HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-05-2009 - Information Item~ n-Form a -j-i o-~ _-~ -enil
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING 8< INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Comprehensive Planning
(919) 245-2589
(919) 644-3002 (FAX)
www.co.orange.nc.us
306E Revere Road
P O Box 8181
Hillsborough,
North Carolina, 27278
Date: April 23, 2009
To: Laura Blackmon, County Manager
CC: Willie Best, Assistant County Manager
Craig Benedict, Planning Director
From: Karen Lincoln, Transportation Planner
Subject: Update on 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan and Conformity
Analysis and Determination Report
The following is an update on the Conformity Analysis and Determination Report for the
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2035
Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).
Every four years the DCHC MPO updates the LRTP, as required by federal and state
legislation for areas designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as non-attainment
for ambient air quality standards. The plan must demonstrate that fiscally constrained
transportation planning activities are consistent with air quality goals to reduce or maintain
transportation related air pollutants to/within State-budgeted amounts for the Triangle Area.
The Board endorsed comments to the DCHC TAC regarding the Preferred Option of the
DCHC 2035 LRTP (Draft LRTP) in December 2009. The DCHC TAC, in February 2009,
approved the Draft 2035 LRTP (Preferred Option) for purposes of completing the air quality
conformity analysis. The TAC, at its meeting April 8, 2009, held public hearings on the
2035 Long Range Transportation Plan and the (Air Quality) Conformity Analysis and
Determination Report. The MPO will accept public comment through May 5.
The 2035 LRTP
Several highway projects have been removed from the 2035 time frame of the plan in order
to meet fiscal constraints. Those projects will be included in the (fiscally unconstrained)
Comprehensive Transportation Plan for the MPO that extends beyond the 2035 time
horizon. Attachment 2 is a list of those projects. Attachment 2 indicates that the
Hillsborough Western Bypass and US 70 from NC 86 to I-85 near Durham County were
removed because the model indicated lack of congestion on those roads for year 2035.
The Conformity Analysis and Determination Report
The Air Quality Conformity Analysis and Determination Report covers the entire Triangle
Ozone Non-Attainment Area and is based on the LRTPs for the DCHC MPO, the Capital
Area MPO (CAMPO), and the Burlington-Graham MPO (Orange County portion of
Mebane). The Conformity Analysis and Determination Report states that "The combination
_, .. on;s
(' ~j`=,: •.>.,..G.~tS 8rd Sr;?iirys~"s ]i30`~:Ln.^.; ; ?'>9.:!?^S;T<,: n: n;', •,. -::~ .. .. .,
MEMORANDUM May 5, 2009, BOCC Agenda Report
Memo: DCHC 2035 LRTP Conformity Analysis and Determination 2
April 23, 2009
Page 2
of technology/fuel improvements/vehicle maintenance and resulting emission reductions
exceeds the effect of increased VMT in the Triangle area." (VMT =vehicle miles traveled.)
Emissions Comparison Summaries tables start on page 26 of the report. Table 21. Orange
County Emissions Comparison Summary shows emissions well below State
Implementation Plan budgets for Orange County. The model used to perform the air
quality analysis does not contain algorithms that can calculate effects of some of the LRTP
strategies such as Transportation Demand Management Programs, land use strategies to
reduce vehicle trips, Triangle Transit's Commuter Services Programs (rideshare matching,
guaranteed ride home and other measures to enhance transit use), and Incident
management programs (surveillance cameras, Motorist Assistance Patrols, traveler
information activities):
The full 2035 Long Range Transportation Plans Public Review Draft is available at
http://www.dchcmpo.ora/dmdocuments/2035LRTP.pdf. There are no anticipated
substantive changes to the final report. Expected changes include:
1. Add Executive Summary.
2. Add Public Comments and MPO responses to those comments, and overall summary of
public comments throughout the LRTP process (Appendix 7).
3. Add Acronyms (Appendix 9).
4. Use same format to present DCHC MPO and CAMPO financial data (Section 8).
5. Make changes based on agency comments:
a. Add Safety Countermeasures (based on federal Highway Administration guidelines)
to serve as a guideline, similar to Road Cross Section in Appendix 5.
b. Identify MPO's use of visioning tools in public input process, as required by
SAFETEA-LU.
c. Show highway projects as 2015, 2025, and 2035 air quality year only (do not
include interim years such as 2017).
6. Add minor missing data such as VMT in Greenhouse Gas section and summary of
CAMPO Environmental Justice section.
7. Add photos and improve graphics and images that are difficult to read.
Next Steps
The DCHC MPO Transportation Advisory Committee, on May 13, will consider approving
the 2035 LRTP and Air Quality Conformity and Determination Report. It is uncertain
whether the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration will be able
to approve the 2035 LRTP and Air Quality Conformity Analysis and Determination by the
June 15, 2009, deadline. However, SAFETEA-LU provisions allow aone-year "grace
period" to obtain a conforming LRTP before federal aid is cut off for projects programmed in
a conforming Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The DCHC 2035 LRTP should
be approved by the federal agencies before the North Carolina Board of Transportation
(BOT) adopts the 2011 - 2017 TIP, so any lapse in the plan should not adversely impact
existing projects programmed in the 2009-2015 TIP.
::`•Docum~ts and Settirgsl;na;iisor`.Lo;ai SeGirgs;Temporary lraemet Files10LK1081memo_2035LRTP_AQADReport.doc
Conformity Analysis and Determination Report
2035 Long Range Transportation Plans:
• Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization,
• Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
• Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization
FY 2009 - 2015 Transportation Improvement Programs
^ Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
^ Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
^ Burlington Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization
Projects from the FY 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement Program:
• The portions of Chatham County, Franklin County, Granville County, Johnston County,
Orange County and Person County that are within the Triangle Ozone Maintenance Area
but Outside the Capital Area, Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Burlington-Graham
Metropolitan Planning Organization Areas
March 24, 2009
Prepazed by:
The Triangle J Council of Governments for the
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization,
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization,
Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization,
Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization,
Ken-Taz Rural Planning Organization,
Upper Coastal Plain Rural Planning Organization
and
The NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch
In cooperation with:
The North Cazolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Air Quality
4
Contact Information
Additional copies of this report can be obtained from the Triangle J Council of Governments
at the following address:
Triangle J Council of Governments
P.O. Box 12276
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
This document, including the appendices, can be downloaded from the website:
www.triangleair.org
ll
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OVERVIEW ....................»..........................................................................................................».....................1
EXECUTIVE SIJMMARY.........» ...............................».......................................................»».....................».. 3
1. INTRODUCTION ...............................»........................................................................................»...........» 8
2. AIIt QUALITY PLANNING » .............................................................»................................»................... 12
2.1 EMISSIONS BUDGETS AND BASELINE EMISSIONS ................................................................... 12
3. LONGRANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANS ....................................................................................... 13
3.1 CONSULTA'I'ION ........................................................................................................................ 13
3.2 FYNANCIAL CONSTRAINT ASSUMPI'IONS .................................................................................. 14
3.3 LATEST PLANNING AS$UMPTIONS ...........................:.............................................................. 14
3.4 FbTURE YEAR ROADWAY PROJECTS ......................................................................................... 15
3.5 TRANSIT NETWORKS .........:..........................:............................................................................ 17
3.6 CONGESTION MITIGATION/AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) PROJECTS ................................................ 17
3.7 TRIP GENERATION .................................................................................................................... 17
3.8 TRIP DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................................. 18
3.9 MODE CHOICE AND TRANSIT ASSIGNMENT .............................................................................. 18
3.10 HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ...................................................... 18
3.11 METHOD OF REPORTING VMT AND SPEED ............................................................................. 17
4. REGIONAL EMISSION TESTS ............................................................................................................... 19
4.0.1. Sub-area emission budgets ............................................................................................................. 19
4.0.2 Emissions analysis source ............................................................................................................... 20
4.0.3 Emissions comparison years (ozone) ............................................................................................... 20
4.0.4 Emission comparison years (CO) .................................................................................................... 21
4.1 EMISSIONS MODEL ................................................................................................................... 22
4.1.1 Development of Emissions Factors .................................................................................................. 22
4.1.2 Development of VMT Mix by Vehicle Type ...................................................................................... 22
4.1.3 Vehicle Age Distributions ................................................................................................................ 23
4.2 TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES ................................................................................ 23
4.3 ESTIMATION OF VEHICLE STARTS ............................................................................................ 23
4.4 OFF-MODEL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 23
4.5 EMISSIONS COMPARISON TESTS BY LOCATION AND POLLUTANT ........................................... 24
5. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND INTERAGENCY CONSULTATION ..............................................Z8
6. CONCLUSION.......» ................................................................................................................................... 28
lll
6
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1. Status of Conformity Requirements ......................................................................... 4
Table 2. Durham County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day) ................................... 5
Table 3. Wake County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day) ....................................... 5
Table 4. Granville County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day) ................................. 5
Table 5. Franklin County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day) ................................... 5
Table 6. Johnston County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day) .................................. 5
Table 7. Orange County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day) ..................................... 5
Table 8. Person County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day) ...................................... 6
Table 9. Chatham County (part) Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day) ........................ 6
Table 10. Cross-Reference Index ........................................................................................... 7
Figure 1. Triangle Ozone Maintenance Area ........................................................................ 10
Table 11. NOX Budget for Triangle Counties ....................................................................... 13
Table 12. CO Budget -Durham and Wake Counties ........................................................... 13
Table 13. Triangle Area Transportation Conformity Analysis Matrix (2035 LRTPs)......... 21
Table 14. Percentage of Vehicles Subject to Inspection and Maintenance Programs .......... 22
Table 15. Emissions Test and Responsibility for Conformity Findings ............................... 25
Table 16. Durham County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day) ............................... 26
