Planning - Transportation System Planning - Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) Records, Adopted MTIP - Fiscal Year 2006-2009 Final Air Quality Conformity Determination Report (MTIP)

This version labeled Draft is the version approved by FHWA/FTA on Nov. 1, 2005.

1.0 Overview.................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Background.....................................................................................................................3

1.2 Status of Air Pollutants in the Region ..........................................................................4

Map 1. Planning Boundary.....................................................................................................5

1.3 Purpose of this Determination.......................................................................................6

2.1 General Requirements ………………………………………………………………. 8

2.1.1 Applicability (OAR 340-252-0020 and 40 CFR 93.102)………………………….………………8

2.1.2 Frequency of Conformity Determinations (OAR 340-252-0050 and 40 CFR 93.104) ........8

2.1.3 Consultation (OAR 340-252-0060 and 40 CFR 93.105) ......................................................8

2.1.4 Content of Transportation Plans (OAR 340-252-0070 and 40 CFR 93.106) ........................9

2.1.5 Relationship of Transportation Plan and TIP Conformity with the NEPA Process

(OAR 340-252-0080 and 40 CFR 93.107)……………………………………………….10

2.1.6 Fiscal Constraints for Transportation Plans and TIP (OAR 340-252-0090 and 40 CFR

93.108) .................................. ....................................................................................10

2.2 Criteria and Procedures for Determining Conformity ……………………………11

2.2.1 General (OAR 340-252-0100 and 40 CFR 93.109) ............................................................11

2.2.2 Latest Planning Assumptions (OAR 340-252-0110 and 40 CFR 93.110) ..........................11

2.2.3 Latest Emissions Model (OAR 340-252-0120 and 40 CFR 93.111) ..................................12

2.2.4 Consultation (OAR 340-252-0130 and 40 CFR 93.112) ....................................................12

2.2.5 Timely Implementation of Transportation Control Measures (OAR 340-252-0130

and 40 CFR 93.112)……………………………………………………... …………………….12

2.2.6 Currently Conforming Transportation Plan and TIP (OAR 340-252-0150 and 40 CFR

93.114)……………………………………………………………………………………………….31

93.118)………………………………………………………………………………………….……31

2.3 Regional Emissions Analysis & Methodology........................................................... 32

2.3.1 Transportation Networks .........................................................................................32

2.3.2 Procedures for Determining Regional Transportation-Related Emissions (OAR 340-

252-0230 and 40 CFR 93.122) ........................................................................................32

2.3.3 Exempt Projects (OAR 340-252-0270 and 40 CFR 93.126) ..............................................34

2.3.4 Projects Exempt from Regional Emissions Analyses (OAR 340-252-0280 and 40 CFR

93.127) ..................................................................................................................….34

2.3.5 Traffic Signal Synchronization Projects (OAR 340-252-0290 and 40 CFR 93.128) .........34

Appendix D - EPA: Portland, Oregon Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget Adequacy

The federal Clean Air Act is the primary regulatory framework for national, state and local efforts to protect air quality. Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for setting standards, known as national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), for pollutants considered harmful to people and the environment. These standards are set at levels that are meant to protect the health of the most sensitive population groups, including the elderly, children and people with respiratory diseases. Air quality planning is focused on meeting the NAAQS and deadlines set by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and state Department of Environmental Quality for meeting the standards. Further, the United States Department of Transportation has established regulations. Failing to conform restricts an area's ability to receive federal transportation funds during the lapse period.

More specifically, federal air quality conformity requirements come from the integration of requirements in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 and are codified at 40 CFR Part 93. These requirements were also included in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) and in some form will likely be included in new transportation funding legislation now being considered by Congress.

Oregon’s Conformity SIP, adopted by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission under OAR 340-200-0040 and approved by EPA, establishes rules and standards for determining air quality conformity of transportation plans, programs and projects within Oregon (specifically, OAR 340 Division 252). These regulations contain all federal requirements plus a few additional state standards. The Department of Environmental Quality is responsible for writing the air quality plan. By meeting the Oregon standards for purposes of demonstrating air quality conformity, the federal standards are also met.

Metro is the Portland area’s designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). As the MPO, Metro is the lead agency for development of regional transportation plans and the scheduling of federal transportation funds in the Portland urban area. The Metro Council, after receiving recommendations from the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation, approves regional transportation plans and implementation programs. In addition, the Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee (TPAC) is called out under the state rule as the standing committee designated for “interagency consultation” as required by the rule. In order to demonstrate that the proposed 2006-09 MTIP and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) amendment meet federal and state air quality planning requirements, Metro must complete a technical analysis, consult with relevant agencies and provide for public comment that, in total, is known as air quality conformity.

The Portland/Vancouver area has one interconnected airshed. However, given the State boundary along the Columbia River and the differing jurisdictions and state laws, the Federal government approved each side of the airshed taking responsibility for its area. For the Oregon side, a Portland Area Airshed was established.

While in past years both Carbon Monoxide and ground level ozone and its precursors were required to be analyzed, the Metro region is now in attainment for ozone for both the one-hour and eight-hour standards and the region is responsible for addressing Carbon Monoxide only. As shown by the figure below, the Portland Metro area has not exceeded Carbon Monoxide standards since 1984 and emissions have been trending downward.

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

For Carbon Monoxide, the Metro jurisdictional boundary was established as the geographic extent of concern for which emission budgets (maximum pollutant levels) were created. Below is a map of the metro jurisdictional boundary used for the air quality analysis. Within the regional area, there were sub-areas with their own emission budgets. These sub-areas were the Portland Central City sub-area and the 82nd Avenue sub-area. However, on February 15, 2005, the EPA found that the motor vehicle emission budgets in the proposed Second Portland Area Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan are adequate for transportation conformity purposes (see Appendix D). These new Carbon Monoxide budgets are region-wide and no longer include sub-area emission budgets.

This conformity determination has been prepared to demonstrate that the proposed 2006-2009 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program and amendment of the financially constrained system of the Regional Transportation Plan to include the I-205/Airport Way Interchange improvements meet federal and state air quality standards.

Metro has the responsibility for completing the transportation plans and implementation programs for the region. There are several events which can trigger the need to demonstrate air quality conformity, including any regionally significant changes to the transportation plan or the adoption of a new transportation improvement program. The conformity process is completed by first having local analysis and consideration. If the Metro Council approves the air quality conformity determination, it is submitted to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). In practice, this means review by the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. The USDOT makes a conformity determination after consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency.

