OKI Land Range Transportation Plan 2030

OKI 2030 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN June 12, 2008
The preparation of this document was financed cooperatively by the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the Commonwealth of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, the Ohio Department of Transportation, the Indiana Department of Transportation, the units of local and county government in the OKI region. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this document are those of the OKI Regional Council of Governments and are not necessarily those of the U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
Ohio
Kentucky
Indiana Regional Council of Governments
2030 Regional Transportation Plan
Acknowledgements
OKI would like to express our gratitude to members of the Board of Directors, the Intermodal Coordinating Committee and staff for their time and input contributed to this plan.
The OKI Board of Directors

Robert Allen Robert Ashbrock Timothy Bachman Shannon Barrow Craig E. Beckley Cindi Bedinghaus Joseph Beech Dan Bell Orion Bell Ken Bogard Tony Bradburn William Brayshaw Greg Breetz Mary H. Brown Steve Brun Wynndel Burns Thomas Cahill Courtney Combs Betsy Conrad Keith Corman Robert Craig John Cranley Bill Cunningham Bill DeBruler Pat Dewine Andrew Diehm Tom Dix Don Dixon Ralph Drees Sarah Anness Evans Beth Fennell Mark Fitzgerald Cathy Flaig Rhonda Freeze Dale Furtwengler Dennis Gordon Charles Graves Thomas Graves Ralph B. Grieme, Jr. W. David Hart Donnie Hastings, Jr. Thomas E. Holocher V. Anthony Simms-Howell G. Aaron Huff Jeff Hughes David Hunter Hans Jindal Archie Johnson Gregory Jolivette Michael F. Juengling Eric Kearney Joyce Kinley Kris Knochelmann Martin D. Kohler Dennis Kraus George Lang Robert Laws Mike Little MaryLynn Lodor Stephan Louis Virgil Lovitt, II Pat Manger Christine Matacic Larry Maxey Robert McGee Kathy McNear Steve Megerle Gregory Meyers Chuck Mitchell Jeffrey Monroe Gary W. Moore Lawrence Mulligan, Jr. Pamela E. Mullins Jim OReilly Steve Pendery David Pepper Todd Portune Roxanne Qualls Mark Quarry Kenneth Rechtin Kenneth F. Reed Peggy Reis James Ritter Lynda Roesch Elmo Rose Michael Rozow, Jr. Sean Rugless Mike Sadouskas Sal Santoro Victor Schneider Tom Schomaker Karl Schultz Randy Shank Tracy Shell Mike Snyder Pat Arnold South Greg Stautberg Mark Steffen Steve Stevens James W. Sumner Neil Tunison James Ude Ellen VanderHorst H. Lawson Walker Mary C. Walker Gene Weaver Thomas Weidman John Wells, III Teri A. Whitmore Gregory Wilkens Mike Williams Joseph Wolterman David Young
Intermodal Coordinating Committee

Marshal Ball Orion Bell, IV Tim Bender John Braun Peggy Brickweg Scott Brunka Benjamin Capelle Cory Chadwick Jun-Han Chen Kevin Chesar Kevin Costello John Creech Ronald Davis Steve DeHart Erin Donovan David Duckworth Bernadette Dupont Tom Ewing John Fonner J. Standish Fortin Timothy Gilday Adam Goetzman Tracy Gragston, Jr. Valerie Griffin Jerry Haddix Robert Hans Ted Hubbard Helen Hunter Michael Juengling James P. Jurgensen Martha Kelly Peter Klear Catalina Landivar J. Todd Listerman Tom Logan Keith Logsdon Rick Lunnemann William D. Martin Bruce McClain Mark McCormack Charles Meyers David Mick Ed Moore Steve Murphy Robert Nicolls John Niehaus Emmanuel Nsonwu Ronald Porter Ralph Reigelsperger Cheri Rekow Tim Reynolds Roger Rolfes Kim Satzger Karl Schultz Steve Sievers Greg Sketch Craig Stephenson Amy Thomas Reggie Victor Joe Vogel Thomas Voss Carl (Doug) Walker Robert Ware Greg Wilkens Robert Yoder
OKI Staff Contributors

Mark Policinski, Executive Director Robert Koehler, Deputy Executive Director Robyn Bancroft, Strategic Projects Manager Regina Fauver, Project Administrator Bill Brash Sarah Fry Larry Buckler John Heilman Don Burrell Summer Jones Aaron Crary Darryl Lankford Brian Cunningham Margo Lindahl Gayle Foster Mary Luebbers
Tim Maltry Bill Miller Mark Paine Florence Parker Andy Reser Andrew Rohne
David Shuey Larisa Sims Cheng-I Tsai Karen Whittaker Brandy Williams Jane Wittke
Ohio
Kentucky
Table of ConTenTs Chapter 1 Transportation Planning for the oKI Region Introduction Evolution of the Plan Plan Topics Plan Recommendations Goals and Objectives Summary Public Participation Introduction Environmental Justice Advisory Committee and Participation Plan OKIs Organizational Structure Focus of Participation Efforts Summary Transportation and land Use Planning Connectivity Introduction Developing the Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) Transportation in Context Implementing the Strategic Regional Policy Plan Adapting to Change Summary Demographic overview of the Region Introduction Population Change Household Change The Changing Age Structure Housing Density Employment Change Commuting Patterns Summary safety Introduction Regional Crash Data Coordination with Statewide Plans Crash Trends and Locations Summary Regional security Introduction Regional Homeland Security Coordinating Committee
Ohio
Page
1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
1 2 2 3 4 9 1 1 3 3 6 1 1 3 4 7 10 1 1 2 4 6 10 13 16 1 1 1 6 12
333333444444445 5 5 5 5 -
6- 1 6- 1
Kentucky
Chapter Regional Homeland Security Regional Transit Security Strategy Regional Planning Elements Considered for Potential Application Summary 7 Congestion Management Introduction OKI Versus Other Metropolitan Areas Congestion Management Process Impact of Congestion on Travel by Transit Summary of Predicted 2030 Daily Highway Congestion Congestion Management Strategies Summary Roadways Introduction Roadway Network Strategies to Address Roadway Needs Roadway Preservation and Rehabilitation Operational Improvements Transportation Demand Management Roadway Strategies Capacity Improvements Summary bus and Rail Transit Introduction Bus Transit Rail Transit Development Rail Transit Vision Plan Summary Intelligent Transportation system Introduction National ITS Architecture ITS Components Existing ITS Elements Recommendations for ITS Summary freight Introduction Existing and Future Freight Conditions Promoting Regional Cooperation and Coordination Integration into Transportation Planning and Programming Summary 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Page 2 4 5 7 1 1 2 5 5 8 9 1 1 3 4 4 11 12 42 1 1 20 25 27 1 1 1 2 3 5 1 1 10 12 13
9999910 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 -
10
11
Ohio
Kentucky
Chapter 12 bicycle and Pedestrian Travel Introduction Bicycling and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian Facilities Ongoing Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Funding for Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Summary other Travel Mode alternatives Introduction Ridesharing Employer Programs Air Travel River Ferry Service Summary Corridor and Planning studies Introduction Corridor Studies Countywide Transportation Plans or Assessments Recommended Transportation Related Planning Studies Summary Transportation Improvements financing Introduction Funding Expectations Major Projects Federal Funding Sources State and Local Funding Sources Innovative Finance Public-Private Partnerships Funding Needs Estimation of Project Costs Year of Expenditures Summary economic, social and environmental Impacts assessment Introduction Economic Impact Social or Environmental Justice (EJ) Impact Environmental Impact Summary
Page 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 1 1 11 11 16 17 1 1 2 5 7 8
13
14
14 - 1 14 - 1 14 - 8 14 - 9 14 - 10 15 - 1 15 - 1 15 - 3 15 - 5 15 - 7 15 - 9 15 - 12 15 - 13 15 - 14 15 - 14 15 - 15 16 16 16 16 16 1 1 2 30 63
15
16
Ohio
Kentucky
aPPenDICIes Chapter a summary of Process Made since 2004 Plan Introduction Land Use Commission Transit Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Transportation Enhancements Program Summary TIP Projects oKI 2030 Regional Transportation Plan Project scoring Process Background The Project Scoring Process Public Participation Progress sheet Public Participation Progress Sheet needed but not fiscally Constrained Projects Needed but not Fiscally Constrained Projects Detailed Results of STEAM Benefit-Cost Process Detailed results of STEAM Benefit-Cost Process air Quality Conformity Process Air Quality Conformity Process lIsT of fIgURes Chapter 1 2 4 1 OKI Region 2 OKI 2030 Regional Transportation Plan Goals 1 OKI Online Survey 2 Simulation Photos 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Ohio
Page A A A A A A 1 1 1 2 3 6
B- 1 B- 1 C- 1 D- 1 E - 1 F- 1
C D E f
Page 1- 1 1- 5 2- 2 2- 2 4- 1 4- 1 4- 2 4- 3 4- 3 4- 4 4- 4 4- 5 4 - 6
Population by County, 2005-2030 Population Change by County, 2005-2030 Population Trends for Selected Metropolitan Areas and States Households by County, 2005-2030 Household Change by County, 2005-2030 Household Change, 2005-2030 Age Composition for the OKI Region, 2005 and 2030 Age Composition for the OKI Region, 2005 and 2030 Household Density by Traffic Analysis Zone, 2005
Kentucky
Chapter 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Household Distribution, 2005-2030 Household Density, 2005 Household Density by Traffic Analysis Zone, 2030 Household Density, 2030 Growth and Household Density, 2005 and 2030 Employment by County of Work, 2005-2030 Employment Change by County, 2005-2030 Employment Change 2005-2030 Intra/Inter-County Commuting Numbers of Workers 1970-2000 Intra/Inter-County Commuting Percent of Workers 1970-2000 Ohio County Workers Commuting within county residence 1970-2000 Kentucky & Indiana Co Workers Commuting within co residence 1970-2000 Inter-County Commuting by Number of Workers, 2000 Inter-County Commuting by Percent of Workers, 2000 Commute Transportation Mode Crashes by Type by County, 2006 Ohio Five Percent Locations Kentucky Five Percent Locations Ohio Highest Crash Rate and Five Percent Locations Kentucky Highest Crash Rate and Five Percent Locations Indiana Highest Crash Rate Locations Crash Concentrations in the OKI Region Crash Rates by Roadway Segments, Ohio Crash Rates by Roadway Segments, Kentucky Crash Rates by Roadway Segments, Indiana Ten Highest Crash Rate Locations in Hamilton County, Ohio Ten Highest Crash Rate Locations in Kentucky Ten Highest Crash Rate Locations in Dearborn County, Indiana
Page 4- 7 4- 7 4 - 8 4- 9 4 - 10 4 - 11 4 - 11 4 - 12 4 - 13 4 - 13 4 - 14 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 14 15 15 16 1 2 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 11 12
6 7
1 Regional Incident Management Task Force 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cincinnati Urban Area Mobility Statistics, through 2005 Total Vehicle Day PM Peak Hour Travel Times, 2005 (minutes) PM Peak Hour Forecasted Travel Times, 2030 (minutes) 2030 Daily Highway Congestion Report 2030 Level of Service Transportation Projects Planned High Congested Identified Loc. OKI Congestion Management Strategies
6- 3 7- 2 7- 3 7- 4 7- 5 7- 6 7- 6 7 - 7 7 - 10
1 National Highway System 8- 2 2 High Number Conflict Points at a Typical Four Way Intersection 8 - 5 3 Continuous Flow Intersection 8- 8
Ohio
Kentucky
4 Five Mile Road Partial Continuous Flow Intersection Chapter 5 Existing Roundabout in Eden Park 6 Single Point Urban Interchange 7 Transportation Improvement Program Capacity Adding and Plan Projects 8 Butler County TIP Capacity Adding and Plan Projects 9 Clermont County TIP Capacity Adding and Plan Projects 10A Hamilton County West TIP Capacity Adding and Plan Projects 10B Hamilton County East TIP Capacity Adding and Plan Projects 11 Warren County TIP Capacity Adding and Plan Projects 12 Boone County TIP Capacity Adding and Plan Projects 13 Campbell County TIP Capacity Adding and Plan Projects 14 Kenton County TIP Capacity Adding and Plan Projects 15 Dearborn County TIP Capacity Adding and Plan Projects 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Butler County Regional Transit Admin. (BCRTA) Service Area Dearborn County Catch-A-Ride Service Area Clermont Transportation Connection (CTC) Service Area Middletown Transit System (MTS) Service Area SW Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) Service Area Transit Authority of N. Kentucky (TANK) Service Area Warren County Transit System Service Area Change in Transit Ridership, 2002-2006 Bus Transit Needs and Recommendations Metro Bus on Shoulders Project Bus Transit Service Improvements Bus Transit Intelligent Transportation System Improvements Transit Hub Improvements TANK Mt. Zion Park and Ride Park and Ride Improvements Rail Transit Improvements Proposed Cincinnati Streetcar Alignment Eastern Corridor Oasis Rail Transit Alignment Recommended Rail Transit Right of Way Preservation Rail Transit Vision Plan
8- 8 Page 8- 9 8 - 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 14 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
9 - 2 9- 3 9- 5 9- 6 9- 7 9 - 9 9 - 10 9 - 11 9 - 13 9 - 14 9 - 15 9 - 17 9 - 18 9 - 19 9 - 20 9 - 20 9 - 22 9 - 23 9 - 24 9 - 26 10 - 4 10 - 5 11 11 11 - 11 11 11 3 3 4 5 6 7
10
1 Key Intelligent Transportation System Projects 2 Total Cost Estimates for Intelligent Transportation System Projects 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ohio
11
Shipments by Mode and Value, 2002 and 2035 ($billions) Freight Activity Forecast, 2002 amd 2035 Regional Truck Traffic Existing Truck Volumes, 2002 Projected Truck Volumes, 2035 Rail Transport Facilities
Kentucky
7 CSX Intermodal Facility Chapter 8 Norfolk Southern Double Stack Train 9 Freight Fiscally Constrained Plan Projects 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Summary of On Street Bicycle Facilities in Region On Street Facilities in the OKI Region Striped Bike Lane in Union, Kentucky Little Miami Scenic Trail Regional Trail System Map of OKI Regional Trail System Five Mile Trail in Anderson Township Turkeyfoot Road Bike Lanes and Sidewalk Pedestrian Connection in Cincinnati, Ohio Walking Promotion Fiscally Constrained Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Non-Fiscally Constrained Shared Use Path Projects
11 - 8 Page 11 - 9 11 - 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 16
13
1 Regional Airports 2 General Aviation Airports and Operations 3 Anderson Ferry 1 2 3 4 5 6 Transportation Funds Summary by State Ohio Transportation Funds Northern Kentucky Transportation Funds Summary Indiana Transportation Funds Regional Summary of Plan Expenditures Distribution of Plan Expenditures STEAM Analysis Summary Definitions of Environmental Justice Population Groups 2000 Environmental Justice Population Thresholds Elderly Population Concentrations and Plan Projects Minority Population Concentrations and Plan Projects People with Disabilities Concentrations and Plan Projects Households in Poverty Concentrations and Plan Projects Zero Car Household Concentrations and Plan Projects Plan Projects and Environmental Justice Populations Quantitative and Qualitative Performance Measures Used to Assess Environmental Justice Impact Comparative Travel Times to Work by Auto Comparative Non-Work Travel Times by Auto Percentage of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Experiencing Congestion Population and Employment Served by Transit Transportation Improvement Program Capacity Expansion Expenditures
Kentucky
13 - 6 13 - 6 13 - 7 15 15 15 15 15 15 2 4 4 5 13 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15
16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 16 - 16 16 16 16 16 16 - 16 -
16 - 23 16 - 24 16 - 25 16 - 26 16 - 26 16 - 29
Ohio
16 Plan Capacity Expansion Expenditures Chapter 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
16 - 29 Page
Environmental Financial and System Performance Comparisons 16 - 30 Agencies and Organizations Consulted by OKI 16 - 33 Surface Water Resources 16 - 36 Threatended and Endangered Species 16 - 37 Historic Resources and Parklands 16 - 38 EPA Superfund Sites 16 - 39 Plan Projects and Environmental Resources 16 - 40 Ozone Nonattainment Area 16 - 61 appendix
1 Transportation Enhancement Projects Status 2 Corridor, Special and County Transportation Plans and Studies 3 Federally Funded Projects Implemented or Deleted since July 1, 2004 1 Non-Exempt Projects 2 Conformity Analysis Years and Tests for the Ohio and Indiana Portion of the Nonattainment Area - Ozone 3 Quantitative Conformity Findings of Ozone-forming Emissions (tons per day) for the Ohio1 and Indiana Portion2 of the Nonattainment Area 4 Conformity Anaylysis Years and Test for the Ohio and Indiana Portion of the Nonattainment Area - PM2.5 5 Quantitative Conformity Findings of PM2.5 Emissions (tons per year) for the Ohio Portion of the Nonattainment Area 6 Quantitatve Conformity Findings of PM2.5 Emissions (tons per year) for the Indiana Portion of the Nonattainment Area 7 Conformity Analysis Years and Tests for the Kentucky Portion of the Nonattainment Area-Ozone 8 Quantitative Conformity Findings of Ozone-forming Emissions (tons per day) for the Kentucky Portion of the Nonattainment Area 9 Conformity Analysis Years and Tests for the Kentucky Portion of the Nonattainmnet Area - PM2.5 10 Quantitative Conformity Findings of PM2.5 Emissions (tons per year) for the Kentucky Portion of the Nonattainment Area
A- 4 A- 5 A- 6 F- 8 F - 21 F - 21 F - 21 F - 21 F - 22 F - 23 F - 23 F - 23 F - 23
Ohio
Kentucky
Chapter 1 Transportation Planning for the OKI Region
Ohio
Kentucky
Chapter 1 transportation planning for the oKi region

introDUCtion The region of the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI) encompasses eight counties in three states which include Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren counties in Ohio; Boone, Campbell and Kenton counties in Kentucky; and Dearborn County in Indiana (Figure 1-1). OKI administers transportation planning for all eight counties. Transportation facilities have always been important to this regions growth and prosperity. In the late 1700s, the Ohio River supported Cincinnatis emergence as the gateway to the West and a point of convergence for people and goods. Other transportation routes enter the Cincinnati basin area through the broad Mill Creek Valley to the northwest and the much narrower Duck Creek Valley to the northeast. In the 1800s, the Miami-Erie Canal and the railroad system established the region as a commercial and transportation center. Over time, the valleys continued to contain the major radial transportation routes converging on the city such as rail lines, I-75 and I-71. Today, the OKI region has an extremely diverse, well-developed transportation system for the mobility of both people and goods. This plan, the OKI 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, is a long-range strategy and capital improvement program developed to guide the effective investment of public funds in transportation facilities for the next 20 plus years.
figure 1-1 oKi region
Source: OKI. Ohio Kentucky Indiana Regional Council of Governments 2030 Regional Transportation Plan
1-1
evolUtion of the plan This plan, the OKI 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, is a 2008 update of the plan with the same title which was prepared in 2004. Under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the TwentyFirst Century (TEA-21), the update process was required three years after the plans certification and every three years thereafter. Under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the most recent federal transportation legislation, the update requirement has been extended to every four years. The 1993 and 1998 plans were significant for setting a new direction for meeting this regions transportation needs. The 1998 plan responded to ISTEA and the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. These laws expanded the scope of transportation planning beyond improving mobility to include improving air quality and addressing a host of environmental, social and financial issues affected by transportation. The successor to ISTEA, TEA-21, was enacted in 1998 and continued many of the same programs as ISTEA. Building on the previous legislation, SAFETEA-LU puts special emphasis on new plan topics. In addition to noting the changes in federal requirements made over time to the plan, it is important to identify the projects that have been completed since the 2004 update. A summary of progress made is included as Appendix A. The appendix is separated into six categories by type of project and includes bicycle projects, enhancement projects, Land Use Commission recommendations, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) projects, transit services, and corridor studies. This list illustrates the varied and numerous transportation plans and projects that affect residents, businesses and workers in the region and will impact future planning efforts. plan topiCs In concert with the directives of SAFETEA-LU, this update presents a plan to maximize the utility of the existing transportation facilities and services to reduce congestion and increase travel choices for people. Like its predecessor, the plan continues to place emphasis on community impacts and public participation. This plan also draws on a three year data acquisition effort that provides baseline data on observed travel time for significant roadways in the region and identifies locations with safety issues. This plans base year has been updated to 2005 and maintains a planning horizon of 2030. As with previous plans, this plan conforms to air quality standards and is fiscally constrained. Finally, for the first time, the plan addresses regional transportation issues related to regional transportation security and land use. Among the issues to be addressed as part of this transportation planning process are the metropolitan planning factors. The 16 planning factors in ISTEA were consolidated into seven factors in TEA-21 and are retained and expanded upon in SAFETEA-LU. Factors include supporting economic vitality, increasing safety, increasing accessibility and mobility, protecting the environment, enhancing intermodal connectivity, promoting efficiency and preserving the existing transportation system. In addition, transportation security and the connection between the infrastructure and land use are now stand alone factors as a result of SAFETEA-LU.
1-2
Ohio
Kentucky
plan reCoMMenDations The impacts of the federal directives are evident in the plans recommendations. The recommendations place emphasis on expanding modal alternatives and improving the transportation systems efficiency. More specifically, the recommendations for improving roadways are accompanied by recommendations for improving transit service; using advanced technologies to move traffic more efficiently; applying strategies to help reduce single-occupant vehicles (SOV); promoting ridesharing, bicycle and pedestrian travel; upgrading roadway operating efficiency; and further exploring options for achieving plan objectives. In addition to meeting the future travel needs created by growth and development, the plans recommendations address requirements for land use, safety, security, congestion management, fiscal constraint, special social and economic populations, and the environment with a particular emphasis on air quality conformity. To tie together local growth and development with regional transportation planning, the reciprocal impacts of land use and transportation are examined to reach continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative solutions. To reduce the risk of crashes that cause death or injuries, the plan analyzes data in order to advance projects which address the regions safety needs. To respond and recover from manmade and natural disasters, OKI utilizes the most current technology and guiding principles in assisting collaborative regional security planning. To mitigate congestion, strategies for managing travel demand are considered for their regional applicability. To address financial concerns, the plan identifies revenue sources and distinguishes between expenditures needed to maintain existing infrastructure and expenditures needed for capital and operational improvements. To secure an active and representative participation from all segments of the community and minimize the extent of adverse impacts, OKI analyzes the social, economic, and environmental effects of proposed actions taking into consideration the needs of Environmental Justice populations in its transportation planning process and decision making activities. To protect air quality, the plans recommendations are assessed to insure that future travel growth does not prevent the region from achieving air quality goals. Everyone has a role in meeting the new transportation challenges. Local governments, for example, are presented with increased opportunities to work together on multijurisdictional issues. To reduce congestion, public agencies and private employers are encouraged to take new initiatives. The public is asked to support new measures and change traditional travel behavior. This plan continues a process designed to transform the regions transportation system into one that offers a variety of modes and reduces the use SOV travel. The transportation system envisioned for this plan is an intermodal system that expands travel options and improves and maintains transportation infrastructure. Finally, improving the project delivery process must be a key goal. Developing and implementing projects more quickly will reduce project costs and provide higher user benefits. Process Used For IdentIFyIng recommended Projects To respond to the regions transportation needs and create the plans recommended multimodal improvements, OKI evaluated all proposed transportation improvement projects using an iterative quantitative and qualitative process. The starting point
Ohio
Kentucky
1-3
for this plan update was the project listing from the 2004 plan. Added to the 2004 plan list were locations identified through the Congestion Management Process and all amendments made to the plan since 2004. Amendments reflect recommendations identified by several corridor studies completed since 2004. An initial draft list was distributed to local communities with the request that they provide a local prioritization (high, medium or low) for all of the projects located within their communities. They were also asked to provide suggestions for new projects. Staff then applied the project scoring process (Appendix B) to a new list of over 500 multimodal projects. The prioritization process assigns numerical scores for 16 criteria. The criteria include the following items: safety, right of way availability, level of service, average daily traffic, facility type, urgency, feasibility, environmental justice, economic vitality, air quality impacts, local and regional priority, multimodal investments, inclusion in local and regional studies, impacts to transit operation and ridership, implementation time frames, and benefit/cost. The OKI Board of Directors and Intermodal Coordinating Committee (ICC) reviewed the listing and provided comments. The list was adjusted as necessary to produce a draft plan update project list. The draft list was presented to the public via the OKI Web site and a series of eight public open houses held in March 2008. Staff reviewed and incorporated suggestions into the list of projects. The OKI Board of Directors, the ICC and local and state agencies were once again asked for comments. Staff made modifications to the list based on all comments received to result in the final projects included in this plan. Recommended transportation improvement projects are presented in separate chapters of this plan based on these respective travel modes; roadway (Chapter 8), bus and rail transit (Chapter 9), Intelligent Transportation Systems or ITS (Chapter 10), freight (Chapter 11), bicycle and pedestrian travel (Chapter 12), and other travel mode alternatives (Chapter 13). Finally, the plan requires adoption by the OKI Board of Directors. Projects included in the plan will be eligible to advance to the TIP once a sponsor and funding is identified. goals anD objeCtives Transportation has long been a major contributor to the regions prosperity and quality of life. For individuals and businesses, the efficiency of the transportation system in moving people and goods has a direct financial impact. From a broader perspective, the transportation systems efficiency has repercussions for the entire economy. In the year 2008 and beyond, the transportation systems efficiency will become increasingly important as prosperity becomes more dependent on regional performance in a global economy. If steps are not taken to improve the regions transportation system, it will become less efficient as evidenced by more congestion, reduced opportunity for travel by different modes, and poorer connections between modes. Transportation system inefficiencies could impede economic growth and lower the regions competitive edge by adding to transportation costs and delays, and reducing travel and transport opportunities.
1-4
Ohio
Kentucky
In addition to its economic impacts, transportation also plays an important role in the quality of life. The interstate system, for example, has improved mobility at the same time that it has promoted a population and job shift from core areas to suburbs with significant social, environmental, and economic consequences. Transportation improvements will continue to affect development, travel patterns and opportunities. This plan aspires to provide transportation opportunities in an equitable manner and is developed with considerable attention to environmental justice ideals. The transportation system should be balanced so that no group or groups of people assume a disproportionate share of positive or negative impacts. This plan will evaluate the impacts of proposed transportation investments to assure that positive and negative impacts of the investments are distributed in an equitable and meaningful manner. OKI has established a set of nine goals which define how to meet this regions transportation needs both now and in the future (Figure 1-2). Each goal represents a key issue addressed and the various aspects of how each are reflected in this plan. Objectives clarify how to achieve the goals.
figure 1-2 oKi 2030 regional transportation plan goals
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Improve travel safety Improve accessibility and mobility options for people and goods Protect and enhance the environment Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system Promote efficient system management and operation Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system Support economic vitality Consider regional security Strengthen the connection between infrastructure and land use
Source: OKI
goal 1: ImProve travel saFety The transportation system should provide for reducing the risk of crashes that cause death or injuries. Chapter 5 is devoted to the topic of vehicular safety. The highest crash rate locations in the region are identified. Engineering studies are recommended for problem locations. Chapter 10 describes the integration of ITS with other agencies and systems to facilitate emergency response. Chapter 12 includes several recommendations for bicycle and pedestrian travel safety. objectives Reduce the number and severity of traffic crashes Expand the deployment of ITS to reduce crashes and improve incident response time Reduce crashes occurring during transfers between transit and pedestrian facilities Facilitate use of improved design of shared roadways to increase safety for
Ohio
Kentucky
1-5
motorists, cyclists and pedestrians goal 2: ImProve accessIbIlIty and mobIlIty oPtIons For PeoPle and goods To enable people and commodities to have greater accessibility and to be moved with greater speed and safety, major investments are needed to improve the transportation system and reduce congestion. Improvements are needed both for expanding the present system and improving its efficiency. Improvements should be sensitive to differences in development patterns and community needs with special consideration given to safe use of the transportation system by our regions older population. Chapter 4 provides demographic information to help determine future travel needs in the region, including population and household projections, anticipated age structure changes, employment projections, and commuting patterns. Chapter 8 discusses means to improve roadway travel operations, such as access management and improved signalization, thereby increasing accessibility. By enabling roadways to perform more efficiently, operational improvements increase roadway capacity, which will help reduce the need for expansion projects and help preserve and maintain the existing infrastructure. Preservation of right of ways recommended in Chapter 9 safeguards rail transit as a mobility option in the future. Chapter 11 discusses multiple freight modes and recommends continued monitoring and facilitation of freight movement efficiently throughout the region. objectives Improve the operating efficiency of existing infrastructure Expand transportation infrastructure to provide additional access and capacity for moving people and goods Reduce congestion by expanding alternatives to SOV travel and reducing peak hour travel Expand the implementation of ITS such as Advanced Regional Traffic Interactive Management and Information System (ARTIMIS) Acknowledge and incorporate the use of non-motorized travel (walking and biking) into the planning process as an alternative mode of travel and means of connecting modal options Facilitate efficient intermodal transfers for both passengers and freight goal 3: Protect and enhance the envIronment Air quality is a major environmental issue in the OKI region. Much progress has been made in reducing mobile source emissions but the impact of travel growth on total emissions could threaten the regions ability to maintain federal clean air standards. Emission reductions are needed to protect air quality. Strategies that promote the effective and efficient use of natural resources would reduce mobile source emissions and would also have a beneficial effect on other environmental issues and quality of life. Chapter 9 focuses on transit improvements including making recommendations for expansion of transit services, facilitating transit usage through technological improvements, and construction of transit hubs and park and ride lots. In addition, development of rail transit in the Eastern Corridor is recommended to reduce SOV travel, thereby reducing vehicular emissions. Chapter 12 includes planning efforts to encourage greater use of walking and bicycling, which would have the effect of conserving fuel, reducing vehicle emissions, and improving personal health. Chapter 13 provides information on current transportation systems operating in the region such as ridesharing and
1-
Ohio
Kentucky
teleworking that promote energy conservation through reducing SOV. Chapter 1 deals with transportation initiatives to improve air quality. One project highlighted in the chapter is the Regional Clean Air Program, a program committed to reducing smog in the region. This local commitment, which began in 1994, encourages voluntary efforts by individuals and businesses to reduce ozone and particulate matter pollution. objectives Reduce SOV travel Facilitate greater use of non-motorized modes (walking, biking) Promote strategies that reduce travel Reduce mobile source emissions Encourage use of alternative fuels by both individuals and transit fleets Encourage measures that reduce transportations impact on water quality and noise levels goal 4: enhance the IntegratIon and connectIvIty oF the transPortatIon system A functional transportation system is one that allows people and goods to travel efficiently between their desired destinations. Chapter 9 provides recommendations to improve the connectivity between various modes of transportation in the region. Proposed rail transit developments would integrate transit services to rail sites. Transit hubs, including the intermodal transit center in downtown Cincinnati, are facilities where transfers can be made between bus routes and proposed rail transit lines, or between different transit lines. The plan recommends the construction of 17 transit hubs in addition to the existing 40 park and ride lots that already exist in the region. Chapter 11 highlights the importance of integrating the various freight transport modes such as roadway, rail, water, air and intermodal, and recommends the continued monitoring and facilitation of the movement of freight in, around and through the region. Chapter 12 encourages the creation of linkages between roadway and transit with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. objectives Plan in such a way that the functional design of a roadway is consistent with the intended use of the roadway Optimize the surface transportation facilities access to airports, transit facilities, park and ride lots and freight intermodal facilities goal 5: Promote eFFIcIent system management and oPeratIon The Congestion Management Process (CMP) is a systematic process for managing congestion that provides information on transportation system performance and on alternative strategies for alleviating congestion and enhancing the mobility of persons and goods to levels that meet state and local needs. Chapter 7 provides information on managing congestion in the region. Chapters 8 and 13 all address different strategies for managing travel demand that focus on changing travel behavior to mitigate traffic congestion, in lieu of building infrastructure to accommodate travel needs. Chapter 8 also provides information on improving traffic operations including access management techniques that improve mobility and safety. Finally, enhancing the ITS is discussed in Chapter 10.
Ohio
Kentucky
1-7
objectives Implement techniques that improve traffic operations including access management techniques that improve mobility and safety Identify and prioritize locations that require system enhancement and/or expansion Advance the coverage area of intelligent transportation systems Identify new or expanded transit services goal 6: emPhasIze the PreservatIon oF the exIstIng transPortatIon system Financial resources are needed to maintain the regions transportation system and address its deficiencies. In light of limited federal and state resources, there is a real need to generate funds from within the region for transportation improvements. New funding sources are needed, particularly for capital formation, and strategies to use funds prudently. Each travel mode has its own chapter in this plan. Each chapter begins with a snapshot of the regions existing transportation system. In the ever-changing transportation environment, these overviews serve as a baseline to which policies, alternatives and improvements can be referenced. Chapter 8 highlights the plans effort to optimize the existing system through recommendations for applying roadway operational improvements. In addition, information on roadway expansion is provided however funding priority is given to system preservation with the allocation of a sizeable portion of available revenues to this purpose. Chapter 10 discusses expanding the use of ITS technologies to optimize the existing system. objectives Insure adequate funding to preserve and maintain the integrity of the existing transportation infrastructure Initiate efforts to establish a local revenue base to fund transportation system improvements goal 7: sUPPort economIc vItalIty The transportation network can support the economic vitality of the region by enabling global competitiveness, productivity and efficiency as shown through the plans emphasis on ideas that address this issue. Chapter 3 discusses the OKI Land Use Commissions development of policies that will promote the economic vitality of the region. Chapter 4 analyzes the regions demographic trends and notes that the population in the OKI region is projected to grow 17 percent and employment to increase 19 percent over the planning period. Chapter 8 provides a list of management strategies and technologies to deal with this growth through development and travel pattern ideas. Finally, Chapter 10 deals with expanding ITS to reduce congestion and delay. objectives Implement techniques that improve traffic operations and mobility so that travel times are reliable and the cost of doing business in the OKI region is competitive and predictable Increase the coverage area and effectiveness of ARTIMIS so that traveler information is readily available and the impacts of incidents can be minimized Increase security for travel by transit and non-motorized modes
1-8
Ohio
Kentucky
goal 8: consIder regIonal secUrIty A regional security strategy relates to sustainable prevention, detection, response and recovery efforts to protect regional transportation systems critical infrastructure from terrorism. Chapter documents actions and strategies being implemented throughout the region for strengthening regional security. objectives Facilitate implementation of Homeland Security measures to protect key regional infrastructure assets Incorporate the transit providers system security program plans into this plan and other regional transportation planning efforts Collaborate with agencies throughout the region to assist in developing security goals and appropriate strategies Utilize the most current technology and guiding principles in helping to minimize risks to regional security goal 9: strengthen the connectIon between InFrastrUctUre and land Use The Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) calls for sustained cooperation and coordination among transportation planning, land use planning, housing, capital budgeting, natural resource and economic development organizations. The transportation system, along with other infrastructure, has a significant impact on future land use, economic development, and the environment. Transportation decisions should be consistent with local land use policies, resulting in travel and land use patterns that promote multimodal travel alternatives and reduced vehicle trips. Chapter 3 discusses the SRPP and the land use-transportation connection. objectives Implement the recommendations of the SRPP Improve consistency between local land use planning and regional transportation planning Acknowledge local government comprehensive planning processes and consider local planning recommendations as part of transportation studies, transportation improvements and funding prioritization Promote regional and local land development techniques and policies that create transportation choices, and that ensure coordination between the provision of public facilities and services and land development and redevelopment sUMMarY The OKI regions transportation system is complex. It includes roads and rails, highways and bridges, transit and freight, and other alternative travel modes. Transportation options must be reliable, flexible and affordable enough to safely connect people to each other, to their workplaces, to the institutions that matter to them and to the services on which they depend. The system also must support the regions economic vitality and development demands. This plan works to address these public interests and travel demands to result in a coordinated regional roadmap for guiding transportation improvements for the next 20 years and beyond.
Ohio
Kentucky
1-9
Chapter 2 Public Participation
Ohio
Kentucky
Chapter 2 publiC partiCipatiON

iNtrODuCtiON OKI is committed to the goal of securing active and representative participation from all segments of the community in its transportation planning and decision making process. In accordance with the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) guidelines, all OKI public participation activities include an Environmental Justice (EJ) component, where appropriate, which is designed to involve EJ communities in a meaningful way. Environmental Justice communities include minority, low income, disabled and elderly population groups and zero car households. The purpose of EJ efforts is to analyze the environmental and social effects of proposed actions to ensure that these groups have adequate access to public information relatied to locally preferred alternatives developed, to provide opportunities for participation in the process and to ensure that federal funds are used fairly and without discrimination. Alternatives are reviewed in such a way that adverse impacts are minimized to every extent possible. eNvirONmeNtal JustiCe aDvisOry COmmittee aND partiCipatiON plaN In support of this public participation commitment, OKI established an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee composed of elected officials and representatives from organizations serving the elderly, disabled, low income, minority and zero car households in the tri-state region. It is OKIs mission to make every reasonable effort to include EJ considerations in all of its public participation programs. First adopted by OKIs Board of Directors in April 2003, the EJ Advisory Committee maintains an OKI Participation Plan. This stand alone plan describes the process for collecting public input on regional studies, initiatives and other OKI documents and includes: Recognizing the importance of proactive civic engagement when implementing transportation planning recommendations. Identifying impacted, as well as interested publics, with special efforts to communicate with EJ target population groups. Taking all reasonable actions to secure early participation and input from EJ target populations including tailoring public participation techniques as appropriate to the diverse needs of the public and the variety of planning elements. Making regional transportation plans and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) documents available for public viewing in advance of OKI Board of Directors meetings where these documents will be adopted. Structuring meeting formats to accommodate public commentary and scheduling meetings at convenient times in accessible places near public transportation routes when feasible. Strengthening public participation by making transportation planning information more accessible and easier to understand with the use of visualization techniques such as artist renderings, audio-visual slide/PowerPoint presentations, 3D computer imaging, traffic simulation, drawings, flowcharts, interactive geographic information systems, online surveys (Figure 2-), Web sites, maps, models, photo
Ohio
Kentucky
2-
manipulation, animation, scenario planning tools, simulated photos (Figure 2-2), sketches, videos and visual preference surveys. Publishing this plan, the TIP and other corridor or special studies documents by electronic means, including on the internet. Disseminating information using means that are appropriate to the target audiences. Evaluating public participation processes and procedures periodically so that adjustments can be made for maximum effectiveness.
Figure 2-1 OKi Online survey
SOURCE: OKI.
Figure 2-2 simulation photos
Before
Access Management Principles
After
SOURCE: OKI.
2-2
Ohio
Kentucky
The success of efforts to engage the public to participate in transportation planning efforts depends upon the methods employed to publicize opportunities for participation, access to information for education or comment, type and format of information provided, timing of participation in terms of frequency and correlation to final decision making, opportunities for dialogue and comment, consideration given to public comments and discussion, and incorporation of public participation. OKis OrgaNizatiONal struCture Independent of OKIs Participation Plan, the public is involved in decision making through provisions in OKIs organizational structure. This structure is related to OKIs establishment as a public, non-profit organization under the Ohio Revised Code. Agency structure, responsibilities and authority are described in the OKI Articles of Agreement. The structure of OKI includes four standing committees that involve public officials and others in the development of plans, programs and policy adoption. These committees are the Board of Directors, the Executive Committee, the Intermodal Coordinating Committee (ICC) and the EJ Advisory Committee. Additional opportunities for direct participation are provided by interim groups such as task forces, stakeholder groups, or subcommittees, which are established for specific purposes of short duration. As legally required, OKIs policy level committees consist of public officials that represent local governments and major transportation and planning agencies. Other public organizations as well as individual citizens also serve on these committees. The times and agendas of committee meetings are made available in advance by notification through direct mail, electronic mail and OKIs Web site (www.oki.org). All meetings are open to the public. FOCus OF partiCipatiON eFFOrts In addition to the publics participation or representation through OKIs organizational structure, opportunities for participation are provided as part of the transportation planning program. Meaningful opportunities for participation in transportation decision making are provided through the scheduled updates of the Annual Listing of Obligated Projects, the TIP, corridor or special studies, and this plan. AnnuAl listing of obligAted Projects By September 30 of each year, an Annual Listing of Obligated Projects is published on the OKI Web site in order to inform the public of projects obligated for the previous year. The annual listing specifically includes information on pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities for which federal funds have been obligated. Cost information that is shown in the listing is consistent with the funding categories identified in the TIP. This requirement in SAFETEA-LU is intended to increase the transparency of government spending on transportation projects and strategies in metropolitan areas to state and local officials and to the public at large. trAnsPortAtion imProvement ProgrAm The TIP is the short-range programming element of OKIs transportation planning process. The TIP schedules transportation projects for funding and implementation
Ohio
Kentucky
2-3
over a four year period. The opportunity for participation is provided when the TIP is updated, which is every two years. Project amendments can occur routinely in the interim between updates. corridor And sPeciAl studies Corridor and special studies focus on specific areas within the region or specific transportation issues. They are conducted for issues requiring detailed study but are not conducted on a scheduled basis. For these studies, public participation is provided primarily through a team of technical or funding partners, an advisory committee comprised of key interested parties, and the public at large. These committees help design a specific public participation process, develop study goals, identify problems and alternatives, and make recommendations to be acted upon by the OKI Board. Corridor and special studies members represent affected communities and interest groups, regional transportation organizations, and local, state, and federal transportation departments. Public participation is defined at the onset of each study and carried throughout the studys development, as well as during the process of updating or amending the plan to incorporate new recommendations. Study recommendations are reviewed and adopted by the OKI Board and incorporated into this plan. oKi 2030 regionAl trAnsPortAtion PlAn uPdAte Process This plan addresses the regions transportation needs for a minimum 20 year period. The public is provided opportunities for participation in the update of the plan, which occurs every four years. To support public participation in the plan update process, OKI has made a concentrated, ongoing effort to identify deficiencies in the existing transportation systems ability to meet year 2030 travel demand, present the range of issues and concerns to be addressed through transportation planning, introduce potential transportation improvement strategies and projects for public review and debate, provide adequate opportunities for public discussion of the plans financial implications, integrate public preferences into the transportation plan update, and consult, as appropriate, with state and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation in developing long range transportation plans. To meet these objectives, OKI applied a combination of techniques to provide information and obtain input from both transportation stakeholders and the general public (Appendix C). The key elements of the public participation program for the plan update involved OKI working with members from its standing committees throughout the process, conducting presentations to interested organizations, hosting two series of interactive public open houses, conducting two surveys and making accessible all information and data on the OKI Web site. iCC, board and executive Committee Staff presented key components of the plan update on a monthly basis to the OKI ICC and Board of Directors or Executive Committee beginning in August 2007. Written updates and information were also included in monthly mailings for these committees. presentations OKI staff took the opportunity to share information on the plan update during
2-
Ohio
Kentucky
involvement in other planning activities with jurisdictions and agencies throughout the region including the cities of Aurora, Cincinnati, Hamilton, Lebanon, Monroe, and Reading; Liberty Township; Dearborn County; Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority Board; Kentucky Transportation Cabinet District 6; Ohioans for Health, Environment and Justice; Xavier University; the Northern Kentucky Homebuilders Association; the OKI Regional Conservation Council; and, the Cincinnati Cycle Club. public Open houses Public participation included two rounds of interactive public open houses which were used to communicate with the regions residents about regional transportation issues and also issues of special concern in particular geographic areas within the region. The open houses provided participants with opportunities to obtain and review information, ask questions and express their opinions. Comments were recorded and reported to the ICC for their consideration and kept on file at OKI. Public comments included not only the statements made at the open houses, but also public comments shared with OKI via phone, email, regular mail and fax. Comments received also included those from local, regional and state transportation agencies. Public open houses were held at central locations easily accessible by EJ populations. Notice of the open houses was provided via OKIs Web site, announcements at committee meetings, during meetings of various civic groups, telephone calls, direct mailings and emails. In addition, press releases were sent to major regional media sources and minority oriented newspapers. The open house formats featured stations at which participants viewed displayed information which was most frequently presented in map form. Open house attendees talked one-on-one with staff resource people to ask questions and share input. Held in September 2007, the first round consisted of four open houses and shared information on base data and the alternatives to be considered in addressing year 2030 travel demand. Public comments from the first round of open houses related to defining what the regions existing and future transportation concerns were or would be. Public perspectives on transportation issues provided direction for the plans development. Held in March 2008, the second round consisted of eight open houses held in each of the regions counties. Public comments from the second round of open houses provided feedback to better refine the draft list of fiscally constrained plan improvement projects. These second round comments were considered in the final draft of plan projects. surveys At each of the two rounds of public open houses, participants were asked to complete a survey. The surveys sought perceptions of the overall quality of the regions transportation system, invited suggestions for specific multimodal transportation improvements and asked respondents to rate the importance of various types of transportation improvements. Space was also provided for general comments. An online survey was also available on the OKI Web site throughout the entire plan update process. Draft plan update The draft plan update was posted on the OKI Web site on April 28, 2008. The draft plan was also placed in major public libraries throughout the region and in the OKI lobby for
Ohio
Kentucky
2-
public review and comments. Copies were also distributed to the Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana departments of transportation. The draft document was shared with more than 30 other local, regional, state and federal agencies. public hearing A public hearing was held on Thursday, May 29, 2008 at :30pm in the OKI Board room. Fifty-six people were in attendance. Thirty people made oral comments and eight provided comments in writing. Both written and oral statements were accepted into the record. Statements generally covered three topic areas. First, Sierra Club members oppose roadways in general and specifically the Eastern Corridor Project. 650 postcards opposing the project were received. Second, it was voiced that rail transit would be good for the environment, create less dependence on oil, address high gas prices, retain and attract college graduates and young professionals to live and work in region, and improve health. Third, the need for bus transit to assist in mobility and access for people with disabilities and elderly also received support. The statements received were recorded, summarized, and shared with the OKI Intermodal Coordinating Committee and Board of Directors at their respective June meetings for consideration prior to plan adoption. executive summary and adoption The May 29, 2008 public hearing served as the conclusion for all public comments on the draft plan update. All final editing necessitated by public comment was made to the draft plan update. For review purposes, each ICC and Board member was provided in their June 2008 mail-out an electronic link to the executive summary, the updated draft plan, and a memorandum which summarized changes made to the plan since the April 28, 2008 Web site posting. Printed, full copies of the plan were provided to members upon request. Printed copies of the executive summary were provided to every ICC and Board member in attendance at their respective June meeting. The plan update was presented to the ICC for recommendation to the Executive Committee at their June 0, 2008 meeting. With recommendation from the ICC, a similar presentation was made to the Board of Directors at their June 2, 2008 meeting. The 2030 OKI Regional Transportation Plan 2008 Update was formally adopted by the Board of Directors on Thursday, June 2, 2008. summary The OKI Participation Plan describes in detail, the process for collecting public input on regional studies, initiatives, and other documents. The Participation Plans public involvement process has been summarized in this chapter. In addition, the public participation used during the update of this plan has been presented and shows OKIs commitment to the goal of securing active and representative participation from all segments of the community in its transportation planning process and decision making activities. Further discussion of the special EJ or social and economic considerations are presented in Chapter 6 along with the environmental factors and impacts of this plan.
2-6
Ohio
Kentucky
Chapter 3 Transportation and Land Use Planning Connectivity
Ohio
Kentucky
CHAPTER 3 Transportation and Land Use Planning Connectivity