Table 17. Wake County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day) ................................... 26
Table 18. Granville County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day) ............................. 27
Table 19. Franklin County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day) ............................... 27
Table 20. Johnston County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day) .............................. 27
Table 21. Orange County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day) ................................. 27
Table 22. Person County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day) .................................. 27
Table 23. Chatham County (part) Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day) .................... 28
Table 24: Summary of Conformity Status of Triangle Transportation Plans ....................... 29
iv
7
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Triangle CO SIP Federal Register Notices
Appendix B: Triangle Ozone SIP Federal Register Notice
Appendix C: Interagency Consultation
Appendix D: Lists of Roadway and Transit Projects
(within Maintenance Area)
D1: Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO and Capital Area MPO 2035 LRTP
Roadway Projects
D2: Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO 2009-2015 TIP Projects
D3: Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO and Capital Area MPO 2035 LRTP
Transit Projects
D4: Capital Area MPO 2009-2015 TIP Projects
D5: Triangle Area RPO 2009-2015 TIP Projects
D6: Kerr Tar RPO 2009-2015 TIP Projects
D7: Upper Coastal Plain RPO 2009-2015 TIP Projects
Appendix E: CMAQ Projects
Appendix F: MOBILE6.2 Emissions Factors
Appendix G: Estimation of Vehicle Starts
Appendix H: Off-Model Analysis
Appendix I: Emissions Analysis Results by County
Appendix J: Public Participation Policies
Appendix K: Public and Agency Comments and Responses
Appendix L: VMT and Speeds
Appendix M: Adoption and Endorsement Resolutions and Agency Determinations
v
8
List of Acronyms
BG MPO: Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization
CAAA: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (United States)
CAMPO: Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality
CO: Cazbon Monoxide
DAQ: Division of Air Quality (North Cazolina)
DCHC MPO: Durham-Chapel Hill -Cazrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
DENR: Department of Environment and Natural Resources (North Carolina)
DMV: Division of Motor Vehicles
DOT: Department of Transportation (North Carolina)
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency (United States)
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration
FTA: Federal Transit Administration
HBO: Home Based Other (trip purpose)
HBS: Home Based Shopping (trip purpose)
HBW: Home Based Work (trip purpose)
HOV: High Occupancy Vehicle
HPMS: Highway Performance Management System
UM: Inspection/Maintenance
ISTEA: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
TIRE: Institute for Transportation Research and Education
KT RPO: Ken-Taz Rural Transportation Planning Organization
LRTP: Long Range Transportation Plan
MPO: Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTIP: Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (regional equivalent of the STIP)
NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standazds
NCDOT: North Carolina Department of Transportation
NHB: Non Home Based (trip purpose)
NOx: Nitrogen Oxides
RPO: Rural Transportation Planning Organization
RTAC: Rural Transportation Advisory Committee
RTCC: Rural Technical Coordinating Committee
RVP: Reid Vapor Pressure
SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
SIP: State Implementation Plan
STIP: State Transportation Improvement Program (statewide equivalent of the MTIP)
TAC: Transportation Advisory Committee
TAZ: Traffic Analysis Zone
TARPO: Triangle Area Rural Transportation Planning Organization
TCC: Technical Coordination Committee
TCM: Transportation Control Measure
TDM: Transportation Demand Management
TEA-21: Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21 S` Century
TIP: Transportation Improvement Program
TRM: Triangle Regional Model
UCPRPO: Upper Coastal Plain Rural Transportation Planning Organization
USEPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency
VKT: Vehicle Kilometers of Travel
VMT: Vehicle Miles of Travel
VOC: Volatile Organic Compounds
vi
Conformity Analysis and Determination Report
2035 Long Range Transportation Plans:
• Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
• Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
• Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization
FY 2009 - 2015 Transportation Improvement Programs
^ Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
^ Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
^ Burlington Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization
Projects from the FY 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement Program:
• The portions of Chatham, Franklin, Granville, Johnston, Orange and Person Counties that
are within the Triangle Ozone Maintenance Area but Outside the Capital Area, Durham-
Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization Areas
Overview
Transportation conformity ("conformity") is a way to ensure that Federal funding and approval goes to
transportation activities that aze consistent with air quality goals. Conformity applies to transportation plans,
transportation improvement programs (TIPs), and projects funded or approved by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in areas that do not meet or previously
have not met air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, or nitrogen dioxide. These
areas are known as "non-attainment azeas" or "maintenance areas," respectively.
A conformity determination demonstrates that the total emissions projected for a plan or program aze within
the emissions limits ("budgets") established by the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality, and that
transportation control measures (TCMs) -specific projects or programs enumerated in the SIP that aze
designed to improve air quality -are implemented in a timely fashion. Counties within the Triangle were
designated as a maintenance area for the 8-hour ozone standard and the effective date of the designation was
December 26, 2007. The Capital Area MPO (CAMPO), Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO (DCHCMPO)
and Burlington-Graham MPO are adopting new 2035 Long Range Transportation Plans, requiring a new
regional emissions analysis and conformity determination. This document. addresses .these plans and the
previously adopted 2009-15 Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), which are conforming direct
subsets of the Long Range Transportation Plans.
Determining Conformity
Regional emissions aze estimated based on highway and transit usage according to transportation plans and
TIPs. The projected emissions for the plan and TIP must not exceed the emissions limits (or "budgets")
established by the SIP (or interim emissions tests, in areas where no SIP has yet been approved or found
adequate by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)). Where TCMs aze included, responsible
MPOs and the North Cazolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) aze required to demonstrate that
TCMs aze implemented in a timely fashion. In North Cazolina there aze currently no TCMs included in SIl's.
The Decision Process
A formal interagency consultation process involving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), FHWA,
FTA and state and local transportation and air quality agencies is required in developing SIPs, TIPS, and
transportation plans, and in making conformity determinations. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
policy boazds make initial conformity determinations in metropolitan areas, while the NCDOT does so in azeas
outside of MPOs, in consultation with affected Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs).
10
Four organizations aze responsible for making the conformity determinations in four distinct parts of the
Triangle Ozone Maintenance Area:
a. the Capital Area MPO within the CAMPO metropolitan azea boundary -all of Wake County, and
parts of Franklin, Granville, and Johnston counties.
b. the DCHC MPO within its metropolitan azea boundary -all of Durham County and parts of Orange
and Chatham counties.
c. the Burlington-Graham MPO within its portion of the metropolitan azea boundary in western
Orange County.
d. the NCDOT in a rural azea that is comprised of those portions of Chatham, Orange, Person, Franklin,
Granville and Johnston Counties that remain outside of any MPO metropolitan area boundary.
Each of these responsible organizations must make a conformity determination for its respective azea in order
for all of the azeas to be designated in conformity.
The final conformity determination is made at the Federal level by FHWA/FTA. These determinations must
be made at least every four years, or when transportation plans or TIPS aze amended or updated, or within
one year of the effective date of anon-attainment designation. Conformity determinations must also be made
within two years after the approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) containing motor vehicle emission
budgets or determination of adequacy of those budgets.
The conformity analyses are made available to the public as part of the MPO and/or State DOT planning
processes. MPOs aze required to make transportation plans, TIPS, and conformity determinations available to
the public, accept and respond to public comments, and provide adequate notice of relevant public meetings.
Project sponsors of specific transportation projects within the transportation plans and TIPS must also include
appropriate public involvement during project development.
Emissions Budget
The SIP places limits on emissions of each pollutant for each source type (mobile, stationary and azea
sources). Projected emissions from highway and transit usage must be less than or equal to the emissions
limits for on-road mobile vehicles that aze established by the SIP, or be less than baseline emissions where no
SIP has yet been adopted. These limits on motor vehicle emissions sources are called "budgets." Budgets aze
developed as part of the air quality planning process by State air quality/ environmental agencies, and
approved by EPA. Transportation agencies participate in this process.
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
Areas can include TCMs in their SIPs. TCMs are specific programs designed to reduce emissions from
transportation sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion conditions. In North
Cazolina there are currently no TCMs included in SIPS. TCMs can include such programs as:
• developing high occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities
• ordinances to promote non-motor vehicle travel
• transit improvements
• signal timing
• bicycle and pedestrian facilities
• land use planning
2
11
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to comply with the provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) of 2005. It demonstrates that the financially constrained long-range transportation
plans (LRTPs) and the transportation improvement programs (TIPs) eliminate or reduce violations of
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the following areas:
• The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO),
• The Durham-Chapel Hill-Cazrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO),
• The portion of Orange County within the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning
Organization (BG MPO).
• The portions of the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) which aze in the
Triangle Ozone Maintenance Area (part of Orange County and four townships in Chatham
County: Baldwin, Center, New Hope and Williams Townships),
• The portions of the Kerr-Taz Rural Planning Organization (Kerr-Tar RPO) which aze in the
Triangle Ozone Maintenance Area (Person County and parts of Franklin and Granville and
Counties), and
• The pazt of Johnston County in the Upper Coastal Plain Rural Planning Organization.
The plan accomplishes the intent of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP). This conformity
determination is based on a regional emissions analysis that uses the transportation networks approved by
each of the above-named Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Rural Planning Organizations
(RPOs) for the 2035 long-range transportation plans, and the emissions factors developed by the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The above-named MPOs and
RPOs combine to form a region known as the Reseazch Triangle, or "Triangle." Based on this analysis,
the 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plans for the CAMPO and the DCHC MPO and their respective
2009-15 Transportation Improvement Programs conform to the purpose of the North Carolina SIP. The
respective FY 2009-2015 TIPs are direct subsets of the applicable 2035 long-range transportation plans.
The conformity analysis for the 2009-15 STIP for the relevant portions of the RPOs is specifically
addressed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The NCDOT analysis also
showed the Transportation Improvement Programs conform to the purpose of the North Cazolina SIP.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) originally declazed Durham County,
Wake County and Dutchville Township in Granville County non-attainment for ozone (03) and
Durham County and Wake County non-attainment for Carbon Monoxide (CO) on November 15, 1990.
Durham County, Wake County and Dutchville Township were redesignated by USEPA to attainment
with a maintenance plan for ozone on June 17, 1994 and Durham County and Wake County were
redesignated by USEPA to attainment with a maintenance plan for CO on September 18, 1995.