The 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and 2004-2007 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan (MTIP) were conformed and, after consultation with the USEPA, received approval of USDOT on March 5, 2004.

The proposed 2006-2009 MTIP is consistent almost exactly with what was conformed in the financially constrained system of the 2004 RTP. However, a few projects were changed by shifting the construction date. In addition, a change to the financially constrained system of the RTP has been proposed for an improvement of the I-205 Northbound On-Ramp/Airport Way. Accordingly, this document is intended to analyze the air quality consequences of the proposed 2006-2009 MTIP and a proposed amendment of the financially constrained system of the RTP. This is accomplished by looking at the combined air quality results of: 1) the whole existing transportation system; 2) adding all of the transportation improvements included in the 2004 RTP out to the year 2025, as revised by the proposed 2006-2009 MTIP and the proposed I-205 Northbound On-Ramp/Airport Way improvement; and 3) the total population and jobs as included in the 2025 forecasts.

This air quality analysis is organized around and addresses those sections of the federal statutes and state administrative rule that are applicable to this MTIP and RTP amendment conformity determination. Accordingly, each subsection will cite a subject (e.g. “Consultation”) and then describe how the requirement was addressed. Federal statutes concerning transportation air quality conformity begin at 40 CFR 93.100 and end at 40 CFR 93.128. Oregon administrative rules for transportation conformity follow federal statute and begin at OAR 340-252-0010 and end at OAR 340-252-0290. Each section is address in numerical order, except as noted below.

In some cases there are sections of federal statutes or state administrative rule that do not apply or do not apply directly and are not addressed. Sections not addressed directly and reasons for not addressing them include: Purpose (OAR 340-252-0010 and 40 CFR 93.100 - handled by addressing all sections with specific requirements); Definitions (OAR 340-252-0030 and 40 CFR 93.101 - this conformity determination uses these definitions when addressing requirements in other sections); Priority (OAR 340-252-0040 and 40 CFR 93.103 - this applies to the priorities that the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration place on transportation improvements that have been prepared to attain or maintain air quality standards.); Projects from a Plan and TIP (OAR 340-252-0160 and 40 CFR 93.115 - this is a project level requirement and must be satisfied by the project, but is not needed in a regional emissions conformity determination.);Localized CO and PM₁₀ Violations (OAR 340-252-0170 and 40 CFR 93.116 – this determination is a region-wide analysis. This section concerns local project conditions. Individual projects are responsible for independent hot spot, or localized CO analyses. The region has always been in compliance with PM₁₀ standards. Accordingly, this section does not apply); Compliance with PM₁₀ Control Measures (OAR 340-252-0180 and 40 CFR 93.117 – as noted, the region has always been in compliance with PM₁₀ standards, so this section does not apply); Emission Reductions in Areas without Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (OAR 340-252-0200 and 40 CFR 93.119 - the Metro region has EPA approved emission budgets, so this section does not apply); Consequences of Control Strategy Implementation Plan Failures (OAR 340-252-0210 and 40 CFR 93.120 – EPA has approved implementation plans for the Metro region, so this section does not apply); Requirements for Adoption or Approval of Project by Other Recipients of Funds Designated under Title 23 USC or the Federal Transit Laws (OAR 340-252-0220 and 40 CFR 93.121- this conformity determination is being conducted to ensure that all federally funded transportation projects, as well as regionally significant locally funded projects, are assessed and no exception is being sought under this section); Procedures for Determining Localized CO and Pm₁₀ Concentration (OAR 340-252-0240 and 40 CFR 93.123 – as noted above, this is a region-wide analysis of CO. Individual projects are responsible for local CO hot spot analyses independent of this region-wide analysis);Using the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the Applicable Implementation Plan or Implementation Plan Submission (OAR 340-252-0250 and 40 CFR 93.124 – this regulation concerns the implementation plan, not the conformity determination directly, accordingly it is not addressed); Enforceability of Design Concept and Scope and Project-Level Mitigation and Control Measures (OAR 340-252-0260 and 40 CFR 93.125 – this is a individual project level requirement that each project must address and is not a region-wide requirement).

This conformity rule applies to the proposed 2006-2009 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program and the proposed amendment of the financially constrained Regional Transportation Plan to include the I-205/Airport Way Interchange improvements as the Metro area is a Carbon Monoxide maintenance status and the actions being proposed are regionally significant.

2.1.2 Frequency of Conformity Determinations (OAR 340-252-0050 and 40 CFR 93.104)

. On March 5, 2004, the USDOT approved the 2004 RTP and 2004-2007 MTIP. However, as there are some changes to some individual project implementation years from that approval when compared with the proposed 2006-2009 MTIP and a proposed RTP amendment for the proposed I-205 Northbound On-Ramp/Airport Way improvement, this conformity determination of regional emissions is being conducted.

In addition, federal regulations mandate that a conformity determination be done within 18 months of EPA approval of an implementation plan which changes TCMs and state regulations call for conformity within 24 months of EQC adoption of a state implementation plan revision with adds TCMs. Depending on EPA action, this conformity determination may not fulfill this requirement and another conformity determination may need to be made after EPA approval of the Second Portland Area Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan.

This section addresses the consultation requirements for air quality planning. The regulations in this section state that the metropolitan planning organization is responsible for development the transportation plan (RTP) and transportation improvement program (MTIP), making the conformity determination, performing regional emissions analysis and documenting timely implementation of transportation control measures.

Since the March 5, 2004 USDOT conformity determination, Metro has not changed the financially constrained system of the 2004 RTP, though the proposed amendment concerning the I-205 Northbound On-Ramp/Airport Way improvement is now under consideration and Metro has, working with its local government partners, proposed a 2006-2009 MTIP. Combined, these are the subject of this transportation conformity determination.

Public consultation is an important aspect of these regulations. A public comment period must be provided prior to taking formal action and reasonable access to technical and policy information must be provided at the beginning of the public comment period. Any charges for public inspection and copying must be consistent with a specified fee schedule.

Metro is making this document available on its website at the beginning of the public comment period, July 11, 2005, so that it may be accessed for free at any public library via the internet or from a resident’s home, if they have a computer and internet access. In addition, a telephone number has been advertised so that the public may call should they have questions. Metro has arranged to mail hard copies of this report to those who may wish to use this method of inspecting the document. Metro has also provided a telephone number for the hearing impaired so that questions may be answered using TTY technology, so that text messages may be conveyed back and forth. Public comments received by August 10, 2005, will be compiled and written responses addressing comments will be completed and made available to the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation and the Metro Council and are included in Appendix B.