INTRODUCTION Transportation systems and services are provided in the context of both the built environment and the natural environment. Transportation affects and is affected by patterns of economic development, housing and other infrastructure investment such as water supply, sewers and waste disposal, as well as affecting and being affected by natural features such as slopes, soils and streams. Fundamentally, the relationship between land use and transportation is reciprocal. Development patterns shape travel patterns. An automobile is necessary where subdivision design makes transit and walking a challenge and the separation of land uses in lowdensity developments makes driving a necessity. Transportation policy and projects influencing land development patterns is evidenced by commercial development stretching out along highway corridors; new subdivisions built soon after new freeway capacity opens; and high-volume franchises, gas stations and malls amassing at or near interchanges. An increase in the intensity of land use within a community typically increases the demand for transportation, and transportation facilities and services are catalysts for land development. This increased demand for adequate public facilities and services increases the demand for timely capital budgeting and construction, both in individual communities and also cumulatively in the region for planning transportation improvements. These trends and relationships have been known over the years but metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) around the country did not always address them in planning documents. A new era in federal transportation investment began with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) which mandated that MPOs maintain a continuing, comprehensive and cooperative transportation planning process, and that 6 planning factors, including land use, be considered during transportation planning. In addition, since the early 1990s, OKIs regional transportation plans have consistently estimated a shortfall of over $3 billion to meet the regions transportation needs over 30 year planning periods. The regions yardsticks of vehicle miles traveled and land consumption are also both projected to outpace population growth. These imbalances are tied to the regions land development trends. Land use decisions are made locally and they vary considerably among cities and counties. As a result, OKI, which is responsible for long range transportation planning at the regional level, often has to react to these trends instead of planning and funding transportation solutions that would come on line concurrent with the impacts of land development. DEvELOPINg THE STRATEgIC REgIONAL POLICy PLAN (SRPP) While acknowledging that OKI has no authority and seeks no authority over local land use decisions, OKIs board decided to study the complex connection between
Ohio
Kentucky
3-
transportation and how we use land for homes, businesses, parks and factories. The board agreed to work as a land use commission to bring about better coordination between local land use planning and regional transportation planning, and to develop a regional policy plan focused on a regional vision and the regions critical challenges or fundamental policy concerns. OKIs intent was to create a land use commission that represented the region geographically. It was also clear that the commissions efforts would involve many jurisdictions and organizations, and would require gathering information from the regions 190 local governments and 138 planning authorities. Since broad representation is the foundation of OKIs board, board members elected to work as the Land Use Commission. The board added other experts from throughout the region to the commission and the commission then apportioned its members among working committees dealing with land use planning and policy, environment and infrastructure, economic development and funding, and later, publicity and outreach committees. Early on, the commission adopted this mission: Through open dialogue and communication with decision makers and the public, the OKI Commission on Land Use shall develop a strategic regional plan which encourages land use patterns that promote multimodal travel and the efficient use of land, natural resources, and public facilities and services. The commission then methodically created the Strategic Regional Policy Plan by preparing detailed inventories and analyses; establishing a regional vision; identifying strategic regional issues; developing goals, objectives, and policies for the strategic issues; and seeking extensive public input. Sustained participation in the work of the Land Use Commission came from many individuals, institutions, local governments, and public and private organizations. For example, over two-thirds of OKIs board was actively involved in creating the plan. This was an unprecedented level of involvement for a multi-year effort. Several means of public participation were offered during the creation of the SRPP. Public participation was encouraged through media coverage, recruiting outreach teams with dozens of volunteers for each county, public meetings, surveys and grassroots efforts to distribute information throughout organizations and stakeholder groups in the region. Eight public forums were held during the visioning process, which were attended by 335 people who participated in extensive small group discussions and provided over ,000 written comments. As the plan neared adoption, public meetings were held in each county to get feedback on draft policies and an electronic survey about the draft policies was made available at the meetings and through OKIs Web site. Over 400 people took advantage of these opportunities to provide input and made over 500 comments about the draft policies. Several concerns and themes recurred in the comments made through the public meetings and the survey responses. These included concerns about heavy traffic congestion, the need for a public transit system to serve the entire region, interest in large-scale transit projects like light rail and the need to address the impacts of freight on the transportation system, especially truck traffic on the interstates. Other recurring themes included the need to preserve greenspace, concerns over the future adequacy
3-2
Ohio
Kentucky
of water supplies, the idea that redevelopment would solve a lot of transportation cost problems and the need to plan before growth occurs. The creation of the SRPP yielded over 200 transportation-related issues. Through the processes of visioning and public input, OKIs Land Use Commission decided that the regions expensive land use and infrastructure trends should be altered. Otherwise, if current land use trends continue, the region will need to develop an additional 24 square miles which is an area equivalent in size to that of Boone County. To alter this trend, the commission focused on the regions most critical challenges for achieving consistency between regional transportation and local land use planning so that that limited tax dollars could be stretched for maximum benefit. Twenty-eight strategic regional issues were identified as the regions critical challenges or fundamental policy concerns. For each strategic issue, an analysis of trends and conditions was conducted. Then, the board created sets of goals, objectives and policies. The final draft of the SRPP incorporates all the phases of the Land Use Commissions work, including its mission and vision. Its strategic regional issues; trends and conditions statements; goals, objectives and policies were assembled into six general categories: transportation, public facilities and services, natural systems, housing, economic development and land use. TRANSPORTATION IN CONTExT The Strategic Regional Policy Plan addresses transportation or a relationship to transportation demand and needs in all six of its topical areas. The SRPP encourages land use patterns that promote multimodal travel and the efficient use of land, natural resources and public facilities and services. Land development and most economic development projects depend on the availability and adequacy of different types of public facilities and service. Transportation improvements, water capacity improveents, sewer capacity improvements, storm water management, greenspaces and school capacities all have an impact on a communitys ability to accommodate land use changes. The timing, location and cost of water, sewer and road facilities can have a significant impact on land use patterns; and the density and intensity of land development is influenced by the availability and adequacy of these public facilities and services. Land use changes, in turn, create a greater or lesser need for roads and public transit. The long-term viability of the OKI region is tied to the quality of our interdependent natural resources and open spaces. New buildings, public utilities and roads have an impact on individual resources and broader natural systems. Natural systems contribute significant value to the region, including enhanced quality of life, economic vitality, physical attractiveness, and higher property values. The quality and quantity of natural systems such as streams and plentiful, clean groundwater supplies can encourage development, creating additional transportation demand. Community decisions about development locations or densities can also be based on the desire to maintain sensitive natural features and greenspace. Housing availability and affordability has a direct relationship to quality of life and helps to drive commuting patterns and travel choices. The location and density of housing affects not only transportation systems but also other infrastructure such as sewer
Ohio
Kentucky
3-3
and water lines and public services such as emergency response and school systems. Conversely, the availability and affordability of housing is affected by public facilities and services such as school systems, police and fire protection, economic development and the transportation system. Transportation investments influence economic growth. Successful economic development such as business retention and recruitment can generate demand for capital investments in new or upgraded public facilities and services; economic development efforts are more fruitful when businesses know that adequate public facilities and services are in place when they need them. Economic development helps to shape areas that may become centers of employment, which in turn helps to determine commuting patterns. Underlying all these issues, and especially transportation, is land use. Land use is the relationship of the built environment to mobility and travel demand. Transportation is one factor that influences land use, but it is an essential part of local and regional infrastructure. In turn, transportation system efficiency can be improved using techniques such as multimodal options and access management coupled with compact, efficient development patterns. OKIs regional transportation plan has promoted the expansion of public transit service for years and the SRPP promotes multiple modes of transit service and transit-friendly development. The 2005 federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) recognizes these interrelationships by adding several requirements to the process of regional transportation planning. SAFETEALU requirements include: consultation with state and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation in developing regional transportation plans; promoting consistency between transportation improvements and state and local planned growth and economic development patterns; a process that provides for effective management of congestion; and, considering potential mitigation activities to reduce impacts to the environment associated with the implementation of a regional transportation plan. Many of the new themes addressed in SAFETEA-LU were already being addressed in the SRPP and will be further addressed as the SRPP and this regional transportation plan are implemented. The main goal of the SRPP, bringing about consistency between regional transportation planning and local land use planning and decision making, is very similar to SAFETEA-LU requirements. A variety of stakeholders were consulted during the creation of the SRPP. The results of consultations undertaken as the SRPP was developed and as it is being implemented are hereby incorporated into this regional transportation plan. ImPLEmENTINg THE STRATEgIC REgIONAL POLICy PLAN The SRPP is being implemented through voluntary cooperation among local governments, OKI and many other organizations, and will consequently come to fruition in phases ranging from the near term to the very long term. OKIs board agreed to implement the SRPP in three phases; a near-term phase of
3-4
Ohio
Kentucky
approximately three years following plan adoption, a mid-term phase of three to five years following plan adoption and a long-term phase of five to 10 years following plan adoption. The near-term phase of plan adoption focuses on those policies that continue or extend existing activity, that help build momentum, and for which some level of communication and interaction was already occurring among potential implementers. In addition, policies from each of the SRPPs six topic categories are involved to demonstrate commitment to the strategic plan as a whole. Consultations OKI will pursue the SRPPs policies for transportation, but implementation of many others is up to the affected jurisdictions and other organizations on a voluntary basis. For that reason, OKI is continuing to build relationships and consultation that were key to developing the SRPP and that will be essential for implementing it. The types of groups that are or will be consulted include state and federal regulatory agencies; state and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection and conservation agencies; local planning and major economic development agencies; and, local agencies that promote transit and alternatives to the single-occupant automobile. For example, in developing the SRPPs transportation section, OKI consulted with transportation professionals from state agencies and transit authorities in addition to OKIs own staff. This consultation will continue as both long and short-term transportation planning occurs. In developing the SRPPs public facilities and services section, OKI consulted with peer reviewers from large and small water and wastewater utilities. Consultation with these utilities continues through OKIs Groundwater Committee, interaction with wastewater providers on planning issues under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act and tracking the growth of water and sewer systems to help identify where new development may increase the need for transportation system improvements. In developing the SRPPs natural systems section, OKI consulted peer reviewers from academia, watershed groups and local government environmental compliance staff. This consultation continues as OKI conducts transportation corridor studies and provides technical assistance for source water protection and watershed groups. In developing the SRPPs housing section, OKI consulted peer reviewers from the Home Builders Association, a major developer, an organization serving the homeless, a county board of education and a city planning commission. Additional consultation will occur as OKI surveys local governments and school districts to determine their degree of interaction on planning, development, neighborhood and public safety issues. In developing the SRPPs economic development section, OKI consulted peer reviewers from county and metropolitan chambers of commerce, commercial banking and a state development agency. Additional consultation will occur with both local and regional level economic development organizations about the ways in which local governments can support efforts to grow businesses and provide adequate public facilities. In developing the SRPPs land use section, OKI conferred with peer reviewers from planning agencies at both the county and city levels, and this consultation is ongoing as OKI develops planning tools and practical technical assistance.
Ohio
Kentucky
3-5
ConsistenCy One way the SRPP and this regional transportation plan strive to improve consistency with planned growth and development patterns is to encourage better comprehensive planning at the local level. When local governments base their future land use and transportation needs on sound data and analyses and better understand the implications of alternative development patterns, OKI is able to be more proactive when planning for transportation improvements on the regional scale. In an effort to stay informed about local planned growth and development patterns, OKI will also update the composite existing land use and existing zoning maps that were created as part of the SRPP, as well as keep track of local government comprehensive plans throughout the region. Perhaps most significantly, OKI has revisited the prioritization process for regional transportation investments. A total of 00 points maximum can be awarded when transportation projects are evaluated and scored. Of these 00 points, 40 points are related to criteria specific to either roadway or transit projects that help to indicate the regional need, efficiency, safety and access associated with the project. An additional 60 points of the total 00 are related to criteria that apply to all projects. The criteria that apply to all projects include: environmental justice, economic vitality, air quality/energy, multimodal/intermodal considerations, status in a corridor study or comprehensive plan, relative priority to affected communities and relative benefit/cost ratio. For all transportation projects, up to five points can be awarded for positive impacts on environmental justice communities. Up to five points can also be awarded for projects that serve to support existing, expanding or new non-retail employment centers. Up to 0 points can be awarded for projects that have positive impacts on air quality and energy use. Up to 10 points can be awarded for projects that include or enhance more than one mode of transportation or specifically address freight needs. Up to 10 points can be awarded for projects that have been identified as high priority through a formal corridor study or comprehensive planning process. Up to 10 points can be awarded for projects because of their relative priority with affected communities. Up to 10 points can be awarded for projects depending on their relative cost/benefit. OKI will continue to encourage local planners to engage in proactive planning processes and to make the transportation elements of their local comprehensive plans consistent with the regional transportation plan and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). PubliC Costs and FisCal imPaCts Another aspect of promoting consistency between planned transportation improvements and local growth patterns is to look at the likely public costs and fiscal impacts of proposed economic development on public infrastructure and public services. Decisions on land development, redevelopment and improvements to public facilities and services should be made with a clear understanding of their fiscal impacts to individual communities and the region. It is most economical to provide adequate public facilities and services concurrent with the impacts of development. Retrofitting adequate public facilities and services in response to growth is typically more expensive than directing or managing growth with
3-6
Ohio
Kentucky
public investments. The tri-states trend is that limited transportation resources are spread ever more thinly across the region. In response, the SRPP addresses the need for communities to have a full understanding of the public costs and benefits associated with development proposals. In the first phase of SRPP implementation, OKI is evaluating models for calculating the public costs and benefits associated with new development for potential use at the regional and local level. A fiscal impact analysis model that can be adapted to the tristate region and made widely available is being investigated. A fiscal impact analysis estimates the impact of a development project or alternative land use scenarios on a local government budget by comparing the difference between revenues and expenditures generated by the proposed or hypothetical development. Communities can use this tool as part of their local land use planning and development decision making processes. Congestion management Implementing the SRPP is also helping OKI to address the SAFETEA-LU requirement for a process that provides for effective management of congestion. OKIs Congestion Management Process includes evaluating and promoting travel demand management strategies such as parking management, trip reduction programs and growth management. OKI has worked with peer reviewers and local planning agencies in every county to create and disseminate several related planning tools as part of SRPP implementation. These tools and techniques promote reduction in vehicle miles traveled, reduction in single-occupant vehicle trips and travel demand management through such measures as; encouraging street and parking networks designed for pedestrians, the disabled, bicyclists, transit and automobiles; supporting compact, pedestrian, bicycle and transitfriendly land uses, where appropriate; encouraging local comprehensive plans to support a mix of land uses, higher density development, infill development and nonmotorized connections, where appropriate; and, promoting the use of local strategies for connectivity and access management. environmental mitigation Another SRPP policy initiative is to identify greenspace stakeholders and successful strategies for maintaining greenspace in the tri-state region. This is a process which involves a comprehensive look at natural systems and how they are valued by local communities. This policy initiative should also be helpful to the SAFETEA-LU task of considering environmental mitigation activities to avoid or reduce any impacts associated with implementing the regional transportation plan. OKIs key constituents are local governments, therefore many of the policy initiatives from the SRPP involve determining how local land use and transportation planning efforts can achieve goals of economic development and redevelopment, maintaining or improving environmental quality and managing limited public facility and service budgets. ADAPTINg TO CHANgE As the SRPP is implemented, OKIs consultation with many constituencies and organizations in the tri-state region should result in more informed transportation planning. The policy plan itself is intended to be a dynamic document. It should evolve
Ohio
Kentucky
3-
as the tri-state continues to grow, and it will be regularly evaluated and updated at the same times that updates to the regional transportation plan occur. As the SRPP is implemented, it should achieve the following effects; moving the region toward realizing a common vision, especially as the vision relates to linking land use and transportation planning; encouraging land use patterns that promote multimodal travel and the efficient uses of land, natural resources and public facilities and services; focusing on high priority, strategic issues facing the region over a 20-year horizon; bringing about consistency between the regional transportation plan and local land use policies; providing a framework to link the planning and implementation activities of various entities; providing a framework to tie planning to capital budgeting; providing a basis for OKIs decisions regarding transportation projects; emphasizing consensus and coordination between local governments, regional entities, state and federal agencies and the public; and, serving as a key resource for community education efforts on issues related to growth and development, transportation and a host of other interrelated topics. Planning and imPlementation The classic first-level planning tool is the local comprehensive plan, which should address all aspects of land development, including traffic circulation, bicycle and pedestrian access, economic development, public facilities, housing, natural resources, recreation, intergovernmental coordination and capital budgeting. Comprehensive plans are treated differently by state laws in Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana. Ohio law mandates a comprehensive plan as a prerequisite to zoning and subdivision regulation but provides no requirements or guidance as to content or updates. Kentucky law requires a regularly updated comprehensive plan as a prerequisite to zoning and subdivision regulation, and includes detailed guidelines for comprehensive plan preparation. Indiana law permits comprehensive planning and provides a list of what may be included in the plan. Comprehensive plans should be implemented through local regulations and incentives, such as zoning and subdivision regulations, that are consistent with such comprehensive plans. In the OKI region, however, local governments commonly evaluate and accommodate growth only through zoning and subdivision regulations, which are narrowly focused on individual parcels, rather than on comprehensive plans, which address the timing, location and cost of land development. Many local governments in the region have adopted effective planning and capital budgeting principles; however, those efforts are so fragmented that they do not effectively implement regional long range transportation recommendations. Local land use and transportation techniques, implemented concurrently and focusing on moving people, moving fewer people fewer miles and improving travel quality can benefit the regions transportation system. Three objectives for managing travel demand are to reduce the number of single-occupant vehicle trips, to reduce trip lengths and to increase modal choice. There are many land use planning and development strategies that can be applied locally to achieve these objectives. diversity and destinations Focusing economic development in areas where residential growth is occurring can help
3-8
Ohio
Kentucky
create land use diversity and provide more options for people to work close to where they live. Mixed use developments at the corridor level can reduce commute times by shortening the distance that people have to drive to get to the store or work. Providing non-motorized connections with a mix of land uses and higher density development can reduce single-occupant vehicle trips. More people may choose to walk or ride a bike these shorter distances; however, facilities that accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists must be in place. Compact nodes of mixed use can also generate centers of development that can be linked by convenient transit service. Mixed use centers of integrated office, retail, residential, and civic uses of a scale appropriate to their surroundings can concentrate uses in a manner that supports walking, biking, public transit and automobiles. density Newer residential development in the region is generally characterized by one-half to one acre lots in cul-de-sac type subdivisions. This is the case in all parts of the region where relatively large tracts of vacant land have been available. New business development in the region also has a tendency to occur on vacant land on the fringe of the urbanized areas. Higher densities in growing and infill areas can make transit more feasible by creating destinations and concentrated populations that may choose to use transit as an alternative to single-occupant automobile trips. Transit development plans can facilitate the design of a system that incorporates multiple modes of transit service, links stations/ stops and adjacent land uses, and integrates station/stops into neighborhoods. The recommendations of transit development plans typically focus on the desired outcomes of transit-friendly development, including accessibility, walkability, and interconnectivity and high levels of ridership. design Suburban businesses throughout the region are typically automobile oriented and have large parking areas in front of the building. They are designed for the automobile, not the pedestrian. Communities that are attractive to pedestrians and bicyclists and functional for transit use can influence travel behavior. Design elements that facilitate walking and biking can reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and increase modal choice. The placement of buildings, parking, landscaping, lighting, architecture details, and bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities can reduce the visual scale of larger buildings, provide interest at the pedestrian level, and create an atmosphere that encourages multimodal transportation. distanCe People make travel route decisions based on three factors: distance, time and personal preference. Generally speaking, people will choose the shortest route in terms of distance; however, if the shortest route has a low speed limit, multiple traffic signals and curb cuts, people will take a longer route because it will save them time. In the OKI region, many people have a tendency to use the interstates for short trips because it saves them time. Providing efficient alternate routes can influence travel behavior.
Ohio
Kentucky
3-9
The curvilinear cul-de-sac street pattern typical of recent subdivision design in the OKI region usually has very long blocks and many dead end streets. This pattern offers few route options since all traffic is typically funneled out onto a small number of arterial roads which can cause congestion. Connectivity involves a system of streets providing multiple routes and connections to the same origins and destinations. Improving street connectivity by providing parallel routes and cross connections, and a small number of closed end streets can reduce traffic on arterial streets and reduce travel time. Neighborhoods should be linked by a network of interconnected streets and walkways as part of a larger system that provides safe motorized and non-motorized access to homes, businesses, schools, recreation facilities and services, and other destinations. These networks, designed to keep local traffic off major arterials and high-speed, through-traffic off local streets, can reduce congestion and travel time. Interconnected streets incorporating traffic calming techniques, streetscape elements and other pedestrian oriented design can also create safe and more direct routes for travel by walking and biking and reduce single-occupant vehicle trips. These relationships are seen throughout the Strategic Regional Policy Plan and will be incorporated into this regional transportation plan as well. Due to the inseparable connection between transportation and land use, the role of the OKI board in developing the SRPP and federal requirements; previous versions of OKIs regional transportation plan included several references and recommendations that anticipated the adoption of the SRPP. Specifically, one objective in a previous transportation plan was to incorporate the recommendations of OKIs Land Use Commission into the transportation planning process. Accordingly, this regional transportation plan hereby incorporates, by reference, the Strategic Regional Policy Plan as adopted in 2005. (A full copy of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan is available at OKI offices or at www.oki.org.) SUmmARy Land development and most economic development projects depend on the availability and adequacy of transportation and other public facilities and services. Transportation improvements, water capacity improvements, sewer capacity improvements, storm water management, greenspaces, and school capacities all have an impact on a communitys ability to accommodate land use changes. The timing, location and cost of water, sewer and road facilities can have a significant impact on land use patterns; and the density and intensity of land development is influenced by the availability and adequacy of these public facilities and services. Land use changes, in turn, create a greater or lesser need for roads and public transit. OKIs Strategic Regional Policy Plan encourages land use patterns that promote multimodal travel and the efficient use of land, natural resources, and public facilities and services.
3-0
Ohio
Kentucky
Chapter 4 Demographic Overview of the Region
Ohio
Kentucky
CHAPTER 4 DEmogRAPHiC ovERviEw of THE REgion

inTRoDUCTion The purpose of this chapter is to present existing and projected demographic conditions for the region. By illustrating the different residential and employment development patterns, the OKI region can better understand transportation needs and plan for adequate public facilities and services. Areas of the region exhibiting different population and employment characteristics have different transportation needs. There are multiple transportation options to serve the development patterns that exist in the region. By responding to distinctive transportation needs in differently developed areas, this plan strives to improve mobility throughout the region. PoPUlATion CHAngE County level population projections developed by the Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana state data centers are mandated for use in OKIs transportation planning efforts. Based on these projections, the OKI regions population is expected to surpass the two million mark by 200. Over the 2005 to 2030 planning period, the population of the eightcounty region is expected to grow 7 percent, from .9 million to 2.3 million (Figures 4- and 4-2).
figure 4-1 Population by County, 2005-2030 2010 367,660 202,830 807,560 25,020 2,99 9,30 54,572 50,855 2,0,546 2005 350,880 90,230 825,70 84,20 02,97 87,58 52,240 48,872 ,94,857 2020 403,860 225,340 77,540 276,250 58,03 00,67 63,04 53,305 2,5,489 2030 439,740 245,000 730,570 338,350 88,652 08,024 69,402 54,339 2,274,077
Butler Clermont Hamilton Warren Boone Campbell Kenton Dearborn OKI Region
SOURCE: 2005-2030 projections by the Ohio Department of Development (2003 Edition), Kentucky State Data Center (2004 Edition) and Indiana Business Research Center (2003 Edition).
figure 4-2 Population Change by County, 2005-2030 2005-2030 Actual Change 88,860 54,770 -95,40 54,40 86,455 20,506 7,62 5,467 332,220 Percent Change 25.3% 28.8% -.5% 83.7% 84.6% 23.4% .3% .2% 7.% Percent Share of Regional Population 2005 2030 8.% 9.3% 9.8% 0.8% 42.5% 32.% 9.5% 4.9% 5.3% 8.3% 4.5% 4.8% 7.8% 7.4% 2.5% 2.4% 00.0% 00.0%
SOURCE: Figure 4- Population by County, 2005-2030.
Ohio
Kentucky
4-
As the Cincinnati metropolitan area has expanded over the years, growth has radiated through Hamilton County into the surrounding counties. In fact, Warren and Boone counties have been and are predicted to continue to be among the fastest growing counties in their respective states. Population is also projected to increase in the remaining counties over the 25 year planning period, with the exception of Hamilton County. This central county lost population during the last three decades of the 20th century, a trend that is expected to continue during the first three decades of the 21st century. As the largest county, Hamilton is expected to have a decreasing share of the regions population (a projected drop from 43 percent in 2005 to 32 percent in 2030) but nonetheless continue to have at least 66 percent more people than any of the other counties. Between 2005 and 2030, the OKI region is projected to experience a rate of growth higher than two (Ohio and Indiana) of the three states in which its counties are located. In comparison to other major metropolitan areas in these states, growth in the OKI region shows mixed results (Figure 4-3). Its projected 7 percent growth during the planning period approximates that of the Cleveland and Louisville metropolitan areas. However, the Columbus, Lexington and Indianapolis growth rates are expected to be seven to 3 percentage points higher than the OKI regions. The Dayton metropolitan area, to the immediate north of the OKI region, is projected to lose population over the planning period.
figure 4-3 Population Trends for Selected metropolitan Areas and States 2005 OKI Region Cleveland MSA Columbus MSA Dayton MSA Lexington MSA Louisville MSA Indianapolis MSA Ohio Kentucky Indiana ,94,857 ,847,850 ,708,40 844,060 428,576 ,20,65 ,642,8 ,50,80 4,65,84 6,245,43 2010 2,0,546 2,29,850 ,806,740 839,835 454,092 ,245,9 ,747,97 ,666,854 4,326,490 6,47,98 2020 2,5,489 2,32,686 2,007,7 837,227 506,234 ,328,993 ,909,867 2,005,733 4,660,703 6,743,728 2030 2,274,077 2,34,859 2,222,499 836,234 545,363 ,394,26 2,029,329 2,37,63 4,92,62 7,024,457 2005-2030 Percent Change Actual 7.% 332,220 5.5% 30.% -0.9% 27.3% 6.% 23.6% 7.% 7.9% 2.5% 287,009 54,089 -7,826 6,787 93,05 387,48 86,433 746,807 779,044
SOURCE: 2005-2030 projections by the Ohio Department of Development (2003 Edition), Kentucky State Data Center (2004 Edition), Indiana State Data Center (2003 Edition).
HoUSEHolD CHAngE In addition to population, household change is also a strong indicator of transportation needs. Between 2005 and 2030, households are expected to increase by 2 percent or nearly 59,000 in the OKI region. Based on a long-term trend toward smaller household size, households are projected to continue to grow faster than population in all of the OKI counties experiencing population growth (Figures 4-4 and 4-5).
4-2
Ohio
Kentucky
figure 4-4 Households by County, 20052030 Butler Clermont Hamilton Warren Boone Campbell Kenton Dearborn OKI Region 2005 30,874 7,599 352,583 65,758 38,260 35,954 6,346 8,225 774,599 2010 40,32 78,396 339,042 77,886 46,409 36,56 6,593 9,672 799.646 2020 56,290 89,434 332,62 02,326 62,389 4,462 68,066 2,63 873,760 2030 70,46 98,40 39,37 26,76 76,555 46,4 72,987 22,857 933,228
SOURCE: 2005-2030 projections derived by OKI from population projections for corresponding counties.
figure 4-5 Household Change by County, 2005-2030 Percent Share of Regional Households 2005 6.9% 9.2% 45.5% 8.5% 4.9% 4.6% 7.9% 2.4% 00.0% Percent Share of Regional Households2030 8.3% 0.5% 34.2% 3.6% 8.2% 4.9% 7.8% 2.4% 00.0%
2005-2030 Actual Change 39,587 26,54 -33,22 60,958 38,295 0,87 ,64 4,632 58,629
2005-2030 Percent Change 30.2% 37.% -9.4% 92.7% 00.% 28.3% 9.0% 25.4% 20.5%
SOURCE: Figure 4-4 Households by County, 2005-2030.
As with population, the greatest household growth will be found in Warren and Boone counties where the number of households is expected to double during the planning period (Figure 4-6). In contrast, Hamilton County is projected to lose households due to the continued loss of population, aging of remaining population and redevelopment (resulting in lower density housing).
Ohio
Kentucky
4-3
figure 4-6 Household Change, 2005-2030
SOURCE: Figure 4-5 Household Change by County, 2005-2030.
THE CHAnging AgE STRUCTURE Populations effects on transportation needs and travel patterns are indicated not only by geographic distribution and household trends, but also by age structure.
Table 4-7 Age Composition for the oKi Region, 2005 and 2030 2005 2030 0-19 28.5% 26.2% 20-34 20.4% 9.3% 35-44 5.2% 3.7% 45-64 24.4% 23.8% 65+ .4% 7.0% Total Population 00% 00%
SOURCE: 2005-2030 projections by the Ohio Department of Development (2003 Edition), Kentucky State Data Center (2004
4-4
Ohio
Kentucky
Edition) and Indiana Business Research Center (2003 Edition).
figure 4-8 Age Composition for the oKi Region, 2005 and 2030
2005 2030
30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0-19 20-34 35-44

Age Cohorts
45-64
65+
SOURCE: Figure 4-7 Age Composition for the OKI Region, 2005 and 2030.
The percent of population in the younger age groups will be lower and the percent in the oldest age cohort will be higher in 2030 than 2005 (Figures 4-7 and 4-8). Among the changes in the populations age composition, the most significant is the aging of the Baby Boom cohort, born between 946 and 964. In the 950s and 960s, the large number of children in this age group created a need to expand schools and housing. As this generation reached adulthood and flooded the labor force, it caused high unemployment in the 970s and 980s and significant out-migration from Cincinnatis saturated industrial-based economy. As this generation established its own households, it triggered a second wave of suburban development that is expected to continue through the planning period. As the front end of the baby boom generation begins to reach age 65 in 200, growth in the elderly population becomes significant for its travel implications. This age sector is projected to grow from percent of the regions population in 2005 to 7 percent in 2030. While the proportion of the population in their retirement years will be increasing during the planning period, the proportion of this age group that drives will increase even faster. As todays population ages, the elderly of the future will be almost universally licensed to drive, accustomed to driving on a nearly daily basis and concentrated in suburban areas that are auto-dependent. The elderly will continue to drive as long as they are physically or legally able. As the over 65 age sector grows, safety will become increasingly important as a mobility issue. As people age, a number of the physical capabilities needed for safe vehicle operation gradually decline. These physical factors include depth perception, visual acuity, peripheral vision, glare tolerance, reaction time and hearing. Upon becoming
Ohio
Kentucky
4-5
aware that these capabilities are impaired, elderly drivers generally compensate by driving less and avoiding night driving, inclement weather and peak traffic periods. Nonetheless, there will be a greater need to improve the legibility of highway signs, upgrade lane widths and otherwise improve driving conditions. To insure mobility for the elderly in suburban settings, there will be an increased need for attractive alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. In addition to mobility issues, the increased size of the elderly population will affect travel patterns by its withdrawal from the labor force and entry into retirement. There will be fewer commute trips and a higher proportion of trips will be made for shopping, personal, social, recreational and medical purposes. For the elderly, driving will become less frequent and trips will shift from major highways to local streets in urban areas. HoUSing DEnSiTy Housing density, the number of dwelling units per acre, impacts the transportation needs of those dwelling units residents. Within the OKI region, housing densities vary considerably. Furthermore, these densities are projected to continue to change over the planning period. Currently, an analysis of households per acre by traffic analysis zone indicates that the majority of the acreage in the OKI region is categorized at a density of one dwelling unit (du) per five acres or less (Figures 4-9 and 4-10). These low densities are occurring in the regions rural and developing areas. The largest number of households and population in the region is located in areas with a density ranging from two to four dwelling units per acre. This category encompasses over 70,000 acres and holds almost 200,000 households and over 450,000 people. Comparing the number of acres to the number of households shows how development has occurred over time at decreasing densities as it has extended further from the regions center (Figure 4-4). For example, the higher densities of the regions urban areas encompass much less acreage (just over 28,000) and contain over 57,000 households, averaging 6.49 dwelling units per acre. Conversely, more recently developed areas encompass more than four times as much acreage (just over 20,000) and contain just slightly more households (approximately 70,000), resulting in an average household density of .45 dwelling units per acre.
figure 4-9 Household Density by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ), 2005 Household Density < 1 du per 5 acres < 1 du per acre 1-2 du per acre 2-4 du per acre >4 du per acre Total
SOURCE: OKI.
number of TAZs 425 395 282 288 28 608
Acreage
,42,460 325,758 20,697 7,360 28,445 ,688,720
Average Household Density 0.07 0.59 .45 2.86 6.49
number of Households 79,68 68,590 7,420 97,484 57,260 774,435
Population
29,9 453,548 437,706 458,032 326,406 ,895,603
4-6
Ohio
Kentucky
figure 4-10 Household Distribution, 2005-2030

2005 Households 300
Households (in Thousands)
2030 Households
250 200 150 100 50 0 < 1 du per 5 acres < 1 du per acre 1-2 du per acre 2-4 du per acre >4 du per acre Density Range (Dwelling Units(du) per Acre)
SOURCE: Figures 4-9 and 4-12 Household Density by Traffic Analysis Zone, 2005.
figure 4-11 Household Density, 2005
SOURCE: Table 4-9 Household Density by Traffic Analysis Zone, 2005.
Ohio
Kentucky
4-7
Projections for 2030 indicate that the number of households in the region will increase by approximately 20 percent (Figure 4-2). The majority of the acreage in the region will still have a density of less than one dwelling unit per five acres. While the highest number of households in 2005 was in areas with a density of two to four dwelling units per acre, in 2030 the highest number of households will be in areas with one to two dwelling units per acre with an average density of .48 dwelling units per acre. Also, the number of people in areas with higher density (more than four dwelling units per acre) will decrease by almost 00,000 people, resulting in an average density of 6.86 dwelling units per acre.
figure 4-12 Household Density by Traffic Analysis Zone, 2030 Household Density < 1 du per 5 acres < 1 du per acre 1-2 du per acre 2-4 du per acre >4 du per acre Total
SOURCE: OKI.
number of TAZs 345 396 357 34 69 ,608
Acreage
958,470 433,025 87,288 90,5 9,786 ,688,720
Average Household Density 0.7 0.80 .48 2.88 6.86
number of Households 8,787 227,733 263,880 250,238 09,590 933,228
Population
20,808 583,364 660,47 555,036 24,59 2,223,874
Increasing household densities are projected for portions of every county in the region except Hamilton County (Figure 4-3). However, over the 25 year planning period, average household densities in these areas will be no higher than two dwelling units per acre.
4-8
Ohio
Kentucky
figure 4-13 Household Density, 2030
SOURCE: Figure 4-13 Household Density by Traffic Analysis Zone, 2030.
The percent of total households is projected to change slightly in each category from 2005 to 2030 (Figure 4-). In 2005, the highest percentage of households is found in the two to four dwelling units per acre category. However, in 2030 the highest percentage is projected to be in the one to two dwelling units per acre category. Another dramatic change over the 25 year period is projected to occur in the four or more dwelling units per acre category. In 2005, 20 percent of the households in the region were in this category, but in 2030 only about 2 percent are anticipated to be in this category.
Ohio
Kentucky
4-9
figure 4-14 Growth and Household Density, 2005 and 2030 Percent of Total Households 2005 2030 0.3% 8.8% 2.8% 24.4% 22.% 28.3% 25.5% 26.8% 20.3% .7% 00.0% 00.0% Percent of Total Population 2005 .6% 23.9% 23.% 24.2% 7.2% 00.0% 2030 9.5% 26.2% 29.7% 25.0% 9.6% 00%
Household Density < 1 du per 5 acres < 1 du per acre 1-2 du per acre 2-4 du per acre >4 du per acre Total
SOURCE: OKI.
Areas of the region exhibiting different population and household characteristics have different transportation opportunities and challenges. Densities and development patterns in the regions downtown areas and the suburban areas immediately adjacent are suited for facilitating the use of public transit, bicycling and pedestrian activity. Further, infill development complements the available transportation infrastructure. Issues in downtowns and first suburbs include preservation and maintenance of existing facilities and corridors, right of way concerns for expansion of the roadway system, providing context sensitive design alternatives and adequate provision for parking. Developed suburban and developing rural areas face a different set of transportation issues. Low-density development does not facilitate efficient public transit systems and transit service is often inconvenient to potential riders. In addition, the trend toward lower densities predicted for the OKI region over the planning period will result in new infrastructure that serves fewer people which, in turn, increases per capita construction and maintenance costs. However, in developing areas, there is the opportunity for inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in transportation systems. Providing connectivity, ensuring that adequate infrastructure is in place at the time development occurs and planning for access management are topics to consider when determining transportation systems for areas that are planned for development. Rural areas of the region also have distinct transportation needs. Pavement management, bridge replacement and scenic byway preservation may be primary concerns in rural areas. Preservation of right of way and access management for future development may be planning topics of interest for rural areas. EmPloymEnT CHAngE Employment patterns affect the number, length and distribution of trips. Although work trips comprise only one-fifth of the regions total person trips, they create the greatest demand on the transportation system because of their morning and afternoon peak time periods. Currently, one-half of the regions population is employed. Employment as a percent of population in the OKI region is expected to hover around the 50 percent mark throughout the planning period. For years, the regions employment grew much more rapidly than its population as the
4-0
Ohio
Kentucky
baby boom generation reached working age and raised the proportion of the population absorbed into the labor force, and, in recent decades, as a greater proportion of women entered the labor force. During the planning period, the regional employment growth rate will decelerate, reflective of a slowing in the regions population growth rate, stabilization of womens labor force participation rates and retirement of the baby boomers. In 2030, the regions employment level is projected to be 9 percent above its 2005 level, which represents an addition of approximately 83,000 jobs (Figures 40 and 4-).
figure 4-15 Employment by County of work, 2005-2030 Butler Clermont Hamilton Warren Boone Campbell Kenton Dearborn OKI Region 2005 36,356 55,255 525,864 7,853 76,692 27,689 60,933 4,843 969,485 2010 44,309 58,092 536,38 77,969 8,208 28,768 64,538 4,86 ,006,064 2020 60,26 63,767 557,226 90,202 90,24 30,926 7,748 4,897 ,079,223 2030 76,22 69,44 578,35 02,434 99,274 33,084 78,958 4,934 ,52,382
SOURCE: 2005 derived by OKI from ES202 data and other sources. 200-2030 projections derived by OKI from projected population and age-specific labor force participation rates adjusted for commuting into and out of the region.
figure 4-16 Employment Change by County, 2005-2030 Actual Change 2005-2030 39,766 4,86 52,27 30,58 22,582 5,395 8,025 9 82,897 Percent Change 2005-2030 29.2% 25.7% 9.9% 42.6% 29.4% 9.5% 29.6% 0.6% 8.9% Percent Share of Regional Employment 2005 2030 4.% 5.3% 5.7% 6.0% 54.2% 50.2% 7.4% 8.9% 7.9% 8.6% 2.9% 2.9% 6.3% 6.9% .5% .3% 00.0% 00.0%
SOURCE: 2005-2030 projections by the Ohio Department of Development (2003 Edition), Kentucky State Data Center (2004 Edition) and Indiana Business Research Center (2003 Edition).
The slowing growth of the labor force and employment causes some uncertainty about the future. Unlike what happens in an economic downturn and restructuring, the loss of workers in this case does not in itself represent a loss of jobs. On both regional and national levels, the aging of the workforce is actually likely to cause a shortage of workers. This shortage may be offset by increased in-migration in response to employment opportunities or by an influx of workers drawn out of retirement or drawn from other members of the labor force not currently employed. On the other hand, there may not
Ohio
Kentucky
4-
be a worker shortage if automation achieves new increases in productivity. In regard to its distribution, employment growth is expected to follow the suburbanizing pattern of the population, as it has in recent decades. Most of the regions counties are projected to continue to increase their shares of the regions employment while Hamilton Countys share is projected to decrease (Figure 4-6). Regardless of shifts occurring in the region, Hamilton County is still expected to account for half of all of the regions jobs in 2030. The highest number of new jobs is expected to be in Butler and Hamilton counties, but the urban core (the cities of Cincinnati, Covington and Newport) is expected to remain a strong employment center as a result of economic development efforts (Figure 4-7).
figure 4-17 Employment Change, 2005-2030
SOURCE: Figure 4-6 Employment Change by County, 2005-2030.
4-2
Ohio
Kentucky
CommUTing PATTERnS Historically, workers within the eight counties of the OKI region have exhibited varying intra- and inter-county commuting patterns. In 970, 60 to 90 percent of Butler, Hamilton and Dearborn county workers were employed within their county of residence compared to no more than 39 percent of workers in the other counties. By 2000, however, only in Hamilton County did the vast majority (84 percent) of workers work within their home county. In the other seven counties, no more than 56 percent of workers lived and worked in the same county (Figures 4-8 and 4-9).
figure 4-18 intra- and inter-County Commuting by number of workers, 1970-2000
from County of Residence Butler Clermont Hamilton Warren Boone Campbell Kenton Dearborn OKI Region
To County of work Same County 970

