How Does The Use of Light Rail Park-And-Ride Facilities in Charlotte Influence Vehicle Emissions and Create More Vehicle Miles Traveled?

How does the Use of Light Rail Park-and-ride Facilities in Charlotte Influence Vehicle Emissions and Create more
Vehicle Miles Traveled?
By David Cook
A thesis submitted to the University of North Carolina at Charlotte Graduate Department of Geography and Earth Sciences
Charlotte Spring 2011 Professor Michael Duncan
Abstract
How does the Use of Light Rail Park-and-ride Facilities in Charlotte Influence Vehicle Emissions and Create more Vehicle Miles Traveled?
Park-and-ride lots are often promoted as an easy, cheap and equitable way of providing transit to a much broader population that increases transit ridership. The purpose of this thesis is to determine an estimate as to what extent VMT and vehicle emissions have increased or decreased as a result of light rail park-and-ride usage and, additionally, to find out if the literature discussed holds true in the Charlotte, NC example. For this study, two estimates will be created, one indicating VMT and emissions of park-and-ride users with existing conditions and another indicating VMT and emissions with conditions before the light rail was built, assuming that all park-and-ride users drove to their destination. Another component of this thesis was to observe and estimate to what extent the VMT savings would be if all park-and-ride lots were replaced with transit-oriented developments of varying densities. The final analysis of the two estimates indicated a 50% drop in vehicle miles traveled among park-and-ride users by traveling to park-and-ride lots instead of directly in the CBD. Emission reductions varied by vehicle type and emission type but were 11 37 percent range for each emission type. However, this impact is considered to be minimal in the overall reduction of VMT and emissions, as the amount of people using park-and-ride and light rail as an option for a trip is small compared to the amount of similar trips being made overall by all modes. Overall regional VMT reduction is estimated to be about 0.2 percent as a result of park-and-ride users using park-and-ride and light rail instead of driving the full distance.
List of Figures
Figure 1: Study Area Locater Map Figure 2: Average VMT by Station, All Stations and All Park-and-Ride Stations Figure 3: Average VMT by Station, All Stations and All Park-and-Ride Stations Figure 4: Average VMT by Station, All Stations and All Park-and-Ride Stations (hypothetical) Figure 5: Absolute Change in VMT between Scenario 1 (Home-Station) and Scenario 2 (Home-Final Destination) among Survey Respondents Figure 6: Average VMT by Station, All Stations and All Park-and-Ride Stations (hypothetical) Figure 7: Difference in VMT between Survey Sample all Users for Hypothetical Scenario Figure 8: Absolute Change in VMT between Scenario 1 (Home-Station) and Scenario 2 (Home-Final Destination) for all estimated Park-and-Ride Users in a given day Figure 9: Total CO Emissions, CO Emissions per Mile, and CO Emissions per User in grams for a 2001 average age vehicle for both LDV and LDT Vehicle Types Figure 10: Total HC Emissions, HC Emissions per Mile, and HC Emissions per User in grams for a 2001 average age vehicle for both LDV and LDT Vehicle Types Figure 11: Total NOx Emissions, NOx Emissions per Mile, and NOx Emissions per User in grams for a 2001 average age vehicle for both LDV and LDT Vehicle Types Figure 12: Total CO Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Station Figure 13: Average per User CO Emissions assuming Cars and Trucks for Each Station Figure 14: Total HC Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Station Figure 15: Average per User HC Emissions for Cars and Trucks for Each Station Figure 16: Total NOx Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Station Figure 17: Average per User NOx Emissions for Cars and Trucks for Each Station Figure 18: Total CO Emissions, CO Emissions per Mile, and CO Emissions per User in grams for a 2001 average age vehicle for both LDV and LDT Vehicle Types Figure 19: Total HC Emissions, HC Emissions per Mile, and HC Emissions per User in grams for a 2001 average age vehicle for both LDV and LDT Vehicle Types Figure 20: Total NOx Emissions, NOx Emissions per Mile, and NOx Emissions per User in grams for a 2001 average age vehicle for both LDV and LDT Vehicle Types Figure 21: Total CO Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Potential Station (Home Final Destination) Page 9 Page 25 Page 27 Page 30 Page 32 Page 34 Page 35
Page 37
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54 Page 57
Figure 22: Average Per User CO Emissions for Cars and Trucks for Each Potential Station (Home Final Destination) Figure 23: Total HC Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Potential Station (Home Final Destination) Figure 24: Average Per User HC Emissions for Cars and Trucks for Each Potential Station (Home Final Destination) Figure 25: Total NOx Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Potential Station (Home Final Destination) Figure 26: Average Per User NOx Emissions for Cars and Trucks for Each Potential Station (Home Final Destination) Figure 27: Aggregate CO Emissions for Cars (LDVs) for the Home Station Scenario and the Home Final Destination Scenario Figure 28: Average Per User CO Emissions for Cars (LDVs) for the Home Station Scenario and the Home Final Destination Scenario Figure 29: Aggregate CO Emissions for Trucks (LDTs) for the Home Station Scenario and the Home Final Destination Scenario Figure 30: Average Per User CO Emissions for Cars (LDVs) for the Home Station Scenario and the Home Final Destination Scenario Figure 31: Total Hot Soak HC Emissions (in grams) by Station for all Park-and-Ride Users assuming 100 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather Figure 32: Total Running and HC Emissions in the Home Station Scenario for Cars (LDVs) 100 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather Figure 33: Total Running and HC Emissions in the Home Station Scenario for Trucks (LDTs) 100 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather Figure 34: Total Running and HC Emissions in the Home Final Scenario for Cars (LDVs) 100 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather Figure 35: Total Running and HC Emissions in the Home Final Scenario for Cars (LDVs) 100 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather Figure 36: Total Hot Soak HC Emissions (in grams) by Station for all Park-and-Ride Users assuming 55.9 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather Figure 37: Total Running and HC Emissions in the Home Station Scenario for Cars (LDVs) 55.9 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather Figure 38: Total Running and HC Emissions in the Home Station Scenario for Trucks (LDTs) 55.9 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather Figure 39: Total Running and HC Emissions in the Home Final Scenario for Cars (LDVs) 55.9 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather Figure 40: Total Running and HC Emissions in the Home Final Scenario for Cars (LDVs) 55.9 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather Figure 41: VMT Reduction Amounts by Scenario (500 People) Figure 42: VMT Reduction Amounts by Scenario (1,000 People) Figure 43: Differences in VMT reduction for the two density level scenarios
Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 65 Page 65 Page 66 Page 66
Page 70 Page 71 Page 71 Page 72 Page 72
Page 74 Page 75 Page 75 Page 76 Page 76 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83
List of Tables
Table 1: Estimated VMT for 2009 Park-and-Ride User Survey Respondents from Home TAZ to nearest Park-and-Ride TAZ (existing conditions) Table 2: Estimated VMT for All Park-and-Ride Users in a Given Day from Home TAZ to nearest Park-and-Ride TAZ (existing conditions) Table 3: Estimated VMT for 2009 Park-and-Ride User Survey Respondents from Home TAZ to Final Destination TAZ (pre-existing conditions Table 4: Absolute and Percent Changes in overall VMT among different Station Categories (Survey Respondents) Table 5: Estimated VMT for all potential 2009 Park-and-Ride Users from Home TAZ to Final Destination TAZ (pre-existing conditions) Table 6: Absolute and Percent Changes in overall VMT among different Station Categories (All Estimated Users) Table 7: Total, per user and per mile emissions by type of emission from home to station using the 2001 model year as a base for start and running emissions rate (all Park-and-ride users) Table 8: Total and Average per User CO Emissions assuming Cars and Trucks for each Park-and-Ride Station (Home Station) Table 9: Total and Average per User HC Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Park-and-Ride Station (Home Station) Table 10: Total and Average per User NOx Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Park-and-Ride Station (Home Station) Table 11: Total, per user and per mile emissions by type of emission from home to final destination using the 2001 model year as a base for start and running emissions rate (all Park-and-ride users Table 12: Total and Average per User CO Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Home Park-and-Ride Station (Home Final Destination) Table 13: Total and Average per User HC Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Home Park-and-Ride Station (Home Final Destination) Table 14: Total and Average per User NOx Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Potential Park-and-Ride Station (Home Final Destination) Table 15: Total Hot Soak HC Emissions (in grams) by Station for all Park-and-Ride Users assuming 100 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather: Table 16: Total Hot Soak HC Emissions (in grams) by Station for all Park-and-Ride Users assuming 55.9 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather: Table 17: VMT reduction among TOD residents for five reduction rate scenarios for 500 people (300 households) Table 18: VMT reduction among TOD residents for five reduction rate scenarios for 1,000 people (600 households) Table 19: Average start and running emissions for cars and trucks by model year Table 20: Survey results and data sheet (Home Station Scenario) Table 21: Survey results and data sheet (Home Final Destination Scenario) Page 25 Page 27 Page 30 Page 33 Page 34 Page 37
Page 39 Page 44 Page 46 Page 48
Page 51 Page 57 Page 59 Page 61
Page 68 Page 74
Page 81 Page 82 Page 90 Page 91 Page 98
List of Abbreviations
ATAZ CATS CBD CDOT CO CO2 CTPP DMV EPA GIS HC LDV LDT MUMPO NOAA NOx PTAZ TAZ TOD TransCAD VHT VMT Attraction Transportation Analysis Zone Charlotte Area Transit System Central Business District Charlotte Department of Transportation Carbon Monoxide Carbon Dioxide Census Transportation Planning Products Department of Motor Vehicles Environmental Protection Agency Geographic Information System Hydrocarbons Light Duty Vehicle Light Duty Truck Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mono-Nitrogen Oxides Production Transportation Analysis Zone Traffic Analysis Zone Transit-Oriented Development Urban Transportation Modeling System Vehicle Hours Traveled Vehicle Miles Traveled 6
Chapter 1: Introduction and Problem Statement

Park-and-ride commuter parking lots are important facilitators for the LYNX Light Rail in Charlotte and encourage people not living in nearby Transit-Oriented Developments (mixeduse developments centered around transit stations) to use their cars and to utilize free parking adjacent to a transit station. Park-and-ride lots are a cheap, easy, and more equitable way of providing transit access to a much broader population and thus increase transit ridership. Increasing transit ridership is also a very important goal of transit agencies. Does park-and-ride reduce VMT or does it create more VMT, thus generating more congestion and emissions and, if so, to what extent? The purpose of this research problem is to determine an estimate as to what extent commuter VMT has changed (increased or decreased) as a result of having the light rail parkand-ride. How has the aggregate commuter travel length (vehicle miles traveled) been affected by having the light rail park-and-ride facilities? By estimating the impact of light rail park-andride lots on VMT it is possible to estimate preliminary environmental effects such as cold start (higher emissions per capita in shorter trips) and hot soak evaporative emissions using national coefficients provided by the EPA. Using network data provided by the CDOT, it was possible to estimate the amount of VMT change as a result of having light rail park-and-ride lots. The origin of the park-and-ride user is important in understanding the spatial scope of park-and-ride catchment areas and the travel behavior of park-and-ride users and will be a core part of the proposed research question. The following figure indicates a map of the study area, which includes every park-andride station along the light rail in South Charlotte along South Boulevard. The map of the study 7
area includes a general overview of the study area, location of the light rail in Charlotte, location of light rail facilities, and the location of park-and-ride facilities, which are indicated by red buffers. For this study, the study area will include the light rail line from Uptown to I-485 at Pineville as well as the extended area in which park-and-ride users live around each park-andride lot. The extended area is based on a 2009 on-board user survey in which the origin location for all park-and-ride users has been recorded and grouped by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ).
Figure 1: Study area locator map indicating all stations and stops along the light rail and commuter park-and-ride lots circled in red
GIS Data and layers Source: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department
Chapter 2: Literature Review

