Memphis and Shelby County Division of Planning & Development

Transcription

1 Memphis and Shelby County Division of Planning & Development 125 NORTH MAIN STREET, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE Tel: (901) Fax: (901) Mark H. Luttrell, Jr. Mayor, Shelby County A C Wharton, Jr. Mayor, City of Memphis Date: March 22, 2013 Subject: From: Amendments to the Transportation Improvement Program, Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Determination, and Desoto County Air Quality Conformity Determination Review Pragati Srivastava, Administrator, Memphis MPO In compliance with federal regulations 23 CFR 450, the Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is proposing to amend the FY Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). A total of six (6) amendments to the MPO s TIP are being proposed for public review. An Air Quality Short Conformity Report has been prepared for two (2) of the TIP amendments, which is the change in funding amounts, years, and type for the I 40: Interchange at Canada Road TDOT project and the addition of FY 2013 Interstate Maintenance Discretionary (IMD) funds for the I 55: Interchange at Crump Boulevard TDOT project. The report serves as Amendment 10 to the TIP and is attached here for review. The corresponding amended TIP pages follow the report. Also attached is an Air Quality Exempt Packet that identifies the remaining four (4) TIP amendments. As indicated in the Air Quality Exempt Packet cover letter, these projects qualify as being exempt from transportation conformity determination as they meet exemption criteria as outlined in 40 CFR Exempt Projects. The corresponding amended TIP pages follow this packet. All of the amendments will be considered for adoption by the Transportation Policy Board (TPB) of the MPO. The amended pages have been revised to indicate the resulting funding amounts should the projects be approved. If the Board decides not to amend the projects into the TIP, the changes reflected on the following pages will not be included. Please also find attached the Shelby County Air Quality Conformity Determination and the Desoto County Air Quality Conformity Determination for your review. The Memphis MPO, through FHWA guidance, believes that continued interaction with the entire community builds support and, more importantly, ensures that the public has the opportunity to help shape the substance of plans and projects. The Memphis MPO strives to enhance the impact of participation on transportation decision making. In order to accomplish this task, the MPO works to improve the number of stakeholders participating in the transportation planning process through increased opportunities for feedback, improved education regarding transportation planning, and constant evaluation regarding the effectiveness of outreach. Written public comments will be accepted until Monday, April 22, Comments may be submitted to Pragati Srivastava, Administrator of Department of Regional Services, 125 North Main Street, Suite # 450 Memphis, TN or via at Pragati.Srivastava@memphistn.gov. The TPB will hold a public hearing to accept oral comments and take action on the proposed items on Thursday, April 25, 2013 at 1:30 PM in the Student Alumni Building at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, 800 Madison Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee

2 April 2013 TIP Amendments Note: The following four (4) TIP Amendments were included in an Exempt Packet that was submitted to the Interagency Consultation (IAC) Group for a 30 day review requesting concurrence with the exempt status of the amendments ending on April 8, MS Local Road Amendments 1. TIP Amendment MS LSTP : Craft Road Item Summary: Amend the TIP by adding $1,738,187 in Surface Transportation Program (STP) total funds and changing the FY from 2011 to 2013 for an amended total project cost of $4,013, TIP Amendment MS LSTP : Church Road Item Summary: Amend the TIP by removing the Church Road project from the TIP; the total project cost is $1,875,000. This is no longer a priority for the City of Horn Lake. 3. TIP Amendment MS LSTP : Pleasant Hill Road Item Summary: Amend the TIP by removing the Pleasant Hill Road project from the TIP; the total project cost is $4,110,643. This is no longer a priority for the City of Olive Branch. TN Local Road Amendments 4. TIP Amendment TIGER IV : Mainstreet to Mainstreet Multimodal Connector Item Summary: Amend the TIP by adding $1,062,000 in FY 2013 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) total funds for an amended total project cost of $30,001,000. April 2013 TIP Amendments Note: The following two (2) TIP Amendments were associated with an Air Quality Short Conformity Determination Report: Amendment 10 that was submitted to the Interagency Consultation (IAC) Group for a 30 day review ending on April 8, TN State Road Amendments 1. TIP Amendment NHS : I 40 Interchange at Canada Road Item Summary: Amend the TIP by adding $4,000,000 in total funds for the ROW phase and $12,000,000 in total funds for the Construction phase for an amended total project cost of $25,000,000. The funding year for ROW has changed from FY 2011 to FY 2013 and from FY 2013 to FY 2014 for Construction. The Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) is also requesting that the funding type be changed from Interstate Maintenance (IM) to National Highway Performance Program (NHPP). 2. TIP Amendment TN IM : I 55 Interchange at Crump Boulevard Item Summary: Amend the TIP by adding $1,044,910 in FY 2013 Interstate Maintenance Discretionary (IMD) total funds for the PE, ROW, and Utilities phases for an amended total project cost of $34,279,910.

3

4 S # TIP ID# Lead Agency County MS LSTP MS LSTP MS LSTP TIGER IV Olive Branch Desoto STP M Craft Road Change in funding amounts and year. $4,013,187 $2,275,000 Exempt Horn Lake Desoto STP M Church Road Remove project from the TIP. $1,875,000 Exempt Olive Branch Desoto STP M Pleasant Hill Road Remove project from the TIP. $520,000 $3,590,643 Exempt Memphis Shelby CMAQ 5 NHS TDOT Shelby IM/NHPP 6 TN IM Funding Source TDOT Shelby NHPP/IMD Project Name Mainstreet to Mainstreet Multimodal Connector April 25, 2013 Proposed TIP Amendments Memphis MPO New Figures Old Figures Conformity Proposed Changes Addition of FY 2013 CMAQ funds for Construction. $30,001,000 $28,939,000 Exempt I 40 Interchange at Change in funding amounts, years, and type. $5,200,000 $19,800,000 $1,200,000 $7,800,000 Non Exempt Canada Road I 55 Interchange at Crump Addition of FY 2013 IMD funds for PE, ROW, $1,579,910 $535,000 Non Exempt Blvd and Utilities. Exempt Status

5 New TIP Page Funding Sources Carry Over Funds (Federal STP-M) Annual STP-M Federal Funds SECTION D LOCAL MISSISSIPPI SPONSORED PROJECTS Funding & Expenditures Fiscal Years Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2014 Amended $10,988,644 $11,154,478 $5,126,698 $3,101,982 $10,988,644 $1,335,834 $1,533,500 $1,335,834 $1,335,834 $5,541,002 Other Small City STP Funds $349,930 $0 $0 $0 $349,930 Total STP-M Federal Funding $12,674,408 $12,687,978 $6,462,532 $4,437,816 $16,879,576 STP-M Local Match $292,500 $1,852,820 $840,137 $307,026 $3,292,483 TOTAL FUNDING $12,966,908 $14,540,798 $7,302,669 $4,744,842 $20,172,059 TOTAL EXPENDITURE $1,812,430 $9,414,100 $4,200,687 $1,535,131 $16,962,348 BALANCE $11,154,478 $5,126,698 $3,101,982 $3,209,711 $3,209,711 Total TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program 101

6 Old TIP Page Funding Sources Carry Over Funds (Federal STP-M) Annual STP-M Federal Funds SECTION D LOCAL MISSISSIPPI SPONSORED PROJECTS Funding & Expenditures Fiscal Years Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2014 Amended $10,988,644 $9,334,478 $1,806,698 $120,017 $10,988,644 $1,335,834 $1,533,500 $1,335,834 $1,335,834 $5,541,002 Other Small City STP Funds $349,930 $0 $0 $0 $349,930 Total STP-M Federal Funding $12,674,408 $10,867,978 $3,142,532 $1,455,851 $16,879,576 STP-M Local Match $747,500 $2,747,820 $755,628 $307,026 $4,557,974 TOTAL FUNDING $13,421,908 $13,615,798 $3,898,160 $1,762,877 $21,437,550 TOTAL EXPENDITURE $4,087,430 $11,809,100 $3,778,143 $1,535,131 $21,209,804 BALANCE $9,334,478 $1,806,698 $120,017 $227,746 $227,746 Total TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program 101

7 New TIP Page TIP # MS-LSTP MDOT # Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency Olive Branch County Desoto Length 1.0 miles LRTP # Conformity Exempt Project Name Craft Road Total Cost $4,013,187 Termini/Intersection Project Description Goodman Road (MS 302) to U.S. 78 Widen existing rural two-lane road to 5-lane urban cross-section. A striped bike lane will be provided. Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2013 CONST STP-M $4,013,187 $3,210,550 $802,637 Amendment # Adjustment # Remarks Amended Note: This project is identified as exempt, as it is located in an attainment area for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program 104

8 Old TIP Page TIP # MS-LSTP MDOT # Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency Olive Branch County Desoto Length 1.0 miles LRTP # Conformity Exempt Project Name Craft Road Total Cost $1,320,000 Termini/Intersection Project Description Goodman Road (MS 302) to U.S. 78 Widen existing rural two-lane road to 5-lane urban cross-section. A striped bike lane will be provided. Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2011 CONST STP-M $2,275,000 $1,820,000 $455,000 Amendment # Adjustment # Remarks Amended Note: This project is identified as exempt, as it is located in an attainment area for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program 104

9 New TIP Page TIP # MS-LSTP MDOT # Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency Horn Lake County Desoto Length 0.8 miles LRTP # Conformity Exempt Project Name Church Road Total Cost $0 Termini/Intersection Project Description From 3,300' West of Tulane Road to the intersection with Tulane Road Project Removed from TIP Widen Church Road from two-lanes to three-lanes. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Church Road and Tulane Road. Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds Amendment # Adjustment # Remarks Amended Note: This project is identified as exempt, as it is located in an attainment area for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program 103

10 Old TIP Page TIP # MS-LSTP MDOT # Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency Horn Lake County Desoto Length 0.8 miles LRTP # Conformity Exempt Project Name Church Road Total Cost $3,090,397 Termini/Intersection Project Description From 3,300' West of Tulane Road to the intersection with Tulane Road Amendment # Adjustment # Remarks Amended Widen Church Road from two-lanes to three-lanes. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Church Road and Tulane Road. Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2012 CONST STP-M $1,875,000 $1,500,000 $375,000 Note: This project is identified as exempt, as it is located in an attainment area for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program 103

11 New TIP Page TIP # MS LSTP MDOT # Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency Olive Branch County Desoto Length 1.0 mile LRTP # Conformity Exempt Project Name Pleasant Hill Road Total Cost $0 Termini/Intersection Project Description From MS Highway 302 (Goodman Road), South to Nail Road Amendment # Adjustment # Remarks Amended Widening of Pleasant Hill Road from its current two-lane rural cross-section to a five-lane urban cross-section with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and landscaped medians. Project Removed from TIP Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds Note: This project is identified as exempt, as it is located in an attainment area for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program 108

12 Old TIP Page TIP # MS LSTP MDOT # Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency Olive Branch County Desoto Length 1.0 mile LRTP # Conformity Exempt Project Name Pleasant Hill Road Total Cost $4,110,644 Termini/Intersection Project Description From MS Highway 302 (Goodman Road), South to Nail Road Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2012 PE/ROW Local $520,000 $520, CONST STP-M $3,590,643 $2,872,515 $718,128 Amendment # Adjustment # Remarks Adopted Widening of Pleasant Hill Road from its current two-lane rural cross-section to a five-lane urban cross-section with curb, gutter, sidewalks, and landscaped medians. Note: This project is identified as exempt, as it is located in an attainment area for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program 108

13 New TIP Page Amended Funding Sources Carry Over Funds (Federal STP) Annual STP-M Federal Funds SECTION C LOCAL TENNESSEE SPONSORED PROJECTS Funding & Expenditures Fiscal Years Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2014 $53,791,779 $23,022,721 $22,041,319 $4,826,198 $53,791,779 $16,032,871 $16,032,871 $16,032,871 $16,032,871 $64,131,484 Total STP-M Federal Funding $69,824,650 $39,055,592 $38,074,190 $20,859,069 $117,923,263 STP-M Local Match $8,282,484 $4,289,938 $8,603,028 $5,168,663 $26,344,113 STP-M Expenditure $55,084,413 $21,304,211 $41,851,020 $25,843,313 $144,082,957 Local Funds $1,063,050 $0 $100,364 $194,397 $1,357,811 Local Expenditure $1,063,050 $0 $100,364 $194,397 $1,357,811 STP-L Federal Funds $763,183 $0 $0 $0 $763,183 STP-L Local Match $1,021,817 $0 $0 $0 $1,021,817 STP-L Expenditure $1,785,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,785,000 STP-S Federal Funds $0 $6,160,000 $8,000 $8,000 $6,176,000 STP-S State Match $0 $1,540,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,544,000 STP-S Expenditure $0 $7,700,000 $10,000 $10,000 $7,720,000 HPP Federal Funds $9,712,285 $3,838,472 $5,688,589 $8,415,520 $27,654,866 HPP Local Match $1,564,098 $959,618 $1,422,148 $2,103,880 $6,049,744 HPP Expenditure $11,276,383 $4,798,090 $7,110,737 $10,519,400 $33,704,610 DEMO Federal Funds $2,951,785 $0 $0 $0 $2,951,785 DEMO Local Match $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 DEMO Expenditure $2,951,785 $0 $0 $0 $2,951,785 BRR-L Federal Funds $408,000 $408,000 $0 $0 $816,000 BRR-L Local Match $102,000 $102,000 $0 $0 $204,000 BRR-L Expenditure $510,000 $510,000 $0 $0 $1,020,000 TCSP Federal Funds $916,209 $0 $225,000 $0 $1,141,209 TCSP Local Funds $229,052 $0 $0 $0 $229,052 TCSP Expenditure $1,145,261 $0 $225,000 $0 $1,370,261 FBD Federal Funds $535,227 $0 $140,000 $660,000 $1,335,227 FBD Local Funds $133,807 $0 $35,000 $165,000 $333,807 FBD Expenditure $669,034 $0 $175,000 $825,000 $1,669,034 ENH Federal Funds $1,686,096 $3,455,166 $1,481,903 $756,846 $7,380,011 ENH Local Funds $421,524 $863,791 $370,476 $189,212 $1,845,003 ENH Expenditure $2,107,620 $4,318,957 $1,852,379 $946,058 $9,225,014 SRTS Federal Funds $0 $691,083 $0 $0 $691,083 SRTS Local Funds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SRTS Expenditure $0 $691,083 $0 $0 $691,083 CMAQ Federal Funds $0 $0 $850,000 $0 $850,000 CMAQ Local Funds $0 $0 $212,000 $0 $212,000 CMAQ Expenditure $0 $0 $1,062,000 $0 $1,062,000 TIGER IV Federal Funds $0 $0 $14,939,000 $0 $14,939,000 TIGER IV Local/ Private Funds $0 $0 $12,000,000 $0 $12,000,000 TIGER IV State Funds $0 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 TIGER IV Expenditure $0 $0 $28,939,000 $0 $28,939,000 TOTAL FUNDING $99,615,267 $61,363,659 $86,151,698 $38,522,587 $235,762,973 TOTAL EXPENDITURE $76,592,546 $39,322,341 $81,325,500 $38,338,168 $235,578,555 BALANCE $23,022,721 $22,041,319 $4,826,198 $184,419 $184,419 Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program 58 Total TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES

14 Old TIP Page Adjusted Funding Sources Carry Over Funds (Federal STP) Annual STP-M Federal Funds SECTION C LOCAL TENNESSEE SPONSORED PROJECTS Funding & Expenditures Fiscal Years Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2014 $53,791,779 $23,022,721 $22,041,319 $4,826,198 $53,791,779 $16,032,871 $16,032,871 $16,032,871 $16,032,871 $64,131,484 Total STP-M Federal Funding $69,824,650 $39,055,592 $38,074,190 $20,859,069 $117,923,263 STP-M Local Match $8,282,484 $4,289,938 $8,603,028 $5,168,663 $26,344,113 STP-M Expenditure $55,084,413 $21,304,211 $41,851,020 $25,843,313 $144,082,957 Local Funds $1,063,050 $0 $100,364 $194,397 $1,357,811 Local Expenditure $1,063,050 $0 $100,364 $194,397 $1,357,811 STP-L Federal Funds $763,183 $0 $0 $0 $763,183 STP-L Local Match $1,021,817 $0 $0 $0 $1,021,817 STP-L Expenditure $1,785,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,785,000 STP-S Federal Funds $0 $6,160,000 $8,000 $8,000 $6,176,000 STP-S State Match $0 $1,540,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,544,000 STP-S Expenditure $0 $7,700,000 $10,000 $10,000 $7,720,000 HPP Federal Funds $9,712,285 $3,838,472 $5,688,589 $8,415,520 $27,654,866 HPP Local Match $1,564,098 $959,618 $1,422,148 $2,103,880 $6,049,744 HPP Expenditure $11,276,383 $4,798,090 $7,110,737 $10,519,400 $33,704,610 DEMO Federal Funds $2,951,785 $0 $0 $0 $2,951,785 DEMO Local Match $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 DEMO Expenditure $2,951,785 $0 $0 $0 $2,951,785 BRR-L Federal Funds $408,000 $408,000 $0 $0 $816,000 BRR-L Local Match $102,000 $102,000 $0 $0 $204,000 BRR-L Expenditure $510,000 $510,000 $0 $0 $1,020,000 TCSP Federal Funds $916,209 $0 $225,000 $0 $1,141,209 TCSP Local Funds $229,052 $0 $0 $0 $229,052 TCSP Expenditure $1,145,261 $0 $225,000 $0 $1,370,261 FBD Federal Funds $535,227 $0 $140,000 $660,000 $1,335,227 FBD Local Funds $133,807 $0 $35,000 $165,000 $333,807 FBD Expenditure $669,034 $0 $175,000 $825,000 $1,669,034 ENH Federal Funds $1,686,096 $3,455,166 $1,481,903 $756,846 $7,380,011 ENH Local Funds $421,524 $863,791 $370,476 $189,212 $1,845,003 ENH Expenditure $2,107,620 $4,318,957 $1,852,379 $946,058 $9,225,014 SRTS Federal Funds $0 $691,083 $0 $0 $691,083 SRTS Local Funds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SRTS Expenditure $0 $691,083 $0 $0 $691,083 TIGER IV Federal Funds $0 $0 $14,939,000 $0 $14,939,000 TIGER IV Local/ Private Funds $0 $0 $12,000,000 $0 $12,000,000 TIGER IV State Funds $0 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 TIGER IV Expenditure $0 $0 $28,939,000 $0 $28,939,000 TOTAL FUNDING $99,615,267 $61,363,659 $85,089,698 $38,522,587 $234,700,973 TOTAL EXPENDITURE $76,592,546 $39,322,341 $80,263,500 $38,338,168 $234,516,555 BALANCE $23,022,721 $22,041,319 $4,826,198 $184,419 $184,419 Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program 58 Total TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES

15 New TIP Page TIP # TIGER IV TDOT PIN # N/A Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency Memphis County Shelby Length miles LRTP # Consistent W/ LRTP Conformity Exempt Project Name Mainstreet to Mainstreet Multimodal Connector Total Cost $30,001,000 Termini/Intersection Project Description Henry Avenue at N. Main Street in Memphis, TN to Broadway Avenue at Club Road in West Memphis, AR Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2013 PE-D TIGER IV $154,500 $154, PE-D LOCAL MATCH $1,339,069 $1,339, CONST TIGER IV $14,784,500 $14,784, CONST TDOT MATCH $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Amendment # Adjustment # Remarks Amended Refloor old Harahan Bridge for bike and pedestrian use and road/street improvements to accommodate bikes. The project will be done in different sections as follows: Section 1: Henry Street to the MATA North End Terminal to the Main Street Mall. Section 1 will include on-street bikeways, ADA and pedestrian improvements, drainage improvements, and trolley improvements. Section 2: Main Street Mall. Section 2 will include ADA and pedestrian improvements, streetscaping, drainage improvements, and trolley repairs. Section 3: Main Street Mall to AMTRAK Central Station including the Cleaborn & Foote Loop. Section 3 will include ADA and pedestrian improvements, streetscaping, drainage improvements, and trolley repairs. Section 4: AMTRAK Central Station to Harahan Bridge (includes Harahan Bridge). Section 4 will include the realignment of Front Street with Florida Street to create a safe crossing of the existing CN rail spur, the widening of Channel 3 Drive Bridge over South Riverside Drive to accomodate on-street bikeways, and structural improvements to the Harahan Bridge. Section 5: Bridgeport Cove Road, I-55 Bridge to Club Road. Section 5 will include new bike-pedways in Arkansas CONST LOCAL MATCH $9,660,931 $9,660, CONST PRIVATE MATCH $1,000,000 $1,000, CONST CMAQ $1,062,000 $850,000 $212,000 The TIGER 2012 Grant was awarded on June 22, 2012 in the amount of $14,939,000. An additional $850,000 in CMAQ funds will be provided from AR. The local funding type includes multiple funding sources from the City of Memphis and Shelby County,Tourist Development Zone (TDZ) tax revenues, and other corporation contributions. The private funding type includes funding sources from different private investors. Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program 87 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES

16 Old TIP Page TIP # TIGER IV TDOT PIN # N/A Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency Memphis County Shelby Length miles LRTP # Consistent W/ LRTP Conformity Exempt Project Name Mainstreet to Mainstreet Multimodal Connector Total Cost $29,789,000 Termini/Intersection Project Description Henry Avenue at N. Main Street in Memphis, TN to Broadway Avenue at Club Road in West Memphis, AR Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2013 PE-D TIGER IV $154,500 $154, PE-D LOCAL MATCH $1,339,069 $1,339, CONST TIGER IV $14,784,500 $14,784, CONST TDOT MATCH $2,000,000 $2,000, CONST LOCAL MATCH $9,660,931 $9,660, CONST PRIVATE MATCH $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Amendment # Adjustment # Remarks Amended Refloor old Harahan Bridge for bike and pedestrian use and road/street improvements to accommodate bikes. The project will be done in different sections as follows: Section 1: Henry Street to the MATA North End Terminal to the Main Street Mall. Section 1 will include on-street bikeways, ADA and pedestrian improvements, drainage improvements, and trolley improvements. Section 2: Main Street Mall. Section 2 will include ADA and pedestrian improvements, streetscaping, drainage improvements, and trolley repairs. Section 3: Main Street Mall to AMTRAK Central Station including the Cleaborn & Foote Loop. Section 3 will include ADA and pedestrian improvements, streetscaping, drainage improvements, and trolley repairs. Section 4: AMTRAK Central Station to Harahan Bridge (includes Harahan Bridge). Section 4 will include the realignment of Front Street with Florida Street to create a safe crossing of the existing CN rail spur, the widening of Channel 3 Drive Bridge over South Riverside Drive to accomodate on-street bikeways, and structural improvements to the Harahan Bridge. Section 5: Bridgeport Cove Road, I-55 Bridge to Club Road. Section 5 will include new bike-pedways in Arkansas. The TIGER 2012 Grant was awarded on June 22, 2012 in the amount of $14,939,000. An additional $850,000 in CMAQ funds will be provided from AR. The local funding type includes multiple funding sources from the City of Memphis and Shelby County,Tourist Development Zone (TDZ) tax revenues, and other corporation contributions. The private funding type includes funding sources from different private investors. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program 87

17 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY: SHORT CONFORMITY DETERMINATION REPORT MEMPHIS URBAN AREA TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AMENDMENT 10 TIP Project # NHS I 40 (Interchange at Canada Road) TIP Project # TN IM I 55 (Interchange at Crump Boulevard) March 8, 2013 Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization Memphis & Shelby County Office of Planning and Development This document was prepared and published by the Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization and is prepared in cooperation with or with financial assistance from all or several of the following public entities: the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, the Tennessee and Mississippi Department of Transportation, the Memphis Area Transit Authority, and the local governments in the MPO region. It is the policy of the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, national origin or disability in its hiring or employment practices, or in its admission to or operations of its program, services, or activities. All inquiries for Title VI and/or the American Disabilities Act, contact John Paul Shaffer at or john.shaffer@memphistn.gov.

18 Introduction This short conformity determination report documents the Air Quality Conformity analysis for Amendment 10 of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP is a subset of the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) prepared by the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and approved by the MPO Transportation Policy Board (TPB) on February 23, The TIP was prepared by the Memphis MPO and was approved by the TPB on September 23, A copy of the existing 2040 LRTP and the TIP are available on the MPO s website at Periodically, as needs and conditions change, it becomes necessary to amend the TIP. amendments are listed in Table 1 below. The current TIP Table 1: TIP # Project Amendment NHS TN IM I 40 Interchange at Canada Road I 55 Interchange at Crump Boulevard Amended Project Recommendations Amended Projects Changes in funding amounts, year, and type for ROW and Construction. Funding type changed from IM to NHPP. Addition of FY 2013 IMD funds for PE, ROW, and Utilities. Conformity Status Non Exempt Non Exempt The amended project recommendations shown in Table 1 are discussed in more detail in the Air Quality Tracking Sheet. The changes to the I 40 project, interchange at Canada Road, include changes to the funding amounts, years, and type only. Interstate Maintenance (IM) funds have been replaced with National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) funds. The funding year for ROW has changed from FY 2011 to FY 2013 and from FY 2013 to FY 2014 for construction. The funding amounts have increased for both the ROW and construction phases changing both the federal and state shares. The changes in funding amounts, years, and type do not impact the travel demand model results or the air quality conformity analysis. The changes to the I 55 project, interchange at Crump Boulevard, include the addition of Interstate Maintenance Discretionary (IMD) funds for FY The addition of funds for FY 2013 does not impact the travel demand model results or the air quality conformity analysis. As previously agreed upon by the IAC, the planning assumptions developed for the current TIP and the LRTP are still applicable for the Conformity Determination Report submitted for LRTP Amendment 1, approved by the TPB on May 24, Financial Constraint The total funding identified in the amended TIP for the project listed in Table 1 indicates that the TIP will remain fiscally constrained. Mobile Source Emissions and Air Quality Conformity The planning assumptions developed for Amendment 1 of the 2040 LRTP and TIP, approved May 24, 2012, are applicable for this short report. Similarly, this report relies on the previous emissions analysis that was approved on May 24, 2012, as a part of Amendment 1. The budgets identified in the Federal Register (Vol. 75, No. 1) effective Monday, January 4, 2010 were used for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). The budgets established in the Federal Register (Vol. 71, No. 206), effective December 26, 2006 were used for carbon monoxide (CO). 1