58,359 8,786 308,96 9,778 4,099 0,830 8,44 6,32 425,386
Different County 2000

90,48 35,454 336,246 29,470 23,589 5,474 30,77 9,508 570,993
Total 2000
69,833 52,98 62,29 47,078 20,98 27,346 45,398 3,203 338,93
980
7,075 7,752 346,950 5,454 9,806 3,2 22,773 7,848 504,770
990
79,2 27,257 356,399 9,789 4,02 4,36 28,6 7,336 546,922
970
22,530 23,296 34,724 9,558 7,679 20,083 28,604 4,02 60,486
980
33,45 35,07 24,723 24,387 0,02 9,824 34,573 5,604 87,654
990
55,533 44,9 43,007 34,287 4,42 24,77 39,797 9,972 265,844
970
80,889 32,082 343,685 29,336 ,778 30,93 47,045 0,44 585,872
980
04,526 52,823 37,673 39,84 9,827 32,936 57,346 3,452 692,424
990
7,376 54,076 28,54 39,033 68,408 7,308
2000
88,372 76,548 44,507 42,820 76,69 22,7
34,645 60,34 399,406 398,465
82,766 909,906
SOURCE: 970-2000 County to County Work Flows, Number of Workers by County of Residence by County of Work, Census of Population, U.S. Census Bureau.
figure 4-19 intra- and inter-County Commuting by Percent of workers, 1970-2000

from County of Residence Butler Clermont Hamilton Warren Boone Campbell Kenton Dearborn OKI Region 970 72.% 27.4% 89.9% 33.3% 34.8% 35.0% 39.2% 60.4% 72.6% Same County 980 68.0% 33.6% 93.3% 38.8% 49.5% 39.8% 39.7% 58.3% 72.9% 990 58.8% 38.2% 89.2% 36.6% 49.5% 36.7% 4.8% 42.4% 67.3% 2000 56.4% 40.% 84.4% 38.5% 53.0% 36.% 40.4% 4.9% 62.8% 970 27.9% 72.6% 0.% 66.7% 65.2% 65.0% 60.8% 39.6% 27.4% To County of work Different County 980 32.0% 66.4% 6.7% 6.2% 50.5% 60.2% 60.3% 4.7% 27.% 990 4.2% 6.8% 0.8% 63.4% 50.5% 63.3% 58.2% 57.6% 32.7% 2000 43.6% 59.9% 5.6% 6.5% 47.0% 63.9% 59.6% 58.% 37.2%
SOURCE: Figure 4-8 Intra- and Inter-County Commuting by Number of Workers, 970-2000.
Within the Ohio counties of the OKI region, the percent of intra-county commutes decreased in Hamilton and Butler counties between 970 and 2000. In contrast, the percent of workers working in their county of residence increased in Warren and Clermont counties during the same time period (Figure 4-20).
Ohio
Kentucky
4-3
figure 4-20 ohio County workers Commuting within County of Residence, 1970-2000
00% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 970 980 990 2000
SOURCE: Figure 4-9 Intra- and Inter-County Commuting by Percent of Workers, 970-2000.
Butler Clermont Hamilton Warren
In the Kentucky and Indiana counties, the percent of workers living and working in the same county increased sharply in Boone County from 970 to 980, decreased precipitously in Dearborn County between 980 and 990 and remained about the same in Kenton and Campbell counties throughout the 30 year period (Figure 4-2).
figure 4-21 Kentucky and indiana County workers Commuting within County of Residence, 1970-2000
65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 970 980 990 2000 Boone Campbell Kenton Dearborn
SOURCE: Figure 4-9 Intra- and Inter-County Commuting by Percent of Workers, 970-2000.
The most current commuting patterns data available for every county in the OKI region is for the year 2000. In 2000, inter-county commuting patterns showed that
4-4
Ohio
Kentucky
55 percent of the regional workforce was employed in Hamilton County, of which 32 percent commuted from other OKI counties. With the exception of Clermont County, the greatest number of workers is employed within their county of residence and the second largest number is employed in Hamilton County. In Clermont County, more workers commuted to Hamilton County than stayed in their home county. All of the counties except Butler, Hamilton and Boone exported more than half of their workforce. In Warren County, the influence of the Dayton metropolitan area is evidenced by the 20 percent of the countys workers who worked outside the region. Dearborn County showed a similar relationship with Batesville, Indiana (Figures 4-22 and 4-23).
figure 4-22 inter-County Commuting by number of workers, 2000
from County of Residence Butler Clermont Hamilton Warren Boone Campbell Kenton Dearborn OKI Total Butler 90,48 2,92 8,452 8,586 64 652 908 750 23,382 Clermont Hamilton ,072 35,454 8,240 ,448 350 579 76 64 47,968 47,984 40,090 336,246 2,347 8,35 4,946 20,200 7,672 496,836 To County of work Warren ,33 3,269 9,303 29,470 242 322 297 97 54,33 Boone 857 ,422 6,505 337 23,589 4,062 7,053 ,466 55,29 Campbell 38 744 2,739 70 ,50 5,474 3,92 35 24,55 Kenton 696 ,630 7,937 249 8,220 5,782 30,77 459 55,744 Dearborn 63 54 ,335 5 350 56 244 9,508 ,85 In Region 52,704 85,675 390,757 6,52 42,893 4,873 74,55 20,5 869,720 Out of Region 7,60 2,697 7,708 5,036 ,64 947 2,04 2,560 40,86 Total 60,34 88,372 398,465 76,548 44,507 42,820 76,69 22,7 909,906
SOURCE: 2000 County to County Work Flows, Number of Workers by County of Residence by County of Work, Census of Population, U.S. Census Bureau. Table excludes workers commuting into the region from outside.
figure 4-23 inter-County Commuting by Percent of workers, 2000

from County of Residence Butler Clermont Hamilton Warren Boone Campbell Kenton Dearborn OKI Total 56.4% 3.3% 4.6% .2% .4% .5% .2% 3.3% 3.6% 0.7% 40.% 2.% .9% 0.8% .4% .0% 0.3% 5.3% To County of work Butler Clermont Hamilton Warren 29.9% 45.4% 84.4% 27.9% 8.8% 34.9% 26.5% 33.8% 54.6% 6.9% 3.7% 2.3% 38.5% 0.5% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 5.9% Boone 0.5% .6% .6% 0.4% 53.0% 9.5% 22.4% 6.5% 6.% Campbell Kenton 0.2% 0.8% 0.7% 0.% 2.6% 36.% 5.% 0.6% 2.7% 0.4% .8% 2.0% 0.3% 8.5% 3.5% 40.4% 2.0% 6.% 0.% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.8% 0.% 0.3% 4.9% .3% In Region 95.3% 96.9% 98.% 80.4% 96.4% 97.8% 97.4% 88.7% 95.6% Out of Region 4.7% 3.% .9% 9.6% 3.6% 2.2% 2.6% .3% 4.4% Total 00.0% 00.0% 00.0% 00.0% 00.0% 00.0% 00.0% 00.0% 00.0%
SOURCE: Figure 4-22 Inter-County Commuting by Number of Workers, 2000.
Commuters within the OKI region exhibit very different behaviors in their journey-towork patterns. Data from Census 2000 provides insight into the differing modes of transportation to work utilized by the Black population, Hispanic population, persons with disabilities and those in poverty (Figure 4-24).
Ohio
Kentucky
4-5
figure 4-24 Commute Transportation mode

Drove Alone
100% 90% 80%
2-Person Carpool 4% 13%
Bus 7% 4%
Bicycle or Walked 11% 10%
Other 4% 6% 13%
3% 3% 10%
13%
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Total Population African American Population
23% 17%
84% 68% 66% 60%
76%
Hispanic Population
Low Income
People with Disabilities
Source: Census 2000, Census of Population, U.S. Census Bureau. Note: No usable data is available about commuters from zero-car households.
Whereas 84 percent of the total population of the OKI region drove alone to work, only two-thirds or less of the Black, Hispanic and poverty populations did so. In contrast, over three-fourths of the population with disabilities commuted solo. The Hispanic population was most likely to carpool whereas the Black population was the highest population utilizing transit. Those living in poverty walked or biked to work with the greatest frequency, followed by the Hispanic population. SUmmARy Like many urban centers around the country, the Cincinnati region is experiencing growth outside the central city and county. This growth in population and employment outside Hamilton County is predicted to continue, causing increasing infrastructure needs in the outlying counties. However, as this chapter has presented, Hamilton County will remain the leader in population and employment into the year 2030, thereby having its own share of significant travel needs.
4-6
Ohio
Kentucky
Chapter 5 Safety
Ohio
Kentucky
CHAPTER 5 SAfETy
INTRODUCTION In the United States someone dies every 2 minutes in a motor vehicle crash. During 2006, the latest year for which data is available, traffic crashes claimed the lives of over 42,600 people nationwide. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that the total cost of crashes exceeds $230 billion annually. The NHTSA also states that motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for persons of every age from two through 34 years old. Clearly, traffic crashes are a significant concern. One of the primary goals of this plan is to improve travel safety by reducing the risk of crashes that cause death or injuries. REGIONAL CRASH DATA Within the OKI region over 68,000 crashes occurred in 2006, claiming 66 lives and causing over 4,000 injuries.
figure 5-1 Crashes By Type By County, 2006 County Butler Clermont Hamilton Warren Boone Campbell Kenton Dearborn OKI Region Total 9,953 5,654 33,538 5,06 3,953 2,847 5,62 ,979 68,606 Fatal 35 5 59 0 7 7 3 0 66 Injury 2,640 ,508 6,52 ,208 700 428 873 32 4,90 Property Damage Only 7,95 4,088 26,722 3,809 3,236 2,42 4,735 ,648 53,845 Unknown 83 43 245 34 0 0 0 0 405
SOURCE: Ohio Traffic Safety Facts 2006; Kentucky Traffic Collision Facts 2006 Report; Indiana Traffic Safety Facts County Profiles 2006.
COORDINATION WITH STATEWIDE PLANS To reach this plans safety goals, OKI will coordinate fully with the individual states and local communities in its planning area. In compliance with requirements from the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU), Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana have developed State Highway Safety Plans. Within those plans are long-range goals for reducing fatalities. The State of Indianas goal is to reduce traffic crash fatalities to .98 per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (HMVMT) in 2008 and .92 HMVMT in 2010. The Commonwealth of Kentuckys overall goal is to reduce the number of highway fatalities to no more than 700 by December 3, 2008. The State of Ohios goal is to reduce the rate of fatalities in Ohio to no more than .0 fatality per 00 million vehicle miles traveled by 2008. To achieve these goals, each state has identified focus areas in its Highway Safety Plan. Ohio, Kentucky and Indianas focus areas all include a component related to improving the quality of crash data.
Ohio
Kentucky
5-
Each state also has a Five Percent Plan as mandated by SAFETEA-LU. These Five Percent Plans identify the most severe highway safety needs statewide. Each state developed its own unique methodology for identifying its Five Percent locations. Within the OKI region, there are seven locations identified by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), all in Hamilton County, and 16 roadways identified by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet as highway segments exhibiting the most severe safety needs in their respective Five Percent Plans for 2007 (Figures 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 and 5-5). No locations in Dearborn County, Indiana were among the most severe safety needs in that states 2007 Five Percent report.
figure 5-2 Ohio five Percent Locations
Map Reference A B C D E F G
Route I-75 I-75 SR 264 US 27 US 27 US 27 US 42
From Clifton Avenue Linn Street Karen Avenue Cosby Street Kirby Avenue Dorchester Avenue
To Butler County Line Pedestrian overpass south of I-74 West Eighth Street Madison Road .3 mi. south of Raeburn Avondale Avenue
.25 mi. south of Raeburn Cincinnati corporate limit
Source: Federal Highway Administration Ohio 2007 Five Percent Report.
figure 5-3 Kentucky five Percent Locations
Map Reference A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
Route I-7 I-75 KY 8 KY 237 KY 842 US 25 US 42 KY 8 KY 9 US 27 I-275 I-75 KY 6 KY 7 KY 77 US 25
From Boone County line Kenton County line (N) KY 338 KY 8 Boone County line Boone County line (N) Boone County line Kenton County line KY 8 Ohio River Boone County line Ohio River KY 7 Ohio River KY 6 Kenton County line (N)
To I-75 Kenton County line (south) KY 07 KY 536 US 25 Boone County line (south) US 25 Campbell County line Campbell County line Campbell County line Campbell County line Kenton County line Kenton County line Kenton County line Kenton County line Kenton County line (S)
Source: Federal Highway Administration Kentucky 2007 Five Percent Report.
5-2
Ohio
Kentucky
figure 5-4 Ohio Highest Crash Rate and five Percent Locations
SOURCE: OKI.
Ohio
Kentucky
5-3
figure 5-5 Kentucky Highest Crash Rate and five Percent Locations
SOURCE: OKI.
5-4
Ohio
Kentucky
figure 5-6 Indiana Highest Crash Rate Locations
SOURCE: OKI.
Ohio
Kentucky
5-5
OKI is contributing to the fulfillment of each states safety goals by analyzing crash data on roadways within the agencys tri-state planning area. These analyses result in the identification of locations where safety needs are greatest in the OKI region. Within this chapter are the results of analysis of on system or interstate, state and federal roadways. OKI is currently engaged in analyzing data and identifying locations of safety interest on the off system or county and local roadways for ODOT. Another example of OKIs commitment to statewide coordination occurred in the summer of 2006. At the request of ODOT, OKI held a safety conscious planning workshop. The workshop was a key component in ODOTs safety planning process and furthered the interagency consultation efforts to implement projects and programs. Through such participation efforts, OKI ensured outreach to and input from local and regional safety stakeholders including, but not limited to transit providers, elected officials and staff from departments of environmental services, police, fire, emergency services and planning. CRASH TRENDS AND LOCATIONS The first step in improving travel safety is determining where most crashes occur so that safety improvements for those areas can be explored. While implementing state and local governmental agencies are responsible for determining engineering improvements to the roadway system, OKI assists in identifying high risk locations. In the OKI region, in the five year period spanning 2002 to 2006, there were 829 fatal crashes on roadways in Ohio and Kentucky. Beyond the potential individual devastation wrought by crashes, the costs of such incidents impact every person in the OKI region. These costs are felt by an incremental loss in productivity due to non-recurring congestion, actual property damage costs and monetary costs associated with medical expenses, increased insurance premiums and legal fees. Improving travel safety will have positive impacts for every person in the region. In an examination of crash trends, most high crash concentrations occur at the busiest intersections in the region (Figure 5-7). In most cases, the use of crash rates which are expressed as the number of crashes per million vehicle miles is a better measure of the safety condition of the roadway because it takes into account traffic volume. An examination of crash rates by roadway segment can further reveals crash trends in the region (Figures 5-8, 5-9 and 5-10).
5-6
Ohio
Kentucky
figure 5-7 Crash Concentrations in the OKI Region
SOURCE: OKI.
Ohio
Kentucky
5-7
figure 5-8 Crash Rates By Roadway Segments, Ohio
SOURCE: OKI.
5-8
Ohio
Kentucky
figure 5-9 Crash Rates By Roadway Segments, Kentucky
SOURCE: OKI.
Ohio
Kentucky
5-9
figure 5-10 Crash Rates By Roadway Segments, Indiana
SOURCE: OKI.
Within Ohio, several of the highest crash rate locations are along SR 264 (segments 3, 4, 5 and 10 on Figure 5-4) and two of those (segments 3 and 4) coincide with one of the states Five Percent locations (segment C on Figure 5-4). Within Kentucky, nearly all of the highest crash rate segments are clustered in the northern, urban areas of Kenton and Campbell counties. The majority of those sites are also identified as Five Percent locations by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Areas where the Five Percent and highest crash rate locations overlap are of particular significance because they have surfaced as safety concerns by separate agencies using different methodologies. Addressing safety concerns at these locations should be considered when roadway improvements are being planned. In addition, they may serve as candidates for individual future safety studies.
5-0
Ohio
Kentucky
figure 5-11 Ten Highest Crash Rate Locations in OKI Ohio Counties* Map Reference 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Route Intersection US 22 SR 264 SR 264 SR 264 SR 56 US 22 US 22 US 22 SR 264 From Broadway Central Avenue Peerless Street Peerless Street Brater Avenue Wall Street Hewitt Avenue Elwynne Drive Hewitt Avenue South Road To Pete Rose Way Eggleston Avenue River Road Kreis Lane Kreis Lane Observatory Avenue Elm Avenue Kugler Mill Road Morris Street Race Road Crash Rate (million vehicle miles) 25.58 2.20 9.94 9.73 7.82 6.9 5.3 5.20 4.97 4.54
SOURCE: Ohio Department of Transportation. *All locations are in Hamilton County
figure 5-12 Ten Highest Crash Rate Locations in OKI Kentucky Counties Map Reference 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 County Kenton Kenton Kenton Campbell Kenton Boone Campbell Kenton Campbell Campbell Route KY 7 KY 8 US 25 US 27 KY 7 KY 536 US 27 KY 20 KY 20 KY 8 From East Fifth Street Western Avenue Third Street Seventh Street 6 Street
th
To 6th Street Madison Avenue Western Ave. 9th Street Castle Court Toebben Drive East Seventh Street Wheeler Street Hamlet Street Monmouth Street
Crash Rate (million vehicle miles) 4.74 34.77 25.70 25.46 20.36 8.43 7.56 6.93 5.36 3.88
I-75 Ohio River I-75 Licking River Licking River
SOURCE: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet.
Ohio
Kentucky
5-
figure 5-13 Ten Highest Crash Rate Locations in Dearborn County, Indiana Map Reference 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Route SR 350 US 50 SR 350 SR 56 US 50 SR 350 US 50 US 52 SR 56 US 50 From Green Boulevard Importing Street East Main Street Green Boulevard Bielby Road Hogan Road Belleview Drive SR 46 Judiciary Street Manchester Landing Street To 73 feet west Exporting Street Hogan Hill Road George Street Main Street Green Blvd. Main Street East US 52 ramps Fifth Street George Street Crash Rate (million vehicle miles) 38.92 29.23 23.9 20.4 3.58 9.96 8.6 7.77 7.54 7.39
SOURCE: Indiana Department of Transportation.
SUMMARy Crashes are a significant issue for transportation planning due to their impact on the individuals involved as well as the economic impacts on the entire OKI region. Research into the locations where crashes are occurring at a greater rate than the norm can lead to improvement in safety for the traveling public. Moreover, interagency consultation and cooperation result in advancement of projects which address the regions safety needs.
5-2
Ohio
Kentucky
Chapter 6 Regional Security
Ohio
Kentucky
Chapter 6 reGIONaL SeCUrItY

INtrODUCtION The events of September , 200 changed how transportation systems are viewed. While transportation facilities can be potential targets of terrorist actions; more importantly, this infrastructure is vital to the response and recovery of manmade and natural disasters. The Emergency Evacuation Report Card 2006, compiled from research findings by the American Highway Users Alliance, ranks Cincinnatis evacuation capacity as sixth best out of the 37 largest U.S. urban areas with more than one million in population. There has been a great deal accomplished regarding the deployment of Homeland Defense strategies throughout the tri-state region. A number of organizations and agencies have developed effective planning documents and initiated response steps in the event of an unthinkable emergency. This chapter addresses the concept of projects and strategies identified to increase security in the OKI region. reGIONaL hOmeLaND SeCUrItY COOrDINatING COmmIttee In 2004, OKI created a regional committee comprised of regional first responders and others to assess the regions needs and identify areas of concern. The Security Coordinating Committee worked collaboratively with local emergency management agencies, first responders and other interested parties in identifying regional issues that hindered the planning process. OKI also identified how various design elements could be incorporated into transportation systems to address homeland security issues such as access for emergency vehicles and shoulder widths which are critical elements for consideration when developing future transportation projects. Planning PreParedness Project In fall 2004, a survey of incident first responders and support responders in the OKI region helped to identify weaknesses and security action items in the tri-state area. The key findings that follow were based on 92 survey responses from throughout the region. A full report of the surveys results can be viewed at www.oki.org under Homeland Defense. Survey responders rated the regions capabilities to handle a Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) incident as about average. Fifty-three percent said the region was most capable of planning for a WMD incident. However, 71 percent of responders said the region was least capable of preventing a WMD incident. More than two-thirds of survey respondents said that upwards of 75 percent of funding for homeland security actions should come from the state or federal level. In addition, 29 percent of responders said that all funding for homeland security should come from the state or federal level. Responders said the regions greatest problem is communication between agencies and between agencies and the state and region. Responders believed that although
Ohio
Kentucky
6-
localities and agencies have planned and prepared, poor communication and lack of coordination regionally could lead to poor response and recovery in the case of a WMD emergency. Further, responders said the greatest obstacles that prevent improvement to the regions capabilities are inter-agency issues, specifically lack of coordination among agencies and interoperability. Sixty-five percent of responders said the most important solution to current obstacles would be to create a regional strategy. reGIONaL hOmeLaND SeCUrItY For several years, work has been underway to broaden emergency planning and response efforts. Different groups have been formed and meet to address regional issues associated with homeland security. southwestern ohio, southeastern indiana and northern KentucKy From the original 2003 Urban Area Security Initiative definition of the region which defined the Urban Area as Cincinnati/Hamilton County, representatives from the City of Cincinnati and Hamilton County reached out in early 2005 to the other counties surrounding this initially defined urban area. These counties now represent the new urban area, identified as southwestern Ohio, southeastern Indiana and northern Kentucky (SOSINK). The area includes eight counties in Ohio (Adams, Brown, Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton, Highland and Warren); three in northern Kentucky (Boone, Campbell and Kenton); and one in southeastern Indiana (Dearborn). The entire 120 member SOSINK committee meets on a quarterly basis. A SOSINK steering committee, representing the 2 counties and various disciplines responsible for the prevention, protection, response and recovery from weapons of mass destruction and natural incidents, was formed to oversee all committee efforts and guide the process for the region. The SOSINK steering committee meets monthly at a minimum and more frequently as needed to address regional planning needs or issues. The SOSINK steering committee includes the core city and core county point of contacts and representative membership as follows. Each county is guaranteed one representative on SOSINK to be chosen from their respective County Terrorism Preparedness Advisory Committee which comprises the initial 2 members. Each 00,000 of population in the individual county is given one additional representative for that county, which adds approximately 18 additional members to the SOSINK steering committee. Finally, regional memberships were included from Ohio Emergency Management Agency (EMA) Region 6 Coordinator, the American Red Cross, Northern Kentucky Regional EMA Coordinator, Southeastern Indiana Regional EMA Coordinator, and The Greater Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Hospital Council. Additional collaboration includes being one of the first regions to form a successful regional terrorism early warning group. There is a regional health council, representing all the hospitals in the tri-state area, a regional Red Cross Chapter and Regional Medical Response System. The continuation of these regional efforts through the formation of the SOSINK will enhance all these efforts, as well as assist in the planning and response capabilities for the entire tri-state.
6-2
Ohio
Kentucky
regional incident ManageMent tasK Force Interstate incidents are a major source of congestion, and congestion is a major transportation problem that contributes to travel delay, transportation costs and air pollution. The Regional Incident Management Task Force was created by OKI to expedite incident clearance on the regions freeways through collaboration between regional private and public agencies (Figure 6-1). Task Force meeting agendas regularly include the following items for regional discussion: Advanced Regional Traffic Interactive Management and Information System (ARTIMIS), training initiatives, national incident management system, incident management review of interstate closures and construction update.
Figure 6-1 regional Incident management task Force Name Andy Reser Andy Fluegemann Jim Brannon Jim Buckson Mike Snowden Chief Keith Hill Fire Chief John Vail Chief Bill Dorsey Gary Miller Lt. Col Rob Ruthe Ken Knipper Ed Burk Charles Perry Mark Ihrig Jerry Lautz Greg Wenz Mike Baily Major Jack Prindle Captain Phil Liles Captain Chris Miller Abell Fuller Chris Robertson Lt. Tim Chesser Lt. Christopher Rose Lt. Jeffrey W. Greene Lt. Michael Asbrock
Ohio
agency Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments Ohio Department of Transportation, ARTIMIS - Project Manager Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, District 6 Federal Highway Administration, Mobility/Traffic Operations Engineer Hamilton County Homeland Security Director Campbell County Police Department Evendale Fire Department, Hamilton County Fire Chiefs Association Kenton County Police, Northern Kentucky Police Chiefs Association Red Cross Boone County Sheriffs Office Campbell County Office of Emergency Management Kenton County Homeland Security Emergency Management Greater Cincinnati HazMat, Unit Director Boone County EMA, Deputy Director Greater Cincinnati Metro Response System Southwest Ohio Regional Coordinator Hamilton County Communications Operations Manager Hamilton County Communications Boone County Sheriffs Office Newport Police Department Cincinnati Fire Department Ohio Department of Transportation County Manager Ohio Department of Public Safety, Law Enforcement Liaison Florence Police Department U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Safety Detachment Ohio State Highway Patrol, Assistant District Commander Ohio State Highway Patrol
Indiana Regional Council of Governments 2030 Regional Transportation Plan
Captain Robert Taylor Blue Ash Fire Department
Kentucky
6-3
Lt. Robert Hungler Mark R. Policinski Regina Fauver Will Carroll Sgt. Walt Bally Sgt. Tom Butler Sgt. Barry Walker Sgt. Tom Stein Sgt. Earl Warman David Hersch Jeff Ventre Barry Whitton
SOURCE: OKI.
Cincinnati Police Department Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments ARTIMIS Freeway Service Patrol Coordinator Hamilton County Sheriffs Office Hamilton County Sheriffs Office Traffic Unit Commander Westchester Police Department Traffic Unit Norwood Police Department Norwood Police Department Salvation Army Disaster Services City of Cincinnati, Department of Traffic Engineering Cincinnati Police Communications
greater cincinnati geograPhic inForMation systeMs (gis) users grouP The Greater Cincinnati Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Users Group convenes across state, county and city boundaries to learn from one another and consider opportunities for collaboration to benefit the region. The group is currently discussing a coordinated regional approach to the design and development of a common GIS database, data dictionary and data standards which would promote the flow of information and data sharing across the region. This regional GIS database could also be utilized in the response to any number of security issues facing the region by local emergency agencies, all working from the same base of updated geographic information. eMergency PreParedness collaborative The Emergency Preparedness Collaborative (EPC) is a grassroots network of agencies and professionals that are working together to foster the development of best practices such as plans, systems and resources that will assist vulnerable populations in preparing and responding to emergencies in the greater Cincinnati area. As an active member in the EPC, OKI also participates in the EPCs transportation work group. One of OKIs roles in the collaborative is to assist in the identification areas with high concentrations of vulnerable populations. To accomplish this task, OKI uses many of the same census data variables that it uses in the identification of its environmental justice populations. With a regional street network and routing capabilities, OKI is also prepared to assist with the development of evacuation plans in the event that members of a particular population group need to be evacuated. reGIONaL traNSIt SeCUrItY StrateGY A regional transit security strategy is an overarching strategy for the region with mode specific goals and objectives as they relate to prevention, detection, response and recovery as a sustainable effort to protect regional transit systems critical infrastructure from terrorism. An emphasis is placed on explosives and non-conventional threats that would cause major loss of life and severe disruption, as required by the Department of Homeland Security.
6-
Ohio
Kentucky
southwest ohio regional transit authority The Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) administers Metro, the public transit service for the greater Cincinnati area. Metro has an approved System Security and Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP). Current security measures taken by Metro include on bus video cameras, emergency call buttons and global positioning system (GPS) automated locator devices. Security measures also include random on board police checks. Metros facilities are secured and monitored electronically. transit authority oF northern KentucKy The Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky (TANK) has an EPP that was completed in 2003. The EPP established by TANK includes a communications checklist, media process, alternative vehicle and fuel storage locations, and finance and administrative procedures. The EPP is updated periodically with contact information and any changes necessitated by TANKs involvement with other regional emergency planning partners. The next scheduled update of the EPP is in 2008. In addition, TANK works closely with local law enforcement, SORTA, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) and the Northern Kentucky Emergency Planning Committee to play a significant role in protecting against, responding to, and recovering from major events. Most of TANKs fleet is equipped with multiple on board security cameras and every TANK vehicle is tracked by a GPS based vehicle location system. TANK is also in the process of securing the TANK administrative and dispatch facility with a controlled access security system. reGIONaL pLaNNING eLemeNtS CONSIDereD FOr pOteNtIaL appLICatION OKI has completed a number of regional and sub-regional plans or studies. Many of these documents include security related recommendations for future implementation. Although the initial intent of these recommendations may have been to address congestion or travel time, taken in a broader context, these elements could also assist in increasing the regions security through improved transportation networks. The text that follows provides a sampling of such recommendations and references the plan or study from which it was drawn. This information is presented for consideration and further application to benefit the security of the entire OKI region. intelligent transPortation systeM (its) OKIs Regional Intelligent Transportation System Plan (ITS Plan) and ITS Architecture was adopted in March 2008. The purpose is to guide OKI, its member transportation agencies and local governments in the planning, programming and implementation of integrated multimodal ITS elements over a 0 year period. The most extensive system of advanced ITS technologies in the OKI region is ARTIMIS. Through the teamwork of OKI, KYTC, ODOT, and local governments, ARTIMIS was designed to provide consolidated traffic management without regard to state and political boundaries. The system covers more than 100 miles of the regions freeway system with the heaviest traffic. More extensive project recommendations involving ITS can be found in Chapter 0 of this document.
Ohio
Kentucky
6-5
traFFic caMera systeM Discussion of a traffic camera system was well documented in OKIs 2005 Dixie Highway Corridor Study. The addition of a camera system to a closed loop system can assist the security of the region in a number of ways. Such a system can reduce vehicular delays by enabling traffic signals to be adjusted from a secure, remote location should an evacuation or mass volume of traffic be necessary. Cameras could enable traffic problems and system malfunctions to be identified or tampering detected and managed from a centralized signal management center. The location of the management center would not be limited geographically due to the ability of the camera feed to be viewed from any location. Images from the camera have the ability to be broadcast over the internet to reach and inform thousands of citizens. With real time video, information could be viewed and shared immediately, thereby keeping communication clear and accurate. artImIS interconnection This type of camera setup would be useful for the ARTIMIS interconnection as well. If tied into the ARTIMIS system, traffic operators could respond quickly and efficiently once a problem is verified. In turn, operators would be able to identify accidents and alert drivers via radio (530 AM), phone (511), the internet (www.artimis.org) or the Dynamic Message Signs. Once a problem is resolved, any timing changes and signal systems can be returned to normal operation. eMergency PreeMPtion Emergency preemption is being discussed throughout the OKI region and has been documented in such projects as the Western Hamilton County Transportation Study and the Dixie Highway Corridor Study. The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2003 Edition, issued by the Federal Highway Administration, defines preemption control as The transfer of normal operation of a traffic control signal to a special control mode of operation. Preemption devices can be provided for any type of vehicle that requires the immediate right of way at an intersection. Some types of vehicles supersede others when a traffic control signal responds to more than one type or class. In general, a vehicle that is more difficult to control supersedes a vehicle that is easier to control. This order is typically as follows: trains, boats, heavy vehicles (fire vehicles, emergency medical service), light vehicles (law enforcement), light rail transit and rubber-tired transit. Therefore, based on this definition, emergency preemption is the transfer of normal operation of a traffic control signal to provide right of way to emergency vehicles. Currently, two types of emergency vehicle detection technologies are available. One type uses sonic sensors to detect standard emergency vehicle sirens. The second detects light from a special emitter mounted on authorized emergency vehicles. The sonic sensors are often used by communities where outer suburban district emergency vehicles pass through. In the OKI region, emergency preemption has been supported by local elected officials, staff and police, fire and emergency medical service (EMS) operators. Stakeholders view preemption as a means of improving response time of emergency personnel and safety at intersections. A Hamilton County study of Colerain Avenue showed that with the use of emergency preemption, EMS travel time could be reduced by as much as 22
6-6
Ohio
Kentucky
percent. In emergency situations, this amount of time savings could literally mean the difference between life and death. hazardous and risK Materials In order to take a more proactive approach in terms of the transport of hazardous materials, several locations in the OKI region are restricted to such cargoes. Alternate routes are provided and must be used. Re-routing of hazardous rail and highway shipments from densely urban areas reduces the opportunity for chemical disaster risks whether accident or terrorism to occur. SUmmarY The risk of terrorist activities and other security hazards remain a consideration in the lives of all Americans. OKI has and will continue to collaborate with a variety of entities to utilize the most current technology and guiding principles in helping to minimize the possibility of these dangers.
Ohio
Kentucky
6-
Chapter 7 Congestion Management
Ohio
Kentucky
CHAPTER 7 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION Congestion is the level at which transportation system performance is no longer acceptable due to traffic interference. The level of acceptable system performance will vary by type of transportation facility, location within the region and time of day. The level of acceptable system performance depends upon transportation and development goals for the region and reflects public perception of traffic interference. There are two types of congestion recurring and non-recurring. Recurring congestion stems from the travel demand exceeding roadway capacity, which is most common during the peak morning and evening commuting periods. Non-recurring congestion is due to incidents such as accidents, disabled vehicles, load spills or inclement weather. OKIs Congestion Management Process (CMP) addresses the problem of recurring congestion. Federal transportation regulations require a CMP in metropolitan areas. The CMP shall provide for safe and effective integrated management and operation of the multimodal transportation system and result in performance measures and strategies that can be reflected in the metropolitan transportation plan. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) studies suggest that non-recurring congestion constitutes about 55 percent of daily congestion in most metropolitan areas. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), such as the regions Advanced Regional Traffic Interactive Management and Information System (ARTIMIS), have been shown to be effective in reducing non-recurring congestion. Details on ITS can be found in Chapter 10. OKI VERSUS OTHER METROPOLITAN AREAS Congestion in the OKI region can be viewed in a national context to see how the region stands in comparison to other major U.S. metropolitan areas. The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) has been documenting the growth of congestion levels in 68 of the nations urban areas since the 1980s. Their mission has been to document mobility trends and highlight numerous issues associated with roadway congestion. In their most recent report, TTI used data from federal, state and local agencies to develop estimates of mobility levels in the urban areas. TTI primarily used the FHWAs Performance Monitoring System database as a source with additional information and guidance supplied by states and localities. The report contains several mobility statistics through 2005 for Cincinnati (Figure 7-1).
Ohio
Kentucky
7-
Figure 7-1 Cincinnati Urban Area Mobility Statistics, through 2005 Cincinnati is the 39th most congested city in the U.S. Fifty-one percent of peak travel occurs under congested conditions. A Cincinnati peak period traveler is delayed 27 hours a year. On a per person basis, congestion wastes 19 gallons of fuel each year. The annual cost in delay and fuel in 2005 due to congestion was $459 million.
Source: 2007 Urban Mobility Report, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, September, 2007. Available: http:// mobility.tamu.edu/ums.
The TTI study reflects the average condition of roadways in the entire urban area, not specific facilities and locations. OKIs CMP better pinpoints congestion problems within the urban area. It provides a level of analysis that allows for more informed decision making in the transportation planning process. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS OKIs CMP includes methods to monitor and evaluate performance, identify alternative actions, assess and implement cost-effective actions, and evaluate the effectiveness of implemented actions. The goals of the CMP are to monitor and evaluate transportation system performance, develop strategies to facilitate the mobility of people and goods within the region, and reinforce the regions transportation goals and objectives as adopted by OKI in its plan. Under a CMP, serious consideration is to be given to strategies that reduce single-occupant vehicle (SOV) travel and improve existing transportation system efficiency. Together, these strategies enhance the efficient and effective use of transportation facilities and thus reduce the need for highway expansion. A CMP focuses on the movement of people and goods over freeways, principal arterials and other transportation facilities. These segments serve as the backbone to the regions transportation network and provide connectivity among the regions transportation facilities, intermodal facilities and activity centers. OKI evaluates congestion on all roadways that are included in the CMP network. OKI selected the facilities comprising the regions CMP according to several key factors. The network must be extensive enough to allow for the identification of both existing and potential recurring congestion. Network continuity is important to ensure that the network structure is rational. It is important to maintain consistency in the management of mobility where the network crosses state boundaries,. All elements of existing and potential significance to state or metropolitan area travel are included in the network. The CMP network is comprised of all facilities on the National Highway System along with major roadways and all other routes determined to be essential to regional mobility and continuity. The network consists of 1,525 miles and carries 78 percent of regional traffic. Congestion is evaluated through a combination of OKIs Regional Travel Demand Model and direct observation of the travel time during peak and off-peak periods. The CMP network is divided into thirds to allow for travel time data collection of the entire network every three years. This timeline coincides with OKI adoption of a new plan. After completion of the most recent data collection cycle in December 2006, the CMP data collection converted to a four year cycle to coincide with SAFETEA-LUs requirement.
7-2
Ohio
Kentucky
OKIs plan identifies five categories of congestion management strategies transportation demand management (TDM) strategies, traffic operation improvements, ITS technologies, public transportation improvements and highway capacity expansion. Each facility on the CMP network is evaluated to determine which of these strategies may be appropriate. This evaluation identifies the particular strategies that have the potential for mitigating congestion and should be considered for further study. The strategies are graded based on potential impact on congestion and cost. The most recent evaluation is documented in the report, OKI Congestion Management Process; Findings and Analysis dated September 2007. Total vehicle delay by roadway section is based on the observed travel time data collected from 2004 to 2007 (Figure 7-2). Roadway sections are categorized by low, medium and high total delay. Total delay is the difference between optimal and observed travel time multiplied by traffic volume.
Figure 7-2 Total Vehicle Delay
Source: OKI Travel Time Surveys, 2004-2007.
Ohio
Kentucky
7-3
The evaluation of future traffic congestion is based on the level of service performance measure derived from the application of OKIs Regional Travel Demand Model. It is a state of the practice model that uses the standard four phase sequential modeling approach of trip generation, distribution, modal choice and assignment. The model uses demographic and land use data and capacity and free-flow speed characteristics for each roadway segment in the network to produce a loaded highway network. Forecasted traffic volumes with revised speeds based on specified speed/capacity relationships for years 2005 and 2030 are used in the model (Figures 7-3 and 7-4). The travel time between major destinations is based on the calculated congested travel time during the PM peak hour. Peak hour travel times in the PM are shown because the afternoon peak is typically the most congested period of the day. For a trip from downtown Cincinnati to Kings Island, travel time is predicted to increase from 28 minutes to 37 minutes.
Figure 7-3 PM Peak Hour Travel Times, 2005 (minutes)
FROM TO CVG Airport Downtown Cincinnati Kenwood Northern Kentucky University Kings Island Sharonville Anderson Township CVG Airport X 8 3 6 Downtown Cincinnati 7 X 0 Kenwood 29 X 20 Northern Kentucky University 7 2 X Kings Island 3 28 3 3 Sharonville 35 2 6 29 Anderson Township 23 6 2 2
3 36 23
28 2 6
7 6 23
3 30 2
X 8 3
8 X 28
3 29 X
Source: OKI Regional Travel Demand Model.
7-
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 7-4 PM Peak Hour Forecasted Travel Times, 2030 (minutes)