Rail and bus-based park-and-ride lots first appeared in the late 1960s and early 1970s in the United Kingdom (Parkhurst 2000). Throughout the 1970s, park-and-ride lots became very popular in the United Kingdom and eventually the concept spread into other Western European countries and North America. Today park-and-ride lots are expanding rapidly across the world, including Asia and South America. They have, in most cases, proven successful in attracting auto commuters and increasing transit ridership. These lots are a more equitable (those with access to an automobile) way of providing transit access to a much larger population than that of transit-oriented developments and thus increase transit ridership (Burgess 2008, Parkhurst 1995 and 2000). However, congestion remains persistent and continues to grow in cities that have parkand-ride lots. There is a debate as to whether these facilities have actually led to an increase in vehicle miles traveled rather than a decrease. There is a modest body of literature on the subject of the direct and indirect effects of park-and-ride usage on increasing congestion and VMT (vehicle miles traveled) in the UK experience but relatively little in the context of the US experience (Parkhurst 1995 and 2000). This makes the research questions of how and to what extent VMT has been affected in the Charlotte region an important contribution to the existing literature. There is some evidence that park-and-ride facilities inadvertently increase congestion and VMT through both direct and indirect effects such as induced demand (in which newly freed-up sections of roadway created through the interception of automobiles by park-and-ride lots are quickly filled up by new users and new types of trips) and traffic relocation (Parkhurst 1995 and 2000).
10
Ideally, park-and-ride lots serve to intercept would-be trips into the center city by capturing auto-based traffic along the way and enabling people to utilize transit for part of the trip. In a perfect situation, every car parked at a park-and-ride lot would mean one less car traveling into the center city. According to Parkhurst (1995), park-and-ride lots almost certainly lead to an increase in congestion and auto traffic. Trips removed from the roadway network due to park-and-ride auto-interception have been replaced by new trips encouraging new auto users to quickly fill up the newly created open spaces on the road, many of which are going into the center city (Parkhurst 1995). However, the induced demand effect can also occur if the park-andride lots are replaced with transit-oriented development (TODs) since new TOD residents would also be driving less. There has been modest body of articles published over the past 30 years about the negative effects of park-and-ride lots and the indirect impacts they have on increasing auto-based roadway congestion and traffic (Burgess 2008, Parkhurst 1995 and 2000). This literature review will summarize scholarly papers that relate to the question of park-and-ride impacts on VMT in Charlotte, North Carolina and draw conclusions as to why this study is important in the broader context of the literature. Parkhurst (1995) notes many drawbacks with regard to park-and-ride lots, including its ineffectiveness in reducing traffic downstream of a parking site (induced demand effect). This effect can also occur by building TODs. Another drawback includes abstraction of former transit users to the automobile (former bus users now using park-and-ride lots). Other drawbacks include the environmental impact of building large surface parking lots and decks on sensitive land on the urban fringe, political inequity since it is not an open option to all even though many times the entire population pays for its subsidies through taxes, and the increased parking capacity which may create additional trip-end opportunities (Parkhurst 1995). After
11
producing a survey for Oxford and York, Parkhurst (1995) concluded that there was a significant amount of transit abstraction (i.e. former bus users who have switched to driving with the advent of light rail park-and-ride lots) and that those who used park-and-ride lots were more likely to make more discretionary trips than regular auto commuters (Parkhurst 1995). He also concluded that there was no decongestion dividend in which VMT could be offset (Parkhurst 1995). He recommended that in order for park-and-ride to be successful, it is important to consider the region as a whole by investigating the impact of traffic growth, trip generation, and residential self selection (Parkhurst 1995). The largest contribution of park-and-ride lots to congestion growth was the induced demand effect in which park-and-ride creates more road space further upstream of a station, encouraging new users and new trips for those not using the same network beforehand (Parkhurst 1995). He also recommended policy packaging such as road pricing and traffic calming coupled with park-and-ride lots as a means to reduce congestion and VMT (Parkhurst 1995). In a later article Parkhurst (2000) looks more in depth at the travel behavior of park-andride users and the negative congestion/VMT-related effects of the lots. Parkhurst (2000) notes that there is still a debate as to the true effectiveness of reducing congestion and VMT through park-and-ride and that there is little evidence supporting the contention that it does indeed reduce congestion (Parkhurst 2000). He also notes that in cases in which traffic-reducing policies have been successfully implemented with park-and-ride lots the change in VMT has been slight if at all (Parkhurst 2000). Parkhurst (2000) found that auto trips ranged from 1.5 to 12.7 kilometers (0.9 to 7.9 miles) and that many park-and-ride users would have used transit anyway if park-andride did not exist (Parkhurst 2000).
12
Much of the research on park-and-ride lots comes from the United Kingdom since it has the longest history of any country of using these lots. The spatial redistributing of traffic from a regional scale to a more localized scale can create induced discretionary traffic (Meek, Ison, and Enoch 2007). This induces access trips further upstream of park-and-ride lots and creates new discretionary trips among park-and-ride users (Meek, Ison, and Enoch 2007). They also point out that although those park-and-ride lots serve to increase auto-based traffic by themselves; they may have an impact on reducing congestion and VMT if implemented as part of a package with traffic-reducing policies such as road pricing, traffic calming, and parking control in the center city, thus reducing the induced demand effect (Meek, Ison, and Enoch 2007). They also point out that there is a dearth in the literature as to the origin (i.e. home addresses) of park-and-ride users (Meek, Ison, and Enoch 2007). The origin is important in understanding the spatial scope of park-and-ride catchment areas and the travel behavior of park-and-ride users and will be a core part of the proposed research question. The effectiveness of park-and-ride has been explored in many other works of literature. Whitefield and Cooper (1998) indicated that the long-range effects of park-and-ride are more complex than generally acknowledged and there is a lack of evidence showing that park-and-ride lots reduce car-based trips (Whitefield & Cooper 1998). A research paper done by RPS (2009) concluded that much of the benefit of park-and-ride is economic rather than sustainable in nature (RPS 2009). In an article by Sherwin (1998), the author wrote of significant indications that park-and-ride lots rely on auto ownership, which promotes car use and may increase journey lengths or VMT through both direct and indirect effects (Sherwin 1998). In a more recent article by Meek, Ison and Enoch (2009), the authors point out that in a survey of towns and cities with park-and-ride lots 33 percent reported a VMT increase and 20 percent reported no increase or
13
decline, with all other respondents indicating a slight decrease or no answer (Meek, Ison, & Enoch 2009). Park-and-ride lots generally do little to discourage auto ownership and many non-work based trips will be made anyway and in greater frequency since park-and-ride rail lines often do not accommodate efficient trip chaining. Dickins (1991) draws many of the same conclusions as Parkhurst (1995 and 2000), Meek (2007 and 2009) and Burgess (2008), but also explains that American cities are far more dependent on and susceptible to the negative effects of park-andride lots than European cities due to the differences in urban structure between the two regions (Dickins 1991). One of the articles most relevant to the research question I have proposed was written by Elizabeth Deakin and Manish Shirgaokar (2005) and investigates the travel behavior of parkand-ride users in San Francisco and its impact on regional VMT. Deakin and Shirgaokar (2005) provided detailed survey-based information on the origin and characteristics of park-and-ride users in the US context (Deakin & Shirgaokar 2005). This information differs in many regards compared to the UK examples explained before, but shares many of the same base assumptions and results. Deakin and Shirgaokar (2005) found that nearly all of the park-and-ride users commuted to the stations by automobile alone (Deakin & Shirgaokar 2005). Parking was provided for free at nearly every station and the number of stations was growing rapidly (Deakin & Shirgaokar 2005). The survey provided the first true look at the types of people using the parkand-ride lots in the San Francisco Bay area and their travel behavior characteristics. Deakin and Shirgaokars (2005) results showed that 93 to 100 percent of the users, depending on the station, started their trips at home and 94 to 97 percent were using park-and-ride lots for work purposes only, which differ from the examples in the Oxford/York studies (Deakin & Shirgaokar 2005).
14
Those studies found that only 44 to 48 percent were using the park-and-ride lots for work only (though even in the UK context this still represented the largest type of trip being made by parkand-ride users) (Parkhurst 1995). Deakin and Shirgaokar (2005) also revealed that around 67 to 93 percent of all park-and-ride users in the San Francisco area were using park-and-ride lots four or more days a week and 89 to 100 percent used it two to three days a week (Deakin & Shirgaokar 2005). The average travel time to a station was found to be 16 minutes (Deakin & Shirgaokar 2005). The key findings were that most persons were single person commuters who worked full time and used the same park-and-ride lots for four or more days a week. When added to the network, their contribution in decreasing VMT was almost negligible due to the high costs associated with single person usage of park-and-ride lots and the induced demand effect (Deakin & Shirgaokar 2005). There is a modest amount of scholarly peer-reviewed research indicating that park-andride lots do little to reduce VMT and are more likely than not to increase congestion due to many indirect effects of park-and-ride usage. There was no literature found to support park-and-ride as a tool to reduce congestion by itself. Parkhurst provides a context for the UK experience that is also relevant to the US experience due to the similar types of people using park-and-ride lots and similar indirect effects such as induced demand and redistribution of traffic. All of the papers agreed that park-and-ride is appealing to auto users, increases economic activity in the center city by reducing the need for central parking in prime land, and that it can serve as a politically sound way of increasing ridership, but generally remains ineffective in reducing VMT. There also appears to be a dearth in the research as to the environmental effects of park-and-ride lots, including hot soak, in which evaporative emissions from cars parked on surface lots can create
15
pollution, and the disproportionately high amount of emissions expelled per capita in a short three-mile trip when compared to a longer 10-mile trip due to the effect of start emissions. Emissions from park-and-ride users may be higher as a result of the very nature of the type of trip being made, indicating that emissions per VMT have a high correlation with trip distance. Shorter trips to a nearby park-and-ride lot have disproportionately larger amounts of emissions per capita than cars traveling the entire length of the trip to a CBD or center city. Related to this, Burgess (2008) indicates in his article that 84 percent of hydrocarbons and 54 percent of nitrogen oxide are burned in the first three miles of a 10-mile trip and claims that high per capita emissions of park-and-ride users is just as important as other indirect effects of parkand-ride such as induced demand (Burgess 2008). The EPA currently uses the MOBILE6 model and MOVES Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator model to calculate both start and running emissions at the national level based on a number of variables. The MOBILE6 vehicle emissions modeling software was developed by the EPA and has been used by EPA papers as well as Houks paper Making Use of MOBILE6s Capabilities for Modeling Start Emissions to model running and start emissions (EPA website, EPA 2009, and Houk 2004). These scholarly papers are important in the context of Charlotte as well since there have been a limited number of studies in the US and none in Charlotte as to the direct and indirect effects of park-and-ride and its impact on vehicle emissions and VMT. One of the main points of this research was to determine if the Charlotte experience with park-and-ride matches the general consensus of the literature. As there is relatively little literature regarding the US experience, examining how park-and-ride has had an effect on emissions and VMT in the Charlotte region is an important addition.
16
Chapter 3: Data and Methodology