19 The project included in the amended TIP was modeled in the Regional Travel Demand Model for 2010, 2017, 2020, 2030 and Using output from these model runs and the methodology described in the Conformity Demonstration, MOBILE6.2 was used to calculate the total emissions for the ozone precursor pollutants volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) as well as for carbon monoxide (CO). The mobile vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) for 2009 were compared to modeled emissions for MVEB s for 2017 were compared to 2017 modeled emissions. MVEB s for 2021 were compared to an interpolation of 2021 emissions from 2020, 2030 and 2040 modeled emissions. The approved Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal established emission budgets for transportation conformity purposes. In accordance with EPA regulations, updated information has been utilized to estimate the emissions for each of the analysis years of the Amended 2040 LRTP to include the amended TIP project shown in Table 1. The appropriate tests were performed to demonstrate conformity of the Amended TIP under 8 hour ozone standards and CO standards. As required by the transportation conformity regulations, the tests were carried out and the results of the analysis are provided in the LRTP Amendment 1. As demonstrated in the previous LRTP Amendment and the TIP, it was determined that the FY Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Amended Memphis Urban Area 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) conform under the hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standards. For this TIP amendment, it was determined that: There are no factors in the amended TIP that would cause or contribute to a new violation or exacerbate an existing violation in the years before the first analysis year for any portion of the maintenance area. No goals, directives, recommendations or projects identified in the amended TIP contradicts in a negative manner any specific requirements or commitments of the applicable State Implementation Plan, None of the revisions or any other element of the Transportation Plan and TIP interferes with the implementation of TCMs contained in the applicable implementation plan(s). The ozone precursors, VOC and NOx emissions in Shelby County do not exceed the baseline emissions for 2010, or the budget tests for 2017, 2021, 2030 and The CO emissions do not exceed the budget test for Therefore, the TIP and LRTP remain in conformance with the Tennessee SIP. Interagency Consultation and Public Involvement Interagency consultation is the central coordinating mechanism for public agency involvement and input to the conformity determination. The conformity determination must be made according to 40 CFR (a) (2) and (e) and the requirements of 23 CFR 450 (40 CFR , Criteria and Procedures). The Memphis MPO coordinated its activities for this conformity determination with the Shelby County Health Department, local municipalities, Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), TDEC Division of Air Pollution Control, TDOT, FHWA, EPA and other necessary agencies. IAC team comments associated with this TIP amendment was solicited by the Memphis MPO by on March 8, The Memphis MPO has a Public Participation Plan, which was adopted on December 15, This plan specifies procedures to ensure public involvement in the planning process. All MPO meetings are open to the public for comments as appropriate. The public will be notified of the opportunities to comment on these TIP and LRTP Amendments. All comments received from the public, committee members, and review agencies are appropriately addressed and documented. 2

20 New TIP Page Funding Sources Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total STP Federal Funds $7,058,877 $11,798,746 $7,120,000 $4,120,000 $30,097,623 STP Match Funds $1,764,719 $2,949,686 $1,780,000 $1,030,000 $7,524,405 Total STP Funds $8,823,596 $14,748,432 $8,900,000 $5,150,000 $37,622,028 CMAQ Federal Funds $14,200,000 $0 $180,000 $0 $14,380,000 CMAQ Match Funds $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $20,000 Total CMAQ Funds Total American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Funds Total Private Funds SECTION A TDOT SPONSORED PROJECTS Funding & Expenditures Fiscal Years Amended $14,200,000 $0 $200,000 $0 $14,400,000 $597,820 $0 $0 $0 $597,820 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 HPP/NCIIP Federal Funds $24,228,223 $0 $0 $0 $24,228,223 HPP/NCIIP Match Funds $5,807,055 $0 $0 $0 $5,807,055 Total HPP/NCIIP Funds $30,035,278 $0 $0 $0 $30,035,278 BRR-S Federal Funds $3,240,000 $12,840,000 $0 $0 $16,080,000 BRR-S Match Funds $810,000 $3,210,000 $0 $0 $4,020,000 Total BRR-S Funds $4,050,000 $16,050,000 $0 $0 $20,100,000 DRTDP Federal Funds $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $400,000 DRTDP Match Funds $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 Total DRTDP Funds $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 NHS Federal Funds $50,560,079 $60,166,666 $986,666 $4,100,452 $115,813,863 NHS State Funds $12,640,020 $15,041,667 $246,667 $1,025,113 $28,953,467 Total NHS Funds $63,200,099 $75,208,333 $1,233,333 $5,125,565 $144,767,330 HSIP Federal Funds $2,700,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $8,100,000 HSIP Match Funds $300,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $900,000 Total HSIP Funds $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $9,000,000 IM Federal Funds $39,043,800 $21,976,219 $2,880,000 $180,000 $64,080,019 IM State Funds $4,338,200 $2,441,802 $320,000 $20,000 $7,120,002 Total IM Funds $43,382,000 $24,418,021 $3,200,000 $200,000 $71,200,021 BRBD Federal Funds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 BRBD State Funds $995,859 $13,100,000 $100,000 $0 $14,195,859 Total BRBD Funds $995,859 $13,100,000 $100,000 $0 $14,195,859 IMD Federal Funds $0 $0 $940,419 $0 $940,419 IMD State Funds $0 $0 $104,491 $0 $104,491 Total IMD Funds $0 $0 $1,044,910 $0 $1,044,910 Reallocated Federal Funds $0 $0 $2,400,000 $0 $2,400,000 NHPP Federal Funds $0 $0 $147,040,378 $24,719,016 $171,759,394 NHPP State Funds $0 $0 $19,517,877 $3,548,504 $23,066,381 Total NHPP Funds $0 $0 $166,558,255 $28,267,520 $194,825,775 TOTAL FUNDING $168,284,652 $146,024,786 $185,636,498 $40,743,085 $540,689,021 TOTAL EXPENDITURE $168,284,652 $146,024,786 $185,636,498 $40,743,085 $540,689,021 BALANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program 16 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES

21 Old TIP Page Funding Sources Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Total STP Federal Funds $7,058,877 $11,798,746 $7,120,000 $4,120,000 $30,097,623 STP Match Funds $1,764,719 $2,949,686 $1,780,000 $1,030,000 $7,524,405 Total STP Funds $8,823,596 $14,748,432 $8,900,000 $5,150,000 $37,622,028 CMAQ Federal Funds SECTION A TDOT SPONSORED PROJECTS Funding & Expenditures Fiscal Years Adjusted $14,200,000 $0 $180,000 $0 $14,380,000 CMAQ Match Funds $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $20,000 Total CMAQ Funds $14,200,000 $0 $200,000 $0 $14,400,000 Total American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) $597,820 $0 $0 $0 $597,820 Funds Total Private Funds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 HPP/NCIIP Federal Funds $24,228,223 $0 $0 $0 $24,228,223 HPP/NCIIP Match Funds $5,807,055 $0 $0 $0 $5,807,055 Total HPP/NCIIP Funds $30,035,278 $0 $0 $0 $30,035,278 BRR-S Federal Funds $3,240,000 $12,840,000 $0 $0 $16,080,000 BRR-S Match Funds $810,000 $3,210,000 $0 $0 $4,020,000 Total BRR-S Funds $4,050,000 $16,050,000 $0 $0 $20,100,000 DRTDP Federal Funds $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $400,000 DRTDP Match Funds $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 Total DRTDP Funds $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000 NHS Federal Funds $50,560,079 $60,166,666 $986,666 $4,100,452 $115,813,863 NHS State Funds $12,640,020 $15,041,667 $246,667 $1,025,113 $28,953,467 Total NHS Funds $63,200,099 $75,208,333 $1,233,333 $5,125,565 $144,767,330 HSIP Federal Funds $2,700,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $8,100,000 HSIP Match Funds $300,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $900,000 Total HSIP Funds $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $9,000,000 IM Federal Funds $40,123,800 $21,976,219 $9,900,000 $180,000 $72,180,019 IM State Funds $4,458,200 $2,441,802 $1,100,000 $20,000 $8,020,002 Total IM Funds $44,582,000 $24,418,021 $11,000,000 $200,000 $80,200,021 BRBD Federal Funds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 BRBD State Funds $995,859 $13,100,000 $100,000 $0 $14,195,859 Total BRBD Funds $995,859 $13,100,000 $100,000 $0 $14,195,859 Reallocated Federal Funds $0 $0 $2,400,000 $0 $2,400,000 NHPP Federal Funds $0 $0 $142,360,378 $6,899,016 $149,259,394 NHPP State Funds $0 $0 $18,997,877 $1,568,504 $20,566,381 Total NHPP Funds $0 $0 $161,358,255 $8,467,520 $169,825,775 TOTAL FUNDING $169,484,652 $146,024,786 $187,191,588 $20,943,085 $523,644,111 TOTAL EXPENDITURE $169,484,652 $146,024,786 $187,191,588 $20,943,085 $523,644,111 BALANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program 16 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES

22 New TIP Page TIP # NHS TDOT PIN # Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency TDOT County Shelby Length NA LRTP # Conformity Non-Exempt Project Name I-40 Total Cost $25,000,000 Termini/Intersection Project Description Canada Road Interchange improvements including replacing bridges, reconstructing acceleration and deceleration lanes and tapers Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2013 ROW NHPP $5,200,000 $4,680,000 $520, CONST NHPP $19,800,000 $17,820,000 $1,980,000 Amendment # Adjustment # Remarks Amended TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program 20

23 Old TIP Page TIP # NHS TDOT PIN # Horizon Year E+C Lead Agency TDOT County Shelby Length NA LRTP # Conformity Non-Exempt Project Name I-40 Total Cost $10,300,000 Termini/Intersection Project Description Canada Road Interchange improvements including replacing bridges, reconstructing acceleration and deceleration lanes and tapers Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2011 ROW IM $1,200,000 $1,080,000 $120, CONST IM $7,800,000 $7,020,000 $780,000 Amendment # Adjustment # Remarks Adjusted TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program 20

24 New TIP Page TIP # TN-IM TDOT PIN # Horizon Year 2020 Lead Agency TDOT County Shelby Length NA LRTP # Conformity Non-Exempt Project Name I-55 Total Cost $34,279,910 Termini/Intersection Project Description Interchange at Crump Boulevard Interchange modification Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2013 ROW NHPP $535,000 $481,500 $53, PE, ROW, UTILITIES Amendment # Adjustment # Remarks IMD $1,044,910 $940,419 $104,491 Amended TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program 23

25 Old TIP Page Adjusted TIP # TN-IM TDOT PIN # Horizon Year 2020 Lead Agency TDOT County Shelby Length NA LRTP # Conformity Non-Exempt Project Name I-55 Total Cost $33,235,000 Termini/Intersection Interchange at Crump Boulevard Project Description Interchange modification Obligated Funds Fiscal Year Type of Work Funding Type Total Funds Fed Funds State Funds Local Funds 2013 ROW NHPP $535,000 $481,500 $53,500 Amendment # Adjustment # Remarks TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TDOT PROJECTS MDOT PROJECTS LOCAL TN PROJECTS LOCAL MS PROJECTS CMAQ PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS APPENDICES Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program 23

26 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY MEMPHIS URBAN AREA 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM For the Hour Ozone NAAQS March 18, 2013 Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Planning Section Memphis & Shelby County Office of Planning and Development This document was prepared and published by the Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization and is prepared in cooperation with financial assistance from all or several of the following public entities: the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, the Tennessee and Mississippi Department of Transportation, the Memphis Area Transit Authority, and the local governments in the MPO region. It is the policy of the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, national origin or disability in its hiring or employment practices, or in its admission to or operations of its program, services, or activities. All inquiries for Title VI and/or the American Disabilities Act, contact John Shaffer at or

27 TABLE OF CONTENTS AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE 1.1 Introduction Latest Planning Assumptions Latest Emissions Estimation Model Interagency Consultation and Public Participation Transportation Control Measure Implementation Exempt Projects Conformity Test Assumptions Methodology Emission Factor Model Input to MOBILE Header Section Run Section Scenario Section LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program Participation... 7 Table 2 - Seasonal Adjustment Factors... 8 Table 3 - Header Section Variables/Parameters Table 4 - Run Section Variables/Parameters Table 5 - I/M programs 1 through 5 for analysis years 2004, 2010, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2030, and Table 6 - Scenario Section Variables/Parameters Table 7 - Conversion from MOBILE5 Based VMT Mix to MOBILE6 Based VMT Mix Table 8 - VMT Mix Table 9 - MOBILE6.2 Emission Factors for VOC, NOx (gm/mi) - Year Table 10 - MOBILE6.2 Emission Factors for VOC, NOx, CO (gm/mi) - Year Table 11 - MOBILE6.2 Emission Factors for VOC, NOx, CO (gm/mi) - Year Table 12 - MOBILE6.2 Emission Factors for VOC, NOx (gm/mi) - Year Table 13 - MOBILE6.2 Emission Factors for VOC, NOx (gm/mi) - Year Table 14 - MOBILE6.2 Emission Factors for VOC, NOx (gm/mi) Year Table 15 - Emissions Calculation Example for Urban Freeway Facilities Table 16 - Total Emissions for VOC, NOx (ton/day) - Year Table 17 - Total Emissions for VOC, NOx (ton/day) - Year Table 18 - Total Emissions for VOC, NOx, CO (ton/day) - Year Table 19 - Total Emissions for VOC, NOx (ton/day) - Year Table 20 - Total Emissions for VOC, NOx (ton/day) - Year Table 21 - Total Emissions for VOC, NOx (ton/day) - Year Table 22 - Shelby County HPMS-adjusted Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Table 23 - Seasonal Adjustment Factors Table 24 Summary of Mobile Source Emissions and Emissions Budgets (tons/day) LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - Interagency Consultation and Preconsensus Plans Exhibit 2 - Vehicle Registration Distribution and Vehicle Mix Estimation Procedures Exhibit 3 - HPMS Scaling Factor; MOBILE6.2 Driving Cycles; VMT Percentage on Local Roadways Exhibit TIP and Memphis Urban Area 2040 LRTP Projects Exhibit 5 - Exempt Project Methodology Exhibit 6 - Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEB) Regulations Exhibit 7 - MOBILE6.2 Input Files Exhibit 8 - MOBILE6.2 Output Files i