FROM TO CVG Airport Downtown Cincinnati Kenwood Northern Kentucky University Kings Island Sharonville Anderson Township CVG Airport X 8 36 8 53 37 27 Downtown Cincinnati 20 X 9 2 37 22 20 Kenwood 32 5 X 23 26 9 23 Northern Kentucky University 9 5 X 3 Kings Island 7 30 3 38 X 20 35 Sharonville 39 22 20 32 25 X 32 Anderson Township 25 6 26 2 37 30 X
IMPACT OF CONGESTION ON TRAVEL BY TRANSIT In the OKI region, nearly 70,000 person trips per day are accommodated by public transit vehicles. About 45,000 transit person trips occur during the AM and PM peak periods. There are seven transit service providers in the region which operate fixed route and demand response transit service. Nearly all of the transit trips occur on the CMP network, therefore highway congestion directly impacts transit travel. In the OKI region, there are no travel facilities exclusively for transit vehicles, with one exception. On an experimental basis, SORTA buses are allowed to use the I-71 shoulder when encountering congested speeds below 30 miles per hour. The CMP considers public transportation improvements as mitigation strategies to address roadway congestion. The expansion of bus transit service, the introduction of rail transit service, new or expanded park and ride facilities, and new or expanded transit centers are all possible strategies. Transit improvements are further addressed in Chapter 9. SUMMARY OF PREDICTED 2030 DAILY HIGHWAY CONGESTION The volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio is divided into six ranges and assigned a level of service category A through F with level of service F being indicative of the most congestion. The OKI Regional Travel Demand Model provides an output report of daily highway congestion for an average day. The 2030 highway network, as used for this analysis, contains only those transportation improvements that have received a funding commitment and are part of OKIs 2008-2011 Transportation Improvement Program. For 2030, 10 percent of the regions vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is operating under congested conditions and total recurring delay is over 75,966 hours per day (Figure 7-5). Congested conditions are defined as level of service D or worse. Freeway and freeway ramps show the highest percentage of congestion among the roadway functional classes. The freeway functional class consists primarily of interstate highways.
Ohio
Kentucky
7-5
Figure 7-5 2030 Daily Highway Congestion Report Functional Class Freeway Expressway Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local Ramp Total
Congested VMT 22% 3% 2% % 2% 5% 3% 7% 10%
Delay (vehicle hours) 7,3 95 ,227 2,0 9,80 5,0 ,078 6,329 75,966
Figure 7-6 2030 Level of Service
7-6
Ohio
Kentucky
Congestion is prevalent throughout much of the region, but especially the high growth suburban areas of southeastern Butler County, southwest Warren County and eastern Boone County (Figure 7-6). There are numerous transportation projects and studies planned or underway that will work to address the most congested roadway sections in the region (Figure 7-7).
Figure 7-7 Transportation Projects Planned for High Congested Identified Locations
County Facility Section Name Direction TIP ID/ Long Range Plan # TIP 76380 Location of Improvement From Crescentville Road to Commercial Drive Description
Butler
SR
Mulhauser Road to Crescentville Road
southbound
Add NB and SB lane and improve signals Add lanes, replace I-275 interchange, grade separated interchange at GlenEsteWithamsville Road Add lanes and grade separated interchange at GlenEsteWithamsville Road Widen to four continuous lanes each direction and ramp improvements Widening to four or five lanes each direction and ramp improvements Widen to four continuous lanes each direction and ramp improvements Widen to four continuous lanes each direction and ramp improvements
Clermont
SR 32
Eastgate Boulevard to GlenEsteWithamsville Road
eastbound
TIP 22970- LRP 406
Hamilton County line to Old SR 7 East Junction
Clermont
SR 32
GlenEsteWithamsville Road to Old SR 74 East Junction
eastbound westbound
TIP 82370 LRP 406
Eastgate Boulevard to Olive Branch Stonelick
Hamilton
I-75
Lincoln Heights/ Shepherd Lane to Reagan Highway
southbound
TIP 76256 LRP 645
Paddock Road to Kemper Road
Hamilton
I-75
Mitchell Street to SR562
northbound
TIP 73257 LRP 645
Harrison Avenue to Paddock Road
Hamilton
I-75
Glendale-Milford to Lincoln Heights/ Shepherd
southbound
TIP 76256 LRP 645
Paddock to Kemper
Hamilton
I-75
I-7 to Mitchell Street
northbound
TIP 76257 LRP 645
Harrison Avenue to Paddock Road
Ohio
Kentucky
7-7
County
Facility
Section Name
Direction
TIP ID/ Long Range Plan # TIP 76257 LRP 645
Location of Improvement
Description
Hamilton
I-75
SR 562 to Paddock Road (SR )
northbound
Harrison to Paddock I-71 at MLK Boulevard from Taft/McMillan to Dana/Duck Creek Intersections at Five Mile and Forest Queen City Avenue to Cincinnati north corporation line Buttermilk Pike interchange
Widen to four continuous lanes each direction and ramp improvements New interchange at MLK and improved access between MLK, Taft, McMillan Partial continuous flow intersection at Five Mile and additional turn lanes at Forest Upgrade traffic control signs and improve S-curve Auxiliary lane extension and interchange improvements Brent Spence Bridge replacement and approaches Brent Spence Bridge replacement and approaches
Hamilton
McMillan
Vine Street to I-7 onramp
eastbound
LRP 692
Hamilton
SR 25
Five Mile Road to Eight Mile Road
eastbound westbound
TIP 7906 TIP 8899
Hamilton
SR 26
Bridgetown Road to Werk Road
eastbound westbound
TIP 8853
Kenton
I-71/75
Buttermilk Pike to Dixie Highway
northbound
LRP 721
Kenton
I-71/75
Kyles Lane to 12th Street
northbound
TIP 617.0
Kyles Lane to Hopple Street
Kenton
Source: OKI.
I-71/75
2th Street to 5th Street
northbound
TIP 617.0
Kyles Lane to Hopple Street
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Traditionally, the solution to congestion has been to expand roadway capacity. However, it has become apparent that metropolitan areas cannot build their way out of congestion. From a financial perspective, the rise in traffic congestion coincides with declining public revenues available for infrastructure expansion. From a technical perspective, the cure for congestion on mature roadways in urban areas is complicated by constraints posed by development adjacent to roadways. Even where highway expansion is technically and financially possible, air quality requirements and quality of life issues may limit it. With the difficulties of expanding highways in the face of increasing congestion identified, federal policies for metropolitan areas call for efforts to reduce travel by SOVs. This involves managing travel demand and expanding modal choice. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is discussed in the text that follows. Further TDM discussion occurs in Chapter 8 along with other congestion management strategies as traffic operational improvements and new road capacity. Congestion management strategies that expand modal choice are presented in Chapter 0 (Intelligent Transportation Systems) and Chapter 9 (Bus and Rail Transit).
7-8
Ohio
Kentucky
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) Transportation Demand Management focuses on changing travel behavior to mitigate traffic congestion in lieu of building infrastructure to accommodate travel needs. More specifically, TDM strategies encourage using alternatives to SOV travel and shifting trips out of peak travel periods or even eliminating some trips all together. As an alternative to expanding the transportation system, TDM seeks to balance travel demand with infrastructure supply. Under this approach, transportation is a commodity, travelers are consumers and TDM is a tool for manipulating consumer choice. TDM strategies provide incentives or disincentives for consumers to reduce peak hour travel. Generally, TDM strategies offer either cost or convenience incentives for using SOV alternatives or shifting travel to off peak periods. They also provide disincentives by increasing the cost and inconvenience of driving alone or driving during peak hours. Incentives and disincentives may be represented by new facilities, pricing mechanisms, public policies or initiatives that the private sector has been induced to offer. In addition to their immediate effects on travel behavior, TDM strategies that signal the true cost of SOV driving also strengthen the long-term outlook for using SOV alternatives. The full cost of SOV travel includes costs borne by the general public related to air pollution, congestion, traffic deaths and injuries, traffic-related police services and courts, employer-provided parking, and other factors. One of TDMs attributes is that it requires relatively low levels of public funds and reduces infrastructure expansion needs. Even TDM strategies that involve infrastructure improvements are lower in cost when compared to adding lanes and building rail lines. Some TDM strategies call for private resources. However, these costs may be at least partly offset by the private sectors benefiting from TDMs contributions to reducing congestion costs, optimizing infrastructure capacity and improving air quality. Whether TDM is applied on an area wide basis or at an individual employment site, success calls for a combination of actions and strategies. On a regional basis, participation is needed from employers, employees, and public agencies, and it must be supported by available SOV alternatives. SUMMARY Congestion management will continue to be critical component of long range transportation solutions. OKIs CMP will further the understanding of congestion throughout the region. CMP findings and strategies have been fully integrated into this plan. Current strategies used in the OKI region are discussed in other chapters according to their travel mode (Figure 7-8). Additional new CMP strategies recommended for further study to determine their potential benefit for the region are presented in Chapters 8 and 14.
Ohio
Kentucky
7-9
Figure 7-8 OKI Congestion Management Strategies Strategy Smart growth Congestion pricing High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes Alternative work schedules Parking management Ridesharing Teleworking Trip reduction program
Source: OKI.
Location in OKI 2030 Regional Transportation Plan Chapter 3 Chapters 8 and Chapters 8 and Chapter 3 Chapter 3 Chapter 3 Chapter 3 Chapter 3
7-0
Ohio
Kentucky
Chapter 8 Roadways
Ohio
Kentucky
Chapter 8 roadways
INtrodUCtIoN The regions roadway system carries the vast majority of person trips and is an important part of the freight movement system. Roads also provide the right of way for buses, making the roadway network an integral part of the public transit system. In addition, roadways are used for most bicycle travel in the region. Despite the need to reduce vehicle travel to improve air quality and reduce congestion, roadways remain a primary component in addressing the regions transportation needs. roadway Network The backbone of the regions transportation system is the roadway network. The roadway network in the OKI region is typical of most metropolitan areas in the United States. A circle freeway surrounds the Cincinnati metropolitan area and interstate freeways pass through the region. A web of arterials, collectors, and local streets provide access to homes, businesses and other facilities. NatioNal HigHway SyStem More than 3,000 miles of major roadways and an additional 6,000 miles of other roadways are used to transport both passengers and goods via private automobile, taxi, bus, bicycle, and truck, traveling approximately 45 million vehicle miles a day, based on 2002 data. The core of the roadway network is this regions components of the National Highway System (NHS). The NHS is a 60,000 mile interconnected system of interstate and principal arterial routes which serve major population centers, international border crossings, ports, airports, public transportation facilities, and other intermodal transportation facilities and travel destinations as well as meet national defense requirements. The 398 miles of NHS within the OKI region include I-7, I-74, I-75, I-275, I-47, US 27 (in Ohio, north of I-74; in Kentucky, between the Ohio state line and I-47 in Southgate and between I-47 in Highland Heights and SR 9), KY 8 (between I-7/75 and I-47) and KY 9 (the AA Highway) in Kentucky, and SR 4 (north of I-75), SR 32 (east of I-275), SR 25, SR 26 (Ronald Reagan Highway) SR 29 (Butler County Veterans Highway), and SR 562 (Norwood Lateral) in Ohio. This regions NHS components carry over 50 percent of the daily traffic (Figure 8-1).
Ohio
Kentucky
8-
Figure 8-1 National highway system
SOURCe: OKI.
SceNic BywayS At the other end of the roadway network spectrum are scenic byways. These distinct and diverse roadways strengthen the tourist industrys contribution to the regions economy. Under programs established by Transportation equity Act for the 2st Century (TeA-2), funds have been used to improve access to tourist attractions and recreation sites. Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU) enhancement program, in particular, has made funds available to preserve and develop scenic and historic byways, connect greenways and trails, preserve historic and archaeological areas, and facilitate biking and walking. Throughout the country, there are many examples of routes valued and even designated for driving pleasure. In addition to serving transportation needs, these routes help preserve communities and the surrounding countryside, and many are perceived as resources that encourage economic development.
8-2
Ohio
Kentucky
Under SAFETEA-LU, federal funds have been available to support state scenic byway programs and projects. In Ohio, the Scenic Byway program is recognized as part of a larger mission to foster economic growth and preserve natural resources as constituted by the intrinsic qualities associated with designated scenic routes. The potential benefits of developing regional scenic byways include, but are not limited to, improving the quality of life for residents, increasing opportunities to preserve irreplaceable resources for future generations, and providing an asset that attracts visitors to the region and supports economic development. Five scenic byways exist within the OKI region. the ohio river scenic Byway in Indiana The Ohio River Scenic Byway includes roads along the entire Indiana riverfront from the Illinois to Ohio borders. Included in this byway are 358 miles of roadway designated as a national scenic byway. Within Dearborn County, this includes SR 56 from the Ohio County line to Aurora, and US 50 from Aurora to the Ohio state line. the ohio river scenic route in ohio As in Indiana, the Ohio section of the Ohio River Scenic Byway includes roads along the entire Ohio riverfront from the Indiana to Pennsylvania. Along the Ohio riverfront, 452 miles of roadway have been designated as a national scenic byway. Within OKI, the scenic byway follows US 50 and 52 in Hamilton and Clermont counties. the accommodation Line scenic Byway Named after the Accommodation stage coach line, this scenic byway received designation by the State of Ohio in 999 and runs seven miles in Ohio from Waynesville in Warren County to Spring Valley in Greene County. The route is primarily on US 42 except where it follows the old highway through the communities of Waynesville, Mt. Holly and Spring Valley. Big Bone Lick - Middle Creek scenic Byway This scenic byway connects the Middle Creek County Park and Dinsmore Homestead on KY 8 with Big Bone Lick State Park on KY 338 in the southern part of Boone County. The route covers 20 miles and also follows the Ohio River through the community of Belleview, Kentucky. riverboat row scenic Byway Riverboat Row follows the Newport waterfront on the Ohio River in Campbell County, Kentucky. The route is approximately one mile and provides views of the Ohio River, Cincinnati skyline and access to several waterfront restaurants. strateGIes to address roadway Needs A number of strategies are available to address the needs of the roadways in the OKI region and advance the goals of this plan. High priority is given to preservation and optimization of the existing system as these approaches can yield relatively high benefits when compared to costs. New capacity will also be needed to address existing and projected needs. All of these strategies play an essential role in providing a safe and efficient roadway system.
Ohio
Kentucky
8-3
Roadway preservation, maintenance, operation and optimization projects are not specifically identified in this plan. However, they are consistent with the goals of the plan. These project types are discussed in the following text. Capacity improvement projects and the process for identifying them are specifically identified in later sections of this chapter. roadway preserVatIoN aNd rehaBILItatIoN More than 9,000 miles of roadway course through the OKI region, providing surface transportation to two million residents as well as those passing through to destinations beyond the regions borders. All of these roads are expected to continue to provide service throughout the planning period. Reconstruction projects, which are part of operation and maintenance, are needed to preserve and maintain the highway system. Sufficient resources must be allocated to protect the public investment as well as provide a safe and high quality travel experience. This plan gives funding priority to system preservation and allocates a sizeable portion of available revenues to this purpose. operatIoNaL IMproVeMeNts In spite of the multitude of different types of roadway facilities, operational improvements can enhance the mobility and safety of travelers in the OKI region. Most operational improvements can be implemented relatively quickly and at lower costs than capacity projects. This plan recommends operational improvements to help achieve regional transportation goals. Implementation of operational improvements depends on local government initiative. Many of the recommended roadway projects in this plan incorporate operational improvements in their design and final construction as a means of addressing mobility, congestion and safety needs. Operational improvements such as access management and improved signalization have proven to be very effective in reducing congestion. By facilitating traffic turns, merging and other traffic movements, operational improvements enhance both mobility and safety. By enabling roadways to perform more efficiently, operational improvements increase roadway capacity which may reduce the need for expansion projects and help preserve and maintain the existing infrastructure all of which are high regional and national priorities. impact oN arterial roadwayS Although congestion is an area wide phenomenon, operational improvements are especially effective on arterials. Before the interstate highways were constructed, arterials, which are comprised of mostly federal and state highways, determined the locations of major travel origins and destinations. Arterial roadway facilities continue to shape current travel patterns. The regions arterial system accounts for about 35 percent of daily vehicle miles of travel and is critical to regional mobility. As development and single-occupant vehicle (SOV) travel have increased, the regions arterials have become more congested and less efficient. Proliferation of curb cuts or driveways, frequent and improperly spaced traffic signals, inadequate turn lanes and other factors have reduced arterials ability to move traffic. As curb cuts and cross streets have multiplied on arterials, they have also reduced safety. every accelerating, decelerating or turning vehicle increases crash risk. Typically, more than half of all
8-4
Ohio
Kentucky
crashes occur at intersections or are access-related (Figure 8-2). As traffic volume increases, so does the potential for crashes from conflicting maneuvers.
Figure 8-2 High Number of Conflict Points at a Typical Four Way Intersection
SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration, Access Management CD Library, January 2000.
Another consequence of development that impairs arterial performance is the use of traffic signals to move vehicles safely through intersections. Every signalized intersection reduces arterial capacity. Frequent and poorly spaced traffic signals can reduce roadway capacity by more than 50 percent. Where curb cuts cross streets and traffic signals are already in place, the adverse impacts can be mitigated by a variety of operational improvements. On arterials where development is pending or just beginning, access management techniques can be used to preserve arterial capacity and can mitigate mobility problems through a preventative approach. For arterials in developed corridors, access management is one of several
Ohio
Kentucky
8-5
measures that can be applied to improve traffic flow. Other operational improvements that may be appropriate include signalization, continuous flow intersections, roundabouts and single-point urban interchanges. access Management Access management controls the design, operation and location of driveway and street connections onto a roadway. Control is achieved by public plans or policies aimed at preserving the functional integrity of the existing roadway system. Access management is fundamental to preventing the mobility and safety problems caused by multiple curb cuts and traffic signals. According to the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), access management can increase travel speeds as much as 50 percent and reduce accidents by as much as 50 percent. In managing vehicular access between the public roadway system and adjacent private property, access management may address: the number, location and design of private access points, the frequency and spacing of cross streets and signalized intersections, the addition of turn lanes or the prohibition of turns, land planning and development activities, and, safety and operational issues such as sight distances and corner clearances. Access management is also appropriate for urban, already developed areas and newly developing areas. In developed areas, there are a number of means by which local governments can implement access management. Local governments can conduct case-by-case negotiations with developers and landowners to agree to incorporation of access management principles. Appropriate local governmental units can formally adopt and enforce corridor access management plans, regulations or ordinances. They can also create planned unit development and/or subdivision regulations which incorporate language ranging from specific and detailed requirements to simply recognizing access management as a legitimate governmental function for which authority is vested in an appropriate official or agency, such as the city public works director or the county engineer. For implementation to be consistent, predictable and equitable for all private development within a jurisdiction, local governments should officially adopt access management as a policy, plan or regulation. Access management can be incorporated into local laws by modifying county or municipal subdivision regulations, amending local zoning laws, or including access management as part of a comprehensive plan, master plan or thoroughfare plan. Under Chapter 5552 of the Ohio Revised Code enacted in 2002, counties and townships in Ohio are specifically authorized to develop and adopt access management regulations for their jurisdictions. Three of OKIs four Ohio counties (Butler, Hamilton and Warren) have developed such regulations. The fourth county, Clermont County, began the regulatory development process in early 2008. signalization In addition to access management, improvements to signalization are often effective means of improving traffic flow in developed corridors. Since computerized traffic signal systems have become available, options have increased for reducing congestion by applying and coordinating progressive signal systems as exemplified by closed loop
8-6
Ohio
Kentucky
systems. On a corridor, area-wide or multi-jurisdictional basis, centralized networks may involve hundreds of signalized intersections. The benefits of improved signal systems are commonly measured by reductions in travel time, vehicle stops, delay, fuel consumption and emissions, and increases in travel speed. Studies of implemented projects show reductions in travel time ranging from 8 percent to 5 percent and increases in travel speed ranging from 4 percent to 22 percent, as well as virtual elimination of certain types of vehicular crashes. Continuous Flow Intersections On a somewhat larger scale, engineers have developed new and rather unique solutions to the problems of inadequate capacity and safety at busy intersections and interchanges. For at-grade intersections, one solution is referred to as continuous flow intersections (CFIs). While not truly continuous flow, CFIs can drastically increase the vehicular stream of traffic through the intersection. This is done by shifting left-turning vehicles approaching the intersection to the left of the oncoming traffic lanes through the use of a signal-controlled cross-over lane placed several hundred feet in advance of the intersection (Figure 8-3). By removing all potential conflict points with the oncoming through traffic, left-turning vehicles from both approaches can move on the same green signal as the associated through traffic. At normal intersections, paired left-turn movements must be given their own share of green time which reduces the green time left for through traffic and right-turning vehicles. The reduction of signal phases from four to two drastically increases efficiency and speed while also reducing air pollution and fuel consumption. Continuous flow intersections are relatively untested in the United States, but their use is expected to increase rapidly in the future. In the OKI region, Anderson Township has secured funding from ODOT for the design of a partial CFI on Five Mile Road at Beechmont Avenue (Figure 8-4). The Hamilton County Engineers Office is also involved in this project which is programmed for construction in fiscal year 2009.
Ohio
Kentucky
8-7
Figure 8-3 Continuous Flow Intersection
SOURCe: Gresham, Smith and Partners and ABMB enginners, Inc.
Figure 8-4 Five Mile road partial Continuous Flow Intersection
SOURCe: Gresham Smith & Partners.
8-8
Ohio
Kentucky
roundabouts Another traffic control innovation which has been receiving considerable attention in recent years is the modern roundabout. This is a smaller, modified version of traffic circles or rotaries which have been used in europe for decades and to a lesser extent in the New england states. Roundabouts require drivers to yield on entry to vehicles already in the roundabout. Modern roundabouts are specifically designed to induce speed reductions as vehicles approach and enter. They also involve improved signage and pavement markings. With these modifications, roundabouts are proving to be safe, effective and efficient alternatives to signalized or stop sign controlled intersections and their use is expanding rapidly throughout the United States. In the OKI region, the city of Cincinnati installed a modern roundabout as a pilot project in Eden Park (Figure 85). Currently, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) has several roundabouts in the design phase. Several other jurisdictions are considering them as a cost-effective alternative to signalized intersections.
Figure 8-5 existing roundabout in eden park
SOURCE: OKI.
single-point Urban Interchanges For freeway interchanges, Single-Point Urban Interchanges (SPUIs) are being constructed or are in place in numerous locations throughout the United States. A variant of the conventional diamond interchange, SPUIs results in two signalized intersections at the points where entrance and exit ramps meet with the cross street. Due to the relative
Ohio
Kentucky
8-9
close spacing of such intersections, efficient signal timing is often difficult to achieve. This problem is eliminated by SPUIs through the creation of one large intersection, either directly above or below the freeway. This intersection design creates a situation where drivers are only faced with cross-street traffic and either exiting freeway or entering left-turning vehicles. The exiting right-turning vehicles are accommodated on separate free-flowing ramp segments (Figure 8-6). Efficiencies are achieved because paired leftturn movements can be accommodated simultaneously and the signal phasing can be reduced from four to three allowing more green time for each phase.
Figure 8-6 single point Urban Interchange
SOURCe: HNTB Corporation.
curreNt applicatioNS of traffic operatioNS improvemeNtS In the OKI region, a number of jurisdictions have made major efforts to improve traffic operations along major corridors. Specifically, Hamilton County is in the midst of a study of the Fields Ertel/Mason Montgomery Road corridor along the Hamilton-Warren county line. Commissioned by KYTC, OKI will conduct a traffic operations study of the US 42 corridor in Kenton and Boone counties. In 2005, a major traffic operations study was completed for an eight-mile segment of Dixie Highway in Northern Kentucky. Following recommendations from this study, KYTC has made a series of adjustments to the coordinated signal system to enhance the flow of through traffic. Furthermore, as a result of a corridor study completed several years ago, Colerain Avenue in Hamilton County has been substantially rebuilt to incorporate access management principles. The I-47 Corridor Study has completed both the access management study and signal
8-0
Ohio
Kentucky
optimization study of US 27 in Campbell County. The projects implemented as a result of these studies will work to improve traffic flow. For the Colerain Avenue project, results will be quantified in a joint research study by ODOT and the University of Cincinnati over the next several years. The results of this research project will be useful in estimating the benefits of other corridor applications that may be undertaken in the region. Furthermore, OKI travel time studies will provide more information on the combined effectiveness of implementation strategies. traNsportatIoN deMaNd MaNaGeMeNt roadway strateGIes Preserving, rehabilitating, maintaining and improving operations of the roadway have all been discussed. There is another method that can be used in relation to the roadway network to enhance the mobility and safety of travelers in the OKI region. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) focuses on changing travel behavior to mitigate traffic congestion in lieu of building infrastructure to accommodate travel needs. More specifically, TDM strategies encourage using alternatives to single-occupant vehicle (SOV) travel and shifting trips out of peak travel periods or even eliminating some trips all together. Two travel demand strategies which are in use in other parts of the United States but have yet to be implemented in the OKI region are congestion pricing and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. coNgeStioN priciNg Under congestion pricing, motorists pay for the use of certain roads and bridges. Motorists may face usage fee schedules ranging from peak-only fees to fees that vary by time of day, facility or level of use. Congestion pricing provides incentives for travelers to take congestion costs into account when making trip decisions, thus leading to more efficient use of facilities and avoiding construction of expensive new capacity. Typically, pricing mechanisms involve a toll for using a specific road or bridge or a fee for entering a congested area. electronic toll collection systems can make use of pre-paid accounts or periodic billing. By inducing even small reductions in a facilitys peak traffic volumes, congestion pricing can reduce delays, increase travel speeds and contribute to the other benefits associated with reduced congestion, such as lowered vehicle emissions and fuel consumption. In addition, congestion pricing enhances the appeal of using SOV alternatives, can be used to generate revenues and can help maintain traffic flows over time and thus sustain the benefits of capacity improvements or eliminate the need for new construction. HigH occupaNcy veHicle (Hov) laNeS High occupancy vehicle lanes are intended to encourage the use of buses, carpools and vanpools. On facilities dedicated to their exclusive use, transit and rideshare vehicles can travel at faster speeds than they would in mixed traffic. The HOV facilities induce commuters with long work trips, of 5 to 30 miles or more and at least a 0 minute time savings, to switch from SOV to HOV modes. An HOV lane may be constructed as a separate roadway or it may be added to or removed from an existing roadway. On an existing facility, the HOV lane may be physically separated from adjacent lanes by barriers or it may be designated by signs, pavement markers or other means. In some cases, the same HOV lane accommodates
Ohio
Kentucky
8-
both inbound and outbound traffic by having its direction reversed for morning and afternoon peak hours. Investments for enforcement are required for HOV lanes and, in the case of reversible HOV, significant investments in operations and safety. In addition to lanes, other facilities that support HOV use include metered ramps or bypass lanes that give buses and rideshare vehicles priority access onto interstate highways. For individuals, the HOV lane provides shorter and more predictable travel times than those experienced under congested conditions. In addition to actual time savings, the perception of time savings is also important. This is true for both HOV users who often overstate their time savings and for SOV users, some of whom will be pressured to shift modes. CapaCIty IMproVeMeNts The plan also identifies the need for roadway capacity improvements based on forecasted capacity deficiencies in the year 2030. These projects are classified in two ways; committed projects, for which funding has been allocated due to inclusion in the fiscal years 2008 to 20 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and, recommended long range roadway capacity improvement projects. Many of the regions most heavily traveled roadways are congested during the peak hours. Highway improvements to mitigate congestion have traditionally been aimed at achieving a level of service (LOS) score of C during peak commuting hours, but several factors have made this goal increasingly unrealistic. Several studies have shown that once an additional lane is constructed, the drop in congestion encourages additional drivers to use the roadway so that it again approaches capacity. In addition, the construction needed to expand facilities to attain LOS C is becoming increasingly unacceptable for financial, environmental and social reasons. The policy set by ODOT for level of service, which was developed in 1997, allows for flexibility. This policy enables metropolitan areas to use LOS D as a basis for design. About 70 percent of the regions trips, however, are made during off peak hours when most roadway service achieves or exceeds LOS C. committed roadway projectS Committed roadway projects are scheduled in OKIs TIP. These are projects for which funding is allocated and thus they are considered committed for implementation. A total of 42 committed projects are listed in Figure 8-7 and mapped in Figures 8-8 to 8-5. All currently scheduled operational improvements, bridge work and safety improvements will be completed as provided for in the TIP. The TIP contains project programming details on scope, timing and budget. The TIP committed projects include a total of 23 miles of new roadway and 244 additional lane miles provided by widening projects scattered throughout the region. recommeNded roadway projectS Beyond the value of the TIP, the plan includes 57 roadway projects with a cost of more than $6 billion. This cost includes the Brent Spence Bridge project. The replacement of the Brent Spence Bridge which carries I-71 and I-75 traffic is vital to the region and is highly recommended. This plan assumes that the funding for this mega project will come from congressional funding sources outside the typical funding stream. The remainder
8-2
Ohio
Kentucky
of the plan, including this list of recommended roadway projects, is fiscally constrained, meaning the expected available funding is sufficient to construct or implement them. Fiscal constraint is discussed in more detail in Transportation Improvements Financing (Chapter 5). This plan identifies 110 recommended widening or new roadway, non-exempt projects at a total estimated cost of almost $6 million. These projects are recommended as part of the fiscally constrained plan as described in Transportation Improvements Financing (Chapter 15). The plans fiscally constrained roadway projects include a total of 53 miles of new roadway and 352 additional lane miles throughout the region. Roadway related projects are outlined in Figure 8-7 and mapped in Figures 8-8 through 8-15. These roadway projects account for approximately 74 percent of the plans total number of 211 fiscally constrained projects. The figures include the TIP or committed projects and the recommended projects combined. The figures only include projects that are considered as new facilities or that widen an existing roadway with additional lanes. Other projects that improve travel such as intersection improvements, operational enhancements and maintenance items are not included. At the time that non-interstate roadway improvement projects are identified, provisions for bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be considered to maintain or improve the ability for bicyclists and motorists to safely share the road and ensure that these roads can be safe for pedestrian travel as well. Appendix D lists an additional 452 projects identified as needed but not fiscally constrained, meaning there is not expected to be available funding for these projects. These are considered to be projects with merit and will remain available for future consideration, but should not be considered as part of the plan.
Ohio
Kentucky
8-3
Figure 8-7 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Capcacity Adding and Plan Projects Project Id ohio Butler County tIp Committed Funding 8988 8056 78073 Butler-Warren Road Oxford Connector CR 20 (Tylersville) From Tylersville Road to Bethany Road From US 27 to SR 73 Lakota Hills to Wetherington Bridge over Great Miami River, 0.8 to .0 miles north of SR 4 From CincinnatiDayton Road to 0.2 miles south of Middletown corporate line From Crescentville Road to Commercial Drive Southern terminus to northern terminus US 27 eastward to existing SR 63 at SR 4 Grand Avenue to IR 75 and from Union Road to Middletown east corporate line From Merry Day Drive/Melanee Lane to the Oxford corporate line (toll credits for ROW) Widen from two to five lanes New two-lane connector road (toll credits) Tylersville Road safety upgrade (LPA), widening to 5 lanes Liberty-Fairfield Road bridge replacementadd 2 lanes (toll revenue credit for CeAO funds) Rehabilitate roadway, add median lane in both directions Add NB and SB lane, improve signals and lengthen turn lanes on Crescentville Widen to four lanes most of project; six lanes between Symmes and Tylersville roads New two-lane facility .3 7.9 6. plan Id Facility Location Description $ Cost (M) (YOE)
44
CR 3
2.6
7597
IR 75
37.6
76380
SR 4
2.4
76290
SR 4 Bypass
3.3
20499
SR 63 extension
40.7
79686
SR 22
Widening
5.5
77099
US 27
Widening US 27 including the addition of a center turn lane, sidewalks, street lighting and signals
3.7
8-4
Ohio
Kentucky
Project Id 2030 plan
plan Id
Facility
Location
Description
$ Cost (M) (YOE)
22 230 266 240 202
Bobmeyer Road CincinnatiDayton Road Grand Boulevard Oxford State Road S. Gilmore Road Washington Boulevard extension WayneMadison Road SR 4 SR 4 Bypass SR 4 Bypass SR 4 Bypass
Bobmeyer Road to Bypass SR 4 West Chester Road to I-75 Grand Boulevard to Peck Boulevard Spurlino Way to SR 4 Resor to Mack extend Washington Boulevard in Hamilton, across Great Miami to US 27 SR 4 to SR 73 Liberty Fairfield Intersection SR 4 to Symmes Road Symmes to Hamilton Mason Hamilton-Mason to SR 4 North Princeton Road to SR 4 (north junction) SR 29 intersections Millville area Ross to Millville Millville to Stillwell Beckett
extend Bobmeyer Road to Bypass SR 4 (airport) Widen to three lanes Four-lane extension of Grand Boulevard and railroad overpass Reconstruction and widening Add southbound lane
3.5 7.0 23.4 2.7 2.3
258
New extension
9.4
222 207 27 28 233
Add two lanes and railroad grade separator Capacity improvements Widen to four lanes Widen to four or six lanes Widen to four lanes
29.3 5.9 9.4 0.5 6.0 23.5 4.7 3.4 23.4 9.4
250 220 254 255 256 Clermont County
SR 747 US 27 US 27 US 27 US 27
Widen to five lanes Improve both US 27/SR 29 intersections Bypass west of Millville Widen to four lanes Widen to three lanes
tIp Committed Funding 82553 433 Aicholtz Road Connector Mt. CarmelTobasco to eastgate Boulevard Widen existing Aicholtz/Rust Lane to three lanes 0.5
Ohio
Kentucky
8-5
Project Id
plan Id
Facility
Location Glen esteWithamsville Road to BachBuxton Road eastgate Boulevard to Glen este-Withamsville Clough Pike to Olive BranchStonelick Road at SR 32 eastgate Boulevard to Jackson Square Drive Olive BranchStonelick to east terminus of Heitman Lane Olive BranchStonelick Road to Armstrong Boulevard eastgate Blvd. to Bach-Buxton North Old SR 74 to Tina Drive McKeever and DeLaPalma Intersection at SR 32 Bauer Road to Half Acre Road Approximately .5 miles north of SR 32 to .0 miles south of SR 32, including portions of SR 32 Branch-Hill Guinea Pike to SR 48
Description
$ Cost (M) (YOE) 0.5
82552
402
Aicholtz Road extension Aicholtz Road Widening AmeliaOlive Branch Relocation eastgate North Frontage Road (aka eastgate Drive North) Heitman Lane extension
New five-lane roadway
82554
403
Widen to five lanes
0.5
8258
40
New three-lane connector and ramp improvements Relocate existing from eastgate Boulevard to Jackson Square with three lane section. Part of PID 76289 Widen to three lanes Widening to three lanes with four foot paved shoulders and curb and gutter Add one lane New two-lane connector with turn lanes at Old SR 74 intersection Access management with potential grade separations New three-lane frontage road with additional turn lanes at major intersections
5.2
82555
5.9*
8256
44
0.4
82582
442
Old SR 74
0.2
82557
404
Old SR 74Phase Tina Drive extension SR 32DeLaPalma/ McKeever SR 32Frontage Road
0.5
82558
2.
82589
44
.0
82586
446
.0
76289
IR 275
Reconstruct interchange with SR 32
97.4
82563
SR 28
Add one lane
0.8
8-6
Ohio
Kentucky
Project Id
plan Id
Facility
Location From 0.44 miles west of IR 275 to IR 275 southbound exit ramp SR 28 to Cook Road elick Lane to Old SR 74 Glen esteWithamsville Road SR 32 interchange in Village of Batavia 000 west of existing Herold Road intersection on SR 32 SR 25 and Amelia-Olive Branch Road Mt. CarmelTobasco to eastgate Boulevard Glenn esteWithamsville Road to BachBuxton Road eastgate Boulevard to Glen este-Withamsville Road Clough Pike to Olive BranchStonelick Road at SR 32 Cook Road to SR 28 East Junction
Description Construct a five lane roadway (three lane existing) with a four-foot sidewalk on one side Widen to four through lanes with turn lanes at signalized intersections and landscaped median Extend five lane BachBuxton extension with SR 32 interchange New Glen este-Withamsville overpass Convert existing half interchange to full
$ Cost (M) (YOE)
8240
SR 28
3.0
79
SR 28 Business SR 32/BachBuxton Interchange SR 32/ Glen esteWithamsville Overpass SR 32-Batavia Interchange SR 32-Harold Road
7.6
22970-2
438
2.0
22970-
440
0.5
82588
47
0.5
82587
445
New interchange
0.8
75303 2030 plan 82553 433
SR 25
Intersection improvement/ park-and-ride construction
4.7
Aicholtz Road Connector
Reconnect Aicholtz Road under I-275 to Mt. CarmelTobasco Road New connection between Glenn este-Withamsville Road and Bach-Buxton Road Widen to five lanes with sidewalks New connector from Olive-Branch Stonelick Interchange to Clough Pike with sidewalks Widening to five lanes with curb and gutter and sidewalks
0.4*
82552
402
Aicholtz Road extension
2.9*
82554
403
Aicholtz Road Widening AmeliaOlive Branch Relocation Business 28Phase 2
7.6*
8258
40
5.*
447
7.0
Ohio
Kentucky
8-7
Project Id
plan Id
Facility
Location Mt. CarmelTobasco to eastgate Boulevard eastgate Boulevard to Glen este-Withamsville Road Olive BranchStonelick to east terminus of Heitman Lane eastgate Boulevard to Bach-Buxton North Olive BranchStonelick Road to Armstrong Boulevard Bauer Road to Half Acre Road SR 32/elick Lane to Old SR 74 SR 32 at Glen este-Withamsville Road Branch Hill Guinea to SR 48 SR 32 interchange to Front Wheel Drive Intersection of Bauer Road and SR 32 McKeever and DeLaPalma intersections at SR 32 000 west of existing Herold Road intersection on SR 32
Description Roadway widening to three lanes with sidewalks, curb and gutter. SCIP funding $4M; TPC=$5M Access, wayfinding, pedestrian friendly corridor
$ Cost (M) (YOE) .2
436
Clough Pike Widening
82559
437
eastgate South Drive
2.9*
8256
44
Heitman Lane extension
New extension
5.9*
82557
404
Old SR 74Phase
Add one lane with sidewalks
8.2*
82582
442
Old SR 74 Widening SR 32Frontage Road Bach-Buxton Interchange Glen esteWithamsville Overpass SR 28 Improvements SR 32Batavia Road Interchange SR 32-Bauer Road SR 32DeLaPalma/ McKeever SR 32-Herold Road
Widening to three lanes with four foot shoulders and curb and gutter New three-lane frontage road with additional turn lanes at major intersections New interchange west of SR 32/elick Lane with sidewalks New Glen este-Withamsville Overpass Add one lane
3.6*
82586 22970-2 22970-
446 438 440
4.0* 29.3* 7.0*
406
0.5
82588
47
Convert existing half interchange to full Access improvements for SR 32 Access management with potential grade separations
.3*
82590
408
2.*
82589
44
27.7*
82587
445
New interchange
22.5*
8-8
Ohio
Kentucky
Project Id
plan Id
Facility
Location
Description
$ Cost (M) (YOE)
hamilton County tIp Committed Funding 759 IR 7/IR 75 Ohio approaches to Brent Spence Bridge From Dry Fork Road to Harrison Road excluding the IR 275 overlap Overlap section of IR 74 and IR 275 from 0.2 miles west of IR 275 to eastern IR 74/IR 275 interchange I-74 from 0.07 miles east of IR 275 to 0.48 miles east of IR 275; IR 275 from 0.63 miles east of I74 to 0.07 miles west of Ronald Reagan Highway From 0.56 miles east of Montana Avenue to elmore Street overpass (Pe carried in PID 76257) From 0.38 miles south to 0.40 miles north of Mitchell Avenue (Pe carried in PID 76257) At SLM 3.68, 3.85 and 4.5 (Pe carried in PID 76257 Preliminary engineering of the roadway configurations 38.8
77944
IR 74
Widen for an additional lane in each direction
67.
25354
IR 74
Rehabilitate and add one eastbound and one westbound lane in the median of IR 74
202.9
75765
IR 74/IR 275
Reconstruct and widen IR 275 on overlap portion with IR 74
26.4
82284
IR 74
Improved Colerain/Beekman interchange with associated work on IR 74 (Phase 3 of IR 75 projects)
25.9
82278
IR 75
Reconstruction of Mitchell Avenue interchange (Phase of IR 75 corridor projects) Replace Monmouth Street overpass and convert road to through street between Colerain and Central Parkway (Phase 2 of IR 75 corridor projects)
22.8
82282
IR 75
6.5
Ohio
Kentucky
8-9
Project Id
plan Id
Facility
Location From 0.4 miles north of Mitchell Avenue to 0.2 miles north of SR 562 (Pe carried in PID 76257) From south of SR 562 to north of SR 4 From 0.3 miles south of Shepherd Lane to 0.2 miles north of Glendale-Milford Road (Pe carried in PID 76256) From 0.1 miles north of Harrison Avenue to 0. miles south of Paddock Road From 0.1 miles south of Paddock Road to 0.08 miles north of Kemper Road .4 miles north of IR 275 to 0.8 miles south of the Hamilton/ Warren County line (Kemper to Fields-Ertel) IR 275 to 0.07 miles south of Waycross Road
Description Reconstruct IR 75 from north of Mitchell interchange through SR 562 interchange (Phase 7 of IR 75 corridor projects) Widen for additional through lanes, reconstruct interchanges as needed Reconstruct IR 75 between Shepherd Lane and Glendale-Milford Road (Phase 8 of IR 75 corridor projects) Major rehabilitation of pavement (Phase 5 of IR 75 corridor projects. Pe for Phases -7) Study the corridor for access improvements. Work includes major rehabilitation of pavement
$ Cost (M) (YOE)
82286
IR 75
46.4
77889
IR 75
53.0
82288
IR 75
55.6
76257
IR 75
264.8
76256
IR 75
223.8
75880
US 22
Phase 3-Widen to five lanes to increase capacity and improve safety
5.9
8347 2030 plan 620
US 27
Widen to four lanes
4.
ebenezer Road
SR 264/Taylor/ Bridgetown to Hutchinson
Add one lane each direction with signal timing improvements and major intersection upgrades Widen to five lanes with two-way left-turn lane from Central Parkway to Clifton, eight lanes from Clifton to Reading
5.2
604
ML King Drive
Central Parkway to Reading Road
20.8
8-20
Ohio
Kentucky
Project Id
plan Id 667
Facility North Bend Road Signal System Improvements Vine Street/ Jefferson
Location Monfort Heights Road to West Fork Road Uptown
Description Widen to four lanes south of I-74, widen to six lanes north of I-74 Signal system coordination and optimization of 69 traffic signals Improve intersections, standard width lanes, restrict parking, bike/ pedestrian facilities, extend Short Vine Widen road, curb, gutter, fix horizontal/vertical deficiencies, access management Add one lane Access management, reconstruct Cheviot/Blue Rock intersection, signal system, add one lane in each direction Addition of lane, improve intersection with turn lanes, left turn approaches Access management improvements with turn lanes in select locations, parallel access road, sidewalks Widen to four lanes Corridor Study, restrict midblock turn lanes, left turn lanes at key intersections, improve intersection Closed Loop Signal System, six lane with shared center turn lane, access management, traffic signal Signal timing, lane additions Add one lane. Widen lanes and intersection improvements
602
0.5
69
McMicken to erkenbrecker Avenue
5.7
632
Blue Rock Road Blue Rock Road
Sheits Road to Cheviot Road Colerain Avenue to Spring Grove Avenue Jessup Road to Poole Road
9.4
66
5.9
642
Cheviot Road
8.7
664
Cheviot Road/ North Bend Road Clough Pike Access Management Delhi Road Harrison Avenue
West Fork to Poole Road
0.4
673
Bartels to Berkshire Road Fairbanks to Greenwell Avenue Bridgetown Road to Boudinot Avenue (Cheviot) Race Road to IR 74 Intersection (Green Township) Farrell to Boudinot
3.6
654
7.3
678
5.3
683
Harrison Avenue Harrison/ Race Montana Avenue
5.9
668 69
5.9 0.5
Ohio
Kentucky
8-2
Project Id
plan Id 695
Facility North Bend Road North Bend/ Cheviot Reading Road Reading Road (US 42) Red Bank Road Ridge Road Signage South Gilmore Road West McMillan Street Corridor Western Hills Viaduct IR 7
Location Reemelin Road to edgewood (Green Township) Harrison Avenue to Reemelin Road (Green Township) North of US 42 in Sharonville Clinton Springs to Paddock US 50 to IR 7 IR 7 to Highland Uptown Smiley Road to Kolb Drive Central Parkway to Clifton Western Hills Viaduct Pfeiffer Road to IR 275 IR 47 to Reading Road Taft/McMillan to Dana/Duck Creek Interchange at SR 562 (Norwood Lateral) IR 75 to Sharon Road 390 north of Sharon Road to Cameron Road
Description Access management, sidewalk on east side, intersection improvement Access management, sidewalks, left turn lanes Railroad grade separation Add one lane and intersection improvements Grade separation and frontage roads Add two lanes Implementation of a new comprehensive Uptown wayfinding sign system IR 275 (exit 39) interchange improvements Reconstruct-state width, potential interstate access improvements Replace Add one lane northbound, Pfeiffer to IR 275; Add one lane southbound, Pfeiffer to SR 26 eliminate left entrance/exits Improved interstate access. Add one lane each direction. Realign ramp from US 22 to southbound IR 7 Access modificationsinterchange improvements Add one lane, intersection improvements, replace railroad bridges Widening to a three-lane section with right turn lanes at major drives, replacement of an existing sidewalk
696 663 64 655 682 603 644 699 698
5.9 30.8 8.7 346.3 6.9 .5 35. 8.2 207.8
637
5.6
63
IR 7
34.6
692
IR 7
93.6
635
IR 75 Paddock Road/ SR 4
2.2
670
4.
650
SR 4
.8
8-22
Ohio
Kentucky
Project Id
plan Id 669 656
Facility SR 32 relocated SR 254 (Glenway Avenue) US 27
Location US 50 to eight Mile Road Cleves Warsaw to Parkcrest Kirby Road to Springdale Road Virginia Avenue to Spring Grove Avenue IR 74 to Washburn Elsinore to Forest
Description New four-lane facility Intersection improvements and turn lanes Widen to six lanes with access management and signal timing improvements Add one lane. Geometric improvements IR 74/75 Interchange improvements at IR 74 with two additional lanes Provide five lanes and intersection improvements
$ Cost (M) (YOE) 292.7 0.5
68
20.6
658
US 27
8.2
68
US 27 US 42 (Reading Road)
4.7
659 warren County
3.3
tIp Committed Funding 8986 Bethany Road Between ButlerWarren Road and the Mason Corporate Line 3.40 miles north of the Hamilton/Butler County line to the Montgomery County line City of MasonWest Mason Corporation limit to MasonMorrow-Millgrove Road Barrett Road to Tylersville Road Locust Avenue to Stone Hollow Court Kings Mill road to Mason-MorrowMillgrove Road Widen roadway to three lanes with right-of-way for five lanes Major rehabilitation of existing pavement, raise bridges, add median lanes, upgrade SR 22 interchange 7.0
0754
IR 75
73.6
2030 plan Widen to five lane and connect Bethany and Mason-Morrow-Millgrove
80
Bethany Road
7.0
805 807
Butler-Warren Road Columbia Road
Widen to five lanes Add three lanes Add one lane in each direction on Columbia Road or widen to five lanes on Kings Island Drive extension
8.7 4.7
847
Columbia Road
8.8
Ohio
Kentucky
8-23
Project Id
plan Id 803
Facility Core Loop Road Ne
Location City of Middletown-Union Road to SR 22 City of Middletown-SR 22 to Union Road Fields-Ertel and Socialville Fosters Road City of MiddletownDixie Highway to Village Drive City of MiddletownTowne Boulevard to Union Road Over IR 7 to Duke Drive Fields-Ertel/ MasonMontgomery Interchange at Western Row Road SR 74/Kings Mill Road Interchange SR 23 to US 42Lebanon Columbia to US 42
Description New roadway loop with sidewalks and multi-use paths New roadway connecting developments on the southeast corner of Union road and SR 22 to a new signalized intersection Widen one lane in each direction Minor widening of roadway to create consistent lane configuration through the corridor, access management New roadway overpass, application of access management principles, inclusion of sidewalks and multi-use paths New extension Interchange improvement
$ Cost (M) (YOE) 4.
804
Core Loop Road Se Mason Montgomery Road Towne Boulevard
2.3
838
9.3
808
4.
809
Towne Boulevard/IR 75 Overpass Waterstone Connector IR 7
6.4
846 80
.8 29.3
848 849 82 84 kentucky Boone County
IR 7 IR 7 New Connector SR 74
Upgrade to full interchange Interchange improvement New connector System and access modifications-road improvements
32.8 34.6 .7 2.
tIp Committed Funding 6-93.0 6-93.02 6-93.00 South Airfield Road (Bypass) South Airfield Road (Bypass) South Airfield Road (Bypass) From KY 18 to Turfway Road From KY 18 to Turfway Road From KY 18 to Turfway Road Phase II: New four and five lane roadway Phase III: New four and five lane roadway Phase I: New four and five lane roadway 5.9 5.9 6.
8-24
Ohio
Kentucky
Project Id 6-8.00
plan Id
Facility
Location KY 338 (Richwood Road) Interchange Mt. Zion and Richwood Road Interchanges IR 7/75 at KY 536 (Mt. Zion Road) See 4.0 for study IR 275/KY 22 interchange and KY 20 reconstruction I-275/KY 22 interchange and KY 20 reconstruction From US 42 at Gun Powder to Woodcreek Drive (south section) From Rogers Lane to KY 8 (north section) From Woodcreek Drive to Rogers Lane (middle section) From US 42 to IR 75 From just east of US 25 to KY 303 (Turkeyfoot Road) KY 3060 (Frogtown Road) to KY 536 (Mt. Zion Road) KY 536 (Mt. Zion road) to KY 829 (Industrial Road) KY 338 (Richwood Road) to KY 3060 (Frogtown Road)
Description Add 3 lanes and improve I75 interchange (toll credits) Prepare a joint interchange modification report for both interchanges (see 6-4.00) toll credits Improve interchange and widen KY 536 to five lane east to US 25 (toll credits) Near Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (toll credits) Near Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (toll credits) Reconstruct and widen KY 237 Reconstruct and widen KY 237 Reconstruct and widen KY 237 Widen to five lanes
$ Cost (M) (YOE) 22.8
IR 7/75
6-4.0
IR 7/75
0.6
6-4.00
IR 7/75
9.8
6-8000.2
IR 275
0.0
6-8000.20
IR 275
9.2
6-8000.0
KY 237
2.8
6-800.25
KY 237
24.3
6-800.2
KY 237
4.4
6-58.00
7
KY 536 KY 829 (Industrial Road)
25.2
6-06.50
Widen to five lanes
0.0
6-8200.40
US 25
Widen to five lanes
9.9
6-8200.70
US 25
Widen to five lanes
2.7
6-8200.0
US 25
Widen to five lanes
8.5
Ohio
Kentucky
8-25
Project Id 2030 plan
plan Id
Facility
Location
Description
$ Cost (M) (YOE)
28
Camp ernst Road Frogtown Road Connector extensionNorth New Connector IR 7 Southbound Ramp IR 7/75
KY 237 to IR 7 at KY 4 KY 3060 Frogtown Road to KY 536 KY 237 to KY 368 (Limaburg) at Gateway Boulevard IR 7/75 southbound to IR 7 southbound KY 8 (Burlington Pike) Interchange US 42/US 27 Interchange From US 42 at Hume to IR 7/75 IR 75 to KY 237 From Cherry Tree Lane to Mineola Pike (KY 3076) US 42 to KY 536 (Mt. Zion Road) (KY 295) Chambers Road to US 25 (Dixie Highway) Weaver Road KY 842 and KY 8 Intersection US 42 to US 25
Upgrade and extend as four-lane divided facility
90.7
24
New extension
4.5
27
New two-lane connector
0.5
05 0
Add one lane Interchange improvements Reconstruct interchange to include flyover ramp from SB IR 75 and connection to Industrial Road Reconstruction Access management retrofit projects Major widening
8.2 7.3
5
IR 7/75
30.7
40
KY 4 KY 8 (Burlington Pike) KY 236 (Donaldson Road) KY 237 (Gunpowder Road) KY 338 (Richwood Road)
2.
3
2.3
42
24.2
3
Widen/improve Widen to five lanes and interchange improvements at IR 75 and Dixie Highway Reconstruct with additional through lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalks and bicycle facilities Construct grade separation Reconstruction and widen
28.
20
37.4
44
KY 842
30.4
45 4
KY 842 KY 3060 (Frogtown)
34.6 4.8
8-26
Ohio
Kentucky
Project Id
plan Id 22
Facility KY 3076 (Mineola Pike)
Location IR 275 to KY 236 (Donaldson Road)
Description Widen/improve Second funding phase to complete this project = reconstruct with curb, gutter, sidewalks and bicycle facilities New four-lane extension Widen to four lanes Reconstruct with curb, gutter and sidewalk Reconstruction/major widening Major widening to provide dual left turns at IR 75 southbound and dual right turns at KY 829. 06 008 B0042 6 Reconstruction Widen
46
KY 357
Mall Road
4.7
6 26 47 02
KY 357 (Mall Road) US 25 US 25 US 42
KY 8 to Woodspoint Drive KY 338 to Walton From railroad underpas to KY 6 in Walton IR 75 to KY 842
.2 43.3 7.3 4.7
48
US 42
From KY 1829 to IR 7/75 From KY 1292 to KY 3060 From KY 237 to KY 842
.7
50 5 Campbell
US 42 US 42
62.3 8.7
tIp Committed Funding 6-805.0 AA-IR 275 Connector From IR 275 to the AA Highway new connector road From IR 275 to the AA Highway new connector road Near Northern Kentucky University KY 8 Interchange IR 275 to AA Highway (toll credits)see 805.02 6.0
6-805.02
AA-IR 275 Connector Triangle Access IR 47
IR 275 to AA Highway (toll credits)see 6-805.0 Construct a new Technology Triangle Access Road (toll credits) Construct a new southbound off-ramp from IR 47 to KY 8
8.0
6-805.03
.6
6-804.00
3.0
Ohio
Kentucky
8-27
Project Id
plan Id
Facility
Location From Eleventh Street to Fourth Street US 27 to KY 9 AA Highway to KY 0 From KY 154 to Campbell County Park KY 9 Interchange US 27 to KY 8 From IR 471 southbound to IR 275 westbound Riviera Drive to Hallam Avenue (Bellevue) From the Fourth Street Bridge to US 27 IR 275 to US 27 Southbound KY 9 to KY 709 US 27 to KY 9 US 27 to KY 9 From Clover Ridge Road to North Fort Thomas Avenue From Martha Lane Collins Boulevard to IR 275 From KY 2345 (Martha Lane Collins Boulevard) to IR 47
Description Construct a new route with four through lanes (see 80.0 for design, right-ofway and utility phases) extension of existing roadway (toll credits) Reconstruction, add climbing lane Widen to five lanes
6-80.02
KY 9
6-352.00 6-56.00 6-46.20 2030 plan
335
KY 536 KY 547 US 27
9.3 .2 36.9
30 3 302
IR 275 IR 47 IR 47 SB Ramp KY 8
Reconstruction Major widening Widen IR 47 southbound ramp to IR 275 westbound Reconstruct, improve intersection and widen Realign KY 8 Major widening from US 27 to IR 275 Add right turn lane extension of existing roadway (toll credits) Reconstruct and widen east Alexandria Connector Reconstruction with curb, gutter and sidewalks
35. 200.2 0.5
37
9.4
330 304 324 6-352.00 335 320
KY 8 KY 9 KY 9 KY 536 KY 709
4.0 3.6 0. 4.0* 4.
33
KY 20
4.4
332
KY 2345
Reconstruction and widening of Johns Hill Road
4.5
333
US 27
Major widening
32.9
8-28
Ohio
Kentucky
Project Id
plan Id
Facility
Location From KY 1892 (Carothers Road) to KY 20 (eleventh Street) in City of Newport
Description
$ Cost (M) (YOE)
334
US 27
Reconstructionincludes sidewalks on the east
4.5
kenton tIp Committed Funding 6-7.03 IR 75 Brent Spence Bridge Brent Spence Bridge IR 275 to south intersection of Old Taylor Mill Road From Hans Pike to the south intersection of Old Taylor Mill Road From KY 2373 to southbound IR 75 on ramp Boone County Line to KY 7 Intersection of KY 236 and KY 842 IR 75 to the Licking River Replace Brent Spence Bridge (see 6-7.04 for additional HPP funding) Transportation improvement (see 6-7.03 for additional HPP funding) Construct five-lane KY 16 near Old Taylor Mill Road alignment .6
6-7.04
IR 75
33.4
6-344.
KY 6
4.5
6-344.2
KY 6
Reconstruct and widen to five lanes extend right turn lane on KY 37 from IR 75 southbound ramp to KY 2373 (toll credits) Widen to five lane urban typical with raised median Construct a park-and-ride facility (toll credits) Reconstruct KY 20 with four through lanes (toll credits) Add lanes at intersection to create dual southbound Dixie turn lanes and dedicated right northbound Dixie turn lane Reconstruct and add lanes to address safety and congestion concerns Auxiliary lane extension and interchange improvements
24.5
6-07.00
KY 37 (Buttermilk Pike) KY 536 KY 842 KY 20
6-62.00 6-204.00 6-273.00 2030 plan
8.3 .3 2.
720
Dudley Pike
edgewood: Dudley/Dixie Intersection Brent Spence Bridge Buttermilk Pike Interchange
2.3
702 72
IR 7/75 IR 7/75
2924.7 7.7
Ohio
Kentucky
8-29
Project Id
plan Id 726
Facility Madison/ James/ Decoursey KY 8
Location Twenty-sixth Street to Grand Avenue Fourth Street Bridge over Licking River Fourth Street from Main Street to IR 75 Fifth Street from IR 75 to Main Street From Grand Avenue to KY 77 Intersection at Moffet Road Third Street to Twenty-sixth Street Cherry Tree Lane to US 25 From KY 1303 to US 25 Avon Drive to IR 7/75 KY 7 to KY 6 KY 6 to KY 77 At IR 7/75 Interchange
Description
Improve traffic operations Add three lanes. Difficult existing right-of-way constraints noted by County Modify alignment; add approach lane to IR 75 Widening of Fifth Street to improve safety and mitigate congestion Reconstruction Reconstruct intersection to remove traffic bottlenecks and safety hazards Improve traffic operation Reconstruct/widen Reconstruct Stevenson Road Add two lanes with sidewalks Major widening and relocation Two-lane facility on new alignment Local improvements and interchange improvements KYTC #6-8307.00. New three-lane facility north of existing KY 50 (following Waymans Branch alignment) Reconstruct and widen with bike lane north to end of four lanes and add two lanes north of IR 275 Widen with bike lane
73
26.8
74
KY 8
3.5
73 732 723
KY 8 KY 6 KY 7 Madison/Scott/ Greenup KY 236 KY 236 KY 37 KY 536 KY 536 KY 072
6.4 .7 3.6
727 7 733 72 79 734 722
0.5 2. 5.6 8.7 9.9 95.2 3.7
703
KY 50 (Hands Pike)
KY 6 to KY 7
52.6
706
KY 303
Dudley to US 25 KY 536 to Richardson
36.9
707
KY 303
9.0
8-30
Ohio
Kentucky
Project Id
plan Id 75 76 77 74 742 743 744 745
Facility US 25 US 25 US 25 US 25 US 25 US 25 US 25 US 25
Location KY 236 to Hallam Avenue IR 275 to Dudley Pike Turfway Road to KY 236 Park Hills: entire length Covington Ft. Wright Covington erlanger
Description Widening and replacement of railroad bridge Major widening. 06 059 B0025 25.00 Reconstruction. 06 059 B0025 23.00 Four to two lane with landscape median and sidewalk connectivity Southbound IR 75 exit ramp dedicated right turn lane St. John/Thriftway Center left turn lane and sidewalk improvements Main Street intersection reconfiguration Kentaboo/eastern intersection realignment
$ Cost (M) (YOE) 3.2 7.6 29.3 8.7 0.9 .4 3.5 .0
Indiana dearborn tIp Committed Funding 0600726 US 50 Over Tanners Creek in the City of Lawrenceburg eastbound connector rap from US 50 to IR 275 Construct a new bridge 23.0
0800426 2030 plan 52 50 504 508 505
IR 275
Right hand eastbound lane will be extended 700
0.5
Pribble Road Scenic Drive US 50/IR 275/ SR Wilson Creek Road SR
SR 48 to SR Wilson Creek Road to SR 48 US 50 Connector US 50 to Scenic Drive/Pribble US 50 to Nowlin Avenue and SR Intersection
Added capacity/US 50 to SR Innerloop Added capacity/US 50 to SR Innerloop Upgrade intersection Added capacity/US 50 to SR Innerloop Realign and add a lane each direction
2. 6.9 3.4 9.5 23.2
Ohio
Kentucky
8-3
Project Id
plan Id
Facility
Location Argosy Parkway to IR 275, frontage road from Walnut Street to Rudolph Way US 50 at Sycamore Road intersection/WalMart entrance road US 50 at Wilson Creek Road
Description
$ Cost (M) (YOE)
506
US 50
Access management improvements and beautification
4.3
507
US 50
Added capacity/additional turn lanes Added capacity/additional turn lanes
2.3
509
US 50
2.3
SOURCe: OKI 2030 Regional Transportation Plan 2008 Update and TIP. Note: Operational improvements for maintenance and safety are also included in the TIP, but they are excluded from the table because they usually do not provide additional roadway capacity or increase travel. * portion of project is in TIP. Plan cost represents non-TIP only. **YOe (Year of expenditure)
8-32
Ohio
Kentucky
8-8 Butler County TIP Capacity Adding and Plan Projects
Figure
SOURCe: OKI
Ohio
Kentucky
8-33
Figure 8-9 Clermont County TIP Capacity Adding and Plan Projects
SOURCe: OKI.
8-34
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 8-10 (A) Hamilton County West TIP Capacity Adding and Plan Projects
SOURCe: OKI.
Ohio
Kentucky
8-35
Figure 8-10 (B) Hamilton County East TIP Capacity Adding and Plan Projects
SOURCe: OKI.
8-36
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 8-11 Warren County TIP Capacity Adding and Plan Projects
SOURCe: OKI.
Ohio
Kentucky
8-37
Figure 8-12 Boone County TIP Capacity Adding and Plan Projects
SOURCe: OKI.
8-38
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 8-13 Campbell County TIP Capacity Adding and Plan Projects
SOURCe: OKI.
Ohio
Kentucky
8-39
Figure 8-14 Kenton County TIP Capacity Adding and Plan Projects
SOURCe: OKI.
8-40
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 8-15 Dearborn County TIP Capacity Adding and Plan Projects
SOURCe: OKI.
Ohio
Kentucky
8-4
proceSS uSed for ideNtifyiNg recommeNded projectS The final list of roadway projects (Figure 8-7) was arrived at through an iterative quantitative and qualitative process. The starting point for this plan update was the project listing from the 2004 plan. Added to the 2004 plan list were locations identified through the Congestion Management Process and all amendments made to the plan since 2004. Amendments reflect recommendations identified by several corridor studies completed since 2004. An initial draft list was distributed to local communities with the request that they provide a local prioritization (high, medium or low) for all of the projects located within their communities. They were also asked to provide suggestions for new projects. Staff then applied the project scoring process (Appendix B) to a new list of over 500 multimodal projects. The prioritization process assigns numerical scores for 2 criteria. The criteria include the following items: safety, right of way availability, level of service, average daily traffic, facility type, urgency, feasibility, environmental justice, economic vitality, air quality impacts, local and regional priority, multimodal investments, inclusion in local and regional studies, impacts to transit operation and ridership, implementation time frames, and benefit/cost. The OKI Board of Directors and Intermodal Coordinating Committee reviewed the listing and provided comments. The list was adjusted as necessary to produce a draft plan update project list. The draft list was presented to the public via the OKI Web site and a series of eight public open houses held in March 2008. Staff reviewed and incorporated suggestions gathered from into the list of projects for evaluation. The OKI Board of Directors, the Intermodal Coordinating Committee and local and state agencies were once again asked for comments. Staff made modifications to the list based on all comments received to result in the final projects included in this plan. Projects are presented by mode in their respective plan chapter. Roadway projects are included in Figure 8-7. Finally, the plan requires adoption by the OKI Board of Directors. Capacity type projects included in the plan will be eligible to advance to the TIP once a sponsor and funding is identified. sUMMary Although more travel can be carried on the existing roadway system by implementing this plans recommendations for transit improvements (Chapter 9) and expansion of Intelligent Transportation Systems (Chapter 0), an unacceptable level of congestion will remain in some areas due to deficiencies in roadway capacity. These are areas where new or expanded roadway capacity is needed. This chapter has identified a number of roadway proposals for addressing mobility through and within the region. Operation and maintenance projects are not specifically identified, but are consistent with the goals of this plan. Projects that add capacity are required to be specifically identified and subject to air quality conformity analysis. More detailed analysis will be necessary for projects to advance through the development process. Projects with community and financial support will be able to advance to the TIP and into implementation. The recommended projects are part of a fiscally constrained multimodal transportation plan.
8-42
Ohio
Kentucky
Chapter 9 Bus and Rail Transit
Ohio
Kentucky
CHAPTER 9 Bus And RAil TRAnsiT