The main element being researched in this study is the connection/relationship between vehicle miles traveled and the use of park-and-ride lots by automobile commuters. This study aims to determine the estimated difference between vehicle miles travelled and emissions among light rail park-and-ride trips versus the amount of vehicles miles travelled and emissions that would have occurred had those trips continued to their final destination (typically in the CBD). There are several methods by which could have been collected for this study, including on-site license plate data collection (to determine origin location and vehicle type mix) and a survey. For the purpose of this study, an on-board user survey provided by CDOT will be used since it has the origin and destination already available for park-and-ride users and because it is financially more feasible than on-site data collection. Many of the before-mentioned authors used surveys to identify the travel behavior and characteristics of park-and-ride users, especially in the study done by Deakin and Shirgaokar (2005) in the San Francisco Bay Area. This survey-based study helped to identify the characteristics of park-and-ride users in the San Francisco Bay Area, including how far they had traveled and from where the commuters were coming (Deakin and Shirgaokar 2005). This thesis used TransCAD, which is traditionally used as an urban transportation modeling system, as a simple database management system, to help organize the data and answer this question. Determining the origin for park-and-ride users is essential to determining the distance they traveled to reach a station and the impact they have on regional vehicle miles traveled. The spring 2009 on-board user survey compiled origin (home) and destination (Final non-station destination) data grouped by TAZ (Traffic Analysis Zone) for 309 park-and-ride users. The survey also provides the method of entry for each light rail station (e.g. park-and-ride, carpool, 17
walk, kiss-and-ride, and other) as well as the direction of the light rail user and the final station stop from station of entry. For the purpose of this study, only VMT and emissions for the 309 park-and-ride users will be calculated. The survey indicates the origin as production TAZ (PTAZ) and the destination as attraction TAZ (ATAZ) between home and final-destination locations. Using the PTAZ survey results it will be possible to geocode the origin for all 309 park-and-ride users for the purpose of estimating a network distance between home addresses and their corresponding final-destination location and park-and-ride facility. For the purpose of this study, an estimate was created to observe the effects of redistributing the traffic created by park-and-ride users from trips made directly to Uptown Charlotte to trips being made to parkand-ride lots. Once the VMT has been estimated for both scenarios, it will be possible to expand the survey results to include all of the estimated daily park-and-ride users based on the Combined ExpFactor Linked field in the survey. The Combined ExpFactor Linked field is a weighted sum of all the estimated number of park-and-ride users represented by each of the parkand-ride survey respondents. This will indicate an approximate VMT amount for all estimated light rail park-and-ride users in a given day. For this study, two transportation network estimates will be created based on the data provided by CDOT. One will indicate the amount of VMT as a result of having select trips to park-and-ride lots (existing conditions). The other model will indicate the amount of VMT if those same trips were instead being made directly to their final destination (generally in the CBD and surrounding areas), with a new assumption that all Uptown commuters are now going from their home addresses directly to the Uptown area. The difference between the VMT results of these two models will give some indication as to the extent of impact that park-and-ride lots are having in the Charlotte area in reducing or increasing VMT. When calculating emissions
18
amounts, both estimates will also account for hot soak and cold start to estimate the difference in total vehicle emissions between the two scenarios. To determine the origin and destination of park-and-ride commuters in order to build a network distance for these park-and-ride commuters, two variables must be used in the study, including the home TAZ of park-and-ride users (origin) and the exact TAZ of the light rail parkand-ride lots as well as work locations (destination). The origin-destination pair forms a matrix by which a network distance between points can be estimated yielding the amount of additional VMT being created by these trips. The network distance data provided by CDOT that are used to estimate the distance between origin and destination pairs are based on numerous model coefficients that were calculated by CDOT. These coefficients are in-vehicle travel time, out-ofvehicle travel time, initial wait time, transfers for transit and drive access time, auto time, auto costs (in cents), auto distance, income, and HOV savings for automobile. The data provided by CDOT is an estimated TAZ Origin-Destination distance matrix for the Charlotte metropolitan area. Light rail park-and-ride address locations will be collected from CATS and used to determine the stations TAZ location for the first scenario. Though this estimate is a simple and effective way of measuring the effects of light rail park-and-ride facilities on VMT and emissions, it does have many problems and assumptions affiliated with it. The study is expanded to capture all park-and-ride users by using the Combined ExpFactor Linked field in the survey. This estimates how many people are actually using parkand-ride lots for every one survey respondent. The estimates also assume their route is fixed from origin to final destination with no intermediate stops. In addition, because the estimate uses a national coefficient to estimate the amount of emissions from hot soak and cold start, it is also
19
an assumption that driving behavior and the types of automobile being used by park-and-ride users are similar to the national average. Coefficient national averages provided by the EPA are essential in measuring the amount of vehicle emissions being given off by park-and-ride users for the purpose of this research. There are two variables that will be used to measure the environmental impacts of park-and-ride lots. The first is hot soak, which will measure the amount of evaporative emissions being given off as cars sit idly in park-and-ride lots as well as cool down evaporative emissions. All stations except the I-485 station, which is an enclosed parking deck, will measure the affects of hot soak over a nine hour period. Since the I-485 station has an enclosed parking deck, cars parked here will be excluded from the total nine hours and hot soak will only be measured for one hour, or the amount of time it takes a car to cool down. It will be assumed that all of the persons using park-and-ride lots from the survey are working a normal nine-hour day. It will also be assumed that it is a non-cloudy day conducive for hot soak emissions which will give an overestimated hot soak result for the average day in a year. Finally it is assumed that the amount of evaporative emissions in Charlotte surface lots is similar to the national average since the estimate will be using a national coefficient to help determine the amount of hot soak. In the case of cold start, it will be possible to estimate vehicle emissions based on trip length using an EPA national cold start coefficient as well as the national average age of a vehicle which is about nine years old. Since the estimate will be using national coefficient averages and has several assumptions attached to it, the results will not be exact but rather provide an idea as to the amount of emissions being expelled as a result of cold start and hot soak evaporative emissions. Additionally, the estimate assumes that cars and trucks in the Charlotte area are about the same age as cars and trucks at the national level (i.e. nine years old).
20
As mentioned before, the EPA currently uses the MOBILE6 model and MOVES model to calculate both start and running emissions at the national level. The MOVES model (Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator) was developed by the EPA office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) and is used to estimate emissions (both start and running) for mobile sources based on the mix of vehicles (type, year, etc.), the amount of time the vehicle has been parked, ambient temperature of the vehicle, and the fuel the vehicle is using (EPA OTAQ website). This model can be used at any scale (national, regional, local, etc) but is used by the EPA to determine national emission averages for start and running emissions for each year (EPA 2009). According to the EPA website, MOBILE6 is an emission factor model for predicting gram per mile emissions of Hydrocarbons (HC), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Particulate Matter (PM), and toxics from on-road vehicles (EPA website). Both of these models are used in calculating on-road vehicle start and running emissions and have yielded interesting emission results (EPA website). According to an article released by the EPA, cold start emissions occur within the first 505-860 seconds of driving or roughly a length of 3.59-3.9 vehicle miles before the normal running emissions begin (EPA 2009 and Houk 2004). Cold start occurs when an automobile has been sitting (generally overnight) for a period of 6 hours or more (EPA 2009). According to Houk, start emissions in the summer (mainly cold start) accounts for 28% of the total on-road volatile organic compound (VOC), 31% of carbon monoxide (CO), and 20% of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions in 2001 (Houk 2004). In the winter, start emissions account for around 50% of all CO emissions (Houk 2004). Start emissions (particularly cold start) will be major concerns in this study since typical trips made by park-and-ride users are expected to be much shorter than if those same users travelled directly into the CBD instead, especially in the wintertime. One major
21
assumption as expressed in the Houk article is that the MOBILE6 vehicle emissions modeler assumes that all morning commute trips to work are calculated as a single start from the home end and does not account for any stops a commuter may have on the way to work for breakfast or coffee and does not account for multiple starts in the morning. According to the EPA, start emissions and running emissions vary greatly from year to year for all on-road vehicles in the US. In 2000, the average car in the US emitted 10.24 grams of CO, 1.294 grams of HC (Hydrocarbons), and 0.983 grams of NOx during the start phase (cold start phase) for a total of 12.517 grams in emissions (EPA 2009). In 2010, the average car emitted only 3.65 grams of CO, 0.423 grams of HC, and 0.119 grams of NOx for a total of 4.192 grams in start emissions, a reduction of 8.325 grams in emissions during the start phase or 66.5% (EPA 2009). However, since the average age of a vehicle in the US is 9.4 years old, it is assumed that the current start emissions for all vehicles on the road will be equivalent to the start and running emission rate of a car produced in 2001 (RITA 2009). According to the EPA, the average car built in 2001 emits 0.2196 grams of cumulative evaporative HC emissions in a nine hour period in 2001 (EPA 2001). This rate will be applied to all of the park-and-ride users except the I-485 station users where evaporative HC emissions were calculated for a one hour cool down time. In 2001, the average start emissions for an LDV (light duty vehicle or car) were 8.86 grams of CO, 0.932 grams of HC, and 0.672 grams NOx. The average running emissions for an LDV in 2001 per mile was 0.579 grams of CO per mile, 0.016 grams of HC per mile, and 0.080 grams of NOx per mile. The amount of start and running emissions for cars in this study represents a lower bound emissions estimate. The study is repeated for all LDTs (light duty trucks) to show an upper end of emission results, as these vehicles have much higher start and running emissions rates than LDVs. Among LDTs in 2001
22
the average start emissions were 14.15 grams of CO, 1.45 grams of HC, and 1.12 grams NOx. The average running emissions for an LDT in 2001 were 0.848 grams of CO per mile, 0.0486 grams of HC per mile, and 0.144 grams of NOx per mile. The results below assume a total of 8.86 grams of CO, 0.932 grams of HC, and 0.672 grams of NOx for all car (LDV) trips (start emissions) and 14.15 grams of CO, 1.45 grams of HC, and 1.12 grams of NOx for all truck (LDT) trips. Following this, the running emissions rate is added on a per mile rate for all trips over 3.90 miles (after the cold start period). The true amount of emissions for the Charlotte is likely to be somewhere between the lower bound car (LDV) estimate and the upper bound truck (LDT estimate).
23
Chapter 4: Model Analysis
4.1 Results of the Analysis (VMT)
The first step of the analysis was to determine an estimate VMT for two separate scenarios. The estimates take into account the return trip for each park-and-ride user as a separate trip from the origin destination trip and assume a similar trip path on the return trip. One scenario indicates the existing conditions whereby park-and-ride users drove from their origin TAZ to the nearest light rail park-and-ride stations (park-and-ride TAZ). The other scenario indicates pre-existing light rail conditions whereby all potential park-and-ride users drove all the way to their final destination TAZ. There are two sections of estimated results including the existing home-station VMT followed by the pre-existing home-final destination VMT. Each section will have two subset tables of results, one of which will indicate the estimated VMT for the 309 park-and-ride survey users, followed by the estimated VMT results for all park-and-ride users based on the Combined ExpFactor Linked field from the 2009 On-board User Survey. Indicated below in the first set of data results is the estimated VMT for the 304 park-andride survey respondents for the home station (existing conditions) scenario and 309 survey respondents for the home final destination (hypothetical) scenario for the current existing home-light rail park-and-ride lot conditions. Since all interzonal (e.g. trips made from within the same TAZ) are excluded and there were slightly more interzonal trips made in the home station scenario, there is a slight difference in the survey size. The estimated VMT results are broken up by station and then indicated for all stations combined (one indicating all light rail stations combined and one indicating all park-and-ride stations combined). Most of these trips were headed to the CBD as well as some trips ending further along the light rail line but outside of the 24
CBD as final point of station departure. Also indicated is the estimated minimum to maximum VMT for the 309 park-and-ride users for each park-and-ride station as well as all park-and-ride stations and all the light rail stations combined. Finally, a figure indicating the average VMT for each station, VMT for all park-and-ride stations, and VMT for all stations will be shown in the table below.
Table 1: Estimated VMT for 2009 Park-and-Ride User Survey Respondents from Home TAZ to nearest Park-and-Ride TAZ (existing conditions):
Home Station
I-485 Station Sharon Road West Station Arrowood Station Archdale Station Tyvola Station Woodlawn Station Scaleybark Station Non-Park-and-Ride Stations All Stations All Park-and-Ride Stations
Records
165 30 30 4 22 14 29 10 304 294
Mean VMT
8.3445 5.6808 6.6307 1.6240 4.3961 3.7559 6.9538 6.7018 7.1457 7.1608
Min-Max VMT
0.58 25.46 1.06 24.76 0.74 24.63 1.27 2.57 0.79 25.69 0.45 27.83 0.45 34.08 1.04 30.51 0.45 34.08 0.45 34.08
CDOT 2009 On-Board User Survey and Network OD Matrix Figure 2: Average VMT by Station, All Stations and All Park-and-Ride Stations:
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
CDOT 2009 On-Board User Survey and Network OD Matrix 25
The results in the table 1 and figure 2 above indicate the average and minimum maximum estimated VMT for the 304 survey respondents for each park-and-ride station, all park-and-ride stations combined, and all stations combined (including all non-park-and-ride stations). There were 10 survey respondents located at non-park-and-ride lots which are assumed to be the remaining TOD stations further up the line. It is likely that these survey respondents drove to a differenct parking facility near these TOD stations that were not official CATS parkand-ride facilities. The overall average per person estimated VMT is approximately 7.15 miles for all stations and 7.16 miles for all park-and-ride stations among the 304 park-and-ride survey respondents. The minimum distance traveled was an estimated 0.45 miles located at Woodlawn Station and Scaleybark and the longest was an estimated 34.08 miles located at Scaleybark Station. The station with the highest average estimated VMT was the I-485 station at approximately 8.34 miles and the lowest was Archdale station with an average estimated trip being 1.62 miles from home to station. The I-485 station made up the largest share of users among the survey respondents, accounting for 165 survey respondents or about 54 percent of the survey sample. After completing the analysis for the survey sample for all park-and-ride users going from the home origin TAZ to the station destination TAZ (survey sample existing conditions), the analysis was then expanded using the Combined ExpFactor Linked field in the survey which aims to estimate VMT for all park-and-ride users by expanding each survey respondent to match the actual number of park-and-ride users they represent. Indicated below is a table and figure indicating the estimated average and minimummaximum VMT for all estimated park-and-ride users in a single day broken down by park-and-ride lot as well as all stations and all park-andride stations combined. After using the Combined ExpFactor Linked field from the 2009 On-
26
Board User Survey, there are an estimated 4,642 park-and-ride users on an average given day represented by the survey sample of 304 respondents. The results take into account the return trip as a separate trip and assume a similar trip path was made on the return trip.
Table 2: Estimated VMT for All Park-and-Ride Users in a Given Day from Home TAZ to nearest Park-and-Ride TAZ (existing conditions):
Home Station
I-485 Station Sharon Road West Station Arrowood Station Archdale Station Tyvola Station Woodlawn Station Scaleybark Station Non-Park-and-ride Stations All Stations All Park-and-ride Stations
Records
2260.13 545.06 437.60 72.41 317.40 434.09 410.77 164.03 4641.50 4477.46
Mean VMT
8.2777 5.2129 5.6458 1.9417 3.3745 4.3746 6.9014 6.1404 6.2678 6.2722
Min-Max VMT
0.58 25.46 1.06 24.76 0.74 24.62 1.28 2.58 0.79 25.69 0.45 27.83 0.45 34.08 1.04 30.51 0.45 34.08 0.45 34.08
CDOT 2009 On-Board User Survey and Network OD Matrix
Figure 3: Average VMT by Station, All Stations and All Park-and-Ride Stations:
10 8 6 4 2 0
The results in the table 2 and figure 3 above indicate the average and minimum maximum estimated VMT for all the estimated 4,642 park-and-ride users for each park-and-ride station, all park-and-ride stations combined, and all stations combined (including all non-parkand-ride stations). The overall average per person estimated VMT is approximately 6.27 miles for all stations and for all park-and-ride stations among the estimated 4,642 park-and-ride users. This is slightly lower than the estimated 7.16 miles for the survey respondents indicating that the average overall park-and-ride user is travelling less than the average survey user. The minimum distance traveled was an estimated 0.45 miles located at Woodlawn Station and Scaleybark Station and the longest was an estimated 34.08 miles located at Scaleybark Station. The station with the highest average estimated VMT was the I-485 station at approximately 8.28 miles and the lowest was Archdale station with an average estimated trip being 1.94 miles from home to station. The I-485 station made up the largest share of users among all estimated park-and-ride users accounting for 2,260 users or about 49 percent of all estimated users. The estimated results from table 2 provide a much clearer picture of the true amount of VMT incurred on an average day by the estimated daily number of light rail park-and-ride users. The approximate total VMT calculated for the current existing conditions for all light rail parkand-ride users is roughly 30,973 miles travelled out of approximately 15,962,423 (EPA 2003) for Charlotte as a whole in a given day or about 0.2 percent of all VMT in a given day. According to a CATS 2009 survey, approximately 56 percent of all trips made on the light rail are home-based work trips (either traveling from home to work or work to home as trip type) (CATS 2009). If we assume that 56 percent of park-and-ride users are also using light rail park-and-ride as a means of transportation then an estimated 2,600 park-and-ride users are using park-and-ride as a mode of commuting. In 2010, about 70,000 75,000 people worked in the Charlotte CBD (Charlotte
28
Center City Partners), so this makes up roughly 3.5 3.7 percent of all mode choice types for CBD workers assuming that all people who commute by park-and-ride work in the CBD. The second part of the analysis was to estimate the hypothetical pre-light rail conditions in which VMT is estimated for all potential park-and-ride trips that are now redirected to their final destination most typically in the CBD but also along the light rail line in neighborhoods such as Southend. The amount of VMT was first estimated for the survey respondents and then expanded to include the estimated total number of potential park-and-ride users using the Combined ExpFactor Linked Field from the 2009 User Survey. Seen below are a table and figure for all those survey respondents who would have used park-and-ride stations (existing) but instead travelled directly to their final destination (hypothetical). The survey sample size is slightly larger for the home final destination scenario with 309 survey respondents than the home station scenario which included 304 survey respondents. The estimated results are broken up in a fashion similar to the home-station results in which estimated results are indicated for each park-and-ride station, all stations combined, and all park-and-ride stations combined. The stations in this case are same affiliating stations as the survey users in the home station scenario but do not represent the final destination of the user. The final destination is most typically found further along the line or in the CBD. Also shown below is a figure which shows the average amount of VMT for this scenario for each category.
29
Table 3: Estimated VMT for 2009 Park-and-Ride User Survey Respondents from Home TAZ to Final Destination TAZ (pre-existing conditions):
Home Station
Records
165 30 30 5 23 15 31 10 309 299
Mean VMT
17.6185 13.4896 12.5320 7.3353 10.0035 7.5512 8.2579 7.7719 14.2442 14.4606
Min-Max VMT
0.35 35.79 8.42 22.35 0.42 22.67 3.70 9.80 6.75 26.18 4.57 19.16 1.63 31.26 1.31 29.06 0.35 35.79 0.35 35.79
Figure 4: Average VMT by Station, All Stations and All Park-and-Ride Stations (hypothetical):
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
The results in the table 3 and figure 4 above indicate the average and minimum maximum estimated VMT for the 309 park-and-ride survey respondents for each park-and-ride station, all park-and-ride stations combined, and all stations combined (including all non-parkand-ride stations) for the hypothetical home final destination scenario. The overall average per person estimated VMT is approximately 14.24 miles for all stations and 14.46 for all park-andride stations among the 309 potential park-and-ride users. This is an estimated 99 percent higher than in the first scenario (existing conditions) for all stations combined and an estimated 102 percent higher than all park-and-ride stations combined. The minimum distance traveled was an estimated 0.35 miles located at the I-485 station and the longest was an estimated 35.79 miles located at I-485 Station as well. The short trip distance of 0.35 miles in the I-485 example indicates that this park-and-ride user lived close to the center city (Origin TAZ of 10010) and their final destination (destination TAZ of 10009) and chooses to drive to the I-485 station instead of a closer station according to the survey results which are a very rare situation. This is further substantiated in the survey as only about two additional people made a similar trip if you expand the survey using the Combined ExpFactor Linked field. The station with the highest average estimated VMT was the I-485 stations at approximately 17.62 miles and the lowest was Archdale station with an average estimated trip being 7.34 miles from home to final non-station destination. Indicated in the figure below is the average estimated VMT for all station categories (each individual station, all stations combined and all park-and-ride stations combined) between the existing conditions scenario (home-station) and the second hypothetical scenario (home-final destination) among survey respondents. Also seen is a table showing the percent increase in VMT when switching trip type from scenario one to scenario two. The amount of VMT increase
31
ranged from 16 to 351 percent. The overall average increase in VMT when switching from the home park-and-ride scenario to the hypothetical home final destination scenario for all stations was an estimated 99 percent or double the amount of VMT. Average VMT tended to steadily decrease from station to station in the home final destination scenario starting with the station with the highest estimated VMT (I-485) until reaching all non-park-and-ride lots which had the second lowest average VMT.
Figure 5: Absolute Change in VMT between Scenario 1 (Home-Station) and Scenario 2 (HomeFinal Destination) among Survey Respondents:
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2
32
Table 4: Absolute and Percent Changes in overall VMT among different Station Categories (Survey Respondents)*:
Station I-485 Station Sharon Road West Station Arrowood Station Archdale Station Tyvola Station Woodlawn Station Scaleybark Station Non-Park-and-Ride Stations All Stations All Park-and-Ride Stations
Absolute +9.3 +7.8 +5.9 +5.7 +5.6 +3.8 +1.3 +1.2 +7.2 +7.3
Percentage 111.1 % 137.5 % 89.0 % 351.7 % 127.6 % 101.0 % 18.8 % 16.0 % 99.3 % 101.9 %
CDOT 2009 On-Board User Survey and Network OD Matrix *This represents the percent and absolute per user VMT change in VMT by station for the survey respondents when they travel to their final destination entirely by car instead of travelling part of the way by light rail
The final part of the VMT section of the analysis estimates the VMT for all potential park-and-ride users based on the survey sample as they travel in a hypothetical trip from home to their final destination by using the Combined ExpFactor Linked field. The table and figure below indicates the estimated average amount of VMT and minimum maximum VMT categorized by individual station, all stations combined, and all park-and-ride stations combined. After using the Combined ExpFactor Linked Field, there was an estimated 4,767 potential park-and-ride users (pre-existing conditions) represented by the sample size of 309 in an average day. Also presented below is a figure showing the difference in overall estimated VMT between the survey sample and the total estimated potential park-and-ride users in the hypothetical pre-light rail scenario. 33
Table 5: Estimated VMT for all potential 2009 Park-and-Ride Users from Home TAZ to Final Destination TAZ (pre-existing conditions):
Home Station
Records
2260.13 545.06 429.56 82.96 357.77 475.23 452.62 164.03 4767.37 4603.34
Mean VMT
17.7195 13.0116 12.1475 7.7155 8.8240 6.6698 7.7643 7.1270 13.4264 13.6509
Min-Max VMT
0.35 35.79 8.42 22.35 0.42 22.67 3.70 9.80 6.75 26.18 4.67 19.16 1.63 31.26 1.31 29.06 0.35 35.79 0.35 35.79
CDOT 2009 On-Board User Survey and Network OD Matrix Figure 6: Average VMT by Station, All Stations and All Park-and-Ride Stations (hypothetical):
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Figure 7: Difference in VMT between Survey Sample all Users for Hypothetical Scenario:
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Survey All
CDOT 2009 On-Board User Survey and Network OD Matrix The results in the table and figures above indicate the average and minimum maximum estimated VMT for all the estimated 4,767 potential park-and-ride users for each park-and-ride station, all park-and-ride stations combined, and all stations combined (including all non-parkand-ride stations) in the hypothetical home final destination trip type scenario. The overall average per person estimated VMT is approximately 13.43 miles for all stations and 13.65 miles for all park-and-ride stations among the estimated 4,767 potential park-and-ride users. This is slightly lower than the estimated 14.24 miles for all park-and-ride home stations and 14.46 miles for all home stations for the survey respondents, indicating that the average overall potential park-and-ride user is travelling less than the average survey user. The minimum distance traveled was an estimated 0.35 miles located at I-485 Station and the longest was an estimated 35.79 miles located at the I-485 Station as well. The station with the highest average estimated VMT was the I-485 station at approximately 17.72 miles and the lowest was Archdale station with an 35
average estimated trip being 7.72 miles from home to station. The I-485 station made up the largest share of users among all estimated park-and-ride users, accounting for 2,260 users or about 47 percent of all estimated users. The estimated results from table 5 provide a much clearer picture of the true amount of VMT incurred in an average day by the estimated daily number of potential light rail park-andride users. The approximate total VMT calculated for the hypothertical home final destination scenario for all light rail park-and-ride users is roughly 64,009 miles travelled (accounting for round-trips) out of approximately 15,962,423 for Charlotte as a whole in a given day, or about 0.4 percent of all VMT in a given day, and twice the amount of VMT as the first home-station scenario. This is a decrease of roughly 33,036 in VMT from the home station scenario value, which were 30,973 in VMT. Indicated in the figure below is the average estimated VMT for all station categories between the existing conditions scenario (home-station) and the second hypothetical scenario (home-final destination) among all estimated park-and-ride users after using the Combined ExpFactor Linked field. Also included is a table showing the percent increase in VMT when switching trip type from scenario one to scenario two. The amount of VMT increase ranged from 12 to 297 percent. The overall average increase for all stations was slightly sharper than the increase among survey respondents with a 114 percent increase (slightly more than double). The absolute change decreases from roughly nine at I-485 to only one mile at Scaleybark.
36
Figure 8: Absolute Change in VMT between Scenario 1 (Home-Station) and Scenario 2 (HomeFinal Destination) for all estimated Park-and-Ride Users in a given day:
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Table 6: Absolute and Percent Changes in overall VMT among different Station Categories (All Estimated Users):
Station I-485 Station Sharon Road West Station Arrowood Station Archdale Station Tyvola Station Woodlawn Station Scaleybark Station Non-Park-and-Ride Stations All Stations All Park-and-Ride Stations Absolute 9.4 7.8 6.5 5.8 5.4 2.3 0.9 1.0 7.2 7.4 Percentage 114.1 149.6 115.2 297.4 161.5 52.5 12.5 16.1 114.2 117.6
4.3 Results of the Analysis (Emissions)
As mentioned the metholodgy section, cold start, which is defined as higher emissions per mile travelled in the first few miles of driving after a vehicle is initially started, is a major concern for shorter trips. Therefore, the emissions emitted from a vehicle are highest in the first few miles (or usually during the first 505 seconds) at the start of a trip than the rest of the trip. The result is higher emissions per VMT in the second model as a result of driving shorter trips. The EPA states the cold start emissions phase occurs in the first 3.9 miles of travel after initially starting the car after a soak period of at least six-seven hours (EPA 2009). After traveling the initial 3.9 miles, a vehicle switches from the start emissions phase to the running emissions phase, which is generally much lower. As mentioned in the methodology, a second measure that increases emissions is hot soak, in which cars left sitting all day in an open parking space create evaporative emissions. Hot soak will be measured and estimated at an hourly rate for a typical nine hour work day for all vehicles parked in park-and-ride stations except the I-485 station which is a covered deck and not exposed to the sun. Since hot soak does occur during vehicle cool down, the rate of hot soak emissions will be applied for one hour (average vehicle cool down time) for all vehicles parked at the I-485 station to estimate real life conditions as closely as possible. The following table and figures indicate estimated total and average amount of emissions by emission type including CO emissions, HC emissions, and NOx emissions using the Combined ExpFactor Linked field as a weight in the home station current conditions. This represents total and average per user emission amount for all users by emission type on all trips as they go from the home TAZ to their affiliating station TAZ. As mentioned in the methodology section, the 2001 model year was 38
used to estimate vehicle emissions since the average age of a vehicle in the US is approximately nine years old. Two types of vehicles are represented including cars (LDVs) and trucks (LDTs) representing lower and upper estimates for each emission type. The HC emission results below do not include hot soak HC emissions. Those results are inidicated at the final part of the emissions section.
Table 7: Total, per user and per mile emissions by type of emission from home to station using the 2001 model year as a base for start and running emissions rate (all Park-and-ride users):
2001 CO Emissions 2001 HC Emissions 2001 NOx Emissions
TOTAL Home-Station Car (LDV) Truck (LDT) PER MILE* Car Truck PER PandR USER Car Truck
Grams TOTAL Home-Station 45,374.639 Car 71,903.133 Truck PER MILE 1.465 Car 2.321 Truck PER PandR USER 9.776 Car 15.491 Truck
Grams TOTAL Home-Station 4,586.623 Car 7,522.194 Truck PER MILE 0.148 Car 0.243 Truck PER PandR USER 0.988 Car 1.621 Truck
Grams 4,422.832 7,545.219
0.143 0.244
0.953 1.626
Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009 *Per Mile estimates of emissions are usefull since they can give some indication of emissions for varying trip distances on average.
39
Figure 9: Total CO Emissions, CO Emissions per Mile, and CO Emissions per User in grams for a 2001 average age vehicle for both LDV and LDT Vehicle Types:
Total 2001 CO Emissions (grams)

