# Mobile Source Emissions Modeling for Catoosa and Walker Counties PM2.5 Maintenance Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

1.0 Overview

The Georgia Environmental Protec tion Division (EPD) worked with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and the Chattanooga-Hamilton County-North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization to develop mobile 1 

# source emissions inventories for the purpose of establishing motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) for the 2025 main tenance year for the Catoosa-Walker Counties PM2.5 Maintenance State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, hereinafter calle d the Catoosa-Walker PM2.5 Maintenance Plan.

Walker and Catoosa counties are pa rt of the Chattanooga PM2.5 nonattai nment area which also includes Hamilton County, Tennessee (TN). For the emissions modeling for the Chattanooga Metropolitan Planning Area (MPO), different methodologies are used to develop emission i nventories for different subregions within the nonattainment area, depending on whether or not the subregion is included in the MPO travel model domain. The MPO travel model curre ntly includes all of Hamilton County, TN, all of Catoosa County, GA, and the portion of Walker County, GA, within the MPO planning area. The travel demand model is used to estimate Vehicle Miles Travel ed (VMT) and congested flow speeds needed to develop emission inventories for the subregions included in the travel model. VMT estimates derived from the travel model were adjusted based on Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) tra ffic count data from Tennessee and Georgia.

Off-model, HPMS-based modeling techniques were used to calculate emissions for the “donut” portion of Walker County, Georgia, that fa lls outside of the MPO planning and travel modeling area. “Donut” is a term that refers to areas that fall outside of a metropol itan planning area, but inside the air quality nonattainment area.

The 2025 mobile emissions were developed consiste nt with the single-run, annual-average-conditions approach described in EPA's August 9, 2005, Guidance for Creating Annual On-Road Mobile Source Emission Inventories for PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas for Use in SIPs and Conformity

. 2 

# Consistent with this guidance, once this budget is found adequate or approved by EPA, subsequent emissions analyses for transportation conformity will also use the same a nnual-average-conditions approach used to establish the MVEB. These inventories reflect the most r ecent planning assumptions and emission factor model available, and the use of an updated travel demand m odel. Output from the Chattanooga travel demand and emissions estimation modeling process was employe d to estimate mobile source emission inventories to establish the MVEB for the Ca toosa-Walker PM2.5 Maintenance Plan in a manner consistent with federal regulations for performing regional emissions analyses used in transportation conformity determinations. The alignment of methodologies for MVEB and tran sportation conformity emissions analyses reduces the possibility of spurious differences between motor vehicle emission budgets and transportation conformity analyses that must conform to those budgets.

1 

## The term "mobile" is used to describe emissions from on-road motor vehicles.

2 

## http://epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy/420b05008.pdf

# Effective April 5, 2005, the U.S. Environmental Pr otection Agency (EPA) designated the Chattanooga MPO nonattainment for the annual fine particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard which includes Walker and Catoosa counties in Georgia. The PM2.5 standa rd is subject to Subpart 1 of the Clean Air Act., the more general nonattainment ar ea planning and control re quirements of the Act.


# 1.1 Planning Boundaries

As the MPO for the Chattanooga urbanized area, the Chattanooga-Hamilton County-North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization is responsible for the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive metropolitan planning process required by Title 23 U.S.C. 134. Based on the 2010 Census, the Chattanooga MPO defined their planning boundary as all of Hamilton County in Tennessee, and part of Dade, Walker and Catoosa Counties in Georgia. The nonattainment area was originally defined as all of Hamilton County in Tennessee, part of Jackson C ounty in Alabama and all of Walker and Catoosa Counties in Georgia as illustrated in Figure 1.1-1. Howeve r on June 18, 2010, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register a finding of insignificance for Jackson County, Alabama, as a result of the transportation c onformity adequacy review process. As a result, conformity determination and emissions are no longer required for Jackson County, Alabama.

# Figure 1.1-1 Chattanooga Nonattainment Area



# 1.2 Emissions Analysis – Models and Assumptions

In accordance with Section 93.105(b) of the Transporta tion Conformity Rule which requires interagency consultation for SIP development, a detailed listing of the procedures and pla nning assumptions used for the regional emissions analysis supporting developmen t of the MVEB was distri buted to the interagency consultation committee for review November, 2011. The assumptions used to develop Chattanooga's conforming Long Range Transportation Plan and Trans portation Improvement Program were also used to develop the network and emissions for the Cat oosa-Walker PM2.5 Maintenance Plan MVEB, which required emissions for the year 2025. The 2025 em issions prepared for the recent 2012 conformity determination are used as the emissions for the SIP. Since emissions were not available for 2007, some of the input data sets were in terpolated between 2002 and 2009 and th en checked for reasonableness.

The MOVES input files reflect all federal and state mo tor vehicle emission control programs. In addition, the input files were customized to reflect the specific weather conditions and vehicle registration data for the nonattainment area.


# 2.0 Travel Demand Modeling Procedures

The Chattanooga travel demand model and off-modelling procedures were used to develop the emissions for Catoosa and Walker Counties The Chattanooga tr avel demand model was used to estimate link-level VMT and congested flow speeds for the Georgia s ubregion of the nonattainment area included in the TPO travel model domain. The methodology to prepare the Catoosa-Walker emissions is listed below.

# 1) Modeling Methodology a) Georgia i) Within TPO travel model (Catoos a County, portion of Walker County) (1) Estimate link-level VMT and congested fl ow speeds using Chattanooga TPO travel demand model for all of Catoosa County, GA, and the portion of Walker County, GA, within the TPO travel demand model domain (2) Extract VMT, congested speeds, and road type distribution from tr avel demand model (3) Develop VMT and congested flow sp eeds for each roadway link in the area (4) Adjust model VMT estimates at the link level based on HPMS VMT estimates (5) Develop emission factors for each roadway driv e cycle and speed bin using the latest U.S. EPA approved emissions model (MOVES2010a) (6) Apply MOVES2010a emissions factors to the HPMS-adjusted, link-level VMT estimates based on the congested speed estimates, road type and source (vehicle) type to determine emissions ii) Outside of TPO travel model (donut por tion of Walker County) (see Exhibit 7) (1) Estimate VMT for remaining portion of Walker County donut area outside of TPO travel model domain using GA HPMS traffic count data (a) Base year roadway mileage and HPMS av erage annual traffic count data from GDOT RC/HPMS databases (b) Traffic count growth trends for each anal ysis year estimated by HPMS functional class (i) Growth rates extracted from TPO tr avel demand model for GA portion of nonattainment area within the travel model (ii) Growth rates applied to GA portion of nonattainment area outside of travel model (2) Estimate congested flow speeds for remaining portion of Walker County donut area using VMT-weighted speed by HPMS functional cla ss, extrapolated from TPO travel demand model for each analysis year (3) Develop emission factors for each roadway dr ive cycle and speed bin; Note that these factors will be the same for al l of Georgia portion of nonattainment area, i.e., same as those used for (1)(b)(i) (4) Estimate PM 2.5 

# and NO x 

# emissions from VMT and congested speeds (a) Emission factors applied at aggr egate HPMS functional class level


# 2.1 Travel Demand Modeling Post-Processing Procedures

The Chattanooga regional travel demand model produces daily estima tes of travel and vehicle hours traveled (VHT) and a peak hour speed for each link in the highway ne twork. The links from the daily highway assignment contain a variety of attributes such as the numb er of lanes, distance, speed, capacities and daily volumes. The daily VMT is determined by multiplying the daily volume by the distance for each link. Other refinements to the netw ork link data were performed to produce the files needed for MOVES. The procedures used in estim ating emissions for the Catoosa-Walker model area are slightly different from the procedures used for emissions modeling (including conformity analyses) in the other nonattainment areas in Ge orgia. Emissions for the areas within the model are prepared using MOVES in rate look-up mode wher eas in the other nonattainment areas in Georgia, MOVES is applied in Inventory mode.

HPMS Adjustment of VMT Section 93.122(b)(3) of the Tran sportation Conformity Rule recommends that HPMS adjustment factors be developed to reconcile travel model estimates of VMT to HPMS estimates in the same base year of model calibration. HPMS adjustment factors were developed for the 2035 LRTP to reflect the new calibration base year of 2007. HPMS factors were calculated at the HPMS functional class level using the following equation:

# HPMS A DJUSTMENT 

# F ACTOR I 

# = (2007 HPMS VMT I 

# /2007

M ODEL 

# VMT I 

# ) ( WHERE I 

# =HPMS FUNCTIONAL CLASS 

# )



# Separate sets of adjustment factors were estim ated for Catoosa County and for the TPO portion of Walker County.

To determine “2007 HPMS VMT” for Catoosa County, average annual daily VMT for the year 2007 for each of the 12 HPMS functional classes was compile d from GDOT’s 445 Report which contains countyspecific mileage and VMT by HPMS functional classi fication. “2007 Model VMT” was calculated for Catoosa County by HPMS functional class from the 2007 travel model run completed as part of the 2035 LRTP model calibration. Table 2.1-1 shows the HPMS adjustment f actors by HPMS functional class for Catoosa County, Georgia. HPMS adjustment factors we re applied at the link level to travel model VMT for Catoosa County, based on each link’s HPMS functiona l classification code, fo r each analysis year.

The HPMS adjustment factors for the TPO portion of Walker County were determined based on the portion of the county within the travel model and, ther efore, subject to HPMS adjustment. County-level HPMS data for Walker County for each roadway func tional class was derived from GDOT’s 445 Report. VMT data was factored down based on the proportion of each roadway classifi cation’s mileage within the travel model area compared to the total mileage for that roadway type within Walker County. Table 2.1-2 shows the travel demand model and HPMS VMT for the TPO portion of Walker County, and HPMS adjustment factors by functiona l class. These factors were app lied at the link level to travel model VMT for the TPO portion of Walker Count y, based on each roadway link’s HPMS functional classification code, for each analysis year. HPMS adjustment factors were reviewed and approved by ICC.

Table 2.1-1: 2007 HPMS Adjustment Factors Catoosa County, Georgia

Name Functional Class(es) Average Annual Daily 2007 Travel Model VMT Average Annual Daily 2007 HPMS VMT 2007 HPMS Adjustment Factor

Rural Interstate 1 402,303 372,202 0.93 Rural Principal Arterial 2 30,625 18,942 0.62
Rural Minor Arterial 6 77,889 82,512 1.06 Rural Major Collector 7 86,125 133,443 1.17
Rural Minor Collector 8 28,113 133,443 1.17

Rural Local 9 a 

# 54,891 324,050 1.45
Urban Interstate 11 696,013 646,109 0.93 Urban Freeway 12 0 0 0.00
Urban Other Arterial 14 77,844 34,486 0.44
Urban Minor Arterial 16 393,399 549,584 1.40
Urban Collector 17 60,913 48,983 0.80

Urban Local 19 a 

# 167,985 324,050 1.45

a Most local roads (Functional Classifications (FC) 9 and 19) were not included in the TPO travel demand model. Travel on these r oads in the travel demand model was approximated by travel on centroi d connectors, which are coded as facility type 99 in the model. Due to their similar purposes, VMT and em issions on FCs 9 and 19 are compared to those on facility type 99 in the TPO travel demand mo del. Ramps also were included in the travel demand model with a facility type of 7. Ramps are not included in the HPMS data. 

## Source: Chattanooga-Hamilton County/North Georgia LRTP 2035, Volume 2 – Draft Conformity Determination Report, Feb 2012

# C HATTANOOGA 

# TPO 2035 LRTP

– V OLUME 

# 2: CDR

Table 2.1-2: 2007 HPMS Adjustment Factors TPO Portion of Walker County, Georgia

Name Functional Class(es) Average Annual Daily 2007 Travel Model VMT Average Annual Daily 2007 HPMS VMT 2007 HPMS Adjustment Factor

Rural Interstate 1 0 0 0.00 Rural Principal Arterial 2 186,903 93,730 0.50
Rural Minor Arterial 6 1,931 2,609 1.35 Rural Major Collector 7 32,857 33,036 0.99
Rural Minor Collector 8 465 33,036 0.99

Rural Local 9 a 

# 33,137 232,342 2.19
Urban Interstate 11 0 0 0.00 Urban Freeway 12 0 0 0.00
Urban Other Arterial 14 100,920 175,157 1.74
Urban Minor Arterial 16 133,000 157,015 1.18
Urban Collector 17 43,926 44,308 1.01

Urban Local 19 a 

# 72,821 232,342 2.19

a Most local roads (Functional Classifications (FC) 9 and 19) were not included in th e TPO travel demand model. Travel on these roads in the travel demand model was approx imated by travel on centroid connectors, which are coded as facility type 99 in the model. Due to their similar purposes, VMT and emissions on FCs 9 and 19 are compared to those on facility type 99 in the TPO travel demand model. Ramps also were included in the travel demand model with a faci lity type of 7. Ramps are not included in the HPMS data. 

## Source: Chattanooga-Hamilton County/North Georgia LRTP 2035, Volume 2 – Draft Conformity Determination Report, Feb 2012



# Roadtype Classification The network link data was also cl assified by MOVES roadtype base d on functional classification. The mapping of FHWA highway functional system classifications to the appropriate MOVES roadtypes used for this modeling is listed in Table 2.1-3. Interstate and freeway ramps are functionally classified as local fac ilities in Georgia. Since these facilities operate with restricted access, the facility type definition variable (a unique variable in the highway network that defines the highway facilities based on their operation) was used to classify ramps as either rural or urban restricted facilities. Off-netw ork activity is calculated within the MOVES process based on the source type (vehicle) population and is not an input from the travel demand model data.