28 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE 1.1 Introduction As the number of vehicles on the nation s roadways increased, air pollution from mobile sources was identified as an important national health concern. Recognizing this connection, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAAs) and the Tennessee Transportation Conformity Rules require transportation plans, programs (TIP), and projects to conform to the purpose of the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity to a SIP means that planned transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and its successor legislation, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21) reinforced the need for coordinated transportation and air quality planning through the metropolitan planning provisions. Ozone (O 3) In 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated Shelby County, TN a marginal nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone (O 3 ) standard. Due to improvements in the ambient air quality, EPA redesignated Shelby County to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard on February 16, EPA s reclassification of the Memphis and Shelby County non-attainment area to attainment status for the 1-hour ozone standard was published in 60 FR 3352 (January 17, 1995). Shelby County was then placed in a 10-year maintenance period for 1-hour ozone during which the area had to demonstrate continued compliance with the 1990 CAAAs. However, EPA s issuance of the 8-hour ozone standard in 1997, to address the impacts of exposure to ozone for longer periods of time, superseded the previous 1-hour ozone standard. The 1-hour ozone standard was revoked on June 15, On April 30, 2004 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated Memphis, TN-AR as a hour ozone moderate non-attainment area (69 FR 23858). Included in this designation were two counties: Shelby, TN and Crittenden, AR. The 8-hour ozone area designation was effective on June 15, On September 15, 2004 EPA reclassified the area from moderate to marginal. This reclassification indicated the area was expected to reach attainment sooner than originally anticipated. Following this reclassification, the Memphis, TN-AR area was able to demonstrate attainment of the hour ozone standard in January 2010 (75 FR 56, January 4, 2010). A 10-year maintenance plan was established for NOx and VOCs, with new motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs). The last year of this maintenance plan was In July 2012, EPA issued the companion guidance 1 to the Conformity Rule that addresses ozone and air quality standards. The guidance further clarified how conformity determinations and the regional emissions analyses that support them are completed in existing and new non-attainment and maintenance areas. The guidance noted that states in a multi-state area have the option of submitting SIPs with budgets for just their own portion of the area that, when taken together, meet the applicable Clean Air Act requirement. Where states have done so and EPA has found such budgets adequate or approved, the MPO or MPOs in each state with such budgets can determine conformity completely independently of the other states. Furthermore, all affected agencies need to be included in the 1 Guidance for Transportation Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, Transportation and Climate Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA-420-B ). 1

29 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE decision-making process for the area as required by of the conformity rule. Shelby County, Tennessee and Crittenden County, Arkansas have budgets of their own. Based on concurrence from interagency consultation, the conformity demonstration for each county was performed independently. EPA designated Memphis, TN-MS-AR as a hour ozone marginal non-attainment area effective July 20, The final ruling was published in the Federal Register (77 FR 30088) on May 21, Included in this designation were Shelby County, TN; Crittenden County, AR; and the portion of DeSoto County, MS in the Memphis MPO boundary. The Memphis MPO is responsible for demonstrating conformance of the NAAQS for Shelby County, TN and the portion of DeSoto County, MS in the Memphis MPO boundary. Conformance with NAAQS for DeSoto County, MS is being addressed through a separate action by the Memphis MPO. The planning assumptions, analysis, and results provided in this report are for Shelby County, TN only. Carbon Monoxide (CO) In 1978, the EPA designated Memphis, TN, a moderate (less than 12.7 ppm) non-attainment area for carbon monoxide (CO). Due to improvements in ambient air quality, EPA redesignated Shelby County to attainment for the CO standard on August 31, EPA's reclassification of the Memphis non-attainment area to attainment status for the CO standard was published in 59 FR (August 31, 1994). Shelby County entered into two 10-year maintenance periods for CO during which the area would have to demonstrate continued compliance with the 1990 CAAAs. Shelby County s attainment status for CO was revisited in the second 10-year maintenance plan for CO and the motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) contained in it. The approval of the 10 year maintenance plan for CO for Shelby County was documented in 71 FR (October 25, 2006) and had an effective date of December 26, In addition to a new budget value established for the MVEB in the 10 year plan, the last year of the plan is now It is required that a conformity demonstration be made for the last year of the maintenance plan, which in the case of Shelby County is The purpose of this conformity analysis is to demonstrate that the implementation of the financially constrained Direction 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan 2 and the FY TIP will contribute to improved air quality and will not jeopardize Shelby County s attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The conformity determination has been performed according to procedures prescribed by the following federal, state and local regulations: 69 FR 40004, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 (i.e. Transportation Conformity Rule Requirements); the Tennessee Transportation Conformity Rules, Chapter ; the Memphis and Shelby County ordinances that adopt by reference the Tennessee Conformity Rules; and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Planning Regulations (23 CFR 450) implementing MAP-21 requirements. Results of this conformity determination are found in Table F.22 of this report. For each transportation plan (2040 LRTP), program ( TIP), and FHWA/FTA project to be found to conform, the MPO and DOT must demonstrate that the applicable criteria and procedures have been satisfied (section a). The following criteria for non-attainment areas are found to be applicable and are described as: 1) The TIP and LRTP must pass an emissions budget test with a budget that has been found to be adequate by EPA for transportation conformity purposes, or an emissions reduction test; 2 Please refer to 2040 LRTP, Chapter 8 for the detailed financial constraint aspect of the LRTP. 2

30 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE 2) The conformity determinations must be based upon the most recent planning assumptions; 3) The conformity determinations must be based upon the latest emission estimation model available; 4) MPOs and state departments of transportation must provide reasonable opportunity for consultation with state air agencies, local air quality and transportation agencies, DOT, and the EPA; 5) Timely implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) must be provided for; and 6) The conformity determination must comply with MAP-21 and the MPO Planning Regulation. This report documents the process used by the Memphis MPO for the Conformity Determination of the Memphis Urban Area MPO amended 2040 LRTP and the reaffirmation of conformity of the TIP. Most of the planning assumptions made during the Memphis MPO s previous conformity analysis in 2010 remain the same. EPA s MOBILE6.2 model was used to derive emission factors as required by the EPA 3. The MOBILE6 input files were modified and updated as discussed in the interagency consultation meeting (Exhibit 7). The emissions factors are based on a number of inputs including temperature, presence of inspection and maintenance programs, and vehicle type mix. Emissions estimates are the product of average daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT), adjusted for seasonal variation, and the appropriate emission factors. The resulting emissions are converted from grams per day into tons per day to be compared to the emission budgets for the region. The Memphis and Shelby County MPO Travel Demand Model was used to obtain VMT estimates. The Travel Demand Model was prepared with the conformity process in mind. For more information on the methodology and assumptions utilized in the development of the Travel Demand Model, please refer to the Model Documentation (LRTP Appendix G) Latest Planning Assumptions The Memphis and Shelby County MPO Travel Demand Model was developed with consultation and input from state and local transportation agencies and the USDOT. The 2040 LRTP provides the appropriate level of detail required by 40 CFR of the conformity regulations. The highway projects in the 2040 LRTP are financially constrained for the entire plan and for each horizon year in terms of capital, operations and maintenance costs (See LRTP Chapter 8 Implementation Plan). The conformity analysis is based on assumptions derived from estimates of current and future population, employment, travel, and congestion. As part of the 2040 LRTP conformity determination, past assumptions have been discussed with various local, state and federal agencies for their continued validity and updated whenever necessary. Detailed planning assumptions are presented in Section 1.2 of this report Latest Emissions Estimation Model Mobile source emissions estimates for the ozone season (summer) and CO season (winter) have been developed using EPA's Mobile Source Emissions Factor Model, MOBILE6.2 (Sept 2003, updated March 2006), and travel estimates from the latest Memphis MPO Travel Demand Model. The Memphis MPO, Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), and Memphis and Shelby County Health Department provided the most current data available for emissions calculations. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and EPA's Air Planning Branch in Atlanta provided assistance and guidance as well. 3 Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development and Transportation Conformity, Jan. 18,

31 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE All of the projects in the TIP are a subset of the amended 2040 LRTP and as such include a program of projects, which is consistent with the scope of the 2040 LRTP in design and implementation schedule. Detailed project lists are presented in Exhibit Interagency Consultation and Public Participation Interagency consultation is the central coordinating mechanism for public agency involvement and input to the conformity determination. The conformity determination must be made according to 40 CFR (a)-(2) and (e) and the requirements of 23 CFR 450 (40 CFR , Criteria and Procedures). The Memphis MPO coordinated its activities for this conformity determination with the local air pollution control agency housed in the Shelby County Health Department, local municipalities, Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) Division of Air Pollution Control, TDOT, FHWA, EPA and all other necessary agencies. The Memphis MPO has held teleconference calls and correspondence to discuss the issues pertinent to the Memphis MPO Conformity Demonstration (e.g. latest planning assumptions). Verbal and written comments from these calls and the meeting have been addressed (see Exhibit 1 - Interagency Consultation). To more fully communicate the assumptions being made as a part of the conformity analysis, preconsensus plans were developed for both the CO and ozone analyses. These documents, titled Memphis Area Summary of Planning Assumptions Used in Regional Emissions Analysis for Ozone and Memphis Area Summary of Planning Assumptions Used in Regional Emissions Analysis for Carbon Monoxide, were reviewed by the interagency consultation group and modified based on comments received. These documents are included in Exhibit 1. The Memphis Urban Area MPO s Public Participation Plan, adopted in 2007 and updated in 2011, specifies procedures to ensure public involvement in the planning process. All Transportation Policy Board (TPB) and Engineering and Technical Committee (ETC) meetings are open to the public for comments on any item. The public was notified of the opportunities to comment on the air quality conformity document. All comments received from the public, committee members, and review agencies were addressed appropriately Transportation Control Measure Implementation The Implementation Plan, Chapter 8 of the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan specifically addresses the Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) and other congestion management strategies considered as a part of the LRTP and Travel Demand Modeling process. The efficacy of these strategies has been evaluated and considered in the development of plan recommendations. The strategies are listed as follows, along with their status in the model: Ridesharing o Carpooling, vanpooling, alternative work hours, guaranteed ride home, telecommuting, paratransit services, park and ride facilities Park and ride facilities are incorporated in the travel demand model. Other impacts to link volume are estimated off model Roadway Improvements o Intersection and roadway widening, channelization, traffic surveillance and control systems, traffic control centers, computerized signal systems Computerized signal systems are incorporated in the travel demand model 4

32 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION 5 SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE Dedicated Laneage o HOV Lanes, HOV and bus bypass lanes, bus bypass ramps Incorporated in travel demand model Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities o Impacts to link volume are estimated off model Transit Improvements o Transit service enhancement or expansion, transit traffic signal preemption, transit information services, exclusive transit ROW, and mode change facilities Transit existing and light rail line planned expansion is included in travel demand model. The model can incorporate transit service enhancements. Intelligent Transportation Systems o Intelligent transportation systems and advanced public transportation system technology, incident management, and motorist information systems. Impacts to link volume and capacity are estimated off model Growth Management o Growth management and activity center strategies, access management techniques Exempt Projects In evaluating the emissions impact of transportation activities in the conformity process, EPA regulations exempt certain projects included in a TIP or LRTP from analysis (see 40 CFR , , and ). This decision is based on the assumption that these projects do not directly impact transportation related air emissions or that they may not be able to be precisely analyzed. The regulations identified two general categories of projects: 1) those exempt from regional emissions analysis; and 2) other highway and transit projects. In the regional exemption category, the following projects are specifically named and are considered by this report to be classified as exempt: Intersection channelization projects; Intersection signalization projects at individual intersections; Interchange reconfiguration projects; Changes in vertical or horizontal alignments; Truck size and weight inspection stations; and Bus terminals and transfer points. The other highway and transit project list is longer and includes four primary categories: 1) safety, 2) mass transit, 3) air quality, and 4) other specific activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction. Safety o Railroad/highway crossing. o Hazard elimination program. o Safer non-federal aid system roads. o Shoulder improvements. o Increasing sight distance. o Safety improvement program. o Traffic control devices and operating assistance other than signalization projects. o Railroad/highway crossing warning devices. o Guardrails, median barriers, crash cushions. o Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation.

33 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE o Pavement marking demonstration. o Emergency relief (23 U.S.C. 125). o Fencing. o Skid treatments. o Safety roadside rest areas. o Adding medians. o Truck climbing lanes outside the urbanized area. o Lighting improvements. o Widening narrow pavements or reconstructing bridges (no additional travel lanes). o Emergency truck pullovers. Mass Transit o Operating assistance to transit agencies. o Purchase of support vehicles. o Rehabilitation of transit vehicles. o Purchase of office, shop, and operating equipment for existing facilities. o Purchase of operating equipment for vehicles (e.g., radios, fare boxes, lifts, etc.). o Construction or renovation of power, signal, and communications systems. o Construction of small passenger shelters and information kiosks. o Reconstruction or renovation of transit buildings and structures (e.g., rail or bus buildings, storage and maintenance facilities, stations, terminals, and ancillary structures). o Rehabilitation or reconstruction of track structures, track, and track bed in existing rightsof-way. o Purchase of new buses and rail cars to replace existing vehicles or for minor expansions of the fleet. o Construction of new bus or rail storage/maintenance facilities categorically excluded in 23 CFR part 771. Air Quality o Continuation of ride-sharing and van-pooling promotion activities at current levels. o Bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Other specific activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction, such as: o Planning and technical studies. o Grants for training and research programs. o Planning activities conducted pursuant to titles 23 and 49 U.S.C. o Federal aid systems revisions. o Engineering to assess social, economic, and environmental effects of the proposed action or alternatives to that action. o Noise attenuation. o Emergency or hardship advance land acquisitions (23 CFR ). o Acquisition of scenic easements. o Plantings, landscaping, etc. o Sign removal. o Directional and informational signs. o Transportation enhancement activities (except rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities). o Repair of damage caused by natural disasters, civil unrest, or terrorist acts, except projects involving substantial functional, locational or capacity changes. 6