In 1997 the NAAQS for ozone was reviewed and revised to reflect improved scientific understanding
of the health impacts of this pollutant. When the standazd was revised in 1997, aneight-hour ozone
standazd was established. The USEPA designated the entire Triangle area as a "basic" non-
attainment area for eight-hour ozone with an effective date of June 15, 2004. The Triangle was then
re-designated as attainment with a maintenance plan for ozone on December 26, 2007.
Tables related to CO in this report reflect the motor vehicle emission budgets published in the Mazch
24, 2006 Federal Register and effective May 23, 2006. Tables related to NOz in this report reflect the
motor vehicle emission budgets published in the December 26, 2007 Federal Register and effective that
same date.
3
12
In summary, the current maintenance designation for ozone covers the following geographic areas:
• Durham County (also a maintenance azea for CO)
• Wake County (also a maintenance area for CO)
• Orange County
• Johnston County
• Franklin County
• Granville County
• Person County
• Baldwin, Center, New Hope and Williams Townships in Chatham County
The conformity determination is based on the following Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) and
the 2009-15 TIPS, which are conforming subsets:
• 2035 Transportation Plan for the Capital Area MPO and 2009-1 S TIP
• 2035 Transportation Plan for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO and 2009-1 S TIP
• 2035 Transportation Plan for the Burlington-Graham MPO and 2009-15 TIP
• Projects from the 2009-1 S STIP in the rural ("donut ") areas outside of the MPOs
These three LRTPs, taken together, and with projects from the most recent STIP in the rural
("donut") azeas outside of the urban azeas, form in effect a Triangle Regional Transportation plan.
Each plan has three analysis years: 2015, 2025, and 2035. Each analysis yeaz includes expected
population and employment data and roadway and transit projects that should be open. The plans are
fiscally constrained; funding sources for roadway and transit projects are identified.
DENR prepared base and future emission rates for the vehicle fleet using MOBILE6.2. These rates
were applied to VMT from the Triangle Regional Model (TRM). Each of the counties (or, in the
case of Chatham County, portion of the county) has its own emissions budget.
Table 1 summarizes the conformity requirements of 40 CFR Part 51 and 93 and gives the status of
each long range transportation plan in relation to each of these requirements. Tables 2 through 9
contain results from the budget comparisons for each of the applicable counties or county portions.
In every horizon year for every pollutant in .each geographic area, the. emissions expected from the
implementation of the long-range plans and TIPS aze less than the emissions budgets established in the
SIP or the baseline emissions where no SIP budget is available. Table 10 contains across-reference index
for the report.
Table 1. Status of Conformity Requirements
Criteria ( indicates the
criterion is met) Burlington-
Graham MPO Durham-Chapel
Hill-Carrboro
Ml'O Capital Area
MPO Rural (Donut)
Area of the
Trian e
Emissions Bud et
TCM Im lementation The NC SIP includes no Trans ortation Control Measures in the Trian le Area
Intera enc Consultation
Latest Emissions Model
Latest Planning
Assum tions
Fiscal Constraint
4
13
Table 2. Durham County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day)
Year NOx COl
SIl' Budgets LRTP Emissions SIP Budgets (tons) SIP Budgets (kg) LRTP Emissions (kg)
20152 .13,106 5,154 177.22 160,771 80,141
20172 4,960 4,701 177.22 160,771 80,355
20253 4,960 2,555 177.22 160,771 76,243
2035° 4,960 2,447 177.22 160,771 83,583
Table 3. Wake County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day)
Year NOx COl
SIP Budgets LRTP Emissions SIP Budgets (tons) SIP Budgets (kg) LRTP Emissions (kg)
20152 36,615 15,927 384.27 348,604 265,166
20172 16,352 14,632 384.27 348,604 268,405
20253 16,352 8,672 384.27 348,604 269,739
2035° 16,352 8,117 384.27 348,604 291,050
Table 4. Granville County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day)
NOx
Year SIP Budgets Long Range Plan or TIP Emissions
2015 4,649 1,443
20172 1,714 1,282
20253 1,714 634
20354 1,714 590
Table 5. Franklin County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day)
NOx
Year SIP Budgets Long Range Plan or TIP Emissions
20152 2,048 1,212
20172 1,139 1,084
20253 1,139 572
20354 1,139 499
Table 6. Johnston County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day)
NOx
Year SIP Budgets Long Range Plan or TIP Emissions
20152 12,583 4,859
20172 5,958 4,303
20253 5,958 2,075
20354 5,958 1,611
Table 7. Orange County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day)
NOx
Year SIP Budgets Long Range Plan or TIP Emissions
20152 9,933 3,181
20172 3,742 2,847
20253 3,742 1,513
20354 3,742 1,425
5
14
Table S. Person County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day)
NOX
Year SIP Budgets Long Range Plan or TlP Emissions
20152 1,359 715
20172 791 632
20253 791 302
2035° 791 368
Table 9. Chatham County (part) Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day)
NOX
Year SIP Budgets Long Range Plan or TIP Emissions
2015 1,565 895
20172 948 814
20253 948 491
2035° 948 445
1. To obtain kilograms per day, multiply tons per day by 907.18; SIP CO budgets are listed in tons/day
2. Budget yeaz
3. LRTP interim yeaz
4. LRTP Horizon year.
6
15
Table 10. Cross-Reference Index
Conformity Determination Report for the Long-Range Transportation Plans and TIPS in the Triangle Region
Ozone Maintenance Area
Conformity Requirement Page # or Appendix
Formal findings of conformity. pp. 29-30
Table of Contents. m
The purpose of this report is to comply with the requirements of the CAAA,
SAFETEA-LU, and 40 CFR 51 and 93. p• g
The former and current classification of the airshed and the pollutants for which the
airshed was previously classified asnon-attainment. p. 12
The dates Durham and Wake Counties were redesignated to a Maintenance Area
under the CO standazd and the date the region was designated to maintenance under
the 8-hour ozone standazd.
p. 12
The emissions expected from implementation of the long-range plans are equal to, or
less than, the emissions budgets in the Maintenance Plans and established in the SIP. pp 26-28
The adopted long-range plan is fiscally constrained (§93.108). p. 14
The latest planning assumptions were used in the conformity analysis (§93.110). pp. 14-15
The latest emissions model was used in the conformity analysis (§93.111). p. 22
The list of federally funded T.C.M. activities included. (§93.113). p. 23
Conformity determined according to §93.105 and the adopted public involvement
procedures. p. 28
Dates of the Transportation Advisory Committee reviews of the conformity
determination and the recommendation. Appendix M
SIP emissions budget comparison demonstrates conformity of the adopted long-range
transportation plan and TIP. p. 29-30
Listing of 2035 LRTP and 2009-15 TIP projects in each analysis year (both highway
and transit). pp• 15-17, Appendix
D
Estimation of Vehicle Starts. ~ p. 23, Appendix G
Analysis of "rural (donut) area" projects. Appendix I
Off-model analysis performed. p. 23, Appendix H
Significant comments of reviewing agencies addressed by the MPO, or a statement
that no significant comments were received. Appendix K
Emissions Calculations. Appendix I
MOBILE6.2 input files. Appendix F
16
Conformity Analysis and Determination Report
2035 Long Range Transportation Plans:
• Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization,
• Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
• Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization
FY 2009 - 2015 Transportation Improvement Programs
o Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
^ Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
^ Burlington Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization
Projects from the FY 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement Program:
• the portions of Chatham County, Franklin County, Granville County, Johnston
County, Orange County and Person County that are within the Triangle Ozone
Maintenance Area but Outside the Capital Area and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization Areas
1. Introduction
The Clean Air Act requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to set
limits on how much of a particulaz pollutant can be in the air anywhere in the United States.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are the pollutant limits set by the USEPA; they
define the allowable concentration of pollution in the air for six different pollutants -Carbon
Monoxide, Lead, Nitrogen Dioxide, Particulate Matter, Ozone, and Sulfur Dioxide.
The Clean Air Act specifies how areas within the country are designated as either "attainment" or
"non-attainment" of an air quality standazd, and authorizes USEPA to define the boundaries of
non-attainment azeas. For areas designated as non-attainment for one or more NAAQS, the Clean
Air Act defines a specific timetable to attain the standard and requires that non-attainment areas
demonstrate reasonable and steady progress in reducing air pollution emissions until such time that
an azea can demonstrate attainment. Each state must develop and submit a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) that addresses. each pollutant for which it violates the NAAQS. Individual state air
quality agencies aze responsible for defining the overall regional plan to reduce air. pollution
emissions to levels that will enable attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. This strategy is
articulated through the SIP.
In North Carolina, the agency responsible for SIP development is the North Cazolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality (NC DENR/DAQ). The delineation
and implementation of strategies to control emissions from on-road mobile sources is a significant
element of the state plan to improve air quality, which links transportation and air quality planning
activities within anon-attainment or maintenance area. The process of ensuring that a region's
transportation planning activities contribute to attainment of the NAAQS, or "conform" to the
purposes of the SIP, is referred to as transportation conformity. In order to receive federal
transportation funds within anon-attainment or maintenance area, the area must demonstrate through
a federally mandated conformity process that the transportation investments, strategies and
programs, taken as a whole, contribute to the air quality goals defined in the state air quality plan.
8
17
In order to ensure the conformity requirements are met, Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act
authorizes the USEPA Administrator to "promulgate criteria and procedures for demonstrating and
assuring conformity in the case of transportation plans, programs, and projects." This is
accomplished through the Transportation Conformity Rule, developed by the USEPA to outline all
federal requirements associated with transportation conformity. The Transportation Conformity
Rule in conjunction with the Metropolitan Planning Regulations direct transportation plan and
program development as well as the conformity process.
The purpose of this report is to comply with the provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 in concurrence with all conformity requirements as detailed in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 (the
Transportation Conformity Rule) and 23 CFR Part 450 (the Metropolitan Planning Regulations).