With regard to technical review, the federal and state regulations state that there shall also be a standing committee responsible for consultation. Further, State OAR require that the standing committee must be provided a minimum of 30 days to comment on a proposed air quality conformity determination. For the Metro area, state administrative rules cite the Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee (TPAC), as the standing committee.

Accordingly, as the proposed 2006-2009 MTIP project list was developed, TPAC was part of the development process. In addition, at several points, TPAC has been consulted in advance, on the timing and assumptions proposed to be used for this air quality conformity determination. For example, at their March 2005 meeting, TPAC was given a copy of a “MTIP Transportation Conformity Plan”, citing the background, proposed assumptions about demographics, transportation network, motor vehicle emission budgets and analysis years and how analysis years would be calculated. On June 9, 2005, a group including representatives of the EPA, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, DEQ, ODOT, TriMet met to further consult about the conformity determination, especially the proposed section concerning timely implementation of TCM. On June 24, 2005, TPAC members were given several elements of the proposed conformity determination including the project list (Appendix 1), an updated Transportation Conformity Plan and a revised section on timely implementation of TCM. As of July 11, 2005, TPAC members, have been provided with this draft conformity determination and provided a 30 day comment period to secure both technical comments to the assumptions, methods and results of this report. Further, on July 20, 2005, a meeting of representatives of Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, US EPA, DEQ, ODOT, TriMet and Metro met and discussed the July 11, 2005 air quality conformity determination draft comment edition.

This regulation concerns the years in which a “snapshot” of transportation conditions are estimated. The years may not be more than 10 years apart and the first horizon year must not be more than 10 years from the base year. The last year must be the last year of the transportation plan’s forecast period and the forecast demographic conditions (location and amount of jobs, housing and population) for each of these analysis years must be included in the plan.

The 2004 RTP is based on forecasts out to the year 2025. Using an integrated computer model of economic growth and transportation accessibility known as Metroscope, the region forecast every five year increment starting at a base year of 2000 and going out each five year increment (2005, 2010, 2015) and then to the final transportation plan year of 2025. The proposed RTP amendment adding the I-205 Northbound On-Ramp/Airport Way maintains this set of demographic and employment assumptions, though the transportation model assumes this improvement in order to assess the likely resulting transportation conditions and from that, the air quality consequences. Accordingly, the base year for the travel demand model is 2000, with analysis years that include 2005, 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2025.

2.1.5 Relationship of Transportation Plan and TIP Conformity with the NEPA Process (OAR 340-252-0080 and 40 CFR 93.107)

The Sunrise Project is currently being considered in a NEPA effort and for purposes of air quality conformity determination modeling, the project was analyzed consistent with the definition of the project already in the financially constrained system of the RTP. That is, the Project was modeled from 1-205 to 122nd as a 4 lane, limited access expressway, parallel with Hwy212. The Sunrise Project EIS and Damascus/Boring Concept Plan will identify projects beyond 122nd Avenue in the future.

The OTIA funding award is for that portion of the project that is included in the existing financially constrained 2004 RTP - that is, I-205 to 122nd (also known as Phase 1 of Unit 1). No construction project beyond 122nd was modeled for the conformity analysis or programmed in the MTIP at this time (and no right-of-way acquisition east of 122nd Avenue is planned at this time).

When a project hasn't been adequately defined through the NEPA process, conformity allows coding the network based upon a placeholder project as best as can be defined at the time. For purposes of this air quality conformity determination, a specific configuration to the phase 1 project has been made. If the final configuration is substantially different that what has been assumed, there will need to be a determination whether additional conformity analysis will be needed at that time.

2.1.6 Fiscal Constraints for Transportation Plans and TIP (OAR 340-252-0090 and 40 CFR 93.108)

This section requires that transportation plans and transportation improvement programs be fiscally constrained. That is, that the total cost of the transportation plan and the TIP be equal or less than the total of identified transportation resources. The 2004 RTP was adopted to include a fiscally constrained system and the proposed I-205 Northbound On-Ramp/Airport Way RTP amendment has been proposed showing how such an improvement can be financed with known revenues. Likewise, the 2006-2009 MTIP has been created based on the availability of funds, the project list starting from one that vastly exceeded available dollars, to the proposed project list consistent with foreseeable revenues during the program period.

This section outlines which portion of the the conformity rule is applicable for particular actions. Compliance with this section is specifically demonstrated in the following sections.

The assumptions about land use, including the location of jobs, housing and the demographic characteristics of the population are a key element in the transportation analysis and accordingly, are reflected in the air quality assessment. As noted before, using 2000 data as a base year, estimates of the location and quantity of total housing, population and jobs for the years 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2025 were estimated for the 2004 RTP. These forecasts, as part of the 2004 RTP, were adopted by the Metro Council. As they provide a 20 year forecast – 2005 through 2025, they provide a long enough time horizon to understand the results of both the forecast demographic and employment changes and how the combination of the existing transportation system and improvements included in the financially constrained system will operate. From this, air quality analysis is derived.

A new set of forecasts out to the year 2030 have been developed and distributed to local governments for review and comment. Preliminary local government responses indicate that there are substantial concerns to be addressed. Accordingly, these 2030 forecasts will take substantial review time and discussion and will not be approved until after this air quality determination is completed and submitted to the USDOT. However, new 2030 forecasts, once fully reviewed, discussed and with revisions, adopted will become the basis for a new RTP and at that time be subject to air quality analysis for the new RTP.

One difference from the last conformity determination and this one is that a new air quality emission model is required to be used. This new model, MOBILE6.2, the latest EPA approved model, has been employed for this air quality conformity determination.

This section refers back to the earlier section on consultation and provides for the state implementation plans (SIP) to have additional consultation requirements if appropriate. Both the first and second Portland Area CO Maintenance Plans have no further consultation requirements beyond those already addressed in the earlier consultation section.

2.2.5 Timely Implementation of Transportation Control Measures (OAR 340-252-0140 and 40 CFR 93.113)

The State and Federal conformity regulations require that the air quality conformity determination demonstrates compliance with Transportation Control Measures (TCM) that are included in the Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan by providing for the timely completion or implementation of all TCM. It must also be demonstrated that nothing in the MTIP program or RTP amendment interferes with the implementation of TCMs.