inTROduCTiOn It is in the regions public interest to make transit widely available as an alternative to single-occupant vehicle (SOV) travel. Transit is desirable for reducing congestion, which in turn reduces the need for roadway expansion projects and decreases vehicle emissions. These are critical components in this plans strategy for meeting mobility and air quality needs. Furthermore, transit provides travel opportunities to those for whom auto use is not a possible or preferred option. Recommended improvements for expanded bus passenger service, preservation of right of way for transit facilities and future passenger rail transit are intended to provide viable alternatives to automobile travel. Bus TRAnsiT A fully loaded bus replaces approximately 44 automobiles that would otherwise be on the roadway in the form of single-occupant vehicles. The region is served by numerous existing public and private bus providers. These providers are faced with many challenges in their goal to provide safe and efficient transit service. Recommendations for service expansion, bus replacement, technological improvements and introduction of new bus related facilities are presented in the following discussion. Existing Public bus systEms There are seven major public transit systems that currently provide bus service in the OKI region. These transit systems are Butler County Regional Transit Authority (BCRTA), Catch-A-Ride (formerly Southeast Indiana Transit or SEIT), Clermont County Transportation Connection (CTC), Middletown Transit System (MTS), Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA), Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky (TANK) and the Warren County Transit System (WCTS) (Figures 9- through 9-7). CTC, MTS, SORTA and TANK provide fixed-route service. Fixed-route service operates with a predetermined schedule along prescribed routes with designated bus stops along each route. Catch-A-Ride utilizes a combination of demand responsive and point deviation services. Demand responsive service requires a rider to prearrange a trip by contacting the transit operator ahead of time with origin and destination information. Point deviation services follow a directional route pattern without predetermined bus stops as passengers are picked up or dropped off at a location upon their request near the directional route. BCRTA, CTC and WCTS provide demand responsive service throughout their respective counties. Butler County Regional Transit Authority (BCRTA) BCRTA was formed by the Butler County Commissioners in 984 and remains the designated grantee for federal and state transportation funds within the Cincinnati Urbanized Area of Butler County. BCRTA maintains an administrative and maintenance facility and a fleet of transit vehicles. BCRTA serves as a lead partner in the Transit Alliance of Butler County. The Transit Alliance is a countywide transportation coordination project in Butler County that addresses unmet needs by identifying sustainable general public transportation solutions.
Ohio
Kentucky
9-
Figure 9-1 Butler County Regional Transit Administration (BCRTA) service Area
SOURCE: BCRTA.
BCRTA provided affordable, countywide general public transportation services from 999 until 2002 when services were cut due to a loss of the local funding support. At the request of the city of Hamilton and through the financial support of the city of Hamilton, the Hamilton Community Foundation and the Butler County Job and Family Services, BCRTA operated affordable public transportation services in the City of Hamilton from October 2003 through October 2005. Since May 2005, BCRTA has operated countywide, general public, demand responsive door-to-door services. Without local financial support, fares must support most of the direct costs. As a result, fares have become unaffordable to many ranging from $5 to $30 per one-way trip depending on zones traveled. BCRTA continues to serve riders who use wheelchairs and does not charge any premiums or surcharges for the use of a wheelchair. In addition, BCRTA offers significant discounts for group trips and is providing flexible fixed-route shopping shuttles in the cities of Hamilton and Fairfield where citizens and visitors can schedule pick-ups for weekday rides that connect neighborhoods to designated shopping areas for a $3.00 per round trip fare.
9-2
Ohio
Kentucky
Catch-A-Ride The Catch-A-Ride transit system began operations in Dearborn County in June 997 under the name SEIT (Southeast Indiana Transit) and is a public passenger transportation system provided by the Southeastern Indiana Regional Planning Commission. The system is operated by LifeTime Resources, Inc., a not-for-profit agency. In January 2000, the system expanded its Indiana service area to include Jefferson, Ohio, Ripley and Switzerland counties. In 2006, Decatur County was added to the service area. Catch-A-Ride expanded further to include Jennings County in 2007.
Figure 9-2 dearborn County Catch-A-Ride service Area
SOURCE: Catch-A-Ride.
Ohio
Kentucky
9-3
Service is provided by a fleet of 38 vehicles with a combination of point deviation and demand responsive service. All services are on both a curb-to-curb and door-to-door as-needed basis. Operational hours are from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday with limited Saturday service on the point deviation routes along the Aurora/ Lawrenceburg/Madison route and the North Vernon/Vernon route. The fare structure is $.50 locally, $3.00 within a county and $4.00 between counties. Persons over 60, persons with disabilities and children under 2 pay half-price fares. Clermont Transportation Connection (CTC) CTC, formerly known as the Clermont Area Rural Transit (CART), was established in 977 as a demonstration project under Section 47 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 973 to experiment with several different types of public transportation services to determine the best system for Clermont County. The goal of CTC is to respond to the needs of its citizens who have no other means of transportation. CTC provides transportation to social service clients through pre-arranged contracts with human service agencies and is available to the general public. The transit agency was operated by an independent board until October 997 and then became a direct department of the Clermont County Commissioners. Until 2000, Clermont County was classified as a rural county and as such the state provided operating funds to CTC. With the 2000 Census, Clermont County was re-categorized as an urban county which ended the states provision of operating funds. Funding has been a challenge for CTC since that time. The Clermont County Transportation Connection operates 20 vehicles and provides in-county Dial-A-Ride service in addition to two fixed routes. Dial-A-Ride service is available from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and fixed route service is available Monday through Friday. Standard fares are $3.00 for adults, $2.00 for high school students and $.50 children, senior citizens and persons with disabilities. Special discounts are offered for fixed route riders.
9-4
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 9-3 Clermont Transportation Connection (CTC) service Area
SOURCE: CTC.
Ohio
Kentucky
9-5
Middletown Transit system (MTs) MTS is a publicly owned and operated system that began service in January 973 servicing the City of Middletown. The Middletown Transit System currently operates six 28-passenger low floor coaches along four routes, six days a week. Operating hours are 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays. Regular fares are 80 cents per ride. Elderly and physically disabled fares are 40 cents per ride. All vehicles and routes are wheelchair accessible. Paratransit curb-to-curb service is also available for qualified residents of Middletown using two lift-equipped vans. In 2006, the system provided 259,324 miles of transit service to 253,552 passengers.
Figure 9-4 Middletown Transit system (MTs) service Area
SOURCE: MTS.
9-6
Ohio
Kentucky
southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (sORTA) The largest public transit operator in the OKI region is SORTA. SORTAs service area covers a majority of Hamilton County and includes portions of Butler, Clermont and Warren counties. SORTA provides nearly 29 million passenger trips per year. SORTAs fixed route service, called Metro, consists of 34 local routes and 21 express commuter services. The Metro network is primarily radial, focusing on downtown Cincinnati. Metro also operates three east-west crosstown routes. Local transit is service on streets or other right of ways and makes frequent stops. Metro provides peak period commuter express routes that are usually independent of the alignment of other local routes.
Figure 9-5 southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (sORTA) service Area
SOURCE:
SORTA.
Ohio
Kentucky
9-7
Metro provides 25 free park-and-ride lots. Metro also operates reverse commute service to portions of Hamilton, Butler and Warren counties. All Metro buses are equipped with bicycle racks. Metros fare structure is zonal-based. Fares range from $.50 for Zone local service (along with a $0.50 fare for a riverfront parking shuttle) to $2.75-$3.75 for express trips. Monthly bus passes are also available and offer unlimited usage. Currently, nearly all of Metros 400 bus fleet is accessible to persons with disabilities and feature wheelchair lifts or ramps, in addition to bicycle racks. In addition to the liftequipped service along its regular routes, SORTA instituted the Access program in 977, which is a shared-ride transportation service using paratransit vehicles. The service is managed by SORTA and operated by a private contractor. The Access program has undergone considerable growth. In March 1988 the program was significantly expanded beyond the city of Cincinnati to include most areas within the I-275 beltway in Hamilton County. The service now has a fleet of 53 vehicles that provided 253,124 trips in 2001. More than 5,000 people are presently registered with the program. The fare for Access service is $.00. Metros primary transit center is Government Square in downtown Cincinnati, which was renovated in 2005 and is now completely accessible to persons with disabilities. Metro also provides special event service, much of which uses the Riverfront Transit Center in downtown Cincinnati. In 999, SORTA entered into an inter-local agreement with the Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky to allow closer coordination of the two transit systems. SORTA continues to work cooperatively with other area transit systems to form a comprehensive transit network. The network encompasses four Ohio counties, three Northern Kentucky counties and Southeast Indiana. Transit Authority of northern Kentucky (TAnK) TANK provides public transit service in Boone, Campbell and Kenton counties as well as downtown Cincinnati. TANKs fixed route bus operation consists of 128 coaches, all lift and bicycle rack equipped, operating 27 routes of local and express service. In fiscal year 2007, TANK carried over 3.7 million passengers and operated over 4.7 million miles. TANK operates seven days a week with 79 vehicles in service during morning and afternoon rush hours alone. Fares for local service are currently $.25 for adults, 75 cents for students and 50 cents for senior citizens and the physically disabled. The Southbank Shuttle, TANKs riverside circulator route in downtown Cincinnati, Covington and Newport, also has a fare of $.25. TANKs express routes are routes that operate on the interstate highway system and have a fare of $.50. TANK also operates two specialized transportation services. RAMP provides door-todoor transportation to people who cannot use the regular fixed route service. Fare for RAMP service is $.50 per trip and reservations for the service must be made two weeks in advance. DayTripper is a door-to-door transportation service available to senior citizens traveling within the same service area in which regular TANK routes operate. DayTripper operates Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. with fares of $3.00 each way.
9-8
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 9-6 Transit Authority of northern Kentucky (TAnK) service Area
SOURCE: TANK.
Warren County Transit (WCTs) WCTS was established by Warren County in August 980. WCTS operates 9 vehicles, including five minivans, two converted vans and 12 light transit vehicles. All 14 light transit vehicles and converted vans are lift-equipped. WCTS provides demand response public transportation service to all of Warren County and to the Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authoritys (GDRTA) South Hub. Fares for WCTS are $.50 each way, anywhere within Warren County and to GDRTAs South Hub. One-way fares to Middletown are also $.50. Fares for elderly and physically disabled passengers are 75 cents within Warren County. WCTS also provides service to three points within the city of Middletown in Butler County. Hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. excluding certain holidays. During 2006, WCTS served 64,369 passengers.
Ohio
Kentucky
9-9
Figure 9-7 Warren County Transit system service Area
SOURCE: WCTS.
PrivatE transPort In addition to publicly-operated bus systems, numerous taxicab companies serve the OKI region. Greyhound Bus Line and Megabus provide intercity bus service and connect the region with other metropolitan areas around the United States. The Greyhound Bus Line station is located in downtown Cincinnati. Megabus does not have a station but uses on-street boarding locations in downtown Cincinnati. bus transit nEEds Bus service in the region began more than 30 years ago when the city of Cincinnati was the primary destination. As the region has grown in a more dispersed development pattern with significant residential and employment growth occurring outside the city and around the I-275 beltway, transit expansion has not kept pace. Gains and losses in bus transit ridership directly correlate to the expansion and reduction of services, respectively (Figure 9-8). Presently, it is impossible to travel between many parts of the region by transit. For instance, transit trips cannot be made between bus service areas
9-0
Ohio
Kentucky
in Newport, Kentucky and Lebanon, Ohio or between bus service areas in Batavia, Ohio and Lawrenceburg, Indiana. To attract more riders to transit, it is important that the separate transportation services in the region become fully connected, both in service routes and fare structure to accommodate transfers between providers.
Figure 9-8 Change in Transit Ridership, 2002-2006
300,000 2002 250,000 2006
20,000,000 25,000,000
200,000
5,000,000
50,000
0,000,000
00,000
5,000,000
50,000 0
Clermont Middletown Warren Trans. Transit County Transit Connection SOURCE: BCRTA, Catch-A-Ride, CTC, MTS, SORTA, TANK and WCTS.
Butler County Catch-A-Ride RTA
SORTA
TANK
A primary reason why a large part of the region is not connected by transit is due to the fact that transit funding has not kept up with the need to expand transit services. In general, local tax revenues for transit operations have not kept pace with the cost and demand for service in the region. While TANK receives funding from the three Northern Kentucky counties, SORTA receives funding from the city of Cincinnati and is not funded by Hamilton County or surrounding counties except for small, contractbased, specific routes. The result created a major issue for SORTA -- a funding shortfall that resulted in service cutbacks and fare increases. Both these actions have resulted in a relatively modest ridership decline which translates into a growing lack of regional coverage, connections and access to employment sites. Therefore, the regions transit providers are continually investigating ways to make operations more efficient, looking for funding assistance from their respective state governments and discussing the longterm financial needs of the regional transit system with locally elected officials. Bus replacement programs and the ability to switch to hybrid or alternatively fueled vehicles are important to all the transit systems in the region. Funding to replace vehicles is very competitive and often providers are forced to use vehicles that are beyond age or mileage standards established by the Federal Transit Administration. OKI has provided federal funding for bus replacement projects sponsored by BCRTA, CTC, SORTA and TANK.
Ohio
Kentucky
9-
Several unique funding programs have been developed by SORTA and TANK during the past few years that provide free transportation to qualified riders. SORTA introduced the UC*Metro program in 2007. This program provides free rides on all regular Metro and Access routes to University of Cincinnati (UC) students, faculty and staff with a valid UC identification card. The program is funded by UC and its student government. TANK and Northern Kentucky University (NKU) have partnered to establish the U-Pass Program which initiated operations on July , 2007. Like the UC*Metro program, U-Pass provides free transportation on all TANK routes for NKU students, faculty and staff. Unlimited rides are available on all TANK buses including the Southbank Shuttle which is a downtown loop bus route which covers the downtowns of Cincinnati, Covington, Newport and Bellevue. The program is funded by NKU. In addition, federal funding for Section 536 Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and Section 537 New Freedom was expanded under new federal transportation legislation: The Safe Accountable Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). These two programs aim at improving transportation services for specific populations. The JARC program provides funding for transportation services benefiting welfare recipients and eligible low income persons to travel between home, employment locations and related activities. The New Freedom program provides funding for transportation services that assist Americans with disabilities seeking integration into the work force and full participation in society by overcoming physical barriers. Approximately $ million in JARC funds and $687,000 in New Freedom funds was awarded to eligible transportation providers in the region in 2008. OKI, as the designated recipient for these federal funds, solicits applications, reviews and ranks the applications, and awards funding to projects that meet federal requirements. bus transit imProvEmEnts In June 2002, SORTA released a Regional Transit Plan entitled MetroMoves that proposed expanding the bus system to serve all of Hamilton County. TANK initiated a transit network study in 2006 to assess the effectiveness of its current operations and establish short and long-term plans. In 2007, CTC created a strategic development plan with goals to improve transportation options to county residents, maximize existing resources through more efficient operations, reduce peak hour demand for roads and highways and to increase transportation options for zero car households and persons with disabilities. All three transit plans call for significant improvements to the existing transit network. Identified needs and recommendations for bus transit include new service routes, application of enhanced technology or ITS and the introduction of new bus transit related facilities (Figure 9-9).
9-2
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 9-9 Bus Transit needs and Recommendations
SOURCE: CTC, SORTA and TANK NOTE: Proposed new bus routes are depicted using the most direct route along existing roadways. Actual future transit routes will be determined by the transit service provider.
new and Expanded service The demand exists for SORTA, TANK and CTC to provide additional local coverage, express/reverse commute, crosstown routes and neighborhood and employment shuttles (Figure 9-0). However, funding constraints limit the extent of bus transit expansion. Therefore, new and expanded service demands that existing routes and facilities be incorporated into new, more efficient transit travel solutions.
Ohio
Kentucky
9-3
In order to make bus transit a more attractive option, TANK recommends expansion upon a technique first implemented in the OKI region by SORTA in summer 2007. Metro buses began using the I-7 left shoulder lane for an express bus route between Kenwood and Kings Island. The .7 mile bus on shoulder corridor includes I-7 northbound and southbound between Kenwood Road and Western Row Road. The 2 foot wide shoulder lane is used when traffic slows below 30 mph. Buses are not permitted to go more than 15 mph faster than the speed of highway traffic and buses are never allowed to exceed 35 mph on the shoulder. The project partners include SORTA, the Ohio Department of Transportation, ARTIMIS and the Federal Highway Administration. Between July and October 2007 almost 400 trips used the left shoulder during morning and afternoon rush hours. By introducing such new service opportunities, bus transit may have an improved competitive advantage during morning and evening peak commutes in comparison to SOV drivers.
Figure 9-10 Metro Bus on shoulders Project
SOURCE: SORTA.
SORTA and TANK both have need for additional or replacement vehicles in order to provide expanded service. The use of alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles will allow for more environmentally friendly operations and may allow for fleet expansion by increasing the fuel efficiency of existing buses.
9-4
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 9-11 Bus Transit service improvements Plan id service Provider/improvement description CTC: New fixed Route 3 Milford (Goshen Shuttle) CTC: New fixed Route 4X (Amelia Express) CTC: New fixed Route 5 Williamsburg / Batavia (Eastgate Shuttle) CTC: New fixed Route 6X Wards Corner / Milford (Eastgate Express) 647 64 SORTA: Replacement buses and hybrid upgrades SORTA: Uptown connector service (new shuttle service with new signage) SORTA: Extended service along Colerain Avenue north of I-275 SORTA: Extended service along Harrison Avenue between Bridgetown and Rybolt SORTA: Extended service along Reading Road north of Reading to Sharonville SORTA: Extended service along River Road (US 50) from Addyston to Lawrenceburg SORTA: Extended service along SR 32 to Newtown and Eastgate SORTA: New I-74 Express/Reverse Commute route to/from downtown and Rybolt Road (Dent) SORTA: New I-275 Express/Reverse Commute route to/from downtown and US 42 (Sharonville) SORTA: New I-275 Express/Reverse Commute route to/from downtown and Loveland-Madeira Road SORTA: Hub to hub crosstown route along Liberty Street from Lower Price Hill to Walnut Hills Hub to hub crosstown route Western Hills to Kenwood via Northside, Avondale and Bond Hill Hub to hub crosstown route Western Hills to Oakley and along MLK to Uptown Hub to hub crosstown route Anderson to Blue Ash via Madisonville and Kenwood implementation Timing Medium Term Medium Term Medium Term Medium Term Short Term 05.3 0.7 YOE $Cost (M) Funding Type Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Capital Capital Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Short Term Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance
Short Term
Short Term
Long Term
Ohio
Kentucky
9-5
Plan id
service Provider/improvement description SORTA: Hub to hub crosstown route Northgate to Fields-Ertel via Tri County and Kemper Road SORTA: Hub to hub crosstown route Northgate to Montgomery via Galbraith, Lockland and GlendaleMilford Road SORTA: Hub to hub crosstown route Sayler Park to Northgate via Western Hills SORTA: Employment-based shuttles to Blue Ash area SORTA: Employment-based shuttles to Fields-Ertel / Mason-Montgomery area SORTA: Employment-based shuttles to Kenwood / Galbraith Avenue area SORTA: Employment-based shuttles to Springdale / Tri-County area SORTA: Employment-based shuttles to job Bus Overnight Service (systemwide) SORTA: Neighborhood shuttles to center city attractions SORTA: Neighborhood shuttles to Uptown SORTA: Neighborhood shuttles to the West Side area SORTA: Neighborhood shuttles to Mt. Washington / Beechmont Avenue area SORTA or Catch-A-Ride: Dearborn County new bus service
implementation Timing
YOE $Cost (M)
Funding Type
Long Term
Operations and Maintenance
Long Term
Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance
Long Term
738 739 735
TANK: Expansion buses TANK: I-75/7 Transit Way Shoulder Project TANK: Expansion buses TANK: I-75/7 Transit Way Shoulder Project
Short Term Short Term Long Term Long Term Long Term Long Term
2.2 2.2 .8 8.9 40.9 .2
Capital Capital Capital Unfunded Need Capital Capital Operations and Maintenance
327 736
TANK: I-47 Transit Way Shoulder Project TANK: Madison Avenue Corridor TANK: New service route connecting Airport, central and NKU transit hubs
9-6
Ohio
Kentucky
Plan id
service Provider/improvement description TANK: On-street Bus Rapid Transit facilities in Covington and Newport TANK: Other new and adjusted bus service routes WCTS: Warren County Bus Circulator System
implementation Timing
YOE $Cost (M)
Funding Type Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance
.3
Unfunded Need
SOURCE: Metro Long Range Bus Improvement Plan, TANK 2006 Transit Network Study and CTC Strategic Development Plan. YOE= Year of Expenditure
intelligent Transportation system (iTs) Improvements in the quality of transit service can also increase bus ridership. Among the alternatives for improving bus service are adjusting routes, extending operating times and reducing the wait time between buses. Specific recommendations for passenger amenities are beyond the scope of this plan, but modifications to increase transit security, comfort and cleanliness should be considered for the potential impact on transit ridership. The expansion of ITS applications such as automatic vehicle locator (AVL) can give riders real-time information at passenger waiting areas or on the Internet, reducing wait time and improving transfer convenience. Currently, TANK and Metro have AVL in place using it for scheduling and dispatching only.
Figure 9-12 Bus Transit intelligent Transportation system (iTs) improvements Plan id 627 638 640 34 33 32 service Provider/improvement description SORTA: Real-time information system SORTA: Replacement of Fare Collection System SORTA: Replacement of Radio Communications/AVL system TANK: New Fare Collection System TANK: Real-Time Passenger Information TANK: Southbank Shuttle Shelter/ Bike/Aesthetic Improvements implementation Timing Short Term Short Term Short Term Short Term Short Term Long Term YOE $ Cost (M) 3.7 6.0 5.8 3.3 0.9 0.6 Funding Type Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital
SOURCE: Metro Long Range Bus Improvement Plan, TANK 2006 Transit Network Study and CTC Strategic Development Plan. YOE: Year of Expenditure
Transit Hubs SORTA, TANK and CTC have proposed the development of transit hubs to serve the region. Transit hubs would minimally act as transfer points between routes. Transit hubs locations are proposed where several bus routes or transit lines converge. Hubs are generally locations with the highest level of transit service.
Ohio
Kentucky
9-7
Transit hubs provide a safe, welcoming place that may offer a wide range of amenities. Depending on the scale of each hub project, amenities could include covered or enclosed waiting areas, restroom facilities and ticketing information. Major bus hubs have the potential to incorporate retail stores, restaurants or other establishments that cater to transit riders. Incorporation of such amenities has the potential of enhancing surrounding commercial and residential areas and providing an economic development stimulus. The estimated cost of each of the recommended hubs ranges from $0.5 million to $5 million depending upon the amenities included at each site. Transit hubs would also be equipped with facilities for parking bicycles to encourage bicycle use and ease automobile parking requirements. These parking facilities should include bike lockers and covered bike racks suitable for securing the frame of the bike. Streets accessing the transit hubs should be improved to include bicycle treatments that may include bike lanes or wide shoulders for increased road sharing safety and to encourage the use of bicycle access to transit.
Figure 9-13 Transit Hub improvements Plan id 62 675 65 62 67 66 608 607 606 60 806 609 605 service Provider/ improvement description SORTA: Evanston/Xavier University SORTA: Uptown SORTA: Lower Price Hill SORTA: West Side/Western Hills SORTA: Walnut Hills SORTA: Northside SORTA: Lockland SORTA: Bond Hill SORTA: Avondale SORTA: Springdale/Tri-County area SORTA: Southwest Warren County SORTA: Oakley SORTA: Madisonville SORTA: Kenwood Road/Galbraith Avenue 328 35 52 TANK: Northern Kentucky University TANK: Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky International Airport TANK: Florence (I-75 and US 42) implementation Timing Short Term Short Term Short Term Short Term Short Term Short Term Mid Term Mid Term Mid Term Mid Term Mid Term Mid Term Long Term Long Term Long Term Long Term Long Term YOE $ Cost (M) 0.4 8. 0.4 5.8 5.8 5.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 3.5 3.5 0.9 0.9 5.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 Funding Type Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Unfunded Need Capital Capital
Capital
SOURCE: Metro Long Range Bus Improvement Plan and TANK 2006 Transit Network Study. YOE: Year of Expenditure
9-8
Ohio
Kentucky
A few transit hubs already exist in the region. The downtown Riverfront Transit Center, which opened in May 2003, is capable of handling conventional bus transit (both local and intercity) and light rail transit. Also in downtown Cincinnati is the Government Square transit hub which was completed in 2007 using $3.5 million in Transportation Review and Advisory Council (TRAC) funding towards the total $9.4 million cost. The square has been transformed into a modern transit facility that includes five new bus bays, an eastbound bus passing lane and 5 new curbside bus stops. The project tripled transit and passenger capacity of Government Square which serves over 20,000 passengers a day making it the second largest passenger transit facility in the state of Ohio. The Covington Transit Center provides a major hub in downtown Covington with connecting service to many TANK buses and service to downtown Cincinnati.
Park and Rides An integral part of bus transit services within the OKI region are park and ride facilities. A park and ride facility is defined as a location where people can change from one form of transportation to another. A park and ride lot may be located at a hub or it may be at an outlying area and used specifically for car to bus transfers. Park and ride lots provide convenient parking areas for commuters who drive to the lots and transfer to buses. These lots are generally located in suburban areas and may have amenities such as benches, lighted waiting areas and newspaper racks for their riders. In 2008 there are 40 official, free park and ride facilities in the OKI region currently in operation. Numerous benefits are associated with park and ride facilities. Cost savings may be one of the most important factors to the commuter, as related to gasoline, parking and other operating costs. The average cost to construct a park and ride is estimated to be $500,000.
Figure 9-14 TAnK Mt. Zion Park and Ride
SOURCE: TANK.
Ohio
Kentucky
9-9
Figure 9-15 Park and Ride improvements Plan id service Provider/improvement description CTC: Milford Area 740 737 329 TANK: Turkeyfoot Road (Route 19X) TANK: Edgewood (Route 18X) TANK: Monmouth Street Corridor and Newport Super Stop implementation Timing Mid Term Short Term Short Term Long Term 0.6 0.6 2.3 YOE $ Cost (M) Funding Type Unfunded Need Capital Capital Capital
SOURCE: TANK 2006 Transit Network Study and CTC Strategic Development Plan. YOE: Year of Expenditure
RAil TRAnsiT dEvElOPMEnT A Regional Rail Plan was developed by SORTA with participation by OKI in June 2002. It contains several recommendations for rail passenger transit in the region. From that plan and the OKI 2030 Regional Transportation Plans prioritization process, the Cincinnati Streetcar, Eastern Corridor Oasis Rail Alignment, rail transit right of way preservation and an Ohio Hub Passenger Rail/Midwest Regional Rail Cincinnati Terminal are included in the fiscally constrained portion of this plan. Being in the financially constrained portion of the plan means that there is evidence of sufficient funds to cover the cost of the included projects by the year 2030. The remaining rail transit recommendations serve as a vision plan for potential future projects and are not included as part of the fiscally constrained portion of this plan.
Figure 9-16 Rail Transit improvements Plan id 53 657 649 666 697 746 TOTAl
*YOE (Year of Expenditure) is 205.
Project Indiana Preservation of Rail Transit Right of Way Eastern Corridor Oasis Rail Transit Cincinnati Streetcar Phase II Ohio Preservation of Rail Transit Right of Way Ohio Hub Passenger/Midwest Regional Rail Cincinnati Terminal Kentucky Preservation of Rail Transit Right of Way
Estimated Cost (YOE 2030) $400,000 $355,000,000 *$00,000,000 $60,800,000 $7,300,000 $,000,000 $544,500,000
9-20
Ohio
Kentucky
cincinnati strEEtcar The city of Cincinnati has proposed the development of a streetcar system that will eventually connect several neighborhoods. The streetcars will be electric rail vehicles that will operate on fixed rails on city streets. Streetcars operate with traffic and circulate within a certain area or district. Streetcars are not light rail vehicles that move passengers for longer commuting purposes. Streetcars would travel at-grade within the existing right of way mixing with other traffic. Estimated cost of the project is $100 million (Figure 9-6). The proposed route for a Phase I starter line would operate on Main, Twelfth, McMicken, Race, Central Parkway, Walnut and Freedom Way. This route would connect the Banks, Government Square, Fountain Square, Aronoff Center, Contemporary Arts Center, Findlay Market, Washington Park, Music Hall, and Uptown. The Phase I starter line provides the base infrastructure for future connections to the West End, the East End and Northern Kentucky. The city of Cincinnati is proposing to pay for this phase with local funding. Phase II is the Uptown loop extension of the streetcar system and is the only portion of the Cincinnati Streetcar system included in the fiscally constrained portion of this plan. This streetcar would start at Vine Street and could be extended in several directions providing access to the Uptown neighborhoods and business districts including Corryville, Clifton Heights, University Heights and Fairview, Clifton and Avondale as well as the University of Cincinnati, numerous hospitals and the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Gardens.
Ohio
Kentucky
9-2
Figure 9-17 Proposed Cincinnati streetcar Alignment
SOURCE: City of Cincinnati.
9-22
Ohio
Kentucky
EastErn corridor oasis rail transit alignmEnt In the Eastern Corridor Study, rail transit was one component among a host of strategies recommended to improve mobility and connectivity in eastern Hamilton and western Clermont counties. The rail component of the Eastern Corridor Plan, which makes use of right of way already owned by SORTA (Oasis line), would provide connectivity from the eastern suburbs to downtown Cincinnati (Figure 9-7). The Eastern Corridor Oasis project, being advanced by the Hamilton County Transportation Improvement District (TID), is currently in the preliminary engineering/draft environmental impact statement (PE/DEIS) phase. Development of innovative funding strategies is underway and could serve as a regional model of how to fund major transit projects in the region. Estimated cost of the project is $40 million.
Figure 9-18 Eastern Corridor Oasis Rail Transit Alignment
SOURCE: Eastern Corridor Development Plan.
Ohio
Kentucky
9-23
PrEsErvation of rail transit right of Way By the year 2030, additional rail transit beyond the recommendations included in this plan may become a viable solution to transportation challenges in the OKI region. To maintain the ability to implement rail transit in the future, it is recommended that right of ways and infrastructure be preserved (Figure 9-8). Many miles of active and inactive freight rail and roadway corridors are recommended to be preserved within the region. For example, working with the city of Cincinnati, ODOT developed plans to preserve rights of way along I-75 for possible future rail transit in the Mill Creek Expressway, Thruthe-Valley and Brent Spence Bridge projects as part of the North/South Transportation Initiative which was completed in 2003. Another piece of infrastructure that should be preserved is the Cincinnati subway tunnels. The tunnels should be preserved until a final decision is made as to where rail transit alignments would occur.
Figure 9-19 Recommended Rail Transit Right of Way Preservation
SOURCE: OKI.
9-24
Ohio
Kentucky
ohio hub PassEngEr rail/midWEst rEgional rail cincinnati tErminal Rail service to Cincinnati is currently provided three days per week by Amtraks Cardinal route, operating between Chicago and Washington, D.C. Like many of its routes, Amtrak uses single level passenger equipment pulled by diesel locomotives for the Cardinal route. The Cincinnati station, located in the Union Terminal Museum Center, provides full service to passengers, including a ticket office and special considerations for the physically disabled. CSX Transportation trackage is used for most of the Cardinals route between Chicago and Washington, D.C. Included in Amtraks operating agreement with CSX are provisions for the Cardinal route to be given priority over freight trains. This priority treatment helps maintain an on-time schedule. The Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) is considering the development of high-speed passenger service on the Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland (3C) Corridor. In addition, a new high-speed passenger rail line connecting Cincinnati with Chicago is being considered as part of a Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative is a cooperative effort among nine Midwest states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin), Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). To service any future high-speed passenger rail line, an expanded Cincinnati terminal facility or station would be needed. The city of Cincinnati has conducted a study of potential station locations which include the current Union Terminal, Longworth Hall and the Riverfront Transit Center. Without funding in place, the timing for passenger rail remains long term in nature. Therefore, a final station location has not been identified. Any such rail station terminal would require highway access, passenger platform and other related facilities (waiting areas, ticketing, baggage handling, taxi area, bus drop-off lane, parking lot, etc.). Estimated cost of the project is $0 million in current dollars. RAil TRAnsiT visiOn PlAn This plan supports the recommendations developed in the Regional Rail Plan, developed by SORTA with participation by OKI. However, due to the requirement that this plan be fiscally constrained, OKI cannot recommend the full Regional Rail Plan at this time. As described above, this plan does recommend the Cincinnati Streetcar, Eastern Corridor Oasis Rail Alignment, rail transit right of way preservation and an Ohio Hub Passenger Rail/Midwest Regional Rail Cincinnati Terminal; however, no other rail transit facilities are recommended at this time due to the lack of funding. Therefore, other rail transit lines are included in this plan as part of a Rail Transit Vision Plan (Figure 9-9). Each travel corridor varies in terms of traffic patterns, existing transportation facilities, land use, topographic constraints and development trends. The feasibility of developing rail transit must be determined through major investment studies. Most of the alignments in the Regional Rail Plan have an end point in the Cincinnati Central Business District (CBD). The CBD could therefore serve as a hub for transferring from one rail transit line to another. If developed into a rail transit system, these alignments would link all eight counties and serve much of the regions most densely developed and heavily traveled corridors.
Ohio
Kentucky
9-25
In the course of developing rail transit, bus transit would need to be modified as a supporting and integrated system. Bus routes would be designed to support rail transit. Feeder buses would operate on short length route segments to convey passengers using rail transit. Express buses would be limited so as not to compete with new rail transit service.
Figure 9-20 Rail Transit vision Plan
SOURCE: OKI.
9-26
Ohio
Kentucky
i-71 rail transit vision The I-7 alignment extends between southwestern Warren County and the Cincinnati/ Northern Kentucky International Airport in Boone County. Light rail implementation for the I-7 alignment would provide the foundation for creating a more multimodal regional transportation system. This line would provide a corridor for connecting light rail segments, commuter rail lines and bus routes. Due to lack of local funding, the project is not on the recommended list of projects for Federal Transit Administration New Starts. Wasson rail transit vision The Wasson alignment provides a connection between the I-7 and eastern alignment. This plan is consistent with the recommendations from the Eastern Corridor Study to preserve the right of way along the existing rail line between Xavier University and the city of Fairfax. This route would include connection to the I-7 rail transit alignment. southEastErn rail transit vision The Southeastern alignment connects downtown Cincinnati with Northern Kentucky University following the I-47 corridor. i-75 rail transit vision The I-75 alignment runs parallel to I-75 for much of its length. This potential rail line extends from Cincinnati north to I-275 and the West Chester/Union Centre Boulevard area. WEstErn rail transit vision The Western alignment proposes a rail transit link from downtown Cincinnati to Green Township in western Hamilton County. Due to private development and the lack of remaining freight rail right of way, the alignment for rail transit is proposed to follow the I-74 corridor. laWrEncEburg rail transit vision The Lawrenceburg alignment proposes the use of an existing freight rail right of way along the US 50 corridor to connect downtown Cincinnati with Lawrenceburg, Indiana. cincinnati strEEtcar systEm futurE PhasEs Other phases of the Cincinnati Streetcar system beyond the Over-the-Rhine to Uptown Phase IB which is included in the financially constrained portion of this plan are envisioned by the city of Cincinnati. Extensions of the system would connect with the Union Terminal Museum Center and Broadway Commons as Phase II. suMMARY The transit service improvements discussed in this chapter will have a dramatic impact on creating transit connections and fulfilling unmet needs. Just as with all transportation modes, funding will continue to be a challenge when implementing transit improvements. To develop its potential, transit service requires the support of new investments. For the first time, this plans prioritization process has considered transit improvements on an individual project basis alongside roadway projects. Individual fiscally constrained
Ohio
Kentucky
9-27
transit project costs and descriptions were identified as a means of facilitating potential funding and implementation throughout the region. In addition, it is recommended that incentives and policies be created to encourage people to travel by transit and foster transit friendly land use. The effectiveness of transit services is closely related to existing and future land use patterns. This plan is working to bring together the issues of land use and transportation planning for the OKI region.
9-28
Ohio
Kentucky
Chapter 10 Intelligent Transportation Systems
Ohio
Kentucky
Chapter 10 IntellIgent transportatIon systems