80,000.00 60,000.00 40,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 Car (LDV) Truck (LDT) Total 2001 CO Emissions (grams)
2001 CO Emissions Per Mile (grams)

2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Car (LDV) Truck (LDT) 2001 CO Emissions Per Mile (grams)
2001 CO Emissions Per User (grams)

20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 Car (LDV) Truck (LDT) 2001 CO Emissions Per User (grams)
Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009 40
Figure 10: Total HC Emissions, HC Emissions per Mile, and HC Emissions per User in grams for a 2001 average age vehicle for both LDV and LDT Vehicle Types:
Total 2001 HC Emissions (grams)

8,000.00 6,000.00 4,000.00 2,000.00 0.00 Car (LDV) Truck (LDT) Total 2001 HC Emissions (grams)
2001 HC Emissions Per Mile (grams)

0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Car (LDV) Truck (LDT)
2001 HC Emissions Per Mile (grams)
2001 HC Emissions Per User (grams)

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Car (LDV) Truck (LDT) 2001 HC Emissions Per User (grams)
Figure 11: Total NOx Emissions, NOx Emissions per Mile, and NOx Emissions per User in grams for a 2001 average age vehicle for both LDV and LDT Vehicle Types:
Total 2001 NOX Emissions (grams)

8,000.00 6,000.00 4,000.00 2,000.00 0.00 Car (LDV) Truck (LDT) Total 2001 NOX Emissions (grams)
2001 NOX Emissions Per Mile (grams)

0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Car (LDV) Truck (LDT) 2001 NOX Emissions Per Mile (grams)
2001 NOX Emissions Per User (grams)

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Car (LDV) Truck (LDT) 2001 NOX Emissions Per User (grams)
It is estimated that among cars (LDVs) the total estimated CO emission amount was 45,375 grams (lower range) and for trucks (LDTs) it is estimated to be 71,903 grams (upper range) for all 4,642 park-and-ride users on an average trip from home to the nearest station. In terms of per mile CO emissions, that translates to 1.465 grams of CO per mile for cars and 2.321 grams of CO per mile for trucks. In terms of per user CO emissions, the value is roughly 9.775 grams of CO per user for cars and 15.491 grams of CO per user for trucks. The total estimated amount of HC emissions in the home-station (existing conditions) scenario is estimated to be 4,587 grams in the case of cars and 7,522 grams in the case of trucks. In terms of per mile HC emissions, this translates to roughly 0.148 grams of HC for cars and 0.243 grams of HC for trucks. In terms of per user HC emissions the value is estimated to be 0.988 grams for cars and 1.621 grams for trucks. Finally, the estimated total amount of NOx emissions for a vehicle with an average age of nine years is estimated to be 4,423 grams of NOx for cars and 7,545 grams of NOx for trucks. In terms of per mile, this is roughly 0.143 grams of NOx per mile for cars and 0.244 grams of NOx per mile for trucks. In terms of per user, the value is estimated to be 0.953 grams of NOx per user for cars and 1.626 grams of NOx per user for trucks. The following table and figures indicate the total and average amount (per user) of emissions for each emission type for each park-and-ride station and all non-park-and-ride stations combined in the home station scenario. This intends to show the variation in estimated total emissions and emissions per user for each station. Once again, the amount of emissions will be broken up by cars (LDVs) and trucks (LDTs) to indicate a lower and upper bound for the emission estimate for each emission type. Total amount of users is indicated in parentheses.
43
Table 8: Total and Average per User CO Emissions assuming Cars and Trucks for each Parkand-Ride Station (Home Station):
Total CO Emissions (Car) 22,381.20 5,110.34 4,099.37 641.56 2,862.17 4,323.09 4,336.08 1,620.84 CO Emissions Per User (Car) 9.90 9.38 9.37 8.86 9.02 9.96 10.56 9.88 Total CO Emissions (Truck) 35,432.09 8,124.31 6,517.51 1,024.62 4,564.45 6,841.05 6,832.72 2,566.39 CO Emissions Per User (Truck) 15.68 14.91 14.89 14.15 14.38 15.76 16.63 15.65
Station (Total Users) I-485 Station (2,260) Sharon Road West Station (545) Arrowood Station (438) Archdale Station (72) Tyvola Station (317) Woodlawn Station (434) Scaleybark Station (411) Non-Park-and-Ride Stations (164)
Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009
Figure 12: Total CO Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Station:
40,000.00 35,000.00 30,000.00 25,000.00 20,000.00 15,000.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 0.00
Total CO Emissions (Car) Total CO Emissions (Truck)
44
Figure 13: Average per User CO Emissions assuming Cars and Trucks for Each Station:
18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 CO Emissions Per User (Car) CO Emissions Per User (Truck)
45
Table 9: Total and Average per User HC Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Park-and-Ride Station (Home Station):
Total HC Emissions (Truck) 3,782.44 849.60 689.78 105.00 476.92 677.27 679.03 262.17 HC Emissions Per User (Truck) 1.67 1.56 1.58 1.45 1.50 1.56 1.65 1.60
Total HC Emissions (Car) 2,272.78 527.51 426.03 67.49 301.31 420.32 410.30 160.88
HC Emissions Per User (Car) 1.01 0.97 0.97 0.93 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98
Figure 14: Total HC Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Station:
4,000.00 3,500.00 3,000.00 2,500.00 2,000.00 1,500.00 1,000.00 500.00 0.00 Total HC Emissions (Car) Total HC Emissions (Truck)
46
Figure 15: Average per User HC Emissions for Cars and Trucks for Each Station:
1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 HC Emissions Per User (Car) HC Emissions Per User (Truck)
47
Table 10: Total and Average per User NOx Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Park-andRide Station (Home Station):
Total NOx Emissions (Car) 2,350.49 463.82 385.03 48.66 240.77 370.46 413.33 150.27 NOx Emissions Per User (Car) 1.04 0.85 0.88 0.67 0.76 0.85 1.01 0.92 Total NOx Emissions (Truck) 4,028.38 786.04 653.84 81.10 404.94 627.94 707.19 255.79 NOx Emissions Per User (Truck) 1.78 1.44 1.49 1.12 1.28 1.45 1.72 1.56
Figure 16: Total NOx Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Station:
4,500.00 4,000.00 3,500.00 3,000.00 2,500.00 2,000.00 1,500.00 1,000.00 500.00 0.00 Total NOX Emissions (Car) Total NOX Emissions (Truck)
48
Figure 17: Average per User NOx Emissions for Cars and Trucks for Each Station:
2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 NOX Emissions Per User (Car) NOX Emissions Per User (Truck)
According to the results above, the station reporting the highest amount of emissions for each emission type was the I-485 station, which also had the highest amount of users and VMT. Total CO emissions for cars (LDVs), which represents a lower bound emission limit for this study, ranged from an estimated 642 grams of CO emissions at the Archdale park-and-ride station to 22,381 grams at the I-485 station. Total CO per user for cars ranged from 8.86 grams at the Archdale station to 10.56 grams at the Scaleybark station. Interestingly, the stations with the highest amount of CO emissions were those further along the light rail line located closer to the CBD and stations on both ends of the line tended to be higher in terms of per user average CO 49
emissions than the ones in the middle. In terms of HC emissions for cars, the absolute estimated total HC emission value ranged from 68 grams at Archdale station to 2,273 grams at the I-485 station. In terms of per user HC emissions, the station with the lowest average per user HC emission value was Archdale with 0.93 grams and the highest was the I-485 station with 1.01 grams. In terms of NOx emissions, the amount of total estimated NOx emissions for cars ranged from 49 grams at Archdale to 2,351 grams at the I-485 station. The amount of total per user NOx emissions for cars ranged from 0.67 grams at Archdale station to 1.04 grams at the I-485 station. On the other end, total and average emissions of CO, HC, and NOx for trucks (LDTs) were substantially higher and represent an upper bound emission limit for this study. In terms of total CO emissions, the station with the lowest overall CO emissions was Archdale station with an estimated 1,025 grams of CO for all users while the highest overall CO emissions for any station was the I-485 with 35,432 grams. Average per user CO emissions for trucks ranged from 14.15 grams at Archdale station to 16.63 grams at Scaleybark station. In terms of HC emissions for trucks, the station with the lowest overall HC emission value for trucks was Archdale station with 105 grams of HC emissions and the station with the highest was the I-485 station with an aggregate 3,782 grams. The per user truck emission value for HC emissions ranged from 1.45 grams at Archdale station to 1.67 at the I-485 station. Finally, in terms of NOx emissions for trucks, the total estimated emissions ranged from 81 grams at Archdale station to 4,028 grams at the I-485 station. The per user NOx emission value for trucks ranged from 1.12 grams at Archdale station to 1.78 grams at the I-485 station. In every emission type case, the I-485 station accounted for about half of all user emissions as a total. In terms of per user emissions the top three stations were Scaleybark, Woodlawn and I-485 for CO emissions and I-485, Scaleybark and non-park-and-ride stations for HC and NOx emissions.
50
The second part of the emissions estimate analysis was to determine the approximate amount of emissions under the pre-existing hypothetical home final destination trip type. The following table and figures indicate estimated total and average amount of emissions by emission type, including CO emissions, HC emissions, and NOx emissions, using the Combined ExpFactor Linked field as a weight in the home station current conditions. This represents total and average emissions for all users by emission type on all trips as they go from the home TAZ to their nearest station TAZ. As mentioned in the methodology section, the 2001 model year was used to estimate vehicle emissions since the average age of a vehicle in the US is approximately nine years old. Two types of vehicles are represented, including cars (LDVs) and trucks (LDTs) representing lower and upper bound limit estimates for each emission type. The HC emission results below do not include hot soak HC emissions. Those results are inidicated at the final part of the emissions section.
Table 11: Total, per user and per mile emissions by type of emission from home to final destination using the 2001 model year as a base for start and running emissions rate (all Parkand-ride users):
2001 CO Emissions TOTAL Home-Final D. Car (LDV) Truck (LDT) PER MILE Car Truck PER USER Car Truck 2001 HC Emissions TOTAL Home-Final D. Car Truck PER MILE Car Truck PER USER Car Truck 2001 NOx Emissions TOTAL Home-Final D. Car Truck PER MILE Car Truck PER USER Car Truck
Grams 68,707.770 106,224.436
Grams 5,174.624 9,134.424
Grams 6,860.859 11,922.390
1.073 1.660
0.081 0.143
0.107 0.186
14.412 22.282
1.085 1.916
1.439 2.501
51
Figure 18: Total CO Emissions, CO Emissions per Mile, and CO Emissions per User in grams for a 2001 average age vehicle for both LDV and LDT Vehicle Types:
Total 2001 CO Emissions (Grams)

