Awarded

Project results in CO/PM 10 reduction (contribution to 20 overall reduction) 

Project is cost-effective (benefit/cost = kg reduction/ 20 $ spent) 

Project results in long-term air quality improvement 15 (effectiveness in 5 years, 10 years, etc.) 

Project demonstrates potential to reduce reliance on 15 automobiles 

Project demonstrates potential to mitigate congestion 15 

Project helps to complete a multimodal transportation 10 system 

Diesel retrofit project 5 

Project is in city limits or inside Urban Containment 5 Boundary 

Project results in reduction of nitrogen oxide (NOx) 5 and/or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

Innovation (e.g., new to the area, new technology) 5 

Project Evaluation Criteria 

Staff work with members of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to review project proposals and to 

score and rank proposals with use of a single set of criteria. Each project can earn up to a total of 115 

points on the basis of both quantitative and qualitative factors organized within 10 criteria categories that 

reflect the Policy Committee’s CMAQ priorities. 

Standardized Air Quality Worksheets 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) 

The Massachusetts EOT developed a series of air quality analysis worksheets to be used by each of the 

State’s MPOs to evaluate CMAQ-eligible projects. The worksheets incorporate the emissions factors for 

each of the two air quality regions within the State and allow for changes to input variables, such as 

average speed and trip length, depending on regional conditions. Outputs of the worksheets include net 

emissions change and cost-effectiveness calculations for each type of emission. This allows for a 

comparison of project cost-effectiveness on a statewide basis. 

Evaluation of Project Benefits 

Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

At the Pittsburgh MPO, each CEC member is asked to evaluate the assumptions, calculations, and 

qualitative benefits submitted with applications for each project. The review imposes a reality check on 

initial project submissions to ensure greater accuracy and a better understanding of each project by the 

CEC members. SPC staff also support project review by quantifying each proposed project’s impact on 

air quality, using a standardized set of analysis tools developed by PennDOT. Evaluation criteria include: 

11
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

12

 Change in emissions. 

 Change in VMT. 

 Change in trips. 

 CMAQ cost-per-unit change in emissions. 

 CMAQ cost-per-unit change in trips and VMT. 

The CMAQ evaluation process also considers a set of ancillary factors to assess each project’s 

deliverability, local commitment, and consistency with the policies and goals in the region’s long-range 

plan, county and local comprehensive plans, and the region’s congestion management process. 

Calculation of Life-Cycle Benefits 

Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) 

In 2000, the Colorado Transportation Commission expressed concern about the effectiveness of the 

CMAQ program in improving air quality and adopted a resolution (TC-807) to increase accountability for 

how CMAQ funds are spent. This led to the development of the CMAQ Reporter, a database maintained 

by CDOT that requires fund recipients to report annually on the effectiveness of their CMAQ 

expenditures. As a result, MPOs within Colorado are required to calculate the air quality benefits that will 

accrue over the lifetime of a CMAQ project. 

CMAQ Evaluation Committee 

North Front Range MPO (NFRMPO), Fort Collins, Colorado 

NFRMPO has clearly established CMAQ evaluation criteria and an easy-to-understand, three-tiered 

scoring system to select projects. This includes short-term air quality benefits in Year 1 (50 percent of 

score), long-term air quality benefits in Years 2 to 5 (20 percent of score), and regional planning 

achievement (30 percent of score). Because the process of demonstrating air quality benefits can be 

contentious between transportation and environmental agencies, NFRMPO set up a CMAQ Evaluation 

Committee that includes representatives of both EPA and the Colorado Department of Public Health and 

Environment (CDPHE) as voting members. Using NFRMPO’s established CMAQ evaluation criteria, the 

14-member committee scores and then ranks proposed CMAQ projects for funding. 

Adaptability in Response to Evaluations and Changing Conditions 

Another important success factor in developing a good CMAQ program is an organization’s willingness 

and ability to reflect on, and change in response to, shifting local needs and conditions, new Federal 

guidance/legislation, or the evaluation results of project outcomes post-implementation. 

Since the CMAQ program was first created by ISTEA13 in 1991, each of the subsequent Federal 

transportation bills, TEA-2114 and SAFETEA-LU15, has resulted in a shift of priorities within the program 

at the Federal, State, and regional levels. In order to effectively implement CMAQ, agencies had to be 

able to adapt to these changes. Several of the MPOs interviewed also discussed the value of conducting a 

broad-level assessment of the CMAQ program overall on a periodic basis to ensure that it supports 

shifting regional conditions and evolving regional policy goals. 

 

13 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 199, Public Law 102-240; available at 

http://www.bts.gov/laws_and_regulations. 14 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) of 1998, Public Law 105-178; available at 

http://www.bts.gov/laws_and_regulations. 15 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Public Law 109-59, 

August 2005; available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ059.109.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Unlike other Federal transportation funding categories, projects using CMAQ funding are required to 

demonstrate air quality benefits in order to be eligible. Establishing CMAQ eligibility for proposed 

projects requires that agencies make assumptions upfront about air quality and congestion impacts as well 

as project costs and benefits. Given that CMAQ supports projects that are nontraditional or completely 

new to an MPO, however, it can be difficult for agencies to define the correct assumptions and to 

accurately predict impacts. To better understand actual project benefits, some of the MPOs interviewed 

have introduced post-project analysis and evaluation of CMAQ projects. Evaluation results help MPOs to 

refine assumptions and estimates for future projects and provide policymakers with better information for 

future decisions. Post-project evaluation allows historical benchmarks to be set and tracked for actual, 

rather than projected, congestion mitigation or air quality benefits and costs. These benchmarks make it 

easier for new sponsors to make assumptions and develop estimates for related nontraditional 

transportation projects. This practice also allows the MPO to show members of the public that they are 

receiving a demonstrable benefit from their tax dollars. 

Several MPOs noted that post-project evaluation of CMAQ projects is being driven by project sponsors. 

In both Pittsburgh and Birmingham, it was noted that if CMAQ project sponsors want to be able to 

compete successfully in the next round of CMAQ funding, the sponsor must show that its previous 

projects achieved the projected benefits. In Boston, it is up to the sponsor of operations-related projects to 

undertake usage studies and report on the benefits. The project’s future level of funding depends on 

demonstrating benefits commensurate with the usage projections. In the long run, this may favor projects 

for which benefits are easier to calculate upfront (e.g., diesel retrofits) over those in which benefits build 

over time (e.g., bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit, and public outreach). 

Post-project evaluation is expensive both in staff time and money, so it is sometimes seen as a luxury or 

as being done at the expense of other important work conducted at the MPO. While it is clear that postproject evaluation can help States and MPOs to better understand the costs and benefits of various project 

types, the costs associated with post-project evaluation are sometimes perceived as outweighing the 

benefits. However, CMAQ programs that are willing invest the resources needed to evaluate projects 

post-implementation and use the results to restructure and refocus their programs should be better able to 

meet their objectives moving forward. 

Effective Practices from the Field 

Evolution of the CMAQ Program Document 

Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), Denver, Colorado 

In 2008, DRCOG staff developed a 12-page public document that lays out, in an accessible, plain-English 

narrative, the evolution of the MPO’s 16-year history of using CMAQ funds. It includes how the agency’s 

approach and priorities for using these funds have changed over the years in response to the changes in 

planning, air quality, and financial contexts in the Denver metropolitan area. The document highlights 

examples of the types of programs and projects funded by CMAQ in the past and identifies current 

DRCOG priorities. The guide is an excellent resource for helping new or potential project sponsors 

understand the regional CMAQ process. 

“After-Action” Debriefing and Restructuring of the CMAQ Evaluation Committee Membership 

Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

After it delivers a recommended suite of CMAQ projects to the SPC board for inclusion in the TIP, the 

CEC holds an “after-action” debriefing to document both positive and negative aspects of the recently 

completed 2-year CMAQ project selection process. At the end of the debriefing, the CEC is dissolved. At 

the beginning of each future CMAQ cycle, the membership of the CEC is revisited, and new members 

and organizations have the opportunity to participate. The results of previous debriefings are used to 

13
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

improve processes for the next CMAQ cycle and to educate new committee members about CEC goals 

and functions. 

Streamlining of CMAQ Project Review Process 

Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham (RPCGB), Birmingham, Alabama 

In evaluating its CMAQ program, RPCGB found that its CMAQ projects were taking too much time to be 

designed and built. The MPO felt that its smaller CMAQ projects were being subjected to the same 

design standards as larger projects. Working with the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT), 

RPCGB developed procedures to speed up the project review process. This included shifting 

responsibility for planning, design, and the bid process to the project sponsor. This has resulted in a 

shorter design and bidding period and has reduced project costs for these smaller-scale projects. 

Evolution and Integration of CMAQ Processes Result in Emergence of a “CMAQ Mentality” 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), San Francisco Bay Area, California 

In San Francisco, the CMAQ is not operated as a stand-alone program but is viewed instead as just one 

funding source among many. As such, CMAQ funds are pooled with other funding sources in support of 

multimodal program areas supporting a broad range of project types. MPO staff observed the significance 

of CMAQ and its historical impact on regional policy development. The CMAQ program supported the 

agency’s philosophical shift, over the past 2 decades, to consider improved air quality and quality of life 

as important factors in evaluating all transportation projects, not just those that are CMAQ-eligible. As a 

result, one staff member noted, MTC now conducts all programming with a “CMAQ mentality.” 

14
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

3. OBSERVATIONS FROM THE FIELD: BENEFITS, CHALLENGES, AND 

OPPORTUNITIES

All of the information presented in this report is intended to contribute to further discussions about the 

effectiveness of the CMAQ program, both as it currently stands and with an eye to the future. Rather than 

focusing solely on identifying effective practices themselves, some of the questions asked during site-visit 

interviews centered on better understanding the broader planning and funding context within which State 

DOTs and MPOs develop their CMAQ programs. This section presents the resulting observations in four 

categories: 

 Links to the bigger picture. 

 State DOT involvement. 

 State air quality agency involvement. 

 Data and analysis requirements. 

Links to the Bigger Picture

The case studies indicated that CMAQ helps agencies to link more effectively to the “bigger picture” of 

regional planning by: 

 Improving MPOs’ planning capacity overall due to the oversight and operations required at the 

MPO level. 

 Testing innovative projects on a small scale for demonstrable success before scaling up. 

 Allowing broader policies to evolve that reflect the nexus between transportation and other issues. 

 Opening the transportation planning and programming process to nontraditional partners. 

 Building stronger relationships with and obtaining involvement of air quality agencies. 

For many of the MPOs interviewed, the CMAQ program is one of the largest sources of Federal 

transportation discretionary funds available. As such, it is one of the few areas for which MPOs 

themselves, rather than State DOTs, take the lead in planning and programming. Direct decisionmaking 

authority for CMAQ has required MPO staff to engage their policy boards, subcommittees, and 

community stakeholders to develop methodologies to effectively evaluate and program CMAQ projects. 

The scrutiny to which CMAQ projects are subject in terms of eligibility requirements and calculating and 

reporting benefits forces MPOs to develop planning and programming processes that, in some ways, are 

more rigorous than for other Federal funding sources. This not only builds MPOs’ internal capacity to 

program CMAQ funds but also improves metropolitan planning processes overall and positions MPOs to 

plan for other sources of transportation funding, whether local, State, or Federal. 

Some MPOs explained that they have been able to use the CMAQ program as an incubator for testing 

new and innovative projects that might not otherwise qualify for Federal funds. Most agencies noted that 

they use CMAQ to support popular projects that might not be able to receive funding without it, such as 

diesel retrofits and transportation demand management (TDM) activities. For example, when CMAQfunded projects have been able to demonstrate their value and success on a smaller scale, agencies have 

been able to justify greater resource allocation to them in subsequent programming rounds on a larger 

scale. The Birmingham MPO noted that “Birmingham is an example of a place where projects that were 

originally funded with CMAQ are now funded through other programs as well.” 

Though it is sometimes seen as a burden, the CMAQ program’s additional requirement to estimate project 

benefits has a positive side in that it brings a higher degree of analytical rigor and justification into the 

planning and programming process. Both the Birmingham and Pittsburgh MPOs noted that projects 

passing the CMAQ eligibility test have an advantage in determining funding because they are better able 

15
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

16

to estimate their benefits than are most traditional projects, which are not subject to the same degree of 

analysis or evaluation. The CMAQ model of analysis may play an increasingly important role in 

determining funding in a future, more performance-based model of transportation planning. 

Several of the larger MPOs interviewed reflected on the nearly 20-year history they now have of 

programming CMAQ funds over the years. These MPOs revealed how the CMAQ program’s success on 

a smaller scale has led to shifts in their boards’ policy goals at a broader level, enabling them to see the 

nexus between transportation planning and other quality-of-life issues ranging from public health to 

community livability and environmental stewardship. 

The CMAQ program has also helped MPOs and State DOTs to expand their reach by opening the 

transportation planning and programming process to nontraditional partners such as trucking companies, 

school districts, and citizen groups. This builds awareness and understanding of the transportation 

planning process to a broader audience of stakeholders and also challenges MPOs to improve their 

community outreach and public relations. In Pittsburgh, the Downtown Business Association became a 

project sponsor and worked successfully with the MPO to start a pilot car-sharing program with seed 

funding from the CMAQ program. 

State DOT Involvement

State DOTs play an important role in shaping CMAQ program development at the MPO level, taking 

different approaches in their type and level of involvement. The relationship between a State DOT and 

each of the MPOs eligible for CMAQ funding within that State is a critical factor in shaping how regional 

CMAQ programs function. State DOTs’ approach to CMAQ influences the development of regional 

CMAQ programs in a number of ways: 

 Each State DOT chooses how to allocate CMAQ funds to eligible MPO regions; some DOTs 

allocate funds to eligible MPO regions but also retain a portion of the CMAQ funds to run 

separate Statewide CMAQ program as well. 

 Some State DOTs provide technical assistance or other extra support to MPOs to support 

improved decisionmaking (e.g., guidance on how to measure air quality impacts of hard to 

estimate projects). 

 Some State DOTs have representatives sitting on the key committees that make decisions about 

CMAQ eligibility and project prioritization and selection. 