The Portland Area Ozone Maintenance Plan approved by the EPA in 1997 included TCM. However, on June 15, 2005, the region will be in attainment with ozone regulations and will no longer be subject to ozone maintenance plan requirements, including TCM in the 1997 Ozone Plan. The Portland Area Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance Plan approved by the EPA in 1997 also contains TCM similar to the TCM in the ozone maintenance plan. A Second Portland Area CO Maintenance Plan with fewer and different TCM has been completed by DEQ and approved by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission and submitted to the US EPA for approval. However, the TCM in the 1997 CO Maintenance Plan is in force until the proposed revised TCM in the Second Portland Area CO Maintenance Plan is acted on by the EPA, likely to occur on or before October 2005. Depending on when the new CO Plan and its TCM are approved, compliance with either the new or current standards would have to be shown. It is unclear exactly when such approval will occur and there is great interest in a timely approval of the MTIP. By demonstrating compliance with both new and old TCM, these regulations are addressed. Accordingly, the air quality conformity determination of the 2006-2009 MTIP includes documentation showing implementation of both sets of TCM - existing and proposed.

For the sections below, TCM from the CO maintenance plan are quoted and then followed by a section that describes compliance actions.

Since its adoption in 1995, the Metro Growth Concept has continued to serve as a means of coordinating land use and transportation, emphasizing a compact urban form, mixed uses where high quality transit service is provided or planned, a balanced transportation system that serves the Growth Concept and providing for transportation choices. The Metro 2004 RTP is designed to implement the 2040 Growth Concept. This includes using a 2040 land use hierarchy to guide transportation plans and MTIP criteria that direct transportation investment decisions with 2040 Growth Concept implementation in mind. The MTIP includes incentives for serving 2040 centers (mixed use areas) and reducing vehicle miles traveled. As a result, during the period 1996 (the date of adoption of the air quality maintenance plan requirements) to 2004, TriMet transit originating riders increased 45 percent (from 49,248,000 originating riders in fiscal year 1996 to 71,409,600 in fiscal year 2004). Further, in the period 1996 to the year 2003 (the latest data available), vehicle miles per capita (vmt/c) decreased from 21.7 vmt/c (vmt/c) to 19.5 vmt/capita - an 11% decrease.

Findings. Accordingly, it is found that that growth patterns resulting from the 2040 Growth Concept are less reliant on motor vehicles and that this TGM concerning the Metro 2040 Growth Concept has been met because:

• Cities and counties in the region have approved comprehensive plan changes and transportation system plans to implement the 2040 Growth Concept including promoting mixed use development and pedestrian, bicycle and transit friendly designs; and,

• TriMet originating riders have increased by 45 percent from 1996 to 2004; and,

• Vehicle miles traveled per capita have decreased by 11 percent between 1996 and 2003.

The text of the interim land-use measures is included in Appendix D1-17 (for Ozone, Appendix D2-10 for CO)."

In 1996, the Metro Council adopted the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, which was a set of recommendations and requirements for the twenty-four cities and the urban portions of three counties for implementing the 2040 Growth Concept. These regulations are not interim measures, rather, they provide lasting measures to address land use/transportation coordination. The Functional Plan set targets for cities and counties within the region for new jobs and housing as a means of encouraging land use patterns that are supportive of transit, walking and biking as well as setting standards for street connectivity and reducing the amount of land devoted to surface parking. As of January 2003, the Metro Council concluded (See appendix C, which includes Metro Resolution No. 03-3299, compliance tables and the Functional Plan recommendations and requirements) that 25 of the 27 jurisdictions complied with the minimum density standards, all jurisdictions complied with land partitioning standards, all but one complied with accessory dwelling unit standards. The total residential capacity demonstrated by the local jurisdictions was 94 percent of the total envisioned by the targets, without counting the capacity of the City of Wilsonville or unincorporated Multnomah County. With Wilsonville, unincorporated Multnomah County targets met and including the total capacity of the City of Portland using its Comprehensive Plan, the total would be 99 percent of the total envisioned by the targets. The regional total for accommodating jobs was 107 percent of the regional targets.

With regard to the regional parking policy, all but one jurisdiction (the City of Durham with a population in the 2000 Census of 1,382 people, about 1 percent of the population within the Metro jurisdictional boundary and with very little non-residential land uses or vacant buildable land for non single family use), had complied with reviewing parking space sizes and ratios and lowering the total amount of land devoted to surface parking.

Finally, for Title 4, Retail in Employment and Industrial Areas, every city or county with employment or industrially zoned lands complied. In addition, Metro is currently looking at further protection of encroachment on employment and industrial lands with additional regulations now being discussed by the Metro Council.

All of these land use measures were intended to encourage land use patterns which, in part, promoted a more balanced transportation system. In addition, Metro adopted a Title 6, which pertained to transportation accessibility and connectively. While not included as a land use measure in the air quality maintenance plans, these regional requirements for local government implementation encouraged street systems that connected more frequently which, in turn, encourages walking, biking and transit use - all contributing to better air quality. All 27 jurisdictions complied with connectivity standards.

Findings. Accordingly, it is found that relating to Metro Interim Land Use Measures, generally, and specifically for requirements for accommodation of growth, regional parking policy and retail in employment and industrial areas that this TCM has been met because:

• that Metro Title 1, Housing and Employment Accommodation, including standards for local government implementation of minimum densities, partitioning standards, accessory dwelling units, and capacity analysis, now a part of the Metro Code, along with Metro Council actions to expand the urban growth boundary (as documented below under Urban Growth Boundary), address the requirement for accommodation of growth as specified in the transportation control measures; and,

• that Metro Title 2, Regional Parking Policy, now part of the Metro Code, and which includes minimum and maximum parking standards, a variance process and blended ratios address the regional parking policy element of the transportation control measures; and,

• that Metro Title 4, Retail in Employment and Industrial Areas, including requirements for local government implementation of retail restrictions in industrial areas, and retail restrictions in employment areas address the retail in employment and industrial area requirement of the transportation control measure; and,

• based on the staff reports and Metro Council conclusion documented in Metro Resolution 03-3299 and Metro Order No. 03-001, that requirements for Title 1 (accommodating growth), Title 2 (regional parking policy) and Title 4 (retail in employment and industrial areas) have been implemented by the cities and counties within Metro jurisdiction and that this TCM has been met.