# Table 2.1-3 Listing of FHWA Highway F unctional Classifications Mapped to MOVES Road Types

FHWA Highway Functional System MOVES Road Type MOVES Value Rural interstate Rural restricted access 2 Rural other principal arterial Rural restricted access 2 Rural minor arterial Rural unrestricted access 3 Rural major collector Rural unrestricted access 3 Rural minor collector Rural unrestricted access 3 Rural local Rural unrestricted access 3 Urban interstate Urban restricted access 4 Urban other freeways Urban restricted access 4 Urban other principal arterial Urban unrestricted access 5 Urban minor arterial Urban unrestricted access 5 Urban collector Urban unrestricted access 5 Urban local Urban unrestricted access 5

Speed Bin Classification The network link hourly data was also stratifie d by speed bin. MOVES defines 16 "speed bins" which describe the average driving speed on a roadtype or highway network link. Table 2.1-4 lists the speed bins and ranges that were assigned to the network link data by hour.

Table 2.1-4 Listing of MOVES Speed Bins

Speed Bin Lower Range Upper Range
1 <= 2.4
2 2.5 7.4
3 7.5 12.4
4 12.5 17.4
5 17.5 22.4
6 22.5 27.4
7 27.5 32.4
8 32.5 37.4
9 37.5 42.4
10 42.5 47.4
11 47.5 52.4
12 52.5 57.4
13 57.5 62.4
14 62.5 67.4

# 9 Speed Bin Lower Range Upper Range
15 67.5 72.4
16 => 72.5



# 2.2 Development of MOVES Input Files

The mobile source emissions used for Walker-C atoosa analysis reflect all federal and state mobile source control rules, including federal tail pipe standards and gasoli ne sulfur an d volatility limits.

Interagency Consultation Section 93.110 of the Transportation Conformity Ru le directs that the interagency consultation process review latest planning assu mptions used as part of the c onformity analysis and that key assumptions be specified and incl uded in the draft documents a nd supporting materials used for the interagency consultation. A de tailed listing for the proce dures and planning assumptions used for the conformity analysis of the adjust ed 2035 LRTP and FY ’11-’14 TIP to be amended is outlined in the “Interagency Review of Pl anning Assumptions Used in Regional Emissions Analysis” Appendix B in the Draft Conformity Determination Report – Volume, Feb 2012. MOVES input data and assumptions were disc ussed as a regular agenda item during 2011 and were approved by the IAC in June 2011. These ar e the same assumptions that were used to produce the emissions for the SIP.

To prevent transportation conformity problems, the emissions used in preparation of emission inventories for SIP MVEB development and tr ansportation conformity analysis must be consistent. Interagency consulta tion helps to assure consistenc y between the two procedures. The MOVES input parameters for the Catoosa-Wa lker PM2.5 Maintenance Plan mobile source emissions modeling were established through intera gency consultation and ar e listed below:

1) Emission Factor Model: MOVE S2010a - Database: MOVES20100830

• Pollutants to be modeled: PM2.5 and NOx.

• Analysis Years

Attainment year (inventory): 2007 (datas ets were interpolated between 2002 and 2009 since 2007 model runs were not available) MVEB year 2025

• Scale: County: Temporal Aggregation: Annual

• Geographic Bounds: Hamilton County and Walker and Catoosa Counties

• Vehicles/Equipment All source types, gasoline and diesel

# 10 • Road types: All road types including off-network

• General Output:grams/miles/j ouls/distance traveled/population

• Source type Population:

Hamilton County: Hamilton County Ve hicle Registration Data w/MOVES National Default Vehicle Type Ratios (TDE C spreadsheet) unless TN registration data becomes available. Future year growth is estimated in the source type spreadsheet based on a growth in popul ation by county, Catoosa and Walker Counties: Vehicle Registration Data ( 2002) w/MOVES National Default Vehicle Type Ratios (See Exhibits 5 & 6)

• Vehicle Type VMT:

VMT: For 2007: HPMS VMT mileage data For 2025: TDM VMT mileage data

HPMS VTypeYear Catoosa County VMT from TDM. Walker County VMT from TDM and HPMS. Vehicle type splits from GA statewide 2008-2010 daily VMT from Travel Demand Model and MOVES defaults to determine split of cars and light trucks (20&30) (See Exhibit 4)

• I/M program: No program

• Fuel Supply and Formulation Tennessee: TDEC developed fo rmulations where available. Georgia: National defaults

• Meteorology Data: Local information obtained from NMIM for 2007 • Ramp Fraction: TDM Results (Urban 4%, Rural 2%) • Road Type Distribution: Combination of Catoosa and Walker county MOVES Road Type Distribution from TDM and Source T ype Distribution from GA HPMS Vehicle Type Splits and MOVES Default. 2007 HPMS and TDM for 2025.

• Age Distribution: MOVES National Defaults

• Average Speed Distribution: Combination of local and default data. Catoosa and

Walker county Distribution from TDM with EPA Converter Tool to Convert from VMT to VHT

MOVES MOVES20100830 is the latest data base version for EPA’s motor vehicle emissions model. MOVES requires a variety of input files. The MOVES input data files associated with travel behavior have been developed using the travel demand model da ta, Georgia vehicle

# 11 classification counts, and MOVES national defaults. Other data sources were used to develop the source type population data, meteor ology data, and fuel specifications.

Methodology to Develop MOVES Input Data The data files to run MOVES are entered via the County Data Importer. Sample input data are shown in Exhibits 1-3 for the years 2007 and 2025.



# 2.4 Nonattainment Area Em issions Analysis Summary

A factor was developed to annualize the weekda y emissions to include weekend activity. The factor was based on the MOVES defaults for DayV MTFractions which is being used as part of the MOVES inputs. The following formula was used:

Number of weekday equivalents in a year = 365*(5/7)+365*(2/7)*MOVES Urban Weekend Adjustment Factor(.7793) = 341.9809 (rounded to 342)

This is shown in cell D34 of tab "Impor t HPMS AADVMT and Factors" in the EPA AADVMTCalculator Excel workbook. The daily emissions are produced in grams and are converted to tons by dividing by 907,184.74. The daily emissions in tons are then multiplied by 342 to get annual emissions. Table 2.4-1 lists the results from the regional emissions analysis produced using the travel demand model plus the emissions for Walker off-model analysis in daily grams while Table 2.4-2 lists the total emissions in annual tons.

Table 2.4-1 Summary of Mobile Source Emissions fo r Catoosa-Walker Nonattainment Area (in Daily Grams)



# PM2.5 Nox

Year Total Total 2007 355.7340 11,783,513.0000 2025 95,378.0000 2,710,483.0000

Table 2.4-2 Summary of Mobile Source Emissions fo r Catoosa-Walker Nonattainment Area (in Annual Tons)