State DOTs Suballocate CMAQ Funds to MPOs 

The Federal-Aid Highway Program apportions CMAQ funds to States on a formula based on the size of 

nonattainment area populations and the severity of air quality deficiencies. Each State has the flexibility 

to suballocate funds among eligible MPO regions as it chooses. How States decide to suballocate funds 

among their MPOs can differ significantly from one State to another. Many States distribute all of the 

CMAQ funds directly to MPOs for programming. The allocation of CMAQ funds in Colorado, for 

example, is based on State legislation that requires 100 percent of funds to be given directly to MPOs for 

programming. In California, Caltrans (the State DOT) devolves programming control of nearly 100 

percent of CMAQ funds directly to MPOs16 around the State on the basis of a formula that accounts for 

population size and the severity of air quality nonattainment in their air basins; a small portion of the 

overall funds for the five non-MPO areas around the State are reserved for those that are in nonattainment 

and therefore are eligible to receive CMAQ dollars. 

 

16 Due to the large population of the Los Angeles MPO region, funds are suballocated directly to the region’s County 

Transportation Commissions.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

17

While many States treat CMAQ as an automatic pass-through that is distributed directly to MPOs, some 

take a more hands-on approach, retaining a pool of funds “off the top” for Statewide initiatives and 

splitting funds between regional and Statewide projects. For example, the Massachusetts Executive Office 

of Transportation (EOT) retains about $12.5 million a year for Statewide CMAQ projects and allocates 

the remaining funds directly to MPO regions. Maintaining a CMAQ program at the State level allows 

Massachusetts to achieve economies of scale and to take on projects that might be harder to develop if 

MPOs were working on them in isolation. For example, rather than distributing funds to the State’s 13 

MPOs for individual rideshare and other TDM programs, EOT uses State CMAQ money to fund the 

MassRides program, a one-stop shop for commuter information and ride-sharing across the State. EOT 

believes that MassRides creates Statewide brand recognition for rideshare and other commuter 

alternatives and that it is able to address complex 

commuting patterns, which are rarely confined to 

MPO planning boundaries, in a more cost-effective 

manner than MPO-specific programs would be 

capable of doing. Having a pool of CMAQ funds at 

the State level also provides EOT with the 

opportunity to collaborate with State-level air quality, 

public health, and environmental agencies, thereby 

building new relationships that can be leveraged in 

other aspects of planning and policy work and 

enabling innovative, nontraditional transportation 

projects, most of which would not qualify for State 

transportation funds. 

Whether the State DOT distributes funds directly to the MPOs by formula or retains some of the money 

for a Statewide program of its own, CMAQ funding suballocations can be contentious as MPOs vie with 

one another—and with the State itself, when a Statewide CMAQ program exists—for larger portions of 

the overall CMAQ allocation. When States revisit and update their allocation formulas, the funding 

impact is that some MPOs “win” and others “lose.” For example, when Oregon DOT (ODOT) recently 

updated its regional CMAQ allocation formula; the Medford MPO went from receiving just 5.5 percent of 

CMAQ funds Statewide to 13 percent, more than doubling the size of its CMAQ program. Since 1991, 

the Birmingham MPO is the only area in Alabama that is eligible for CMAQ funding. But currently, the 

State anticipates three new areas in Alabama soon be redesignated as nonattainment. This would have a 

dramatic impact on how the CMAQ program is operated in Birmingham, since ALDOT would be 

suballocating CMAQ funds to four areas around the state instead of just one. 

State DOTs Can Be a Source of Technical Support and Capacity-Building for MPOs 

States can serve in an important advisory role on technical capacity issues for MPOs that are struggling to 

meet complex reporting requirements or develop effective methods for estimating emissions reductions 

across nontraditional transportation project proposals, especially for smaller and midsized MPOs. 

PennDOT has taken a leadership role in helping to streamline CMAQ project calculations across planning 

regions by hiring a consulting firm to develop standardized spreadsheets to estimate the emissions 

benefits for a variety of air-quality-type projects. This work has resulted in a stand-alone software 

package that small and large MPOs alike can use to evaluate potential projects. PennDOT keeps the 

consultant on contract to provide services on an as-needed basis, thus helping MPOs as challenges arise 

when new types of proposed CMAQ projects cannot be matched up with existing spreadsheets17. This 

approach saves MPOs the cost of reinventing the wheel each time a new methodology needs to be 

developed. It also ensures that calculations are more robust and consistent across Pennsylvania, which 

increases the meaningfulness and integrity of the results. It may also help less traditional projects to 

compete more effectively within the transportation funding process. For example, when the Pittsburgh 

Downtown Partnership (PDP) came to SPC, the Pittsburgh MPO, with a proposal to fund a demonstration 

 

17 PennDOT staff noted that this happens in about 10 percent of cases.

The Massachusetts Statewide CMAQ program 

includes the following programs: 

 School Bus Retrofit ($15 million in total) 

 MassRides ($2.5 million annually) 

 Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance 

(I&M) 

 Alternative Fuels for Statewide Fleets pilot 

program 

 Hybrid Vehicles Plug-in demonstration 

project 

 Safe Routes to School program 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

18

car-share program with CMAQ money, SPC was able to utilize the emissions spreadsheets developed by 

PennDOT’s consultant for a car-share program that was already in existence in Philadelphia and to make 

a case for funding it. PennDOT also helps to build self-sufficiency for MPOs by convening a Statewide 

working group that meets quarterly to discuss issues and challenges faced by different MPOs statewide 

and discuss strategies for overcoming shared challenges. 

State DOTs Sit on Committees Determining CMAQ Eligibility or Project Prioritization 

States may play a role in determining project eligibility for CMAQ as well as in prioritizing and even 

selecting projects. Representatives of State DOTs commonly sit on MPO boards, which make the final 

determinations of which projects ultimately receive funding. Sometimes they also sit on the MPO 

subcommittees that oversee the technical analysis of projects and make recommendations to the MPO 

board on how projects should be prioritized and selected from the applicant pool. Some States also 

convene a Statewide interagency committee to make CMAQ eligibility determinations for proposed 

projects and to seek input on prioritization. (Sometimes it is the same group that meets to make 

conformity determinations.) In Massachusetts, EOT convenes a statewide CMAQ eligibility committee, 

including the Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), which meets annually to determine 

which project proposals qualify for CMAQ funding. In many cases, State DOTs are project sponsors for 

CMAQ projects, working with the MPO to program projects. PennDOT districts, for example, commonly 

submit CMAQ project proposals to the MPOs for funding consideration. 

Air Quality Agency Involvement

The U.S. Code Title 23, Section 149, states “the Secretary shall encourage States and Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations to consult with State and local air quality agencies in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas on the estimated emission reductions from proposed congestion mitigation and air 

quality improvement programs and projects.”18 FHWA guidance echoes this, stating that State DOTs and 

MPOs should consult with State and local air quality agencies to develop and program projects that have 

the greatest impact on air quality.19 There is no uniform National model for how air quality and 

transportation organizations should work together on the CMAQ program, however. Specific approaches 

and structures are determined locally, producing a variety of models of interaction. There are two main 

ways in which air quality agencies at the seven site locations are consulted on the CMAQ program: 

 Air quality agencies serve as members on the policy, technical, or evaluation committees for 

MPOs. 

 Air quality agencies propose CMAQ projects for future implementation. 

Interviewees from the site visits noted that the CMAQ program has played a role by shifting this dynamic 

and providing an opportunity for air quality and other environmental agencies to build stronger working 

relationships with MPOs and State DOTs. Serving on CMAQ committees and/or proposing CMAQ 

projects enabled air quality and environmental agencies to engage in the transportation planning process 

as partners and participants. However, some interviewees acknowledged that barriers to full engagement 

and consideration of air-quality impacts still exist. If the role of the air quality agency is too narrowly 

defined, some important information about a project’s emission reduction potential could be missed. For 

example, greater involvement by the air quality agency could help inform project selection by providing 

information about the relative magnitude of the emission reductions or the effectiveness of reducing a 

particular pollutant. 

 

18 23 U.S.C. §149 (g) Interagency Consultation; available at 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode23/usc_sec_23_00000149----000-.html 

19 Federal Highway Administration, The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program under the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Final Program Guidance; available at 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaq08gm.htm.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Air Quality Agencies Serve as Members of Transportation Boards 

In each of the locations visited, the air quality agency was a member of a board or committee that dealt 

with the transportation and air quality interface. In the San Francisco Bay area, the MPO does not have a 

stand-alone CMAQ program. It instead integrates air quality issues throughout its planning process. Both 

the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and 

Development Commission (SFBCDC) serve as voting members of the MTC Joint Policy Committee, 

which sets the overall vision and policy for the MPO. Similarly, in Denver, the Colorado Regional Air 

Quality Council (RAQC) is a member of the Regional Transportation Committee, which provides overall 

policy direction for the MPO. More typically, the air quality agency is a member of a committee that 

reviews, evaluates, and selects projects for CMAQ funding. In Fort Collins, the CDPHE is a voting 

member of the CMAQ Evaluation Committee, which reviews and ranks all CMAQ proposals and then 

makes recommendations to the MPO policy board. Pittsburgh is similar to Fort Collins, with the 

Pennsylvania DEP and the Allegheny County Health Department sharing a role as a voting member of the 

CMAQ Evaluation Committee. In Massachusetts, CMAQ projects are not evaluated independently from 

the TIP evaluation process. Instead, the State has a CMAQ Eligibility Committee on which MassDEP is a 

voting member. The committee determines if a proposed project is eligible for consideration for CMAQ 

funding. All projects are then programmed in the TIP and approved by the MPO policy board. 

Air Quality Agencies Serve as Project Sponsors 

The CMAQ program has provided the air quality agencies with the opportunity to utilize CMAQ funds to 

help further their transportation-related air quality initiatives. In some cases, the air quality agency is able 

to utilize local funds or private investment to leverage Federal CMAQ dollars. The air quality agencies in 

each of the seven MPOs visited have sponsored CMAQ projects. 

In Massachusetts, MassDEP utilizes CMAQ funding to modernize the Statewide Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance (I&M) program and the retrofitting of all eligible school buses, among other initiatives. In 

Pittsburgh, the Allegheny County Health Department serves as a project sponsor on behalf of local 

municipalities. During the last round of CMAQ funding, the Health Department used fines that it 

collected from stationary-source air quality violations within the region to pay the local match for a series 

of diesel retrofits for public works vehicles for a consortium of 12 municipalities. In Birmingham, the 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) is a member of the Clean Air Alliance, 

which includes private-sector firms. For the ADEM truck stop electrification project completed in 2006, 

CMAQ funds were only 11 percent of the total cost. The private sector contributed the remaining 89 

percent. In Denver, the RAQC received more than $1.6 million over a 2-year period to support its ozone 

reduction program. In San Francisco, the BAAQMD used CMAQ funds to support its Spare the Air 

campaign, and in Medford, Oregon, the State’s lead air quality agency, the Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (ODEQ), sponsored the region’s first PPP, a diesel retrofit to allow Rogue 

Disposal & Recycling Company’s fleet to burn cleaner fuels. 

Data and Analysis Requirements 

Many of the MPO and State DOT staff interviewed expressed support for the documentation of project 

benefits required for CMAQ eligibility because they felt it led to the selection of higher-quality projects 

overall. In Birmingham, for example, MPO staff expressed greater confidence in justifying CMAQ 

projects to the public than other Federally funded projects because of the analysis that CMAQ projects 

must withstand in order to be selected. A number of agency staff felt that the CMAQ program raises the 

bar for other projects competing in the Federal-Aid funding process and suggested that the program be 

used as a model for other Federal-Aid programs, noting that if all Federally funded projects had to meet 

the same standards as CMAQ, better projects would be built across the board. 

At the same time, one MPO noted that the data requirements associated with determining CMAQ 

eligibility can add to project costs. For example, one agency noted that a major project such as a bridge 

rehabilitation using Federal funds requires less justification of benefits derived than does a relatively 

19
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

20

small bicycle project using CMAQ funds. Similarly, an intersection improvement project would require 

different levels of analysis depending upon whether CMAQ funding would be used to support the project 

or not. 

In addition to the quantification of benefits, CMAQ funds are tied to other requirements that limit 

eligibility for project proposals. For example, Federal guidance recommends a 3-year cap on the use of 

CMAQ funds for operating expenses.20 Agencies differ in how they think about additional requirements 

such as this. Some agencies felt that this places an unnecessary restriction on projects whose air quality 

benefits may improve over time; however, in Boston, this restriction was turned into an advantage by 

requiring an increasing local match each year for operations projects. The belief was that only projects 

that are increasingly self-reliant should be sustained with funding after Year 1 or 2. 

Some agencies asked why additional requirements are applied to CMAQ when it is such a small 

percentage of the overall FHWA funding program, as this may cause agencies to devote a 

disproportionately high amount of staff time and resources to administer CMAQ funds and oversee 

projects in order to meet the requirements. As one staff member noted, CMAQ represents about 4 percent 

of the TIP program yet can consume about 20 percent of staff time. Since the CMAQ program itself does 

not include funding for agency administration and oversight, agencies must use their Federal planning 

funds to cover these costs. 

Many agencies agreed that CMAQ’s additional requirements can be seen as positive at a broad level since 

more analysis should lead to higher-quality projects being supported, but they noted that it was a 

challenge to allocate the increased level of staff time required for administering CMAQ to a funding 

source that represents such a small portion of their overall transportation budgets. Some staff noted that if 

increased planning funding were included to cover additional administrative, reporting, and evaluation 

costs, the additional CMAQ evaluation requirements might serve as an excellent model for how all 

Federal funding categories could be run more effectively. Under this scenario, the best projects will rise to 

the top under more rigorous analysis and with a clearer delineation of expected benefits. 

 

20 Federal Highway Administration, The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program under the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Final Program Guidance, p. 13; available at 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaq08gm.htm.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

4. PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER: LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE TRANSLATE 

INTO PROJECTS

This section of the report provides a unique view into how MPOs and State DOTs translate SAFETEALU provisions and FHWA guidance into innovative and valuable projects in the field. The projects 

highlighted here represent efforts that the interviewed MPOs felt were successful in areas such as: 

 Providing air quality benefits. 

 Strengthening interagency cooperation. 

 Increasing quality of life and economic vitality in the community. 

 Leveraging funds to maximize impact across geographic boundaries. 

These project descriptions point to the variety of CMAQ activity across the country and provide a closer 

examination into the range of processes, projects, relationships, and impacts the CMAQ program is 

generating at a small sampling of agencies Nationwide. Through these project descriptions, readers will 

gain insight into how SAEFTEA-LU requirements and FHWA guidance are being used by States and 

MPOs to solicit, evaluate, and program proposed CMAQ projects at the state and local level. 