34 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE There are projects in the TIP and LRTP from each major category. Refer to Exhibit 5 for a complete list of exempt projects that meet the exempt criteria Conformity Test The conformity tests specified in the federal transportation conformity rule are: (1) the emissions budget test, and (2) the emissions reduction test. For the emissions budget test, predicted emissions for the TIP/LRTP must be less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) specified in the approved air quality implementation plan or the emissions budget found to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes. If there is no approved air quality plan for a pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment or no emission budget has been found to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes, interim tests apply. In the Memphis region, MVEBs have been specified for ozone and carbon monoxide, the two maintenance pollutants for the region. Ozone MVEBs were established in the Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 1, p , January 4, These MVEBs will be utilized for the analysis of the ground-level ozone component pollutants volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) carbon monoxide MVEBs were established in the Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 206, p , October 25, MVEB established in the federal regulations are provided in Exhibit 6. These MVEBs are also used in the current State Implementation Plan (SIP). 1.2 Assumptions A list of assumptions was developed at the outset of the conformity determination, in collaboration with the members of the interagency consultation group. These assumptions are documented in the ozone and carbon monoxide preconsensus plans contained in Exhibit 1. The following assumptions were made in an effort to accurately determine the required emission levels for mobile sources in the Shelby County area: The summer ozone-season is considered to be the months of June, July, and August (e.g. as reflected in the Seasonal Adjustment Factors); MOBILE6.2 emission factors for the ozone season (VOC and NOx) are produced for the month of July, as allowed by the mobile model options. MOBILE6.2 emission factors for the CO season are produced for the month of January. Shelby County contains an ongoing inspection and maintenance (I/M) program for the City of Memphis only. Given the jurisdictional limitation of the I/M program, emission factors are calculated for both vehicles subject to the program (registered within the City of Memphis) and vehicles not subject to the program in the remainder of the county. The Travel Demand Model was used to obtain the percentage of the total vehicles registered in Shelby County subject to the I/M program for each model year. These values are contained in Table 1.Table 1 Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program Participation Table 1 - Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program Participation Year Total Vehicles in MPO Study Area Boundary 742, , , , , ,873 Total Vehicles in Shelby County 617, , , , , ,718 Total Vehicles in City of Memphis 435, , , , , ,701 Percentage of Total Vehicles in Shelby County Participating in an I/M Program 70.53% 69.58% 69.14% 68.60% 66.76% 64.90% 7

35 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE 2004 Daily Traffic Seasonal Adjustment factors provided by TDOT were used to adjust for seasonal changes in vehicle miles of travel (VMT) during summer and winter months for the forecast years. Table 2 shows the seasonal adjustment factors used in the analysis. Table 2 - Seasonal Adjustment Factors Functional Class Region Average Ozone All Years CO Freeway Rural Arterial Rural Ramp Rural Local Rural Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Ramp Urban Local Urban Source: TDOT, 2004 Maximum and minimum temperatures for ozone and CO are identical to those used to generate the SIP. These values were obtained by taking the three highest ozone and CO values, respectively, over a three year period during which the NAAQS for each was exceeded and then averaging the minimum and maximum temperatures. This information is referenced in the document SIP Base Year 1990 Emissions Inventories for Precursors of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide for the Memphis Nonattainment Area, July 27, 1994, University of Tennessee- Knoxville. The Memphis Urban Area MPO Travel Demand Model was completed in 2007 and was used for the development of the 2040 LRTP. This state of the practice model contains all of the nonexempt proposed LRTP recommendations. Please refer to the Model Documentation for further information and model methodology (LRTP Appendix G). The 2004 Highway Performance Modeling System (HPMS) 4 data was used to validate the model. The 2040 LRTP contains all regionally significant projects. The project list can be found in Exhibit 4. Proposed HOV lanes are incorporated into the model. Therefore, the air quality conformity process reflects the benefits that may result from the implementation of HOV lanes. The Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) provided updated information about the transit system. The most current data was used in the 2040 LRTP development. 4 The Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) is a traffic count data collection system maintained in Tennessee by TDOT. 8

36 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE Chapter 5, Section 2 of the LRTP documents the elements of the fixed guideway transit system that will be in place during the life of the plan. Daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT) projections developed from the model have been scaled to reflect the comparison between modeled DVMT and HPMS-derived DVMT provided by TDOT, as recommended by FHWA. For the selection of the horizon years, the conformity rule requires: 1) that if the attainment year is in the time span of the transportation plan, it must be modeled; 2) the last year forecast in the transportation plan must be a horizon year; and 3) horizon years may not be more than ten years apart. The year 2040 is the last year of the Long Range Transportation Plan forecast period. The years 2020 and 2030 are the intermediate years that meet the Transportation Conformity Rule requirement that analysis years be no more than ten years apart. Those horizon years were established for the ozone conformity analysis through the interagency consultation process is the attainment year for the hour ozone standard and is therefore a modeled year for VOC and NOx is the final year of the CO maintenance period and is within ten years of the base year of the LRTP and travel demand model. The 2017 MVEB s are also in place for the precursors of ozone. Therefore, 2017 was modeled for CO, VOC, and NOx is the final year of the ozone maintenance period. For 2021, emissions estimates for VOC and NOx were interpolated using emissions from 2020 and Analysis for each horizon year consists of the network created by all the regionally significant roads that will be open to traffic by December 31 of that analysis year. Mobile emissions estimates were developed in consultation with EPA and FHWA for the years of 2010, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2030, and 2040, as required by the conformity regulation [40 CFR (b)]. 1.3 Methodology MOBILE6 estimates different emission levels for a set of four driving cycles. Emission estimates are generated for VOC and CO on a 24-hour basis. These estimates result from the multiplication of VMT with the appropriate composite emission factors for all vehicle types. Prior to emissions calculations, average daily VMT is refined using the HPMS adjustment factors, and adjusted for seasonal variation. TDOT provided vehicle mixes by 8 vehicle classes for use in MOBILE5 input files. However, MOBILE6.2 requires the input of data for 16 vehicle classes. Thus, adjustments to the MOBILE5a-based VMT mix were necessary. Staff at the University of Tennessee Knoxville (UTK) has made the appropriate adjustments in their work conducted for TDOT. The UTK methodology was adopted for this conformity determination (please refer to Exhibit 2 for the methodology details). Congested speeds and initial values for DVMT are derived from the recently reviewed regional travel demand model for each of the analysis years. 1.4 Emission Factor Model The US EPA is required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regularly update its mobile source emission models. EPA released MOBILE6.2, a mobile source emission factor model, on September 24, MOBILE6.2 was last updated in March 2006 to reflect modified particulate matter emission factors for heavy duty diesel vehicles. MOBILE6.0 is a computer model written in FORTRAN. MOBILE6.0 has replaced the earlier versions of MOBILE5a. MOBILE6.0 calculates emission impacts from Diesel/Alternative fuel use, future vehicle fleets, vehicle speeds, roadway types, 9

37 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE inspection/maintenance programs and similar mobile source information. MOBILE6.0 contains revised basic emission rate equations for the model year 1981 and later, light-duty gas vehicles, and light-duty gas trucks. These rates have been revised based on test results from IM240 programs, which reflect an increase in emissions with increased age and mileage, thus reflecting higher emissions for all exhaust pollutants. Also updated are the speed correction factors for 1981 and later models over the mid and high ranges of average speed along with the annual mileage accumulation rates for most vehicles. MOBILE6.2 does not supersede MOBILE6.0; but adds capabilities to it. On March 2, 2010, EPA published a Federal Register notice (75 FR 9411) of availability to approve MOVES2010 (Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator). MOVES is a computer program designed by EPA to estimate air pollution emissions from mobile sources, and represents the Agency s most upto-date assessment of on-road mobile source emissions. With the Federal Register notice, MOVES is EPA s approved motor vehicle emission factor model and replaces the previous emissions model for on-road mobile sources, MOBILE6.2. As part of the Federal Register, EPA and US DOT established a two-year grace period before MOVES is required for new transportation conformity analyses. As stated in the Federal Register, MOVES would be the required analysis platform for all conformity analyses after March 2, The grace period was then extended an additional year to March 2, 2013 (76 FR 63554, October 13, 2011). After the conclusion of this grace period, MOVES2010b will be used for all regional air quality conformity determinations. Based on the Interagency Consultation process, it was agreed that MOBILE6.2 would be used for the conformity demonstration of the amended 2040 LRTP for Shelby County. The guidance and recommendations provided in the MOBILE6 User's Guide and Volume IV, Procedures for Emissions Inventory Preparation were followed in selecting the values of variables used as inputs to MOBILE6.2. The MPO has discussed these variables at the interagency consultation meeting (see Exhibit 1 for details). Model inputs and outputs are described in the following sections. 1.5 Input to MOBILE6.2 To account for the factors that influence mobile source emissions, MOBILE6.2 requires extensive data input. Default values built in the model for many of these input requirements can be used under certain circumstances when local data is not available. The model's input requirements can be classified into three sections: the header section, the run section and the scenario section as shown in the following flow chart. 10

38 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE Model Input Header Section First Run Data Section Second Run Data Section Last Run Data Section First Scenario Second Scenario etc. First Scenario Second Scenario etc. First Scenario Second Scenario etc Header Section The Header Section controls the overall input, output and execution of the program. Two commands are required for the Header Section: MOBILE6 INPUT and RUN DATA. Each input file must begin with a Header Section. Table 3 provides the list of commands used in the Header Section of MOBILE6 designed to model the emissions for all the years. Variables not described here are set at their default values. Table 3 - Header Section Variables/Parameters Command Description Values MOBILE6 INPUT FILE Identifies input files as a regular command input file No value is required. rather than a batch file. SPREADSHEET Generates emission factor output in a form suitable No value is required. for direct input into a spreadsheet. AGGREGATED Generates output database in an aggregated format. No value is required. OUTPUT RUN DATA Marks end of Header Section and beginning of Run Section as a regular command input file. No value is required. 11

39 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE Run Section The Run Section defines parameter values that specify the runs. Required commands for the Run or Scenario Sections are the Min/Max or hourly temperature and Fuel RVP. Each input file may contain many run sections. Each run section must contain one or more scenarios. Any data item entered in the Run Section is used for every scenario within the run, unless it is replaced by a local value in a scenario. Table 4 presents the commands utilized in the Run Section of MOBILE6 to generate emission factors for all the analysis years. RVP and MIN/MAX Temperature Reid vapor pressure (RVP) is assumed to be 7.8 psi during the ozone season for all horizon years, and 13.4 psi during the CO season for all horizon years. The minimum and maximum daily temperature estimates are derived from temperatures recorded over a three year period on the ten highest ozone or CO-exceedance days for ozone and CO season modeling, respectively. This data was provided by the Memphis and Shelby County Health Department Pollution Control Section. Distribution of Vehicle Registrations MOBILE6 has a default vehicle registration distribution for each of the 16 composite vehicle types based on U.S. vehicle fleet data. The MOBILE6 model uses this distribution and the annual mileage accumulation rates to estimate the travel fractions. Based on the fleet age distribution, the travel fraction is used to weigh the emission factors. The users, however, may employ their own local specific vehicle registration data for each of the 25 vehicle ages for one or more of the 16 composite vehicle types in the default table. UTK has developed Shelby County specific vehicle registration for light-duty vehicle (LDV) and light-duty trucks (LDT) (LDT1, 2, 3 and 4) categories using registration data from the Tennessee Department of Safety, Title and Registration Division. The data contains information on the county, registration class, make code, model years, and body type, for vehicles of model year 2001 and earlier. Per consensus through interagency consultation (Exhibit 1), specific Shelby County registration distribution for LDV and LDT (LDT1, 2, 3 and 4) and the national default for the rest of the 11 vehicle categories. Exhibit 2 provides details of the distribution of vehicle registration. 12

40 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE Table 4 - Run Section Variables/Parameters Command Description Values EXPRESS HC AS VOC Tells model to output exhaust HC as volatile No value is required. organic compound. NO REFUELING Exclude refueling (stage II) emission from all No value is required. output values. MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE Specifies minimum and maximum temperature. 73/97 F (ozone season); 35/63 F (CO season) ABSOLUTE Absolute Humidity in grains per pound. MOBILE6 default HUMIDITY REG DIST Allows user to supply vehicle registration distributions by age for all 16 composite vehicle types (Shelby County specific registration distribution by age for LDV, LDT1, LDT2, LDT3, and LDT4, and national default distribution for the other 11 vehicle types). UShreg.d (for urban); RShreg.d (for rural) VMT BY FACILITY FUEL RVP I/M DESC FILE Allows user to supply alternate VMT distribution by facility type. Required input of average gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure. Optional external input file containing I/M program description records. Art-only.vmt (Arterial); F- only.vmt (Freeway); R-only.vmt (Ramp); L-only.vmt (Local) 7.8 psi (ozone season); 13.4 psi (CO season) External file that contains the I/M program specifications: IMall.d I/M Programs I/M parameter values, shown in Table 5, were used as model inputs. Before the year 2004, only an IDLE I/M program is in effect. Exhaust OBD I/M program, EVAP OBD, and GC I/M programs began in late Table 5 presents detailed descriptions on I/M programs 1 through 5 for the analysis years 2010, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2030, and The existing compliance rate of 91% is used in the model for all analysis years. 13