120,000.000 100,000.000 80,000.000 60,000.000 40,000.000 20,000.000 0.000 Car (LDV) Truck (LDT)
Total 2001 CO Emissions (Grams)
2001 CO Emissions Per Mile (Grams)

2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 Car (LDV) Truck (LDT) 2001 CO Emissions Per Mile (Grams)
2001 CO Emissions Per User (Grams)

25.000 20.000 15.000 10.000 5.000 0.000 Car (LDV) Truck (LDT) 2001 CO Emissions Per User (Grams)
Figure 19: Total HC Emissions, HC Emissions per Mile, and HC Emissions per User in grams for a 2001 average age vehicle for both LDV and LDT Vehicle Types:
Total 2001 HC Emissions (Grams)

10,000.000 8,000.000 6,000.000 4,000.000 2,000.000 0.000 Car (LDV) Truck (LDT) Total 2001 HC Emissions (Grams)
2001 HC Emissions Per Mile (Grams)

0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 Car (LDV) Truck (LDT) 2001 HC Emissions Per Mile (Grams)
2001 HC Emissions Per User (Grams)

2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 Car (LDV) Truck (LDT) 2001 HC Emissions Per User (Grams)
Figure 20: Total NOx Emissions, NOx Emissions per Mile, and NOx Emissions per User in grams for a 2001 average age vehicle for both LDV and LDT Vehicle Types:
Total 2001 NOX Emissions (Grams)

15,000.000 10,000.000 5,000.000 0.000 Car (LDV) Truck (LDT) Total 2001 NOX Emissions (Grams)
2001 NOX Emissions Per Mile (Grams)

0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 Car (LDV) Truck (LDT) 2001 NOX Emissions Per Mile (Grams)
2001 NOX Emissions Per User (Grams)

3.000 2.500 2.000 1.500 1.000 0.500 0.000 Car (LDV) Truck (LDT)
2001 NOX Emissions Per User (Grams)
It is estimated that among cars (LDVs) the total estimated CO emission amount was 68,708 grams (lower range) and for trucks (LDTs) it is estimated to be 106,224 grams (upper range) for all 4,767 park-and-ride users on an average trip from home to final destination. In the first home station scenario, the aggregate CO emissions were 45,375 for cars and 71,903 grams for trucks. In the home final destination scenario (pre-light rail), the aggregate CO emission amount was 34 percent higher for cars and 32 percent higher for trucks. In terms of per mile traveled, the value is approximately 1.073 grams of CO per mile for cars and 1.660 grams of CO per mile for trucks. This is roughly a 36 percent reduction for cars and a 40 percent reduction for trucks in grams per mile from the first home station scenario, indicating the strong per mile impact of CO emissions for the shorter average trip length in the home station scenario versus the home final destination scenario. In terms of per user from home final destination, the emissions value is roughly 14.412 grams of CO per user for cars and 22.282 grams of CO per user for trucks, a 32 percent and 31 percent increase for cars and trucks, respectively, from the first home station estimate per user CO emission value. The total estimated amount of HC emissions in the home-station (existing conditions) is estimated to be 5,175 grams of CO in the case of cars and 9,134 grams of CO in the case of trucks. This represents an 11 percent increase for cars and an 18 percent increase for trucks from the home station scenario. In terms of per mile HC emissions, the value is roughly 0.081 grams of HC for cars and 0.143 grams of HC for trucks. This represents an 83 percent decrease in cars and a 70 percent decrease in trucks for grams of HC per mile from the first home station scenario. In terms of per user HC emissions, the value is an estimated 1.085 grams of HC for cars and 1.916 grams of HC for trucks. This is roughly a 9 percent increase for cars and a 15 percent increase for trucks from the first home station scenario. Finally, the estimated total
55
amount of NOx emissions for a vehicle with an average age of nine years is estimated to be 6,861 grams of NOx for cars and 11,922 grams of NOx for trucks for all trips in their journey from home to final destination. This represents an estimated 36 percent increase for cars and a 37 percent increase for trucks in total NOx emissions from the first home station scenario. In terms of per mile NOx emissions, the value is roughly 0.107 grams of NOx per mile for cars and 0.186 grams of NOx per mile for trucks, a 33 percent decrease for cars and a 31 percent decrease for trucks from the first home station scenario. In terms of per user NOx emissions, the value is estimated to be 1.439 grams of NOx per user for cars 2.501 grams of NOx per user for trucks, a 34 percent increase for cars and a 35 percent increase for trucks from the first home station scenario. The following table and figures indicate the total and average amount (per user) of emissions for each emission type for each potential park-and-ride station and all potential nonpark-and-ride stations combined in the home final destination scenario. This intends to show the variation in estimated total emissions and emissions per user for each potential station. Once again, the amount of emissions will be broken up by cars (LDVs) and trucks (LDTs) to indicate a lower and upper bound for the emission estimate for each emission type. Total amount of potential park-and-ride users is indicated in parentheses.
56
Table 12: Total and Average per User CO Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Home Parkand-Ride Station (Home Final Destination):
Total CO Emissions (Car) 38,162.32 7,704.81 5,876.82 919.54 4,189.86 4,972.66 5,086.66 1,795.10 CO Emissions Per User (Car) 16.89 14.14 13.68 11.08 11.71 10.46 11.24 10.94 Total CO Emissions (Truck) 58,545.02 11,924.16 9,111.34 1,444.12 6,556.36 7,840.70 7,981.13 2,281.61 CO Emissions Per User (Truck) 25.90 21.88 21.21 17.41 18.33 16.50 17.63 17.20
Home Station (Total Users) I-485 Station (2,260) Sharon Road West Station (545) Arrowood Station (438) Archdale Station (72) Tyvola Station (317) Woodlawn Station (475) Scaleybark Station (411) Non-Park-and-Ride Stations (164)
Figure 21: Total CO Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Potential Station (Home Final Destination):
70,000.00 60,000.00 50,000.00 40,000.00 30,000.00 20,000.00 10,000.00 0.00 Total CO Emissions (Car) Total CO Emissions (Truck)
Figure 22: Average Per User CO Emissions for Cars and Trucks for Each Potential Station (Home Final Destination):
30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 CO Emissions Per User (Car) 5.00 0.00 CO Emissions Per User (Truck)
58
Table 13: Total and Average per User HC Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Home Parkand-Ride Station (Home Final Destination):
Total HC Emissions (Car) 2,607.65 587.46 457.58 82.42 361.63 463.97 451.59 162.32 Total HC Emissions (Truck) 4,799.62 1,031.71 796.69 135.78 604.39 753.05 746.65 266.53 HC Emissions Per User (Truck) 2.12 1.89 1.85 1.64 1.69 1.58 1.65 1.62
HC Emissions Per User (Car) 1.15 1.08 1.07 0.99 1.01 0.98 1.00 0.99
Figure 23: Total HC Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Potential Station (Home Final Destination):
6,000.00 5,000.00 4,000.00 3,000.00 2,000.00 Total HC Emissions (Car) 1,000.00 0.00 Total HC Emissions (Truck)
Figure 24: Average Per User HC Emissions for Cars and Trucks for Each Potential Station (Home Final Destination):
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00 HC Emissions Per User (Car) HC Emissions Per User (Truck)
0.50
0.00
60
Table 14: Total and Average per User NOx Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Potential Park-and-Ride Station (Home Final Destination):
Total NOx Emissions (Car) 4,024.86 763.59 574.80 81.24 381.36 424.66 452.89 157.45 NOx Emissions Per User (Car) 1.78 1.40 1.34 0.98 1.07 0.89 1.00 0.96 Total NOx Emissions (Truck) 7,042.24 1,325.63 996.15 138.81 645.38 721.80 774.65 268.72 NOx Emissions Per User (Truck) 3.12 2.43 2.32 1.67 1.83 1.52 1.71 1.64
Figure 25: Total NOx Emissions for Cars and Trucks for each Potential Station (Home Final Destination):
8,000.00 7,000.00 6,000.00 5,000.00 4,000.00 3,000.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 0.00 Total NOX Emissions (Car) Total NOX Emissions (Truck)
Figure 26: Average Per User NOx Emissions for Cars and Trucks for Each Potential Station (Home Final Destination):
3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 NOX Emissions Per User (Car) NOX Emissions Per User (Truck)
62
According to the results above, the station reporting the highest amount of emissions for each emission type was once again the I-485 station which, as noted before, also had the highest amount of users and VMT. Total CO emissions for cars (LDVs), which represents a lower bound emission limit for this study, ranged from an estimated 920 grams of CO emissions at the Archdale park-and-ride station to 38,162 grams at the I-485 station. Total CO per user for cars ranged from 10.46 grams at the Woodlawn station to 16.89 grams at the I-485 station. CO emissions per user was the highest at the I-485 station and tended to decline at each ensuing station further in toward the CBD. In terms of HC emissions for cars, the absolute estimated total HC emission value ranged from 82 grams at Archdale station to 2,608 grams at the I-485 station. In terms of per user HC emissions, the station with the lowest average per user HC emission value was Woodlawn with 0.98 grams and the highest was the I-485 station with 1.15 grams. In terms of NOx emissions, the amount of total estimated NOx emissions for cars ranged from 81 grams at Archdale to 4,025 grams at the I-485 station. The amount of total per user NOx emissions for cars ranged from 0.96 grams at the non park-and-ride stations to 1.78 grams at the I-485 station. Total and average emissions of CO, HC, and NOx for trucks (LDTs) were substantially higher and represent an upper bound emission limit for this study. In terms of total CO emissions for the home final destination scenario, the station with the lowest overall CO emissions was Archdale station with an estimated 1,444 grams of CO for all users, while the highest overall CO emissions for any station was the I-485 station with 58,545 grams. Average per user CO emissions for trucks ranged from 16.50 grams at Archdale station to 25.90 grams at Scaleybark station. In terms of HC emissions for trucks, the station with the lowest overall HC emission value for trucks was Archdale station with 136 grams of HC emissions and the station with the
63
highest was the I-485 station with an aggregate 4,900 grams. The estimated per user truck emission value for HC emissions ranged from 1.58 grams at Woodlawn station to 2.12 grams at the I-485 station. Finally, in terms of estimated NOx emissions for trucks, the total estimated emissions ranged from 139 grams at Archdale station to 7,042 grams at the I-485 station. The per user NOx emission value for trucks ranged from 1.52 grams at Woodlawn station to 3.12 grams at the I-485 station. In terms of per user emissions, the top three stations were I-485, Sharon Road West, and Arrowood for CO and NOx emissions and I-485, Sharon Road West, and Woodlawn stations for HC emissions. The following figures indicate the difference between total and average per user emissions for CO emissions for both cars (LDVs) and trucks (LDTs).
64
Figure 27: Aggregate CO Emissions for Cars (LDVs) for the Home Station Scenario and the Home Final Destination Scenario:
45,000.00 40,000.00 35,000.00 30,000.00 25,000.00 20,000.00 15,000.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 0.00
Total CO Emissions Home Station (Car) Total CO Emissions Home - Final Destination (Car)
Figure 28: Average Per User CO Emissions for Cars (LDVs) for the Home Station Scenario and the Home Final Destination Scenario:
18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00
Per User CO Emissions Home Station (Car) Per User CO Emissions Home Final Destination (Car)
Figure 29: Aggregate CO Emissions for Trucks (LDTs) for the Home Station Scenario and the Home Final Destination Scenario:
70,000.00 60,000.00 50,000.00 40,000.00 30,000.00 20,000.00 10,000.00 0.00
Total CO Emissions Home Station (Truck) Total CO Emissions Home - Final Destination (Truck)
Figure 30: Average Per User CO Emissions for Cars (LDVs) for the Home Station Scenario and the Home Final Destination Scenario:
30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 Per User CO Emissions Home Station (Truck) Per User CO Emissions Home Final Destination (Truck)
In the final part of the emissions analysis, hot soak was calculated for all survey users and expanded users (using the Combined ExpFactor Linked field) of park-and-ride lots. The hot soak time was calculated for nine hours for all surface parking lots (typical work day), and for one hour at the I-485 parking deck, which approximates cool down time. Hot soak evaporative emissions were calculated for Sharon Road West, Arrowood, Archdale, Tyvola, Woodlawn, Scaleybark and non-park-and-ride (assumed to be open-air) stations for nine hours, accounting for 144 of the 309 survey respondents or roughly 46.6 percent of all park-and-ride users in the survey (CDOT) and one hour for the remaining 165 users of the I-485 station. Once again, cold start emissions are evaporative emissions from cars left sitting in an open parking space during the day (applies to all but I-485 station) as well as cool down time (applies to all stations). It is important to note that hot soak assumes sunny conditions with no overcast, as evaporative emissions are highest during these types of days. Based on this assumption, all cloudy days will be excluded from the purpose of this study and an average percent based on the average number of sunny days in a year will be used for the evaporative emissions section. According to the NOAA National Data Center, there are an average of 152 cloudy days in Charlotte and 204 clear or partly cloudy days (NOAA). This means that approximately 55.9 percent of all days are clear or partly cloudy. The first part of the study will assume 100 percent sunny conditions as a base estimate while the second part will assume that approximately 55.9 percent of hot soak emissions are escaping into the atmposhere (based approximate existing conditions). For the purpose of this study, the same assumption will be applied to the results calculated. According to the EPA, the average car emitted 0.2196 grams of cumulative evaporative emissions in a nine-hour period in 2001 (EPA 2001). This rate will be applied to all of the park-and-ride users. It is also important to note that hot soak emissions are a type of HC emissions.
67
The total amount of estimated hot soak evaporative emissions for all 144 survey users parked in open decks is roughly 31.622 grams of HC emissions. The amount is 4.026 grams of HC emissions for the 165 users at the I-485 station representing the cool down period only for that station. The amount of hot soak emissions for all park-and-ride users (using the Combined ExpFactor Linked field variable) is approximately 550.589 grams for all open air lots and 55.147 grams at the I-485 station for an estimated total of 605.736 grams of HC emissions. The total amount of evaporative hot soak HC emissions is small when compared to the total HC cold start and running emissions on a park-and-ride users trip. Based on 100 percent clear and partly cloudy days, the total HC estimated emission value for all trips from home station is 4,587 grams for cars and 7,522 for trucks. After including the HC emissions for hot soak, the new estimated total is roughly 5,193 grams for cars and 8,128 grams for trucks. This means that hot soak emissions accounted for an estimated 11.7 percent for cars (lower HC emission bound) and 7.5 percent for trucks (upper HC emission bound). Shown below is a table and figure indicating estimated total hot soak HC emissions for each park-and-ride station and all non-park-and-ride stations combined for 100 percent clear and partly cloudy days. The total number of users is indicated in parentheses in figure 31. Table 15: Total Hot Soak HC Emissions (in grams) by Station for all Park-and-Ride Users assuming 100 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather:
Station (Users) I-485 Station (2,260) Sharon Road West Station (545) Arrowood Station (430) Archdale Station (83) Tyvola Station (358) Woodlawn Station (434) Scaleybark Station (452) Non-Park-and-Ride Stations (164) HC Hot Soak Emissions 55.147 119.696 94.332 18.217 78.567 104.36 99.395 36.021
Figure 31: Total Hot Soak HC Emissions (in grams) by Station for all Park-and-Ride Users assuming 100 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather:
HC Hot Soak Emissions