It demonstrates that the financially constrained long-range transportation plans and the
transportation improvement programs (TIPS) eliminate or reduce future violation of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standazds (NAAQS) in the following jurisdictions:
• The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO),
• The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO),
• The Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BG MPO).
• The portions of the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) which aze in the
Triangle Ozone Maintenance Area (Orange County and four townships in Chatham County),
• The portions of the Kerr-Taz Rural Planning Organization (Kerr-Tar RPO) which are in the
Triangle Ozone Maintenance Area (Franklin, Granville and Person Counties), and
• Johnston County in the Upper Coastal Plain Rural Planning Organization.
The plan accomplishes the intent of the North Cazolina State Implementation Plan (SIP). This
conformity determination is based on a regional emissions analysis that uses the transportation
network approved by each of the above-named Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and
Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs) for the 20351ong-range transportation plan, and the emissions
factors developed in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR). The above-named MPOs and portions of RPOs combine to form a region
known as the "Triangle." The entire Triangle maintenance region is shown as a map in Figure 1.
All Federally funded projects and regionally significant projects, regardless of funding source, in
azeas designated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as air quality
non-attainment or maintenance azeas must come from a conforming long-range transportation plan
and transportation improvement program (TIP). The Triangle region is required by 40 CFR 51 and
93 to make a conformity determination on any newly adopted or amended fiscally constrained
long-range transportation plan and TIP. In addition, the United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT), specifically, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), must make a conformity determination on the three MPO
Plans in the Triangle region and the related TIPs in all non-attainment and maintenance azeas.
9
18
Legend
0 Triangle Ozone Maintenance Area.
~'•I' TRM ModeiEed Area
t ~,r' MPO Boundary
1'V Majcsr Road Or H[ghway
RTP
Municipal Limit
sv County Boundaries
BG MPO is Burlington-Graham MPO (small part of Orange
County in the maintenance azea).
CAMPO is Capital Area MPO (all of Wake County and
parts of Franklin, Granville, Harnett and Johnston Counties)
DCHC MPO is Durham-Chapel Hill-Cazrboro MPO (all of
Durham and parts of Orange and Chatham Counties
10
Figure 1. Triangle Ozone Maintenance Area
19
In order to assist the Triangle region in making a conformity determination on the adopted 2035
fiscally constrained long-range transportation plans, the following agencies shared leading roles
composing substantial portions of this document pertaining to specific areas:
CAMPO Wake, Franklin (part), Granville (part), Johnston (part)
DCHC MPO Durham, Orange (part), Chatham (part)
BG MPO Orange (part)
NCDOT, with RPO input Chatham (part), Franklin (part), Granville (part), Johnston (part), Orange
(part), Person
These analyses are consistent with the set of amendments to 40 CFR Parts 51 and 43, published
in the January 24, 2008 Federal Register, Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments to
Implement Provisions Contained in the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); Final Rule, effective on
February 25, 2008. Based on the regional emissions budget tests documented in this report, the
following Transportation Plans and TIPs conform to the purpose of the Triangle Area SIP:
• Capital Area MPO 2035 LRTP and the 2009-15 TIP
• Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO 2035 LRTP and the 2009-15 TIP
• Burlington-Graham MPO 2035 LRTP and the 2009-15 TIP
• Projects from the 2009-2015 STIP in the donut areas of the Triangle Maintenance Area
This report documents the regional emissions budget test, interagency consultation process, public
involvement process, and analysis methodology used to demonstrate transportation conformity for
each MPO and rural donut area and thus for the Triangle region.
40 CFR Part 93 requires that a conforming transportation plan satisfy six conditions:
• The transportation plan must be consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget(s) in an
area where the applicable implementation plan or implementation plan submission contains
a budget (40 CFR Part 93.118).
• The transportation plan, TIP, or FHWA/FTA project not from a conforming plan must
provide for the timely implementation of TCMs from the applicable implementation plan
(40 CFR Part 93.113b).
• The MPO must make the conformity determination according to the consultation procedures
of 40 CFR Part 93.105.
• The conformity determination must be based on the latest emissions estimation model
available (40 CFR Part 93.111).
• The conformity determination must be based on the latest planning assumptions (40 CFR
Part 93.110).
• The Transportation Plan, TIP, or FHWA/FTA project must meet the interim emissions tests
where applicable (40 CFR Part 93.119).
This report shows that each MPO's 2035 Transportation Plan, the 2009-15 TIPs and projects
from the 2009-15 STIP in the donut areas meets each condition. Each condition is discussed in
the following sections of this report.
11
20
2. Air Quality Planning
USEPA originally declared Durham County, Wake County and Dutchville Township in Granville
County non-attainment for ozone (03) under the 1-hour ozone standard and Durham County and
Wake County non-attainment for Carbon Monoxide (CO) on November 15, 1990. Ozone, the
primary component of smog, is a compound formed when volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
oxides of nitrogen (NOR) mix together in the atmosphere with sunlight. NOR and VOC are referred
to as ozone "precursors." Durham County, Wake County and Dutchville Township were
redesignated by USEPA to attainment with a maintenance plan for ozone under the 1-hour standard
on June 17, 1994 and Durham County and Wake County were redesignated by USEPA to attainment
with a maintenance plan for CO on September 18, 1995.
In 1997 the NAAQS for ozone was reviewed and revised to reflect improved scientific
understanding of the health impacts of this pollutant. When the standard was revised in 1997, an
eight-hour ozone standazd was established that was designed to replace the one-hour standard. The
USEPA designated the entire Triangle azea as a "basic" non-attainment azea for ozone under the
eight-hour standazd with an effective date of June 15, 2004; the designation covered the following
geographic areas:
• Durham County
• Wake County
• Orange County
• Johnston County
• Franklin County
• Granville County
• Person County ' .
• Baldwin, Center, New Hope and Williams Townships in Chatham County
On December 26, 2007, the Triangle Area was redesignated as attainment with a maintenance
plan for ozone under the eight-hour standazd. The USEPA direct final rule from the Federal
Register for CO is found in Appendix A. The USEPA direct final rule for ozone is provided in
Appendix B.
2.1 Emissions Budgets
DENR prepared emissions budgets as part of their CO and 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for
those areas subject to budgets. Each of the eight counties or portions of counties in the bulleted
list above is part of the Triangle ozone maintenance azea under the 8-hour ozone standard and has
emissions budgets for NOR. Emissions budgets were established for 2008 and 2017. The 2008
budgets apply for years up to and including 2016, while the 2017 budgets apply for 2017 and all
subsequent yeazs. The December 26, 2007 Federal Register notice establishing the NOR budgets
deemed VOCs insignificant, hence no VOC budgets apply to the region.
Durham and Wake Counties have CO maintenance requirements under the most recent SIP
Maintenance Plan update, which supplemented the pre-existing 2005 CO budgets with new
2015 budgets for each county. Under the update, the existing 2005 budgets from the prior SIP
apply between 2005 and 2014 and the newer 2015 budgets apply from 2015 onwazds.
12
21
Tables related to CO in this report reflect the motor vehicle emission budgets published in the
March 24, 2006 Federal Register and effective May 23, 2006 (see Appendix A).
Tables 11 and 12 list the motor vehicle emission budgets for those portions of the Triangle
subject to SIP budgets.
Table 11. NOg Budget for Triangle Counties
NOx: Redesi ation SIP (kilo ams/da )
Area SIP Bud et ear
2008 2017
Chatham 1,565 948
Durham 13,106 4,960
Franklin 2,048 1,139
Granville 4,649 1,714
Johnston 12,583 5,958
Oran a 9,933 3,742
Person 1,359 791
Wake 36,615 16,352
* the last NOx emission budgets are for 2017; all subsequent years are compared to the 2017 budget.
Table 12. CO Budget -Durham and Wake Counties
CO: from State Im lementation Plan (SIl')
motor vehicle emissions bud et (tons/da )
Area Mazch 24, 2006 Federal Register -Maintenance Plan Update
(2015 bud et)
Durham Coun 177.22
Wake Coun 384.27
* the last CO emission budgets aze for 2015; all subsequent years are compared to the 2017 budget.
3. Long-Range Transportation Plans
The 2035 Transportation Plans were developed between 2007 and 2009. Federal law 40 CFR
part 93.104(b)(3) requires a conformity determination of transportation plans no less frequently
than every four years. As required in 40 CFR 93.106, the analysis yeazs for the transportation
plans are no more than ten years apart.
The CAMPO area includes all of Wake County and parts of Franklin, Granville, Harnett and
Johnston Counties. The DCHC MPO area includes all of Durham and parts of Orange and
Chatham Counties. The BGMPO area includes a small portion of Orange County within the 8-
hour maintenance area for ozone. The remaining portions of the non-attainment area aze rural
(donut) areas within the Triangle Area, Kerr-Tar and Upper Coastal Plain RPOs.
3.1 Consultation
The 2035 Transportation Plans are consistent with consultation requirements discussed in 40
CFR 93.105. Consultation on the development of this conformity determination was
accomplished through interagency consultation meetings held on June 9, 2008, July 11, 2008,
13
22
July 25, 2008, October 30, 2008, November 30, 2008, December 12, 2008, January 12, 2007,
January 25, 2007, March 2, 2007 and March 6, 2009. A summary of the topics discussed at
each of these meetings is included in Appendix C. The date of February 19, 2009, was the date
that the conformity analysis began. That date was defined through interagency consultation and
included in the conformity process schedule provided in Appendix C.
3.2 Financial Constraint Assumptions
The Transportation Plans are fiscally constrained as discussed in 40 CFR 93.108. The DCHC
MPO, Capital Area MPO and Burlington-Graham Long Range Transportation Plans aze fiscally
constrained to the yeaz 2035. All projects included in the current 2009-2015 TIP are fiscally
constrained, and funding sources have been identified for construction and operation. The
estimates of available funds are based on historic funding availability and include federal, state,
private, and local funding sources. Additional detail on fiscal constraint is included in each MPO
long range transportation plan. It is assumed that the projects listed for each horizon yeaz will be
completed and providing service by the end of the indicated calendaz year (December 31). These
transportation networks are described in the respective 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plans.