21
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Birmingham Truck Stop-Electrification 

Location: Birmingham, Alabama

Cost: $1.8 million total, $170,000 in CMAQ funds 

Project sponsor: Alabama Partners for Clean Air (APCA) 

Estimated annual emissions reduction benefits: 

Pollutant Est. Annual Emissions 

Reduction (kg/yr) 

Ozone 148 

Ozone NOx idle 

emissions factor 2,920 

PM 2.5 (standard PM) 80 

Project Partners 

The partnership comprised 11 organizations, including the Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM), the Jefferson County Department of Health, and the Alabama Trucking 

Association. 

CMAQ Application Process 

APCA worked with public- and private-sector firms to package this proposal. The private sector agreed to 

provide the electrification location, and the public sector agreed to provide some start-up financial 

assistance. The project was then proposed to Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham 

(RPCGB). 

Project Overview 

The purpose of this project is to improve air quality by reducing the exhaust from idling engines. An 

idling diesel engine consumes about one gallon of fuel per hour. The exhaust from the idling engines 

contains numerous pollutants, including nitrogen oxide (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs). Because truck drivers are required to get several hours of rest to ensure safe 

driving, they normally keep engines idling at truck stops during rest periods to provide heating and air 

conditioning in the cab and sleeping area as well as power for various appliances. The Truck Stop 

Electrification project is a partnership with a private-sector truck stop to install technology that allows 

truck drivers to shut off their engines while idling and to hook up a window adaptor that provides the 

truck with required heating and cooling, electricity, and communications services. The project includes 

the capital cost to install and operate the technology. 

Estimation of Air Quality Benefits 

Using Environmental Protection Agency emissions factors for calculating air quality benefits, it was 

estimated that the cost-effectiveness for reductions in NOx was approximately $34 per kilogram per year. 

MPO Project Evaluation and Selection Process 

This project was part of an APCA package of proposals that was sent to the Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (MPO) Interagency Consultation Group to determine whether projects were eligible for 

CMAQ funding. Once this project was deemed eligible, the MPO Transportation Improvement Program 

(TIP) Subcommittee voted to allocate CMAQ funding to it. 

22
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Post-Project Evaluation 

The project has been in operation since 2004, and the operator has collected data on how frequently the 

electrification technology is used. Based on the frequency of use data, APCA estimated that the project 

saved 178,000 gallons of diesel fuel in 2007 and reduced pollutants by 1,900 metric tons. 

Conclusion 

In addition to the air quality benefits, the project sponsor noted other benefits such as energy 

independence through fuel savings, economic development, and the provision of better working 

conditions for the truck drivers. 

23
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Statewide School Bus Retrofits in Massachusetts 

Location: Massachusetts Statewide

Cost: $16.4 million in total CMAQ funding over 3 years 

Project sponsor: Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection (MassDEP) and Executive Office 

of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) 

Estimated annual emissions reduction benefits: 

Pollutant Est. Annual Emissions Reduction (kg/yr) 

CO 602,573 

HC* 30,129 

PM 1,998 

*HC = hydrocarbons. 

Project Partners 

Project partners were the Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation (EOT), MassDEP, and the 

EOEEA. 

CMAQ Application Process 

Massachusetts’ two State environmental agencies, EOEEA and MassDEP, submitted a proposal to the 

Massachusetts EOT for a Statewide program to retrofit the diesel engines in all school buses across the 

Commonwealth. 

Project Overview 

The project provides diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs) and crankcase filters (CCFs) for approximately 

7,800 school buses in Massachusetts and will result in all school buses in the Commonwealth being 

retrofitted by 2010. EOEEA sponsored this project because retrofitting school buses with new 

technologies that address both external and in-cabin exposure to pollutants will provide significant air 

quality benefits at a relatively low cost. 

EOT has transferred the funds to MassDEP to manage. The Agency coordinates directly with each of the 

school districts and bus operators to complete the work. 

Estimation of Air Quality Benefits 

To calculate the air quality benefits, MassDEP used the Environmental Protection Agency diesel 

emissions quantifier model, which is available online at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/quantifier/view/. The model 

estimated that installing DOCs and CCFs on older school buses Statewide would reduce carbon monoxide 

(CO) and HC emissions by 80 percent, and particulate matter (PM) emissions by 25 percent. Annual 

emissions reductions in kilograms were calculated for each pollutant and a cost-effectiveness rate was 

then determined. The estimated cost to reduce a kilogram of CO is about $30, while HC reduction is 

estimated at $597 per kilogram. 

Statewide Project Evaluation and Selection Process 

This project was part of the Statewide CMAQ program overseen by the Massachusetts EOT. Upon 

receiving the submission from MassDEP, EOT included the proposal on the agenda for the CMAQ 

Consultation Committee to determine its eligibility. After the project was recommended for funding, the 

committee referred the project back to EOT, for inclusion on the State Transportation Improvement 

Program (STIP). There is no formal evaluation committee to review Statewide CMAQ projects. 

24
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Post-Project Evaluation 

A post-project evaluation has not been conducted for this program because it is still in its implementation 

phase. 

Conclusion 

EOT believes that this project is a good example of the benefits of having a Statewide CMAQ program 

that can promote broader programs and projects that generate benefits across multiple Metropolitan 

Planning Organization (MPO) boundaries. As a result of the project, diesel engines in school bus fleets 

will be retrofit throughout the entire state, resulting in substantial air quality benefits at relatively low 

cost. 

25
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Denver’s Traffic Signal System Improvement Program (TSSIP) 

Location: Denver, Colorado

Cost: $3.9 million (in FY08) in CMAQ funding 

Project sponsors: Denver Regional Council of Governments 

(DRCOG) 

Estimated annual emissions reduction benefits: 

Pollutant Est. Annual Emissions Reduction (kg/yr) 

CO 656,932 

Project Partners 

Project partners included DRCOG, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), local jurisdictions 

that operate traffic signals, and CDOT Regions 1, 4, and 6 (in all, 32 stakeholder entities). 

CMAQ Application Process 

TSSIP is one of six programs that now receive dedicated CMAQ funds, due to their long history and 

demonstrated success at meeting CMAQ goals in the Denver region. At the beginning of each 

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) update cycle, DRCOG determines the specific funding 

commitments to these six programs. DRCOG updates the TSSIP generally on a 4-year cycle, 

programming 6 years of funding at a time. 

Project Overview 

The overall purpose of TSSIP is to reduce travel time and vehicle emissions within the DRCOG 

Transportation Management Area (TMA). The program involves both capital and traffic signal timing 

improvements on a regional level. The capital improvements, which are prioritized according to a FY 

2008–2012 schedule, involve providing equipment and installing communications links to facilitate 

traffic signal timing. The traffic signal timing component coordinates more than 3,500 traffic signals 

across 32 jurisdictional boundaries and on all major roads in the DRCOG TMA. Signals are generally 

coordinated via time-of-day (TOD) plans such as “morning peak,” “off-peak,” and “afternoon peak.” The 

TOD plans are updated on a 3- to 5-year basis for each corridor. TSSIP was implemented in 1994, 

programming an initial 6 years of funding, and was updated in 1996, 1999, 2003, and 2007. 

Estimation of Air Quality Benefits 

The air quality benefits are assessed on the basis of travel times and the 

number of stops measured in the corridors where timing was revised. 

Benefits from the capital improvement component of the program are 

reflected by subsequent corridor traffic signal timing improvements. 

With each signal retiming project, TSSIP expects to reduce corridor 

travel time by 5 to 15 percent. For 2007, TSSIP reported a savings of 

approximately 2.2 million vehicle-hours traveled and 1.4 million 

kilograms of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. 

MPO Project Evaluation and Selection Process 

After a call for projects, DRCOG staff worked extensively with regional traffic signal operating agencies 

to verify current conditions, identify critical needs, and program upcoming funding. A copy of the 

summary report for the most recent funding cycle may be found at 

http://www.drcog.org/documents/TSSIP%202007%20Summary%20Report.pdf. 

26
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Post-Project Evaluation 

DRCOG conducts a post-project evaluation for every TSSIP project. The results of each evaluation are 

summarized in a project brief that is distributed to interested parties in the region. Annually, DRCOG 

summarizes the results of all completed projects for the CMAQ Reporter. 

Conclusion 

DRCOG believes that the CMAQ program has allowed the Agency to fund more air-quality-focused 

projects, including TSSIP, and has strengthened its working relationship with Regional Air Quality 

Council (Colorado). DRCOG also believes that the CMAQ program has allowed the Agency to focus 

explicitly on how transportation affects air quality in the Denver region. 

27
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Fort Collins Community Bicycle Library 

Location: Fort Collins, Colorado

Cost: $132,000 in CMAQ funding (with local match of $33,000) 

Project sponsor: City of Fort Collins 

Estimated annual emissions reduction benefits: 

Pollutant Est. Annual Emissions Reduction (kg/yr) 

CO 759 

Project Partners 

Project partners included Colorado State University, Downtown Development Authority, Bike Fort 

Collins (BFC), Fort Collins Bicycle Collective, Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau, and local 

hotels and businesses. 

CMAQ Application Process 

Responding to a public solicitation by North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(NFRMPO) for CMAQ projects, the City of Fort Collins applied for funding for the Community Bicycle 

Library project. The proposal was a joint effort by a coalition of partners that included a local university, 

downtown business groups, and bicycle organizations. 

Project Overview 

The Fort Collins Community Bicycle Library is a 2-year project (2007–2009) to lend bicycles to the 

public at no cost. The purpose of the project is to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and traffic 

congestion as well as to improve air quality. BFC, a local bicycle advocacy group, administers the Bike 

Library. Users can borrow one of 100 bikes from two locations in the City of Fort Collins for periods 

ranging from an hour to a week. The program’s Web site, http://www.fcbikelibrary.org, allows users to 

reserve a bike for future use or to find out if bicycles are available. Web-based tracking allows the project 

sponsors to document usage. Within the first month of opening, the library was lending bicycles at 

capacity. 

Estimation of Air Quality Benefits 

The City estimated that the project would reduce carbon monoxide (CO) by 759 kilograms in the first 

year of operation. To quantify the air quality benefits of the Bicycle Library, the City worked with the 

MPO’s CMAQ consultant to determine appropriate inputs and assumptions. This required some original 

research since the project was the first of its type for the MPO and the State. 

MPO Project Evaluation and Selection Process 

Using the information submitted by the City, the MPO’s CMAQ Selection Committee assigned points for 

the project on the basis of both quantitative and qualitative measures. This CMAQ proposal was then 

ranked, along with others, by the Selection Committee, and a recommended list of projects for funding 

was developed. The MPO makes the final determination of projects to fund. 

Post-Project Evaluation 

To evaluate the success of the Bicycle Library, the City of Fort Collins developed a number of metrics 

and plans to conduct user surveys and collect Web-based data throughout the project to quantify VMT 

reduction, traffic congestion, and air quality improvements. 

28
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Conclusion 

The City of Fort Collins and NFRMPO view the CMAQ program as a major 

success in furthering the goal of broadening the types of projects that are 

funded. City officials believe that the library is a model for interagency 

cooperation and that it has already had positive regional and social impacts 

beyond air quality benefits. It also has furthered the MPO’s goal to reach out 

to nontraditional partners. 

29
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Medford, Oregon Diesel Retrofits 

Location: Medford, Oregon

Cost: $50,000 in CMAQ funding (with $50,000 match by 

Rogue Disposal & Recycling) 

Project sponsor: Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality (Oregon DEQ) 

Estimated annual emissions reduction benefits: 

Pollutant Est. Annual Emissions Reduction (kg/yr) 

PM 10 6,402 

Project Partners 

Project partners included Rogue Disposal & Recycling, Oregon DEQ, and Rogue Valley Council of 

Governments (RVCOG). 

CMAQ Application Process 

Rogue Disposal & Recycling, a private waste management and recycling company, learned about the 

opportunity to apply for CMAQ funds at one of two open houses on diesel retrofits organized by RVCOG 

staff. Oregon DEQ submitted an application on behalf of the company because only public agencies are 

eligible to apply for Federal funds from Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO). 

Project Overview 

The project goal was to reduce cancer and asthma risk from exposure to diesel emissions by installing 

emissions control equipment on selected vehicles in the Rogue Disposal & Recycling fleet. 

Estimation of Air Quality Benefits 

Oregon DEQ staff developed formulas to estimate the air quality benefits of Rogue Disposal & 

Recycling’s diesel retrofits, which cut emissions on each vehicle by 50 percent. Before the retrofit, each 

vehicle ran on low-sulfur diesel (500 parts per million [ppm]); after the retrofit, each could run on ultralow-sulfur diesel (15 ppm). 

MPO Project Evaluation and Selection Process 

At first, RVMPO’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was reluctant to support the project because 

CMAQ funds had never been given to a private company or used to fund diesel retrofits in the MPO 

region before. However, Oregon DEQ analysis showed that the project would substantially reduce vehicle 

emissions, and additional analysis showed that diesel retrofits are more cost-effective, per ton equivalent 

of air pollution removed, than nearly any other CMAQ-eligible project type. Those analyses provided the 

foundation for TAC’s ultimate recommendation to find the project. 

Post-Project Evaluation 

RVMPO does not conduct post-project evaluations for every CMAQ-funded project, but it does require 

evaluation of diesel retrofits to ensure that air quality targets are met before granting subsequent funding. 

Conclusion 

After successfully completing this project, the RVMPO Policy Committee sees diesel retrofits as an 

important and cost-effective component of the CMAQ program. The 2008–2011 TIP obligates $750,800 

for five diesel retrofit projects estimated to reduce annual PM 10 emissions by 80.7 tons. 

30
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Pittsburgh Downtown Car-Sharing Program 

Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

Cost: $200,000 in CMAQ funding (with $50,000 local match from the 

Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership) 

Project sponsor: Pittsburg Downtown Partnership (PDP) 

Estimated annual emissions reduction benefits: 

Pollutant Est. Annual Emissions Reduction (kg/yr) 

CO 4,212 

NOx 456 

PM 2.5 7 

CMAQ Application Process 

PDP submitted a proposal for $200,000 of CMAQ funding during Southwestern Pennsylvania 

Commission’s (SPC) 2005 call for CMAQ projects, with a $50,000 match from PDP. The application was 

to provide financial support over a 2-year period to get the program started. 