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 HC Hot Soak Emissions
The graphs below shows the share of estimated hot soak HC emissions among all HC emissions for both the home station scenario and the home final destination scenario for both cars (LDVs) and trucks (LDTs) based on 100 percent ideal sunny/partly cloudy conditions. 69
Figure 32: Total Running and HC Emissions in the Home Station Scenario for Cars (LDVs) assuming 100 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather:
2,500.00 2,000.00 1,500.00 1,000.00 500.00 0.00 HC hot soak HC Runing Car
Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009 Figure 33: Total Running and HC Emissions in the Home Station Scenario for Trucks (LDTs) assuming 100 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather:
4,500.00 4,000.00 3,500.00 3,000.00 2,500.00 2,000.00 1,500.00 1,000.00 500.00 0.00
HC hot soak HC Running Truck
70
Figure 34: Total Running and HC Emissions in the Home Final Destination Scenario for Cars (LDVs) assuming 100 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather:
3,000.00 2,500.00 2,000.00 1,500.00 1,000.00 500.00 0.00 HC hot soak HC Running Car
Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009 Figure 35: Total Running and HC Emissions in the Home Final Scenario for Cars (LDVs) assuming 100 percent ideal non-cloudy sunny and partly cloudy weather:
6,000.00 5,000.00 4,000.00 3,000.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 0.00 HC hot soak HC Running Truck
71
The second part of the estimated average amount of evaporative hot soak emissions will assume thet 55.9 percent of the total evaporative emissions are escaping into the atmosphere in a given day. This is based on the average number of sunny and partly cloudy days in a year in the Charlotte region (NOAA). This is a more accurate look at the total estimated evaporative emissions escaping into the atmosphere in a random day in Charlotte. Based on this new estimate, the total amount of estimated hot soak evaporative emissions for all 144 survey users parked in open decks is roughly 17.677 grams of HC emissions. The amount is 2.25 grams of HC emissions for the 165 users at the I-485 station representing the cool down period only for that station. The amount of hot soak emissions for all park-and-ride users (using the Combined ExpFactor Linked field variable) is approximately 307.779 grams for all open air lots and 30.827 grams at the I-485 station for an estimated total of 338.606 grams of HC emissions. The total amount of evaporative hot soak HC emissions is now even smaller when compared to the total HC cold start and running emissions on a park-and-ride users trip. Based on 55.9 percent clear and partly cloudy days, the total HC estimated emission value for all trips from home station was 4,587 grams for cars and 7,522 for trucks. After including the HC emissions for hot soak, the new estimated total was roughly 4,926 grams for cars and 7,861 grams for trucks. This means that hot soak emissions accounted for an estimated 6.9 percent for cars (lower HC emission bound) and 4.3 percent for trucks (upper HC emission bound). Shown below is a table and figure indicating estimated total hot soak HC emissions for each park-and-ride station and all non-parkand-ride stations combined for 55.9 percent clear and partly cloudy days. The total number of users is indicated in parentheses in figure 36.
72
Table 16: Total Hot Soak HC Emissions (in grams) by Station for all Park-and-Ride Users assuming 55.9 percent ideal non-cloudy weather:
Station (Users) I-485 Station (2,260) Sharon Road West Station (545) Arrowood Station (430) Archdale Station (83) Tyvola Station (358) Woodlawn Station (434) Scaleybark Station (452) Non-Park-and-Ride Stations (164) HC Hot Soak Emissions 30.827 66.910 52.732 10.183 43.919 58.337 55.562 20.136
Source: NOAA, EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009
Figure 36: Total Hot Soak HC Emissions (in grams) by Station for all Park-and-Ride Users assuming 55.9 percent ideal non-cloudy weather:

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
The graphs below shows the share of estimated hot soak HC emissions among all HC emissions for both the home station scenario and the home final destination scenario for both cars (LDVs) and trucks (LDTs) based on 55.9 percent ideal sunny/partly-cloudy conditions. This a better picture as to the impact hot soak HC emissions has on overall HC emissions. 73
Figure 37: Total Running and HC Emissions in the Home Station Scenario for Cars (LDVs) assuming 55.9 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather:
2,500.00 2,000.00 1,500.00 1,000.00 500.00 0.00 HC hot soak HC Runing Car
Source: NOAA, EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009 Figure 38: Total Running and HC Emissions in the Home Station Scenario for Trucks (LDTs) assuming 55.9 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather:
4,500.00 4,000.00 3,500.00 3,000.00 2,500.00 2,000.00 1,500.00 1,000.00 500.00 0.00
HC hot soak HC Running Truck
74
Figure 39: Total Running and HC Emissions in the Home Final Destination Scenario for Cars (LDVs) assuming 55.9 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather:
3,000.00 2,500.00 2,000.00 1,500.00 1,000.00 500.00 0.00 HC hot soak HC Running Car
Source: NOAA, EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009 Figure 40: Total Running and HC Emissions in the Home Final Destination Scenario for Trucks (LDTs) assuming 55.9 percent ideal sunny and partly cloudy weather:
6,000.00 5,000.00 4,000.00 3,000.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 0.00 HC hot soak HC Running Truck
75
Chapter 5: Concluding Proposals

The purpose of this thesis is to determine whether vehicle miles traveled and vehicle emissions have increased or decreased in Charlotte as a result of light rail park-and-ride lot usage among commuters and to what extent. The analysis of the estimates indicated an estimated 50% drop in vehicle miles traveled among park-and-ride users by patronizing park-and-ride and light rail for part of the trip instead of driving the entire trip. The final emissions result for the home final destination scenario had less of an impact per user mile due to the adverse affects of running emissions on shorter home station trips. Total CO emissions were reduced by an estimated 34 percent for cars (LDVs) and 32 percent for trucks (LDTs) by driving to a parkand-ride lot and using light rail instead of driving the entire trip. Aggregate NOx emissions were reduced by 36 percent for cars and 37 percent for trucks among the estimated daily total parkand-ride users by traveling part of the journey by light rail instead of driving directly to the final destination. Finally, HC emissions had two factors, one accounting for HC running emissions during the actual trip and the other accounting for hot soak emissions while the car is parked. Accounting just for change in HC emissions for the trip alone, total HC emission was reduced by an estimated 11 percent for cars and 18 percent for trucks among park-and-ride users by using park-and-ride and light rail instead of driving the entire distance. However, when accounting for hot soak and assuming park-and-ride users parked in open air parking locations at their final destination, aggregate HC emissions decreased by 11 percent (relatively no difference between the two estimates) for cars and decreased 20 percent for trucks among park-and-ride users by using park-and-ride and light rail instead of driving to the final destination. The greatest factor contributing to a higher emission rate among shorter home-station trips was the impact of cold-start. The impact of hot soak was largely negligible, making up less
76
than about 12 percent of all car (LDV) HC emissions and 7 8 percent of all truck (LDT) HC emissions. There are many assumptions equated with this study that detract from its overall accuracy, including the use of national averages and coefficients to determine emissions and vehicle age. In the case of emissions, the study provided emission estimates for both cars and trucks to give a high and low range. The true impact of reducing VMT and emissions among park-and-ride users is relatively low due to the small amount of people using park-and-ride lots as a means of transportation into the CBD or along the light rail line. It is estimated during the week of September 7th through the 11th, an average of 1,758 cars were parked at all park-and-ride stations, 960 of which were located at the I-485/Pineville park-and-ride deck. All of the current light rail park-and-ride facilities have a combined capacity of 3,191 parking spaces, which indicates that stations were operating at approximately 55 percent capacity during the work week of September 7th through the 11th in the middle of the day. If this sample represents the amount of people using the light rail park-and-ride lots as a means of transportation to the final destination [incomplete sentence]. Indeed, the total VMT impact is estimated to be about 0.2 percent for the home station (existing conditions) scenario and 0.4 percent for the home final destination (pre-existing conditions) scenario of total VMT in Charlotte. This translates to roughly a 0.2 percent decrease in aggregate VMT in Charlotte as a result of park-and-ride users choosing to patronize park-andride and light rail instead of driving the entire trip. According to a CATS 2009 survey, approximately 56 percent of all trips made on the light rail are home-based work trips (either traveling from home to work or work to home as trip type). As a result, as suspected, the impact would be a very slight decrease in VMT and emissions among all morning CBD commuters. The recent on-board survey provided by the Charlotte Area Transit System and the CDOT estimated
77
how many people are actually boarding the light rail by station as of 2009 by using the ExpFactor Linked field to expand the survey sample as well as what their average travel distance is between origin TAZ and destination TAZ. The final estimated VMT for the home station scenario is about 30,973 miles and the estimated VMT for the home final destination scenario is roughly 64,009 miles. The absolute VMT decrease is estimated to be about 33,036 miles travelled between both estimates and about 52 percent. The final part of this study is intended to roughly estimate what the VMT change would be if all park-and-ride lots were substituted with transit-oriented developments (TODs) for varying scenarios. In 1995 the average VMT per person in Charlotte was roughly 21.7 miles travelled (EPA 2003). However, it is likely that this level has increased on a per person average basis and the overall VMT per person for Charlotte is estimated to be roughly 22.5 miles travelled in 2010, which is similar to levels found in other southern cities including Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston (Sorensen 2010). There are many different estimates for how much VMT can be reduced among TOD dwellers by building a TOD around a light rail or commuter rail stop but the averages seemed to range from 15 30 percent, according to the literature. According to Ewing, doubling of densities can result in a 25 30 percent reduction in VMT (Ewing 1997). Consistent with this, a report prepared by the Puget Sound Regional Council found that by increasing densities at intersections by 10 percent resulted in a 0.5 percent decrease in VMT (Litman 2011). According to Dill, TOD residents of Portland TODs saw an average decrease of 19 30 percent in VMT versus the city as a whole (Dill 2004 and Dill 2006). In another study by Ohland and Poticha, VMT was found to decrease by 43 percent among TOD dwellers or a total of 9.80 VMT for TOD residents versus 17.34 VMT for the average resident in
78
the county as a whole. In a study by CCAP completed in 2003, it was found that the average decline in VMT among Atlanta mixed-use projects ranged from 15 52 percent and that a mixed use development located 0.1 miles away for a transit station saw an average 38 percent reduction in VMT among residents (CCAP 2003). According to a report released by the TCRP, VMT decreased by an average 15 25 percent for low density suburban areas in four case studies: Washington DC, Philadelphia, Portland, and San Francisco (Arrington and Cervero 2008). For the purpose of this study, ten different TOD scenarios are presented that estimate the average VMT savings for all of the TOD residents if the seven park-and-ride facilities were replaced with TODs based on average VMT reduction and housing density. The typical size of a new TOD in Charlotte ranged from 269 units to 360 units tended to be about 300 units on average or just over 500 residents. 300 housing units and 500 TOD residents will be used for a lower bound density estimate with 600 units and 1,000 TOD residents being used as an upper bound estimate. For each density level five different VMT reduction assumptions will be estimated. The first scenario will assume a lower bound estimate shown in the literature (15 percent reduction), the second will indicate a middle-low bound estimate (20 percent reduction), the third will show a middle-high bound (25 percent reduction), the fourth will indicate a upper bound estimate (about 30 percent reduction), and the final will assume that the rate of VMT reduction in Charlotte is similar to the rate of VMT reduction in Portland, Oregon among TOD residents (around 43 percent). The following tables and figures indicate the results in estimated VMT reductions for the ten scenarios and are based on an original non-TOD VMT per capita estimate of 22.5 miles travelled for the average Charlotte resident.
79
Table 17: VMT reduction among TOD residents for five reduction rate scenarios for 500 people (300 households):
VMT Reduction (%) VMT Reduction (ABS) TOD VMT Charlotte VMT 15% 3.4 19.1 22.5 20% 4.5 18.0 22.5 25% 5.6 16.9 22.5 30% 6.7 15.8 22.5 43% 9.8 12.7 22.5
Low Middle-Low Middle-High High Portland
Reduction Rate Low (15%) Middle-Low (20%) Middle-High (25%) High (30%) Portland (43%)
Households Population # Stations 300 500 7 300 500 7 300 500 7 300 500 7 300 500 7
Total Charlotte TOD VMT People VMT VMT Savings 3,500 78,750 66,850 11,900 3,500 78,750 63,000 15,750 3,500 78,750 59,150 19,600 3,500 78,750 55,300 23,450 3,500 78,750 44,450 34,300
Figure 41: VMT Reduction Amounts by Scenario (500 People):
VMT Savings (500 ppl)

40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 VMT Savings (500 ppl)
80
Table 18: VMT reduction among TOD residents for five reduction rate scenarios for 1,000 people (600 households):
VMT Reduction (%) VMT Reduction (ABS) TOD VMT Charlotte VMT 15% 3.4 19.1 22.5 20% 4.5 18.0 22.5 25% 5.6 16.9 22.5 30% 6.7 15.8 22.5 43% 9.8 12.7 22.5
Low Middle-Low Middle-High High Portland
Reduction Rate Low (15%) Middle-Low (20%) Middle-High (25%) High (30%) Portland (43%)
Total Charlotte TOD VMT Households Population # Stations People VMT VMT Savings 600 1,000 7 7,000 157,500 133,700 23,800 600 1,000 7 7,000 157,500 126,000 31,500 600 600 600 1,000 1,000 1,000 7 7 7 7,000 7,000 7,000 157,500 118,300 157,500 110,600 157,500 88,900 39,200 46,900 68,600
Figure 42: VMT Reduction Amounts by Scenario (500 People):
VMT Savings (1,000 ppl)