The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as currently adopted or amended before EPA approval of the maintenance plan, assuming an amendment does not significantly affect the air quality plan's transportation emission projections."

As noted above, the 2040 Growth Concept was envisioned to encourage a more compact urban form and to provide for land use patterns that encourage transportation choice and transportation modes with fewer emissions. The urban growth boundary was not intended to be static. Since the late 1970s, the boundary has been moved about three dozen times. Most of those moves were small - 20 acres or less. There were four times that Metro authorized more substantial additions as follows:

- in 1998 about 3,500 acres were added to make room for approximately 23,000 housing units and 14,000 jobs. Acreage included areas around the Dammasch state hospital site near Wilsonville, the Pleasant Valley area in east Multnomah, the Sunnyside Road area in Clackamas County, and a parcel of land south of Tualatin.

- in 1999 another 380 acres were added based on the concept of "subregional need." An example of "subregional need" would occur when a community needed land to balance the number of homes with the number of jobs available in that area.

- in 2002, the Metro Council approved a UGB expansion of 18,638 acres, including 2,851 acres dedicated to employment purpose.

In early 2002, the voters of the region approved Ballot Measure 26-29, which prohibits Metro from requiring higher densities within existing neighborhoods. Metro’s goal is to locate higher density housing, such as townhouses and apartments, within “centers” such as the downtowns of Portland, Beaverton and Gresham, or along transportation corridors, particularly where there is a light-rail line.

As part of the 2002 UGB decision, the Metro Council adopted new policies that address the protection of existing neighborhoods and additional job land, and the improvement of downtown commercial centers and main streets. Transportation and air quality modeling have assumed urban land use consistent with population, housing and job forecasts. In turn, transportation system improvements have also been assumed to serve the area. To date, forecasts of air quality using these assumptions have demonstrated air quality conformity out to the year 2025.

Findings. Accordingly, it is found that this TCM has been met and emission projections have not been significantly affected because:

• the proposed 2006-2009 MTIP implements projects already identified in the 2004 RTP Financially Constrained System and for which the conformity determination completed in 2004 showed compliance with CO emission budgets out to the year 2025. The proposed RTP amendment is a minor change that Metro emission modelers have stated will not significantly affect emission projections; and,

• despite expansions of the urban growth boundary, recorded Carbon Monoxide emissions have trended down.

The Portland City Council adopted the Central City Transportation Management Plan, Plan and Policy, and other supporting documents on December 6, 1995. The Central City Transportation

Management Plan (CCTMP) was adopted by Ordinance No. 169535, Resolution 35472. The Ordinance became effective January 8, 1996. A key supporting document was the Zoning Code Amendments, containing the maximum parking ratios for new development, the requirements for providing structured parking to serve older historic buildings and other regulations on parking. Key elements of the Zoning Code Amendments related to CO air quality projections are incorporated into this document as given below.

The CCTMP replaced the former Downtown Parking and Circulation Policy, first adopted in 1975 and updated in 1980 and 1985. The 1980 update of the parking policy served as a foundation for the 1982 Portland area CO attainment plan. The CCTMP is designed to minimize new vehicle traffic in the Central City and encourage alternative travel modes by extending the downtown maximum parking ratio concept to the entire Central City area. The CCTMP provided for the lifting of the downtown parking lid upon EPA approval of the maintenance plan and the request" for attainment redesignation. However, until EPA approval, the CCTMP retains the parking lid.

The parking offset program (OAR 340-020-0400 through OAR 340-020-0430), designed to allow the city to increase the parking lid by up to a maximum of 1,370 spaces, was also retained until after EPA approval of the maintenance plan. The DEQ's emission projection figures for the CCTMP emissions inventory area include an estimate for the emissions associated with 827 parking spaces, as documented in Appendix D2-4-4. These are the parking spaces yet to be developed, but which were authorized by the parking offset program.

The following is a list of zoning code amendments that were incorporated directly into the Portland Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan. The text of critical code provisions (such as maximum parking ratios for new development and parking provisions for existing buildings) is contained in Appendix D2-8. A list of other zoning code amendments used as supporting documents for the maintenance plan is contained in Appendix D2-13 of Volume 3 of the Oregon State Implementation Plan.

Items in Volume 3 of the SIP are federally enforceable. With regard to Volume 3 items, EPA has allowed DEQ to make changes which are merely administrative, without requiring public process. DEQ and EPA make a determination as to whether a proposed change by the City of Portland is merely administrative rather than substantive.

Section 1: Incorporated Amendments to Chapter 33.510, Central City Plan District

33.510.265 Parking in the Goose Hollow Subdistrict and Central Eastside Sectors 2 and 3

Section 2: Incorporated Portion of New Chapter 33.808, Central City Parking Review

Unless it is a substitution of a Transportation Control Measure producing equivalent emission reduction, any change in the Portland Metro Area CO Maintenance Plan language will require adoption of a formal amendment by the EQC and approval by EPA. The City of Portland may make changes to City policies and regulations which are included in the Portland Metro Area CO Maintenance Plan provided they do not relax the stringency of the air quality control strategies. DEQ wil1 work with the City to notify EPA of such changes. These changes will be incorporated into the Portland Metro Area CO Maintenance Plan at a future convenient time.

Changes to documents supporting the Portland Metro Area CO Maintenance Plan' (zoning code amendments not directly incorporated into the Portland Metro Area CO Maintenance Plan, but listed in Appendix D2-13 of Volume 3 of the Oregon State Implementation Plan) which do not affect the stringency of the air quality control strategies will not require adoption of a formal amendment by the EQC and approval by EP A. DEQ and the City of Portland will review potential changes to the supporting documents to determine whether they affect the stringency of the air quality strategies. If it is determined that stringency will not be affected, DEQ will submit those changes to EPA for concurrence and administrative incorporation into the Portland Metro Area CO Maintenance Plan."

These regulations were adopted by the City of Portland in 1995 and became effective January 8, 1996. These parking regulations are still in force and remain a part of City regulations pertaining to the Central City. Further, the DEQ has removed one CO monitoring station in downtown Portland because CO emissions have significantly decreased below maximum allowed levels.