Project Overview 

PDP wanted to attract car-sharing to downtown Pittsburgh to provide a transportation alternative for 

residents as well as employers and employees in the area. The idea arose in response to a growing job 

market and renewed interest in downtown living. Private car-sharing companies had launched successful 

programs in large cities like New York and San Francisco but were skeptical about the market potential of 

a midsized city like Pittsburgh. In order to entice private car-sharing companies to invest in the Pittsburgh 

market, the PDP’s CMAQ proposal included funding for a feasibility study, marketing and outreach to 

expand membership and participation in the program, and revenue guarantees to the private-sector vendor 

in the initial months of operation until the program became self-sustaining. 

Estimation of Air Quality Benefits 

It was estimated that the project would reduce carbon monoxide (CO) by 1.54 kilograms per day, nitrogen 

oxide (NOx) by 1.25 kilograms per day, and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) by 0.02 kilogram per day. 

CMAQ had never been used to fund a car-sharing program in Pittsburgh before, so SPC did not have any 

standard assumptions or calculations for determining air quality benefits. Using membership and followup survey data from Philly CarShare, which had been in operation for several years at that point, 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s on-call CMAQ consultant developed assumptions about 

travel behavior change to calculate the air quality impacts of car-sharing and establish the project’s 

funding eligibility. 

MPO Project Evaluation and Selection Process 

After refining the calculation of air quality benefits and the cost-effectiveness measures, the project was 

evaluated by the SPC CMAQ Evaluation Committee. The committee reviewed the project assumptions 

and voted to include the project among the recommended set of CMAQ projects in the 2007–2010 

Transportation Improvement Program, which was adopted by SPC in June 2006. 

Post-Project Evaluation 

CMAQ funds were used over a 2-year period during start-up of the Pittsburgh car-sharing program. 

During that period, PDP tracked program usage and provided regular reports to SPC. The pilot was 

successful. The Pittsburgh car-share is now self-supporting and is slowly growing and expanding on its 

own. 

31
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Conclusion 

PDP believes that there are desirable outcomes beyond the air quality benefits for the project. The 

additional benefits include positively affecting the economic vitality of the downtown area and providing 

employees and residents with alternative travel options. 

32
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Bay Area Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) 

Location: San Francisco, California 

Cost: $5 million (CMAQ funds used for an average of 

approximately 10 percent of total cost) 

Project sponsors: MTC Service Authority for Freeways and 

Expressways (MTC SAFE), California Highway Patrol (CHP), 

California DOT (Caltrans) 

Estimated annual emissions reduction benefits: 

Pollutant Est. Annual Emissions Reduction (kg/yr) 

CO 95,000 

NOx 445,000 

Project Partners 

Project partners included CHP, MTC SAFE, Caltrans, and private tow contractors in the region. 

CMAQ Application Process 

MTC SAFE does not apply for CMAQ funds through a standard fund application process; rather, funding 

for this program is supported by the operational strategy goals paid out in the Regional Transportation 

Plan (RTP). Specific funding levels are established cooperatively with MTC’s transportation partners 

while considering how to strike the best balance among programs. 

Project Overview 

The purpose of FSP is to improve freeway safety, reduce congestion caused by vehicle accidents and 

incidents, and enhance air quality by reducing stop-and-go traffic. MTC SAFE primarily administers FSP, 

while CHP has field operation and supervision responsibilities. Caltrans provides data collection and 

route assessment support. A fleet of 85 specialized, state-of-the-art tow trucks patrol 35 routes stretching 

540 miles on the Bay Area’s freeways, and offer assistance to stranded motorists. Tow-truck drivers also 

clear road debris to keep traffic moving. The tow trucks primarily operate during the morning and 

afternoon weekday commuting hours. The Bay Area FSP, which began in 1992, was modeled on a 

program that started in Los Angeles in July 1991. On average, FSP drivers annually assist approximately 

670,000 vehicles. 

Estimation of Air Quality Benefits 

The project was estimated to reduce 19 kilograms per year of reactive organic gases, 445 kilograms per 

year of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and 95 kilograms per year of carbon monoxide (CO). MTC SAFE 

developed a benefit-cost model to assess cost, fuel, and air quality benefits of FSP. It estimated that FSP 

provides 2,278 hours of delay savings and 5,818 gallons of fuel savings, for a benefit-cost ratio of 3.6:1. 

MPO Project Evaluation and Selection Process 

MTC SAFE does not use a uniform scoring method to select projects for CMAQ funding. The primary 

criterion is the extent to which projects meet goals in the long-range RTP. RTP program area contacts may 

develop additional criteria or methods to identify CMAQ-eligible projects. 

Post-Project Evaluation 

MTC SAFE conducts post-project evaluations for selected projects, including FSP. A performance 

evaluation conducted for FSP indicated that the program was very cost-effective. This finding provided a 

basis of support for MTC SAFE to continue funding and expanding the program. 

33
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

34

Conclusion 

MTC SAFE believes that the FSP program is a cost-effective strategy to meet regional planning goals of 

improving safety and air quality while reducing congestion. Due to the ongoing benefits of the program, 

MTC SAFE believes it would continue to fund FSP even if CMAQ funds were unavailable. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

5. CONCLUSIONS

Phase II of the CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Study was conducted in response to SAFETEA-LU 

requirements. It examined MPO and State DOT practices in seven locations Nationwide to gain a better 

understanding of the range of approaches that diverse agencies take in planning, programming, and 

evaluating CMAQ funds. It also sought to find, document, and share effective CMAQ implementation 

practices used by States and MPOs with other agencies around the country. Specific examples of effective 

practices were identified and the benefits and challenges of CMAQ implementation at the State and local 

level were explored. Section 4 highlights individual projects that the interviewed agencies felt were 

particularly successful at meeting their regions’ transportation and CMAQ goals. Section 6 provides a 

brief overview of each of the seven day-long interviews conducted by the Federal CMAQ Team to 

prepare this report. Appendix A lists points of contact for each of the site visits to allow readers to contact 

case study representatives and obtain additional information. 

While the CMAQ program is Federally funded, no National standard or set of regulations exists for how a 

CMAQ program should be structured and operated at the State or MPO level. It is intentionally left to the 

State or MPO to develop and operate a program that best responds to local and regional needs. Reflecting 

this, the Federal CMAQ Team found differences in structure and operations at each of the sites visited. 

The seven case study locations visited in Phase II were selected based on the results of the Phase I CMAQ 

Evaluation and Assessment Report. Although they represent a very small sample of the total number of 

CMAQ programs being implemented across the country, the information gathered during the day-long 

interviews allowed the Federal CMAQ Team to draw several conclusions about potential effective 

practices as well as benefits, challenges, and opportunities presented by the CMAQ program nationwide. 

Making project solicitation, prioritization, and selection processes more 

transparent plays an important role in engaging citizens and increasing 

stakeholder involvement. 

An effective and transparent process helps to ensure that the CMAQ program’s goals, policies, and 

procedures are clear and understandable to both the public and to potential project sponsors. In today’s 

Web-based world, many MPOs find it effective and efficient to post the program description and project 

application online to allow wide and easy access to important program information. 

An open and accessible CMAQ process provides citizen groups with a good introduction to the 

transportation planning process because many CMAQ projects deal with quality-of-life issues that these 

groups work on. As such, it provides a first step for school districts, community organizations, and private 

firms to learn about and participate in the metropolitan transportation planning process. 

Standardizing processes to evaluate and rank multiple project types can be 

challenging, especially due to CMAQ’s emphasis on nontraditional projects, 

but it is important for increasing transparency and gaining public confidence. 

Proposed projects must estimate air quality benefits to be eligible for Federal CMAQ funding. Measures 

used to evaluate and rank projects are both quantitative and qualitative in nature. 

Quantitative measures, which include a calculation of benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness, are powerful 

because they help MPOs to better explain to the public how projects are ranked and funded, reinforcing 

the transparency of the selection process. In addition, quantitative measures allow MPOs to make 

decisions that are less subject to political whims and are easier for policy boards to justify. However, the 

way these measures are calculated and used to inform the project selection process may limit the 

effectiveness of the overall CMAQ program. Because FHWA guidance requires estimates only of shortterm benefits (i.e., in the first year of project implementation), it is not clear that the best projects rise to 

35
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

the top. Estimating the impacts of projects over the long term requires forecast projections about travel 

activity, participation or usage rates, and other important factors farther into the future. While longer-term 

estimates may require more effort, they can improve the accuracy of emissions reductions estimates over 

time. This is an issue that several of the MPOs interviewed struggled with. Some MPOs are moving 

toward calculating a project’s life-cycle costs and benefits in addition to the FHWA-required calculation 

of estimated benefits in the first year of project implementation. While the calculation of life-cycle 

benefits requires additional staff work, these MPOs feel it may provide a better overall estimation of a 

project’s future cost-effectiveness. In addition, because of the technical nature of this work, many of the 

MPOs relied on outside support from either the State DOT or an outside air quality consultant for the 

development and refinement of the assumptions, equations, and calculations used in determining a 

project’s eligibility and cost-effectiveness. 

Qualitative measures normally supplement quantitative measures and allow a State or MPO to give 

priority to the types of projects that complement the agency’s other goals and policies in addition to those 

pertaining to air quality and congestion. Examples of types of programs given priority include those 

within an urban development boundary, diesel retrofits, TDM, and bicycle and pedestrian programs. 

When projects are subjected to both quantitative and qualitative screening based on clearly defined 

criteria and using models and assumptions understood by project sponsors, MPOs are better able to 

produce project rankings that are documented and understood by those interested in the process, thereby 

increasing public confidence in the transportation planning process overall. 

Effective processes for evaluating program impact and ability to adapt in 

response to evaluations and/or changing conditions are important for 

continual program improvement. 

An effective process for evaluating the CMAQ program’s impact includes examining the overall CMAQ 

program as well as specific projects. MPOs that have the most effective CMAQ programs have adapted 

and modified their approach to programming CMAQ funds over the past 2 decades. Several of the MPOs 

discussed the importance of periodically evaluating the program overall to ensure its continued 

effectiveness in light of shifting regional conditions and evolving policy goals. 

Competition for limited CMAQ funds has increased the need to conduct evaluations of specific projects. 

Several MPOs noted that post-project evaluation of CMAQ projects is being driven by CMAQ project 

sponsors. 

While it is clear that post-project evaluation can help States and MPOs to better understand the costs and 

benefits of a project, the costs associated with the activity are sometimes perceived to outweigh the 

benefits. However, the most successful CMAQ programs are those willing to reevaluate their operations 

and programming and to use that information to restructure and refocus the program moving forward. 

State DOTs play an important role in shaping CMAQ program development at 

the MPO level. 

The relationship between the State DOT and each of the MPOs eligible for CMAQ funding within that 

State is a critical factor in shaping how regional CMAQ programs function. State DOTs influence the 

process in the following ways: 

 State DOTs choose how to allocate CMAQ funds to eligible MPO regions; some DOTs allocate 

funds to eligible MPO regions but also retain a portion of the CMAQ funds to run separate 

Statewide CMAQ program as well. 

36
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

 Some State DOTs provide technical assistance or other extra support to MPOs to support 

improved decisionmaking (e.g., guidance on how to measure air quality impacts of hard to 

estimate projects). 

 Some State DOTs have representatives sitting on the key committees that make decisions about 

CMAQ eligibility and project prioritization and selection. 

Some States play an important advisory role on technical capacity issues for MPOs that are struggling to 

develop effective methods for estimating emissions reductions across nontraditional transportation project 

proposals. States taking a more hands-on approach in CMAQ by reserving some funding for statewide 

initiatives have been successful in leveraging CMAQ funds on significant programs across regional 

boundaries. A number of examples in Section 3 indicate how State involvement can positively impact 

CMAQ implementation. 

CMAQ engages air quality agencies as valuable partners in the transportation 

planning process. 

The CMAQ program requires that State DOTs and MPOs work with State and local air quality agencies 

to develop and program CMAQ projects that have a positive impact on air quality. Because there is no 

single National model or standard, the approach and structure of these relationships is determined locally, 

producing a variety of models for interaction. At the seven site locations in this study, air quality agencies 

consult with State DOTs and MPOs during the CMAQ process in two major ways: 

 Air quality agencies serve as members on the policy, technical, or evaluation committees for 

MPOs. 

 Air quality agencies propose CMAQ projects for future implementation. 

Section 3 provides insight into the range of positive impacts that CMAQ has had on engaging air quality 

agencies. Interviewees from the site visits noted that the CMAQ program has played an important role by 

providing an opportunity for air quality and other environmental agencies to build stronger working 

relationships with MPOs and State DOTs. Serving on CMAQ committees and/or proposing CMAQ 

projects has enabled air quality and environmental agencies to engage in the transportation planning 

process as partners and participants. 

CMAQ’s data and analysis requirements present both significant challenges 

and opportunities. 

The CMAQ program requires documentation of a project’s air quality benefits for funding eligibility. 

Overall, a number of agencies felt that CMAQ’s additional requirements can be seen as positive at a 

broad level since an analysis should lead to the selection of higher-quality projects. There was a general 

recognition that meeting the minimum emissions analysis required by FHWA guidance may not produce 

an accurate estimate of the benefits of projects. However, the agencies noted that it was a challenge to 

allocate the increased level of staff time required for administering CMAQ to a funding source that 

represents such a small portion of their overall transportation budgets. Some staff noted that if increased 

planning funding were included to cover additional administrative, reporting, and evaluation costs, the 

additional CMAQ evaluation requirements could serve as an excellent model for how all Federal funding 

categories could be more effectively run. Under this scenario, the best projects will rise to the top due to 

more rigorous analysis and a clearer delineation of expected benefits. 

37
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

38

CMAQ legislation and guidance are translated and applied to meet local 

transportation and air quality requirements and concerns, resulting in a 

range of innovative projects. 

The projects highlighted in Section 4 of the report bring to life the variety of approaches used to select, 

program, implement, and evaluate CMAQ projects. The application of Federal CMAQ guidance responds 

to local conditions and transportation planning processes. As a result, the projects selected and 

implemented are finely attuned to an area’s needs. The elements of effective CMAQ implementation 

outlined in Section 2, and the benefits, challenges, and opportunities documented in Section 3, are 

illustrated within the seven project summaries. 

Positive impacts go beyond stated program goals. 