3.3 Latest Planning Assumptions
The 2035 Transportation Plans use the latest adopted planning assumptions as discussed in 40
CFR 93.110, and are adopted as part of the Plans. A single travel demand model was developed
for the urbanized portion of the Triangle non-attainment area. A single set of population,
housing and employment projections was developed. In addition, a set of highway and transit
projects that was consistent across jurisdictional boundaries was developed and refined through
MPO cooperation. This collection of socioeconomic data, highway and transit networks and
travel forecast tools, representing the latest planning assumptions, was finalized through the
adoption of the draft Long Range Transportation Plans by the Capital Area MPO and Durham-
Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO in February 2009. Additional detail on these planning assumptions
is provided below.
Land use and demographic data were collected by regional planning agencies and staff members
of DCHC MPO and CAMPO. A regional methodology was agreed upon that included updating
residential and employment data to a 2005 base year, and preparing growth forecasts to 2035.
Residential data included population, dwelling units, households, median income and university-
related group quarters population (dormitories, fraternities and sororities). Residential data were
based on Census 2000 data from Summary File 1, except that mean income data were based on
the Census Transportation Planning Package part 1. Housing and Population data were updated
to 2005 by collecting new certificates of occupancy from local jurisdictions and applying
household size and occupancy rates. from Census 2000 to new housing units. University-related
population was updated to 2005 with information supplied by area universities. Mean income
was interpolated for missing zones based on nearby zones with similaz residential development
patterns. Residential data were checked for consistency and reviewed by local planning
department staff.
Employment data were collected from Employment Security Commission records and data
maintained by InfoUSA. These lists were merged, and lazge employers were contacted directly
to verify work location and number of employees. Zonal employment data were checked for
14
23
consistency against existing land use maps and were reviewed by local planning department
staff.
Forecasts were prepazed by local planning department staff with guidance from staff at the two
MPO's. A regional methodology was applied to maintain consistency between residential and
employment forecasts and adopted land use plans. Data and forecasts were submitted for public
review by each MPO, and adopted for use in developing travel demand and air quality forecasts
by each MPO's Transportation Advisory Committee.
The Triangle Regional Travel Demand Model (TRM) uses the basic four-step process (trip
generation, trip distribution, mode choice and assignment). All four steps of the process are
discussed in greater detail in the sections below. The Triangle Regional Model was calibrated to
2005 conditions. Because some of the projects are proposed toll roads, the TRM TransCAD model
was updated to include toll capability in order to estimate travel changes associated with tolling on
these facilities.
The Triangle Regional Model's TransCAD model is housed at the Institute for Transportation
Research and Education (TYRE) at NC State University. The TransCAD model covers all of
Durham, Wake and Orange Counties (including the portions within the BG MPO and the
Triangle Area RPO), all of the portion of Chatham County that is in the Triangle ozone
maintenance area, and portions of Franklin, Granville and Johnston counties (which aze in the
maintenance area) along with a portion of Harnett County (which is not part of the maintenance
area).
Outside of the modeled area, NCDOT utilizes a spreadsheet that incorporates the vehicle-miles
traveled (VMT) universe file and historical trends to project the VMT in future years at the county
level. The spreadsheet calculates speed based on a model originally developed by the Texas
Transportation Institute but modified by NCDOT. Speeds generated by the spreadsheet aze
incorporated into the MOBILE6.2 emissions program. Then, emission factors developed by
Mobile6.2 are imported into the spreadsheet and multiplied by forecasted VMT to generate
emissions. The rural spreadsheet model is used for all of Person County and is factored based on
population percentage for those portions of non-attainment. counties not covered by the TransCAD
model. This methodology has been used to demonstrate conformity in other azeas and has
received approval from interagency partners.
There are no court orders or special agreements that apply to conformity (40 CFR 93.109).
3.4 Future year roadway oroiects
Roadway improvements used for conformity modeling were developed in the 2035 Transportation
Plan process in each MPO. Outside of the MPO boundaries, TIP projects from the 2009-2015 TIP
served as the future yeaz roadway projects. For the 2035 Plans, lists of needed projects were
developed based on modeled congestion and identified local needs. Improvements were coded
into the TRM and analyzed. Intermediate analysis for the years 2015 and 2025 were performed to
assist in prioritizing the 2035 roadway needs. The fina12015, 2025, and 2035 networks aze
fiscally constrained. Projects were added from MPO priority lists until estimated project costs
equaled the expected funding available. The base network (2005) and the three future networks
15
24
(2015, 2025, and 2035) used for the conformity determination are the same as the networks used
for the 2035 Transportation Plans. Throughout the process to develop the roadway networks, the
MPOs and NCDOT identified any initial inconsistencies in project timing and characteristics (e.g.
cross-section) for those projects crossing jurisdictional boundaries and reached consensus on
consistent solutions.
The interagency partners also jointly developed lists of regionally significant and exempt projects.
The checklist below was used to guide the identification of regionally significant projects. After
the MPOs, RPOs and NCDOT generated initial lists, the lists were reviewed by DENR ,EPA,
FTA and FHWA. The regional, state and federal agencies reached concurrence on the lists.
Regionally Significant Project Checklist
1. The facility serves regional transportation needs (i.e. facilities that provide access to and from
the region or that provide access to major destinations in the region).
2. The facility is functionally classified higher than a minor arterial (minor arterials may be
regionally significant if their main purpose is to provide access to major facilities in the
region).
3. The facility is a fixed guideway transit facility.
4. The facility is included in the travel model for the region (in many cases collector streets are
modeled and not regionally significant).
To be regionally significant a facility should meet one or more criteria in this checklist. 40 CFR
Part 93.101
Appendix D includes lists of the future year roadway projects in the Triangle area as indicated
below, including indications of which projects are regionally significant and which projects are
exempt. There are no future roadway projects within the portion of Orange County within the
Burlington-Graham MPO, therefore no list of projects is included.
Area Location of Roadway Project List in
Appendix D
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO 2035 LRTP (Appendix D1) ,
2009-2015 TIP (Appendix D2)
Capital Area MPO 2035 LRTP (Appendix D 1)
2009-2015 TIP (Appendix D4)
Burlington-Graham MPO no future yeaz projects in 2035 LRTP or
its TIP subset in Orange County portion
Triangle Area RPO (portions of Chatham and Orange Projects out of the 2009-2015 STIP
Counties in maintenance area) (Appendix DS) ,
Kerr-Tar RPO (Franklin, Person and Granville Counties) Projects out of the 2009-2015 STIP
(Appendix D6)
Upper Coastal Plain RPO (Johnston County) Projects out of the 2009-2015 STIP
(Appendix D7)
16
25
3.5 Transit networks
As with the roadway projects, each MPO developed transit projects for its LRTP. The base year
network was modeled from existing routes and fares for the transit systems in 2005. Future year
networks were based on fiscally-constrained projected new or expanded services from regional
transit plans, local bus system short range plans, corridor transit plans and other projected bus
service expansion estimates, where available. As with the roadway networks, the MPOs and
NCDOT identified and rectified any initial inconsistencies in project chazacteristics or
implementation years where transit projects crossed jurisdictional boundaries.
Appendix D includes the amended future year transit projects in the Triangle MPOs and transit TIP
projects as indicated below. There are no future transit projects within the portion of Orange
County within the Burlington-Graham MPO, therefore no list of projects is included. The
following table indicates where transit projects aze listed in this report.
Area Location of Transit Project List in Appendix D
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO 2035 LRTP (Appendix D3)
2009-2015 TIP (Appendix D2)
Capital Area MPO 2035 LRTP (Appendix D3)
2009-2015 TIP (Appendix D4)
Burlington-Graham MPO no future year projects in 2035 LRTP or its TIP
subset in Orange County
Triangle Area RPO (portions of Chatham only projects in the STIP are operations and
and Orange Counties in maintenance area) maintenance for community transportation systems
Kerr-Tar RPO (Franklin, Person and only projects in the STIP are operations and
Granville Counties donut areas) maintenance for community transportation systems
Upper Coastal Plain RPO (Johnston only projects in the STIP aze operations and
County donut azea) maintenance for community transportation systems
3.6 Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAO) Proiects
The NC Department of Transportation has established an allocation and review process for
CMAQ projects. Each MPO and RPO in anon-attainment or maintenance area receives an
allocation of CMAQ funds based on population and air quality status. In addition, a statewide
pool of CMAQ funds is allocated to projects serving more than one non-attainment or
maintenance area on a competitive basis. Appendix E includes a listing of funded CMAQ
projects in the Triangle Area.
3.7 Trio generation
The trip generation module of the Triangle Regional Model is a trip frequency choice model. The
model uses the following independent variables: household size, income group, number of
workers, number of children, and number of autos. Trip purposes used in the model for trip
generation aze home based work (HBW), home based shopping (HBShop), home based school
(HBSch), home based other (HBO), and non-home-based (NHB). The model estimates the
17
26
probability of a person making 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 trips depending on trip purpose, and these
probabilities are used to calculate the effective daily trip rate per person. These rates are used to
calculate the overall trip rate for the household, by purpose, and these are summed to the traffic
analysis zone level. The models were estimated using data from the 1994 Triangle household
travel behavior survey. Several employment types were identified as special generators for the
Triangle Region. This classification was based on employment centers that exhibited unique trip
attraction characteristics asdemonstrated by the travel behavior survey data. Universities, regional
shopping centers, regional hospitals and the RDU airport were all identified as special generators.
Special generator rates were developed for those groups. Trip tables were also built for commercial
vehicles, internal -external trips, and through trips.
Non-motorized trips are separated out for each trip purpose using a model with variables for
household income group, density of the area for the household, and an accessibility measure.
School bus trips are also separated out based on the share of school bus trips for each county
based on the data in the travel behavior survey.
The travel behavior survey was used to determine where the trips would be `attracted to'.
Regression coefficients were developed for the five trip purposes based on: retail and non-retail
employment, and households. These trips at the employment end were then stratified into the
five strata using a share model.