# PM2.5 Nox

Year Total Total 2007 134.1082 4,442.2723 2025 35.9566 1,,021.8263

# 12 A series of sensitivity tests were performe d for the future years 2025 and 2035. These tests assumed different growth scenario s in the nonattainment area and were used to develop safety margins. An alternative scenario was test ed where the growth doubled between 2012 and 2025 to account for uncertainty in the future growth projections and transportation improvements.13Exhibit 1: Sample 2007 RunSpecrunspec><DESCRIPTION><![CDATA[CHATT2007FORWALKER& CATOOSAINVENTORYMODEUSEMOVESDEFAULTS FORDAY ANDMONTHVMT FRACTIONRUN#2 - REVISED ANNUAL VMT FORWALKERTPO & CATOOSA<MODELSCALE VALUE="INV"/><MODELDOMAIN VALUE="SINGLE"/><GEOGRAPHICSELECTIONS><GEOGRAPHICSELECTION TYPE="COUNTY"KEY="13047"DESCRIPTION="GEORGIA - CATOOSACOUNTY"/></GEOGRAPHICSELECTIONS><TIMESPAN><YEAR KEY="2007"/><MONTH ID="7"/><DAY ID="5"/><BEGINHOUR ID="1"/><ENDHOUR ID="24"/><AGGREGATEBY KEY="HOUR"/></TIMESPAN><ONROADVEHICLESELECTIONS><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="2"FUELTYPEDESC="DIESELFUEL"SOURCETYPEID="62"SOURCETYPENAME="COMBINATIONLONG-HAULTRUCK"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="2"FUELTYPEDESC="DIESELFUEL"SOURCETYPEID="61"SOURCETYPENAME="COMBINATIONSHORT-HAULTRUCK"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="2"FUELTYPEDESC="DIESELFUEL"SOURCETYPEID="41"SOURCETYPENAME="INTERCITYBUS"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="2"FUELTYPEDESC="DIESELFUEL"SOURCETYPEID="32"SOURCETYPENAME="LIGHTCOMMERCIALTRUCK"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="2"FUELTYPEDESC="DIESELFUEL"SOURCETYPEID="54"SOURCETYPENAME="MOTORHOME"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="2"FUELTYPEDESC="DIESELFUEL"SOURCETYPEID="21"SOURCETYPENAME="PASSENGERCAR"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="2"FUELTYPEDESC="DIESELFUEL"SOURCETYPEID="31"SOURCETYPENAME="PASSENGERTRUCK"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="2"FUELTYPEDESC="DIESELFUEL"SOURCETYPEID="51"SOURCETYPENAME="REFUSETRUCK"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="2"FUELTYPEDESC="DIESELFUEL"SOURCETYPEID="43"SOURCETYPENAME="SCHOOLBUS"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="2"FUELTYPEDESC="DIESELFUEL"SOURCETYPEID="53"SOURCETYPENAME="SINGLEUNITLONG-HAULTRUCK"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="2"FUELTYPEDESC="DIESELFUEL"SOURCETYPEID="52"SOURCETYPENAME="SINGLEUNITSHORT-HAULTRUCK"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="2"FUELTYPEDESC="DIESELFUEL"SOURCETYPEID="42"SOURCETYPENAME="TRANSITBUS"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="1"FUELTYPEDESC="GASOLINE"SOURCETYPEID="61"SOURCETYPENAME="COMBINATIONSHORT-HAULTRUCK"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="1"FUELTYPEDESC="GASOLINE"SOURCETYPEID="32"SOURCETYPENAME="LIGHTCOMMERCIALTRUCK"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="1"FUELTYPEDESC="GASOLINE"SOURCETYPEID="54"SOURCETYPENAME="MOTORHOME"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="1"FUELTYPEDESC="GASOLINE"SOURCETYPEID="11"SOURCETYPENAME="MOTORCYCLE"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="1"FUELTYPEDESC="GASOLINE"SOURCETYPEID="21"SOURCETYPENAME="PASSENGERCAR"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="1"FUELTYPEDESC="GASOLINE"SOURCETYPEID="31"SOURCETYPENAME="PASSENGERTRUCK"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="1"FUELTYPEDESC="GASOLINE"SOURCETYPEID="51"SOURCETYPENAME="REFUSETRUCK"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="1"FUELTYPEDESC="GASOLINE"SOURCETYPEID="43"SOURCETYPENAME="SCHOOLBUS"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="1"FUELTYPEDESC="GASOLINE"SOURCETYPEID="53"SOURCETYPENAME="SINGLEUNITLONG-HAULTRUCK"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="1"FUELTYPEDESC="GASOLINE"SOURCETYPEID="52"SOURCETYPENAME="SINGLEUNITSHORT-HAULTRUCK"/><ONROADVEHICLESELECTION FUELTYPEID="1"FUELTYPEDESC="GASOLINE"SOURCETYPEID="42"SOURCETYPENAME="TRANSITBUS"/></ONROADVEHICLESELECTIONS><OFFROADVEHICLESELECTIONS>14</OFFROADVEHICLESELECTIONS><OFFROADVEHICLESCCS></OFFROADVEHICLESCCS><ROADTYPES><ROADTYPE ROADTYPEID="1"ROADTYPENAME="OFF-NETWORK"/><ROADTYPE ROADTYPEID="2"ROADTYPENAME="RURALRESTRICTEDACCESS"/><ROADTYPE ROADTYPEID="3"ROADTYPENAME="RURALUNRESTRICTEDACCESS"/><ROADTYPE ROADTYPEID="4"ROADTYPENAME="URBANRESTRICTEDACCESS"/><ROADTYPE ROADTYPEID="5"ROADTYPENAME="URBANUNRESTRICTEDACCESS"/></ROADTYPES><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATIONS><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="3"POLLUTANTNAME="OXIDES OFNITROGEN(NOX)"PROCESSKEY="1"PROCESSNAME="RUNNINGEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="3"POLLUTANTNAME="OXIDES OFNITROGEN(NOX)"PROCESSKEY="2"PROCESSNAME="STARTEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="3"POLLUTANTNAME="OXIDES OFNITROGEN(NOX)"PROCESSKEY="15"PROCESSNAME="CRANKCASERUNNINGEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="3"POLLUTANTNAME="OXIDES OFNITROGEN(NOX)"PROCESSKEY="16"PROCESSNAME="CRANKCASESTARTEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="3"POLLUTANTNAME="OXIDES OFNITROGEN(NOX)"PROCESSKEY="17"PROCESSNAME="CRANKCASEEXTENDEDIDLEEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="3"POLLUTANTNAME="OXIDES OFNITROGEN(NOX)"PROCESSKEY="90"PROCESSNAME="EXTENDEDIDLEEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="110"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYEXHAUSTPM2.5 - TOTAL"PROCESSKEY="1"PROCESSNAME="RUNNINGEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="110"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYEXHAUSTPM2.5 - TOTAL"PROCESSKEY="2"PROCESSNAME="STARTEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="110"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYEXHAUSTPM2.5 - TOTAL"PROCESSKEY="15"PROCESSNAME="CRANKCASERUNNINGEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="110"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYEXHAUSTPM2.5 - TOTAL"PROCESSKEY="16"PROCESSNAME="CRANKCASESTARTEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="110"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYEXHAUSTPM2.5 - TOTAL"PROCESSKEY="17"PROCESSNAME="CRANKCASEEXTENDEDIDLEEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="110"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYEXHAUSTPM2.5 - TOTAL"PROCESSKEY="90"PROCESSNAME="EXTENDEDIDLEEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="116"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - BRAKEWEARPARTICULATE"PROCESSKEY="9"PROCESSNAME="BRAKEWEAR"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="112"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - ELEMENTALCARBON"PROCESSKEY="1"PROCESSNAME="RUNNINGEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="112"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - ELEMENTALCARBON"PROCESSKEY="2"PROCESSNAME="STARTEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="112"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - ELEMENTALCARBON"PROCESSKEY="15"PROCESSNAME="CRANKCASERUNNINGEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="112"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - ELEMENTALCARBON"PROCESSKEY="16"PROCESSNAME="CRANKCASESTARTEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="112"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - ELEMENTALCARBON"PROCESSKEY="17"PROCESSNAME="CRANKCASEEXTENDEDIDLEEXHAUST"/>15<POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="112"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - ELEMENTALCARBON"PROCESSKEY="90"PROCESSNAME="EXTENDEDIDLEEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="111"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - ORGANICCARBON"PROCESSKEY="1"PROCESSNAME="RUNNINGEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="111"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - ORGANICCARBON"PROCESSKEY="2"PROCESSNAME="STARTEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="111"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - ORGANICCARBON"PROCESSKEY="15"PROCESSNAME="CRANKCASERUNNINGEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="111"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - ORGANICCARBON"PROCESSKEY="16"PROCESSNAME="CRANKCASESTARTEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="111"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - ORGANICCARBON"PROCESSKEY="17"PROCESSNAME="CRANKCASEEXTENDEDIDLEEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="111"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - ORGANICCARBON"PROCESSKEY="90"PROCESSNAME="EXTENDEDIDLEEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="115"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - SULFATEPARTICULATE"PROCESSKEY="1"PROCESSNAME="RUNNINGEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="115"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - SULFATEPARTICULATE"PROCESSKEY="2"PROCESSNAME="STARTEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="115"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - SULFATEPARTICULATE"PROCESSKEY="15"PROCESSNAME="CRANKCASERUNNINGEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="115"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - SULFATEPARTICULATE"PROCESSKEY="16"PROCESSNAME="CRANKCASESTARTEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="115"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - SULFATEPARTICULATE"PROCESSKEY="17"PROCESSNAME="CRANKCASEEXTENDEDIDLEEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="115"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - SULFATEPARTICULATE"PROCESSKEY="90"PROCESSNAME="EXTENDEDIDLEEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="117"POLLUTANTNAME="PRIMARYPM2.5 - TIREWEARPARTICULATE"PROCESSKEY="10"PROCESSNAME="TIREWEAR"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="31"POLLUTANTNAME="SULFURDIOXIDE(SO2)"PROCESSKEY="1"PROCESSNAME="RUNNINGEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="31"POLLUTANTNAME="SULFURDIOXIDE(SO2)"PROCESSKEY="2"PROCESSNAME="STARTEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="31"POLLUTANTNAME="SULFURDIOXIDE(SO2)"PROCESSKEY="15"PROCESSNAME="CRANKCASERUNNINGEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="31"POLLUTANTNAME="SULFURDIOXIDE(SO2)"PROCESSKEY="16"PROCESSNAME="CRANKCASESTARTEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="31"POLLUTANTNAME="SULFURDIOXIDE(SO2)"PROCESSKEY="17"PROCESSNAME="CRANKCASEEXTENDEDIDLEEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="31"POLLUTANTNAME="SULFURDIOXIDE(SO2)"PROCESSKEY="90"PROCESSNAME="EXTENDEDIDLEEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="91"POLLUTANTNAME="TOTALENERGYCONSUMPTION"PROCESSKEY="1"PROCESSNAME="RUNNINGEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="91"POLLUTANTNAME="TOTALENERGYCONSUMPTION"PROCESSKEY="2"PROCESSNAME="STARTEXHAUST"/><POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATION POLLUTANTKEY="91"POLLUTANTNAME="TOTALENERGYCONSUMPTION"PROCESSKEY="90"PROCESSNAME="EXTENDEDIDLEEXHAUST"/></POLLUTANTPROCESSASSOCIATIONS><DATABASESELECTIONS>16</DATABASESELECTIONS><INTERNALCONTROLSTRATEGIES><INTERNALCONTROLSTRATEGYCLASSNAME="GOV.EPA.OTAQ.MOVES.MASTER.IMPLEMENTATION.GHG.INTERNALCONTROLSTRATEGIES.RATEOFPROGRESS.RATEOFPROGRESSSTRATEGY"><![CDATA[USEPARAMETERSNO]]></INTERNALCONTROLSTRATEGY></INTERNALCONTROLSTRATEGIES><INPUTDATABASE SERVERNAME=""DATABASENAME=""DESCRIPTION=""/><UNCERTAINTYPARAMETERS UNCERTAINTYMODEENABLED="FALSE"NUMBEROFRUNSPERSIMULATION="0"NUMBEROFSIMULATIONS="0"/><GEOGRAPHICOUTPUTDETAIL DESCRIPTION="COUNTY"/><OUTPUTEMISSIONSBREAKDOWNSELECTION><MODELYEAR SELECTED="FALSE"/><FUELTYPE SELECTED="FALSE"/><EMISSIONPROCESS SELECTED="TRUE"/><ONROADOFFROAD SELECTED="TRUE"/><ROADTYPE SELECTED="TRUE"/><SOURCEUSETYPE SELECTED="FALSE"/><MOVESVEHICLETYPE SELECTED="FALSE"/><ONROADSCC SELECTED="FALSE"/><OFFROADSCC SELECTED="FALSE"/><ESTIMATEUNCERTAINTY SELECTED="FALSE"NUMBEROFITERATIONS="2"KEEPSAMPLEDDATA="FALSE"KEEPITERATIONS="FALSE"/><SECTOR SELECTED="FALSE"/><ENGTECHID SELECTED="FALSE"/><HPCLASS SELECTED="FALSE"/></OUTPUTEMISSIONSBREAKDOWNSELECTION><OUTPUTDATABASE SERVERNAME=""DATABASENAME="CHATT2007_PM25_GA_INVENTORY_OUTPUT4"DESCRIPTION=""/><OUTPUTTIMESTEP VALUE="HOUR"/><OUTPUTVMTDATA VALUE="TRUE"/><OUTPUTSHO VALUE="FALSE"/><OUTPUTSH VALUE="FALSE"/><OUTPUTSHP VALUE="FALSE"/><OUTPUTSHIDLING VALUE="FALSE"/><OUTPUTSTARTS VALUE="FALSE"/><OUTPUTPOPULATION VALUE="TRUE"/><SCALEINPUTDATABASE SERVERNAME="LOCALHOST"DATABASENAME="CHATT2007_PM25_INVENTORY_INPUT4"DESCRIPTION=""/><PMSIZE VALUE="0"/><OUTPUTFACTORS><TIMEFACTORS SELECTED="TRUE"UNITS="HOURS"/><DISTANCEFACTORS SELECTED="TRUE"UNITS="MILES"/><MASSFACTORS SELECTED="TRUE"UNITS="GRAMS"ENERGYUNITS="JOULES"/></OUTPUTFACTORS><SAVEDATA></SAVEDATA>17<DONOTEXECUTE></DONOTEXECUTE><GENERATORDATABASE SHOULDSAVE="FALSE"SERVERNAME=""DATABASENAME=""DESCRIPTION=""/><DONOTPERFORMFINALAGGREGATION SELECTED="FALSE"/><LOOKUPTABLEFLAGS SCENARIOID="2007"TRUNCATEOUTPUT="FALSE"TRUNCATEACTIVITY="FALSE"/></RUNSPEC>18

# 19 

# Exhibit 2: MOVES Input Data for Catoosa-Walker Counties Emissions for PM2.5 SIP Budget – 2007

Source Type Population yearID sourceTypeID sourceTypePopulation 2007 11 4,262 2007 21 65,819 2007 31 43,829 2007 32 14,643 2007 41 63 2007 42 37 2007 43 429 2007 51 45 2007 52 2,752 2007 53 310 2007 54 620 2007 61 654 2007 62 716

Ramp Fraction roadTypeID RampFraction
2 0.02
4 0.04

Sample Average Speed Distribution sourceTypeid roadTypeID hourDayID AvgSpeedBinID AvgSpeedFraction
11 2 12 1 0.0000000
11 2 12 2 0.0000000
11 2 12 3 0.0000000
11 2 12 4 0.0000000
11 2 12 5 0.0000000
11 2 12 6 0.0000000
11 2 12 7 0.0209484
11 2 12 8 0.0028679
11 2 12 9 0.0000000
11 2 12 10 0.0000000
11 2 12 11 0.0000000

# 20 sourceTypeid roadTypeID hourDayID AvgSpeedBinID AvgSpeedFraction
11 2 12 12 0.0000000
11 2 12 13 0.3871103
11 2 12 14 0.0587978
11 2 12 15 0.5302755
11 2 12 16 0.0000000
11 2 15 1 0.0000000
11 2 15 2 0.0000000
11 2 15 3 0.0000000
11 2 15 4 0.0000000
11 2 15 5 0.0000000
11 2 15 6 0.0000000
11 2 15 7 0.0209484
11 2 15 8 0.0028679
11 2 15 9 0.0000000
11 2 15 10 0.0000000
11 2 15 11 0.0000000
11 2 15 12 0.0000000
11 2 15 13 0.3871103
11 2 15 14 0.0587978
11 2 15 15 0.5302755
11 2 15 16 0.0000000
11 2 12 1 0.0000000
11 2 12 2 0.0000000
11 2 12 3 0.0000000
11 2 12 4 0.0000000
11 2 12 5 0.0000000
11 2 12 6 0.0000000
11 2 12 7 0.0209484 Note: File contains 39,937 records and is available on request



# Road Type Distribution sourceTypeid roadTypeID RoadTypeVMTFraction
11 1 0.00000
11 2 0.15973
11 3 0.23823
11 4 0.23509
11 5 0.36695
21 1 0.00000
21 2 0.12422
21 3 0.19961

# 21 sourceTypeid roadTypeID RoadTypeVMTFraction
21 4 0.25998
21 5 0.41619
31 1 0.00000
31 2 0.12422
31 3 0.19961
31 4 0.25998
31 5 0.41619
32 1 0.00000
32 2 0.12422
32 3 0.19961
32 4 0.25998
32 5 0.41619
41 1 0.00000
41 2 0.20661
41 3 0.20093
41 4 0.27506
41 5 0.31740
42 1 0.00000
42 2 0.20661
42 3 0.20093
42 4 0.27506
42 5 0.31740
43 1 0.00000
43 2 0.20661
43 3 0.20093
43 4 0.27506
43 5 0.31740
51 1 0.00000
51 2 0.16544
51 3 0.24649
51 4 0.24568
51 5 0.34240
52 1 0.00000
52 2 0.16544
52 3 0.24648
52 4 0.24568
52 5 0.34240
53 1 0.00000
53 2 0.16544
53 3 0.24648

# 22 sourceTypeid roadTypeID RoadTypeVMTFraction
53 4 0.24568
53 5 0.34240
54 1 0.00000
54 2 0.16544
54 3 0.24649
54 4 0.24568

Source Type Population yearID sourceTypeID sourceTypePopulation 2007 11 4,262 2007 21 65,819 2007 31 43,829 2007 32 14,643 2007 41 63 2007 42 37 2007 43 429 2007 51 45 2007 52 2,752 2007 53 310 2007 54 620 2007 61 654 2007 62 716

Vehicle Type VMT – HPMSVtypeYear Worksheet HPMSVtypeID yearID HPMSBaseYearVMT baseYearOffNetVMT 10 2007 4012462.16 0 20 2007 692988088.8 0 30 2007 460943431.7 0 40 2007 6902542.93 0 50 2007 43556058.17 0 60 2007 91815721.94 0

Vehicle Type VMT – Sample HourVMTFraction sourceTypeid roadTypeID dayID hourID HourVMTFraction
11 1 5 1 0.009862
11 1 5 2 0.006272
11 1 5 3 0.005058
11 1 5 4 0.004667
11 1 5 5 0.006995
11 1 5 6 0.018494