An important finding of the Phase II study was that there are ancillary benefits derived from the CMAQ 

program in addition to the air quality and congestion benefit goals of the program. Nationwide, CMAQ 

funding represented 4.3 percent of FHWA’s total authorizations between FYs 2005 and 200921 and at the 

seven MPOs visited, CMAQ accounted for just 2 to 4 percent of total Federal funds. Yet for a program 

representing such a small percentage of Federal transportation funding, site interviews suggested that 

CMAQ has a relatively large impact on broader transportation planning processes in MPO regions. The 

case studies indicated that CMAQ funds helped agencies to link more effectively to the bigger picture of 

regional transportation planning by: 

 Improving MPOs’ overall planning capacity due to the oversight and operations required at the 

MPO level. 

 Testing innovative projects on a small scale for demonstrable success before scaling up. 

 Allowing broader policies to evolve that reflect the nexus between transportation and other issues. 

 Opening the transportation planning and programming process to nontraditional partners such as 

trucking companies, school districts, and air quality organizations. 

 Building stronger relationships with and obtaining involvement of air quality agencies. 

 

21 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Funding Tables, August 

2005; available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/fundtables.htm.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

39

6. SITE-VISIT CASE STUDIES

This section provides a brief overview of each of the seven locations visited as part of the Phase II 

CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Project. Full-day interviews were held at each location with State, 

regional, and local officials involved in the planning, programming, and evaluation of CMAQ-funded 

projects. 

Birmingham, Alabama: Regional Planning Commission of Greater 

Birmingham (RPCGB) 

Introduction 

The Birmingham MPO is responsible for comprehensive transportation planning in Jefferson and Shelby 

Counties in Alabama. Members of the MPO include local and State government officials as well as 

representatives from the Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority and ALDOT. The two counties 

had a population of 835,000 in 2006. The Birmingham nonattainment area, comprising Jefferson and 

Shelby Counties, was originally classified as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard by EPA on 

March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962).22 The nonattainment area at the time of initial classification was 

geographically defined as Jefferson County but was later expanded to include Shelby County. The MPO 

attained the 1-hour ozone standard and was redesignated as attainment on April 12, 2004. On June 15, 

2004, Jefferson and Shelby Counties were classified as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The 

area was redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard effective June 12, 2006. The area 

designated as nonattainment for PM 2.5 includes all of Jefferson and Shelby Counties as well as a small 

portion of southern Walker County. 

Since 1991, the Birmingham MPO has been the only area in the State of Alabama that qualifies for 

CMAQ funding. Currently, the State believes that three new areas may be redesignated as nonattainment 

in the near future. This would have an impact on how the CMAQ program is operated within Alabama 

since ALDOT has never had to suballocate CMAQ funds to any agency other than the Birmingham MPO. 

CMAQ Objectives and Procedures 

The CMAQ program operates within the confines of the overall TIP process. All of the projects or 

programs in the 4-year regional TIP support the overall goals and objectives in the MPO’s long-range 

plan. In the most recent TIP, CMAQ accounted for about 4 percent of the total dollars programmed. The 

MPO evaluates all projects together and applies rankings, after which it determines the funding source. 

Every project competes against the others regardless of funding source. The MPO views this integrated 

approach as a strength. In the past, the MPO has set aside a small portion of funds for certain project types 

that it is promoting, such as bicycle and pedestrian projects and transit. 

During the early years of the CMAQ program, most of the CMAQ funds were used for Intelligent 

Transportation Systems (ITS) and signalization-type projects. In the late 1990s, RPCGB decided to shift 

its priority to focus CMAQ on air quality concerns. The State has intentionally not included any 

transportation control measures (TCMs) in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Working with ADEM, 

RPCBG began using the CMAQ program to include voluntary measures and projects to help achieve 

emissions reductions. 

Using lessons it had learned from its FHWA Transportation Enhancements (TE) Program, RPCGB 

streamlined the procedures for the CMAQ program. Working with ALDOT, RPCGB developed 

procedures to speed up the project review process. This included giving the project sponsor responsibility 

for the planning, design, and bid process. The MPO felt that certain TE and CMAQ projects were being 

overdesigned. Small projects were being designed to highway standards, leading to higher project costs. 

 

22 Federal Register 43:8962, March 3, 1978.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Giving responsibility to the project sponsor can speed up the process and reduce project costs, but it 

requires monitoring by the MPO. 

Project Selection and Funding 

Each project under consideration for inclusion in the TIP is ranked, and the most appropriate funding 

source is then identified on the basis of funding eligibility. As one member stated, “A CMAQ project may 

not start and end the process as a CMAQ project. How it is funded can depend on available funding, and 

benefit analysis can shift a project between funding sources.” The Birmingham MPO often mixes and 

matches CMAQ and attributable STP funds when deciding how to fund a project. 

The MPO has a TIP Subcommittee comprising major project sponsors: the Cities of Hoover and 

Birmingham, the Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority (BJCTA), ALDOT, and Jefferson and 

Shelby Counties. This subcommittee reviews the list of projects to ensure a balance by type, geography, 

and funding sources. For those projects that might be CMAQ-eligible, the MPO Interagency Consultation 

Group, comprising EPA, FHWA, FTA, ADEM, and the Jefferson County Health Department, among 

others, conducts a consultation process to determine the eligibility of proposed CMAQ projects. 

One recipient of CMAQ funds is the Alabama Partners for Clean Air (APCA), an affiliation of 14 public, 

private, and nonprofit agencies that work with the MPO to implement voluntary strategies to improve air 

quality in the MPO. This agency provides public outreach and education about air quality issues, ridesharing programs, vehicle fleet conversions, and emissions reduction efforts. It has received about $1.4 

million in annual CMAQ funds for the past several years, which it uses to support a variety of air quality 

improvement projects. 

To support the transit system, the region transfers about $3.2 million of CMAQ funds per year to transit. 

These funds are mostly dedicated to supporting public- and nonprofit-operated paratransit services. 

However, funding is also provided to BJCTA to support regular fixed-route transit services through the 

purchase of transit vehicles and the provision of maintenance support. CMAQ funds have also been used 

in the past, and are expected to be used in the future, to help jump-start new fixed-route transit, in 

particular suburban-to-urban commuter bus services. Alabama is one of only six States where the use of 

State gas tax funds for transit is prohibited. 

Qualitative and Quantitative Measures 

In order to standardize project assumptions and determine project effectiveness, the MPO commissioned a 

consulting firm to develop guidelines for air quality project effectiveness. The resulting set of 

assumptions and methodology covers most project types. If a project falls outside of the methodology, the 

MPO relies on information from other MPOs that might have evaluated a similar project. A project 

sponsor is responsible for providing information about a project, but the MPO staff usually apply the 

appropriate assumptions and then calculates the air quality benefits. 

For the ozone awareness program, APCA has hired a market research firm to conduct public opinion 

surveys. One survey asked what actions people took in response to an ozone alert day. This helps the 

MPO to calculate benefits, gauge the overall effectiveness of the program, and refine the program for the 

future. One interviewee noted that the market research money is some of the best money the MPO spends 

as it gives important feedback on the program. 

Reporting/Post-Project Evaluation 

Because the Birmingham MPO is the only user of CMAQ funds within the State, the MPO prepares the 

documentation of CMAQ projects and benefits and forwards the information to ALDOT. ALDOT then 

transmits the information to FHWA for use in the CMAQ database. 

40
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Each of the projects that are part of the APCA program is required to provide pre- and post-project benefit 

reports. This allows the MPO to evaluate APCA projects and adjust funding for those types of projects 

that do not provide enough measurable benefits. 

41
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Boston, Massachusetts: Boston MPO 

Introduction 

The Boston MPO consists of 101 municipalities in Eastern Massachusetts. It is governed by a 14-member 

MPO board comprising the City of Boston (a permanent member); three cities; three towns, which rotate 

among the many municipalities in the MPO; and a mix of regional and State agencies. The entire State of 

Massachusetts is classified as moderate nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. In addition, Boston 

and eight surrounding cities have a CO maintenance plan. Massachusetts Executive Office of 

Transportation (EOT) receives the Federal allocations for the State and distributes most of these funds 

directly to MPOs for programming on the basis of their population, but reserves a portion of the CMAQ 

allocation for projects with “Statewide significance.” With the money the State retains, it has developed a 

substantial Statewide CMAQ portfolio, which includes projects like the Statewide school bus diesel 

retrofit program. 

For FY 2008, the State and the Boston MPO programmed a total of $60 million in CMAQ funds. Major 

projects included $12.5 million for the Statewide school bus retrofit program, $6.2 million for the 

Statewide ITS, and $1.9 million programmed by the Boston MPO for transit hybrid locomotive switchers. 

Other project categories include signal timing adjustments, bicycle/pedestrian improvements, and the 

suburban mobility/TDM program. 

CMAQ Objectives and Procedures 

Many States treat CMAQ as a pass-through distributed directly to MPOs, but Massachusetts takes a more 

hands-on approach and allocates funds between regional and Statewide projects. The Statewide program 

is used to fund initiatives that span the various MPOs and benefit from having a single program. State 

officials feel that the flexibility they have to use CMAQ money for Statewide projects has been a success. 

Some programs, such as the Statewide park-and-ride initiative, are needed on a scale requiring a degree of 

cooperation between regional planning agencies that can be difficult to achieve. State staff feel that they 

can usher through some projects more expeditiously at the State level than would be possible at the 

regional or local level due to challenges that would be posed by the fragmentation of local governance. 

The Boston MPO uses CMAQ as a funding mechanism but does not run a stand-alone CMAQ program. 

The agency seeks to address the overall goals of reduced congestion and improved air quality throughout 

its entire planning work, not solely through projects funded with CMAQ dollars. 

The primary goal of the Boston MPO in programming CMAQ funds is to support the best overall projects 

with air quality benefits. Staff reported that having CMAQ as a funding source allows the MPO to 

undertake projects that might have had more difficulty competing if “transportation” were the only 

criterion at play in the evaluation. The school bus retrofit and truck stop electrification projects, for 

example, might not exist without CMAQ because most people would see them as “air quality” projects 

more than as “transportation” projects. A strong bicycle and pedestrian advocacy community exists in the 

Boston MPO, so the MPO often uses CMAQ in support of bicycle and pedestrian projects. 

Project Selection and Funding 

For at least a decade, the Boston MPO and the State as a whole tended to underfund the CMAQ program 

due to the high level of Federal funds dedicated to Central Artery projects. This has now changed, and the 

State has a target of programming 100 percent of available CMAQ funds. Beginning in 2005, the State 

EOT began setting CMAQ programming “targets” for each MPO to help ensure that CMAQ monies 

would be spent. The targets have been a useful tool in helping MPOs to obligate all or most of the CMAQ 

funds they are authorized to spend. 

For the Boston MPO, CMAQ is viewed as a funding category, not a programmatic one. The MPO divides 

available funding for CMAQ projects into three programs: Suburban Mobility, TDM, and the Regional 

42
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Bike Parking Program, each with specific qualification guidelines and individual administrative 

committees or agencies. These programs receive approximately $1.5 million a year, with a set amount of 

funding for each, which leaves approximately $7 million of CMAQ target funding available for 

programming. The MPO distributes this money among projects selected from the larger TIP universe, 

which is the list of projects for which Federal funding has been requested. Selection of projects from this 

larger pool is done by the Transportation Planning and Programming Committee during the TIP 

development process. This is a bottom-up process: proposed projects work themselves up from the 

municipal to the regional level, where they must compete with other municipalities’ projects, and they 

make the cut for TIP inclusion only if they are broadly beneficial. 

CMAQ eligibility is determined by a State CMAQ Consultation Committee, which meets twice a year to 

determine if a project is eligible for CMAQ funding. MassDEP serves as a member on that committee. 

The State CMAQ consultation process is not technically a consultation or a prioritization of projects; it 

only provides a check for regional determinations on the eligibility of projects to qualify for CMAQ 

funds. After the eligibility determination, each MPO prioritizes and selects projects as part of the overall 

TIP project selection process described above. 

Qualitative and Quantitative Measures 

The Massachusetts EOT developed most of the methodologies the Boston MPO uses to quantify the 

estimated emissions changes and cost-effectiveness of proposed projects to determine their CMAQ 

eligibility. Currently, the Boston MPO uses EOT methodologies for the following project types: 

 Bus replacement. 

 New bus service. 

 Bicycle and pedestrian projects. 

 Park-and-ride facilities. 

 Traffic flow improvements. 

Not every CMAQ project undergoes the standardized quantitative analysis. The Boston MPO takes 

qualitative factors into account as well, to determine CMAQ eligibility when quantitative analysis is not 

possible or practical. All spreadsheets calculate emissions changes and cost-effectiveness for Year 1 of 

the project only. Focusing on the first year standardizes/normalizes calculations across project/modal 

types to create an even playing field and minimizes the number of assumptions built into the model. The 

State noted that there are continuing debates within the transportation and environmental agencies 

regarding how to measure and judge the short- versus long-term air quality impacts of different project 

types. While traffic signalization provides short-term benefits, the benefits diminish over the long term 

due to shifts in travel patterns. The fact that short-term benefits are easier to measure may explain why the 

eligibility process focuses on that area. 

Reporting and Evaluation 

The Boston MPO compiles information about its CMAQ projects and programs, which it forwards to 

EOT. EOT compiles all of the regional CMAQ programs along with the Statewide program and then 

forwards this report to FHWA for inclusion in the National CMAQ database. 

For operations-type projects, EOT undertakes a variety of routine post-project analysis work. This 

includes collecting information such as daily ridership statistics on transit lines, monthly reports on 

shuttle bus ridership, and bicycle and pedestrian counts on paths and routes that have received Federal 

funds. These analyses can be used in combination with the CMAQ 3-year funding limit for operationsrelated projects to steer money away from unsuccessful projects toward projects and programs yielding 

better results. Part of the challenge with follow-up is to ensure a level playing field. The staff noted that 

given the limited planning resources, it is difficult to justify the additional cost to do post-project 

evaluation for all CMAQ projects, let alone non-CMAQ ones. 