3.8 Trio distribution
The Triangle Regional Model uses a destination choice model to distribute trips. The model
builds zone-to-zone trip tables (by five purposes) using a composite time for impedance where
Composite Time = 1/[(1/Highway Time) + (x/Transit Time)] where x is the transit share for the
stratum in the travel behavior survey. Variables used in addition to composite time include retail
and non retail employment, and households. In the case of the home based school purpose,
population was used as a variable. Before distributing trips, the trips are split into peak and off
peak periods based on the time of day analysis performed on the travel behavior survey data.
3.9 Mode choice and transit assignment
The mode choice for the Triangle Regional model is based on a nested LOGIT model. This
approach creates a predictive model that is responsive to changes in quality of service variables
such as travel time and cost. The different `nests' of the model reflect a traveler's choice between
local bus, express bus, rail, single occupancy vehicles, and multiple occupancy vehicles. The
coefficients for the mode choice model were asserted by consultant staff based on experience in
other regions and Federal Transit Administration guidance. The constants were derived from the
Triangle Travel Behavior survey and the Triangle On-Board transit survey through the calibration
process.
3.10 Iiighwav assignment and vehicle miles traveled
Once the total number of trips has been determined, and the mode by which the trip is made has
been chosen, the trips are assigned to the network. For the Triangle Regional Model, this is done
using amulti-class user equilibrium assignment. The classes are single occupant vehicles, high
occupancy vehicles, and commercial vehicles (trucks). User equilibrium employs an iterative
18
27
process such that no trips can improve their travel times by using a different route. To better
capture the effects of congestion, the Triangle model was loaded sepazately for the a.m., p.m. and
off-peak time periods. Peak periods aze 4-hour periods.
3.11 Method of renortin~ VMT and speed
The Triangle regional model has the capability to provide output by peak period in addition to
daily output. Since the TRM can model peak period volumes and speeds, these must be used in
the air quality analysis. The vehicle kilometers of travel (VKT), is converted to vehicle miles of
travel (VMT). Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) used in the conformity determination aze from the
last iteration of the model. Each link in the roadway network carries a functional classification.
The VMT for each functional class is multiplied by an emissions factor. The North Carolina
Division of Air Quality (DAQ) provides the emissions factors based on MOBII.E6.2 output.
The MOBII.E6.2 model requires as an input the weighted speeds by functional classification.
This information can be derived directly from the model link data output. This first requires the
sepazation of the model link data into functional classification. The congested link speed in
mph can then be determined by converting the link distance to miles and dividing by travel time.
The congested speed is then weighted by the ratio of the link VMT to the system VMT for each
of the functional classifications. This input is then used for MOBII.E6.2.
Congested and uncongested speeds are calculated using the model output. The congested
speeds are sent to DAQ to determine actual emissions factors.
4. Regional Emission Analysis
In areas with an USEPA approved attainment demonstration or maintenance plan, an emissions
budget comparison satisfies the emissions test requirement of 40 CFR Part 93.118. For
pollutants for which an emissions budget has been submitted, the estimated emissions from the
transportation plan must be less than or equal to the emissions budget values. Emissions factors
were provided by DENR.
All parts of the Triangle Ozone Maintenance Area have emissions budgets, what parts are
covered by the Triangle Regional Model (TRM) and how each part was analyzed for each
pollutant in each comparison yeaz.
Four counties in the non-attainment azea are completely within the Triangle Regional travel
demand Model (TRM) boundary: Chatham (Baldwin, Center, New Hope and Williams Townships
which aze designated non-attainment), Durham, Orange and Wake. Person County is completely
outside of the TRM boundary. The other 3 counties, Granville, Franklin and Johnston, have parts
that are within the modeled area and parts that aze outside of the modeled area.
4.O.1. Sub-area emission budgets
Each county or, in the case of Chatham County, county portion, have NOz emission budgets. In
addition, Durham and Wake Counties have CO emission budgets. These Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets were used in performing the emissions analysis.
19
28
4.0.2 Emissions analysis source
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) and speeds for the emissions analysis were derived from the
TRM where it is available. Person County VMT and speeds came from the NCDOT rural
spreadsheet; VMT and speeds for the portions of Franklin, Granville and Johnston Counties
outside the modeled area came from the NCDOT rural spreadsheet factored by the percentage of
each county's population in the rural azea, a method that has been used in prior analyses.
4.0.3 Emissions comparison years (ozone)
For areas with budgets under the 8-hour standard (Durham, Franklin, Granville, Johnston, .
Orange, Person and Wake Counties and the four townships in Chatham County), emissions must
be analyzed for years where there is an 8-hour emissions budget, the attainment year (if a region
is in non-attainment), the horizon yeaz and intermediate years such that intervals do not exceed
10 years. The Triangle azea is currently in attainment, so no attainment year analysis is
required. The following years were analyzed to meet the requirements: 2015 (intermediate
year), 2017 (8-hour budget yeaz), 2025 (intermediate yeaz), and 2035 (LRTP horizon yeaz).
Analysis years where there is a budget and no LRTP model runs, do not require additional runs;
interpolation was used to derive data for the non-matching yeaz (2017). Also, in accordance
with 40 CFR 93.118, since there was no budget for the required analysis years 2015, 2025 and
2035, the 2008 budgets were used for 2015 analysis and the 2017 budgets were used for 2025
and 2035.
20
29
Table 13. Triangle Area Transportation Conformity Analysis Matrix (2035 LRTPs)
Emissions comparison years
Area Area emissions Emissions
County
model status budget status analysis source 2015' 2017' 2025 2035 horizon
Person rural area (all) emissions budget rural spreadsheet 03 03 03 03
modeled area emissions budget TRM 03 03 03 03
Granville rural spreadsheet
rural area emissions budget (factored)Z 03 03 03 03
modeled area emissions budget TRM 03 03 03 03
Franklin rural spreadsheet
rural area emissions budget (factored)2 03 03 03 03
modeled area emissions budget TRM 03 03 03 03
Johnston rural spreadsheet
rural area emissions budget (factored)2 03 03 03 03
Chatham modeled (all) 3 emissions budget TRM 03 03 03 03
(~)
Orange modeled (all) emissions budget TRM 03 03 03 03
Durham modeled (all) emissions budget TRM CO
03 03 CO
03 CO
03
Wake modeled (all) emissions budget TRM CO
03 03 CO
03 CO
03
TRM: Triangle Regional Model 03: Ozone CO: Carbon Monoxide
' 2015 is both an LRTP interim year and a CO budget year for Durham and Wake Counties; 2017 is an ozone budget year.
z where part of a county is covered by the regional model, the remainder of the county was analyzed using the NCDOT
rural spreadsheet, factored by the percentage of county's population that lives outside of the modeled area.
s a sensitivity analysis was performed to clarify the effect of the small portion of the non-attainment azea in Chatham
County that is outside of the current TRM boundary; it was determined to be insignificant.
4.0.4 Emission comparison years (CO)
Durham and Wake Counties have CO maintenance requirements under a 2006 updated SIP. This
Maintenance Plan.update supplements the pre-existing 2005 budgets with a 2015 budget for each
county. Under the update, the pre-existing 2005 budgets apply between 2005 and 2014 and the new
2015 budgets apply from 2015 onwazds. Both counties aze entirely within the modeled azea and
have emissions budgets under the updated SIP; the TRM was used as the analysis tool. Listed below
is specific CO budget and comparison year information:
• SIP Budget Years: 2005, 2015 (Durham and Wake Counties)
• Comparison Years for CO SIP - 2015, 2025, 2035 (Durham and Wake Counties)
21
30
4.1 Emissions Model
MOBILE 6.2 was used to develop the emissions factors. Motor vehicle emissions controls
considered in the MOBII,E6.2 model include the following:
Strate~y
UM Program (per NC SIP)
Tier 2 vehicle's Emission Standards
Low Sulfur Gasoline and Diesel fuels
Heavy Duty Vehicle Rules 2004 and 2007
Low RVP Gasoline
On board vapor recovery
Methodolo~v/Anyroach
Ran Model in Place
Ran Model in Place
Ran Model in Place
Ran Model in Place
Ran Model in Place
Ran Model in Place
Also, area specific information is used for such items as vehicle age distribution and vehicle type
distribution rather than national default values, as documented below.
4.1.1 Development of Emissions Factors
A critical element of any emissions analysis or estimate is the development and utilization of the
emissions factors applied to the travel estimates. In order to assure that the emissions factors used
in the conformity analysis were compatible with those used in the development of the North
Carolina SIP, DENR provides emission factors and model inputs for each non-attainment and
maintenance area in North Carolina. The MOBILE6.2 emissions factor model was used to develop
the emissions factors in 2009 for the Triangle. These factors are shown in Appendix F.
NCDENR provides motor vehicle emissions factors by federal functional classification of the
roadway system. In addition the percentage of motor vehicles subject to the inspection and
maintenance program is estimated from accident data. The scope of North Carolina's motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance program expanded to forty-eight counties by 2007. The
percentage of vehicles in each county subject to the I/M program is shown in Table 14.
Table 14. Percentage of Vehicles Subject to Inspection and Maintenance Programs
Location 2007-2035
Wake Coun 95%
Durham Count 92%
Johnston Coun 91%
Chatham Coun 96%
Granville Coun 83%
Oran a Coun 89%
Franklin Coun 90%
4.I.2 Development of VMT Mix by Vehicle Type
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) provides data on VMT for six urban
and six rural road types; vehicle mix data are available for the same road types. Automatic traffic
recording stations and selected Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) locations were
used and counts taken in 2007 are used to determine the percentage of vehicles, by vehicle type,
for various road types. Vehicle classification data was used in conjunction with MOBIL,E6.2
default vehicle mix to estimate fleet distribution by functional class. The classification data was
22
31
iteratively adjusted to replicate MOBII,E6.2's national classification default within the analysis
area. The final numbers reflect the change in the mix (i.e. increase in the number of SUVs and
pick-ups) for each yeaz using MOBII,E6.2 projection and variation of mix across the different
road type using NC data. This reflects 16 vehicle classes per road type.