# 23 sourceTypeid roadTypeID dayID hourID HourVMTFraction
11 1 5 7 0.045957
11 1 5 8 0.069644
11 1 5 9 0.060828
11 1 5 10 0.050286
11 1 5 11 0.049935
11 1 5 12 0.054365
11 1 5 13 0.057646
11 1 5 14 0.058032
11 1 5 15 0.062255
11 1 5 16 0.071005
11 1 5 17 0.076973
11 1 5 18 0.077432
11 1 5 19 0.059783
11 1 5 20 0.044392
11 1 5 21 0.035446
11 1 5 22 0.031824
11 1 5 23 0.024942
11 1 5 24 0.017907
11 2 5 1 0.010774
11 2 5 2 0.007644
11 2 5 3 0.006546
11 2 5 4 0.006635
11 2 5 5 0.00954
11 2 5 6 0.020055
11 2 5 7 0.04103
11 2 5 8 0.057972
11 2 5 9 0.053471
11 2 5 10 0.052548
11 2 5 11 0.055061
11 2 5 12 0.057674
11 2 5 13 0.059143
11 2 5 14 0.060802
11 2 5 15 0.065299
11 2 5 16 0.072608
11 2 5 17 0.077382
11 2 5 18 0.075482
11 2 5 19 0.058706
11 2 5 20 0.043986
11 2 5 21 0.035731
11 2 5 22 0.030743

# 24 sourceTypeid roadTypeID dayID hourID HourVMTFraction
11 2 5 23 0.023852
11 2 5 24 0.017318
11 3 5 1 0.010774
11 3 5 2 0.007644
11 3 5 3 0.006546
11 3 5 4 0.006635
11 3 5 5 0.00954
11 3 5 6 0.020055
11 3 5 7 0.04103
11 3 5 8 0.057972
11 3 5 9 0.053471
11 3 5 10 0.052548
11 3 5 11 0.055061
11 3 5 12 0.057674
11 3 5 13 0.059143
11 3 5 14 0.060802
11 3 5 15 0.065299
11 3 5 16 0.072608
11 3 5 17 0.077382
11 3 5 18 0.075482
11 3 5 19 0.058706
11 3 5 20 0.043986
11 3 5 21 0.035731
11 3 5 22 0.030743
11 3 5 23 0.023852
11 3 5 24 0.017318 Note: File contains 1,561 records and is available on request



# Meteorology Data monthID zoneID HourID temperature relHumidity 7 130470 1 53.93 73.43 7 130470 2 52.80 75.28 7 130470 3 51.71 76.85 7 130470 4 50.73 78.33 7 130470 5 49.93 79.39 7 130470 6 49.24 80.40 7 130470 7 49.00 80.68 7 130470 8 50.22 79.09 7 130470 9 53.50 73.91

# 25 monthID zoneID HourID temperature relHumidity 7 130470 10 58.03 66.56 7 130470 11 62.50 59.15 7 130470 12 66.32 53.19 7 130470 13 69.32 48.73 7 130470 14 71.45 45.62 7 130470 15 72.92 43.49 7 130470 16 73.47 42.51 7 130470 17 73.22 42.53 7 130470 18 71.82 44.20 7 130470 19 68.82 48.39 7 130470 20 65.03 54.30 7 130470 21 61.50 60.33 7 130470 22 58.93 64.98 7 130470 23 57.02 68.30 7 130470 24 55.37 71.11

Age Distribution - Sample

sourceTypeID yearID ageID ageFraction 21 2007 0 0.0519 21 2007 1 0.0579 21 2007 2 0.0645 21 2007 3 0.0658 21 2007 4 0.0642 21 2007 5 0.0619 21 2007 6 0.0613 21 2007 7 0.0637 21 2007 8 0.0642 21 2007 9 0.0651 21 2007 10 0.0595 21 2007 11 0.0531 21 2007 12 0.0492 21 2007 13 0.0433 21 2007 14 0.0365 21 2007 15 0.0309 21 2007 16 0.0234 21 2007 17 0.0177 21 2007 18 0.0137 21 2007 19 0.0121 21 2007 20 0.0098 21 2007 21 0.0081 21 2007 22 0.0059 21 2007 23 0.0050

# 26 sourceTypeID yearID ageID ageFraction 21 2007 24 0.0037 21 2007 25 0.0026 21 2007 26 0.0017 21 2007 27 0.0011 21 2007 28 0.0009 21 2007 29 0.0007 21 2007 30 0.0008 31 2007 0 0.0400 31 2007 1 0.0501 31 2007 2 0.0739 31 2007 3 0.0747 31 2007 4 0.0783 31 2007 5 0.0771 31 2007 6 0.0714 31 2007 7 0.0671 31 2007 8 0.0641 31 2007 9 0.0588 31 2007 10 0.0511 31 2007 11 0.0435 31 2007 12 0.0379 31 2007 13 0.0337 31 2007 14 0.0286 31 2007 15 0.0259 31 2007 16 0.0207 31 2007 17 0.0161 31 2007 18 0.0128 31 2007 19 0.0126 31 2007 20 0.0113 31 2007 21 0.0104 31 2007 22 0.0089 31 2007 23 0.0078 31 2007 24 0.0066 31 2007 25 0.0050 31 2007 26 0.0034 31 2007 27 0.0025 31 2007 28 0.0019 31 2007 29 0.0019 31 2007 30 0.0020 Note: File contains 373 records and is available on request

# 27 

# Exhibit 3: MOVES Input Data for Catoosa-Walker Counties Emissions for PM2.5 SIP Budget – 2025

roadTypeID RampFraction
2 0.02
4 0.04

Sample Average Speed Distribution

sourceTypeid roadTypeID hourDayID AvgSpeedBinID AvgSpeedFraction
11 2 12 1 0.0000000
11 2 12 2 0.0000000
11 2 12 3 0.0000000
11 2 12 4 0.0000000
11 2 12 5 0.0000000
11 2 12 6 0.0000000
11 2 12 7 0.0225002
11 2 12 8 0.0033240
11 2 12 9 0.0000000
11 2 12 10 0.0000000
11 2 12 11 0.0000000
11 2 12 12 0.0000000
11 2 12 13 0.3858164
11 2 12 14 0.0579704
11 2 12 15 0.5303889
11 2 12 16 0.0000000
11 2 15 1 0.0000000
11 2 15 2 0.0000000
11 2 15 3 0.0000000
11 2 15 4 0.0000000
11 2 15 5 0.0000000
11 2 15 6 0.0000000
11 2 15 7 0.0225002
11 2 15 8 0.0033240
11 2 15 9 0.0000000
11 2 15 10 0.0000000
11 2 15 11 0.0000000
11 2 15 12 0.0000000
11 2 15 13 0.3858164
11 2 15 14 0.0579704

# 28 sourceTypeid roadTypeID hourDayID AvgSpeedBinID AvgSpeedFraction
11 2 15 15 0.5303889
11 2 15 16 0.0000000
11 2 22 1 0.0000000
11 2 22 2 0.0000000
11 2 22 3 0.0000000
11 2 22 4 0.0000000
11 2 22 5 0.0000000
11 2 22 6 0.0000000
11 2 22 7 0.0225002 Note: File contains 39,937 records and is available on request



# Road Type Distribution

sourceTypeid roadTypeID RoadTypeVMTFraction
11 1 0.00%
11 2 15.27%
11 3 25.86%
11 4 22.96%
11 5 35.91%
21 1 0.00%
21 2 11.91%
21 3 21.74%
21 4 25.48%
21 5 40.87%
31 1 0.00%
31 2 11.91%
31 3 21.74%
31 4 25.48%
31 5 40.87%
32 1 0.00%
32 2 11.91%
32 3 21.74%
32 4 25.48%
32 5 40.87%
41 1 0.00%
41 2 19.85%
41 3 21.92%
41 4 27.00%
41 5 31.22%
42 1 0.00%
42 2 19.85%
42 3 21.92%

# 29 sourceTypeid roadTypeID RoadTypeVMTFraction
42 4 27.00%
42 5 31.22%
43 1 0.00%
43 2 19.85%
43 3 21.92%
43 4 27.00%
43 5 31.22%
51 1 0.00%
51 2 15.80%
51 3 26.74%
51 4 23.98%
51 5 33.48%
52 1 0.00%
52 2 15.80%
52 3 26.74%
52 4 23.98%
52 5 33.48%
53 1 0.00%
53 2 15.80%
53 3 26.74%
53 4 23.98%
53 5 33.48%
54 1 0.00%
54 2 15.80%
54 3 26.74%
54 4 23.98%
54 5 33.48%
61 1 0.00%
61 2 45.45%
61 3 22.83%
61 4 23.70%
61 5 8.03%
62 1 0.00%
62 2 45.45%
62 3 22.83%
62 4 23.70%
62 5 8.03%

# 30 Source Type Population

yearID sourceTypeID sourceTypePopulation 2025 11 4,537 2025 21 49,753 2025 31 26,628 2025 32 8,896 2025 41 64 2025 42 32 2025 43 427 2025 51 17 2025 52 2,521 2025 53 404 2025 54 603 2025 61 337 2025 62 494

Vehicle Type VMT – HPMSVtypeYear Worksheet

HPMSVtypeID yearID HPMSBa seYearVMT baseYearOffNetVMT 10 2025 192,103.84 0.00 20 2025 43,182,163.15 0.00 30 2025 21,269,282.28 0.00 40 2025 442,422.46 0.00 50 2025 2,245,866.77 0.00 60 2025 4,764,471.61 0.00

Meteorology Data

monthID zoneID HourID temperature relHumidity 4 130470 1 53.93 73.43 4 130470 2 52.80 75.28 4 130470 3 51.71 76.85 4 130470 4 50.73 78.33 4 130470 5 49.93 79.39 4 130470 6 49.24 80.40 4 130470 7 49.00 80.68 4 130470 8 50.22 79.09 4 130470 9 53.50 73.91 4 130470 10 58.03 66.56 4 130470 11 62.50 59.15 4 130470 12 66.32 53.19 4 130470 13 69.32 48.73 4 130470 14 71.45 45.62 4 130470 15 72.92 43.49

# 31 monthID zoneID HourID temperature relHumidity 4 130470 16 73.47 42.51 4 130470 17 73.22 42.53 4 130470 18 71.82 44.20 4 130470 19 68.82 48.39 4 130470 20 65.03 54.30 4 130470 21 61.50 60.33 4 130470 22 58.93 64.98 4 130470 23 57.02 68.30 4 130470 24 55.37 71.11

Age Distribution - Sample

sourceTypeID yearID ageID ageFraction 21 2025 0 0.0786 21 2025 1 0.0768 21 2025 2 0.0752 21 2025 3 0.0736 21 2025 4 0.0726 21 2025 5 0.0716 21 2025 6 0.0688 21 2025 7 0.0656 21 2025 8 0.0620 21 2025 9 0.0601 21 2025 10 0.0576 21 2025 11 0.0499 21 2025 12 0.0431 21 2025 13 0.0346 21 2025 14 0.0264 21 2025 15 0.0189 21 2025 16 0.0126 21 2025 17 0.0111 21 2025 18 0.0097 21 2025 19 0.0077 21 2025 20 0.0058 21 2025 21 0.0043 21 2025 22 0.0033 21 2025 23 0.0027 21 2025 24 0.0021 21 2025 25 0.0017 21 2025 26 0.0012 21 2025 27 0.0008 21 2025 28 0.0006 21 2025 29 0.0005 21 2025 30 0.0005

# 32 sourceTypeID yearID ageID ageFraction 31 2025 0 0.0583 31 2025 1 0.0568 31 2025 2 0.0555 31 2025 3 0.0544 31 2025 4 0.0540 31 2025 5 0.0534 31 2025 6 0.0528 31 2025 7 0.0518 31 2025 8 0.0508 31 2025 9 0.0493 31 2025 10 0.0481 31 2025 11 0.0459 31 2025 12 0.0426 31 2025 13 0.0381 31 2025 14 0.0340 31 2025 15 0.0284 31 2025 16 0.0180 31 2025 17 0.0205 31 2025 18 0.0273 31 2025 19 0.0249 31 2025 20 0.0236 31 2025 21 0.0211 31 2025 22 0.0178 31 2025 23 0.0153 31 2025 24 0.0134 31 2025 25 0.0113 31 2025 26 0.0091 31 2025 27 0.0072 31 2025 28 0.0059 31 2025 29 0.0049 31 2025 30 0.0056 Note: File contains 373 records and is available on request

# 33 

# Exhibit 4: Vehicle Classification Counts

Weekday vehicle classification counts from GDOT were obtained for the years 2008 through 2010 for the entire state of Georgia. The counts for the 13 county nona ttainment Atlanta MPO area were eliminated from the calculations. The vehicle classification counts collected were stratified based on the FHWA vehicle classifications. The counts were then summarized into the 6 HPMS vehicle type categories based the FHWA vehicle classifications. The percent by vehicle type by road type based on functional classification was calculated by year and then averaged for the three years. Table1 list the counts by year