43
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Denver, Colorado: Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) 

Introduction 

The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) has received CMAQ funding since the 

program’s creation in 1991. The size of the CMAQ pot has grown from $3 million annually under ISTEA 

to $18 million annually under SAFETEA-LU. This has allowed DRCOG to test new program areas and 

the program to evolve over time. The Denver MPO experienced frequent violations of NAAQS in the 

1980s but has undertaken a number of measures to improve regional air quality since that time. As a 

result, the MPO is currently in maintenance for CO and PM 10. After several years in attainment, 

however, EPA redesignated most of DRCOG’s planning area as “marginal” nonattainment for the 8-hour 

ozone standard in November 2007. The newly formed Denver/North Front Range nonattainment area 

covers nine counties in the Denver metropolitan region and spans portions of three separate regional 

transportation planning regions: 

 DRCOG. 

 NFRMPO, the Fort Collins MPO. 

 Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region (UFR TPR), a non-MPO transportation 

planning area covered by CDOT. 

A Memorandum of Agreement was signed in March 2008, authorizing DRCOG and NFRMPO to 

determine conformity on behalf of the portion of UFR TPR that falls within the 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. Because the air quality boundaries are not the same as the planning region 

boundaries, DRCOG’s transportation planning and conformity determination processes have become 

more complicated. 

CMAQ Objectives and Procedures 

The DRCOG committee structure, which includes the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), the 

Regional Transportation Committee (RTC), and a study session committee comprising DRCOG board 

members and the Metro Vision Issues Committee (MVIC), oversees transportation planning for the MPO 

and makes recommendations to the DRCOG board on funding of the TIP. The TIP process has 

established policy on how to fund different types of projects within its three discretionary Federal funding 

sources (CMAQ, Federal Surface Transportation Program [STP]-Metro, and STP-Enhancement). CMAQ 

is used to fund the following types of projects: 

 TDM. 

 ITS. 

 TSSIP. 

 RideArrangers program. 

 FasTracks, the Denver region’s 120-mile build-out of light and commuter rail, and FasTracksrelated projects. 

 Air quality improvement (e.g., alternative fuels, diesel retrofits). 

 Bicycle and pedestrian projects. 

When asked what would be different without the CMAQ program, DRCOG responded that, without the 

program but with the same overall funding authority, it would still have invested heavily in transit and 

bicycle/pedestrian projects but it might not have funded as many air-quality-focused projects. 

Project Selection and Funding 

DRCOG does not treat CMAQ as a stand-alone program; instead, CMAQ-type projects are solicited and 

selected as part of the 4-year TIP-update cycle. Eligible applicants include county and municipal 

governments; regional agencies, such as the Regional Transportation District (RTD), the Regional Air 

44
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Quality Council (RAQC), and DRCOG itself; and State agencies, such as CDOT and the CDPHE. Thus 

far, local governments and regional agencies have been most active in soliciting CMAQ funds through 

TIP. For the most recent TIP, DRCOG programmed $106 million in CMAQ projects for the FY 2008–

2013 TIP, which is 4.3 percent of the $2.5 billion in the current TIP. 

In making decisions about how to allocate its CMAQ funds, DRCOG’s project selection criteria differ by 

project type. For each project type, criteria may be established that incentivize certain projects within 

those categories. Project types that are typically associated with CMAQ funding include air quality 

improvement, station area master plans, new bus service, and non-FasTracks transit passenger facilities. 

Bonus points are also available and depend on the project type, which can include diesel retrofits (a 

SAFETEA-LU priority) and overmatch of funds. 

DRCOG’s TIP application process is Web-based, with tailored evaluation criteria embedded in each 

project type. Eligible applicants submit project proposals online and are able to self-score their projects as 

they fill out the application. The scoring assessment is quantitative: applicants are asked to submit data 

relevant to the specific project-type category to which they are applying, using embedded formulas to 

generate final scores. DRCOG staff screen submitted applications for eligibility; they then review and 

correct the scores as necessary for consistency and quality control. 

Qualitative and Quantitative Measures 

Applicants are responsible for initially estimating the benefits of their proposed projects, using the 

evaluation criteria embedded in their Web application. Formulas embedded in each of DRCOG’s projecttype applications online generate quantitative estimates of proposed projects’ benefits, such as emissions 

reduction, cost-effectiveness, and usage, for consideration in the prioritization and final selection process. 

In Phase I of project selection, 75 percent of DRCOG’s CMAQ funding goes directly to the projects that 

scored highest within its 10 project category types, making quantitative analysis the primary focus. Target 

percentages for each funding category, such as CMAQ, are also preset for each project type to assist in 

project selection before the selection process begins. For example, for the first 75 percent of CMAQ 

funding, 70 percent will go toward air quality improvement projects. The maximum percentages awarded 

for the evaluation criteria in CMAQ-related-funding project types are as follows: 

 4 percent for diesel retrofit projects. 

 29 percent for projects that reduce VMT or directly reduce air pollutants. 

 29 percent for cost-effectiveness. 

 12 percent for additional local overmatch. 

 14 percent for supporting a Metro Vision strategic corridor (specific-project-related). 

 12 percent for Metro Vision implementation (sponsor-related). 

In Phase II of project selection, projects for the remaining 25 percent of funding are selected by the 

DRCOG board by balancing the final evaluation scores with a series of concerns outside the project-typespecific criteria. Phase II priorities include: 

 Financial equity of project awards across DRCOG members at the county level. 

 Potential cost-savings from merging projects. 

 Projects in DRCOG-defined strategic corridors. 

 Project readiness for construction. 

 Projects in very small communities (less than 10,000 population or employment). 

Reporting/Post-Project Evaluation 

When preparing information for reporting, DRCOG must gather information for two different reporting 

systems, FHWA’s CMAQ database and CDOT’s recently developed CMAQ Reporter. This creates 

45
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

administrative challenges since each system requires different information and calculations. In 2000, the 

Colorado Transportation Commission expressed concern about the effectiveness of the CMAQ program 

in improving air quality and adopted a resolution (TC-807) to increase accountability for how CMAQ 

funds are spent. This led to the development of the CMAQ Reporter, a database maintained by CDOT 

that requires fund recipients to report annually on the effectiveness of their CMAQ expenditures. MPOs 

are working with CDOT to develop methodologies in the CMAQ Reporter that will more accurately 

calculate future-year air quality benefits of various project types. 

DRCOG conducts post-project evaluations on certain types of CMAQ projects but not all. Consultants are 

hired to prepare post-project evaluations, track the emissions reductions of diesel retrofit projects, and 

conduct follow-up surveys to see if people have changed their behavior as a result of one of DRCOG’s 

outreach programs like carpool/vanpool or Bike-to-Work Day. For the latter, DRCOG conducts follow-up 

surveys to see if participation led to any other travel behavior changes and then tracks the Denver-area 

results relative to other cities organizing Bike-to-Work Days. This helps to track the project’s progress 

from year to year and to compare it with that of other cities trying to support more bicycle transportation. 

46
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Fort Collins, Colorado: North Front Range MPO (NFRMPO) 

Introduction 

NFRMPO is the MPO for 15 local governments in northern Colorado. It covers an area of about 675 

square miles with a population of about 440,000 residents. The MPO has been experiencing rapid growth; 

the population is projected to grow to 730,000 by 2035. The major urbanized areas in the MPO are Fort 

Collins and Greeley. The City of Fort Collins is in nonattainment for CO. This is the only area within 

NFRMPO that is eligible for CMAQ funding. The area meets NAAQS for nitrogen oxide and PM 10. 

CMAQ Objectives and Procedures 

Currently, CMAQ functions as a stand-alone program separate from the solicitation of other projects for 

TIP. Beginning with the next TIP update in 2010, NFRMPO will consolidate the call-for-projects process. 

At that time, CMAQ will be handled as part of the overall TIP funding process. 

The NFRMPO CMAQ program consists of capital, transit, TDM, and service projects. Until 2005, the 

major focus within the MPO was on TDM measures. More recently, additional emphasis has been placed 

on intersection and traffic flow improvements. Because only the City of Fort Collins is eligible for 

CMAQ funding, the MPO must determine which portion of any proposed CMAQ project is contained 

within the city boundaries and where any benefits may accrue. For projects that are outside of the 

maintenance area, a graduated benefit amount is applied. For instance, a new transit service that operates 

both within and outside of the city boundaries can only claim emissions reductions for the portion of 

service that occurs within the city boundaries. 

NFRMPO focuses its CMAQ funding efforts on air quality issues. Its CMAQ selection process does not 

directly address congestion issues. In 2007, the MPO adopted a Congestion Management Process (CMP), 

and there is a desire to better integrate the CMAQ program into the CMP. 

The MPO requires that each project proposal be submitted by either a municipal or State agency. 

However, it does encourage other agencies and groups to cosponsor with a governmental agency. The 

MPO requires any local sponsor to provide a local match, usually 20 percent of the project cost. This local 

match can be either cash or in-kind services. 

The 14-member CMAQ Evaluation Committee oversees MPO staff in the project evaluation and selection 

process. The committee consists of representatives from Federal agencies (FHWA, FTA, EPA), State 

agencies (CDOT, CDPHE), and the MPO. 

Project Selection and Funding 

Each sponsor must fill out a standard application including sections on purpose, project participants, 

scope of work, and evaluation process. In order to ensure that proposals meet the eligibility requirements, 

the project sponsors are requested to preview the scope with the MPO staff. The MPO staff has found that 

this can expedite the process of identifying potential problems early in the application process. 

As part of its CMAQ Project Submittal Process Package available to all potential project sponsors, 

NFRMPO offers a word of caution about using Federal funds: “There are two caveats related to scale to 

bear in mind in pursuing a Federal-Aid project. First, the administrative burden of a Federal-Aid project is 

substantial. A very small project is often best accomplished with local funds to avoid the extra 

administrative burden. Second, the project scope and scale may expand because of Federal procedures.” 

Once projects have been submitted, the MPO uses a three-tiered scoring system to evaluate them, which 

includes: 

1. Short-term air quality benefits (Year 1): 50 percent of total score. 

2. Long-term air quality benefits (Years 2–5): 20 percent of score. 

47
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

3. Regional planning achievement: 30 percent of score. 

Bonus points are awarded for a local overmatch, multiagency or PPP projects, and multimodal projects. 

Specific preference is not given to diesel retrofit proposals, but historically these types of projects have 

scored well and have received funding. 

The scoring of projects is done by the staff, with review by the CMAQ Evaluation Committee. The 

Evaluation Committee then compiles a list of projects for proposed inclusion in TIP. This list might 

include suggestions for the scopes of projects to be modified or staged over multiple years. The list is then 

approved by the MPO board for inclusion in the regional TIP. 

Qualitative and Quantitative Measures 

In 2004, NFRMPO moved from a qualitative project selection process to one that relies heavily on a 

quantitative process to determine projects that will receive CMAQ funding. This process was introduced 

to help balance the competition for funding and to remove some of the perceived political influence. To 

help standardize the quantitative analysis, NFRMPO hired a consulting firm to oversee the development 

of calculations for CMAQ programs and projects. 

While the responsibility for estimating air quality benefits rests with project sponsors, MPO staff and the 

air quality consultant review their assumptions, and at times request that they recalculate the air quality 

benefits analysis post-review. The air quality consultant supports NFRMPO staff with the technical 

expertise to ensure that the assumptions and estimates are reasonable. 

Reporting/Post-Project Evaluation 

As part of the CMAQ proposal submittal process, project sponsors must submit an evaluation plan. This 

is usually a brief statement of how the sponsor will measure the success of the program. This information 

is then shared with NFRMPO. Part III of the application states: “Projects should have a detailed 

evaluation process identified prior to application submittal. This process should provide means of 

evaluating the effectiveness of the project over time, its ability to meet project goals and objectives, and 

quantify the air quality benefits.” Beginning in 2009, CDOT now requires this evaluation plan as part of 

the contract for all of its CMAQ-funded projects. 

Due to Colorado State requirements, NFRMPO must collect data for two reporting systems: the FHWA 

CMAQ database and the Colorado Transportation Commission’s Colorado Reporter, the State’s CMAQ 

reporting system. For the FHWA CMAQ database, NFRMPO provides the data and information to 

CDOT. CDOT then compiles the information for the State and transmits the data to FHWA. The 

Colorado Reporter requires additional data from each CMAQ project. While FHWA requests data on the 

first year of operation of a CMAQ project, Colorado requires a life-cycle estimate of benefits. 

48
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

49

Medford, Oregon: Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) 

Introduction 

RVCOG is one of six MPOs in Oregon. Located in southern Oregon, RVCOG has a 22-member board of 

directors, including 15 local governments and seven special districts such as higher education, economic 

development, soil and water conservation, and regional transit. The RVCOG board delegated 

responsibility for the MPO to the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) Policy 

Committee. The Policy Committee comprises eight local member jurisdictions, an ODOT representative, 

and a representative from the regional transportation district. RVCOG staffs RVMPO. The Rogue Valley 

was first designated as nonattainment for PM 10 in 1990 but moved into maintenance in 1996. The 

Medford Urban Growth Boundary is also designated “moderate” maintenance for CO. Both maintenance 

areas fall within RVCOG’s transportation planning region. 

There is no Statewide CMAQ program in Oregon. ODOT uses its own formulas to distribute CMAQ 

funds among the nonattainment and attainment areas rather than relying on Federal apportionment 

formulas. In the past, RVMPO received only about $400,000 per year in CMAQ funds, and member 

jurisdictions divided the funds among themselves in a relatively informal process. ODOT recently 

adjusted its CMAQ allocation formulas, however, which more than doubled the size of RVMPO’s 

allocation to more than $1 million in annual CMAQ funding. This increase spurred RVMPO to develop 

more formal, standardized processes for distributing CMAQ funds within the region. For RVMPO’s 

2008–2011 TIP, CMAQ projects accounted for about 2.5 percent of the total funds programmed ($4.8 

million out of a $198 million TIP). 

CMAQ Objectives and Procedures 

RVMPO treats CMAQ as a stand-alone program, with its own solicitation, public input, and selection 

processes. CMAQ is a critical component of RVMPO’s transportation program as it accounts for 70 

percent of the discretionary funds over which RVMPO has direct programming authority. CMAQ is also 

an integral component of RVCOG’s air quality conformity process. Emissions reduction credits from 

CMAQ projects are applied during conformity determinations and are the MPO’s sole mechanism for 

mitigating onroad mobile source emissions. Staff noted that without these “CMAQ credits,” the MPO’s 

ability to meet conformity requirements would be in question. 

The primary focus of RVMPO’s CMAQ program is addressing the MPO’s PM and air quality problems. 