4.1.3 Vehicle Age Distributiions
The vehicle age distribution is based on the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles' 2007
(DMV) registration records for the in-use fleet in the Triangle azea. DMV provided the
information. The data was modified and arranged to comply with MOBII.E6.2
4.2 Transaortation Control Measures
The North Cazolina State Implementation Plan lists no transportation control measures pertaining
to the Triangle.
4.3 Estimation of Vehicle Starts
A component of the emissions rates for each functional class is an estimate of the start-based
emissions. This rate is based on an assumed number~of starts per vehicle and is added to running
emissions to produce a single rate to apply to vehicle miles traveled. Mobile 6 defaults are 7.28
starts for passenger cars and 8.06 starts for light duty trucks. However, the use of default rates isn't
the best practice for heavily urbanized areas with an updated Travel Demand Model. Area-specific
rates were calculated by dividing the total number of trips from the travel demand model by the total
number of registered vehicles. Appendix G contains additional information. This methodology has
been previously endorsed by USEPA and used in prior conformity analysis in the Triangle.
4.4 Off-model Analysis
The Triangle Regional Model (TRM) does not include algorithms that can calculate the effects on
VMT and speeds (and hence air quality) of certain transportation related activities designed to
influence people's travel modes or affect the supply of or demand for transportation services.
Examples of such activities that currently exist in the Triangle include:
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs such as the Triangle Best
Workplaces for Commuters program and the SmartCommute@RTP program which cover
approximately 10°Io of the region's workforce,
• Land use strategies, such as compact, mixed-use, pedestrian- and transit-oriented
development and design initiatives, over and above those reflected in the Traffic Analysis
Zone (TAZ) socioeconomic data,
• Commuter Services Programs operated by the Triangle Transit Authority, such as the
Guazanteed Ride Home program, rideshaze matching software and the vanpool program, and
• Incident management programs conducted on the region's Interstate highways and other
freeways in Wake and Durham Counties, including surveillance cameras, the Motorist
Assistance Patrols, and traveler information activities.
In order to accurately account for the impacts of such activities, they are reflected through "off-
model" analyses. Although these and other programs are suitable for off-model analysis, this
conformity determination included off-model analysis only for the last of these listed activities,
23
32
the interstate incident management program. As more experience is gained in other activities,
they may be reflected in future conformity analyses. FHWA Region IV's Off-Model Air Quality
Analysis: A Compendium of Practice provided guidance on estimating these emissions effects.
Appendix H includes the calculations for this off-model analysis in Durham and Wake Counties.
4.5 Emissions Comuarison Tests by Location and Pollutant
USEPA originally declared Durham County, Wake County and Dutchville Township in Granville
County non-attainment under the 1-hour standazd for ozone (03) and Durham County and Wake
County non-attainment for Cazbon Monoxide (CO) on November 15, 1990. Durham County,
Wake County and Dutchville Township were redesignated by USEPA to attainment with a
maintenance plan for ozone on June 17, 1994 and Durham County and Wake County were
redesignated by USEPA to attainment with a maintenance plan for CO on September 18, 1995.
In 1997 the NAAQS for ozone was reviewed and revised to reflect improved scientific
understanding of the health impacts of this pollutant. When the standazd was revised in 1997, an
eight-hour ozone standard was established. The USEPA designated the entire Triangle area as a
"basic" non-attainment area for eight-hour ozone with an effective date of June 15, 2004. The
Triangle Area was subsequently redesignated to a Maintenance Area for eight-hour ozone on
December 26, 2007.
The current maintenance designation covers the following geographic areas:
• Durham County
• Wake County
• Orange County
• Johnston County '
• Franklin County
• Granville County
• Person County
• Baldwin, Center, New Hope and Williams Townships in Chatham County
Both volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NO,~ aze precursors of ozone. In
the most recently approved maintenance plans for ozone for the areas listed above, the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) prepazed emissions budgets
for only NOx, as VOC was deemed insignificant. USEPA approved the most recent emissions
budgets on December 26, 2007 with an effective date of the same day. The USEPA approval and
promulgation rulings for CO and ozone containing the budgets aze in Appendices A and B.
Four organizations are responsible for conformity determinations; each must make a conformity
determination for its respective area in order for all of the azeas to be designated in conformity:
• the Capital Area MPO within the CAMPO metropolitan area boundary -currently all of
Wake County, and portions of Franklin, Granville and Johnston Counties.
• the DCHC MPO within its metropolitan azea boundary -all of Durham County and parts of
Orange and Chatham counties.
• the Burlington-Graham MPO within its portion of the metropolitan area boundary in western
Orange County.
24
33
• the NCDOT in a rural area that is comprised of those portions of Chatham, Orange, Person,
Franklin, Granville and Johnston Counties that remain outside of any MPO metropolitan
azea boundary.
For this report, emissions were calculated and reported at the County level, or for part of a county
if only a part is in the maintenance area (Chatham County). Table 15 summarizes the emissions test
used and decision-making responsibility for conformity fmdings in each County.
Table 15. Emissions Test and Responsibility for Conformity Findings
Location Pollutant(s) Emissions Test Conformity Finding Responsibility
Wake County 03, CO budget Capital Area MPO
Durham County 03, CO budget Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO
Johnston County 03 budget NC DOT
(consultation with Upper Coastal Plain 12P0)
Chatham County 03 budget Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO
(Baldwin, Center,
New Hope, Williams NC DOT
Townships) (consultation with Triangle Area RPO)
Granville County 03 budget NC DOT
(consultation with Kerr-Taz 1tP0)
Orange County 03 budget Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO
Burlington-Graham MPO
. NC DOT
(consultation with Triangle Area ltPO)
Person County 03 budget NC DOT
(consultation with Kerr-Taz RPO)
Franklin County 03 budget NC DOT
(consultation with Kerr-Taz 1tP0)
The results of the emission comparisons are summarized by County in Tables 16 through 23.
Detailed emissions analysis results by county are contained in Appendix I.
Emissions from vehicles aze expected to show dramatic decreases, even with continuing
increases in vehicle miles of travel (VMT), for several reasons:
• Fleet turnover. Older, more polluting vehicles (gasoline and diesels) continue to be retired and
replaced with newer, cleaner vehicles.
25
34
Newer vehicles will continue to get cleaner with each subsequent model yeaz over the next four
years. The new Federal tailpipe standards aze set at an average standazd of 0.07 grams per mile
for nitrogen oxides for all classes of passenger vehicles beginning in 2004. This includes all
light-duty trucks, as well as the lazgest SUVs. For more detail, including phase-in by vehicle
type, see USEPA's Tier 2 Vehicle Standazd Final Rule at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/ld-
hwy/tier-2lfmalrule.htm
• Gasoline fuels are improving. Refiners and importers of gasoline wee required to meet stricter
sulfur content requirements by 2006. Low sulfur gasoline enables better emission controls, and
can lead to further emission reductions from today's catalyst-equipped fleet. See USEPA's
Gasoline Sulfur Program Final Rule at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/ld-hwy/tier-
Z/fmah-ule.htm
• Emissions from heavy-duty on-highway vehicles are expected to decrease due to USEPA's
Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standazds and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control
Requirements. Stricter NOx emission standazds are being phased in between 2007 and 2010 for
diesel engines. New standards for on-road diesel fuel (15 ppm sulfur content) were phased in at
the terminal level by July 15, 2006 and at the retail stations by September 1, 2006. See:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel.htm#hd2007
• Expansion of vehicle inspection and maintenance programs to more counties in North Cazolina
so that more polluting vehicles aze identified and repaired, thus lowering emissions.
The combination of the technology/fuel improvements/vehicle maintenance and resulting emission
reductions exceeds the effect of increased VMT in the Triangle azea. The trend in the Triangle
azea is not uncommon. On a national level this trend is also seen in data gathered by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA). For additional detail, see the FHWA web site on vehicle miles
traveled and vehicle emissions at: http://www.fliwa.dot.gov/environment/vmtems.htm
Table 16. Durham County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day)
Year NOx COl
SIP Budgets I,RTP Emissions SIP Budgets (tons) SIP Budgets (kg) I.RTP Emissions (kg)
20152 13,106 5,154 177.22 160,771 80,141
20172 4,960 4,701 177.22 160,771 80,355
20253 4,960 2,555 177.22 160,771 76,243
20354 4,960 2,447 177.22 160,771 83,583
Table 17. Wake County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day)
Year NOx CO
SIP Budgets LRTP Emissions SIP Budgets (tons) SIP Budgets (kg) LRTP Emissions (kg)
20152 36,615 15,927 384.27 348,604 265,166
20172 16,352 14,632 384.27 348,604 268,405
20253 16,352 8,672 384.27 348,604 269,739
20354 16,352 8,117 384.27 348,604 291,050
26
35
Table 18. Granville County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day)
NOx
Year SIP Budgets Long Range Plan or TIP Emissions
20152 4,649 1,443
20172 1,714 1,282
2025' 1,714 634
2035° 1,714 590
Table 19. Franklin County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day)
NOX
Year SIP Budgets Long Range Plan or TIP Emissions
20152 2,048 1,212
20172 1,139 1,084
20253 1,139 572
20354 1,139 499
Table 20. Johnston County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day)
NOX
Year SIP Budgets Long Range Plan or TIP Emissions
20152 12,583 4,859
20172 5,958 4,303
20253 5,958 2,075
20354 5,958 1,611
Table 21. Orange County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day)
NOX
Year SIP Budgets Long Range Plan or TIP Emissions
20152 9,933 3,181
20172 3,742 2,847
20253 3,742 1,513
20354 3,742 1,425
Table 22. Person County Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day)
NOX
Year SIP Budgets Long Range Plan or TIP Emissions
2015 1,359 715
20172 791 632
20253 791 302
20354 791 368
27
36
Table 23. Chatham County (part) Emissions Comparison Summary (kg/day)
NOS
Year SIl' Budgets Long Range Plan or TIP Emissions
20152 1,565 895
20172 948 814
20253 948 491
2035' 948 445
5. To obtain kilograms per day, multiply tons per day by 907.18; SIP CO budgets are listed in tons/day
6. Budget year
7. LRTP interim year
8. LRTP Horizon yeaz.
5. Public Involvement and Interagency Consultation
The 2035 Transportation Plans are consistent with consultation requirements discussed in 40 CFR
93.105. Interagency consultation was a cooperative effort on the part of the Capital Area MPO,
the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO, the Burlington-Graham MPO, the Triangle Area RPO,
the Kerr-Tar RPO, the Upper Coastal Plain RPO, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. The process was administered by the
Triangle J Council of Governments on behalf of the partners and was organized according to the
sections in the document titled Triangle Region Transportation Conformity: Pre-Analysis
Consensus Plan, a document agreed to at the initial interagency consultation meeting on June 9,
2008 and updated periodically. Subsequent interagency consultation meetings were July 11,
2008, July 25, 2008, October 3, 2008, October 30, 2008, December 12, 2008, January 9, 2009,
February 13, 2009 and March 6, 2009.