. Table 2 lists the final factors of VMT by vehicle type by road type ba sed on the counts. These values we re used to weight the VMT from the travel demand model by road type by ve hicle type for input into AADVMT worksheet.34Table 1GDOT Vehicle Classification Counts2008StatewideminusARC13CountyMPOAreaRuralRestrictedAccess(FC=1)RuralUnrestrictedAccess(FC=2‐7)UrbanRestrictedAccess(FC=11‐12)UrbanUnrestrictedAccess(FC=14‐19)RuralRestrictedAccess(FC=1)RuralUnrestrictedAccess(FC=2‐7)UrbanRestrictedAccess(FC=11‐12)UrbanUnrestrictedAccess(FC=14‐19)10 Motorcycles Class1 415,477 276,557 703,762 273,810 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3%20 PassengerCars Class2 78,146,859 45,813,738 134,370,835 70,721,022 55.0% 64.5% 65.4% 74.5%30 Other2axle‐4tirevehicles Class3 23,048,320 16,181,222 37,536,241 19,040,830 16.2% 22.8% 18.3% 20.1%40 Buses Class4 1,348,962 412,115 1,464,298 372,563 0.9% 0.6% 0.7% 0.4%50 SingleUnitTrucks Class5‐7 5,177,758 3,054,596 6,643,091 2,735,728 3.6% 4.3% 3.2% 2.9%60 CombinationTrucks Class8‐13 33,983,937 5,320,479 24,746,197 1,724,995 23.9% 7.5% 12.0% 1.8%142,121,313 71,058,707 205,464,424 94,868,948 100% 100% 100% 100%2009StatewideminusARC13CountyMPOAreaRuralRestrictedAccess(FC=1)RuralUnrestrictedAccess(FC=2‐7)UrbanRestrictedAccess(FC=11‐12)UrbanUnrestrictedAccess(FC=14‐19)RuralRestrictedAccess(FC=1)RuralUnrestrictedAccess(FC=2‐7)UrbanRestrictedAccess(FC=11‐12)UrbanUnrestrictedAccess(FC=14‐19)10 Motorcycles Class1 543,569 380,461 552,296 334,712 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%20 PassengerCars Class2 99,860,922 74,033,369 123,617,071 92,974,090 57.6% 65.0% 66.5% 73.4%30 Other2axle‐4tirevehicles Class3 29,013,174 25,257,242 35,153,989 26,580,997 16.7% 22.2% 18.9% 21.0%40 Buses Class4 1,445,231 636,498 1,260,763 480,718 0.8% 0.6% 0.7% 0.4%50 SingleUnitTrucks Class5‐7 5,931,816 4,577,695 5,977,298 3,774,967 3.4% 4.0% 3.2% 3.0%60 CombinationTrucks Class8‐13 36,572,792 9,058,107 19,363,526 2,566,080 21.1% 7.9% 10.4% 2.0%173,367,504 113,943,372 185,924,943 126,711,564 100% 100% 100% 100%Code HPMSVehicleTypeFHWAVehClassWeekdayCounts PercentbyRoadTypeWeekdayCounts PercentbyRoadTypeCode HPMSVehicleTypeFHWAVehClass35Table 1GDOT Vehicle Classification Counts (continued)2010StatewideminusARC13CountyMPOAreaRuralRestrictedAccess(FC=1)RuralUnrestrictedAccess(FC=2‐7)UrbanRestrictedAccess(FC=11‐12)UrbanUnrestrictedAccess(FC=14‐19)RuralRestrictedAccess(FC=1)RuralUnrestrictedAccess(FC=2‐7)UrbanRestrictedAccess(FC=11‐12)UrbanUnrestrictedAccess(FC=14‐19)10 Motorcycles Class1 531,781 465,637 767,240 413,477 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%20 PassengerCars Class2 115,785,383 90,783,273 163,511,794 103,655,999 58.1% 64.4% 68.1% 73.3%30 Other2axle‐4tirevehicles Class3 33,029,619 31,077,060 45,607,435 29,985,205 16.6% 22.1% 19.0% 21.2%40 Buses Class4 1,648,242 837,435 1,403,597 520,635 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.4%50 SingleUnitTrucks Class5‐7 6,527,272 5,527,587 7,477,099 4,162,187 3.3% 3.9% 3.1% 2.9%60 CombinationTrucks Class8‐13 41,728,831 12,222,357 21,492,738 2,746,397 20.9% 8.7% 8.9% 1.9%Total 199,251,128 140,913,349 240,259,903 141,483,900 100% 100% 100% 100%2008‐2010StatewideminusARC13CountyMPOAreaSummaryRuralRestrictedAccess(FC=1)RuralUnrestrictedAccess(FC=2‐7)UrbanRestrictedAccess(FC=11‐12)UrbanUnrestrictedAccess(FC=14‐19)RuralRestrictedAccess(FC=1)RuralUnrestrictedAccess(FC=2‐7)UrbanRestrictedAccess(FC=11‐12)UrbanUnrestrictedAccess(FC=14‐19)10 Motorcycles Class1 1,490,827 1,122,655 2,023,298 1,021,999 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%20 PassengerCars Class2 293,793,164 210,630,380 421,499,700 267,351,111 57.7% 67.7% 73.5% 76.6%30 Other2axle‐4tirevehicles Class3 85,091,113 72,515,524 118,297,665 75,607,032 16.7% 20.7% 16.5% 18.6%40 Buses Class4 4,442,435 1,886,048 4,128,658 1,373,916 0.9% 0.6% 0.7% 0.5%50 SingleUnitTrucks Class5‐7 17,636,846 13,159,878 20,097,488 10,672,882 3.4% 3.8% 3.0% 2.7%60 CombinationTrucks Class8‐13 112,285,560 26,600,943 65,602,461 7,037,472 21.0% 6.9% 6.2% 1.4%Total 514,739,945 325,915,428 631,649,270 363,064,412 100% 100% 100% 100%Code HPMSVehicleTypeFHWAVehClassWeekdayCounts PercentbyRoadTypeCode HPMSVehicleTypeFHWAVehClassWeekdayCounts PercentbyRoadType36

# Table 2 Final Factors for VMT by Vehicle Type by Road Type

Code HPMS Vehicle Type FHWA Veh Class Rural Restricted Access Factor Rural Unrestricted Access Factor Urban Restricted Access Factor Urban Unrestricted Access Factor 10 Motorcycles Class 1 0.002909 0.003512 0.003196 0.002817 20 Passenger Cars Class 2 0.568990 0.646239 0.666475 0.737280

30 Other 2 axle-4 tire vehicles Class 3 0.165098 0.223307 0.187197 0.207472
40 Buses Class 4 0.008700 0.005776 0.006583 0.003800

50 Single Unit Trucks Class 5- 7 0.034469 0.040796 0.031867 0.029349

60 Combination Trucks Class 8- 13 0.219834 0.080369 0.104681 0.019282
Total 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000

Since the vehicle classification counts are coll ected using counters that do not adequately distinguish between passenger cars and SUVs, the MOVES defaults for vehicle types 20 and 30 by road type were used to redistribute the VMT. The MOVES Defaults are listed in Table 3.



# Table 3 MOVES Defaults Percent VMT by Vehicle Type

Vehicle Type

Year 10 20 30 40 50 60
1999 0.00390 0.58310 0.33480 0.00280 0.02610 0.04920

2000 0.00380 0.58250 0.33600 0.00280 0.02570 0.04920
2001 0.00340 0.58240 0.33740 0.00250 0.02590 0.04850

2002 0.00330 0.58110 0.33850 0.00240 0.02660 0.04820

2003 0.00330 0.57880 0.34060 0.00230 0.02690 0.04810
2004 0.00340 0.57260 0.34600 0.00220 0.02730 0.04850
2005 0.00360 0.57060 0.34770 0.00220 0.02710 0.04870

2006 0.00400 0.55990 0.35850 0.00220 0.02750 0.04780
2007 0.00450 0.55070 0.36630 0.00220 0.02790 0.04840
2008 0.00510 0.54610 0.36980 0.00230 0.02870 0.04800
2009 0.00530 0.54760 0.37480 0.00210 0.02660 0.04370
2010 0.00530 0.54360 0.37770 0.00220 0.02770 0.04350

2011 0.00530 0.53940 0.37830 0.00240 0.02970 0.04500

2012 0.00530 0.53700 0.37740 0.00250 0.03140 0.04640

# 38 Vehicle Type

Year 10 20 30 40 50 60

2013 0.00520 0.53640 0.37610 0.00260 0.03240 0.04730
2014 0.00520 0.53780 0.37370 0.00260 0.03310 0.04760
2015 0.00511 0.54185 0.36926 0.00266 0.03358 0.04754

2016 0.00505 0.54655 0.36414 0.00270 0.03413 0.04743
2017 0.00500 0.55148 0.35868 0.00274 0.03465 0.04744

2018 0.00495 0.55719 0.35240 0.00278 0.03509 0.04759
2019 0.00490 0.56346 0.34559 0.00281 0.03548 0.04777
2020 0.00484 0.57033 0.33840 0.00283 0.03581 0.04779

2021 0.00479 0.57743 0.33138 0.00285 0.03599 0.04755

2022 0.00475 0.58459 0.32444 0.00286 0.03613 0.04723
2023 0.00471 0.59142 0.31755 0.00288 0.03639 0.04705

2024 0.00466 0.59782 0.31089 0.00291 0.03674 0.04698
2025 0.00462 0.60374 0.30470 0.00294 0.03709 0.04692
2026 0.00458 0.60921 0.29896 0.00296 0.03745 0.04684

2027 0.00455 0.61410 0.29377 0.00300 0.03784 0.04674
2028 0.00452 0.61852 0.28903 0.00303 0.03828 0.04662
2029 0.00450 0.62265 0.28449 0.00307 0.03876 0.04652

2030 0.00448 0.62625 0.28038 0.00311 0.03930 0.04648
2031 0.00444 0.62984 0.27688 0.00313 0.03959 0.04611
2032 0.00440 0.63303 0.27380 0.00316 0.03987 0.04574

2033 0.00436 0.63573 0.27104 0.00319 0.04023 0.04545

2034 0.00432 0.63812 0.26857 0.00321 0.04058 0.04519
2035 0.00429 0.64015 0.26636 0.00324 0.04096 0.04501

2036 0.00425 0.64184 0.26447 0.00327 0.04134 0.04483
2037 0.00421 0.64323 0.26287 0.00330 0.04173 0.04465

2038 0.00418 0.64417 0.26173 0.00333 0.04211 0.04447
2039 0.00414 0.64476 0.26096 0.00336 0.04249 0.04428
2040 0.00411 0.64532 0.26017 0.00340 0.04289 0.04411
2041 0.00407 0.64586 0.25937 0.00343 0.04331 0.04396

2042 0.00404 0.64630 0.25864 0.00346 0.04374 0.04381
2043 0.00401 0.64666 0.25799 0.00350 0.04418 0.04366
2044 0.00398 0.64693 0.25741 0.00353 0.04462 0.04352
2045 0.00395 0.64711 0.25692 0.00357 0.04507 0.04338
2046 0.00392 0.64719 0.25653 0.00360 0.04552 0.04324
2047 0.00389 0.64720 0.25620 0.00364 0.04598 0.04310

2048 0.00386 0.64715 0.25593 0.00368 0.04643 0.04295
2049 0.00383 0.64704 0.25572 0.00371 0.04690 0.04281

2050 0.00380 0.64689 0.25554 0.00375 0.04736 0.04266

# 39 

# Exhibit 5: Vehicle Registration Data

Georgia's Revised Registra tion Distribution by Age

Overview

R.L. Polk & Co. (Polk) maintains databa ses encompassing all registered vehicles in operation by state. Polk acquires the source registration data from the states and then processes and enha nces the data. Key data elements Polk used for grouping vehicle registered in Georgia by their appropriate composite (i.e., gasoline and diesel) vehicle types were: vehicle make, vehicle model, engine make, engine model, fuel type, cab type, bed length, wheel configuration, vehicle type, gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) 3 

# class, model year, and registration geography (i.e., county).

Vehicle characteristic data elements used by Polk are derived from the unique 17 position vehicle identification number (VIN) assigned to every vehicle. Vehicle geography is assigned based on the regist ration address linked to each VIN.

In order to assign a MOBILE6 category to all registered vehicles, Polk constructed a master vehicle workfile us ing data from Polk’s TIPNet and NVPP databases. This master vehicle workf ile accounts for all registered vehicles, including: cars, vans, sport utility ve hicles, trucks, buses, school buses, and motorcycles (GVWR classes 1-8 + moto rcycle). The GVWR classes are:

Class 1 0 - 6,000 lbs. Class 2 6,001 - 10,000 lbs. Class 3 10,001 - 14,000 lbs. Class 4 14,001 - 16,000 lbs. Class 5 16,001 - 19,500 lbs. Class 6 19,501 - 26,000 lbs. Class 7 26,001 - 33,000 lbs. Class 8 33,001 - 150,000 lbs.

The TIPNet database contains vehicles from full-size pickups/vans through class 8 (GVWR classes 1c-8), and is structured to serve the commercial vehicle market. The NVPP database contains vehi cles GVWR classes 1-3 and is designed to serve the car, light truck/van, and motorc ycle aftermarket.

3 

## The GVWR is the maximum weight of the vehicle when it is fully loaded , as specified by the manufacturer.

# 40 Using the data elements listed above, Polk assigned one of the 16 MOBILE6 categories to each of the vehicles in the wo rkfile. Care was taken to assure that no makes and models are duplicated between the two databases. Note that the unit volume for same make/model vehicles can be divided among two or more MOBILE6 categories due to varying vehicle types and GVWR classes within a specific make/model. TIPNet data supplies GVWR classes 1c-8 (full-size pickups/vans & heavier), while NVPP data prov ides passenger car, motorcyc le, light truck, and light vans from GVWR class 1.

The 16 composite MOBILE6 vehicle types are listed and defined below, with examples of the types of vehicles they include.