Findings. Accordingly, this TCM concerning Portland Central City Parking requirements is met as:

• the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has reduced the number of CO monitors in downtown Portland as CO levels have significantly reduced over past CO levels and the monitor was deemed to be more useful in other locations outside the Portland Central City; and,

Table 1 below displays the total region-wide annual service hours for light rail, bus and streetcar vehicles by year since the adoption of the region’s transportation control measures (1996).

Source: Through Fiscal Year 2004 the numbers from bus and rail are derived from the Monthly Performance Reports prepared by TriMet's Financial Analysis Division. Streetcar hours were provided by Portland Streetcar Inc. Data do not include City of Wilsonville SMART transit system service hours. SMART provides transit service to the City of Wilsonville and connects with Trimet system.

TriMet has increased regional transit service by an average of 2.6 percent since adoption of this transportation control measure. This is greater than the 1.5 percent average transit service increase required annually.

Service and financial planners at TriMet have forecast growth in transit service hours through the fiscal year 2006- 2009 years that will exceed the commitment to averaging 1.5 percent annual growth. Recently acquired authority from the 2003 State Legislature to increase the payroll tax rate once the recession has ended will further enable TriMet to meet this goal.

Findings. Accordingly, it is found that this TCM concerning increasing regional transit service hours averaging 1.5 percent annually is met because:

• the data in Table 1 show an average annual increase in regional transit service hours of 2.5 percent for the period 1996 to 2004; and,

• projections of regional transit service hours for the next funding period, 2006 through 2009 show average annual transit service hour increases greater than 1.5 percent.

"This commitment includes an average annual capacity increase in the Central City area equal to the regional capacity increase. The level of transit capacity increase is based on the regional employment growth projections adopted by Metro Council on Dec. 21, 1995. These projections assume that the Central City will maintain its current share of the regional employment. Should less employment growth occur in the Region and/or the Central City, transit service increase may be reduced proportionately."

The following table illustrates the transit service increase for those transit services that serve the downtown.

Bus	LRT	Total	Bus	LRT	Streetcar	Total
1,340,508	59,544	1,400,052	1,417,216	201,240	21,000	1,639,456
							2.1%

Note: Service hours are totals for all bus light rail and streetcar lines that serve the downtown Portland Central City area.

Findings. Accordingly, it is found that the TCM for average annual capacity increase in the Central City area equal to the regional capacity increase is met because:

• as Table 2 shows, the average annual increase in transit service in the Central City, 2.1%, exceeds the required 1.5%; and,

• as the transit system is focused on the Central City as a hub, increases in transit service hours often mean an increase in transit service in the Central City.

Westside Light Rail was opened on September 12, 1998. The 18-mile Westside MAX extension, began service in 1998 between downtown Portland and the western suburbs of Beaverton and Hillsboro. At opening, half of the riders in this corridor were new to transit. Daily ridership now averages 31,400, surpassing projections for the year 2008.

Findings. Accordingly, it is found that this TCM for completion of the Westside Light Rail Transit facility is met because:

• the Westside Light Rail Transit facility was completed and opened on September 12, 1998 and; and,

• daily ridership of the Westside Light Rail Transit facility now averages 31,400.

A northern LRT line, the 5.8-mile Interstate MAX line opened May 1, 2004. This line added 10 stations from the Expo Center through North Portland to the Rose Quarter, and operates through downtown Portland. Along with MAX, bus service in N/NE Portland was improved.

Design work is underway on the South Corridor LRT project, the I-205 MAX line, a 6.5-mile extension into Clackamas County. This first phase and would add light rail in 2009 between Gateway Transit Center and Clackamas Town Center, and along the Portland Mall. The second phase would add light rail between downtown Portland and Milwaukie. Portland Mall Light rail is proposed to be included in the first phase of the South Corridor Project building along the Portland Mall between Union Station and Portland State University by 2009. The extension along 5th and 6th avenues adds capacity to the growing MAX system, serves the heart of downtown and will help revitalize downtown.

Because of changes to the original South/North light rail project in previous years, the project was substantially revised and rescheduled. It is asserted that progress continues, as documented by the publishing of the South Corridor I-205/Portland Mall Light Rail Project final environmental impact statement November 2004 and by the issuance of the Project's Record of Decision by the Federal Transit Administration February 2005.

Findings. Accordingly, it is found that this TCM concerning completion of the South/North Light Rail (LRT) in the South/North corridor by the year 2007 has been met and that obstacles to progress have been identified and sufficiently addressed because:

• two LRT lines, Airport MAX and Interstate MAX, have been built in a north corridor; and,

• obstacles to progress in the south corridor were a loss of local funding match and local resident concerns about the proposed alignment; and,

• residents now support two LRT lines in a south corridor, with the selection of locally preferred option to include Phase 1 in the I-205 to Clackamas Town Center alignment and Phase 2 in the Sellwood/Milwaukie alignment; and,

• a final Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase 1 I-205 to Clackamas Town Center was published November 2004; and,

• a Record of Decision was approved by the Federal Transit Administration in February 2005.

currently exist. Pedestrian improvements are defined as sidewalks on both sides of the street. Bicycle improvements are defined as bikeways within the Metro boundary and shoulders outside the Metro boundary but within the Air Quality Maintenance Area."

As noted in the TCM, it is State law that all major roadway expansion or reconstruction

projects on an arterial or major collector shall include pedestrian and bicycle improvements

where such facilities do not currently exist. Agencies seeking funding of transportation projects have designed and built projects to comply with this requirement.

Findings. Accordingly, it is found that this TCM concerning adding pedestrian and bicycle improvements to arterial or major collector roads where such pedestrian or bicycle facilities do not currently exist has been met because:

• this is state law and there is no evidence of non compliance on the part of local governments or State agencies.

The region has added at least 32.03 miles of bicycle lanes and multi-use paths between 1996 and 2006 as shown in Table 3.² This is 14% above the 28-mile target.

Findings. Accordingly, it is found that the TCM to add at least 28 miles of bicycle lanes, shoulder bikeways or multi-use trails is met because:

• since 1996, 25.8 miles of bicycle lanes, shoulder bikeways or multi-use trails, in addition to multimodal facilities commitments have been constructed; and

• 6.22 miles of bicycle projects including bicycle lanes, shoulder bikeways or multi-use trails, in addition to multimodal facilities commitments are programmed for construction as documented in Table 3;and,

• reasonable progress is demonstrated as the programmed 6.22 miles of bicycle projects is more than the 5 miles needed to be demonstrated; and

• a total of 32.02 miles of bicycle paths will be completed by 2006.as shown in the data in Table 3, a sum greater than the 26 miles set in the TCM.