41 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE Table 5 - I/M programs 1 through 5 for analysis years 2004, 2010, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2030, and 2040 Program Type T/O IDLE T/O OBD I/M T/O EVAP OBD & GC T/O GC T/O EVAP OBD & GC I/M PROGRAM 1 = 1st I/M Program 2 = 2nd I/M Program 3 = 3rd I/M Program 4 = 4th I/M Program 5 = 5th I/M Program 1984 = Program Start Year = Program Start Year = Program Start Year = Program Start Year = Program Start Year = Program End Year = Program End Year = Program End Year = Program End Year = Program End Year = Inspection Frequency - Annual 1 = Inspection Frequency - Annual 1 = Inspection Frequency - Annual 1 = Inspection Frequency - Annual 1 = Inspection Frequency - Annual T/O = Program Type - Test Only T/O = Program Type - Test Only T/O = Program Type - Test Only T/O = Program Type - Test Only T/O = Program Type - Test Only Idle = Test Type - Idle Test OBD I/M = Test Type - Exhaust OBD I/M Program EVAP OBD & GC = Evaporative OBD and Gas Cap I/M Program GC = Gas Cap Evaporative I/M Program EVAP OBD & GC = Evaporative OBD and Gas Cap I/M Program 1974 = First Model Year = First Model Year = First Model Year = First Model Year = First Model Year 2008 I/M MODEL YEARS 1995 = Last Model Year = Last Model Year = Last Model Year = Last Model Year = Last Model Year Vehicle Types subject/not subject to inspection (1=NO, 2=YES) in the following order: LDGV, LDGT1, LDGT2, LDGT3, LDGT4 Vehicle Types subject/not subject to inspection (1=NO, 2=YES) in the following order: LDGV, LDGT1, LDGT2, LDGT3, LDGT4 Vehicle Types subject/not subject to inspection (1=NO, 2=YES) in the following order: LDGV, LDGT1, LDGT2, LDGT3, LDGT4 Vehicle Types subject/not subject to inspection (1=NO, 2=YES) in the following order: LDGV, LDGT1, LDGT2, LDGT3, LDGT4 HDGV2B, HDGV3, HDGV4, HDGV5, HDGV6, HDGV7, HDGV8A, HDGV8B HDGV2B, HDGV3, HDGV4, HDGV5, HDGV6, HDGV7, HDGV8A, HDGV8B HDGV2B, HDGV3, HDGV4, HDGV5, HDGV6, HDGV7, HDGV8A, HDGV8B HDGV2B, HDGV3, HDGV4, HDGV5, HDGV6, HDGV7, HDGV8A, HDGV8B I/M VEHICLES GAS BUS GAS BUS GAS BUS GAS BUS GAS BUS Vehicle Types subject/not subject to inspection (1=NO, 2=YES) in the following order: LDGV, LDGT1, LDGT2, LDGT3, LDGT4 HDGV2B, HDGV3, HDGV4, HDGV5, HDGV6, HDGV7, HDGV8A, HDGV8B I/M STRINGENCY 17.0 = Stringency level 17% 17.0 = Stringency level 17% 17.0 = Stringency level 17% 17.0 = Stringency level 17% 17.0 = Stringency level 17% I/M COMPLIANCE 91.0 = Compliance rate of 91% 91.0 = Compliance rate of 91% 91.0 = Compliance rate of 91% 91.0 = Compliance rate of 91% 91.0 = Compliance rate of 91% I/M WAIVER RATES 1.0 = Waiver rate for pre-1981 model year vehicles 1.0 = Waiver rate for 1981 and later model year vehicles = Waiver rate for pre-1981 model year vehicles 1.0 = Waiver rate for 1981 and later model year vehicles 1.0 = Waiver rate for pre-1981 model year vehicles 1.0 = Waiver rate for 1981 and later model year vehicles 1.0 = Waiver rate for pre-1981 model year vehicles 1.0 = Waiver rate for 1981 and later model year vehicles 1.0 = Waiver rate for pre-1981 model year vehicles 1.0 = Waiver rate for 1981 and later model year vehicles I/M EXEMPTION AGE 25 = Vehicles 25 years and older exempt from I/M I/M GRACE PERIOD 4 = 4 year grace period when I/M testing not required 4 = 4 year grace period when I/M testing not required 4 = 4 year grace period when I/M testing not required 4 = 4 year grace period when I/M testing not required 4 = 4 year grace period when I/M testing not required 14

42 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE Scenario Section The Scenario Section contains the details and calculation of emission factors for each individual scenario. Fuel RVP, Min/Max or hourly temperatures are required in the Run or Scenario Sections. Scenario record, calendar year and end of run are required commands in the Scenario Section only. The end of a command input file is considered to be the end of the last run. It is recommended that the END OF RUN command be entered at the end of the last scenario in the command input file. Twenty-five different scenarios are defined per MOBILE6.2 input file. These scenarios, which are representative of four MOBILE6 roadway classifications in both urban and rural settings, include: Freeway High-Speed, Limited-Access Roadways Arterial Arterial and Collector Roadways Local Urban Local Roadways Freeway Ramp Freeway on and off ramps A minimum of four lines of data (or commands) are provided for each scenario: 1) the scenario record; 2) calendar year; 3) evaluation month; and 4) END OF RUN. However, since this conformity analysis utilizes specific Speed VMT and VMT Fractions for each analysis year and setting (e.g. rural or urban), these values are included in the Scenario Section. Table 6 provides the list of commands used in the Scenario Section of MOBILE6 designed to model the emissions for all the years. Table 6 - Scenario Section Variables/Parameters Command Description Values SCENARIO Scenario title text. No value is required. REC CALENDAR YEAR Calendar year of evaluation. 2010, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2030 and 2040 (ozone); 2017 (CO) EVALUATION MONTH Month of evaluation (Refer to Appendix I for details). 7 = July (ozone); 1 = January (CO) SPEED VMT Allows user to enter VMT distribution across 14 preselected average speed ranges for each of the 24 hours of the day. RShel04.spd; RShel10.spd; RShel15.spd; RShel17.spd; RShel20.spd; RShel30.spd; RShel40.spd; UShel04.spd; UShel04F.spd; UShel10.spd; UShel10F.spd; UShel15.spd; UShel15F.spd; UShel17.spd; UShel17F.spd; UShel20.spd; UShel20F.spd; UShel30.spd; UShel30F.spd; UShel40.spd; UShel40F.spd; For local (Rural and Urban): VMT FRACTIONS Allows user to apply alternate VMT fractions by each of 16 combined vehicle types. END OF RUN Ends run section. No value is required. Average speed (Arterial 20 mph) Shelby County specific VMT fractions by each of 16 combined vehicle types for rural and urban roadway classification. Speed VMT MOBILE6 has a command called SPEED VMT, which allows the user to enter the VMT distribution over pre-selected average speed ranges. MOBILE6 calculates these distributions for each of the 24 hours of the day for freeways and arterials. The program produces 48 separate distributions, each 15

43 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE containing 14 fractions. Table B in MOBILE6 User Manual provides the average speed ranges for speed bins 5. EPA recommends the use of locality specific data wherever possible instead of using default values 6. The speed VMT distribution has been generated using the travel demand model for all analysis years based on these speed bins. Refer to Exhibit 3 for detailed VMT distribution by the speed bins. Vehicle Mix (VMT Fractions) Vehicle mix is the fraction of the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) accumulated by each vehicle type on the road. Using FHWA's Traffic Monitoring Guide, TDOT has developed vehicle classification information for the following vehicle categories: 1) LDGV Light Duty Gasoline Vehicles 2) LDGT-1 Light Duty Gasoline Trucks - less than 6,000lbs 3) LDGT-2 Light Duty Gasoline Trucks - 6,001 to 8,500lbs 4) HDGV Heavy Duty Gasoline Vehicles 5) LDDV Light Duty Diesel Vehicles 6) LDDT Light Duty Diesel Trucks 7) HDDV Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks 8) MC Motorcycles As mentioned in the Section 1.3, MOBILE 6 requires 16 composite vehicle types for vehicle registration data and VMT fractions (as opposed to eight in MOBILE5). The 16-category classification is a subset of the original eight-category classification. A combination of EPA MOBILE6 defaults and Tennessee vehicle registration data was used to expand the basic EPA eight-category model. According to the study done by UTK 7, there is a discrepancy in the way LDV and LDT were classified in TDOT s data collection process and the U.S. EPA s definition for these categories. While all minivans and SUVs etc. are LDTs according to EPA s emission standards, a LDT may be allocated to LDV with TDOT s method 7. Using the vehicle registration information provided by TDOT, UTK has come up with new fractions for LDGV, LDGT1, and LDGT2. These values were linearly extrapolated to the 2008 default vehicle mix composition (expressed as a percent of the light duty category) in the MOBILE6 model. EPA has assumed that the ratio of LDV to LDT vehicle sales would stabilize at a ratio of 40/60 by 2008 nationwide. Thus, the vehicle mix for years after 2008 would be the same as the MOBILE6 default fractions. For the vehicle categories other than LDGV, LDGT1, and LDGT2, the vehicle mix from TDOT was used and remains unchanged into the future (see Exhibit 2 for details). As decided through interagency consultation, the Memphis MPO employed the methodology developed by UTK for this conformity determination. Table 7 summarizes the VMT mix conversion procedure. Table 8 lists the VMT fractions for the all the horizon years. 5 User s Guide to MOBILE6.0: Mobile Source Emission Factor Model by United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-420-R ), January 2002, p Use of Locality Specific Transportation Data for the Development of Mobile Source Emission Inventories (An EPA EIIP Emission Inventory Improvement Program Report), September TDOT uses automated counters to obtain the actual vehicle counts on the road, thus vehicle mix data. The allocation of LDV or LDT category is based on the axle distance of the vehicle. A LDT may be categorized as a LDV if the axle distance was similar to that of a car. 16

44 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE Table 7 - Conversion from MOBILE5 Based VMT Mix to MOBILE6 Based VMT Mix MOBILE6 Based Vehicle Calculation/Adjustment Made to MOBILE5 Based Fraction Definition LDV LDGV + LDDV LDT (LDGT1 + LDDT) LDT (LDGT1 + LDDT) LDT (LDGT2) LDT (LDGT2 HDV2B HDGV HDV3 0 HDV4 0 HDV5 0 HDV6 0 HDV7 0 HDV8A (HDDV) HDV8B (HDDV) HDBS 0 HDBT 0 MC MC Source: Effects of growth on VMT and New Mobile Source Emission Standards on NO X and VOC Emissions 17

45 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE Table 8 - VMT Mix Analysis Year Area Type Facility Type LDGV LDDV MC LDGT1 LDGT2 LDGT3 LDGT4 LDDT12 LDDT34 HDGV2B HDDV2B HDGV3 HDGV4 HDGV5 HDGV6 HDGV7 HDDV3 HDDV4 HDDV5 HDDV6 HDDV7 HDGB HDDBT HDDBS HDGV8A HDGV8B HDDV8A HDDV8B 50.42% 0.08% 0.65% 7.66% 25.51% 7.76% 3.57% 0.02% 0.16% 3.14% 1.01% 3.39% 1.72% 3.84% 8.22% 3.74% 9.18% 8.05% 3.58% 19.63% 29.24% 1.64% 3.06% 4.70% 0.01% 0.00% 21.91% 78.08% Rural Freeway Rural Arterial Rural Ramp Rural Local Urban Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Ramp Urban Local Rural Freeway Rural Arterial Rural Ramp Rural Local Urban Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Ramp Urban Local Rural Freeway Rural Arterial Rural Ramp Rural Local Urban Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Ramp Urban Local Rural Freeway Rural Arterial Rural Ramp Rural Local Urban Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Ramp Urban Local Table 8 - VMT Mix All Vehicles 18

46 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE Table 8 - VMT Mix Analysis Year Area Type Facility Type LDGV LDDV MC LDGT1 LDGT2 LDGT3 LDGT4 LDDT12 LDDT34 HDGV2B HDDV2B HDGV3 HDGV4 HDGV5 HDGV6 HDGV7 HDDV3 HDDV4 HDDV5 HDDV6 HDDV7 HDGB HDDBT HDDBS HDGV8A HDGV8B HDDV8A HDDV8B 50.42% 0.08% 0.65% 7.66% 25.51% 7.76% 3.57% 0.02% 0.16% 3.14% 1.01% 3.39% 1.72% 3.84% 8.22% 3.74% 9.18% 8.05% 3.58% 19.63% 29.24% 1.64% 3.06% 4.70% 0.01% 0.00% 21.91% 78.08% Rural Freeway Rural Arterial Rural Ramp Rural Local Urban Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Ramp Urban Local Rural Freeway Rural Arterial Rural Ramp Rural Local Urban Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Ramp Urban Local Rural Freeway Rural Arterial Rural Ramp Rural Local Urban Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Ramp Urban Local * - Values have been obtained from the Memphis MPO Travel Demand Model and adjusted to fit 2004 HPMS Data Table 8 - VMT Mix (continued) All Vehicles 19

47 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE Output from MOBILE6.2 Emission Factors Output format can be predefined in the program file using the Control Flag options. An 80 Column descriptive format is used (output files are located in Exhibit 8). To account for the partial geographic coverage of the I/M program, the model is run twice for each analysis year, once assuming the use of the I/M program and once without. The MOBILE6.2 output reports lists VOC, NO x and CO emission factors (in grams per mile) for each vehicle type within each roadway classification, as well as weighed averages for all vehicle types. Composite emission factors for all vehicle types are presented in Table 9 through Table 13. Table 9 - MOBILE6.2 Emission Factors for VOC, NO x (gm/mi) - Year 2010 Table 9 - MOBILE6.2 Emission Factors for VOC, NO x (gm/mi) - Year 2010 Facility Type VOC 2010 NO x 2010 No I/M With I/M No I/M With I/M Rural Freeway Rural Arterial Rural Ramp Rural Local Urban Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Ramp Urban Local Table 10 - MOBILE6.2 Emission Factors for VOC, NO x, CO (gm/mi) - Year 2015 Table 10 - MOBILE6.2 Emission Factors for VOC, NO x (gm/mi) - Year 2015 Facility Type VOC 2015 NO x 2015 No I/M With I/M No I/M With I/M Rural Freeway Rural Arterial Rural Ramp Rural Local Urban Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Ramp Urban Local

48 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION Table 11 - MOBILE6.2 Emission Factors for VOC, NO x, CO (gm/mi) - Year 2017 Table 11 - MOBILE6.2 Emission Factors for VOC, NO x, CO (gm/mi) - Year Facility Type 2017 VOC 2017 NO x 2017 CO 2017 No I/M With I/M No I/M With I/M No I/M With I/M Rural Freeway Rural Arterial Rural Ramp Rural Local Urban Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Ramp Urban Local Table 12 - MOBILE6.2 Emission Factors for VOC, NO x (gm/mi) - Year 2020 Table 12 - MOBILE6.2 Emission Factors for VOC, NO x (gm/mi) - Year 2020 Facility Type VOC 2020 NO x 2020 No I/M With I/M No I/M With I/M Rural Freeway Rural Arterial Rural Ramp Rural Local Urban Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Ramp Urban Local Table 13 - MOBILE6.2 Emission Factors for VOC, NO x (gm/mi) - Year 2030 Table 13 - MOBILE6.2 Emission Factors for VOC, NO x (gm/mi) - Year 2030 Facility Type VOC 2030 NO x 2030 No I/M With I/M No I/M With I/M Rural Freeway Rural Arterial Rural Ramp Rural Local Urban Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Ramp Urban Local SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE 21