Number Abbreviation Description 1 LDV Light-Duty (LD) Vehicles (Passenger Cars) - Class 1 GVWR - Include: Passenger Cars - Fuel: All Types - Source: R.L. Polk NVPP as of October 2002

2 LDT1 LD Trucks 1 (0-6,000 lb s. GVWR, 0- 3,750 lbs. LVW 4 

# ) - Class 1 GVWR - Trucks, SUVs, & Vans - Exclude Full-Size Pickups & Vans - Fuel: All Types - Source: R.L. Polk NVPP as of October 2002

3 LDT2 LD Trucks 2 (0-6,000 lbs. GVWR, 3,751-5,750 lbs. LVW) - Class 1 GVWR - Trucks, SUVs, & Vans - Fuel: All Types - Include all Full-Size Pickups & Vans (e.g. 150/1500 series vehicles: F150, C/K 1500, E150, Ram 1500 etc.) - Include Vehicle Types: Incomplete Pickup + Cab Chassis - Exclude Vehicle Types: School Bus + Bus Non-School (Coach) - Source: R.L. Polk TIPNet as of March 2003 & NVPP as of October 2002

4 LDT3 LD Trucks 3 (6,001-8,500 lbs. GVWR, 0-5,750 lbs. ALVW 5 

# ) - Class 2 GVWR - Trucks, SUVs, & Vans - GVWR: 6,001-8,000 for Ford, Chevy, Dodge, plus all Toyota Tundra Models

4 

## Loaded vehicle weight, the weight of vehicle sitting empty (curb weight) plus 300 pounds.

5 

## Adjusted loaded vehicle weight, average of th e gross vehicle weight and the curb weight.

# 41 - Fuel: All Types - Exclude: Pickups with Long Bed or Vans with Extended Length (Except Tundra) - Exclude Vehicle Types: Incomplete Pickup + Cab Chassis + Incomplete Vehicle + Straight Truck + School Bus + Bus Non-School (Coach) - Source: R.L. Polk TIPNet as of March 2003 & NVPP as of October 2002

Number Abbreviation Description

5 LDT4 Light-Duty Trucks 4 (6,001-8,500 lbs. GVWR, >5,750 lbs. ALVW) - Class 2 GVWR - Trucks, SUVs, & Vans - GVWR: 6,001-8,000 for Ford, Chevy, & Dodge - Exclude: all Toyota Tundra Models - Fuel: All Types - Include: Pickups with Long Bed or Vans with Extended Length - Include Vehicle Types: Incomplete Pickup + Cab Chassis + Incomplete Vehicle + Straight Truck - Exclude Vehicle Types: School Bus + Bus Non-School (Coach) - Source: R.L. Polk TIPNet as of March 2003

6 HDV2B Class 2b Heavy-Duty Vehicles (8,501-10,000 lbs. GVWR) - Class 2 GVWR - Trucks, SUVs, & Vans - GVWR: 8,001-10,000 for Ford, Chevy, & Dodge - Exclude: All Toyota Tundra Models - Fuel: All Types - Include: Pickups with Long Bed or Vans with Extended Length - Include Vehicle Types: Incomplete Pickup + Cab Chassis + Incomplete Vehicle + Straight Truck - Exclude Vehicle Types: School Bus + Bus Non-School (Coach) - Source: R.L. Polk TIPNet as of March 2003

7 HDV3 Class 3 Heavy-Duty Vehicles (10,001-14,000 lbs. GVWR) - Class 3 GVWR - Trucks, SUVs, & Vans - Fuel: All Types - Exclude Vehicle Types: School Bus + Bus Non-School (Coach) - Source: R.L. Polk TIPNet as of March 2003

# 42 Number Abbreviation Description

8 HDV4 Class 4 Heavy-Duty Vehicles (14,001-16,000 lbs. GVWR) - Class 4 GVWR - Trucks, SUVs, & Vans - Fuel: All Types - Exclude Vehicle Types: School Bus + Bus Non-School (Coach) - Source: R.L. Polk TIPNet as of March 2003

9 HDV5 Class 5 Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicles (16,001-19,500 lbs. GVWR) - Class 5 GVWR - Trucks, SUVs, & Vans - Fuel: All Types - Exclude Vehicle Types: School Bus + Bus Non-School (Coach) - Source: R.L. Polk TIPNet as of March 2003

10 HDV6 Class 6 Heavy-Duty Vehicles (19,501-26,000 lbs. GVWR) - Class 6 GVWR - Trucks, SUVs, & Vans - Fuel: All Types - Exclude Vehicle Types: School Bus + Bus Non-School (Coach) - Source: R.L. Polk TIPNet as of March 2003

11 HDV7 Class 7 Heavy-Duty Vehicles (26,001-33,000 lbs. GVWR) - Class 7 GVWR - Trucks, SUVs, & Vans - Fuel: All Types - Exclude Vehicle Types: School Bus + Bus Non-School (Coach) - Source: R.L. Polk TIPNet as of March 2003

12 HDV8A Class 8a Heavy-Duty Vehicles (33,001-60,000 lbs. GVWR) - Class 8 GVWR - Trucks, SUVs, & Vans - Fuel: All Types - Exclude Vehicle Types: School Bus + Bus Non-School (Coach) - Include Vehicle Types: 4x2 Non-Tractor Vehicles + All Tractors + Motor Home Chassis - Source: R.L. Polk TIPNet as of March 2003

# 43 13 HDV8B Class 8b Heavy-Duty Vehicles (>60,000 lbs. GVWR) - Class 8 GVWR - Trucks, SUVs, & Vans - Fuel: All Types - Exclude Vehicle Types: All Trac tors + School Bus + Bus Non-School (Coach) - Exclude Wheels: 4x2 - Source: R.L. Polk TIPNet as of March 2003

14 HDBS School Buses - Include Vehicle Type: School Bus - Fuel: All Types - Source: R.L. Polk TIPNet as of March 2003

Number Abbreviation Description

15 HDBT Transit & Urban Buses - Include Vehicle Type: Bus Non-School (Coach) - Fuel: All Types - Source: R.L. Polk TIPNet as of March 2003

16 MC Motorcycles (All) - Fuel: All Types - Source: R.L. Polk NVPP as of October 2002

The data acquired from Polk was queried to determine the number of vehicles registered in the Catoosa-Walker-Flo yd metropolitan statistical area by age and vehicle type. Results of this query were used to develop Registration distribution by age inputs. For each of the 16 composite vehi cle types, the fraction of all vehicles of that type which are zero-to-one model y ear old, two model years old, three model years old, etc., up to the olde st category, 25-model-years-an d-older, was determined. The resulting input data is shown on the fo llowing two pages. Note that the Polkderived distribution for Cla ss 8b vehicles (vehicle type 13) is commented out; in accordance with EPA guidance, defaults were used for this vehicle type.

# 44 

# Exhibit 6: Source Type Population Input Data Preparation

1) Date sources 2002-2003 Polk’s data: Registration data from R. L. Polk & Co.'s National Vehicle Population Profile ® (current as of October 2002) and R. L. Polk & Co.'s TIPNet ® (current as of March 2003) are us ed. This database includes number of vehicles by age and 16 vehicle types in each Georgia county, and has been used to develop age distribution.

Georgia registration data (2003 and 2007): These registration data were obtained from www.georgiastats.uga.edu. This da tabase includes number of vehicles by passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, motorc ycles, buses and others in each county as explained on the Georgia De partment of Revenue website (http://motor.etax.dor.ga.gov/ stats/renewalsstats.aspx) . Passenger Vehicles include Ambulances, Convertibles, Coupes, Hearses, Jeeps, Limousines, Mixers, Motor Homes, Multi-Purpose Vehicles, Roadsters, Station Wagons, Touring Cars, Vans, 2 Doors, 3 Doors, and 4 Doors. Tr ucks include Truck Tractors, Trucks, and Wreckers.

2) Methodology The Polk’s data were summarized by 16 ve hicles types in each county and then grown to 2007 using different grow th factors by vehicle types ( Table 1 

# ). The number of HDBS, HDBT and MC in Polk’s data is comparable to Georgia registration data ( Table 2 

# and Table 3 

# ). Therefore, the numbers of HDBS and HDBT were grown to 2007 by multiplying ratios of the number of buses in Georgia motor vehicle registration da ta in 2007 and 2003. The number of MC was grown to 2007 by multiplying ratios of the number of motor cycles in Georgia motor vehicle registration data in 2007 and 2003. The number of the rest of vehicle types was grown to 2007 by mu ltiplying ratios of human population in 2007 and 2002. The Georgia motor vehicle re gistration data were not used for these vehicle types due to the difficulty to match the vehicle type used in Georgia motor vehicle registration data to the 16 vehi cle types as used in the Polk's data. Since the ratios of 2007 and 2003 passenger cars and trucks in motor vehicle registration data are comparable to the ratios of population data ( Table 4 

# ), population data were used as the growth indicator.

Table 1. List of different growth factors used by vehicle types Vehicle types Growth factor HDBS Georgia registration dat a (2003 and 2007), Buses HDBT Georgia registration dat a (2003 and 2007), Buses HDV2B Population 2002 and 2007 HDV3 Population 2002 and 2007 HDV4 Population 2002 and 2007 HDV5 Population 2002 and 2007 HDV6 Population 2002 and 2007 HDV7 Population 2002 and 2007

# 45 HDV8A Population 2002 and 2007 HDV8B Population 2002 and 2007 LDT1 Population 2002 and 2007 LDT2 Population 2002 and 2007 LDT3 Population 2002 and 2007 LDT4 Population 2002 and 2007 LDV Population 2002 and 2007 MC Georgia registration data ( 2003 and 2007), Motor cycles

Table 2. Summary of 2002-2003 Polk’s data by 16 mobile vehicle types in four Georgia regions 

# Vehicle types ATL13 ATL7 GAGAS GAOTHER Total HDBS 7,854 1,333 2,032 8,221 19,440 HDBT 1,362 102 139 540 2,143 HDV2B 56,809 11,761 15,405 49,039 133,014 HDV3 27,628 5,996 7,822 23,797 65,243 HDV4 13,623 2,262 2,850 10,351 29,086 HDV5 6,005 1,162 1,550 5,577 14,294 HDV6 19,294 4,088 5,932 21,688 51,002 HDV7 16,380 2,528 3,838 15,309 38,055 HDV8A 37,555 4,307 6,619 31,883 80,364 HDV8B 14,449 2,201 3,061 10,926 30,637 LDT1 722,044 131,873 181,393 607,189 1,642,499 LDT2 95,101 28,933 37,692 156,187 317,913 LDT3 302,139 62,530 75,409 284,851 724,929 LDT4 43,616 8,019 9,721 39,432 100,788 LDV 1,723,769 255,647 346,907 1,383,696 3,710,019 MC 50,081 10,657 13,767 41,123 115,628

Table 3. Summary of 2003 Georgia registration data by 4 mobile vehicle types 

# Vehicle types ATL13 ATL7 GAGAS GAOTHER Total Buses 10,676 1,559 2,434 9,797 21,237 Trucks 558,496 168,930 237,022 823,867 1,788,315 Passenger Cars 2,259,027 339,456 449,177 1,744,474 4,792,134 Motorcycles 46,836 10,203 13,124 38,561 108,724

Table 4. Comparison between different growth factors Ratios 2002 2003 2007 2007/2002 2007/2003 Motor vehicle registration Passenger Car 4,792, 134 5,330,256 1.112 Trucks 1,788,315 1,952,470 1.092 Motor Cycle 108,724 174,617 1.606 Bus 21,237 35,124 1.654 Population in Georgia, U.S. Census Population 8,585,535 8, 735,259 9,533,7 61 1.110 1.091 Total Average Annual Daily VMT in Georgia, Georgia DOT 445 report, miles VMT 292,562,380 296,810,9 94 305,327,543 1.044 1.029 MOVES national SALESGROWTH factor defaults Motorcycle 1.383 1.311 Passenger Car 0.940 1.001 Passenger Truck 0.972 0.948 Light Commercial Truck 0.972 0.948 Intercity Bus 1.353 1.268

# 46 Transit Bus 1.353 1.268 School Bus 1.353 1.268 Refuse Truck 1.353 1.268 Single Unit Short-haul Truck 1.353 1.268 Single Unit Long-haul Truck 1.353 1.268 Motor Home 1.353 1.268 Combination Short-haul Truck 1.464 1.405 Combination Long-haul Truck 1.464 1.405



# The projected 2007 vehicle population by 16 ve hicle types in each county were then converted to 32 vehicles types, which we re matched with 28 vehicle types and 12 vehicle types (corresponding to 12 SCC codes) as shown in the EPA MOVES converter tool. The EPA MOVES converter tool was also used to convert vehicle population in MOVES format by each of the four reference counties. These populations are the sum of popul ations of all counties sharing the same reference counties.

# 47 

# Exhibit 7: Directions for Produc ing Emissions for Walker County Donut Area Using MOVES

Two sets of emissions are produce d, running and non-running emissions.

Running Emissions The Consultant for the Chattanooga-Ham ilton County-North Georgia Transportation Planning Organization provides the Tran scad networks as shape files. A combination of procedures is used to es timate the running and non-running emissions. Some manipulation of the dbf f ile of the network is perfor med which is used to produce summaries of VMT, mileage and average weighted speeds. This information is then utilized to calculate the following.

 VMT by functional class by year

 Future growth factors based on growth in VMT for Walker and Catoosa counties
from travel demand model

 Future VMT and emissions

Then summaries for every scenario year are pr epared to produce growth rates as shown in the sample below.