80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 VMT Savings (1,000 ppl)
81
Figure 43: Differences in VMT reduction for the two density level scenarios:
80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Low (15%) Middle-Low (20%) Middle-High (25%) High (30%) Portland (43%)
VMT Savings (500 ppl) VMT Savings (1,000 ppl)
According to the results above, a roughly estimated 11,900 VMT to 34,300 VMT would be saved based on reduction rate for the 300 household scenario. A total estimate of 23,800 VMT to 68,600 VMT would be saved based on the reduction rate for the higher density 600 household scenario. It is likely that the average VMT decrease, based on findings in the literature, would be roughly about 20 25 percent in the Charlotte context. Based on this assumption, the likely VMT savings amount in the Charlotte area for TOD residents at the seven current park-and-ride stations would be an estimated 15,750 19,600 miles traveled for the 500 resident scenario and 31,500 39,200 miles traveled in the 1,000 resident scenario. An even mix of 500 resident and 1,000 resident TODs would roughly result in a VMT savings of 23,525 miles traveled to 29,400 miles traveled based on a 20 25 percent reduction in VMT. However, the key findings of the 82
home station versus home final destination indicated a roughly higher VMT savings of an estimated 33,036 miles traveled. In order to meet the estimated reduction in VMT of park-andride, TOD savings for the 500 average TOD dwellers per station scenario would have to be 43 percent or greater (the very high Portland case study). Based on the estimate for VMT savings for the average 1,000 (high density) average TOD dwellers per station scenario, the VMT reduction amount would have to be roughly 20 percent or greater (middle-low VMT reduction rate). Based on these findings, park-and-ride is more likely a better choice in the Charlotte context for reducing VMT in more suburban parts of the city. If TODs in the city had a higher density of 1,000 dwellers per TOD (twice the current average Charlotte TOD density) than the VMT savings might be greater than the average savings created by park-and-ride.
83
Chapter 6: Future Research
This research has provided an indication as to the VMT and emission impact of park-andride use in a rapidly growing US Sunbelt city. Very few studies have been done specifically looking at the VMT costs of using park-and-ride lots and even fewer have been done in the US context, with none observing the impact in Charlotte, NC. The minimal impact on VMT (about a 0.3 percent reduction) among park-and-ride users could challenge the park-and-ride role as a congestion reducer and an effective way of getting people to use transit in Charlotte. Further studies could explore the park-and-ride/Transit-Oriented Development tradeoff further to see which is more effective in reducing VMT, emissions and congestion. Though TODs may not necessarily increase ridership as much as park-and-ride, they have been shown to reduce automobile congestion and emissions by reducing the need for development along the urban fringe, preserving green fields, encouraging efficient trip chaining (combining all errands or trips into one sensible trip), and boosting walking accessibility through the smart use of land around a transit station. Additionally, another drawback to the study is that it fails to capture the true mix of vehicles being used to reach Charlotte park-and-ride stations and uses only national coefficients and averages to determine regional vehicle emissions. A future study that had a better sample of the actual vehicle fleet in question would yield much more accurate results with regard to vehicle age and emission rates. In this case, capturing license plate numbers and collecting vehicle type and origin data would yield much more accurate results for estimating regional emissions and determining better origin data for all park-and-ride users in a given day. Future studies could also look into the impact of induced demand and transit abstraction, which are talked about frequently in the literature review as major indirect effects of increasing
84
levels of congestion and VMT among park-and-ride users. Since there was no data in the 2009 on-board user survey to indicate how many people were using transit before switching to parkand-ride, it is hard to tell the true effect of transit abstraction in the Charlotte case study. For every park-and-ride user that was using bus transit before the advent of light rail in Charlotte, a switch from only bus to park-and-ride (auto/light rail) usage would result in an even higher VMT and emission rate among the park-and-ride users. The induced demand effect (trips removed from the roadway network due to park-and-ride auto-interception are being replaced by new trips encouraging new auto users to quickly fill up the newly created open spaces on the road, many of which are going into the center city) is also an important indirect effect that could be modeled in future research. The induced demand effect could also be modeled if all park-and-ride stations were replaced with TOD and the two scenarios could be compared to see which has the greater impact in reducing induced traffic and congestion. The impact of induced demand could be modeled in the future by using a transportation modeling system that accounts for feedback loops and latent demand (Litman 2010) as well as incorporating the interrelationships between land use, density, and transport (Litman 2010). There are several modeling systems that could be employed to help model the impact of induced demand including the FHWA SMITE (Spreadsheet Model for Induced Travel Estimation), TRANUS and MEPLAN (Litman 2010). According to Litmans paper, the main elements and variables needed to estimate induced demand are generated traffic growth rates (e.g. elasticity of traffic volume with respect to road volume), discount rate, maximum peak vehicles per lane, before average speed limit, after average speed limit, volume of peak-period travel time, vehicle operating costs, annual lane hours at capacity in both directions, diverted trips external costs, and induced travel external costs. There was some general consensus in the literature that these indirect effects can possibly
85
lead to more congestion and more VMT if not addressed in the planning stages of park-and-ride development.
86
References
1. Burgess, Jason. A Comparative Analysis of the Park and Ride/Transit-Oriented Development Tradeoff. MCP Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2008. 2. Cervero, Robert. Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel. Transportation Research Board: Report 128, Washington D.C., 2008. 3. CPRE Campaign Brief. Park and Ride Its Role in Local Transport Policy. Published by the CPRE, London, UK, April 1998. 4. De Palma, A. and Y. Nesterov. Park and Ride for the Morning and Evening Commute. Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers, June 2001. 5. Deakin, Elizabeth and Manish Shirgaokar. Study of Park and Ride Facilities and Their Use in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1927 (2005): 46-54. 6. Dickins, Ian S.J. Park and ride Facilities on Light Rail Transit Systems. Transportation 18 (1991): 23-36. 7. Glover, Edward L. Hot Soak Emissions as a Function of Time. Published by the US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Washington D.C., April 2001. 8. Houk, Jeffrey A. Making Use of MOBILE6s Capabilities For Modeling Start Emissions. Paper submitted and presented at the 13th Annual Emission Inventory Conference, Clearwater, FL, June 10th, 2004. 9. Lahtadirs, Igors and Jeena Loseva. Park and Ride in Riga: An Analysis of Demand Determining Factors. Published by SSE Riga Student Research Papers, Riga, Latvia, November 2007. 10. Litman, Todd. Generated Traffic and Induced Travel: Implications for Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy institute, Victoria, Canada, December 14, 2010. 11. Litman, Todd. Land Use Impacts on Transport: How Land Use Factors Affect Travel Behavior. Victoria Transport Policy institute, Victoria, Canada, January 6, 2011. 12. Meek, Stuart D., Professor Stephen G. Ison, and Dr. Marcus P. Enoch. Park and ride: Lessons from the UK Experience. Paper submitted and presented at the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., November 6, 2007.
87
13. Meek, Stuart D., Professor Stephen G. Ison, and Dr. Marcus P. Enoch. Stakeholder perspectives on the current and future roles of UK bus-based Park and ride. Journal of Transport Geography 17 (6) (2009): 468-475. 14. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Cloudiness Mean Number of Days (Clear, Partly Cloudy, Cloudy) Data Table (1971 2000): http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ccd-data/nrmavg.txt 15. RITA BTS. National Transportation Statistics. Published by Research and Innovative Technology Administration Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Washington, D.C., 2009. 16. Parkhurst, Graham. Park and Ride: Could it lead to an Increase in Car Traffic? Transport Policy 2(1) (1995): 15-23. 17. Parkhurst, Graham. Influence of Bus-based Park and Ride facilities on Users Car Traffic. Transport Policy 7 (2000): 159-172. 18. RPS. The effectiveness and Sustainability of Park and Ride. Published by Historic Towns Forum, Bristol, UK, June 12, 2009. 19. Semmens, John. Does Light Rail Worsen Congestion and Air Quality? Published by Laissez Faire Institute, Chandler, Arizona, June 2005. 20. Sherwin, H. Park and Ride Its Role in Local Transport Policy. Published by the CPRE, London, UK (1998). 21. Sorensen, Paul. Population Density versus Per-Capita VMT for the 14 Largest U.S. Metropolitan Regions. January 8, 2010: http://www.newgeography.com/content/001317-population-density-vs-per-capita-vmt14-largest-us-metropolitan-regions 22. US Environmental Protection Agency. Development of Emission Rates for Light-Duty Vehicles in the Motor Vehicles Simulator (MOVES 2009). Published by the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., August, 2009. 23. US Environmental Protection Agency. Development of Methodology for Estimating VMT Weighting by Facility Type. Published by the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., April, 2001. 24. US Environmental Protection Agency. Users guide to Mobile 6.1 and Mobile 6.2 Mobile Source Emission Factor Model. Published by the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., August, 2003. 25. Whitefield, Steff and Bryan Cooper. The Travel Effects of Park and Ride. WS Atkins Planning Consultants (1998).
88
Appendices
Table 19: Average start and running emissions for cars and trucks by model year:
89
Table 20: The following table indicates the number of survey users (indicated by #) for each station, the origin and destination TAZ (PTAZ and ATAZ respectively) for each user, the estimated number of additional people using the light rail and travelling on a similar path (the Combined ExpFactor Linked field), and VMT per user (determined by the average trip length from the PTAZ to ATAZ using the OD pair matrix provided by CDOT), and the VMT for all estimated park-and-ride users (determined by multiplying the VMT survey result by the the Combined ExpFactor Linked field) for the home station scenario:
Combined ExpFactor Linked 11.0 19.7 19.7 22.0 0.6 8.0 16.1 13.1 18.1 9.7 9.7 3.9 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 36.5 16.1 9.7 9.7 9.7 18.1 16.1 14.6 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 36.5 18.1 18.1 2.3 VMT Survey 2.6 2.3 1.9 1.3 24.6 19.8 13.3 10.8 10.5 10.5 10.1 9.4 9.3 8.4 8.4 7.9 7.3 6.6 5.2 4.8 4.5 3.9 3.9 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.9
# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
FINAL_ON_Station Archdale Station Archdale Station Archdale Station Archdale Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station
PTAZ 11029 11029 11029 11029 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030
ATAZ 11029 11029 11029 11029 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030 11030
VMT All 28.3 46.2 38.0 28.1 14.9 159.3 213.1 141.4 190.5 102.0 98.3 36.2 149.3 135.5 135.5 126.7 265.2 105.3 50.8 46.8 44.0 70.8 62.7 43.6 45.3 40.1 40.1 40.1 49.0 23.3 18.8 2.2
90
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
Arrowood Station Arrowood Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station
11030 11030 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522
11030 11030 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522
8.2 16.1 16.0 16.0 7.9 16.0 7.9 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 29.7 7.9 16.0 14.7 16.0 7.9 0.7 11.7 7.9 16.0 14.7 16.2 14.7 16.0 16.0 16.0 7.9 16.0 16.0 7.9 14.7 7.9 16.0 7.9 16.0 16.0 7.9 16.0 16.0 16.0 7.9 16.0 7.9 7.9 7.9 16.0 14.7
0.9 0.7 25.5 21.7 20.6 19.9 17.9 17.6 16.7 15.9 15.8 15.7 15.0 15.0 14.7 14.3 14.0 13.8 13.7 13.7 13.6 13.3 13.0 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.5 12.1 12.0 11.8 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.6 11.6 11.3 11.1 10.8 10.7 10.7 10.5 10.5 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.2
7.8 11.9 407.2 347.0 162.4 318.8 141.3 281.3 266.4 254.0 253.0 466.3 118.3 239.6 216.8 228.6 110.6 9.2 160.3 107.6 218.2 195.8 211.6 188.3 204.6 204.6 204.6 98.8 193.3 191.5 93.1 172.5 92.3 186.6 91.6 186.0 180.2 87.1 171.9 171.1 171.1 82.9 167.6 81.3 81.1 81.1 164.6 149.9
91
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128
I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station
10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522
10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522
16.0 14.7 16.0 14.7 7.9 7.9 7.9 16.0 16.0 1.9 7.9 7.9 16.0 7.9 16.0 16.0 7.9 7.9 7.9 14.7 11.7 11.7 16.0 14.7 14.7 7.9 7.9 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 7.9 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 29.7 16.0 16.0 7.9 7.9 14.7 7.9 16.0 11.7 29.7
10.2 10.0 10.0 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.3 8.9 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.4 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.5
162.9 146.8 159.5 145.9 78.1 78.1 78.1 158.5 151.1 18.1 74.4 74.4 148.6 70.2 141.1 141.1 69.1 69.1 65.9 121.1 96.3 96.3 130.3 119.5 119.5 63.9 63.9 129.2 129.2 129.2 125.9 125.9 62.0 125.9 124.0 124.0 124.0 124.0 229.8 123.9 123.9 61.0 61.0 112.7 60.3 122.4 89.6 221.1
92
129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176
10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522
10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522
16.0 29.7 7.9 7.9 29.7 16.0 16.0 14.7 16.0 7.9 7.9 7.9 16.0 14.7 29.7 7.9 16.0 7.9 16.0 29.7 29.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 7.9 7.9 7.9 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 7.9 7.9 7.9 16.0 16.0 14.7 16.0 16.0 11.7 7.9 14.7 7.9 11.7 14.7 29.7 14.7
7.2 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.4 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.6 4.1 4.1
114.4 205.7 54.6 54.6 198.5 107.0 106.2 97.7 106.2 52.3 52.3 52.3 103.0 93.1 185.3 49.2 99.9 49.2 99.5 180.9 180.9 89.8 89.8 89.8 48.0 48.0 48.0 97.5 95.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 44.9 44.9 44.9 91.2 88.9 81.9 88.9 88.9 65.1 42.8 72.3 38.7 57.5 68.3 121.4 60.2
93
177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224
I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station Non-Park and Ride Stations Non-Park and Ride Stations Non-Park and Ride Stations Non-Park and Ride Stations Non-Park and Ride Stations Non-Park and Ride Stations Non-Park and Ride Stations Non-Park and Ride Stations Non-Park and Ride Stations Non-Park and Ride Stations Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station
10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10020 10149 11025 10149 11026 11025 10149 11026 11025 11026 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027
10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10522 10020 10149 11025 10149 11026 11025 10149 11026 11025 11026 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027
14.7 7.9 16.0 16.0 16.0 7.9 7.9 7.9 16.0 14.7 16.0 7.9 7.9 16.0 16.0 16.0 14.7 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 4.7 16.0 12.7 19.8 12.7 19.8 19.8 25.5 1.4 12.7 19.8 19.8 8.5 20.9 8.5 20.9 8.5 20.9 8.5 15.8 15.8 8.5 20.9 15.8 8.5 20.9 8.5
4.1 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.2 3.2 2.6 2.6 2.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 30.5 7.1 6.5 5.7 5.4 3.8 3.4 2.4 1.2 1.0 34.1 30.1 23.4 20.0 11.7 11.6 9.4 7.3 7.0 5.8 4.7 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.2
60.2 32.2 65.5 62.5 59.4 29.2 29.0 28.4 53.3 46.8 50.9 20.8 20.8 38.5 11.7 11.7 10.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 3.4 9.3 388.7 141.4 83.2 112.2 105.9 97.5 4.7 30.2 22.9 20.5 288.3 630.5 197.9 419.0 99.0 242.3 79.7 115.0 111.1 49.2 98.8 55.8 28.7 70.6 26.7
94
225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272
Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station
11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 11028 11028 11028 11028
11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 11027 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 10523 11028 11028 11028 11028
8.5 8.5 20.9 15.8 20.9 15.8 8.5 8.5 20.9 12.6 8.5 20.9 8.5 20.9 21.1 0.7 39.4 1.6 18.3 18.3 39.4 21.1 2.1 0.8 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.3 0.7 0.6 21.1 18.3 18.3 39.4 21.1 18.3 18.3 21.1 18.3 19.1 18.3 18.3 18.3 39.4 1.5 10.7 16.7 10.7
2.6 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.5 24.8 19.6 9.4 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.3 7.6 7.4 6.6 5.7 5.6 5.2 4.9 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.7 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 25.7 9.4 9.4 9.4
21.7 21.7 52.9 35.6 46.0 22.6 12.1 12.1 29.9 18.0 11.1 20.8 8.4 9.5 521.6 13.1 370.4 14.4 161.0 161.0 326.3 159.9 15.3 5.2 104.6 101.9 95.6 89.3 2.3 2.1 73.8 64.2 64.2 115.1 61.6 53.6 49.5 56.9 30.3 24.3 23.2 19.4 19.4 41.7 37.6 100.6 156.7 100.3
95
273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304
Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station
11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068
11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11028 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068 11068 SUM
16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 0.8 16.7 40.4 16.7 10.7 8.3 10.7 10.7 16.7 20.0 15.9 10.7 15.9 16.7 41.1 68.2 1.6 18.1 20.6 33.8 41.1 33.8 33.8 7.6 41.1 41.1 18.1 33.8
6.5 6.1 5.1 4.1 2.5 2.3 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.8 27.8 3.7 3.5 2.6 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.5 2172.3
109.0 101.7 84.7 67.7 2.0 39.1 74.2 30.7 19.7 13.7 14.7 14.7 22.9 26.0 17.9 11.5 12.6 13.2 1144.9 249.2 5.5 46.8 45.8 75.3 78.7 55.5 54.3 12.1 51.0 47.5 17.0 15.5 30973.4
96
Table 21: The following table indicates the number of survey users (indicated by #) for each station, the origin and destination TAZ (PTAZ and ATAZ respectively) for each user, the estimated number of additional people using the light rail and travelling on a similar path (the Combined ExpFactor Linked field), and VMT per user (determined by the average trip length from the PTAZ to ATAZ using the OD pair matrix provided by CDOT), and the VMT for all estimated park-and-ride users (determined by multiplying the VMT survey result by the the Combined ExpFactor Linked field) for the home final destination scenario:
# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
FINAL_ON_Station Archdale Station Archdale Station Archdale Station Archdale Station Archdale Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station
PTAZ 10517 10506 11029 10502 10166 10951 3200 11015 10589 10960 10943 10536 10504 10504 10585 10910 10915 10533 10515 10515 10470 10470 10857 10589 10534 10515 10519 10517 10548 11030
ATAZ 10011 10002 10009 10014 10482 10272 10010 10013 10010 10009 10010 10001 10737 10737 10001 10020 10009 10020 10010 10010 10010 10012 10011 10012 10009 10009 10010 10016 10014 10020
Combined ExpFactor Linked 19.7 22.0 10.5 19.7 11.0 3.9 16.1 0.6 16.1 13.1 36.5 14.6 2.3 8.2 16.1 9.7 9.7 9.7 16.1 16.1 9.7 18.1 8.0 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 36.5 18.1 8.0
VMT Survey 9.8 8.8 7.7 6.6 3.7 22.7 21.0 17.0 17.0 16.8 15.0 14.5 14.2 14.2 14.1 14.1 13.6 13.4 12.9 12.9 12.1 11.9 11.8 11.6 11.5 11.2 11.2 10.9 9.7 9.1
VMT All 193.1 193.9 81.4 131.0 40.7 87.5 336.8 10.3 273.1 220.0 546.9 212.3 32.9 116.9 227.1 136.7 131.9 129.8 207.4 207.4 116.9 216.6 94.8 186.2 185.2 179.9 179.2 398.3 174.9 72.7
97
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78
Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station Arrowood Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station
10582 10559 10559 10550 10010 10929 3196 3295 9194 7006 3062 9283 3178 9202 3087 9204 9211 3038 10890 3190 9211 9282 10904 10893 9210 9210 9281 3199 10902 10927 10903 10963 10893 10927 9281 3204 3203 10902 10922 10294 10929 10929 10931 10931 10902 10905 10905 10906
10009 10014 10009 10149 10011 10773 10773 10009 10010 10010 10011 10009 10011 10011 10009 10009 10010 10009 10010 10009 10011 10009 10009 10010 10009 10009 10010 10010 10010 10014 10010 10010 10011 10009 10011 10010 10012 10012 10010 10010 10010 10010 10010 10010 10002 10010 10010 10010
16.1 18.1 16.1 18.1 9.7 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 7.9 7.9 16.0 11.7 14.7 7.9 16.0 16.0 7.9 16.0 7.9 16.0 7.9 16.0 7.9 7.9 7.9 14.7 16.0 16.0 14.7 16.0 7.9 16.0 14.7 16.0 14.7 16.0 16.0 16.0 14.7 14.7 1.9 16.0 16.0 29.7
9.0 7.9 7.3 7.0 0.4 35.8 33.7 30.9 29.1 28.2 27.4 26.6 26.4 26.0 25.4 24.4 24.1 23.4 23.2 23.1 22.7 22.7 22.5 22.4 22.3 22.3 22.3 21.9 21.8 21.4 21.3 21.1 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.8 20.8 20.7 20.6 20.5 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.2 20.2 20.2 20.1
144.0 143.0 117.8 127.7 4.0 572.3 538.7 494.6 464.6 451.2 438.7 425.0 207.6 204.6 406.3 285.4 355.0 184.4 370.2 368.8 178.6 362.4 177.4 357.8 175.8 356.9 175.7 172.4 172.1 315.4 340.3 338.1 308.1 333.8 164.4 333.0 305.7 331.2 303.5 327.4 324.2 324.2 298.3 298.3 38.7 322.3 322.3 597.5
98
79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126
10906 10906 10902 10932 3197 3197 10931 10930 10930 10933 10933 10931 10931 10921 10921 10919 10919 10919 10905 10928 10929 10931 10933 10294 10905 10906 10922 10922 10923 10924 10918 10932 10931 10931 3197 10906 10294 10932 10920 3197 10931 10932 10919 3196 10949 10926 10919 10919
10010 10010 10009 10010 10010 10010 10016 10009 10009 10010 10010 10012 10012 10010 10010 10010 10010 10010 10014 10009 10011 10011 10117 10009 10011 10011 10019 10019 10010 10010 10010 10011 10020 10009 10011 10009 11025 10009 10010 10009 11025 10019 10014 10010 10010 10010 10011 10009
16.0 16.0 7.9 14.7 14.7 16.0 29.7 7.9 7.9 29.7 7.9 29.7 14.7 29.7 16.0 16.0 14.7 7.9 16.0 16.0 7.9 7.9 7.9 16.0 16.0 7.9 11.7 11.7 29.7 16.0 16.0 7.9 7.9 7.9 16.0 7.9 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 11.7 7.9 16.0 16.0 14.7 16.0 7.9
20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.0 20.0 19.9 19.5 19.5 19.3 19.3 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 18.8 18.8 18.8 18.8 18.8 18.7 18.7 18.7 18.7 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.5 18.4 18.4 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.2 18.1 17.9 17.9 17.7 17.6 17.6 17.3
322.1 322.1 158.6 295.2 293.9 319.4 591.3 153.3 153.3 573.4 152.3 567.8 281.7 566.2 305.2 304.4 280.2 150.0 303.8 301.3 148.3 148.3 148.1 300.1 299.2 147.3 218.5 218.5 553.1 298.1 297.7 146.6 146.6 146.2 296.3 145.2 293.7 293.4 293.3 292.1 290.4 211.8 140.9 285.9 282.4 259.7 281.4 136.5
99
127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174
10923 10911 10894 10924 10920 10917 10917 10917 10920 10913 10913 10532 10917 10920 10961 10531 3207 10926 10926 3207 3212 10951 10951 10913 10913 10943 10943 10912 10913 10938 10531 10909 10874 3209 10001 3209 10535 3212 3212 10909 10937 10588 3212 10537 10537 10537 10537 10537
10011 10010 10149 10020 10011 10011 10011 10011 10009 10010 10010 10011 10009 11025 10009 10010 10011 10020 10009 10020 10010 10009 10009 10014 10011 10010 10010 10011 10009 10009 10011 10012 10011 10020 10536 10009 10024 10011 10011 10011 10009 10009 10009 10010 10010 10010 10010 10010
7.9 14.7 29.7 7.9 16.0 7.9 7.9 16.0 16.0 29.7 14.7 7.9 7.9 16.0 7.9 16.0 7.9 11.7 7.9 7.9 16.0 7.9 16.0 14.7 16.0 14.7 14.7 16.0 7.9 7.9 7.9 14.7 7.9 16.0 7.9 16.0 16.0 14.7 16.0 16.0 16.0 7.9 16.0 16.0 16.0 14.7 16.0 16.0
17.2 17.0 17.0 17.0 16.9 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.6 16.5 16.5 16.4 16.4 16.2 16.2 16.1 16.0 16.0 15.9 15.8 15.6 15.4 15.4 15.3 15.1 15.0 15.0 14.9 14.8 14.7 14.7 14.5 14.4 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.2 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.9 13.9
135.5 250.7 504.1 133.7 270.3 131.2 131.2 266.4 266.0 489.2 242.7 129.1 129.1 259.5 127.6 257.6 126.3 187.0 125.5 124.5 249.2 121.1 245.9 225.7 240.7 220.3 220.3 237.7 116.4 115.9 115.6 212.7 113.6 229.3 112.7 228.5 226.9 208.2 226.2 226.1 225.6 110.7 221.9 221.6 221.6 204.0 221.6 221.6
100
175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222
I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station I-485 Station Non-Park and Ride Stations Non-Park and Ride Stations Non-Park and Ride Stations Non-Park and Ride Stations Non-Park and Ride Stations Non-Park and Ride Stations Non-Park and Ride Stations Non-Park and Ride Stations Non-Park and Ride Stations Non-Park and Ride Stations Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station
10584 10943 10533 10533 10586 10943 3210 3212 10537 10011 10157 10419 11032 10537 10013 10897 10589 10469 10472 10529 10131 10537 10435 10043 10149 10010 5066 10576 10514 10510 10435 10195 10183 10156 10128 10143 277 3152 2176 10168 10169 10529 10838 10656 10247 10429 10498 10195
10011 10011 10020 10020 10010 10009 10012 10149 10012 10945 3211 10020 10011 10009 10279 10009 10009 10011 10020 10009 10002 10558 10014 10014 10009 10009 10012 10012 10009 10020 10011 10550 10014 10016 10011 10011 10009 10020 10012 10773 11040 10010 10011 10012 10011 10010 10010 10010
7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 16.0 7.9 16.0 11.7 16.0 14.7 16.2 16.0 16.0 16.0 0.7 16.0 16.0 7.9 16.0 7.9 14.7 4.7 14.7 29.7 16.0 7.9 12.7 19.8 19.8 12.7 19.8 1.4 12.7 19.8 25.5 19.8 8.5 8.5 20.9 12.6 8.5 15.8 20.9 20.9 8.5 15.8 20.9 15.8
13.8 13.5 13.4 13.4 13.3 13.3 13.2 12.7 12.7 12.4 12.4 12.3 12.3 12.2 11.8 11.4 11.0 10.2 9.7 9.0 6.6 6.2 5.9 2.8 1.9 0.3 29.1 8.5 8.5 6.8 6.1 5.8 4.1 4.0 3.5 1.3 31.3 26.8 20.2 18.7 14.6 13.8 13.6 11.7 9.0 8.8 6.6 6.6
108.5 106.5 105.4 105.4 212.5 104.4 211.0 149.0 203.5 182.6 201.4 196.9 196.3 194.3 7.8 182.6 176.2 80.5 155.1 70.6 96.7 29.2 87.0 83.2 30.9 2.7 370.2 168.3 167.3 86.6 121.1 7.9 52.4 79.7 89.6 26.0 264.4 226.9 422.3 235.2 123.7 218.3 285.2 245.6 76.1 138.4 138.7 103.7
101
223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Scaleybark Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station Sharon Road West Station
10694 10492 10011 10162 10167 10169 10135 10167 10170 10153 10160 10168 10168 10168 11027 11027 10168 10186 10143 10529 10529 9062 10919 10951 10920 10146 10917 10947 10531 10947 10536 10536 10911 10534 10279 10534 10534 10517 10517 10518 10517 10474 10530 11031 11031 10529 10529 10529
10011 10001 10195 10011 10009 10010 10009 10011 10010 10011 10117 10009 10009 10011 10010 10012 10019 10009 10012 10279 10279 10020 10010 10010 10011 10919 10009 10001 10010 10009 10010 10014 10195 10014 10011 10009 10009 10010 10010 10011 10013 10009 10010 10002 10002 10009 10009 10011
8.5 15.8 8.5 8.5 8.5 20.9 8.5 8.5 20.9 20.9 20.9 15.8 20.9 8.5 20.9 20.9 8.5 8.5 20.9 0.7 0.6 21.1 39.4 39.4 21.1 1.6 2.1 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.3 21.1 0.8 39.4 0.7 21.1 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.3 39.4 18.3 18.3 19.1 18.3 21.1 18.3 18.3
6.5 5.3 5.1 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.4 2.4 1.6 22.3 22.3 21.3 19.0 17.1 16.9 16.6 16.4 16.3 16.1 14.8 14.6 13.5 12.4 12.1 12.0 11.5 11.5 11.2 11.2 10.4 10.3 9.9 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.0 9.0 8.9
55.0 83.2 42.8 36.3 36.2 89.2 35.9 35.5 77.9 76.6 76.4 57.7 76.3 30.1 72.0 71.8 28.6 20.2 34.1 14.9 13.3 449.5 749.6 672.8 356.1 27.1 34.1 299.5 295.4 270.5 268.3 284.1 9.8 475.7 8.0 242.9 211.4 206.0 206.0 191.1 406.6 182.0 179.8 187.4 179.5 189.0 164.4 162.9
102
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309
Sharon Road West Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Tyvola Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station Woodlawn Station
10478 2030 10551 10531 10586 10589 10589 10475 11029 10506 10514 10562 10558 10562 10507 10516 10507 10507 10494 11028 10562 10509 10509 10557 10484 10807 10493 10496 11068 10171 10562 10564 10564 10573 10481 10494 10495 10496 10166
10009 10557 10279 11025 10010 10014 10009 10010 10010 10009 10010 10010 10002 10016 10011 10010 10009 10009 10020 10012 10009 11025 11025 10020 10279 10012 10010 10002 10010 10010 10009 10014 10014 10009 10010 10013 10009 10009 10010 SUM
18.3 1.5 0.8 10.7 16.7 16.7 10.7 16.7 20.0 16.7 16.7 16.7 8.3 40.4 16.7 16.7 10.7 10.7 15.9 40.4 10.7 15.9 16.7 10.7 1.6 41.1 18.1 20.6 41.1 33.8 18.1 33.8 7.6 41.1 68.2 33.8 41.1 33.8 41.1
8.4 26.2 17.8 14.0 13.3 11.6 11.0 10.6 9.4 8.8 8.7 8.6 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.9 7.8 7.8 7.6 7.4 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 19.2 12.3 8.0 7.7 7.5 7.2 6.8 6.4 6.4 6.2 5.8 5.5 4.9 4.7 4.7 4401.4
154.4 38.3 14.4 150.1 221.8 193.2 118.1 176.8 188.8 146.2 144.8 142.8 68.7 331.7 134.5 131.8 83.5 83.5 120.8 299.4 73.4 108.3 113.5 72.4 29.9 505.5 145.7 157.9 306.8 243.6 124.0 216.9 48.4 253.7 398.0 185.6 201.0 160.4 192.2 64008.7
103