A copy of the latest version of the Consensus Plan, together with summaries of the interagency
consultation meetings are included in Appendix C.
Public review of this report is being handled in accordance with each MPO's public participation
policy. A copy of the public participation policies are included in Appendix J. Comments from
the public participation process will be incorporated into the final Conformity Analysis and
Determination Report. Those comments will be included in Appendix K of the final report. ,
6. Conclusion
Based on the analysis and consultation discussed above the following transportation plans and
TIPS conform to the purpose of the North Cazolina State Implementation Plan. In every horizon
yeaz for every pollutant in each geographic area, the emissions expected from the implementation
of the long-range plans and TIPS are less than the emissions budgets established in the SIP.
28
37
Table 24: Summary of Conformity Status of Triangle Transportation Plans
Criteria ( indicates the
criterion is met) Burlington-
Graham MPO
2035 LRTP &
2009-15 TlP* Durham-Chapel
Hill-Carrboro MPO
2035 LRTP &
2009-15 TIP* Capital Area
MPO
2035 LRTP &
2009-15 TlP* Rural (Donut)
Area of the
Triangle
2009-15 STIP
Less Than Emissions Budgets ~ .~ ~ ~
TCM Implementation The NC SIP includes no Transportation Control Measures in the Triangle Area
Interagency Consultation ~ ~ ~ ~
Latest Emissions Model .~ .~ ~ ~
Latest Planning Assumptions ~ .~ ~ ~
Fiscal Constraint .~ .~
* The 2009-15 TIPS are direct subsets of the amended 2030 LRTPs
Specific conformity findings for each of these azeas aze listed below:
Burlington-Graham MPO Ozone Conformity Finding for the 2035 Long-Range
Transportation Plan and 2009-2015 Transportation Improvement Program
Based on the analysis and consultation and involvement processes described in this report, the
Burlington-Graham MPO 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan and 2009-2015 Transportation
Improvement Program are found to conform to the purpose of the North Cazolina State
Implementation Plan. The emissions expected from the implementation of the Burlington-
Graham MP0 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan and 2009-2015 Transportation
Improvement Program aze in conformity with the 8-hour ozone standazd.
Capital Area MPO Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Conformity Finding for the 2035 Long-
Range Transportation Plan and 2009-2015 Transportation Improvement Program
Based on the analysis and consultation and involvement processes described in this report, the
Capital Area MPO 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan and 2009-2015 Transportation
Improvement Program aze found to conform to the purpose of the North Cazolina State
Implementation Plan. The emissions expected from the implementation of the Capital Area MPO
2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan and 2009-2015 Transportation Improvement Program are
less than the applicable budgets for NOx and CO; therefore the LRTP and TIP aze in conformity
with the 8-hour ozone standazd and the carbon monoxide standazd.
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Conformity Finding for
the 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan and 2009-2015 Transportation Improvement
Program
Based on the analysis and consultation and involvement processes described in this report, the
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO amended 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan and 2009-
2015 Transportation Improvement Program are found to conform to the purpose of the North
29
38
Carolina State Implementation Plan. The emissions expected from the implementation of the
Durham-Chapel Hill-Cazrboro MPO 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan and 2009-2015
Transportation Improvement Program aze less than the applicable budgets for NOR and CO;
therefore the LRTP and TIP aze in conformity with the 8-hour ozone standard and the cazbon
monoxide standard.
NCDOT Triangle Rural (Donut) Area Ozone Conformity Finding for the 2009-2015 State
Transportation Improvement Program
Based on the analysis and consultation and involvement processes described in this report, the
2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement Programs for the rural areas of counties in the
Triangle that aze outside of the MPO boundaries aze found to conform to the purpose of the North
Cazolina State Implementation Plan. The emissions expected from the implementation of the
2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement Program aze less than the applicable budgets for
NOR in the SIP; therefore the TIP is in conformity with the 8-hour ozone standard.
30
br~~~~t?(a{ 2
DCHC MPO
1038 LRTP !i)ghwayPro/acts to be Moved to C77' frd year 2040)
IO Project Pro~act Limits ~SecGon _ P SectbnX• County pry CIS amwstt ~lgroup A ~ won (or OeleUon
64.11
NC 147 Ganerel purpose 7vldanin9
Akron Aw u East EM ConnedOr
4
8
Durham
i.M
$25,497,8ST Debted dW u Ina poundal communay knpacts
and epelance of • pardlul routs (EECAIS 70/t-
84.11
NC 447 General purpoae 7rklenkp
Akbn Aw u 485
4
6
Oufiam
8.73
5120,515,944
4168,073,801 Dehhddue b me poundal cdnmwnky knpear
and eorklena of a parelNl route (EF.C7U5 TOR-
.g... ~.~,. gtp88' 'S'49;311GEOlr "f4eftle8:88B n
~ar
W
L4
t0
,
.se
aer
+
.
3 Abxandar a (T.W. AkmrMar) NC 54 b NC 55 2 4 Durham 1.64 325.083.088 Oakted tlue b lade o1 oonges8orr arrd sxisterrea oA
4 Ale%arrder Or (r,w, Alexander) NC S4 b ComwaAis Rd 2 4 Oud+em i.Sb 524,204,906 349.287.872 Oehhd due b T~ila~N Pe aradei rouua (NC SS.
41 HDffeMnpton Rd inhrenanps F40IFarrsptdn Rd burchanps 0 1 Durham 0.20 326,870,000 328,810.000 Deleted due b patendal eemrrlund!' Impu4a
6 Akron Ave Ext Y St b Ob OMadlRoseoro
nuke 2Jam msfead d IasM 0 2 Wd1am 3.49 f23,806,598 323,806,596 Oowaalzed due b ladt o1 conpastion a7W parntial
common ten era.
t9 Faafi9ron PoindOM
fa tadFa AAIA Rd
Lyava Rd b Durham Co.1be
2
4
Cnemam
3.68
538,036,609 ~ Deleted due to envkomhnhl imPxu on Jordan
ItIM etM b mOMtd9in nnal rJurearr.
20 Famrgton M8 Rd Barbee Chaps ftd b Chatham Co. dne 2 4 Owhem 204 521,201,738 Oeuhd dos u envkomunhl impaar on JdrdM
Uke end b 111a1f118111 NfN Cnafaarf.
21 Furktglon Rd Barbee Chapel Rd b Shgacoach Rd 2 4 Durham 0.40 $4,757,203 ~~ Ow u anvkornnsnul krpaar on Jordan
Leks end to mainteln noel dmrearr.
50.1
Jack Bsnaatt tttllLyalra Rd
US 1Sr601 South b Fardngbrr Pt. Rd
3
4
Chalhsm
4.10
$73,837,500 Oeletatl dos b anvkomnenul hnpaar on Jordan
Lelce, tack of carpaadon, and b mablsin Nral
78
NC 7S1
U3 84 to O1CeAy Clhpal lZa
2
4
Chaham
7.00
$66,130,W0
~ DsulM Oue to environnumtal Knpacu on Johan
6Nro, udk of cayaation, extesance d Psradal
routes (NO 55, Trlenple Parkways and to mabtsin
78 NC 751 ~ C ~ b Faye88vAlaf3do8 2 4 drmam 0.74 ST,680,828 Oeklad due u axistencs of pardlel rornss (NC 55,
7dangM Padwray) and b mektlakr ruhl ehawQer.
85.2 01(eAy ptepN Rd NC 757 b Wake Counq Lku 2 4 Cnamem 2.90 $30,139,723 Deleted dos b ~~~ clatbn and bmWnun
701
Stayecoadr Rd
Fer7kglon 1441 Rtl b NC 751
2
1
Oumem
1.98
520,370,298
5179,585,694 DeuAW due b envaomMnhl knpaar on Johan
Laks, leek of conpesdon, and b mNnutn Nrel
108 UNC Access b ens bypass Manning lk b 54l15S01 Bypass 0 4 Durham O.S4 313.904,714 DstNed duo b ledc of beer auppoA en0 poteMk4
conanttn9 '
73 NC SMUS 15.501 ByPaea NC 54 b US 15601 4 8 Orange 2. t2 522,372818 bathed due b lade d beat support.
111 US 15501 NO b FrankM St 4 6 Orange 1.40 524,270.422 580.547,754 Oersted dos b bdt of tool suppo2
117 US 70 Bype~ NC 86 b MS (exd 170) 2 4 Orange 8.90 5101,083,570 Deleted hu b leek ~ ~~~•
tZ0 Weahm Bypass US 70 b NC 86 0 2 Orange 223 323,730,789 Dented dw b lack of corglastlon.
121 Western BYDap NC 88 b 3VOW Creek Rd 0 2 Orange 0.30 53,192,463 5728,991,783 Dahutl We b ledc of oargestbn.
Totals 5668,323,601 #858,323,601
Page 1 of 2 w
tJa7