Summary of Mileage and VMT by County for Chattanooga for 2002

Route Milege Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
HPMS Code Catoosa Walker Dade Tenn Catoosa Walker Dade

Tenn 0 561.2 282.0 53.1 0.0 0 0 0
0 1 26.0 0 24.5 0 448,248.4 0 364,821.8
0 2 2.5 20.4 0 0 36,586.8 233,377.5 0
0 6 16.1 3.0 2.8 0 77,988.0 7,595.1 7,303.2
0 7 44.6 15.2 8.7 0 84,677.4 34,528.2 34,176.1
0 8 22.5 0.4 0 0 27,641.0 562.4 0
0 9 93.1 57.1 4.0 0 52,491.7 35,303.7 3,817.2
0 11 39.2 0.1 1.1 0 745,998.2 0 1,424.5
0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 14 4.6 7.0 1.9 0 83,115.0 108,944.2 8,622.0
0 16 64.4 39.3 0.8 0 399,373.8 146,321.9 1,249.7
0 17 29.1 28.1 0 0 62,737.9 47,091.4 0
0 19 158.2 92.3 2.7 0 162,138.2 79,989.7 774.4
0 Total 1,061.3 544.8 99.5 0.0 2,180,996.6 693,714.3 422,188.7
0

# 48 Catoosa

HPMS Code 2002 2009 Growth 2015 Growth 2025 Growth 2035 Growth 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 1 448,248.00 412,538.00 0.92 439,151.00 0.98 482,950.00 1.08 526,958.00 1.18 2 36,586.80 31,564.00 0.86 33,498.00 0.92 37,223.40 1.02 41,739.00 1.14 6 77,988.00 80,783.00 1.04 86,908.00 1.11 102,907.40 1.32 114,786.00 1.47 7 84,677.00 91,445.00 1.08 104,485.00 1.23 138,785.00 1.64 164,065.00 1.94 8 27,641.00 30,627.00 1.11 37,056.00 1.34 48,012.00 1.74 60,010.00 2.17 9 52,491.70 58,165.00 1.11 67,411.00 1.28 82,810.00 1.58 99,518.00 1.90 11 745,998.00 712,232.00 0.95 768,853.00 1.03 851,923.00 1.14 933,507.00 1.25 12 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 14 83,115.00 79,828.00 0.96 83,656.00 1.01 90,710.00 1.09 93,801.00 1.13 16 399,373.80 403,662.00 1.01 445,898.00 1.12 492,844.00 1.23 546,046.00 1.37 17 62,738.00 62,789.00 1.00 61,890.00 0.99 73,862.00 1.18 83,362.00 1.33 19 162,138.20 172,941.00 1.07 189,203.00 1.17 213,447.00 1.32 238,012.00 1.47 Total 2,180,995.50 2,136,574.00 0.98 2,318,009.00 1.06 2,615,473.80 1.20 2,901,804.00 1.33



### Walker

HPMS Code 2002 2009 Growth 2015 Growth 2025 Growth 2035 Growth 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 #DIV/0! 1 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 2 233,378.00 192,078.00 0.82 206,524.00 0.88 230,818.00 0.99 258,162.00 1.11 6 7,595.00 1,960.00 0.26 2,086.00 0.27 2,234.00 0.29 2,378.00 0.31 7 34,528.00 34,713.00 1.01 41,030.00 1.19 50,421.00 1.46 59,940.00 1.74 8 562.00 566.00 1.01 877.00 1.56 1,358.00 2.42 1,786.00 3.18 9 35,303.00 34,544.00 0.98 38,141.00 1.08 45,021.00 1.28 49,402.00 1.40 11 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 12 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 14 108,944.00 103,625.00 0.95 109,616.00 1.01 119,827.00 1.10 130,447.00 1.20 16 146,322.00 136,165.00 0.93 144,703.00 0.99 160,418.00 1.10 183,650.00 1.26 17 47,091.00 44,454.00 0.94 46,793.00 0.99 51,418.00 1.09 51,077.00 1.08 19 79,990.00 74,755.00 0.93 80,294.00 1.00 89,057.00 1.11 98,060.00 1.23 Total 693,713.00 622,860.00 0.90 670,064.00 0.97 750,572.00 1.08 834,902.00 1.20

1990 Code 

### Total Georgia for Walker and Catoosa

HPMS Code 2002 2009 Growth 2015 Growth 2025 Growth 2035 Growth 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 1 448,248.00 412,538.00 0.92 439,151.00 0.98 482,950.00 1.08 526,958.00 1.18 2 269,964.80 223,642.00 0.83 240,022.00 0.89 268,041.40 0.99 299,901.00 1.11 6 85,583.00 82,743.00 0.97 88,994.00 1.04 105,141.40 1.23 117,164.00 1.37 7 119,205.00 126,158.00 1.06 145,515.00 1.22 189,206.00 1.59 224,005.00 1.88 8 28,203.00 31,193.00 1.11 37,933.00 1.34 49,370.00 1.75 61,796.00 2.19 9 87,794.70 92,709.00 1.06 105,552.00 1.20 127,831.00 1.46 148,920.00 1.70 11 745,998.00 712,232.00 0.95 768,853.00 1.03 851,923.00 1.14 933,507.00 1.25 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 14 192,059.00 183,453.00 0.96 193,272.00 1.01 210,537.00 1.10 224,248.00 1.17 16 545,695.80 539,827.00 0.99 590,601.00 1.08 653,262.00 1.20 729,696.00 1.34 17 109,829.00 107,243.00 0.98 108,683.00 0.99 125,280.00 1.14 134,439.00 1.22 19 242,128.20 247,696.00 1.02 269,497.00 1.11 302,504.00 1.25 336,072.00 1.39 Total 2,874,708.50 2,759,434.00 0.96 2,988,073.00 1.04 3,366,045.80 1.17 3,736,706.00 1.30



# Then estimate the base year VMT for the donut area by functional class. The comparison of Model VMT to HPMS Mileage is reviewed to pro-rate the am ount of VMT needed. Normally, it is expected that the mileage in the model summary will be less than the mileage in the total county. In a couple of cases, functional class 2 and 16, the Model mileage and VMT exceed HPMS values, so it is assumed that all of these facilities are in the model network and do not need to be acc ounted for in the donut area. The following figure is the nonattainment area and the next figure is the base network color-coded by county

.

# 49 Walker County Non-attainment Donut Area

Base Year Network

# 50

# 51 Compare Model Mileage to HPMS Total Mileage

HPMS Code Model Milea g e Model VMT RC File Total HPMS Mileage for Count y Pro-rate Mileage Factor Total County HPMS VMT Pro-rate VMT based on route mileage for Model area HPMS Adj Factor for Model Area 0 282.00 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0.00 0.00 0 1.00 0 0 2 20.40 233,378 7.00 19.57 1.04 191,985 191,985 0.82 6 3.00 7,595 0.37 30.3 0.10 101,862 10,085 1.33 7 15.20 34,528 19.44 131.65 0.12 222,679 25,710 0.74 8 0.40 562 0.44 28.65 0.01 50,506 705 1.25 9 57.10 35,304 54.74 370.32 0.15 282,006 43,483 1.23 11 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0
12 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 14 7.00 108,944 7.13 21.32 0.33 248,347 81,540 0.75 16 39.30 146,322 20.59 35.22 0.90 168,651 168,651 1.15 17 28.00 47,091 17.98 41.68 0.67 72,282 48,558 1.03 19 92.30 79,990 65.77 230.97 0.40 219,488 87,712 1.10 Total 544.70 693,714 193.46 909.68 0.60 1,557,806 658,429 0.95 0.21 331,296



## Off_model Area

HPMS Code 2002 Mileage 2002 VMT
0 00
1
2 -0.83 0 6 27.30 91,777 7 116.45 196,969 8 28.25 49,801 9 313.22 238,523
11 0.00 0
12 0.00 0 14 14.32 166,807
16 -4.08 0 17 13.68 23,724 19 138.67 131,776 Total 646.98 899,378



## Summarize Route Mileage to use to Pro-rate VMT for Walker County to estimate HPMS Adj Factors for the Walker Model Area for 2002

# 52 Estimate the VMT in the Walker County Donut Area

2002 Walker County HPMS Data 2002 Travel Model VMT By HPMS Functional Class Average Annual Daily VMT Oct 2007, Travel Model Run GDOT Office of Transportation Data 445 Report Excluded VMT for External Links

Functional Class Name Functional Class No. County Total Pro-Rated VMT Functional Class Name Functional Class No. Grand Total Subtract Model from HPMS -Used for OffModel

Rural Interstate 1 00 Rural Interstate 1 00
Rural Prin. Arterial 2 191,985 191,985 Rural Prin. Arterial 2 233,378 0
Rural Min. Arterial 6 101,862 10,085 Rural Min. Arterial 6 7,595 91,777 Rural Major Collector 7 222,679 25,710 Rural Major Collector 7 34,528 196,969
Rural Minor Collector 8 50,506 705 Rural Minor Collector 8 562 49,801
Rural Local 9 282,006 43,483 Rural Local 9 35,304 238,523
Urb. Interstate 11 0 0 Urb. Interstate 11 0 0 Urb. Other Fwy 12 0 0 Urb. Other Fwy 12 0
Urb. Prin. Arterial 14 248,347 81,540 Urb. Prin. Arterial 14 108,944 166,807
Urb. Min. Arterial 16 168,651 168,651 Urb. Min. Arterial 16 146,322 0
Urbanized Collector 17 72,282 48,558 Urbanized Collector 17 47,091 23,724

Urbanized Local 19 219,488 87,712 Urbanized Local 19 79,990 131,776 658,429 693,714 899,378

Grand Total 1,557,806 658,429 Grand Total 693,714 899,378



# Calculate the average weighted speeds for Wa lker and Catoosa counties for each scenario
year.

Chattanooga 2002 for Walker and Catoosa Counties Average Weighted Speed by Functional Class

Functional Class Total VMT Total Weighted VMT Weighted Avg Spd 1 448,248.4 29,999,516.7 66.93 2 269,964.3 15,109,135.9 55.97 6 85,583.1 3,604,719.0 42.12 7 119,425.5 4,686,027.5 39.24 8 28,203.5 1,032,492.0 36.61 9 88,160.6 2,876,663.1 32.63 11 745,998.2 46,219,903.8 61.96
12 0 0 0 14 192,059.2 9,065,007.2 47.20 16 545,695.7 20,938,015.0 38.37 17 109,829.3 3,777,929.7 39.24 19 242,127.9 4,929,459.4 20.36 Grand Total 2,875,295.8 142,238,869.1 49.47


# The following calculations are produced

 Estimates Emissions

o Estimates future VMT based on growth factors entered

o Assigns MOVES speed bin based on average weighted speeds entered for
each functional class

o Estimates running emission

 Speed Bin

o Ranges for MOVES speed bins – used to assign speed bin

 Road Type VMT

o MOVES road types by functional class

 Summary – Summarizes runni ng and non-running emissions

# 53 Sample Worksheet that Estimates Emissions

Function al Class MOVES Roadway

T yp e Total County HPMS VMT Off-Model 2002 VMT A vg VMT Weighted

S p eed MOVES S p eed Bin PM2.5 Emission

Factor NOx Emission

Factor PM2.5 Emissions

(g rams ) NOx Emissions

(g rams ) 2 2 191,985 0 56 12 0.2107 6.7223 0.0 0.0 6 3 101,862 91,777 42 9 0.1236 3.6717 11,344.8 336,979.0 7 3 222,679 196,969 39 9 0.1236 3.6717 24,347.8 723,214.0 8 3 50,506 49,801 37 8 0.1319 3.7137 6,570.2 184,947.0 9 3 282,006 238,523 33 8 0.1319 3.7137 31,468.1 885,807.7 14 5 248,347 166,807 47 10 0.0501 2.1712 8,362.3 362,169.8 16 5 168,651 0 38 9 0.0531 2.1939 0.0 0.0 17 5 72,282 23,724 39 9 0.0531 2.1939 1,260.6 52,048.5 19 5 219,488 131,776 20 5 0.0847 2.7938 11,155.5 368,156.1

Total 1,557,806 899,377 94,509.2 2,913,322.2

Function al Class MOVES Roadway

Type Total County HPMS VMT Off-Model 2002 VMT 2009 Growth Factor from
2002 2009 VMT using Growth Factors from Model A vg VMT Weighted

Speed MOVES Speed Bin PM2.5 Emission

Factor NOx Emission

Factor PM2.5 Emissions

(grams) NOx Emissions

(grams) 2 2 191,985 0 0.83 0 56 12 0.1370 3.5811 0.0 0.0 6 3 101,862 91,777 0.97 89,024 43 10 0.0718 1.9331 6,387.8 172,087.3 7 3 222,679 196,969 1.06 208,787 39 9 0.0769 1.9638 16,045.5 410,023.9 8 3 50,506 49,801 1.11 55,279 36 8 0.0834 2.0032 4,610.1 110,736.2 9 3 282,006 238,523 1.06 252,834 32 7 0.1063 2.2099 26,888.8 558,738.9 14 5 248,347 166,807 0.96 160,135 47 10 0.0319 1.1623 5,115.2 186,119.4 16 5 168,651 0 0.99 0 38 9 0.0345 1.1800 0.0 0.0 17 5 72,282 23,724 0.98 23,250 39 9 0.0345 1.1800 803.1 27,435.1 19 5 219,488 131,776 1.02 134,412 21 5 0.0587 1.5403 7,887.2 207,028.2 Total 1,557,806 899,377 0.96 923,720 67,737.8 1,672,168.9