IntroDUCtIon Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) is the application of electronics, communications, or information processing, used singly or in combination, to improve the efficiency or safety of a surface transportation system. ITS can connect vehicles, travelers, and roadways, helping to improve the travel experience by providing information such as roadway congestion locations, accidents, construction delays, optimum routing, weather conditions, and traveler information. The 2008 report, OKI ITS Architecture Update and Strategic Plan (OKI ITS Plan) guides OKI and its member agencies in planning, programming and implementing integrated multimodal ITS over the next 10 years. The architecture represents a shared vision of how each agencys systems will work together in the future, sharing information and resources to provide a safer, more efficient, and more effective transportation system for travelers in the region. natIonal Its arChIteCtUre The Federal Highway Administration Final Rule (23CFR 940) and Federal Transit Administration Policy on Intelligent Transportation System Architecture and Standards, which took effect on April 8, 2001, requires that all federally funded ITS projects conform to a regional ITS architecture that meets all requirements of the national ITS architecture. The OKI ITS Plan meets all of these requirements. Its Components An ITS plan is comprised of one or more technology systems depending on a metropolitan areas needs. The OKI ITS Plan documents each stakeholders current and future roles and responsibilities in the operation of the regional ITS systems across a range of transportation services. There are eight services covered as part of the architecture. Traffic Signal conTrol Traffic signal control is the operation of signaling systems that react to changing traffic conditions and provide coordinated intersection timing over a corridor, an area or multiple jurisdictions. freeway conTrol Freeway control is the operation of systems to monitor freeway or tollway traffic flow and roadway conditions, and provide strategies such as ramp metering or lane access control to improve the flow of traffic on the freeway. Freeway control includes systems to provide information to travelers on the roadway. incidenT ManageMenT Incident management is the operation of systems to provide rapid and effective response to incidents. Incident management includes systems to detect and verify incidents, along with coordinated agency response to the incidents. Traffic ManageMenT Traffic management is the operation of systems to more efficiently manage fleets of transit vehicles or transit rail. Traffic management includes systems which provide
Ohio
Kentucky
10-1
transit traveler information both pre-trip and during the trip. Traveler inforMaTion Traveler information is the operation of systems to provide emergency call taking, public safety dispatch and emergency operations centers. MainTenance and conSTrucTion ManageMenT Maintenance and construction management is the operation of systems to manage the maintenance of roadways in the region, including snow and ice clearance. Maintenance and construction management includes the managing of construction operations. archive daTa ManageMenT Archive data management is the operation of systems to collect transportation data for use in non-operational purposes such as planning and research. coMMercial vehicle operaTionS Commercial vehicle operations is the development of systems to administer permits, check credentials and safety information, and enforce commercial vehicle regulations throughout the state so as to make it safer to operate a private or commercial vehicle on the state roadways. exIstIng Its elements The most extensive system of ITS technologies in the OKI region is the Advanced Regional Traffic Interactive Management and Information System (ARTIMIS). ARTIMIS evolved from OKIs interest in reducing congestion from interstate reconstruction and its potential to optimize freeway system efficiency, improve safety and benefit air quality. ARTIMIS was initiated by OKIs completion of a feasibility study in 1988, followed by a preliminary engineering design in 1991. Through the teamwork of OKI, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, the Ohio Department of Transportation, and local governments, ARTIMIS was designed to provide consolidated traffic management without regard to state and local political boundaries. When it came fully on line in early 1998, ARTIMIS became one of the first ITS in the country to provide seamless freeway traffic management across state borders. Components of ARTIMIS include freeway control, incident management, traveler information and archive data management. ARTIMIS covers the 98 miles of the regions freeway system with the heaviest traffic. ARTIMIS is operated by traffic controllers stationed at a control center. The control center, situated in downtown Cincinnati and centrally located on the ARTIMIS system, receives all of the information collected from the field. The control center is the point from which traveler information is disseminated and traffic is managed. ARTIMIS collects information on traffic conditions per lane and transmits it to the control center. The information is collected by loop detectors installed in the pavement every one-third to one-half mile, wide beam radar detectors and video cameras. These technologies collect traffic speed, volume, and vehicle density data throughout the entire ARTIMIS system, in addition to providing visual surveillance on some segments for use in verifying congestion and determining the cause of incidents. When traffic speeds drop below a certain level, controllers are alerted to conditions that may
10-2
Ohio
Kentucky
warrant immediate action. Throughout most of the system, closed circuit television cameras provide pan-tilt-zoom capabilities for full-motion video coverage that make these segments completely visible at the control center. ARTIMIS expedites the relay of information on incident occurrence, cause, and location to those involved in emergency response, such as 911 dispatchers, police and fire departments, paramedics, towing services, and emergency management services. To further expedite incident response and removal, the incident response program includes a freeway service patrol that provides gas, minor repairs or other assistance to disabled vehicles. This service allows for an expedited return of the vehicle to operation or movement onto the shoulder or off the freeway. Median markers are located every 10th of a mile for use in accurately reporting and quickly locating incident locations. ARTIMIS provides traveler information on traffic problems and alternative routes through a combination of changeable message signs strategically located throughout the system, a highway advisory radio frequency, Web site and a multi-faceted traveler advisory 511 telephone service that can accessed anywhere in the region. The OKI region was the first area in the United States to implement the 511 service. The service provides travel related information such as up to the minute and route specific traffic conditions, bus routes and schedules for both the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) and the Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky (TANK), special event transportation information, local weather information, and traffic conditions throughout Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana. A benefit-cost evaluation of ARTIMIS was conducted in 2001. Benefits for five performance measures were calculated: user mobility, travel time reliability, fuel consumption, accidents and emissions. Travel time reliability showed the greatest benefit to date, due to ARTIMIS incident management elements. The evaluation indicates that ARTIMIS has a benefit-cost ratio of 12:1. This was based on the ARTIMIS core infrastructure. With expansion of ARTIMIS, the benefit-cost ratio will become even more favorable. This is because expansion costs could be lower than original installation costs, since the core infrastructure at the ARTIMIS control center and much of the communications infrastructure is already in place. In addition to ARTIMIS, several other ITS technologies are already in place in the region including the city of Cincinnatis traffic control center, SORTA and TANKs automated transit vehicle location system, the city of Cincinnati/Hamilton County Regional Operations Center which coordinates special event monitoring and disaster response, and ramp metering on I-74 in Hamilton County. reCommenDatIons for Its As freeway traffic continues to increase, ITS infrastructure will become increasingly important for reducing congestion and maximizing the efficiency of the transportation system. A framework for an ITS strategic plan was developed in 2008 as part of the OKI ITS Plan. A list of planned and needed ITS projects with estimated costs was compiled through several stakeholder interviews and workshops (Figure 10-1).
Ohio
Kentucky
10-3
Additional potential ITS projects can be found in the OKI ITS Plan. Any ITS project that conforms to the OKI ITS Plan and meets fiscal and air quality constraint requirements of this 2030 Regional Transportation Plan may be eligible for federal funding.
figure 10-1 Key Its projects project 911 Computer aided dispatch integration with ARTIMIS Increased ARTIMIS service patrols Port security camera installation Evacuation plan update for Hamilton County Snow and ice detection management and advanced snow plow systems in Ohio Work Zone Traffic Management Systems and Safety Improvements Clermont Transportation Connection Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) and electronic fare collection Upgrade SORTA AVL system TANK IT Solutions Advanced paratransit scheduling and dispatch Transit traveler information kiosks Emergency and bus traffic signal priority ARTIMIS freeway field device and communications targeted expansion Arterial signal operations upgrades I-75 ramp metering I-471 ramp metering Highway-rail intersection advanced safety systems Cincinnati automated parking facilities Expand traveler information delivery methods Upgrade ARTIMIS to support integrated architecture Install ARTIMIS workstations for Tier 1 and 2 members Direct link of SORTA cameras to ARTIMIS total
Source: 2008 OKI ITS Architecture Update and Strategic Plan.
Current year Cost $500,000 $1,525,000 $1,200,000 $300,000 $3,000,000 $500,000 $650,000 $1,000,000 $525,000 $750,000 $80,000 $800,000 $11,500,000 $20,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $70,000 $2,125,000 $1,000,000 $195,000 $125,000 $52,845,000
Costs of these recommended ITS projects are nearly $53 million. For many of the preceding recommendations, further study is needed to address such issues as specific infrastructure needs, phasing, deployment procedures and more refined cost estimates. In addition, operating and maintenance costs for the recommended ITS projects are estimated at $5 million per year.
10-4
Ohio
Kentucky
figure 10-2 total Cost estimates for Its projects year of expenditure (includes operation and maintenance) recommended ohio Kentucky Indiana total
Source: 2008 OKI ITS Architecture Update and Strategic Plan.
$50,000,000 $15,000,000 $1,000,000 $66,000,000
sUmmary The optimization and expansion of ITS is an important strategy for managing congestion, while improving safety and security of the regions transportation network. Rapid advances in technology will continue to alter the ITS tools available and the OKI region will realize more efficient transportation investments with the deployment of these technologies.
Ohio
Kentucky
10-5
Chapter 11 Freight
Ohio
Kentucky
Chapter 11 freight
iNtrODUCtiON The tri states geographic location offers promise for the growth of the freight industry. The OKI region is a vital gateway both north to south, and east to west for the nation, and the world. The explosion in the import and export of goods to the global marketplace has placed tremendous burdens on the logistic system and unforeseen demands on infrastructure. OKI realizes that with these shifts in freight modes and escalating growth of freight demand, the region has to incorporate freight issues into its regional transportation planning activities to remain economically competitive. Remaining and growing as an efficient freight hub, the region enjoys a competitive advantage to existing and new business enterprises that rely on cost effective transportation. OKI is laying the groundwork for fully integrating freight throughout the entire transportation planning, programming and project development process. This chapter discusses multiple freight modes and highlights the importance of integrating the various freight transport modes such as roadway, rail, water, air and intermodal, and recommends the continued monitoring and facilitation of the movement of freight in, around, and through the region. eXiStiNg aND fUtUre freight CONDitiONS Since the last plan update in 2004, much has changed in the world of freight transportation. The state of Ohio has the seventh largest highway system, the fourth largest interstate system, ranks fourth in both rail miles and economic output, and fifth in waterborne domestic tonnage. Of the more than 950 million tons of freight that currently moves through Ohio, 60 percent is transported via truck, rail accounts for 28 percent and waterway shipping makes up the remaining 12 percent. The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) projects that Ohios freight traffic will grow 45 to 54 percent by 2020. Of the 558 million tons of freight that moves through Kentucky, 55 percent is transported via truck, rail accounts for 29 percent, waterway shipping is 17 percent, and air and pipeline comprise less than one percent combined. Approximately 12 percent of truck traffic consists of in-state shipments and 30 percent involves trucks traveling across the state to other markets (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration). Rail transport, once a forgotten, seemingly outdated mode, has resurfaced in the past few years as key player in moving goods to and from ships on the coasts to inland destinations. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that freight rail tonnage will rise nearly 90 percent by year 2035. One contributing factor is that the railroad industry is increasingly becoming a cost effective alternative to trucks. A train can haul a ton of freight 423 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel which translates to about a three to one fuel efficiency advantage over trucks (Washington Post article, A Switch on the Tracks: Railroads Roar Ahead: Global Trade, Fuel Costs Add Up To Expansion for OnceDying Industry. April 21, 2008 by Frank Ahrens). In addition, soaring diesel prices and driver shortages have pushed freight from trucks back onto the rails. Meanwhile, trucking has continued to skyrocket in terms of sheer numbers and demands
Ohio
Kentucky
11-1
on regional and national roadways. In 2004, trucking accounted for 82 percent of the U.S.s truck and intercity rail freight spending. This was up from 78 percent in 1990, according to Eno Transportation Foundation, a research organization in Washington, D.C. A multimodal approach to freight transport could help avoid further overburdening of the roadway system. If the OKI region is to remain a strong player and prosper from national and international economic development, the region as a whole must become better educated on existing freight conditions so future freight opportunities can be identified. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the region ranks 16th among 369 U.S. metropolitan areas for value of exports produced. During the last few years, there has been a fundamental shift in the competitive environment between rail and truck primarily because of increased fuel costs, congestion on the roadway system and driver shortages. Currently, the trucking industry accounts for one out of every 14 jobs, produces $13.6 billion in wages annually and carries 74 percent of manufactured freight value (2002 Commodity Flow Survey). Additionally, predictions are that there will be a significant increase in freight volumes that will have a dramatic impact on the major roadway system. According to the Federal Highway Administration, much of this increase in freight will be from international markets. Freight and goods movement is a critical issue facing the OKI region. Communities in the OKI region are within 400 miles, or a days truck drive, to 20 major metro areas and can reach 30 additional markets by the second day. There is direct access to three interstates that link the region with the rest of the nation. There are also nearly 200 miles of mainline rail track serving local industry. Each year, 108 million tons of freight valued at $196 billion travel through the Cincinnati area. Hamilton County is currently ranked by ODOT as the sixth highest county in Ohio with respect to vehicle miles traveled by truck. Transportation forecasts show truck traffic in the region will more than double in the next 20 to 30 years. During the past 10 years, there has been a 44 percent increase in truck traffic on I-75 in Cincinnati and it is expected that this growth trend will continue in the future. According to a May 2007 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials report, the I-75/I-74 interchange in Cincinnati has 255,000 hours of delay affecting $3 billion worth of freight. Truck traffic on I-75 around the Brent Spence Bridge is expected to increase from its current level of more than 18,000 per day to 21,000 each day by the year 2020. Based on national statistics, trucks carry more freight in value and by weight than any other mode. In 2002, trucks carried nearly 68 percent of the value of all U.S. freight shipped and 60 percent of the weight of all U.S. freight shipped (Figure 11-1). By the year 2035, international and domestic freight volumes are expected to nearly double (Figure 11-2).
11-2
Ohio
Kentucky
figure 11-1 Shipments By Mode and Value, 2002 and 2035 ($billions)
14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

Value (billions $) Tons (millions)
Ra il
Ai r
rm od a
at e
uc
Tr
In
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Freight Management and Operations, 2006. Intermodal includes U.S. Postal Service, courier shipments and all intermodal combinations, except air and truck.
figure 11-2 freight activity forecast, 2002 and 2035
40,000 35,000
freight Volume (million tons)
International Domestic
30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0
2002
Pi pe lin e
SOURCE: Freight Analysis Framework2, U.S. Department of Transportation.
an d
2035
Un k
te
no
Ohio
Kentucky
11-3
Freight transport Modes The OKI region includes major lines, yards and facilities for numerous freight transport modes. As freight movements across all modes are expected to increase significantly, congestion, reliability, safety, and system preservation will be major problems for the foreseeable future, despite improved operational efficiencies (Federal Highway Administrations Freight Analysis Framework (FAF2). The following section describes each of the freight transport modes. roadway transport For moving goods produced or distributed in the region, private trucks and for-hire carriers are the primary mode of transport for market areas within 300 miles. Trucks are also used extensively for carrying goods produced from outside the region to local destinations or for moving them through the region to other markets. Because of its five interstate freeways, the OKI region serves as a gateway for trucks with out of region destinations or passing through the region between markets.
figure 11-3 Regional Truck Traffic
Source: OKI.
Motor carriers provide the most flexible service of any transportation mode. Door to door service can be provided to almost all points. A large number of for hire trucking companies are scattered throughout the region. There are also many smaller private companies that maintain their own fleets of trucks. As freight continues to climb at staggering rates, the associated increase in freight carrying vehicles of various modes will affect the amount of urban congestion and air and noise pollution. Figure 11-4 and 11-5 show truck volumes on our major roadways for in 2002 and 2035. As shown most of the significant truck traffic is already moving on our most traveled routes.
11-4
Ohio
Kentucky
figure 11-4 existing truck Volumes, 2002
SOURCE: OKI.
Problems or inefficiencies with the transportation system can significantly affect a regions overall economic vitality. Congested or deteriorating roads may slow truck travel, making delivery times longer and less reliable. This may force companies to maintain larger inventories increasing their cost of doing business and eventually make them less competitive. This is especially true given the trend of many companies using the just in time delivery practice exemplified by the high percentage of freight being moved by trucks.
Ohio
Kentucky
11-5
figure 11-5 projected truck Volumes, 2035
SOURCE: OKI.
rail transport Railroads in the OKI region serve both national and regional transportation needs. On the national level, the region serves as an important point for consolidating and rerouting rail freight. There exist 4,525 miles of Class I railroads in Ohio and 2,261 miles in Kentucky (U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics). Regionally, the railroads provide the area with access to the national rail system for outgoing goods and a terminal for goods with local destinations (Figure 11-6). Rail sidings permit door to door service to many points, while other locations require an intermodal connection.
11-6
Ohio
Kentucky
figure 11-6 rail transport facilities
SOURCE: OKI.
The north-south corridor is the busiest of the rail corridors. Within this corridor, trains from two Class I railroad companies, CSX Transportation (CSX) and Norfolk Southern (NS), have long haul routes that serve the nation. In addition, RailAmerica operates shorter haul routes on lines commonly known as the Central Railroad of Indiana (CIND) and the Indiana and Ohio Railway (IORY). Although not as busy as the north-south corridor, the east-west corridor is used by several trains that pass through the region on a daily basis. These trains have destinations to places such as St. Louis, Missouri and Norfolk, Virginia.
Ohio
Kentucky
11-7
Intermodal has been railroads fastest growing traffic segment and may overtake coal as railroads largest revenue source in the near future. Industry-wide, intermodal rail freight rose nearly 7 percent to 11.7 million containers and trailers in 2005; total volume, which includes freight moved in rail cars, rose 2.4 percent to $1.69 trillion ton miles (San Francisco Gazette, SFGate.com, Tuesday, February 28, 2006). With intermodal moves, shippers have several options and railroads are increasingly forced to compete with greater consistency and flexibility that comes with truckload service. The railroads are actively seeking to improve intermodal profitability through a combination of improved, more fluid service, competitive rates and a number of premium services offering faster transit times at a higher yield. Additional capital investment in railroads intermodal networks is needed in order to make rail operations even more fluid (ProgressiveRailroading.com).
figure 11-7 CSX intermodal facility
SOURCE: CSX.
In the OKI region, CSX and NS operate major rail facilities. Queensgate Yard operated by CSX, which includes an intermodal facility and a classification yard for sorting freight cars for continued travel, can handle about 5,000 freight cars per day. It is one of the most modern and efficient intermodal facilities serving the U.S. This facility is one of the nations largest classification railroad yards. Located south of Queensgate Yard, NSs Gest Street Yard is also a combination of an intermodal and classification facility. In addition, NS owns and operates the Sharon Rail Yard located in Evendale and Sharonville, Ohio.
11-8
Ohio
Kentucky
Double stack clearance is a rail related freight issue facing the region. As the name implies, double stack clearance involves the use of trains that are built to carry two containers per unit, one stacked on top of the other (Figure 11-8). The advantages include increased freight volumes and fuel, time, and emissions savings. An additional, potential benefit is the diversion of truck traffic onto rail with the introduction of increased capacity. Thus, over time with significant truck load diversion, the use of double stacking could assist in maintaining existing roadway infrastructure and capacity. There exists one NS Class I mainline between Columbus and Cincinnati which does not have sufficient double stack clearance. This mainline contains six overpasses which require improvements to to completely clear the rail line for double stack equipment between Columbus and Cincinnati. Two overpasses are located within the OKI region.
figure 11-8 Norfolk Southern Double Stack train
SOURCE: Norfolk Southern.
NS reports that by improving this mainline for double stacked clearance, between 17 origin and destination market pairs can be created and an estimated 80,000 to 105,000 truck loads can be diverted annually from the roadways. water transport Within the OKI region there are 79 water transport facilities. Most serve intermodal purposes, with transfers between barge and rail, barge and truck, or barge and pipeline. The regions water terminals provide shippers access to all of the countrys major river communities and the Gulf of Mexico.
Ohio
Kentucky
11-9
Barge is the primary mover of bulk goods produced in the OKI region to market areas within a 500 to 700 mile radius. It is the most energy efficient mode for carrying large quantities of bulk commodities. A typical barge can carry as much coal or grain as 15 rail cars. This results in a barge energy savings of a little more than one-fourth the energy per ton mile used by rail. The number of barges in a tow ranges from four to 30, with the typical Ohio River tow consisting of 15 barges. Barge facilities provide local industries an opportunity for the bulk shipment of dry or liquid commodities. Coal, one of the major commodities shipped by barge, is both transported through and consumed locally in the region. One important local coal user in the region is Duke Energy. Other commodities such as chemicals, grains, construction materials, metals, salt for roads and a variety of general freight items are brought into the region by barge for local consumption. air transport The Greater Cincinnati region is home to the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG). Major airlines such as Air France, American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines and US Airways provide some air cargo services at the airport. The airport is home to DHL Worldwide Express which is the worlds largest air courier. The airport also provides worldwide service as a courier hub for Airborne Express, FedEx, UPS and Target Logistics. Federal Express utilizes CVG as part of its worldwide service. Located on the site of the former Clinton County Air Force Base, the Wilmington Air Park also serves a number of other similar freight transport-related businesses. The countys largest employer is Airborne Express, which currently employs nearly 7,000 workers and uses the Air Park as its main hub. In 2004, DHL Logistics, a warehousing, inventory management and door to door distribution network, constructed their primary U.S. air and ground hub at Wilmington Air Park in Ohio. Packages are shipped in and out of the region via truck and plane from this location, to the U.S. and around the world. This investment significantly expanded DHLs U.S. domestic network. pipeline transport Pipelines are generally the lowest cost, highest volume and least flexible mode of goods transport. Natural gas and petroleum products are the primary commodities delivered by a local pipeline distribution network. prOMOtiNg regiONal COOperatiON aND COOrDiNatiON As a result of the heavy impact that freight plays in the tri state region, OKI established a Regional Freight Working Group in 2007 to begin to understand and address the needs of freight movement. The working group is primarily comprised of private sector representatives and focused on developing public-private partnerships to improve goods movement, to facilitate the flow of freight and stimulate economic development in the OKI region. The members that make up the Freight Working Group primarily consist of representatives from private sector organizations. These individuals are involved with freight movement on a daily basis and know the issues and solutions to address those
11-10
Ohio
Kentucky
challenges. Their involvement has been imperative to ensuring that freight movement continues to provide economic development opportunities rather than becomjng a major choke point for the tri state region. The group is co-chaired by OKIs Board President, Christine Matacic, and Tom Voss from DHL Global Forwarding. Members include: CEVA Logistics, Cincinnati Bulk Terminals, Container Port Group, Horizon Freight, Kuehne + Nagel, Mason Dixon Intermodal, NS, CSX, Ohio Rail Development Commission, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, Butler County Transportation Improvement District, Clermont County Transportation Improvement District, Clinton County Regional Planning Commission, Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber of Commerce, Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, and the cities of Cincinnati and Sharonville. The Freight Working Group is collaborating to identify the impacts of the following areas regarding improvements to the movement of freight: Efficient energy usage: benefits to the environment through emission reductions and cost savings through fuel conservation and improved technology, Roadway congestion relief and the potential for rail to handle increased portion of the growing freight truck loads, Understanding the national and global freight networks, operations and markets to determine existing and future regional freight needs, Best practices from other cities and countries, and Forecast future freight growth and understand the impact of freight on and within the OKI region in order to identify freight infrastructure needs. The working groups focus is to move beyond just studing the issues. Volumes of studies have been conducted regarding freight and its impacts. The working group is concentrating on identifying and implementing both short and long-term improvements. In doing so, a few transportation realities have been acknowledged and include: a significant increase of funding to the nations infrastructure is unlikely, an all roadway solution is expensive, environmentally damaging and untimely, and freight traffic crosses state boundaries so a multi-state solution is required. Through communication, collaboration and cooperation, potential win-win solutions have been identified by the working group. This was the result of having the group engaged as active stakeholders where they understood the challenges and how solutions would benefit both area communities and the industries they represented. These industry experts were engaged participants interested in finding the best solutions to keep the OKI region economically competitive in the global marketplace. For example, relationships have been established between the railroads and the staff from local governments to focus on and solve long standing safety issues that have plagued these communities. In February 2008, through public-private relationship building, OKI supported the applications of NS, CSX, IORY, and the John R. Jurgensen Company to the Ohio Department of Developments Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program (DERG). The DERG program leverages private investment in equipment with public resources to ensure that equipment has the best available technology to manage emissions and
Ohio
Kentucky
11-11
keep the state of Ohio and its many regions in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This opportunity would enable these private companies to take major steps in improving air quality which they would otherwise not be able to do for years to come due to other corporate investment priorities. OKI will continue to work closely with freight stakeholders to forge public-private partnerships that will uncover the issues, determine the best freight solutions and create the funding needed to enhance the entire regions economic, environmental, and transportation needs. iNtegratiON iNtO traNSpOrtatiON plaNNiNg aND prOgraMMiNg To address the freight goal of promoting opportunities and resolving challenges in the movement of goods across all modes, OKI added a category to the Transportation Improvement Program project prioritization process. The category will enable freight projects to be more accurately evaluated for funding. The evaluation factors include five elements that evaluate proposals on the basis of need and the ability to effectively address the need. These elements include congestion using level of service, impact of the project on congestion, safety, development status and facility type such as Class I versus Class II. These factors give precedence to high priority lines in need of additional capacity and safety improvements. For this plan update, a potential freight transportation project list was developed in cooperation with freight stakeholders. The projects were evaluated against the criteria stated above and resulted in four freight related projects being included in the fiscally constrained plan (Figure 11-9).
figure 11-9 freight fiscally Constrained plan projects plan iD 244 project Double stack clearance location Middletown area Description Undercut rail bridge carrying Armco railroad and undercut street bridge carrying Millikin Road Retrofit diesel locomotives with improved switcher engine technology Connect barge facilities directly to the regional rail network Construct additional main rail line (A: fourth main line / B: third main line) to handle additional intercity passenger rail service YOe* Cost ($million) 1.5
601
Rail emission reduction Intermodal barge to rail facility Increase rail capacity
Queensgate, Gest Street and Sharon rail yards Ohio River
15.0
634
14.6
693
A: Queensgate to Winton Place B: Winton Place to Evendale
37.4
tOtal
SOURCE: OKI.
$68.5
11-12
Ohio
Kentucky
SUMMarY Transportation development has always been tied to economic development. An efficient transportation network allows the OKI region to take advantage of the competitive location among the nations manufacturing heartland. The tri state is located within a days drive of nearly 70 percent of North Americas manufacturing capacity. Businesses locate where they have the most efficient access to markets. It is imperative that the roadway, rail and water networks are cohesive to be able to continue to take advantage of this prime location. If goods and products cannot be moved efficiently, businesses will seek other locations that minimize disruption to their operations. The issues that have been, and will be addressed, are not unique to southwest Ohio or northern Kentucky. They are issues that many communities across the country deal with on a daily basis. However, what sets OKI and the Freight Working Group apart, is the public-private partnerships that have developed as a result of convening this group. The approach the working group has taken could be replicated throughout the country to address major obstacles constraining the movement of goods and people. OKIs creation of a broad cross section of industry leaders brings together a wide range of expertise and understanding of individual situations and how each interrelates in the successful movement of goods and people. Movement of goods in and through the region is crucial to economic vitality and presents special challenges. Staff will continue to work with the Freight Working Group and coordinate with private and public partners to address the safety and efficiency of freight movement through improvements to the intermodal transportation system.
Ohio
Kentucky
11-13
Chapter 12 Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel
Ohio
Kentucky
Chapter 12 BiCyCle and pedestrian travel