The agency’s official CMAQ solicitation packet states four objectives for CMAQ-funded projects: 

1. Enable the MPO to maintain the NAAQS. 

2. Meet regional air quality and transportation needs. 

3. Meet multimodal objectives. 

4. Meet State and local goals and objectives (e.g., reduce reliance on automobiles). 

As the size of the CMAQ program has grown, the RVMPO Policy Committee has formalized the 

decisionmaking process to ensure a fair distribution of funds based on project quality. The board 

developed and adopted a single set of quantitative criteria that it now uses to evaluate all CMAQ project 

proposals. The RVMPO Policy Committee worked closely with member jurisdictions to develop these 

criteria, trying to build an evaluation tool that would be flexible over time and allow the program to fund 

new and innovative types of projects.23 The new process emphasizes the notion that CMAQ monies are 

awarded to projects, not jurisdictions. RVCOG staff report that moving toward a more formal process like 

this helped to improve the efficiency, fairness, and effectiveness of the program. 

 

23 For this reason, diesel retrofits was added as one of the evaluation criteria, though at a lower point value than CO/PM 10 

reductions in order to exert influence without skewing project rankings.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

50

Project Selection and Funding 

RVCOG staff issue a call for CMAQ projects every 2 years in conjunction with the TIP update cycle. The 

solicitation is an open application process that lasts for 2 months. Public input is conducted through 

public notices, public comment during RVMPO committee meetings, and review and recommendations 

on project funding by a Public Advisory Council (PAC) comprising 11 residents from member 

municipalities. RVMPO typically uses CMAQ to fund short-term projects (i.e., those that can be 

completed within one TIP cycle).24

Public, private, and nonprofit agencies are eligible to apply, but local municipalities have been the most 

common and successful applicants for CMAQ projects in the past. The Oregon DEQ has submitted 

applications as well, such as for the first diesel retrofit funded in the region. A new focus on PPPs and 

diesel retrofits means that private businesses also are increasingly submitting applications. 

Once solicitation is complete, 1 month is set aside for project grading and evaluation. RVCOG staff 

present applications and work with members of the TAC to evaluate projects and develop rankings. The 

TAC comprises 16 municipal representatives (city managers and a mix of planning, public works, and 

economic development staff) and six representatives from other regional and State agencies (regional 

transit district, ODOT, Oregon DEQ, and Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 

[DLCD]). A single set of evaluation criteria is used to rank and score all projects. Projects can earn up to 

115 points across 10 criteria such as CO/PM 10 reduction, cost-effectiveness, and likelihood of reducing 

reliance on automobiles. Once the TAC has evaluated all project proposals and tallied all scores, it makes 

recommendations to the RVMPO Policy Committee, which has final discretion over ultimate funding. 

The Policy Committee comprises eight local member jurisdictions, an ODOT representative, and a 

representative from the regional transit district. 

Qualitative and Quantitative Measures 

RVMPO uses standardized calculations to estimate the specific air quality benefits of each proposed 

project prior to that project’s overall evaluation and ranking. It also uses standardized calculations to 

estimate the VMT reduction benefits of several types of projects: 

 Transit. 

 Bikes on Buses. 

 Employer Trip Reduction Program. 

 Employer Group Bus Pass Program. 

 Park-and-Ride. 

 Rideshare. 

Sponsors are asked to provide the information needed to perform these calculations and are given 

guidance to explain how emissions benefits will be derived to increase the transparency of the process. 

They are not asked to complete the calculations themselves; this is done by MPO staff. Currently, 

emissions benefits are calculated only for CO and PM 10. This may change, as the State is now strongly 

encouraging MPOs to address carbon emissions and climate change. 

Reporting/Post-Project Evaluation 

Using information provided by the MPOs, ODOT staff are responsible for reporting to FHWA’s CMAQ 

database. Post-project evaluation is required by ODOT for all diesel retrofit projects. RVCOG staff noted 

the benefits of conducting post-project evaluation on all project types but explained that it is not currently 

possible due to limited staffing and resources. 

 

24 Because of this, CMAQ projects are rarely part of the Long-Range Transportation Plan.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

RVMPO has found that, due to the reporting, administrative, and design requirements that come with the 

use of Federal funds, it is not efficient to use Federal funds for projects costing less than $200,000. Local 

jurisdictions estimate that complying with the requirements of using Federal money increases their project 

costs by 60 percent, and they are trying to work out an arrangement with the State to swap CMAQ funds 

for State funds that would not have the same requirements. 

51
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

52

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC) 

Introduction 

SPC is one of 15 MPOs in Pennsylvania. SPC’s planning region covers 10 counties and is served by 10 

fixed-route transit agencies. The governing board includes representatives from the City of Pittsburgh, the 

region’s counties and transit agencies, and State and Federal agencies such as PennDOT, the State 

economic development agency, FHWA, and FTA. The SPC planning region comprises nine separate 

NAAs and maintenance areas within southwestern Pennsylvania for five separate air quality standards. 

These include the Pittsburgh Central Business District for CO, one area within Allegheny Country for 

PM 10, three separate areas for the 8-hour ozone standard, three separate areas for the annual PM 2.5 

standard, and one area for the daily PM 2.5 standard. 

SPC recently refined its CMAQ project selection process in response to new provisions related to the 

enactment of SAFETEA-LU as well as to formalize what had previously been a more informal, ad-hoc 

process. As part of this reexamination, a consultant was hired to facilitate the update of SPC’s CMAQ 

project solicitation, evaluation, prioritization, and selection procedures. SPC identified examples of MPOs 

around the country with noteworthy CMAQ practices to guide its update and also used FHWA’s CMAQ 

guidance and integrated suggestions from the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Special Report 264 

– Congestion Migitation and Air Quality Improvement Program.25

SPC solicits and programs CMAQ projects in conjunction with the TIP update cycle: a four-year TIP is 

updated every 2 years. The SPC region receives about $25 million a year in CMAQ funding, which 

accounts for about 3 percent of total TIP funding. SPC has done focused outreach to public agencies and 

the public to bring them into the process and have a wider range of participants. 

PennDOT suballocates all CMAQ funding directly to the MPOs; there is no separate Statewide CMAQ 

program at the State level. If PennDOT has a project it would like to fund using the CMAQ program, the 

appropriate PennDOT District Office must submit a project proposal to the MPO for funding 

consideration, like any other project sponsor. Although PennDOT does not maintain its own stand-alone 

CMAQ program, it does take a leadership role in supporting and coordinating MPO and CMAQ efforts. 

At the beginning of each TIP update cycle, PennDOT and MPO staff from around the State meet to 

discuss strategies and techniques for preparing individual TIPs and evaluating project proposals within 

Federal and State transportation programs. The result of this effort is concurrence on financial and 

procedural guidance for the TIP update. This guidance document establishes fiscal targets for programs, 

including the allocation of CMAQ funding for each of the qualifying MPOs. 

Objectives and Procedures 

The SPC CMAQ process, as endorsed by the board, has established priority for four types of projects for 

CMAQ funds: signalization, diesel retrofits, TDM, and bicycle/pedestrian. CMAQ projects are solicited 

in conjunction with the TIP update cycle. As such, there is no stand-alone public input process for CMAQ 

projects. 

Proposed projects that are not selected in one round may be resubmitted and may recompete for funding 

during the next TIP update and CMAQ solicitation. In order to do so, they must update costs, 

assumptions, emissions benefits calculations, and scopes (as appropriate). Under SPC’s revised CMAQ 

process, all proposed CMAQ projects, both new and resubmitted, are subject to quantitative analysis and 

are then ranked on current costs, assumptions, and estimated costs and benefits during each update to the 

TIP. 

 

25 The publication can be found at the following link: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10350
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

As SPC has opened its CMAQ program processes and worked to expand its reach, it has seen a rise in the 

number of “nontraditional” transportation project applications such as those for diesel retrofits and carshare programs. Bringing more nontraditional sponsors into a Federal funding process can lead to new 

types of projects, but it also has challenges, especially in terms of educating project sponsors about 

Federal requirements for activities such as contracting and financing. 

Project Selection and Funding 

SPC has a well-defined evaluation process. Staff color-code each CMAQ project proposal by 

type/category and then rank projects within those categories to facilitate fair and logical comparisons. In 

the past, review of applications was done by staff. Now, all applications are packaged and distributed on a 

CD to the committee members for their review and evaluation to identify unrealistic assumptions or 

benefits. After ranking each proposal within project categories, the CEC develops a recommended list of 

projects for TIP. The selections are made by the CEC through secret ballot. 

Without the CMAQ program, SPC staff felt that they would not be able to fund some current innovative 

projects like the City’s car-sharing program with the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership (PDP) or marine 

diesel retrofits with the Port of Pittsburgh Commission. These projects confer quality-of-life and air 

quality benefits to the residents of southwestern Pennsylvania but may not have traditionally been thought 

of as “transportation” projects or may not be able to be funded through other federal transportation 

funding programs. 

Qualitative and Quantitative Measures 

Projects are ranked using three separate measures. First, SPC quantifies the air quality benefits for each 

project proposed for CMAQ funding. All projects are evaluated for five air quality and cost/benefit 

factors, using a standardized set of analysis models developed by PennDOT. One of the factors measures 

cost-effectiveness in reducing air pollution by calculating the cost-per-unit change in emissions. Second, 

projects that are within one of the four board priority categories are given preference. Third, projects are 

rated according to a set of nine ancillary factors that include: 

 Overmatch. 

 Raising of public awareness of TDM options. 

 Consistency with the region’s long-range plan. 

 Whether they bring nontraditional funding to TIP. 

 Congested corridor rating. 

PennDOT maintains an on-call consultant for Statewide air quality issues and analysis. These consultant 

services are made available to the State’s MPOs to assist in quantifying the benefits of new projects such 

as the City’s car-sharing proposal, which arise in new funding rounds and are not easily quantified by 

traditional standardized analysis tools. Staff estimate that this accounts for about 10 percent of new 

projects. SPC staff expressed that, from an MPO perspective, having this kind of State leadership and 

support on technical assistance was an invaluable component in improving their own process. 

Reporting and Evaluation 

PennDOT has developed a report card to provide information on how money is being allocated to MPOs 

around the State and other financial management tools. This report card is prepared on a quarterly basis 

and strives to provide the most up-to-date information on obligations that have been made. 

SPC conducts post-project evaluation of some projects to examine actual versus predicted benefits. Staff 

conduct before-and-after studies for some traffic signalization projects—for example, to demonstrate 

whether a completed project achieved the benefits projected in the CMAQ project evaluation process. 

SPC staff noted that as post-project evaluation becomes more routine for traffic signalization projects, 

sponsors of other types of projects may feel compelled to conduct post-project evaluation to be able to 

53
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

demonstrate cost-effectiveness, congestion mitigation, or air quality benefits. Thus, a trend toward having 

project sponsors build post-project evaluation into their project plans and budgets may be emerging in 

subsequent CMAQ funding rounds. 

54
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

San Francisco, California: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 

Introduction 

MTC is one of 19 MPOs in California. It serves as the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area MPO and 

includes such major cities as San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland. Its 19-member policy board 

comprises primarily local elected officials (mayors and county commissioners), along with one 

representative each from the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Bay Area Conservation and 

Development Commission. Three nonvoting members also participate on the board to represent important 

State and Federal interests, such as Caltrans, FHWA, and the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD). 

MTC’s planning region overlaps with three air basins (San Francisco, Sacramento, and Northern 

Sonoma), two of which are in nonattainment: 

 San Francisco Bay Area basin: “marginal” for 8-hour ozone, maintenance for CO. 

 Sacramento basin: “serious” nonattainment for 8-hour ozone, maintenance for CO. 

Caltrans distributes CMAQ funds to MPOs around the State on the basis of population and the severity of 

air quality. Caltrans does not run a Statewide CMAQ program per se, but it does reserve a small portion 

of funds for the five non-MPO areas around the State that qualify to receive CMAQ dollars. CMAQ 

accounts for approximately 2.3 percent ($300 million) of MTC’s current (2008–2013) $13 billion TIP. 

CMAQ Objectives and Procedures 

As in other MPOs, programming of CMAQ projects takes place in conjunction with the TIP update 

process. CMAQ is not treated as a stand-alone program in the San Francisco Bay region but as an 

integrated part of the long-range transportation planning process. MTC uses planning goals and measures 

of effectiveness outlined in the long-range plan to develop comprehensive and multimodal program areas, 

each with its own specific goals and objectives. Program areas include: 

 Transportation for Livable Communities/Housing Incentive. 

 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian. 

 Lifeline Program, Free Transit. 

 TransLink® (universal fare card). 

 Regional Rideshare. 

 Traffic Operations System/Incident Management. 

 Clean Air Initiatives. 

MTC pools the MPOs’ CMAQ funds with Federal STP funds and other State and local funding sources to 

support projects within each of these program areas. Only at the end of the planning and programming 

process are specific funding sources matched up with individual selected projects. This means that the 

project sponsors must be aware of the program area to which they are applying but not the funding source 

that will cover their projects. 

Worsening air quality and traffic congestion are two of the major challenges facing the San Francisco Bay 

MPO, so MTC routinely has many more CMAQ-eligible projects submitted for funding than it has 

available CMAQ dollars to spend. Still, CMAQ is seen by MTC as a means of further supporting its air 

quality and congestion goals as well as projects with quality-of-life benefits that may not be eligible for 

other funding sources. Any public agency with a role in surface transportation planning and 

implementation may submit projects for consideration by MTC’s program committees. 

55
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Project Selection and Funding 

MTC staff use FHWA guidance to establish which projects are eligible to receive CMAQ funds, but they 

do not have one standard approach for selecting the projects that will ultimately receive the funds. Each of 

MTC’s multimodal program areas runs its own project solicitation, public outreach, and selection process. 

Evaluation and selection criteria are tailored to the specific needs of each program to which a CMAQeligible project may apply, and funding sources are matched to individual projects only during the project 

selection process. 

Each MTC program area uses different rules and procedures for project evaluation; different committees 

and member agencies take the lead in selecting projects, depending on the program. With the 

Transportation for Livable Communities program, for example, two-thirds of the available funding is 

chosen at the regional level by the MTC board, but one-third is split by formula and distributed directly to 

member counties, where local agencies and officials determine which projects to fund. In the Regional 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Program, however, only a quarter of all project selection decisions are made by 

the MTC board. The other 75 percent of funds are suballocated directly to County Congestion 

Management Agencies for project selection, subject to MTC program rules and criteria. 