Function al Class MOVES Roadway

Type Total County HPMS VMT Off-Model 2002 VMT 2015 Growth Factor from
2002 2015 VMT using Growth Factors from
Model A vg VMT Weighted

Speed MOVES Speed Bin PM2.5 Emission

Factor NOx Emission

Factor PM2.5 Emissions

(grams) NOx Emissions

(grams) 2 2 191,985 0 0.89 0 56 12 0.0642 1.6826 0.0 0.0 6 3 101,862 91,777 1.04 95,448 43 10 0.0359 0.9582 3,429.0 91,455.1 7 3 222,679 196,969 1.22 240,302 39 9 0.0391 0.9713 9,393.3 233,408.7 8 3 50,506 49,801 1.34 66,733 32 7 0.0545 1.0809 3,634.5 72,134.9 9 3 282,006 238,523 1.20 286,228 24 6 0.0598 1.1488 17,104.2 328,819.5 14 5 248,347 166,807 1.01 168,475 47 10 0.0188 0.6106 3,165.5 102,877.6 16 5 168,651 0 1.08 0 38 9 0.0208 0.6173 0.0 0.0 17 5 72,282 23,724 0.99 23,487 39 9 0.0208 0.6173 487.6 14,499.1 19 5 219,488 131,776 1.11 146,271 20 5 0.0374 0.7899 5,467.6 115,532.9 Total 1,557,806 899,377 1.04 935,352 42,681.8 958,727.8

Function al Class MOVES Roadway

T yp e Total County HPMS VMT Off-Model 2002 VMT 2025 Growth Factor from
2002 2025 VMT using Growth Factors from
Model A vg VMT Weighted

S p eed MOVES S p eed Bin PM2.5 Emission

Factor NOx Emission

Factor PM2.5 Emissions

(g rams ) NOx Emissions

(g rams ) 2 2 191,985 0 1.00 0 56 12 0.0196 0.6092 0.0 0.0 6 3 101,862 91,777 1.23 112,886 44 10 0.0152 0.3783 1,719.3 42,710.1 7 3 222,679 196,969 1.59 313,181 40 9 0.0172 0.3820 5,379.8 119,639.9 8 3 50,506 49,801 1.75 87,152 36 8 0.0197 0.3868 1,715.6 33,708.2 9 3 282,006 238,523 1.46 348,244 32 7 0.0242 0.4181 8,443.3 145,603.6 14 5 248,347 166,807 1.10 183,488 47 10 0.0106 0.2511 1,946.5 46,081.1 16 5 168,651 0 1.20 0 39 9 0.0121 0.2517 0.0 0.0 17 5 72,282 23,724 1.14 27,045 39 9 0.0121 0.2517 327.1 6,806.7 19 5 219,488 131,776 1.25 164,720 21 5 0.0234 0.3089 3,859.2 50,888.2 Total 1,557,806 899,377 1.17 1,052,271 23,390.7 445,437.8

Function al Class MOVES Roadway

T yp e Total County HPMS VMT Off-Model 2002 VMT 2035 Growth Factor from
2002 2035 VMT using Growth Factors from
Model A vg VMT Weighted

S p eed MOVES S p eed Bin PM2.5 Emission

Factor NOx Emission

Factor PM2.5 Emissions

(g rams ) NOx Emissions

(g rams ) 2 2 191,985 0 1.11 0 56 12 0.0131 0.4345 0.0 0.0 6 3 101,862 91,777 1.37 125,734 43 10 0.0116 0.2790 1,459.3 35,080.4 7 3 222,679 196,969 1.88 370,302 40 9 0.0133 0.2810 4,928.5 104,072.7 8 3 50,506 49,801 2.19 109,064 36 8 0.0155 0.2837 1,690.9 30,944.1 9 3 282,006 238,523 1.70 405,489 31 7 0.0189 0.3049 7,653.2 123,624.4 14 5 248,347 166,807 1.17 195,164 47 10 0.0090 0.1879 1,764.4 36,668.9 16 5 168,651 0 1.34 0 39 9 0.0104 0.1875 0.0 0.0 17 5 72,282 23,724 1.22 28,943 40 9 0.0104 0.1875 301.1 5,425.9 19 5 219,488 131,776 1.39 183,169 21 5 0.0206 0.2257 3,775.4 41,350.0 Total 1,557,806 899,377 1.30 1,169,190 21,572.9 377,166.4 2015 VMT Estimates

2025 VMT Estimates Emissions

2035 VMT Estimates Emissions Emissions 2002 VMT Estimates Emissions

2009 VMT Estimates Emissions

# 54 Non-Running Emissions

Uses two sets of inputs, one from a MOVES Inventory run to produce the raterpervehicle csv files by year provided by the Consu ltant for Chattanooga-Hamilton County-North Georgia Transportation Planni ng Organization and the source vehicle population for Walker donut area only, also provided by the Consultant for Chattanooga-Hamilton County-North Georgia Transporta tion Planning Organization.

Emissions by pollutant by process by source type

MOVESSc e MOVESRu n yearID monthID dayID hourID zoneID pollutantI D processID sourceTyp e SCC fuelTypeI D modelYea r temperat u ratePerVe h
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 1 2 11 0 0 53.925 0.004429
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 1 2 21 0 0 53.925 0.077338
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 1 2 31 0 0 53.925 0.094661
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 1 2 32 0 0 53.925 0.094518
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 1 2 41 0 0 53.925 0.055112
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 1 2 51 0 0 53.925 0.014367
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 1 2 53 0 0 53.925 0.473858
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 1 2 54 0 0 53.925 0.048803
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 1 2 61 0 0 53.925 0.017771
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 1 2 62 0 0 53.925 0.066364
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 1 90 62 0 0 53.925 13.6234
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 2 11 0 0 53.925 0.001118
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 2 21 0 0 53.925 0.059741
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 2 31 0 0 53.925 0.085073
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 2 32 0 0 53.925 0.097011
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 2 41 0 0 53.925 0.074074
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 2 51 0 0 53.925 0.012731
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 2 53 0 0 53.925 0.373121
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 2 54 0 0 53.925 0.020388
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 2 61 0 0 53.925 0.017416
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 2 62 0 0 53.925 0.134946
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 16 11 0 0 53.925 0
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 16 21 0 0 53.925 1.29E

‐ 06
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 16 31 0 0 53.925 2.50E

‐ 06
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 16 32 0 0 53.925 7.48E

‐ 06
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 16 41 0 0 53.925 3.70E

‐ 05
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 16 51 0 0 53.925 4.73E

‐ 06
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 16 53 0 0 53.925 4.91E

‐ 05
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 16 54 0 0 53.925 6.41E

‐ 07
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 16 61 0 0 53.925 7.61E

‐ 06
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 16 62 0 0 53.925 6.75E

‐ 05
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 17 62 0 0 53.925 0.030323
chatt

‐ 200 2 1 2002 4 5 1 130470 3 90 62 0 0 53.925 60.6463

# 55 The data is entered into a spreadsheet where pivot tables summarizes the rate per vehicle by vehicle type and pollutant and multiplies that times the number of source vehicles by type as shown in the example below.

pollutantID 3

NOX Source Population Final Nonrunning

emissions

Row Labels Sum of ratePerVehicle Year 2002

11 0.141028711 11 596 84.0379 21 11.60972385 21 14,471 168,002.5270 31 17.23329229 31 7,759 133,721.4368 32 18.66399529 32 2,592 48,382.8146

41 2.218254813 41 11 23.5606

42 2.442557225 42 7 16.3655

43 9.31284846 43 74 688.7517

51 3.30049217 51 10 32.7373 52 16.94345616 52 519 8,795.2186

53 9.557973602 53 41 395.2339

54 3.258886501 54 110 359.0870

61 4.00518698 61 130 520.4790 62 961.1476361 62 116 111,658.5057
Grand Total 1059.835332 Total 26,436 472,680.7556

pollutantID 110

PM2.5 Source Population Final Nonrunning

emissions

Row Labels Sum of ratePerVehicle Year 2002

11 0.001876008 11 596 1.1179 21 0.167654394 21 14,471 2,426.1009 31 0.20641898 31 7,759 1,601.7045 32 0.264015466 32 2,592 684.4093

41 0.08582073 41 11 0.9115

42 0.127094204 42 7 0.8515

43 0.261304708 43 74 19.3254

51 0.080872484 51 10 0.8022

52 0.393625963 52 519 204.3282

53 0.116289582 53 41 4.8087

54 0.050002052 54 110 5.5096

61 0.105179485 61 130 13.6682 62 17.80950013 62 116 2,068.9664
Grand Total 19.66965419 Total 26,436 7,032.5044

# 56 The total non-running and running emissions are then summarized.

Running Emissions

MOVES Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily
Functional Roadway PM 2.5 NOx PM 2.5 NOx PM 2.5 NOx PM 2.5 NOx PM 2.5 NOx

Class Type (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams)

2 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6 3 11,344.8 336,979.0 6,387.8 172,087.3 3,429.0 91,455.1 1,719.3 42,710.1 1,459.3 35,080.4

7 3 24,347.8 723,214.0 16,045.5 410,023.9 9,393.3 233,408.7 5,379.8 119,639.9 4,928.5 104,072.7

8 3 6,570.2 184,947.0 4,610.1 110,736.2 3,634.5 72,134.9 1,715.6 33,708.2 1,690.9 30,944.1

9 3 31,468.1 885,807.7 26,888.8 558,738.9 17,104.2 328,819.5 8,443.3 145,603.6 7,653.2 123,624.4

14 5 8,362.3 362,169.8 5,115.2 186,119.4 3,165.5 102,877.6 1,946.5 46,081.1 1,764.4 36,668.9

16 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

17 5 1,260.6 52,048.5 803.1 27,435.1 487.6 14,499.1 327.1 6,806.7 301.1 5,425.9

19 5 11,155.5 368,156.1 7,887.2 207,028.2 5,467.6 115,532.9 3,859.2 50,888.2 3,775.4 41,350.0

Total 94,509.2 2,913,322.2 67,737.8 1,672,168.9 42,681.8 958,727.8 23,390.7 445,437.8 21,572.9 377,166.4

Non-Running Emissions

Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily

PM 2.5 NOx PM 2.5 NOx PM 2.5 NOx PM 2.5 NOx PM 2.5 NOx
(Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams)
7,032.5 472,680.8 4,580.1 387,223.5 3,423.4 347,767.6 2,517.4 265,735.7 2,573.2 269,657.2

Annualization Factor =342 - Running Emissions

MOVES Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Functional Roadway PM 2.5 NOx PM 2.5 NOx PM 2.5 NOx PM 2.5 NOx PM 2.5 NOx

Class Type (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams) (Grams)

2 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6 3 3,879,908.4 115,246,809.5 2,184,615.0 58,853,841.0 1,172,730.3 31,277,661.2 588,006.5 14,606,854.7 499,095.4 11,997,500.7

7 3 8,326,941.2 247,339,189.9 5,487,573.0 140,228,159.2 3,212,513.7 79,825,759.2 1,839,893.5 40,916,856.7 1,685,538.4 35,592,871.1

8 3 2,247,005.3 63,251,869.1 1,576,639.0 37,871,779.0 1,242,996.5 24,670,136.1 586,743.1 11,528,192.8 578,295.2 10,582,873.0

9 3 10,762,082.2 302,946,237.3 9,195,980.0 191,088,715.4 5,849,647.2 112,456,261.6 2,887,598.5 49,796,419.4 2,617,392.8 42,279,535.3

14 5 2,859,920.8 123,862,087.8 1,749,414.2 63,652,827.3 1,082,596.4 35,184,150.6 665,690.5 15,759,736.7 603,430.3 12,540,765.8

16 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

17 5 431,115.0 17,800,595.4 274,663.1 9,382,804.2 166,772.1 4,958,701.3 111,854.2 2,327,894.8 102,988.8 1,855,661.1

19 5 3,815,177.0 125,909,390.8 2,697,439.2 70,803,641.7 1,869,926.6 39,512,239.8 1,319,847.9 17,403,775.8 1,291,191.5 14,141,695.5

Total 32,322,150.0 996,356,179.7 23,166,323.4 571,881,767.9 14,597,182.7 327,884,909.8 7,999,634.2 152,339,731.0 7,377,932.4 128,990,902.5

Total in tons 35.6291 1,098.2947 25.5365 630.3917 16.0906 361.4312 8.8181 167.9258 8.1328 142.1881

Non-Running Emissions 2,405,116.5 161,656,818.4 1,566,397.0 132,430,421.7 1,170,789.6 118,936,529.3 860,943.4 90,881,625.0 880,030.7 92,222,775.2

Total in tons 2.6512 178.1961 1.7267 145.9796 1.2906 131.1051 0.9490 100.1798 0.9701 101.6582

Grand Total in tons 38.2803 1,276.4908 27.2632 776.3713 17.3812 492.5363 9.7671 268.1057 9.1028 243.8463 2035

2035 2002 2009 2015 2025 2002 2009 2015 2025

2002 2009 2015 2025 2035



### Ozone PM2.5 & GHG* Ozone PM2.5 & GHG* Ozone