intrOdUCtiOn Within the framework of regional multimodal transportation, bicycling and walking provide alternatives for single-occupant vehicle (SOV) travel and a means of connecting with transit. Whether they replace motor vehicle travel or support transit use, bicycle and pedestrian trips help reduce congestion, fuel consumption and vehicle emissions. The use of non-motorized modes is especially valuable for replacing short distance auto trips, which have the highest rate of emissions. In addition to transportation and environmental benefits, these modes also contribute to personal health and quality of life. Due to the significance of these modes, OKI has developed the 2008 OKI Regional Bike Plan and the 2004 OKI Regional Pedestrian Plan. At a national level, surveys consistently indicate that non-motorized modes would be used more frequently for commuting and other trip purposes, both by those who use these modes now and those who do not, if facilities were more widely available for safe travel. In the OKI region, bicycling and walking account for approximately 2.5 percent of work trips, according to 2000 U.S. Census journey to work data, compared with 81.5 percent who drove alone. While this proportion is small, it should be noted that commuters walk to and from their autos and transit. The potential for greater use of these modes is indicated by the growth of both on road and off road cycling, and community support as expressed at the public information meetings for this plan and the public visioning forums for the Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP). To increase the viability of biking and walking as travel modes, changes are needed in the way that transportation facilities are planned, funded and built, and in the way that communities are developed. While bicycling and walking are addressed together as human powered modes of travel, they do not necessarily share facilities. Bicycles, as vehicles, are best accommodated in the street with other vehicular traffic and are subject to the same rules of the road as motorists. This optimizes their visibility, although cyclists may be accommodated with additional road space to reduce conflicts caused by the differences in speed. Adult bicyclists are often prohibited by law from using sidewalks and can be a hazard to pedestrians due to the speed differential. Pedestrians are best accommodated with sidewalks placed along to the roadway. As street widths and the percentage of elderly persons have increased, the need for special street crossing treatments has become more critical. Where bicycle and pedestrian travel is combined, as on shared use paths or trails, guidelines call for additional space, a minimum of 10 feet. Children are often encouraged to use sidewalks rather than riding with traffic. BiCyCling and BiCyCle FaCilities Bicycling occurs year round in the tristate. Bicycle trips for transportation purposes, including commuting to and from work, average four miles in length. Recreational or touring bicycle day trips can be 100 miles or more in length. Organized ride events may attract several hundred cyclists. OKIs bike route guides include roads and trails used and recommended by area bicyclists. These bike maps, developed with the
Ohio
Kentucky
12-1
active involvement of area bicyclists, are available for the city of Cincinnati; the four Ohio counties (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren); and three northern Kentucky counties (Boone, Campbell and Kenton). There are two major categories of bicycle facilities on road facilities and separate facilities. Since the existing roadway network can be used by bicyclists to travel to almost any destination in and out of the region, on road facilities are the primary facility for the purpose of bicycle transportation planning. Separate facilities, such as trails or shared use paths, are designed and designated exclusively for bicycles and other nonmotorized uses. Trails and greenways typically serve both recreation and transportation purposes. On ROad Bicycle Facilities On road facilities include all roadways, bridges and viaducts in the region, except those that specifically prohibit bicycles such as interstates and freeways. On such roads, bicycles and motor vehicles share either a standard lane of 10 to 12 feet or a wide outside lane of 14 feet. These facilities require bicyclists and drivers of motor vehicles to interact together on the roadway including intersections and driveway locations. As bicycles are included in the definition of vehicles under state laws, cyclists are entitled to use the roads and must comply with appropriate traffic laws. On road facilities are critical to bicyclists because they provide access throughout the region (Figures 12-1 and 12-2).
Figure 12-1 summary of On street Bicycle Facilities in the region (length in miles) striped Bike lanes Butler Clermont hamilton (Cincinnati) Warren Boone Campbell Kenton dearborn tOtal
SOURCE: OKI.
Wide Curb lanes 0.0 0.0 5.6 (5.6) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6
side paths 4.0 0.0 6.7 (1.8) 8.4 3.1 0.8 0.0 0.3 23.3
signed routes 1.3 0.0 20.3 (20.3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.6
2.1 0.0 6.3 (4.8) 0.8 5.2 0.0 8.2 0.0 22.6
12-2
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 12-2 On street Facilities in the OKi region
SOURCE: OKI.
Ohio
Kentucky
12-3
For most local streets with speed limits of 35 mph or less and average daily traffic of 2,000 vehicles per day or less, shared 12 foot lanes for motorists and cyclists are sufficient. On road improvements for cyclists on collector or arterial streets may include wide outside lanes, striped bike lanes and paved shoulders. Wide outside lanes provide additional space to the standard 12 foot travel lane for a minimum of 14 feet or more if the posted speeds are higher than 35 mph. They are generally used where there is no on street parking. A standard striped bike lane is five feet wide not including curb and gutter or drainage grates and located on both sides of the road for the preferential use of bicycles. Bike lanes are generally found in urban areas. Paved shoulders, varying in width from four to 10 feet, are generally found in rural areas. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet adopted new policies in 2002 for accommodating cyclists in future roadway construction projects. Two examples of new bike lanes are the US 42 relocation at Union in Boone County (Figure 12-3) and Turkeyfoot Road (KY 1303) reconstruction at Edgewood and Erlanger in Kenton County. Paved shoulders have been included on the KY 20 relocation at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport and on New Haven Road at New Baltimore in Hamilton County.
Figure 12-3 striped Bike lane in Union, Kentucky
SOURCE: OKI.
12-4
Ohio
Kentucky
Bridges and viaducts Rivers, hills, railroads and interstate highways create potential barriers for bicyclists traveling in and through the OKI region. Bicycle access to bridges and viaducts is an important part of the on road system. Reconstruction or replacement of several bridges of importance to bicyclists have been completed or are underway. In most cases, replacement bridges have wide shoulders for bicycle travel as well as 4-foot-6inch railings which are the minimum height for bicycles. In some cases, there are, or will be, sidewalks for pedestrians. ridership Regional on road bicycle use data is extremely limited. If cycling participation rates from the 2002 National Survey of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Attitudes are applied to the regional population for persons over 16, there are an estimated 413,000 riders across the region. The 1,200 member Cincinnati Cycle Club holds over 100 scheduled group rides each month throughout the region which are 20 to 60 miles in length and use public roads. As an indication of per rider bicycle potential, active club riders will average 3,000 to 4,000 recreational riding miles per year. Cycle club members also record an annual average of 40,000 miles of commuter cycling from reporting members or an average of 1,000 miles for each person reporting. A survey of 180 cyclists for the May 2007 Cincinnati Bike to Work Week found that 76 percent reported biking for recreational purposes and 25 percent also commuted to work. Seventy percent of those surveyed cycle mainly on streets and 25 percent on separate trails. sepaRate Facilities (shaRed Use paths) Separate facilities refer to trails, or shared use paths, that are separate from the road on their own right of way and provided for the exclusive use of bicyclists, walkers, joggers, rollerbladers, wheelchair users and other non-motorized modes. Shared use paths are 10 to 12 feet in width with two foot shoulders or clear space on each side. These facilities are most useful for travel demand on a localized basis, such as connecting with schools or shopping areas. Where linear right of ways exist, such as railroads, canals, utilities and stream conservancy easements, opportunities may exist for long distance shared use paths. While existing path facilities in the OKI region, such as the Little Miami Scenic Trail, are primarily used for recreation, their value for utilitarian trips may grow as they penetrate urban areas such as the Great Miami River Trail in Hamilton, Middletown and Dayton (Figure 12-4).
Ohio
Kentucky
12-5
Figure 12-4 little Miami scenic trail
SOURCE: OKI.
A multi-purpose, Regional Trails System is being developed in the OKI region (Figure 12-5). The proposed shared use path system is comprised of many projects that have been initiated by local or regional groups that are working toward their implementation (Figure 12-6).
12-6
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 12-5 regional trail system (miles) County and trail name Butler Great Miami Trail Miami 2 Miami Connection Oxford Perimeter Trail Clermont Little Miami Scenic Trail Williamsburg-Batavia Trail Ohio River Trail hamilton Little Miami Scenic Trail Ohio River Trail Mill Creek Greenway West Fork Mill Creek Greenway Whitewater Canal Trail Warren Great Miami Trail Miami 2 Miami Connection Little Miami Scenic Trail Lebanon Connection Boone Northern Kentucky River Path Gunpowder Creek Trail Campbell Northern Kentucky River Path Stonehouse Trail Kenton Northern Kentucky River Path Banklick Creek Trail Licking River Trail dearborn Aurora-Lawrenceburg Trail OKi region
SOURCE: OKI. *Costs represent construction only.
existing 16 11 5 0 6 6 0 0 19 12 4 2 1 0 47 5 1 33 8 1 0 1 10 0 10 1 0 1 0 5 5 105
planned 51 17 24 10 20 0 14 6 43 4 10 15 2 12 13 0 13 0 0 15 11 4 46 26 20 22 8 7 7 2 2 212
total 67 28 29 10 26 6 14 6 62 16 14 17 3 12 60 5 14 33 8 16 11 5 56 26 30 23 8 8 7 7 7 317
estimated planned trail Cost* (millions) 25.3 7.2 10.2 7.9 7.6 --4.0 3.6 42.9 10.8 19.1 7.1 1.5 4.4 5.9 ---5.9 ----6.4 5.2 1.2 12.6 12.4 0.2 10.2 4.7 2.1 3.4 1.8 1.8 112.7
Ohio
Kentucky
12-7
Figure 12-6 Map of OKi regional trail system
SOURCE: OKI.
Trail development has progressed significantly in recent years. Connections have been made from Lebanon to the Little Miami Scenic Trail and Daytons Great Miami River Trail has been extended through Franklin. Freestanding sections of Five Mile Trail have been built which will eventually connect to the regional network (Figure 12-7).
12-8
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 12-7 Five Mile trail in anderson township
SOURCE: OKI.
sidepaths A sidepath is a variation of the separate shared use path that is provided within the roads right of way, usually on one side. Sidepaths may work where intersections are infrequent and where children are being accommodated. As for paths constructed on their own right of way, guidelines for sidepaths call for a minimum of 10 foot pavement width to accommodate two way bicycle and pedestrian traffic. In addition, five feet of separation from the roadway or a barrier is required. Generally, in street facilities, striped lanes or wide curb lanes are preferred for cycling over sidepaths to improve visibility of the cyclists and reduce turning conflicts. Bicycles, tRansit and paRking Merging bicycle travel with transit services further enhances the potential of both modes of travel. Nationally, more than 500 transit companies have implemented bike racks on buses. Other forms of accommodation include bike parking facilities at transit stops and park and ride lots. In the OKI region, two park and ride locations have bike lockers for long-term parking. Anderson Township has four bike lockers at the park and ride near the Township Building on Beechmont Avenue and at the new Anderson Town Center transit center. The park and ride near the intersection of Winton and Kemper Roads in Forest Park has four bike banks for long-term parking. A bike bank secures the frame and both wheels of the bike with the users lock and has a compartment for a helmet. Cincinnati has added bike bank racks at two downtown parking garages. During 2005
Ohio
Kentucky
12-9
to 2006, OKI carried out a bicycle parking program in which 88 bike racks and two bike lockers with a capacity for 92 bicycles were provided for public buildings, schools and offices to encourage bicycle commuting to work and school. In 2002, the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority installed front mounted bike racks on their entire fleet of coaches using Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funding through OKI. The Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky added the bike racks to its fleet of 100 buses in 2005 and also provides for bicycle parking at its park and ride lots. lOcal Bicycle plans, pROgRams and pROjects Many cities, townships and counties in the region have developed a program for bicycle facilities, prepared a bikeway plan to accommodate local needs and designated a staff person to identify and coordinate projects. Ideally, these plans are part of the local transportation or land use plan. The city of Cincinnatis 1976 Bicycle Master Plan forms the basis for developing a bicycle transportation system that includes bike paths, bike lanes, signed bike routes, shared lanes and wide outside lanes. To the extent that such local bikeways are linear or suitable for travel from one place to another, meet accepted design standards, and are regionally significant on their own or as a component of a regional facility, they may be included in OKIs recommended regional bikeway system.
Figure 12-8 turkeyfoot road Bike lanes and sidewalk
SOURCE: OKI.
12-10
Ohio
Kentucky
pedestrian FaCilities The 2001 National Household Transportation Study reported walking as the second most used mode after privately operated vehicles which comprise 86 percent of travel for all trips. Eighty percent of walking trips were made for the purposes of shopping, personal errands, visiting friends and recreation (Figure 12-9). While walking was the primary mode for only 2 percent of the OKI regions work trips, it is a component of nearly all trips as persons walk to and from cars, buses and bikes (2000 U.S. Census). Beginning with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and continuing with the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005, federal funding programs, the Clean Air Act Amendments and the Americans with Disabilities Act, increased attention is being given to pedestrian travel. Among the reasons for this are the need to eliminate injuries and fatalities caused by pedestrian and auto crashes and the need to reduce congestion and motor vehicle emissions for short trips.
Figure 12-9 pedestrian Connection in Cincinnati, Ohio
SOURCE: OKI.
OngOing BiCyCle and pedestrian planning Transportation planning under ISTEA and SAFETEA-LU has undertaken a broader multimodal scope to better accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel that is vital to urban mobility in its reduction of congestion and positive impact on air quality. Since 1993, OKI has devoted resources towards the development of regional bicycle and pedestrian plans.
Ohio
Kentucky
12-11
The 2008 OKI Regional Bicycle Plan Update contains information about transportation needs for the region along with extensive recommendations for improving the safety and utilization of bicycle travel and for integrating bicycle facilities into the planning and development of the regional multimodal transportation network. The updated 2004 Regional Pedestrian Plan distinguishes between the functional activities of OKI as a regional planning agency and those of the administrative functions of member local jurisdictions. In effect, the planning, programming, implementation and maintenance of pedestrian facilities happen at the local level. Both plans also address the connection of land use to effective bicycle and pedestrian travel. The work of the OKI Land Use Commission is acknowledged by reference to the public support for alternative modes to automobile travel. Specifically, bicycling and walking were identified as priorities in the series of public visioning workshops and the completed SRPP document adopted in 2005. The requirements for addressing bicycle and pedestrian travel are set forth in the federal SAFETEA-LU transportation regulations and related guidelines for metropolitan planning organizations. The text that follows includes recommendations for bicycle and pedestrian improvements that have been excerpted from the regional bike and pedestrian plans and the SRPP. cOmplete stReets The initial multimodal transportation planning requirements of the ISTEA transportation bill of 1991 have been followed by subsequent federal and state guidelines that have emphasized the need to accommodate all modes in all new street construction and reconstruction. To work towards this goal, OKI is working to adopt a complete streets approach in the 2008 OKI Bike Plan Update. The term complete streets is used to describe streets that accommodate motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and transit riders of varying ages and abilities, and enable all modes to safely share the existing street system while reducing conflict. OKIs Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) prioritization process already encourages inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities through bonus points for intermodal connectivity and multimodal facilities. The TIP is OKIs collaborative program for prioritizing available federal project funds involving both local and state partners. A complete streets policy would assure that projects submitted for the TIP have considered appropriate facilities for accommodating bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders of all abilities, in addition to motorists. To facilitate implementation of these recommendations for on street facilities, counties and municipalities are encouraged to develop local review processes in which the appropriate bicycle and pedestrian improvements are included from the beginning of the project development process. In addition, OKI and state transportation agencies are encouraged to review the potential for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in non-freeway projects (including bridge and viaduct projects and freeway interchanges) wherever practical.
12-12
Ohio
Kentucky
land Use and lOcal develOpment The OKI Land Use Commission was initiated to specifically address the interrelationships of land use and transportation. Its work has validated the SAFETEA-LU guidelines supporting inclusion of a balanced and diverse multimodal transportation system. A regional land use policy plan has now been developed and is anticipated to encourage higher densities, mixed use development, interconnected street systems and facilities to accommodate travel by transit, bicycling and walking. This is to be carried out through a partnership with OKI and local planning agencies. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are most efficiently implemented as land is initially developed. The provision of sidewalks in developing areas eliminates the need to retrofit neighborhoods and arterial streets with sidewalks in the future. The application of access management principles during commercial development such as minimizing curb cuts and building setbacks reduces the number of driveway conflict points and the distance from street to building. The installation of traffic calming techniques in residential areas slows vehicular traffic and provides safer accommodations for pedestrians. Safety can also be increased by maintaining pedestrian facilities, removing debris and encroaching plant material, and repairing deteriorated paving. In order for bicycle and pedestrian planning recommendations to be implemented, local governments are encouraged to integrate them into their transportation and land use plans, local zoning and subdivision regulations, county thoroughfare plans, capital improvement plans and reviews of major development proposals. Optimally, the strongest community programs include a bicycle and pedestrian coordinator, an advisory committee, a facilities plan, promotion and educational programs, and enforcement of laws and regulations. Further guidance for improving local conditions for cyclists is available from the League of American Bicyclists program for Bicycle Friendly Communities. clean aiR While the OKI region has made progress in complying with national clean air standards, more stringent ozone and particulate matter standards will require dedicated application of available emission reduction practices to achieve compliance. OKIs Regional Clean Air Program partners with public planning and health agencies and private businesses dedicated to accomplishing this mission. Bicycle and pedestrian travel is encouraged by the Regional Clean Air Program both as a substitute mode for short trips and along with transit, as an alternative to auto use for reducing emissions, particularly during smog alerts. Oki technical assistance OKIs professional staff objectives are to address regional issues that transcend local government boundaries. While the result is primarily policy level plans and programs, staff is available to provide direct assistance on issues such as access management, Safe Routes To School (SRTS), bicycle facilities and Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Accessible Design. OKIs technical assistance program will continue to work with member local jurisdictions towards making the region more inclusive of bicycle and pedestrian travel modes.
Ohio
Kentucky
12-13
tRansit impROvements While walking is a component of most trips, it is a more significant component of fixed route transit trips. Therefore, pedestrian considerations are needed while planning for transit service. Transit service providers are encouraged to ensure that all stops, hubs, and park and rides be accessible by sidewalks. Improved connectivity of these facilities has the potential for increasing the use of transit and carpooling, as well as reducing SOV trips. Bicycle and pedestrian connections with other alternatives to driving alone can be further facilitated by shelters along transit routes, lockers at transit stations, bike racks at bus stops and park and ride lots, and bus mounted bike racks. edUcatiOn and enFORcement pROgRams Local governments can undertake education and enforcement programs to encourage more, and safer, walking and cycling in the community. Communities are encouraged to participate in the state operated SRTS program created under SAFETEA-LU. The intent of the program is to have more school children walking to school instead of being driven in their family car. This program works to improve the health and physical condition of children and reduce traffic and vehicle emissions around schools. Education programs to encourage walking may be undertaken by local governments partnering with school districts and health departments for a variety of objectives such as reducing school vehicular traffic, improving air quality and personal fitness. An example is the Step Forward, Erlanger program featuring walking and biking routes and events in the community (Figure 12-10). A necessary component to encouragement is police enforcement of traffic laws related to speeding, yielding to pedestrians and safe roadsharing by bicyclists and motorists.
Figure 12-10 Walking promotion
SOURCE: City of Erlanger, Kentucky.
12-14
Ohio
Kentucky
new Bicycle and pedestRian Facilities Bicycle and pedestrian transportation needs were identified during the 2008 plan update process. A number of improvement projects are recommended in this fiscally constrained plan to directly address bicycle and pedestrian needs (Figure 12-11). In addition, there are a number of roadway projects (Chapter 8) which include bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities as elements of their improvement descriptions.
Figure 12-11 Fiscally Constrained Bicycle and pedestrian improvements
state
plan id 630 633
County
Facility
location
description
yOe Cost $(M) 2.2 21.6
OH OH
Hamilton Hamilton
Ohio River Trail Ohio River Trail KY 18
Lunken to Downtown Lunken to Salem Road KY 842 to Burlington
Separate Shared Use Path Separate Shared Use Path along Ohio riverbank Pave and stripe both existing shoulders on KY 18 to provide bike and pedestrian lane Provide walkways on one side of KY 18 Pave and stripe existing shoulders to provide bike and pedestrian lanes Provide walkway
KY
103
Boone
0.5
KY KY
141 143
Boone Boone
KY 18 KY 237
Through I-75 interchange KY 18 to Hebron
1.2 0.4
KY
149
Boone
US 42
North side US 42 through I-75 interchange Lesko Park
1.2
IN tOtal
510
Dearborn
Dearborn Trail
Add bike path next to park walking trail
0.6 $27.7
SOURCE: OKI. YOE: Year of Expenditures
Many shared use paths are proposed as part of the future regional system and are not part of this fiscally constrained plan (Figure 12-12). Right of ways are not available for many of these projects. Plans for these projects anticipate the temporary use of shared roads for an undetermined time or even as permanent components of the system until such time as separate corridors can be purchased or dedicated through development. Only two of the proposed shared use path projects are included as part of this fiscally constrained plan. The Ohio River Trail is currently planned in two sections between downtown Cincinnati and Lunken Airport, and from Lunken Airport to Salem Road (Figure 12-11).
Ohio
Kentucky
12-15
Figure 12-12 non-Fiscally Constrained shared Use path projects Great Miami River Trail (The Great Connection) Currently planned from Fairfield to Franklin and continues outside OKI region from Franklin into Montgomery County and downtown Dayton From downtown Lebanon to the Little Miami Scenic Trail at Kings Mill From the mouth of the Little Miami River to the Warren and Greene County line and continues north of OKI region to Springfield, Ohio From the Great Miami River Trail in Hamilton to the Little Miami Scenic Trail at Kings Mill From the mouth of the Mill Creek in Cincinnati to the MiamiErie Canal Trail which is a portion of the Miami 2 Miami Trail From Salem to New Richmond (other two sections, downtown to Lunken Airport and Lunken Airport to Salem, are included as part of this fiscally constrained plan) Proposed to surround Oxford and Miami University in Butler County From the mouth of West Fork Mill Creek in Arlington Heights to Winton Woods Lake Trail From Williamsburg to Batavia in Clermont County via East Fork State Park Generally along the Ohio River and KY 8 corridor from Mentor in Campbell County to the end of Route 8 in Boone County From Greendale along the Ohio River through Lawrenceburg to Lesko Park in Aurora, Indiana
Lebanon Countryside YMCA Trail Little Miami Scenic Trail
Miami 2 Miami Connection Mill Creek Greenway
Ohio River Trail
Oxford Perimeter Path West Fork Mill Creek Trail Williamsburg Batavia Hike / Bike Trail Kentucky River Path
Dearborn Trail
SOURCE: OKI.
FUnding FOr BiCyCle and pedestrian iMprOveMents While most federal highway and transit funding sources may be used for bicycle and pedestrian projects, the list of bicycle and pedestrian needs throughout the region far exceeds the funding resources available. Many bicycle and pedestrian improvements are most effectively implemented as an integral part of roadway or transit project funding and construction. However, the construction of regional off road trails is highly dependent on local initiative and commitment because Ohios unincorporated areas are prohibited from using gasoline tax or license fee revenues for such facilities. The Ohio Department of Transportation guidelines generally require local governments to provide funds for the planning and design plus the 20 percent local share of right of way acquisition and construction when using the various federal transportation programs. Local governments use a variety different funding methods to construct or otherwise help implement bicycle and pedestrian facilities such as obtaining private funding from adjacent property owners and partnering with park districts.
12-16
Ohio
Kentucky
Special projects to improve existing roadways or extend the off road trail system may be more appropriately funded with categorical Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds. A wide variety of projects are funded through TE including those that support nonmotorized travel using a competitive application process. In addition, there are other federal, state and private sources available that may be suitable for specific local projects such as the SRTS or the Clean Ohio Trails program. The SRTS program is unique among transportation programs as it permits 100 percent federal share in which no local match is required. It is also unusual because a portion of the funding, 10 to 30 percent, is required for safety education, promotion of biking and walking to school and enforcement of traffic laws in the vicinity of schools. The balance may be used for typical infrastructure projects including sidewalks, traffic calming measures, shared use paths and bike parking. Safe Routes To School programs require an active collaboration of community resources including local governments, schools, parents, police, planners and students. Programs require evaluation of current conditions as well as evaluations to document the change. Administered through the state departments of transportation, local governments may partner with school districts and non-profit agencies to carry out the program. sUMMary OKI will continue to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian travel through a variety of efforts that include providing technical assistance and information, continuing its regional planning efforts, serving on advisory committees, conducting planning reviews, sponsoring training workshops, modifying its RideShare program to include commuter cyclists in the Guaranteed Ride Home program and identifying other opportunities to support greater use of human powered modes. OKIs complete streets approach may provide more incentives for accommodating bicycle, pedestrian and transit use in projects funded through the TIP. The OKI Regional Bicycle Plan, updated in 2008, and the OKI Regional Pedestrian Plan, updated in 2004, contain many specific recommendations for promoting bicycle facilities and planning in the region that have been summarized in this chapter.
Ohio
Kentucky
12-17
Chapter 13 Other Travel Mode Alternatives
Ohio
Kentucky
CHAPTER 13 OTHER TRAVEL MODE ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION It is in the regions public interest to plan for and foster alternatives to single-occupant vehicle (SOV) travel. Alternative modes that serve multiple occupants are desirable for reducing congestion, which in turn reduces the need for roadway expansion projects and decreases vehicle emissions. These are critical components in this plans strategy for meeting mobility and air quality needs. Furthermore, alternative modes provide travel opportunities to those for whom auto use is not a possible or preferred option. This chapter presents the non-SOV travel opportunities beyond transit that exist within the OKI region, the challenges or needs facing these different alternative modes and makes recommendations for improvements. Alternatives discussed in this chapter are intended to provide viable alternatives to automobile travel and include ridesharing, employer programs, air and ferry service. RIDESHARING Ridesharing refers to carpools and vanpools, both of which reduce SOV travel. A carpool generally involves two to five people sharing a ride in a persons automobile. A vanpool is a group of seven to 15 commuters who share a leased van for commuting. OKI has a regional RideShare program that helps establish and sustain carpools and vanpools through marketing, technical and support programs. This program was instituted in 1979 in response to the regions status as an air quality non-attainment area and serves southwestern Ohio, northern Kentucky and southeastern Indiana. RideShares free service matches commuters with potential carpool partners who live and work in the same area. Commuters are matched based on home address, work address and work hours. Commuters can process a carpool matchlist at www. rideshareonline.org or a representative is available to process applications by calling 241-RIDE. Throughout the years, OKI has marketed the RideShare program using a variety of means including radio, print advertisements, public and private employer campaigns, special events, coordination with OKIs Regional Clean Air program and distribution of promotional materials. RideShare marketing not only promotes the awareness of services offered by the program, but also works to change the attitudes and behaviors of tristate commuters. Ridesharing benefits both the participants and the general public. Personal benefits are related to pick-up and drop-off convenience, reduced stress from driving or parking, and financial savings from reduced operating costs and extended vehicle life. The public benefits from fewer vehicles on the road, which reduces congestion and related problems. During the summer ozone season, increased ridesharing can contribute to critical emission reductions. Public policy can influence ridesharing through fees that increase SOV travel costs, such as increased parking prices or gasoline taxes, or through preferential treatment for rideshare vehicles, such as high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes or reduced parking cost.
Ohio
Kentucky
13-1
Vanpools The vanpool program has two types of commuter vanpools: traditional and nontraditional. Traditional vanpools consist of a group of individuals voluntarily participating in a ridesharing arrangement utilizing a van. The van is leased by an individual in the group but is not responsible for providing the insurance and maintenance of the vanpool. Non-traditional vanpools are leased by a third-party such as an employer. The third-party is responsible for providing the driver, insurance, maintenance and some administration. RideShare subsidizes each vanpool in the amount of $400 per month towards the capital cost. The incentive program is in place to reduce the cost of vanpooling and to make the program more attractive to commuters than driving in a single-occupant vehicle. The average life of a vanpool is one to four years. New vanpools are always beginning and old ones terminating depending on changes within the OKI region like company downsizing, early retirements, company buy-outs, schedule changes, new transit service, company relocations and expansions and company sponsored employee commute option plans. park and pools Park and Pool lots are the same as a Park and Ride in that they provide convenient parking areas for commuters. These lots are generally located in suburban areas and may have amenities such as benches, lighted waiting areas and newspaper racks available for riders. However, Park and Pools do not have transit service and therefore require a carpool or vanpool. Guaranteed ride Home proGram OKIs efforts also include a Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program. The GRH program is available for registered RideShare, TANK and Metro users. Although the GRH program is used relatively infrequently, it is a significant part of the RideShare program. Commuters have indicated that one reason for not participating in a carpool or vanpool is fear of being stranded at work in case of an emergency. The GRH program enables RideShare to persuade commuters who currently travel in single-occupancy vehicles to try another form of transportation such as, carpools, vanpools or transit. RideShare will reimburse registered commuters 80 percent of ar cab fare home in case of an emergency or unexpected overtime up to four times per year. EMPLOYER PROGRAMS In addition to OKIs efforts, ridesharing can also be encouraged through employer policies or programs. Employer policy, for example, can provide designated specialized carpooling services, tax benefits, parking arrangements, alternative work schedules, trip reduction programs and teleworking. Cluster analysis serViCes Cluster analysis service is provided upon request to companies through RideShare as a way to identify potential carpooling and vanpooling groups within a companys employee base. The company provides RideShare a database of employees addresses and an identifying name or number. RideShare is then able to place a dot on a map at the exact home location of each employee. When all of the employees are plotted
13-2
Ohio
Kentucky
on the map, clusters of employees who live within close proximity of one another are identifiable. This information is then returned to the company and small group meetings are scheduled for each identified cluster to discuss the advantages of carpooling and vanpooling and the potential for implementing such programs. Commuter CHoiCe tax Benefits proGram The Commuter Choice Tax Benefits Program was established by the Internal Revenue Service as a provision of the Qualified Transportation Benefits of the 1992 Energy Policy Act. It provides an incentive to companies that support vanpooling and transit use and to employees to use these services. Under SAFETEA-LU, employers may provide up to $115 per month in vanpooling or transit fares as a tax-free benefit. trip reduCtion proGrams In a Trip Reduction Program (TRP), employers offer a variety of travel demand management strategies to encourage their employees to reduce travel to and from the work site. Research conducted throughout the country has shown that a TRP program can be very effective as indicated by vehicle trip reductions as high as 30 percent to 40 percent (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Commuter Choice; Employer Provided Benefits, May 2, 2000). Generally, the employer designates a coordinator to initiate and administer the program, which may involve quantifying program results and documenting successful strategies. In general, the most effective TRPs offer time or financial incentives to encourage employees to shift from driving alone to using an alternative travel mode. Compared to applying TDM strategies to a region, corridor, or activity center, employerbased TDM programs are often the most effective in reducing trips. Commuters are more responsive to TDM strategies presented at the worksite than presented through other types of programs. In addition, the strategies selected for a TRP can address specific worksite and commuter characteristics, as opposed to the diversity of factors that influence commuter choice on a regional basis. Information can be targeted to those employees most likely to use alternative modes. A TRPs success is influenced by employer location, work force composition and employee commute patterns. Employers with effective TRPs are often located in highdensity employment areas with transit service, HOV facilities and restricted parking and have a high proportion of service and skilled labor positions and a significant number of employees with long commutes (greater than 15 miles). TRPs help reduce congestion and vehicle emissions but for employers to implement them voluntarily generally requires a strong interest in solving an on-site transportation problem (such as a parking shortage or employee tardiness from congestion), expanding employee benefits or reducing company expenses related to parking or tardiness. Parking Management Parking price and availability are factors in some peoples choice of travel mode. To manage travel demand, the public and private sectors can design parking policies to discourage SOV use or encourage the use of SOV alternatives. In central business districts, parking can be managed to discourage long-term parking for commuting purposes at the same time that short-term parking is feasible for shopping and other
Ohio
Kentucky
13-3
errands. Parking management is most effective if it is applied in combination with other traffic demand management strategies. Responsibility for managing parking supply and pricing is divided among different entities. Private developers and employers can remove, reduce or cash out employer provided parking subsidies. They can also reverse early bird or monthly discounts favoring long-term commuter parking. Private sector can also impose parking pricing and discount parking for carpoolers. In the public sector, local governments may implement many pricing approaches. These approaches could include; governments imposing or increasing fees and surcharges for solo drivers or long term parkers in public parking facilities, giving preference to car and vanpoolers, taxing parking providers or revising zoning laws to reduce minimum parking supply requirements. The federal government also influences parking through IRS policy. Companies may offer tax-free incentives to promote change in the way their employees commute to work. Employers can provide $175 per month tax free to employees for qualified parking plus an additional $65 a month tax free for a vanpool/transit subsidy. Employers may offer a cash-out program where employers provide this subsidy in lieu of a company provided parking space. Alternative Work Schedules Work schedules influence commuter travel patterns. In designing work schedules, employers influence peak period travel volumes and employee inclination to use transit, carpools and other SOV alternatives. Because of these impacts, work schedules provide a means of managing travel demand. There are three types of work schedules with potential applicability for managing travel demand. First, a flextime program allows employees to set arrival and departure times within a specified span of time. This allows commuters to avoid travel during the most congested times. Flextime helps spread peak traffic and facilitates carpool participation and transit ridership. Second, a staggered work hours program allows groups of workers to arrive and leave at set intervals. This type of work schedule disperses congestion. Third, a compressed workweek allows employees to work more hours in fewer days than they would in a conventional schedule of eight hours per day. A common option is to work four 10-hour days followed by a day off. This arrangement can divert work trips from peak periods and also reduce the number of work trips. In addition to those benefits related to transportation, studies show that these work schedules provide other benefits to participating employers and employees. Employers may benefit from reductions in tardiness, sick time, and absenteeism and from increased employee productivity. Participating employees enjoy greater flexibility for conducting their non-work responsibilities. Benefits are relatively inexpensive with costs primarily related to program set-up and perhaps for extended office hours. OKI promotes alternative work schedules as part of the RideShare program. Teleworking Teleworking reduces congestion by reducing commuter travel. Under a telework arrangement, employees perform work at home, typically one to three days a week, thereby eliminating work trips on those days. Telecommuters use computers, telephones, modems and fax machines to link to clients and other employees at the work place. Teleworking produces benefits for the region, the employer and the employee. The region benefits from reductions in congestion, fuel consumption and vehicle emissions.
13-4
Ohio
Kentucky
For businesses, teleworking is often reported as improving productivity and helping to recruit and retain valuable employees. It may also reduce office space needs. The teleworkers benefits include travel cost and time savings, greater flexibility in managing their work and personal lives, and less stress. From 2000-2005, the number of teleworkers in the U.S. performing at least eight hours of work per month off-site has grown from 15.6 million to 31 million (Gartner Dataquest, September 2005). Teleworkings growth is a response to market, technological and social forces. On the economic front, the shift from goods production to information and services supports the growth of teleworking and so does teleworkings use of relatively low cost equipment. Advances in computer and telecommunications technologies further boost telework commuting, especially advances in data transmission and simultaneous voice and data transmissions. Teleworking is increasingly being recognized as a way of helping employees to better balance work and home life. Employers are realizing that the availability of teleworking is a recruiting and retention tool. It is evident that at least a portion of the demand for transportation infrastructure can be met by the increased capacity of the teleworking infrastructure. While teleworking seems likely to grow, its rate of growth depends largely on its acceptance and popularity with employers and employees. The future of teleworking will be affected by individual responses to managerial, supervision, communication and social issues. AIR TRAVEL The OKI region has an extensive aviation system that includes a complex array of airspace and flight paths and multiple facilities that support air travel. Because airports can be significant traffic generators, one aspect of air travels role in the transportation planning process is the consideration of airport impacts on the surface network. The OKI airport system serves all forms of air travel. There are 10 publicly owned airports including one air carrier, three reliever and five general aviation facilities. In addition, there are two privately owned airports for public use and numerous privately owned landing strips for private use. CinCinnati/nortHern kentuCky international airport (CVG) The Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG) is the primary airport of the OKI region. Eight passenger airlines serve the airport: American, Comair, Continental, Delta, Northwest, US Airways, USA 3000 and United. The airport is a major hub for Delta Airlines; however, a hub realignment by Delta in 2005 led to a 30 percent decrease in operations and passengers at CVG. After the reduction in service, the airport still offers 470 flights a day to 120 nonstop destinations. In 2005, almost 21.5 million passengers used the airport. This number decreased to 14.8 million by 2007. In 2005, there were over 11.4 million enplanements at CVG, ranking it the 22nd busiest airport in the United States. However by 2007, enplanements had dropped to 7.5 million as the result of the reduction in service by Delta and other carriers (CVG 2007 Annual Report, USDOT RITA (Research and Innovative Technology Administration) and AirNav.com). General aviation activities occurring throughout the OKI region include corporate flight departments, pleasure flying, medivac, gliding and skydiving. Although CVG maintains a small number of general aviation operations, the bulk of these operations take place at the reliever facilities and other general aviation airports across the region.
Ohio
Kentucky
13-5
Figure 13-1 Regional Airports
SOURCE: OKI.
Figure 13-2 General Aviation Airports and Operations Facility Cincinnati Blue Ash Cincinnati Lunken Field Cincinnati West Clermont County Butler County Regional Airport Lebanon/Warren County Miami University Middletown-Hook Field Waynesville-Red Stewart Airfield Annual Operations 35,000 108,904 30,197 30,650 61,687 24,951 16,708 40,050 16,800
SOURCE: GCR & Associates - FAA Airport Master Record (FAA Form 5010-1). Airport Facilities Directory (AFD) Effective Date: 2/14/2008. Available: http://www.gcr1.com/5010WEB/default.htm.
13-6
Ohio
Kentucky
HeliCopter operations Helicopter (rotocraft) operations, which are a small portion of the overall air traffic, have begun to increase in the OKI region. A number of heliports mostly associated with area hospitals, exist throughout the region. Currently, there are 21 certified heliports and helistops in the OKI region. Eighteen of these heliports are privately owned and operated, two are privately owned for public use and one is publicly owned for private use. Other rotorcraft operations use the existing airport system. RIVER FERRY SERVICE Anderson Ferry Boat Inc. operates an automobile ferry service on the Ohio River between the foot of Anderson Ferry Road in Hamilton County and River Road (KY 8) in Boone County near the Kenton-Boone County line. The Anderson Ferry operates every 15 minutes Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. until 9:30 p.m., on Saturday and holidays from 7:00 a.m. until 9:30 p.m. and on Sunday from 9:00 a.m. until 9:30 p.m. The cost per automobile is $4.00 per river crossing. The ferry transports an average of 400 to 500 vehicles across the river per day. Due to the absence of river crossings in that area, the ferry is also important for transporting bicyclists for a charge of $1.00. The fare for pedestrians is 50 cents. The ferry is also on the route of the trans-continental American Discovery Trail.
Figure 13-3 Anderson Ferry
SOURCE: OKI.
Ohio
Kentucky
13-7
SUMMARY Congestion is a problem for which both the cause and solution are influenced by the cumulative effect of individual choices. By taking initiatives to encourage employees to commute more frequently by rideshare or transit, employers in both the public and private sectors can help reduce congestion. For ridesharing to expand, incentives are needed to offset the flexibility, independence and overall appeal of SOV travel. As reported by the U.S. Census, carpools accounted for about 10 percent of regional work trips in 2000. To change travel behavior, the public sector must take the initiative to promote rideshare to the general public and employers. For the public sector, the cost of promotional efforts should be surpassed by the widespread benefits of reduced SOV travel.
13-8
Ohio
Kentucky
Chapter 14 Corridor and Planning Studies
Ohio
Kentucky
Chapter 14 Corridor and planning studies