The region has added, or will add, at least 11.42 miles of pedestrian improvements between 1996 and 2006 as shown in Table 4. This is 27% above the 9-mile target for new pedestrian improvements. ³

Findings. Accordingly, it is found that the TCM for pedestrian facilities, in addition to multi-modal facilities commitment, has been met because:

• since 1996, over 5 miles of pedestrian facilities in the Central City, regional centers, town centers, corridors, station communities and main streets have been constructed; and,

• 5.8 miles of pedestrian facilities in the Central City, regional centers, town centers, corridors, station communities and main streets are programmed for construction; and,

• the total of such pedestrian facilities, constructed and programmed, is 11.42 miles, which substantially exceeds the TCM of nine miles; and,

• the current programming of 5.8 miles of pedestrian facilities in the Central City, regional centers, town centers, corridors, station communities and main streets substantially exceeds the standard of reasonable progress of one and a half miles in the TIP funding cycle.

The draft Second Portland Area Carbon Monoxide Air Quality Maintenance Plan includes revised and fewer TCM. It is expected that the EPA will approve the new Maintenance Plan, although the approval date is not known. Should EPA approval occur during the period between release of this document and USDOT conformity approval, the new TCM would apply. Thus, Metro is documenting its progress in reaching these proposed TCM in addition to the 1997 TCM.

The TCM calls for calculation …of actual hours for assessments conducted between 2006 and 2017. Data for 2006 will not be available until the year 2007 and a five year rolling average would first be calculated in year 2011, with data from 2006 through 2010. Presented below are projections of transit service hours from the 2005 TriMet Transit Investment Plan

Source: FY 2006 through FY 2010 are projections based on planned changes to service. Streetcar hours were provided by Portland Streetcar Inc.

This TCM can only be calculated after actual service hour figures are obtained for the years between 2006 and 2010. In lieu of actual service hour numbers, the figures above demonstrate that TriMet’s planned service (based on their Transit Investment Plan) will increase an average of 4.33% per year between 2006 and 2010, which exceeds the 1 percent TCM goal.

Findings. Accordingly it is found that this TCM concerning transit service increase been met because:

• the 2005 TriMet Transit Investment Plan shows an annual average transit service increase of 4.33 percent, which exceeds the TCM of 1.5 percent.

As shown in The region has allocated funding for at least 11.98 miles of bicycle lanes and multi-use paths for 2006-2009 as shown in Table 6.⁴ This represents an average of 5.99 miles per biennium, 20% above the 5 mile per biennium target for new bicycle/trail improvements.

Additionally, the RTP Financially Constrained list includes several bicycle projects to be completed by 2017. A sample is provided below (analysis was stopped once it could be shown that the goal could be met and in no case were projects beyond the year 2015 even counted).

Adding this mileage to the 11.98 miles from 2006-2009 MTIP allocations totals 28.73 miles, which exceeds the target of 28 miles by 2017.

Findings. Accordingly, it is found that this TCM concerning bicycle paths has been met because:

• almost 12 miles of bicycle paths are programmed for the years 2006-2009; and,

• the Financially Constrained System of the RTP shows an additional 16.78 miles of bicycle paths to be constructed by 2017; and,

• the total miles planned to be constructed by 2017 is 28.73 miles, which slightly exceeds the TCM of 28 miles by the year 2017.

As shown in Table 8, the region has allocated funding for at least 4.56 miles of new pedestrian improvements in mixed-use centers for 2006-2009.⁵This represents an average of 2.28 miles per biennium, 52% above the 1.5 mile per biennium target for new pedestrian improvements.

Additionally, the RTP Financially Constrained list, includes several bicycle projects to be completed by 2017. A sample is provided below. See Appendix 3 for a detailed list of projects.

Adding this mileage to the 4.56 miles from the 2006-2009 MTIP allocations totals 9.1 miles, which exceeds the target of 9 miles by 2017.

Findings. Accordingly, it is found that this TCM concerning pedestrian projects has been met because:

• a total of 4.56 miles of pedestrian paths are programmed for the period 2006-2009;and,

• a total of an additional 4.54 miles of pedestrian paths are included in the Financially Constrained System of the RTP by the year 2017; and

• the total of programmed and planned pedestrian paths between 2006 and 2017 is 9.1 miles, which slightly exceeds the TCM of 9 miles by the year 2017. (The documentation of this was stopped once it could be shown that the target could be met and in no case were projects beyond the year 2015 counted in the tally)

The above facts and findings for each existing or proposed TCM demonstrate the timely completion or implementation of each TCM. In addition, the above examination of each TCM demonstrates that there are no obstacles that interfere with the implementation of any TCM in the current or proposed CO maintenance plans, including no obstacles in the MTIP or RTP as proposed to be amended.

Accordingly, it is found that the criteria and procedures of Criteria and Procedures: Timely Implementation of TCMs, ( OAR 340-252-0140 and 40 CFR 93.113) have been met.

2.2.6 Currently conforming transportation plan and TIP (OAR 340-252-0150 and 40 CFR 93.114)

This section concerns projects, and that only one conforming transportation plan or TIP may exist at any one time and the old conformity determination for a transportation plan or TIP expires once the new one is approved. Potentially a project could lose its conformity determination if not built and not carried over to the new conformity determination.

The proposed financially constrained system RTP amendment, with conformity determination approval, will allow the proposed I-205 Northbound On-Ramp/Airport Way improvement to proceed, along with the other unchanged 2004 RTP elements. The 2006-2009 MTIP, upon conformity determination approval will allow for three years of transportation improvements, consistent with the financially constrained system of the 2004 RTP, to proceed.