49 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION Table 14 - MOBILE6.2 Emission Factors for VOC, NO x (gm/mi) Year 2040 Table 14 - MOBILE6.2 Emission Factors for VOC, NO x (gm/mi) - Year 2040 Facility Type VOC 2040 NO x 2040 No I/M With I/M No I/M With I/M Rural Freeway Rural Arterial Rural Ramp Rural Local Urban Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Ramp Urban Local SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE Emissions Calculations As discussed earlier, emissions estimates result from the multiplication of average daily VMT, adjusted for seasonal variation, with the appropriate emission factors. The resulting emissions are converted from grams per day into tons per day. An example of the calculations used for developing emissions in tons per day is described in Table 15 and the calculations below: Table 15 - Emissions Calculation Example for Urban Freeway Facilities Command Description Values Year I/M Program Yes No Season Ozone Ozone Pollutant VOC VOC Emission Factor (gram/mile) VOC = {[(0.637 * ) + (0.647 * )] * DVMT} / (907,000 * SAF) VOC = tons/day Where, DVMT SAF = Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled on Urban Freeway (1,052,044 mi/day; see Table 21) = Seasonal Adjustment Factor for Daily VMT (or average daily traffic) on Urban Freeways (ozone season = 0.985; see Table 22) = Percentage of total registered cars subject to I/M program in = Percentage of total registered cars not subject to I/M program in ,000 = Grams into tons conversion factor Table 16 through Table 21 shows the emissions estimates. 22

50 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE Table 16 - Total Emissions for VOC, NO x (ton/day) - Year 2010 Table 16 - Total Emissions for VOC, NO Table 17 - Total Emissions for VOC, NO x (ton/day) x Table 17 - Total Emissions for VOC, NO x - Year 2015 (ton/day) - Year 2010 (ton/day) - Year 2015 Functional Class VOC 2020 NO x 2020 Functional Class VOC 2010 NO x 2010 Rural Freeway Rural Freeway Rural Arterial Rural Arterial Rural Ramp Rural Ramp Rural Local Rural Local Urban Interstate Urban Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Urban Ramp Urban Ramp Urban Local Urban Local Grand Total Grand Total Table 18 - Total Emissions for VOC, NO x, CO (ton/day) - Year 2017 Table Table Total - Total Emissions Emissions for for VOC, CO NO (ton/day) x (ton/day) - Year - Year Table Total Emissions for VOC, NO x 2017 (ton/day) - Year 2020 Function Class VOC 2017 NO x 2017 CO 2017 Functional Class VOC 2020 NO x 2020 Rural Freeway Rural Freeway Table Rural Arterial 20 - Total Emissions for VOC, NO1.144 x (ton/day) Year Rural 2030Arterial Table 21 - Total Emissions for VOC, NO x (ton/day) - Year 2040 Rural Ramp Rural Ramp Rural Local Rural Local Urban Interstate Urban Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Arterial Urban Ramp Urban Ramp Urban Local Urban Local Grand Total Grand Total SIP Budget Conformity Status Passes Passes Passes Table 20 - Total Emissions for VOC, NO x (ton/day) - Year 2030 Functional Class VOC 2030 NO x 2030 Rural Freeway Rural Arterial Rural Ramp Rural Local Urban Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Ramp Urban Local Grand Total Table 21- Total Emissions for VOC, NO x (ton/day) - Year 2040 Functional Class VOC 2040 NO x 2040 Rural Freeway Rural Arterial Rural Ramp Rural Local Urban Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Ramp Urban Local Grand Total

51 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) The Memphis MPO uses a travel demand model (TDM) to predict daily vehicle miles of travel (DVMT) for each roadway type. It is a traditional 4-step model: trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice and assignment. The model is run on a TransCAD platform (TransCAD 5.0). The trips are generated in trip generation and distributed in trip distribution. The decision of which travel mode to take occurs at the mode choice stage. Finally the trips are assigned on the model roadway network. Based on the distance and the total volume of travel on the links of the network, DVMT is obtained. The model DVMT results are refined using the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) scaling factor as suggested by the FHWA and based on procedures published by EPA 8. Information on the derivation of the HPMS scaling factor is shown in Exhibit 3. Currently, all roadways modeled are considered regionally significant. Those that are not regionally significant are represented by centroid connectors, which are considered as local roads. Table 22 presents the HPMS-adjusted DVMTs. As discussed previously, the conformity determination is for Shelby County, Tennessee only. Consequently, all roadways in Shelby County were identified and classified according to MOBILE6 roadway classifications. Exhibit 3 provides detailed information on these classifications. The forecasted total DVMT, excluding the local, are disaggregated into perspective roadway classifications as indicated by the model. The Travel Demand Model was designed to more accurately represent the traffic volumes on urban and rural ramps. As a result, the HPMS-adjusted model values are used for ramps. Because of the limitation of the regional travel demand model in representing local DVMT, TDOT s HPMS DVMT is employed to get DVMT on local roadways HPMS DVMT was used to obtain the percentage of local DVMT. This percentage is used to derive future local DVMT for all the analysis years. Table 22 - Shelby County HPMS-adjusted Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Table 22 - Shelby County HPMS-adjusted Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Facility Type Rural Freeway 257, , , , , , ,851 Rural Arterial 1,446,073 1,749,087 2,129,841 2,149,298 1,893,081 2,598,026 3,058,462 Rural Ramp 15,938 22,495 49,053 43,100 61,268 73,372 83,771 Rural Local 230, , , , , , ,312 Urban Interstate 5,643,315 5,970,147 6,000,272 6,009,634 7,606,184 8,449,580 9,627,409 Urban Freeway 916,544 1,052,044 1,065,304 1,055,510 1,088,813 1,255,117 1,546,264 Urban Arterial 13,194,699 14,281,774 16,231,678 15,448,872 15,524,794 17,600,151 19,527,682 Urban Ramp 547, , , , , , ,168 Urban Local 2,363,211 2,547,707 2,781,433 2,687,407 2,888,144 3,253,704 3,657,880 Total 24,616,081 26,947,247 30,063,421 29,187,512 30,562,627 34,991,236 39,487,799 Source: Travel Demand Model, adjusted using 2004 HPMS data Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Seasonal Adjustment Factors ADT Seasonal Adjustment Factors are monthly variation factors, which describe the changes in the vehicle miles traveled by day of the week for every month. These factors are used to refine the 8 CFR , as amended by 62 FR , August 15, 1997; VMT Forecasting and Tracking Guidance, United States Environmental Protection Agency, January

52 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE DVMT for use in calculating emissions during ozone season (summer), and CO season (winter). The latest monthly variation factors (2004) provided by TDOT are used for all subsequent analysis years. All factors are averaged over a three-month summer period (June, July, and August) to obtain ozone variation factors and November, December, and January for CO season factor. Table 23 - Seasonal Adjustment Factors Functional Class Region Average Ozone All Years CO Freeway Rural Arterial Rural Ramp Rural Local Rural Interstate Urban Freeway Urban Arterial Urban Ramp Urban Local Urban Source: TDOT, 2004 Conclusion The approved SIP submittal established emission budgets for transportation conformity purposes. In accordance with EPA regulations, updated information has been utilized to estimate the emission for each of the analysis years of the amended 2040 LRTP. The process of estimating the projections, along with the data inputs used is described in detail earlier in this report. The following steps describe the test required to demonstrate conformity of the amended 2040 LRTP and the TIP under hour ozone standards and CO standards. As required by the transportation conformity regulations, tests are carried out and described in detail below: Test: Emissions estimates for the TIP and the amended 2040 LRTP in each analysis year (2010, 2015, 2017, 2020, 2030, and 2040) are lower than or equal to the applicable emissions budget. That is, OZONE SEASON: o Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 2010 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2009 Budget (tons/day) 2015 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2009 Budget (tons/day) 2017 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2017 Budget (tons/day) 2020 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2017 Budget (tons/day) 2021 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 Budget (tons/day) 2030 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 Budget (tons/day) 2040 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 Budget (tons/day) o Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 2010 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2009 Budget (tons/day) 2015 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2009 Budget (tons/day) 2017 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2017 Budget (tons/day) 2020 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2017 Budget (tons/day) 25

53 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION 2021 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 Budget (tons/day) 2030 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 Budget (tons/day) 2040 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2021 Budget (tons/day) CO SEASON: o Carbon Monoxide (CO) 2017 Analysis Year (tons/day) < 2017 Budget (tons/day) SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE Result: As shown in Table 22, the emissions estimates for the ozone precursors, VOC, NOx and CO are lower than the corresponding emission budgets for each horizon year. Table 24 Summary of Mobile Source Emissions and Emissions Budgets (tons/day) Year Measure Pollutant VOC NO x CO 2009 MVEB* Emissions Emissions MVEB* Emissions Emissions MVEB* Emissions Emissions Emissions * - Motor Vehicle Emission Budget (MVEB) - Source: Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 1, Monday, January 4, 2010, p for VOC and NOX, and Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 206, December 26, 2006 for CO. The analysis indicates that projected emissions levels from the amended 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan and FY Transportation Improvement Program meet the conformity tests specified in the Transportation Conformity Rule (i.e., 40 CFR Part 93), including the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Changes (69 FR 40004) and the Guidance for Transportation Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas (EPA-420-B , July 2012). Further, this conformity determination meets the other requirements of 40 CFR Part 93. It is the determination of this analysis that the current FY Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) conform under the hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 26

54 2040 DESOTO COUNTY NON-ATTAINMENT AREA MOVES AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION PREPARED BY: MEMPHIS URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION IN COOPERATION WITH: DESOTO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SHELBY COUNTY SHELBY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MARCH 20, 2013 MEMPHIS URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SECTION This document was prepared and published by the Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization and is prepared in cooperation with financial assistance from all or several of the following public entities: the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, the Tennessee and Mississippi Department of Transportation, the Memphis Area Transit Authority, and the local governments in the MPO region. It is the policy of the Memphis Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, national origin or disability in its hiring or employment practices, or in its admission to or operations of its program, services, or activities. All inquiries for Title VI and/or the American Disabilities Act, contact John Shaffer at or

55 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction Latest Planning Assumptions Latest Emissions Estimation Model Interagency Consultation and Public Participation Exempt Projects Conformity Test Methodology MOVES Travel Demand Modeling MOVES Runspec Description Scale Time Spans Geographic Bounds Vehicles/Equipment Road Type Pollutants and Processes Miscellaneous Strategies Output County Data Manager Meteorology Data Importer Source Type Population Importer Age Distribution Importer Vehicle Type VMT and VMT Fractions Average Speed Distribution Importer Road Type Distribution Importer Ramp Fraction Importer Fuel Formulation and Fuel Supply Importer Fueltype and Technologies Importer Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Importer Post-Processing of MOVES Output VMT and Source Type by County Source Type Population Fraction and VMT Fraction Hourly Distribution Fractions Road Type Distribution Fractions Average Speed Distribution Fractions Aggregation Tables Summary Results and Conclusions... 17

56 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1 MOVES Runspec Parameters... 8 Table 2 MOVES County Data Manager Parameters... 8 Figure 1 - MPO and Travel Demand Model Boundaries Table 3 Annual VMT by Source Type by Year, DeSoto County Non-Attainment Area Table 4 Summary of Total Mobile Source Emissions Table 5 Average NOx Emissions Rates by Source Type and Analysis Year Table 6 Total NOx Emissions (grams) by Source Type and Analysis Year Table 7 Average VOC Emissions Rates by Source Type and Analysis Year Table 8 Total VOC Emissions (grams) by Source Type and Analysis Year LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - Interagency Consultation Pre-Analysis Consensus Memorandum Exhibit TIP and Memphis Urban Area 2040 LRTP Projects ii

57 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION 1 Introduction As the number of vehicles on the nation s roadways increased, air pollution from mobile sources was identified as an important national health concern. Recognizing this connection, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAAs) and the Mississippi Transportation Conformity Rules require transportation plans, programs (TIP), and projects to conform to the purpose of the Mississippi State Implementation Plan (SIP). Conformity to a SIP means that planned transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and its successor legislations, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21) reinforce the need for coordinated transportation and air quality planning through the metropolitan planning provisions. On May 21, 2012 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated the portion of DeSoto County, MS within the Memphis metropolitan area boundary as a marginal 8-hour ozone moderate non-attainment area (77 FR 30088). The 8-hour ozone area designation was effective on July 20, The State of Mississippi appealed this finding, but a ruling posted in 78 FR 925 (January 7, 2013) stated that appeal was formally denied by the EPA. The non-attainment portion of DeSoto County was classified as a marginal area, meaning they must reach attainment status within three years. In July 2012, EPA issued the companion guidance 1 to the Conformity Rule that addresses ozone and air quality standards. The guidance further clarified how conformity determinations and the regional emissions analyses that support them are completed in existing and new non-attainment and maintenance areas. The guidance noted that states in a multi-state area have the option of submitting SIPs with budgets for just their own portion of the area that, when taken together, meet the applicable Clean Air Act requirement. Where states have done so and EPA has found such budgets adequate or approved, the MPO or MPOs in each state with such budgets can determine conformity completely independent of the other states. Furthermore, all affected agencies need to be included in the decisionmaking process for the area as required by of the conformity rule. Shelby County, Tennessee and Crittenden County, Arkansas have budgets of their own. Since the portion of DeSoto County in non-attainment is classified as Marginal, it is not required to have a SIP budget. During the interagency consultation process, it was decided that DeSoto County would not be judged within the overall SIP budget established for Shelby County, but would instead be subject to an independent conformity demonstration using the baseline test. Therefore, this conformity determination is only for the DeSoto County portion of the 8-hour ozone non-attainment area. The purpose of this conformity analysis is to demonstrate that the partial DeSoto County nonattainment area supports the implementation of the financially constrained Direction 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan 2 (2040 LRTP) and the FY Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) by contributing to improved air quality and will therefore not jeopardize DeSoto County s attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The conformity determination has been performed according to procedures prescribed by the following federal, state and local regulations: 69 FR 40004, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 (i.e. Transportation Conformity Rule Requirements); the Mississippi Transportation Conformity Rules; and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Planning 1 Guidance for Transportation Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, Transportation and Climate Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-420-B ). 2 Please refer to 2040 LRTP, Chapter 8 for the detailed financial constraint aspect of the LRTP. 3