How Does The Use of Light Rail Park-And-Ride Facilities in Charlotte Influence Vehicle Emissions and Create More Vehicle Miles Traveled?

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

How Does The Use of Light Rail Park-And-Ride Facilities in Charlotte Influence Vehicle Emissions and Create More Vehicle Miles Traveled?

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

How does the Use of Light Rail Park-and-ride Facilities in Charlotte Influence Vehicle Emissions and Create more

Vehicle Miles Traveled?

Charlotte Spring 2011 Professor Michael Duncan

Page 42 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49

Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 65 Page 65 Page 66 Page 66

Page 70 Page 71 Page 71 Page 72 Page 72

Page 74 Page 75 Page 75 Page 76 Page 76 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83

Page 39 Page 44 Page 46 Page 48

Page 51 Page 57 Page 59 Page 61

Page 81 Page 82 Page 90 Page 91 Page 98

Chapter 1: Introduction and Problem Statement

GIS Data and layers Source: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Chapter 3: Data and Methodology

Chapter 4: Model Analysis

4.1 Results of the Analysis (VMT)

CDOT 2009 On-Board User Survey and Network OD Matrix 25

CDOT 2009 On-Board User Survey and Network OD Matrix

CDOT 2009 On-Board User Survey and Network OD Matrix 27

CDOT 2009 On-Board User Survey and Network OD Matrix

CDOT 2009 On-Board User Survey and Network OD Matrix 30

CDOT 2009 On-Board User Survey and Network OD Matrix

CDOT 2009 On-Board User Survey and Network OD Matrix 34

CDOT 2009 On-Board User Survey and Network OD Matrix

CDOT 2009 On-Board User Survey and Network OD Matrix 37

4.3 Results of the Analysis (Emissions)

Grams 4,422.832 7,545.219

Total 2001 CO Emissions (grams)

2001 CO Emissions Per Mile (grams)

2001 CO Emissions Per User (grams)

Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009 40

Total 2001 HC Emissions (grams)

2001 HC Emissions Per Mile (grams)

2001 HC Emissions Per Mile (grams)

2001 HC Emissions Per User (grams)

Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009 41

Total 2001 NOX Emissions (grams)

2001 NOX Emissions Per Mile (grams)

2001 NOX Emissions Per User (grams)

Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009 42

Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009

Total CO Emissions (Car) Total CO Emissions (Truck)

Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009

Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009

Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009

Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009

Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009

Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009

Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009

Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009

Grams 68,707.770 106,224.436

Grams 5,174.624 9,134.424

Grams 6,860.859 11,922.390

Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009

Total 2001 CO Emissions (Grams)

Total 2001 CO Emissions (Grams)

2001 CO Emissions Per Mile (Grams)

2001 CO Emissions Per User (Grams)

Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009 52

Total 2001 HC Emissions (Grams)

2001 HC Emissions Per Mile (Grams)

2001 HC Emissions Per User (Grams)

Source: EPA 2009 and CDOT 2009 53