This section requires that the projected emissions from the entire transportation system not exceed the approved motor vehicle emission budget for each year that an emission budget has been established. By a letter dated February 15, 2005, the EPA found that the motor vehicle emission budgets in the proposed Second Portland Area Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan are adequate for transportation conformity purposes (see Appendix D)

These EPA approved budgets for winter time Carbon Monoxide levels from all transportation sources are as follows:

2017 – 1,181,341 pounds per day (2017 is the proposed end year of the Maintenance Plan)

Using the Metro travel forecast model, the transportation network capacity that would result with the implementation of the financially constrained system of the 2004 RTP, as proposed to be amended for the I-205 Northbound On-Ramp/Airport Way and the specific timing of projects included in the proposed 2006-2009 MTIP, as consistent with the financially constrained 2004 RTP, the forecasts of population, housing, employment and the use of the MOBILE6.2 air quality model with the assumptions as listed above, the following results were found:

When comparing these to the motor vehicle emission budgets, the following is found:

Year	Carbon Monoxide Motor Vehicle Emission Budget	Forecast Carbon Monoxide Emission	Motor Vehicle Emission Budget Standard Met?
2005	1,238,575	1,197,626	Yes
2010	1,033,578	975,761	Yes
2017	1,181,341	837,990	Yes
2025	1,181,341	901,748	Yes

Accordingly, based on these model results, the other data provided in this document and on documents in the appendices, it is concluded that the proposed 2006-2009 MTIP and the proposed amendment of the financially constrained system of the 2004 RTP to allow for improvements to the I-205 Northbound On-Ramp/Airport Way have met the transportation air quality conformity determination requirements and standards.

The projects listed in Appendix A are those assumed for the region. This list includes the project name, location, project description, whether it was included in the air quality analysis (for example, some of the projects are exempt, like safety improvements that do not include capacity improvements) and the year that the project was assumed to be completed and therefore added to the system modeled.

2.3.2 Procedures for Determining Regional Transportation-Related Emissions (OAR 340-252-0230 and 40 CFR 93.122)

This section requires that the analysis be performed for all “regionally significant” projects. Metro’s approach has been to attempt to model any improvement that can be modeled. This approach helps ensure that any capacity increases that may be involved in an improvement are included in the analysis and that all possible consideration of improvements has been made.

This section also addresses the model assumptions and methods to be used. The Metro travel demand model (known as Agnes, last validated to base year 2000 in 2003) was used in the first step of this analysis. Once the travel demand model has been run for a particular year, with the attendant assumptions about the transportation network improvements and capacities, transit service levels, jobs, housing and demographic characteristics, the miles traveled and the speeds at which the miles are traveled are estimated.

MOBILE6.2, the air quality model, is the second step taken to estimate air pollutant levels for the year that the transportation model was run. To run MOBILE6.2, several additional assumptions must be made. Following are the assumptions made for running MOBILE6.2

* While the DEQ has proposed phase out of both oxygenated fuels and the Enhanced I/M test, these have not been approved by the EPA and may not expected to be decided by the EPA within the MTIP air quality conformity schedule.

The transit network used for this analysis included the existing transit network as well as the improvements included in the financially constrained system of the RTP, which includes TriMet's Transit Investment Plan.

This section also provides for emission reduction credits for any transportation control measures (TCM) that may be implemented as long as timely implementation can be assured. As the analysis has demonstrated that the region’s regional CO emission levels have been achieved at this time without the use of emission reduction credits, these credits have not been included in these calculations. Such emission credits could be used, however, in future conformity determinations, should projected emissions exceed motor vehicle emission budgets.

This section includes certain safety (railroad/highway crossings, hazard elimination program, etc.), mass transit (operating assistance to transit agencies, purchase of support vehicles, etc.) air quality (ride-sharing and van pooling promotion, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, etc.), unless the standing committee concurs that the project has potentially adverse emission impacts.

As noted in Appendix A, all projects that could be modeled were included in this conformity determination. However, most all of projects qualifying as an exempt project would not be included in the travel forecast model and this air quality analysis.

2.3.4 Projects Exempt from Regional Emissions Analyses (OAR 340-252-0280 and 40 CFR 93.127)

In addition to the list of exempt projects, certain projects are exempt from regional emissions analyses. These include intersection channelization projects, intersection signalization at individual intersections, changes in vertical and horizontal alignments and other projects which do not significantly affect the regional emission analysis (but which must have a local hot spot analysis to check on potential impact to the area directly around the project’s location.)

As was noted in the section above, all possible improvements possible to be modeled in the travel forecast model were included.

2.3.5 Traffic Signal Synchronization Projects (OAR 340-252-0290 and 40 CFR 93.128)

Regionally significant signalization projects must be included as required by this section. No traffic signal synchronization change from the 2004 conformity determination was made in this conformity determination analysis.


Description	FY 2004-2025	FY 2006	FY 2007	FY 2008	FY 2009
Total Revenue	$4.312 Billion	$260,776,000	$198,431,000	$232,895,000	$202,577,000
Total Expenditures	$4.312 Billion	$260,776,000	$198,431,000	$232,895,000	$202,577,000
Difference between Revenues & Expenditures	0	0	0	0	0

	Bus	Rail (bus equivalency)	Streetcar (bus equivalency)	Commuter Rail (bus equivalency)	Total	Percent Change year-to-year
2006	1,962,012	1,127,378	36,940		3,126,331	NA
2007	1,962,012	1,150,059	46,690		3,158,761	1.04%
2008	1,981,252	1,191,774	51,040	21,023	3,245,089	2.73%
2009	1,980,992	1,233,133	51,040	21,023	3,286,189	1.27%
2010	1,983,384	1,634,727	51,040	21,023	3,690,174	12.29%

	Parameter	Details	Data Source
a.	Emission Model Version:	MOBILE6.2	EPA
b.	Emission Model Runs:	2010, 2015, 2025	EPA, DEQ
c.	Time Periods:	Seven - 2200hrs-0559; 0600-0659;0700-0859; 0900-1359; 1400-1459, 1800-1859 (PM shoulder); 1500-1759 and 1900-2159.
d.	Pollutants Reported:	Carbon Monoxide
e.	Vehicle Class:	As per MOBILE6.2	EPA
f.	Functional Class:	MOBILE6.2 default (freeways, arterials, local and ramp)
g.	Temperatures:	Min, Max for January	OR DEQ
h.	VMT mix:	MOBILE6.2 default
i.	Speed:	3-65 MPH
j.	Vehicle Registration:	1999 fleet for 2000 run, all other runs using 2004 fleet, except for trips originating in Washington State which are provided through the SW Clean Air Agency.	OR DEQ / ODOT DMV
k.	I/M Program:	Assumes oxygenated fuels and three Inspection and Maintenance tests depending on vehicle manufacture year - Basic, Enhanced and On-Board Diagnostic*	OR DEQ
l.	Reid Vapor Pressure:	13.6 – Jan.	OR DEQ