58 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION Regulations (23 CFR 450) implementing MAP-21 Requirements. Results of this conformity determination are found in Table 3 of this report. For each transportation plan (2040 LRTP), program ( TIP), and FHWA/FTA project to be found to conform, the MPO and DOT must demonstrate that the applicable criteria and procedures have been satisfied (section a). The following criteria for non-attainment areas are found to be applicable and are described as: 1) The TIP and LRTP must pass an emissions baseline test, comparing the conformity model years with a 2011 baseline value; 2) The conformity determinations must be based upon the most recent planning assumptions; 3) The conformity determinations must be based upon the latest emission estimation model available; 4) MPOs and state departments of transportation must provide reasonable opportunity for consultation with state air agencies, local air quality and transportation agencies, DOT, and the EPA; and 5) The conformity determination must comply with MAP-21 and MPO Planning Regulations. This report documents the process used by the Memphis MPO for the Conformity Determination for the DeSoto County portion of the Memphis Urban Area MPO 2040 LRTP and the TIP. Since this area has only been recently designated as non-attainment, this conformity determination represents the first time an air quality analysis has been performed. EPA s MOVES2010b model was used to derive emission factors as required by the EPA 3. The MOVES input files were created and modified as discussed in the interagency consultation process and laid out in the Pre-Analysis Consensus Memorandum (Exhibit 1). The emissions factors are based on a number of inputs including temperature, relative humidity, and presence of inspection and maintenance programs, vehicle source type mix, vehicle age distribution, temporal distributions, and other roadway attributes. Emissions estimates are the product of aggregating the results from the emission rate development with average daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT), source type populations, hourly distribution, road type distribution, and average speed distribution. The Memphis and Shelby County MPO Travel Demand Model was used to obtain VMT estimates. The Travel Demand Model was prepared with the conformity process in mind. For more information on the methodology and assumptions utilized in the development of the Travel Demand Model, please refer to the Model Documentation (LRTP Appendix G). 1.1 Latest Planning Assumptions The Memphis and Shelby County MPO Travel Demand Model was developed with consultation and input from state and local transportation agencies and the USDOT. The 2040 LRTP provides the appropriate level of detail required by 40 CFR of the conformity regulations. The highway projects in the 2040 LRTP are financially constrained for the entire plan and for each horizon year in terms of capital, operations and maintenance costs (See LRTP Chapter 8 Implementation Plan). The conformity analysis is based on assumptions derived from estimates of current and future population, employment, travel, and congestion. As part of the 2040 LRTP conformity determination, past assumptions have been discussed with various local, state and federal agencies for their continued validity and updated whenever necessary. Detailed planning assumptions are presented in Section 2 of this report. 3 Using MOVES to Prepare Emission Inventories in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity: Technical Guidance for MOVES2010, 2010a, and 2010b, April

59 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION 1.2 Latest Emissions Estimation Model Mobile source emissions estimates for the ozone season (summer) were developed using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator, MOVES2010b (June 2012), and travel estimates from the latest Memphis MPO Travel Demand Model. The Memphis MPO, Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), and Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) provided the most current data available for emissions calculations. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and EPA's Air Planning Branch in Atlanta provided assistance and guidance as well. All of the projects in the TIP are a subset of the 2040 LRTP and as such include a program of projects, which is consistent with the scope of the 2040 LRTP in design and implementation schedule. Detailed project lists are presented in Exhibit Interagency Consultation and Public Participation Interagency consultation is the central coordinating mechanism for public agency involvement and input to the conformity determination. The conformity determination must be made according to 40 CFR (a)-(2) and (e) and the requirements of 23 CFR 450 (40 CFR , Criteria and Procedures). The Memphis MPO coordinated its activities for this conformity determination with numerous stakeholders and review agencies, including DeSoto County, Shelby County, Shelby County Health Department, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) Division of Air Pollution Control, MDOT, TDOT, FHWA, EPA, and other necessary agencies. The Memphis MPO has held teleconference calls and correspondence to discuss the issues pertinent to the DeSoto County Conformity Demonstration (e.g. latest planning assumptions). Verbal and written comments from these calls and the meeting have been addressed (see Exhibit 1 - Interagency Consultation). To more fully communicate the assumptions being made as a part of the conformity analysis, a preconsensus plan was developed for the ozone analyses. This document, titled 2040 DeSoto County Non-Attainment Area MOVES Air Quality Analysis Pre-Analysis Consensus Memorandum, was reviewed by the interagency consultation group and modified based on comments received. This document is included in Exhibit 1. The Memphis Urban Area MPO s Public Participation Plan, adopted in 2007 and updated in 2011, specifies procedures to ensure public involvement in the planning process. All TPB and Engineering and Technical Committee (ETC), meetings are open to the public for comments on any item. The public was notified of the opportunities to comment on this conformity demonstration. All comments received from the public, committee members, and review agencies were addressed appropriately. Specific information related to the public participation process for development of the LRTP is provided in Chapter 2 and Appendix A of the LRTP document. 1.4 Exempt Projects In evaluating the emissions impact of transportation activities in the conformity process, EPA regulations exempt certain projects included in a TIP or LRTP from analysis (see 40 CFR , , and ). This decision is based on the assumption that these projects do not directly impact transportation related air emissions or that they may not be able to be precisely analyzed. The regulations identified two general categories of projects in the Transportation Conformity Reference Guide: 1) those exempt from regional emissions analysis; and 2) other highway and transit projects. In the regional exemption category, the following projects are specifically named and are considered by this report to be classified as exempt: 5

60 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION Intersection channelization projects; Intersection signalization projects at individual intersections; Interchange reconfiguration projects; Changes in vertical or horizontal alignments; Truck size and weight inspection stations; and Bus terminals and transfer points. The other highway and transit project list is longer and includes four primary categories: 1) safety, 2) mass transit, 3) air quality, and 4) other specific activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction. Safety o Railroad/highway crossing. o Hazard elimination program. o Safer non-federal aid system roads. o Shoulder improvements. o Increasing sight distance. o Safety improvement program. o Traffic control devices and operating assistance other than signalization projects. o Railroad/highway crossing warning devices. o Guardrails, median barriers, crash cushions. o Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation. o Pavement marking demonstration. o Emergency relief (23 U.S.C. 125). o Fencing. o Skid treatments. o Safety roadside rest areas. o Adding medians. o Truck climbing lanes outside the urbanized area. o Lighting improvements. o Widening narrow pavements or reconstructing bridges (no additional travel lanes). o Emergency truck pullovers. Mass Transit o Operating assistance to transit agencies. o Purchase of support vehicles. o Rehabilitation of transit vehicles. o Purchase of office, shop, and operating equipment for existing facilities. o Purchase of operating equipment for vehicles (e.g., radios, fare boxes, lifts, etc.). o Construction or renovation of power, signal, and communications systems. o Construction of small passenger shelters and information kiosks. o Reconstruction or renovation of transit buildings and structures (e.g., rail or bus buildings, storage and maintenance facilities, stations, terminals, and ancillary structures). o Rehabilitation or reconstruction of track structures, track, and track bed in existing rights-ofway. o Purchase of new buses and rail cars to replace existing vehicles or for minor expansions of the fleet. o Construction of new bus or rail storage/maintenance facilities categorically excluded in 23 CFR part

61 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION Air Quality o Continuation of ride-sharing and van-pooling promotion activities at current levels. o Bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Other specific activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction, such as: o Planning and technical studies. o Grants for training and research programs. o Planning activities conducted pursuant to titles 23 and 49 U.S.C. o Federal aid systems revisions. o Engineering to assess social, economic, and environmental effects of the proposed action or alternatives to that action. o Noise attenuation. o Emergency or hardship advance land acquisitions (23 CFR ). o Acquisition of scenic easements. o Plantings, landscaping, etc. o Sign removal. o Directional and informational signs. o Transportation enhancement activities (except rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities). o Repair of damage caused by natural disasters, civil unrest, or terrorist acts, except projects involving substantial functional, locational or capacity changes. There are projects in the TIP and LRTP from each major category. 1.5 Conformity Test The conformity tests specified in the federal transportation conformity rule are: (1) the emissions budget test, and (2) the emissions reduction test. For the emissions budget test, predicted emissions for the TIP/LRTP must be less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) specified in the approved air quality implementation plan or the emissions budget found to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes. If there is no approved air quality plan for a pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment or no emission budget has been found to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes, the emissions reduction test applies. In the DeSoto County portion of the Memphis region, no MVEBs have been specified. As a result, the emissions reduction test has been used, with the year 2011 as the established baseline condition. 2 Methodology The emissions inventory development and emissions projection discussion below identifies procedures used by the Memphis MPO to obtain emission rates for the DeSoto County portion of the Memphis non-attainment area. Table 1 summarizes the settings used in the MOVES run specification file. Table 2 lists the assumptions used in the MOVES County Data Manager. Further details on the use of MOVES are found in the following sections. 7

62 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION Table 1 MOVES Runspec Parameters MOVES Runspec Parameter Settings MOVES2010b, Version 2012/04/10 Scale County, Emission Rates Time Span Time aggregation = Hour 1 month representing summer conditions (July) All hours of the day selected Weekdays only Geographic Bounds 1 custom domain DeSoto County (partial) Vehicles/Equipment All valid source types, gasoline and diesel Road Type All road types including off-network Pollutants and Processes NO x, VOCs, total gaseous hydrocarbons, non-methane hydrocarbons, methane General Output Units = grams, joules, miles Output Emissions Time = hour, location = link, on-road emission rates by road type and source use type Advanced Performance None Table 2 MOVES County Data Manager Parameters County Data Data Source Manager Input Meteorology Data Local data from Memphis airport (MEM). Source Type Population Default data was used for all years. Age Distribution Local and default. Local data from motor vehicle registration data (classes 11, 21, and 31). Shelby County data (prepared by the University of Tennessee) applied for remaining vehicle source types. Vehicle Type VMT Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model. HPMS Vehicle Type VMT Vehicle Type VMT Determined using EPA conversion tool for Annual Average Weekly VMT. Monthly VMT Fraction Vehicle Type VMT Determined using EPA conversion tool for Annual Average Weekly VMT. Daily VMT Fraction Vehicle Type VMT Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model. Hourly VMT Fraction Average Speed Distribution Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model. Road Type Distribution Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model. Ramp Fraction Local data obtained from Memphis Travel Demand Model. Fuel Supply/Fuel Formulation Default Fueltype and Technologies Default I/M Programs No data entered. 2.1 MOVES The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires US EPA to regularly update its mobile source emission models. US EPA continuously collects data and measures vehicle emissions to make sure the Agency has the best possible understanding of mobile source emissions. This assessment, in turn, informs the development of US EPA s mobile source emission models. MOVES represents the Agency s most up-to-date assessment of on-road mobile source emissions. MOVES also incorporates several changes to the US EPA s approach to mobile source emission modeling based upon recommendations made to the Agency by the National Academy of Sciences. 8

63 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION The more detailed MOVES approach to modeling (when compared with the previous MOBILE model) allows US EPA to easily incorporate large amounts of in-use data from a wide variety of sources, such as data from vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs, remote sensing device (RSD) testing, certification testing, portable emission measurement systems (PEMS), etc. This approach also allows users to incorporate a variety of activity data to better estimate emission differences such as those resulting from changes to vehicle speed and acceleration patterns. MOVES has a graphical user interface which allows users to more easily set up and run the model. MOVES database-centered design provides users much greater flexibility regarding output choices. Unlike earlier models which provided emission factors in grams-per-mile in fixed output formats, MOVES output can be expressed as total mass (in tons, pounds, kilograms, or grams) or as emission factors (grams-per-mile and in some cases grams-per-vehicle). Output can be easily aggregated or disaggregated to examine emissions in a range of scales, from national emissions impacts down to the emissions impacts of individual transportation projects. The database-centered design also allows US EPA to update emissions data incorporated in MOVES more easily and will allow users to incorporate a much wider array of activity data to improve estimation of local emissions. For example, the improvements in MOVES will allow project-level PM 2.5 emissions to be estimated. 2.2 Travel Demand Modeling The Memphis Urban Area travel demand model is the most recent and approved regional travel demand model for the study area. The travel demand model boundary includes all of DeSoto County and Shelby County, as well as portions of Tipton, Fayette, and Marshall Counties. Figure 1 shows the Memphis Urban Area and the Travel Demand Model boundaries. Although model approval is a joint process between the MPO and the appropriate state review agencies, the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) is the primary agency responsible for approval of the travel demand model for use in developing the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and other planning activities of the Memphis MPO. The travel demand model used for the air quality conformity analysis was reviewed and approved for use for long range plan and air quality conformity analysis purposes. The Memphis Urban Area Travel Demand Model is a four step model. Trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and trip assignment components are included in the model. The base year of the travel demand model is Socioeconomic data was forecasted to the year 2040 as a part of the most recent LRTP. Appendix G of the 2040 LRTP contains the assumptions and methodology used to develop the travel demand model. Model Data Adjustments At the outset of this process, it was important to compare the information in the travel demand model to raw data obtained through traffic counts. The 2004 HPMS data was obtained from the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) for DeSoto County. The annual VMT shown in the HPMS data was compared to the total 2004 DeSoto County VMT shown in the travel demand model. This comparison yielded a HPMS/TDM ratio that was used to scale the VMT output from the model to more closely match documented conditions. This scaled VMT was used in the development of the HPMS vehicle type VMT. The adjusted annual vehicle miles traveled by MOVES vehicle source type for the study area are shown in Table 3. 9

64 DESOTO COUNTY AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DEMONSTRATION Figure 1 MPO and Travel Demand Model Boundaries 10