MTC staff believe that many of their current projects and programs would continue to be funded even if 

the CMAQ program ceased to exist. This is because the main criterion for funding projects across all 

programs and funding categories is consistency with the vision of the long-range plan in which air quality 

improvement and reduced congestion are primary goals. 

Qualitative and Quantitative Measures 

As with project selection, the calculation of project benefits depends on the program area within which 

projects are being proposed. MTC uses quantitative methods to evaluate many of its projects, but 

qualitative indicators are also used to evaluate proposals having benefits that are difficult to calculate with 

precision due to the size or nature of the project. Marketing projects are evaluated qualitatively, though 

quantitative analysis may be used as supporting evidence; for example, a follow-up survey may be 

conducted to ascertain how many people heard a given radio spot or saw a newspaper advertisement. The 

decision as to which qualitative measures to use and when to use them is left to the discretion of each of 

MTC’s individual program areas. 

In terms of quantitative analysis, MTC staff use a number of methodologies to help estimate the benefits 

of CMAQ-eligible projects. MTC relies heavily on calculations outlined in TRB Special Report 264 on 

the CMAQ program, and on a report by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), to evaluate many of 

the projects submitted for consideration. However, MTC has developed several calculation methods inhouse for new or nontraditional project proposals that do not clearly match the guidance outlined in those 

two resources. 

CARB and BAAQMD staff provide additional expertise. MTC staff work very closely with BAAQMD 

staff to develop air quality benefit calculations for new and nontraditional projects and rely on them for 

expert guidance on which project proposals will have the best impacts. 

MTC staff also work closely with project sponsors to estimate project benefits once specific 

methodologies are developed or adopted since many of the calculations are too complex for sponsors to 

conduct on their own. In response to recently enacted statewide climate-change legislation, MTC and 

other MPOs in California are developing methods to estimate the carbon dioxide (CO2) impacts of 

projects and will begin including those benefits calculations in project evaluations moving forward. 

Reporting and Evaluation 

MTC staff provide Caltrans with the necessary project information for reporting to FHWA’s CMAQ 

database, but Caltrans retains responsibility for managing this process and inputting the final information. 

56
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

Staff at the State and MPO levels expressed frustration with the administrative challenge of complying 

with Federal reporting requirements. 

MTC does not have an across-the-board policy to measure the impacts and benefits of implemented 

projects, but it does conduct limited post-project evaluations, particularly to ascertain and document the 

cost-effectiveness of various project types. An evaluation of the region’s FSP/Incident Management 

program revealed it to be particularly cost-effective, which provided the basis for MTC’s ongoing funding 

to support and expand the program. Now, staff are developing cost-effectiveness tools to assess the 

benefits of various TCMs as well as the region’s Free Transit Program. 

57
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

58

This page intentionally left blank.
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

APPENDIX A: CMAQ PHASE II SITE-VISIT LOCATIONS AND MPO POINTS OF 

CONTACT

Site-Visit Locations 

Location U.S. 

Region 

MPO 

Size* 

FHWA 

Division Office 

(Resource 

Center) 

FTA Regional Office EPA Regional Office 

Boston, MA Northeast XL Boston, MA Boston, MA – Region 

1 

Boston, MA – Region 1 

Pittsburgh, PA Midwest L Harrisburg, 

PA 

Philadelphia, PA – 

Region 3 

Philadelphia, PA – 

Region 3 

Birmingham, 

AL 

South L Montgomery, 

AL 

Atlanta, GA –

Region 4 

Atlanta, GA – 

Region 4 

Jackson 

County, OR 

(Rogue Valley) 

West S Salem, OR Seattle, WA – 

Region 10 

Seattle, WA – Region 

10 

San 

Francisco, CA 

West XL Sacramento, 

CA (San 

Francisco) 

San Francisco, CA 

– Region 9 

San Francisco, CA – 

Region 9 

Denver, CO Mountain L Lakewood, 

CO 

(Lakewood) 

Lakewood, CO – 

Region 8 

Denver, CO – Region 8 

Fort Collins, 

CO 

Mountain M Lakewood, 

CO 

(Lakewood) 

Lakewood, CO –- 

Region 8 

Denver, CO – Region 8 

*XL = extra-large, L = large, S = small, and M = medium. 

MPO Points of Contact 

Location MPO Contact Telephone E-mail 

Boston MPO/ 

Mass. EOT 

Pam Wolfe 617-973-7141 pwolfe@ctps.org 

Pittsburgh, PA Chuck Imbrogno 412-391-5590, x319 Imbrogno@spcregion.org 

Birmingham, AL Bill Foisy 205-251-8139 bfoisy@rpcgb.org 

Jackson County, OR 

(Rogue Valley) 

Vicky Guarino 514-423-1361 vguarino@rvcog.org 

San Francisco, CA Craig Goldblatt 510-817-5837 cgoldblatt@mtc.ca.gov 

Denver, CO Todd Cottrell 303-480-6737 tcottrell@drcog.org 

Fort Collins, CO Tia Raamot 970-224-6102 traamot@nfrmpo.org 

59
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

60

This page intentionally left blank. 
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

APPENDIX B: CMAQ PHASE II SITE VISITS—INTERVIEW GUIDE

USDOT and EPA are conducting a series of site visits this summer to better understand the CMAQ project 

selection and implementation practices and to document the most effective approaches. This effort will 

result in a report, as required under SAFETEA-LU, evaluating the CMAQ program. 

The following questions are intended as a guide for our series of interviews with your designated State 

and regional transportation and air quality experts. Federal staff from FHWA, FTA, and EPA will be 

present for the interviews. The interviews focus on broad questions, with specific questions available as 

prompts for gathering information about best practices. 

Introductory/Background Questions 

1. Please provide contextual information on the nonattainment areas, including: 

a. Population and growth trends. 

b. Travel trends (e.g., VMT growth) and congestion problems (e.g., significance of 

congestion problems faced). 

c. Type of nonattainment or maintenance area status, and changes in status. 

2. Provide an overview of the organizations involved in funding, planning, implementing and 

evaluating CMAQ-funded projects. What role does each of these organizations play in the 

process? 

CMAQ Program Objectives 

3. How does the CMAQ program fit into local transportation plans and objectives? 

a. If CMAQ program funding were not available, would similar CMAQ-like projects be 

undertaken, and what funding sources would be used? 

b. Are there particular types of projects that would not likely be funded without the CMAQ 

program? 

4. What do you see as the primary goal of your CMAQ program? Are there other objectives 

addressed by the program that you see as important (e.g., mobility enhancement, community 

livability)? Please describe. 

5. What role does the CMAQ program play in your area’s air quality planning process and 

conformity requirements for meeting regional air quality goals and/or National standards? 

6. Which types of CMAQ projects have you found to be, or do you believe are, most effective in 

reducing emissions in the short term and long term? Does your selection process focus on shortterm or long-term benefits? Why? 

7. Have PPPs or other innovative financing techniques been used to fund CMAQ activities? 

Local CMAQ Program Procedures 

8. Please describe how projects are initiated as candidates for CMAQ funding. 

a. Which agency has the primary responsibility for identifying or soliciting proposals for 

CMAQ funding? Are other agencies involved? 

61
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

b. Is there a structured process for nominating candidates for CMAQ funding? If so, please 

provide relevant application forms, calls for projects, or other relevant documentation. 

What are the required elements in the project proposal or application? 

c. What agencies/organizations are eligible to propose projects? Which of these have been 

most active in proposing projects? 

d. Are any project types encouraged (e.g., diesel retrofits, PPPs)? 

e. Is there a regular cycle for new project proposals annually, or on a less frequent basis 

(e.g., in association with updates to the metropolitan transportation plan or TIP)? 

9. Please describe how project air quality benefits are analyzed. 

a. Which agency or agencies calculates the emissions benefits (e.g., project sponsor, MPO, 

State DOT)? 

b. Is guidance on calculating emissions benefits provided to those generating proposals? If 

so, by whom? What is the nature of this guidance? 

c. To what extent is the State air agency (or regional air quality district) involved in the 

process? 

d. What techniques are used to estimate travel effects and emission reductions for CMAQ 

projects? Are models and modeling techniques used? Is this true for all project 

categories? If not, what other methods are being used? Please describe. 

e. Are National, regional, or local values typically used for calculation of such factors as 

trip length and average vehicle occupancy? 

f. For what pollutants are emissions benefits calculated (e.g., CO, NOx, VOC, PM 10, PM 

2.5, CO2, other)? 

g. Are post-project evaluations conducted for certain types of projects? In which cases? 

Who collects these data? 

h. Are the air quality impact estimates reviewed as part of the project selection process? 

Have changes been required or made in project design or selection as a result of air 

quality evaluations? 

i. Do you have any comments on the quality of analyses? What are the key challenges you 

see? Have actions been taken to improve the quality of analyses? 

j. Have you made any improvements over the past 5 years in the analysis of CMAQ funds 

that you would consider a “best practice”? 

10. Please describe how projects are selected for CMAQ funding. 

a. Is the funding for a CMAQ project done separately or as part of the overall TIP funding 

process? 

b. Is there a formal project selection process? If so, please describe and provide 

documentation. 

c. To what extent is public input obtained? How is the process transparent to an interested 

citizen or agency? 

d. Is the procedure largely quantitative in nature (e.g., project rankings, scoring across 

different criteria) or qualitative? 

e. Who is involved in the selection process (e.g., State DOT, MPO, air agency, EPA, 

FHWA)? Is there a formal selection committee structure? To what extent are air quality 

agencies involved? 

62
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

f. To what extent are air quality benefits and contribution toward meeting conformity 

considered in project selection? 

g. To what extent are potential congestion benefits considered in project selection? Are 

these effects measured, and if so, by which agency? 

h. To what extent is cost-effectiveness considered in project selection? How is costeffectiveness calculated? What have been your findings regarding project costeffectiveness? 

i. Have there been any opportunities to pursue innovative or less traditional projects and 

programs? 

j. To what extent is priority given to diesel retrofits? 

k. To what extent are other project outcomes (e.g., effects on greenhouse gases, economic 

development, social equity, community livability) considered in project selection? Are 

these effects related to goals in the metropolitan transportation plan? Are the effects 

reported or measured? If so, by which agency? 

l. Have you made any improvements over the past few years in the selection process? If so, 

what are they? 

11. Funding of CMAQ. 

a. Describe the capital programming process for CMAQ projects. How is the decision made 

to use CMAQ funds versus other Federal or State funds for a specific project? 

b. Are CMAQ projects ever funded using other Federal funding categories or innovative 

finance tools? 

c. What has been your percentage of programming of CMAQ funds for the past 3 years? 

d. What factors may have affected how much CMAQ funding was programmed? 

e. Do you have any best practices to share in terms of how you program Federal funds 

including CMAQ? 

f. To what extent is local match considered a factor in funding? 

g. How do you balance the competing needs for funding? 

12. Which agency is responsible for reporting CMAQ project data to FHWA? 

a. What information, if any, is gathered in addition to the reporting data required by 

FHWA? 

b. In your opinion, is there additional information that should be gathered or reported to 

FHWA? 

c. Would you recommend any changes in the FHWA reporting process? 

13. Are ex-post-project evaluations (evaluations after the project is complete) undertaken to 

determine whether desired travel changes, emissions reductions, and other project outcomes have 

been achieved? (Please provide copies of any such studies or analyses, if available.) If so, how is 

this information used by local or State agencies? If not, why are such evaluations not undertaken? 

CMAQ Program Evaluation 

14. What do you see as the main strengths and weaknesses of the CMAQ program as it is handled in 

your region? 

15. What effects, if any, has the program had on agency or interagency decisionmaking at the State or 

regional level? 

63
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

16. If there are things you could change about how the CMAQ program operates in your region, what 

would they be? 

Specific Program/Project Best Practices 

17. Discuss two specific CMAQ projects funded within the past 5 years, as well as what you think 

may be a best practice for the Nation. 

a. What distinguished this project? 

b. Describe the funding for the project. 

c. How will you track this project as it moves from being programmed on the TIP to 

implementation? 

64
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

APPENDIX C: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

ALDOT Alabama Department of Transportation 

APCA Alabama Partners for Clean Air 

AQ air quality 

BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

BFC Bike Fort Collins 

BJCTA Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority 

CAA Clean Air Act 

Caltrans California Department of Transportation 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation 

CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

CEC CMAQ Evaluation Committee (Pittsburgh) 

CCF crankcase filter 

CHP California Highway Patrol 

CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

CMP Congestion Management Process 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

DEP Department of Environmental Protection 

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality (Oregon) 

DLCD Department of Land Conservation and Development 

DOC diesel oxidation catalysts 

DOT Department of Transportation 

DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Governments 

EOEEA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (Massachusetts) 

EOT Executive Office of Transportation (Massachusetts DOT) 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FSP Freeway Service Patrol 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

FY Fiscal Year 

HC hydrocarbons 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development 

I&M Inspection and Maintenance 

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems 

MassDEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization 

MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area) 

MVIC Metro Vision Issues Committee 

NAA nonattainment area 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NFRMPO North Front Range MPO (Fort Collins, Colorado) 

NOX nitrogen oxide 

ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation 

65
SAFETEA-LU 1808: CMAQ Evaluation and Assessment Phase II Report

66

PAC Public Advisory Council 

PDP Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership 

PennDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 

PM 2.5 particulate matter (fine) 

PM 10 particulate matter 

PPM parts per million 

PPP public-private partnerships 

RAQC Regional Air Quality Council (Colorado) 

RPCGB Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham 

RTC Regional Transportation Committee 

RTD Regional Transportation District 

RTP Regional Transportation Plan 

RVCOG Rogue Valley Council of Governments (Medford, Oregon) 

RVMPO Rogue Valley MPO (Medford, Oregon) 

SAFE Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways (MTC) 

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

SFBCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SPC Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (Pittsburgh) 

STIP State Transportation Improvement Program 

STP Surface Transportation Program 

TAC Technical Advisory Committee, Transportation Advisory Committee 

TCM transportation control measures 

TDM transportation demand management 

TE Federal Transportation Enhancements Funding 

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

TIP Transportation Improvement Program 

TMA Transportation Management Area 

TMA Transportation Management Association 

TOD time of day 

TRB Transportation Research Board 

TSSIP Traffic Signal System Improvement Program 

UFR TPR Upper Front Range Transportation Planning Region 

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

VMT vehicle-miles traveled 

VOC volatile organic compound