INTRODUCTION Corridor and planning studies provide the opportunity for a focused and comprehensive examination of transportation issues in the OKI region. These studies, by design, consider every feasible alternative to addressing transportation issues under question. Concepts new to the region can be explored for their applicability and potential benefit for addressing regional transportation goals. By applying planning to regional transportation issues, a conceptual step back can be taken to think through and examine the actions required to create a desired transportation future for the OKI region. Planning is essential to the creation and refinement of long-term transportation solutions. The region is influenced by many factors and is in constant flux. By drafting forecasts using the best data and principles known to exist at the given time, multiple factors can be comprehensively examined and a sequence of scenarios prepared for how the region can react. Corridor studies The study of a corridor provides a level playing field among all modes of transportation because it was conceived jointly by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The metropolitan planning regulations of October 1993 require a corridor study where there are high cost and high impact transportation alternatives being considered. Since a corridor study is a major undertaking and there are limited resources available to do these types of studies, it is important to carefully consider which projects are really appropriate for a corridor study. Though the term Major Investment Studies (MIS) is no longer used, the basic approach is similar. In large measure, the corridor study process focuses on how to do a better job of connecting the planning process with project development in a way that provides a stronger rationale and basis for sustaining those investments. The corridor study is a unique problem solving tool that adds value to the planning process and leads to better decisions. It focuses on defining problems to be solved within a corridor or subarea and then builds a process to reach a consensus on appropriate solutions. The process focuses on building consensus by involving local communities and interests early and often. Local involvement includes identifying a broad range of alternatives and a comprehensive evaluation of those alternatives so decisions address problems, needs and objectives. This evaluation includes consideration of multimodal alternatives such as transit as well as bicycle and pedestrian travel. It adds value by ensuring that a broad range of alternatives is considered and by offering an opportunity to streamline the overall planning and project development process. For the corridor study process to work as intended there must be strong working relationships among all interested agencies and a proactive public involvement program. This plan includes many projects that were identified as priority projects in completed corridor studies. The plan also includes projects which are likely to be recommended in the ongoing I-471 Corridor Study, which will be completed by summer 2008, and are included in the fiscal constraint analysis of this plan. Some of the projects identified
Ohio
Kentucky
14-1
and included in this plan are in areas that have been identified as future corridor studies and will undergo further evaluation as part of the study. Projects within current corridor study boundaries may be changed, added or deleted based on the corridor study recommendations. Other projects outside corridor study areas will require further analysis, especially those that may impact the primary system which consists of interstates. The plan also leaves a modest amount of the projected available funds to projects not yet identified. This is intended to permit flexibility and the ability to amend the plan relatively easily as corridor studies conclude or if the scope of existing recommendations changes significantly. COmpleTeD CORRIDOR STUDIeS Although the corridor study should emanate from the planning process, exceptions can occur. For example, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) had three existing projects that pre-dated the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), however new planning requirements compelled the state to conduct MIS which are presented in the text that follows as completed corridor studies. i-75 Corridor phase i The I-75 study area extended from I-275 north to SR 63. Conducted by ODOT, Phase I of this study was embarked upon due to the additional traffic expected to be generated from the construction of the SR 129 (Butler County Veterans Highway) and the Allen Road Interchange. The study was completed by ODOT in late 1996. The preferred alternative for Phase I of the I-75 corridor was estimated to cost $54,268,500 with a combination of improvements and strategies including: the construction of an auxiliary lane in each direction of I-75 between I-275 and Cincinnati-Dayton Road and between SR 129 and Tylersville Road; expansion of bus service within the corridor; implementation of an expanded rideshare program; expansion of the Advanced Regional Traffic Interactive Management and Information System (ARTIMIS) to SR 63; implementation of an incident management program; coordination of SR 747 and US 42 signal systems; and, improvement of access management along SR 4, SR 747, and US 42. i-71 Corridor phase i The I-71 corridor study began in 1994 as an effort to evaluate the operations of the interstate and options to improve mobility in the corridor. The corridor is defined as the area within approximately one mile east and west of the interstate facility. The north and south boundaries of the study area were defined as SR 48 in Warren County to I275 in northern Hamilton County. The study recommended that I-71 in Warren County be widened to four lanes in each direction between I-275 and SR 48. i-71 Corridor phase ii An MIS for the I-71 corridor was completed in order to improve mobility along the northeast corridor near I-71 and its neighboring areas. The Phase II I-71 corridor extends from Florence, Kentucky and the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport; north through Boone and Kenton counties; along I-71/I-75 into downtown Covington; through downtown Cincinnati, the University of Cincinnati/Medical Center area, the cities of Norwood, Silverton, Blue Ash, and several other Hamilton County cities; and finally terminating in southern Warren County at Kings Mills Road. Light rail transit was identified as the preferred alternative to address the transportation goals
14-2
Ohio
Kentucky
established for the corridor including improving mobility, accessibility, the physical and social environment, economic development and air quality. The preferred alternative was approved by the I-71 Oversight Committee by majority decision in March 1998 and adopted by the OKI Board of Trustees in April 1998. The Minimal Operable Segment was identified as the area between 12th Street in Covington, Kentucky and approximately Cornell Road in Blue Ash, Ohio. The Preliminary Engineering and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PE/DEIS) Report was submitted to FTA in July 2003. During the PE/DEIS portion of the study, the exact alignment, station locations, and environmental impacts were evaluated. In 2003, a Hamilton County tax levy failed to pass public vote which would have provided the local funding necessary to initiate implementation of the preferred light rail transit alternative. This recommendation remains on hold until local funding and support can be obtained. i-275 east Corridor As with the I-75 and I-71 corridor studies, the I-275 East Corridor MIS was conducted by ODOT in 1997 when current and projected traffic volumes resulted in unacceptable levels of congestion and delay. ODOT realized the need for alternatives to alleviate congestion problems by the year 2010. The boundaries of the study area included Five Mile Road to the south and US 50 to the north. Additional routes, such as Eight Mile Road, Mt. Carmel-Tobasco Road, Glen Este-Withamsville Road, Beechwood Road, Summerside Road, and Tealtown Road, were also included in the analysis to provide evaluation on a corridor scale. The preferred alternative for the I-275 East Corridor was a combination of improvements and strategies at an estimated cost of $91,568,300. The major recommendation was to add one lane in each direction on I-275 between US 50 and Five Mile Road. This roadway widening, at an estimated cost of $40,500,000, has been completed. Fort Washington Way The Fort Washington Way section of I-71 along the central riverfront area of Cincinnati was studied as a sub-corridor within the I-71 Phase II corridor study. The study of Ft. Washington Way, conducted separately but concurrently with the I-71 corridor study, was completed in January 1997. At the request of the city of Cincinnati, the OKI Board of Trustees agreed in September 1995 to conduct an analysis of Fort Washington Way to determine whether to rebuild, modify, or eliminate it altogether. The decision was made to redesign the facility. It became apparent that this major roadway project would prove to be the keystone for a redevelopment of the Cincinnati riverfront. The redesign of the facility not only improved the performance of the roadway system but also did so on a smaller amount of right of way and freed up valuable real estate. Paul Brown Stadium, Great American Ballpark and the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center benefited from the additional land made available by the smaller Fort Washington Way roadway. A major storm water retention basin was also built into the project at the foot of the new Third Street. Staging areas for buses and other travel modes were also included below the new Second Street. The main line of the new facility was fully opened by the end of 2000. This project was remarkable in terms of the amount of interagency coordination and communication required to make it possible. This major project went from concept to completion in an astounding five years.
Ohio
Kentucky
14-3
eastern Corridor Like the I-71 corridor study, the Eastern Corridor Study was an outgrowth of the OKI 1993 Regional Transportation Plan. The MIS phase of the study was completed in 1998 and the plan has now entered the PE/EIS phase. The PE/EIS is being conducted by the Hamilton County Transportation Improvement District. The Eastern Corridor study area covers nearly 200 square miles in parts of Hamilton and Clermont counties in Ohio and also part of Campbell County in Kentucky. The study area extends east from downtown Cincinnati to Milford, Batavia and Amelia before dipping into northern Kentucky along I-275 and I-471. The MIS culminated in a plan that was recommended by the Eastern Corridor Task Force and was adopted on December 10, 1998 by OKIs board. Following consideration of public comments and group discussion, the task force, comprised of nearly 60 members representing 18 local governments in the corridor, recommended a multimodal plan with four categories of improvements including: highway improvements to preserve and expand the capacity of the roadway network; Transportation System Management to optimize the performance of existing roadway and bus transit investments and to expand pedestrian and bicycle facilities; bus service expansion to extend new routes in developed areas; rail transit on existing infrastructure to establish new east-west transit service and connect major employment centers; and, right of way preservation along the existing Wasson rail line from Xavier University to Fairfax for potential connection to the I-71 light rail transit. northeast Boone County The Northeast Boone County MIS was initiated to explore possible transportation solutions in the vicinity of the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, a rapidly growing area experiencing high rates of traffic growth. The Northeast Boone County MIS was completed in September 1999. The top three recommendations were roadway projects designed to improve mobility in the corridor and included: widening North Bend Road; improving the interchanges of KY 212 and Donaldson Road with I-275; and, constructing New South Airfield Road which would skirt the eastern and southern airport property and connect Mineola Pike and KY 18. Central area loop study The Central Area Loop Study examined the need for a loop circulator system to connect the downtown areas of Cincinnati, Covington, and Newport; the traffic flow on Fourth and Fifth Streets in Covington and Newport; and possible alignments for a light rail link from the proposed I-71 light rail line to the city of Newport. The boundaries of the Central Area Loop Study were I-75 on the west, the city of Newports eastern boundary line on the east at I-471, Central Parkway in Cincinnati on the north, and 12th Street in Covington and 11th Street in Newport on the south. Following 18 months of analysis, the studys advisory committee developed recommendations designed to decrease traffic congestion and improve mobility to downtown Cincinnati, Covington and Newport. Recommendations were made regarding loop circulator service, streetcar, personal rapid transit, Fourth and Fifth Streets in Covington and Newport, the Veterans Memorial Bridge, and a possible Newport light rail spur. The study was completed by OKI in 2001.
14-4
Ohio
Kentucky
northwest Butler transportation study The Northwest Butler Transportation Study (NBTS) was an in-depth study of the transportation needs and possible solutions to transportation related problems in a 125 square mile area centered on US 27 and SR 73, spanning eight townships in northwest Butler County, Ohio. The purpose of this study was to determine a recommended longrange strategic plan of implementable improvements for future transportation in the NBTS area. The recommendations resulting from the NBTS study included: upgrading key intersections and lane and shoulder widths of several roadway sections; re-aligning US 27 and SR 129 in Millville; widening US 27 to four lanes from SR 128 to Millville; expanding US 27 to a three lane segment between Minton Road and McGonigle and between Stillwell Beckett and Chestnut Roads; adding a two lane connector between US 27 and SR 73 and between US 27 and SR 732 south of Oxford; and, considering the re-routing of US 27 over local roads. The study was completed by OKI in 2003. north/south transportation initiative In 1999, the North/South Transportation Initiative (NSTI), Phase II of the I-75 Corridor Study, was initiated by OKI in partnership with the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission and included the I-75 corridor from northern Kentucky through Dayton to the Miami County line. The recommendations from Phase I served as the base scenario for Phase II. Completed in 2003, the studys oversight committee made recommendations for a preferred program of projects that were classified into three separate categories. The first category included system modification alternatives or those projects that would improve the overall flow of the interstate mainline, as well as improvements to parallel roadways. The second category included access modification alternatives or those projects that address new or modified interchanges on the interstate. The third recommendation category included corridor capacity alternatives or those projects, both roadway and transit, which are designed to increase the overall capacity of the interstate. These specific corridor capacity alternatives included: four continuous lanes on I-75 throughout the Ohio portion of the OKI region with an auxiliary lane to be added in areas of congestion, high frequency light rail and enhanced bus service, and study of multimodal freight movement. The NSTI has now entered the PE/EIS phase. The PE/EIS is being conducted by ODOT in two separate segments entitled Through the Valley, I-75 Mill Creek Expressway. Replacement of the Brent Spence Bridge was also a product of the NSTI and is in the planning phases. As the I-75 connection across the Ohio River between Ohio and Kentucky, this bridge project is a joint effort of ODOT and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. southwest Warren County transportation study OKI undertook a study to identify the most effective alternatives for improving mobility in Warren County. The study area was bound by I-75 to the west, SR 63 to the north, SR 48 to the east, and along US 22/SR 3 to the county line in the south. The study addressed the need for maintaining accessibility along major transportation corridors on the basis of the existing and future conditions. OKIs effort included responsibilities for coordination of both the technical and public involvement aspects of the study process. Completed in 2005, eight high priority projects were identified: connect Bethany Road to Mason-Morrow-Millgrove Roads and widen to three lanes between Butler Warren
Ohio
Kentucky
14-5
Road and SR 48 with right of way for five lanes; extend Waterstone Drive across I-71 to connect with Duke Drive; widen Columbia Road one lane in each direction between Kings Mill and Mason-Morrow-Millgrove Roads; widen Butler Warren Road one lane in each direction between Barrett/Western Row and Bethany Roads; conduct a feasibility study to identify a comprehensive solution for the I-71 interchange at Fields Ertel and Mason Montgomery Roads; expand the I-71 interchange at Western Row Road to a full interchange; and, improve the I-71 interchange at SR 741 and Kings Mills Road. dixie highway Corridor study Completed in 2005, The Dixie Highway Corridor Study provided an analysis for improving traffic flow and safety along Dixie Highway, a major, heavily traveled urban arterial in northern Kentucky between the Ohio River and the city of Florence. The study focused on the application of a coordinated, adaptive signal system, incident management coordination with I-75/I-71 linkages with ARTIMIS, and deployment of signal pre-emption by emergency vehicles. The study also included conceptual design of intersections in need of improvements and segments requiring access management. These operational improvements were expected to enhance efficient and safe traffic movement on this arterial. the dixie Fix: envisioning the Future of dixie highway In response to a recommendation made by the Dixie Highway Corridor Study, the Dixie Fix: Envisioning the Future of Dixie Highway resulted in an access management redevelopment plan intended to provide a long-range planning approach to relieve congestion problems and provide better access to Dixie Highway. OKI partnered with the Northern Kentucky Area Planning Commission to complete the study in June 2006. The Dixie Fix was conducted to identify specific transportation planning and design solutions along the major arterial from Covington to Florence which would result in increased safety, travel efficiency and quality of life. Results from this study included a list of 36 prioritized projects involving operational improvements and/or access management, and guidelines that serve as implementation standards such as future right of way widths, transit stop improvements, expanded bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, and increased streetscape design measures. Western hamilton County transportation study The Western Hamilton County Transportation Study provided a plan to improve mobility and safety throughout western Hamilton County. The study area, home to one-third of Hamilton Countys population, encompassed approximately 178 square miles. Completed in February 2007, major recommendations from the study included: continued improvements on Colerain Avenue from Kirby Road to Raeann Drive; upgrades to Cheviot Road to enhance its viability and safety as an alternative route to Colerain Avenue; intersection improvements, signal timing adjustments, lane additions and road widenings along a one mile section of Bridgetown Road; numerous improvements on Glenway Avenue between Cleves Warsaw and Crookshank including access management, turn restrictions and operational improvements; numerous improvements on a two mile stretch of Anderson Ferry Road including access management techniques, sidewalks and turn lanes; and, numerous improvements along an eight mile stretch of River Road including turn lanes, roadway widenings, parking restrictions, signage, access management techniques and sidewalks.
14-6
Ohio
Kentucky
the southeastern indiana gateway: us 50 transportation and land use plan Dearborn County is the 10th fastest growing county in the state of Indiana, yet economic development opportunities in southeastern Indiana are limited by the inability of US 50 to handle current traffic volumes effectively and safely. The 18 mile long corridor has more than 400 existing access points, a number of ill-defined or ill-placed commercial driveways, and numerous conflict points that are exacerbated by two stretches of a continuous center left turn lane. A committed new bridge over Tanners Creek and ongoing commercial development and redevelopment throughout the corridor also dictate the need to improve mobility and safety in the corridor, to eliminate congestion, and to create more functional land development. In March 2004, the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) lead a corridor planning/assessment study conducted as a joint Environmental Assessment (EA)/ Corridor Study under the INDOT Environmental Streamlining Process. To supplement INDOTs EA study, the Dearborn County Commissioners and Dearborn County Council funded The Southeastern Indiana Gateway: US 50 Transportation and Land Use Plan (US 50 Gateway Study). This study supplemented the INDOT study by looking at the land use opportunities in the corridor, by better defining access management and transportation operation improvements, and by assisting a public discussion that resulted in an appropriate vision for the corridor. The goals of the study were to improve safety, improve mobility and create functional development patterns. The study was completed in September 2007 and included several overall corridor recommendations. First, the study recommended the creation of a US 50 corridor collaborative of government officials from Dearborn County, Greendale, Lawrenceburg, Aurora, and Dillsboro to assure consistency and sustainability along the US 50 Corridor. Second, the study recommended that each community should independently adopt the conceptual zoning recommendations of the US 50 Gateway Study and access management regulations developed by INDOT. In addition, the US 50 Gateway Study made several corridor section-by-section recommendations. uptown transportation study Completed in January 2007, the Uptown Transportation Study was a two part study undertaken to develop a comprehensive transportation plan for the Uptown area in Cincinnati. Uptown is the second largest economic engine in the OKI region behind downtown Cincinnati. Part A of the study was a comprehensive review of all elements of the transportation system within a broad area encompassing the Cincinnati neighborhoods of Avondale, Clifton, Corryville, East Walnut Hills, Evanston, Mt. Auburn, North Avondale, Walnut Hills, and Clifton Heights, University Heights, and Fairview (CUF). Major recommendations resulting from the Part A study included: upgrade of ML King, Burnet Avenue and Vine Street; signal system coordination; development of additional parking structures; development of a comprehensive package of new directional signage; development of a Travel Management Association to facilitate transportation improvements; improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and, improvements to transit service, wayfinding signage and facilities.
Ohio
Kentucky
14-7
Part B of the study focused on developing a set of feasible alternatives to improve access between I-71 and the Uptown area that would reduce travel times, reduce complexity of wayfinding and promote economic vitality. After completing the first four steps of ODOTs Major Project Development Process (PDP), six build alternatives were recommended to be advanced through PDP Steps 5 through 7 to arrive at a preferred alternative and to produce the associated environmental documentation. Additional Part B recommendations included: reconstruction of the southbound entrance ramp from Montgomery Road to I-71 southbound; study of the I-71 Reading Road interchange to evaluate the feasibility of eliminating the weaving movement from I-471 to the Reading Road exit; and, evaluation of the need for an additional lane on I-71 between the Taft/ McMillan and the Dana Avenue interchange. CORRIDOR STUDIeS UNDeRway There is one ongoing corridor study that is scheduled for completion in the summer of 2008. The I-471 corridor spans from the Ohio River to the US 27 intersection with the AA Highway (KY 9). This nine mile corridor in Campbell County, encompassing I471, US 27, I-275, KY 8 and KY 9, accommodates close to a million vehicle miles of travel every day. Since the opening of I-471 more than 25 years ago, daily Ohio River crossings have quadrupled. Likewise, travel demand throughout the corridor has also experienced dramatic growth, a trend that is expected to continue. The study is focused on gaining a clear understanding of the land use and transportation dynamic, as well as determining strategies to enhance the quality of life and economic potential of Campbell County. Since its commencement in 2006, the study has identified areas with safety and traffic flow problems and preliminary work has been conducted to identify multimodal options to address these problems. As part of the study, an access management plan and traffic signalization optimization plan were completed for sections of US 27 also known as Alexandria Pike. ReCOmmeNDeD CORRIDOR STUDIeS This plan also identifies corridors, sub-areas and special transportation related topics needing to be studied for potential major improvements. The recommendations resulting from these corridor studies may then be incorporated as an update to the plan, however the plan must remain fiscally constrained and meet air quality conformity requirements. Completed corridor studies and local governments have identified candidates for future studies. There is local interest supporting three future corridor studies which would include: I-275 south between I-75 and the Ohio River; Route 8 in Bellevue and Dayton, Kentucky; and, an access management study of the US 27 corridor in southern Campbell County, Kentucky. COUNTywIDe TRaNSpORTaTION plaNS OR aSSeSSmeNTS In addition to corridor studies, OKI has been active in countywide transportation planning efforts in Kentucky and Indiana. Plans or assessments for Boone (completed in 2005), Campbell (2003), Kenton (2003), and Dearborn (2004) counties include recommended priorities for federal, state and county roadways and transit improvements; an evaluation and inventory of the complete listing of roads the county is responsible to maintain; and, a vision for a multimodal system that touches upon the full spectrum of transport modes compatible with and supportive of each countys land use plan.
14-8
Ohio
Kentucky
reCoMMended transportation related planning studies To reduce congestion along the regions arterials, improve reliability and safety, and expand affordable travel modal options for all transportation users, new and creative efforts or studies are recommended to identify and analyze alternatives for potential implementation beyond those which have been applied in the OKI region up to the present time. alTeRNaTIve ROUTINg SySTem The regional freeways are heavily traveled, and major incidents such as spilled loads and crashes can tie up traffic for several hours. Although ARTIMIS is a valuable tool for providing traffic information to motorists, an alternative routing system should be identified to reduce delays and enhance safety, economic, and environmental implications. In addition, an alternative routing system could maximize the overall system efficiency by encouraging the use of nearby parallel arterial highways, especially for shorter local trips, when freeways are congested. By collaborating with state and local governments, OKI could develop a system of alternate routes generally parallel to freeways. CONgeSTION pRICINg Under congestion pricing, motorists pay for the use of certain roads and bridges or for entering a congested area. Motorists may face usage fee schedules ranging from peak only fees to fees that vary by time of day, facility or level of use. Congestion pricing provides incentives for travelers to take congestion costs into account when making trip decisions, thus leading to more efficient use of facilities and potentially avoiding construction of expensive new capacity. A future OKI study investigating congestion pricing will evaluate the potential this technique has in alleviating congestion in the OKI region. HIgH OCCUpaNCy veHICle (HOv) laNeS High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are intended to encourage the use of buses, carpools and vanpools. On facilities dedicated to their exclusive use, transit and rideshare vehicles can travel at faster speeds than they would in mixed traffic. An HOV lane may be constructed as a separate roadway or it may be added to or removed from an existing roadway. On an existing facility, the HOV lane may be physically separated from adjacent lanes by barriers or it may be designated by signs, pavement markers or other means. In some cases, the same HOV lane accommodates both inbound and outbound traffic by having its direction reversed for morning and afternoon peak hours. These types of lanes require investments for enforcement and, in the case of reversible HOV, significant investments in operations and safety. In addition to lanes, other facilities that support HOV use include metered ramps or bypass lanes that give buses and rideshare vehicles priority access onto interstate highways. A future OKI study is recommended to evaluate the potential for HOV lanes to alleviate congestion in the OKI region.
Ohio
Kentucky
14-9
SCeNaRIO plaNNINg A technique known as scenario planning can identify alternatives for growth and related transportation needs and future trade-offs. Understanding the impacts of various possibilities or scenarios for the future can assist local governments to identify cost effective strategies to adapt to changing circumstances and an array of possible outcomes. Scenario planning involves the identification of growth trends and community needs. Typically, trends in transportation and congestion, land use, safety, demographics, health, economic development, and the environment are assessed. Transportation impacts and outcomes based on these trends are then visualized and illustrated. This process facilitates enhanced decision making that can help to manage limited resources for public facilities such as transportation. The scenario planning process can help people understand forces of change and their collective choices. The consideration of how implementing new transportation services and facilities based on scenario growth trends and community needs deserves consideration, as appropriate, in future corridor or special studies. eleCTRONIC ROaDway TOllINg Governments are increasingly unable to raise the funds for new transportation facilities or to adequately maintain existing ones. Electronic tolling is an innovative tool for easing congestion and funding major transportation projects. Advancements in tolling technology can also help add capacity to the roadway system. A toll that varies by time of day is one way to manage the existing roadway system. Higher toll rates during peak commute times promote trips outside the peak traffic times and encourage drivers to choose alternative commuting options. A future OKI study investigating electronic roadway tolling will research techniques and opportunities for this and other pay as you go options for the OKI region. SUmmaRy Corridor and special studies represent a subset of the transportation plan and an opportunity for more detailed study and enhanced public involvement opportunities. OKI recognizes the importance of corridor and special studies and devotes significant resources to them. The transportation issues facing the OKI region require new and creative approaches. Future corridor and special studies will examine potential opportunities.
14-10
Ohio
Kentucky
Chapter 15 Transportation Improvements Financing
Ohio
Kentucky
CHAPTER 15 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS FINANCING

INTRODUCTION As part of this long range plan, the costs of implementing the recommendations for highway and transit projects are compared with the funding reasonably expected to be available. This cost comparison clarifies the financial issues that may need to be addressed in the process of building the regions future transportation system. This plans financial analysis was developed in response to the requirements for a financially constrained plan that was introduced in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and continued in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) legislation. This plan considers both capital costs and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the preservation and continued operation of the existing transportation system, as well as the costs associated with the recommended improvements which are presented in this plan. It also projects revenues from all sources that will be available to pay for these improvements. FUNDING ExPECTATIONS Establishing a metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) regional transportation plan fiscal forecasts for a 20 year planning horizon in todays transportation environment is a challenging endeavor. Federal transportation funds are authorized through six year legislative cycles. The current six year federal transportation legislation, SAFETEA-LU, expires September 30, 2009. Federal funding authorizations for the post SAFETEA-LU six year timeframe will not be known until new national transportation legislation is adopted. An additional complication affecting future federal funding estimates is that current revenue projections suggest that the federal transportation trust fund may be depleted by 2009. The trust fund has historically provided the revenue to finance the authorized funds in the six year transportation legislative actions. Funding for transportation improvements is provided from federal, state and local sources. Future funding levels expected for the planning period covering 2008 through 2030 were estimated based on past trends, and through consultation with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) and the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT). The estimates are based on the best available data. Due to the nature of estimating future conditions, assumptions are necessary but are done with care in order to present the most reasonable scenario possible. An estimated $8.35 billion ($5.99B in Ohio, $2.15B in Kentucky and $.21B in Indiana) is expected to be available over the 26 year planning period from traditional sources. The region also expects to receive funding under the major projects category. Funds for replacement/rehabilitation of the Brent Spence Bridge are showin in Figure 15-1. Estimates of expected funds are listed in Figure 15-1, as well.
Ohio
Kentucky
15-1
Figure 15-1 Transportation Funds Summary by State Estimated Annual Revenues Ohio New Capacity Total OH O&M Total OH Non-Hwy Total State of Ohio Total Net OH Available (capacity + non-hwy) KY New Capacity Total KY O&M Total KY Non-Hwy Total State of KY Total Net KY Available (capacity + non-hwy) IN New Capacity Total IN O&M Total IN Non-Hwy Total State of IN Total Net IN Available (capacity + non-hwy) Region Subtotal Brent Spence Replacement Region Total
Source: OKI.
Annual Average 117,596,625 98,451,125 21,143,125
Planning Period Total Available 3,002,150,431 2,463,149,090 528,979,929 5,994,279,449
TIP 470,386,500 393,804,500 84,572,500 948,763,500
Balance Available 2,531,763,931 2,069,344,590 444,407,429 5,045,515,949 2,976,171,359
68,506,750 15,962,875 1,339,375
1,713,970,652 399,375,233 33,509,828 2,146,855,714
274,027,000 63,851,500 5,357,500 343,236,000
1,439,943,652 335,523,733 28,152,328 1,803,619,714 1,468,095,980
2,875,000 5,035,875 388,875
71,929,636 125,992,577 9,729,265 207,651,478
11,500,000 20,143,500 1,555,500 33,199,000
60,429,636 105,849,077 8,173,765 174,452,478 68,603,402
331,299,625
8,348,786,641 2,924,700,000
1,325,198,500
7,023,588,141 2,924,700,000
331,299,625
11,273,486,641
1,325,198,500
9,948,288,141
The following approach was used to estimate the amount of available funds for projects in the OKI region shown in Figure 15-1 for the planning period from 2008 to 2030. Revenues expected to be available are estimated using expenditures in the region over the last several years as a proxy. Average annual expenditures by funding source (local, state and federal) type (major new, bridge and O&M, mode (highway or nonhighway) and capacity enhancing (uses the federal conformity guidance of analyzed or not analyzed) are compiled using the OKI Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). OKI TIP data for the federal fiscal years 2004 through 2011 was used in the analysis. These funding levels are not guaranteed but are assumed to be the best available information. This analysis includes all federal funding used for transportation projects as well as non-federal funding for projects that are regionally significant or those used to match federal funds. Non-federal funds include those from state, local or private sources. Using the eight years in this analysis period, OKI is able to estimate an annual revenue stream that is then extrapolated over the 23 years of the planning period (2008 to
15-2
Ohio
Kentucky
2030). Figure 15-1 presents the funds that can reasonably be expected to be available. OKI conservatively assumes that funding levels will remain approximately equal to the actual funding levels identified over the 2004 to 2011 period based on guidance from ODOTs 2008 Business Plan. Revenues are adjusted upwards a very conservative 1 percent per year. It is assumed that the relative proportion for expenditures, such as the proportion of O&M funds versus capital, will remain the same through the planning period. Once the regional revenues were identified for each state, the dollars available for new projects were determined by subtracting the funds required for currently programmed TIP projects and O&M. It is important to note that the funds identified in the regional subtotal of Figure 15-1 contain those that the region receives on a formula and non-formula basis. Formula based funds are those that OKI or other local governments receive on an ongoing, annual basis. For example, they are generally apportioned on a formula basis and are therefore, repetitive and predictable. It is assumed that the non-formula based expenditures in the 2004 to 2011 period will continue accelerate to provide funding for the replacement of the Brent Spence Bridge (discussed below). These funds include all non-federal matching funds, discretionary funding and other non-federally sponsored projects. Included in this revenue estimate is $60 million declared by the Clermont County Transportation Improvement District (TID). These are in the form of Residential Improvement District (RID) and the sale of bonds by the TID which are underwritten by the County, TID and Miami Township. Also included in the Ohio revenue estimate is $10 million from the Ohio Department of Development for diesel emissions retrofit program projects and $20 million RID funds in Liberty Township, Butler County. MAJOR PROJECTS The region has one project that is expected to be a major project, replacement and rehabilitation of the Brent Spence Bridge (BSB). A major project is defined by the Federal Highway Administration as one expected to cost over $500 million. $2.92 billion for the BSB project are assumed to be from new revenue sources designed to handle major projects. The BSB project is considered the most important project for the region and will be constructed. Project development continues and a preferred alternative will be identified by late 2009. A financial plan will be developed after more design details and right of way cost are more fully understood. A historic perspective and funding options explored to date are provided in Appendix F which has been excerpted from the Brent Spence Bridge Replacement/Rehabilitation Project Planning Study Report, September 2006. Several options remain to be explored for funding the project but the commitment to implement the project is unwavering. To date $35.4 million has been committed from sources at the state and federal level. These funds are listed in the OKI TIP and are committed to preliminary engineering, environmental and right of way purchase. Several major steps and milestone reports have been completed for the project including a public involvement plan, red flag summary, purpose and need statement, existing and future conditions report, planning study report, and travel lane study. Environmental and traffic analysis are underway. Certified traffic will be completed in June 2008. A conceptual alternatives study will be delivered in October 2008 and a recommendation for a preferred alternative will be identified by fall 2009. Draft
Ohio
Kentucky
15-3
environmental document completion is scheduled for September 2010 and the final environmental document scheduled for April 2011. Construction is planned for 2015. According to 23 CFR 450.322(f)(10), The financial plan shall include recommendations on any additional financing strategies to fund projects and programs included in the metropolitan transportation plan. In the case of new funding sources, strategies for ensuring their availability shall be identified. Though construction funding has not been secured for this project, the regional effort to secure earmark funding has been unwavering. The significance of the Brent Spence Bridge project corridor is such that the likelihood of successfully securing the needed earmarks due to the impact this project will have on regional and national goods and passenger movement is nearly certain. Therefore, OKI is including the project in the fiscally constrained plan. Figure 15-2
Ohio Revenue Estimates ($5870 million) $929
$2,872
TIP O&M New $2,069
SOURCE: OKI.
Figure 15-3
Kentucky Revenue Estimates ($2141 million) $342
$336
TIP O&M New
$1,463
SOURCE: OKI.
15-4
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 15-4
Indiana Revenue Estimates ($208 million) $33 $69 TIP O&M New
$106

SOURCE: OKI.
FEDERAl FUNDING SOURCES A significant part of the funding shown in Figures 15-2, 15-3 and 15-4 flows into the region from federal sources. This expectation is based on estimates of the regions share of funds from programs authorized and appropriated by Congress. The regions share of these federally funded programs is based on the assumption that current funding levels will rise by 1 percent per year through 2030. The current SAFETEA-LU programs that provide funding for the regions transportation system are described below. Interstate MaIntenance The Interstate Maintenance (IM) program finances projects to rehabilitate, restore and resurface the interstate system. Reconstruction is eligible if it does not add capacity. However, high-occupancy vehicle and auxiliary lanes can be added. The match rate for this program is 90 percent federal and 10 percent state or local. It is administered by the states. natIonal HIgHway systeM The National Highway System (NHS) consists of 160,000 miles of the nations major roads. It includes all interstate routes, a large percentage of urban and rural principal arterials, the defense strategic highway network, and strategic highway connectors. The match rate is 80 percent federal and 20 percent state or local. surface transportatIon prograM The Surface Transportation Program (STP) is the most versatile type of highway funds. Roadways that have a federal functional classification of urban collector or higher in urbanized area or rural major collector or high in non-urbanized areas are eligible for STP funds. These funds may also be used for capital projects for transit agencies, regional planning and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Once the funds are distributed to the states, 10 percent is set aside for the Hazard Elimination and Safety Program (HSP) which promotes safety construction activities and railway crossing improvements. Transportation Enhancement (TE) projects also receive 10 percent of the STP funding
Ohio
Kentucky
15-5
levels. Projects that receive OKI allocated STP funds are initiated by OKI in consultation with ODOT, KYTC and INDOT. The roadways eligible for this category of funds include those that have a federal functional classification of rural major collector or higher. Other modal projects eligible for STP funds include capital transit projects, commuter rail, bus terminals and facilities, carpool projects, traffic monitoring, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are above and beyond the TE allocation. In addition to OKIs STP allocation, estimates are also developed for OKIs share of the discretionary funds potentially available for safety construction activities, TE and a portion of the funds that can be used anywhere in the state. congestIon MItIgatIon aIr QualIty The Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) provides funds for transportation projects in maintenance areas for ozone and carbon monoxide. These projects contribute to meeting the attainment of national ambient area air quality standards. The OKI region is eligible for these funds because of its designation as an ozone maintenance area. Transportation projects and programs are eligible for CMAQ program funds if they are associated with documented emissions reductions and do not add to the existing roadway capacity. BrIdge replaceMent and reHaBIlItatIon prograM This program enables the states to replace significant bridges that are unsafe because of structural deficiencies, physical deterioration or functional obsolescence. Forty percent of a states bridge funds may be transferred to the NHS or the STP programs for purposes consistent with either program. The match rate is 80 percent federal and 20 percent state or local. federal transIt adMInIstratIon fundIng The Section 5307 formula grant program makes funds available on the basis of a statutory formula to all urbanized areas in the country. Section 5307 funds may be used for highway projects in Transportation Management Areas (TMAs), all urbanized areas over 200,000, or any other area a governor requests if all needs related to the Americans with Disabilities Act are met, the MPO approves, and there is a balanced local approach to funding highways and transit. For capital projects, the match rate is 80 percent federal and 20 percent state or local. Capital funds are used for transit maintenance, such as replacing buses, as well as other projects. For operating assistance, the match rate is 50 percent federal and 50 percent state or local. Operating assistance is capped at a percentage of the total Section 5307 apportionment for each urban area. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5309 discretionary program is a potential funding source for the recommended rail transit system. Funds are split 40 percent for new starts, 40 percent for rail modernization and 20 percent for bus and other. The match rate is 80 percent federal and 20 percent state or local. ODOT also administers the FTA Section 5310 Program known as the Specialized Transportation Program. This program provides funds for projects where existing transportation services are unavailable, insufficient or inappropriate. The program provides an 80 percent federal share for capital projects.
15-6
Ohio
Kentucky
During 2007, OKI was named the Designated Recipient for FTA Sections 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and 5317 New Freedom programs. The JARC program focuses on providing transportation services for welfare recipients and low income persons to work and work related activities. The New Freedom program focuses on projects that go beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As the Designated Recipient, OKI is responsible for soliciting and awarding projects that are selected on a competitive basis and are based on the Coordinated Public TransitHuman Services Transportation Plan for the OKI region. The Cincinnati urbanized area received approximately $1.2 million in JARC funds and $763,000 in New Freedom funds for combined fiscal years 2006 and 2007. STATE AND lOCAl FUNDING SOURCES Some of the ODOT highway programs are listed below. A portion of the statewide allocation will be used for projects located in Butler, Clermont, Hamilton or Warren counties. county local BrIdge prograM The County Local Bridge Program (approximately $32 million annually in Ohio) provides funds for bridge replacement and rehabilitation and is administered by the County Engineers Association of Ohio (CEAO). The standard federal participation rate was reduced to 90 percent in fiscal year 2006 after toll revenue credits were no longer available. Each county has a $5 million overall federal funding limit for projects within any four year program period. Funding is only provided for construction unless the program manager determines that preliminary engineering and right of way costs are warranted. county surface transportatIon prograM The County Surface Transportation Program (CSTP) has two components. There is a regular construction funding program for eligible roadway improvements and is administered by the Ohio Department of Public Safety (ODPS) for safety studies. The CEAO serves as the program manager and is responsible for project selection, funding criteria and program priorities. ODOT provides federal CSTP funds to counties each year through the CEAO. The program is funded at approximately $20 million annually with $750,000 set aside for safety studies. A roadway must be functionally classified as an urban collector or rural major collector or higher to be eligible. Also eligible are local or rural minor collectors on the Federal-aid Rural Secondary System as designated on January 1, 1992. Eligible activities include new construction, major reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation (3-R projects), bridges not eligible for County Bridge funding, guardrail construction and reconstruction, center line and edge line striping and raised pavement marker projects. The standard federal participation rate is 80 percent on roadway projects, 100 percent on safety projects and 100 percent on safety studies. local Major BrIdge prograM The Local Major Bridge program provides federal funding to counties and municipalities for bridge replacement or major bridge rehabilitation projects. Funds are for construction only for local major bridges that carry vehicular traffic. These are defined as moveable bridges or bridges having a deck area greater than 35,000 square feet. Approximately
Ohio
Kentucky
15-7
$25 million annually is available in Ohio and ODOT will provide up to 80 percent of the eligible costs for the project. MunIcIpal BrIdge prograM The Municipal Bridge Program (approximately $8 million annually in Ohio) provides funds for replacement and rehabilitation of bridges that carry vehicular traffic on a public roadway within municipalities. Bridges funded under this program must be at least 20 feet in length; be listed in the ODOT Bridge Management System with a sufficiency rating value of 80 or less for rehabilitation, or less than 50 for replacement; and be classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. ODOT will provide up to 80 percent of the eligible costs for construction only. The municipality is responsible for the balance of the construction costs and all costs associated with preliminary engineering, environmental studies and documents, final design and right of way. The local match for construction is required to be cash. noIse walls prograM The Noise Wall Program provides funds for retrofitting existing highways with noise barriers. The annual statewide budget has been $5 million. Projects must meet Federal and State Eligibility criteria to be eligible for funding. Noise abatement measures will be authorized only for projects that were approved before November 28, 1995 or are proposed along areas where at least 90 percent of the land development or substantial construction predated the existence of any highway. The program is targeted for residential areas in existence prior to the construction of a roadway. safety prograM The Safety Program provides funds to ODOT and local governments for highway safety treatments or corrective activity designed to alleviate a safety problem or a potentially hazardous situation. The program is funded at approximately $64 million annually in Ohio. ODOT will provide up to 90 percent of eligible costs for preliminary engineering, detailed design, right-of-way or construction. Projects may be on a city street or county or township road. Prioritization is based on the following criteria: crash frequency/ density, crash rate, relative severity index, equivalent property damage only rate, percent truck traffic, rate of return. Typical projects include signalization, turn lanes, pavement markings, traffic signs, traffic lights, guardrails impact attenuators, concrete barrier end treatments and break away utility poles. urBan pavIng prograM The Urban Paving Program provides funds for eligible surface treatment and resurfacing projects on state and U.S. routes within municipal corporations. An annual allocation is set statewide and distributed to each of ODOTs 12 districts and added to each districts annual pavement allocation. The program is funded on an 80/20 basis with local governments providing the 20 percent match for project construction costs. Local governments are encouraged to provide a higher match rate to stretch the amount of available funds. ODOT may waive or reduce the local match for cities in fiscal distress. state capItal IMproveMents prograM The State Capital Improvements Program (SCIP) provides low-interest loans and grants for infrastructure facilities. Eligible projects include improvements to roads, bridges,
15-8
Ohio
Kentucky
culverts, water supply systems, wastewater systems, storm water collection systems and solid waste disposal facilities. Funding is provided from the issuance of up to $120 million in bond sales annually. A set aside for the Small Government Program gives smaller subdivisions a second opportunity for assistance. A second set aside in Emergency Assistance Funds is awarded at the discretion of the commissions director for the immediate preservation of health, safety and welfare. local transportatIon IMproveMents prograM The Local Transportation Improvements Program (LTIP) was created by the legislature in 1989 and provides an additional $60 million in gasoline tax receipts statewide each year. The program provides grants for local roads and bridge projects, which must have useful lives of at least seven years. Both SCIP and LTIP funds are distributed for local government capital projects throughout Ohio on a competitive and population basis among 19 districts established by the Ohio Public Works Commission. Hamilton County is a district by itself (District 2). Butler, Clermont and Warren counties are in a district that includes Clinton County (District 10). Funding estimates from these two programs are based on the assumption that they will be renewed when they expire. Through the two programs, the Ohio Public Works Commission provides grants, loans and financing for local debt support and credit enhancement. Eligible projects include improvements to roads, bridges, culverts, water supply systems, wastewater systems, storm water collection systems and solid waste disposal facilities. In Kentucky, funds for both the State Projects and Rural Secondary Programs are derived from gasoline tax receipts, and are expended under the direction of the Department of Highways. These funds may be used for the construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of state and county roads and bridges. Another source of state funds is from Unspecified Programs, which encompass all the state revenue that Kentucky allocates to the OKI counties that do not fall into any of the established state programs. These allocations usually finance 100 percent of these projects. As illustrated in Figure 15-3, this revenue is anticipated to be significant over the years. INNOVATIVE FINANCE Innovative finance refers to a series of administrative and legislative initiatives undertaken in recent years which have removed barriers and added flexibility to federal participation in transportation finance. Policy makers recognized they could accelerate surface transportation project development and expand the base of available resources by removing barriers to private investment bringing the time value of money into Federal program decision making encouraging the use of new revenue streams, particularly to retire debt obligations and reducing financing and related costs, thus freeing up savings for transportation system investment. These financing initiatives and techniques, which are commonly used in the private sector, are relatively new to federal aid transportation funding and are thus frequently referred to collectively as innovative finance.
Ohio
Kentucky
15-9
Innovative finance is broadly defined as a combination of special funding initiatives. In the transportation industry, the term innovative finance has become synonymous with techniques that are specifically designed to supplement the traditional methods used to finance highways. The United States Department of Transportations (USDOT) innovative finance initiatives are intended to augment rather than replace traditional financing techniques. Over the past decade, innovative finance has undergone several transformations. Since its inception with the passage of ISTEA, innovative finance has laid foundations for several new concepts designed to fund transportation investment. TEA-21 continued the development of innovative financing concepts, including credit assistance, innovative debt financing and public-private partnerships. The current status of these programs is described in more detail below. credIt assIstance Federal credit assistance for transportation projects takes various forms. Direct loans to project sponsors may provide the necessary capital to advance a project and/or reduce the amount of capital borrowed from other sources. Credit enhancement, including loan guarantees or lines of credit, makes federal funds available on a contingency basis, thereby reducing the risk to investors and allowing project sponsors to borrow at lower interest rates. The projects themselves may often involve partnerships between the public and private sectors. Two of the most significant federal credit assistance programs introduced in recent years are the Transportation Infrastructure and Finance Innovation Act (TIFIA) and the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) programs. Transportation Infrastructure and Finance Innovation Act The Transportation Infrastructure and Finance Innovation Act (TIFIA) (passed as part of TEA-21) authorized the USDOT to establish a new credit program by offering eligible applicants the opportunity to compete for direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit for up to one-third of the cost of large infrastructure construction projects of national significance, provided that the borrower has an associated revenue stream, such as tolls or local sales taxes, that can be used to repay the debt issued for the project. To qualify, a project must have eligible costs that total at least $100 million or exceed 50 percent of a states federal aid highway apportionments for the most recent fiscal year, whichever is less. This dollar threshold reflects congressional intent to assist major projects that can attract substantial private capital with limited federal investment. Intelligent Transportation System projects are subject to a lower threshold, a minimum of $30 million. These TIFIA projects include highway toll roads and bridges, transit systems, rail stations, ferry terminals, and intermodal facilities. State Infrastructure Banks Section 350 of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-59) authorized department of transportations to establish the State Infrastructure Bank Pilot Program. This program provides increased financial flexibility for infrastructure projects by offering direct loans and other credit enhancement products such as loan guarantees. SIBs are capitalized with federal and state funds. Some states augment these operating reserves through a variety of methods, including special appropriations and debt issues. Each SIB operates as a revolving fund and can finance a wide variety of
15-10
Ohio
Kentucky
surface transportation projects. As loans are repaid, additional funds become available to new loan applicants. TEA-21 legislation limited the use of TEA-21 funds for SIB capitalization purposes to five states, of which only two are operating under the TEA21 provisions. The remaining 31 states that participate in the SIB program operate under National Highway System rules and may not capitalize SIBs with TEA-21 funds. However, existing SIB programs continue to offer loan products. tax IncreMental fInancIng Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) is a tool to use future gains in taxes to finance the current improvements that will create those gains. When a public project such as a road, school or hazardous waste cleanup is carried out, there is an increase in the value of surrounding real estate and often new investment such as construction of new or rehabilitated buildings. This increased site value and investment creates more taxable property, which increases tax revenues. The increased tax revenues are the tax increment. TIF dedicates that increased revenue to finance debt issued to pay for the project. TIF is designed to channel funding toward improvements in distressed or underdeveloped areas where development would not otherwise occur. TIF creates funding for public projects that may otherwise be unaffordable to localities. resIdentIal IMproveMent dIstrIct A Residential Improvement District (RID) is another name for an incentive district TIF. They work the same way as a standard TIF. Property within the incentive district is exempted from regular property taxes. The exempted property does not pay property taxes rather they pay Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT). These PILOTs are the same amount as property taxes but they do not get distributed the same way as property taxes. The Ohio authorizing legislation is ORC 5709.73(C). advance constructIon Advance Construction allows states to seek approval and begin federal aid highway projects using their own funds before any Federal funds have been obligated. An advance construction project may be converted to federal assistance, either in stages or in its entirety, once there is sufficient federal aid funding and obligation authority for the project. This is common practice in Ohio. deBt fInancIng and casH flow ManageMent tools Because of their complexity, cost and lengthy design and construction periods, transportation projects are often financed by issuing bonds. Repayment of the bonds over several years has traditionally been covered by sources such as state and local taxes or revenue generated from highway user fees. More recently, highway and transit project sponsors have begun issuing debt instruments called Grant Anticipation Notes (GAN), backed by anticipated grant moneys. Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEE) are a particular form of GAN being used for transportation projects. GARVEE bonds permit an expanded variety of debt issuance expenses to be reimbursed with anticipated Federal funds. In addition to traditional debt service using principal and interest, expenses such as underwriting fees, bond insurance, and financial counsel are also eligible for reimbursement. Previously, eligible reimbursement expenses were limited to principal repayment and were restricted to certain categories of construction
Ohio
Kentucky
15-11
projects. Debt instruments issued by special purpose nonprofit corporations, classified as 63 20 corporations by the Internal Revenue Service, may be repaid with federal aid funds if the bonds are issued on behalf of the state and the proceeds are used for projects eligible under Title 23. As of June 2004, the amount of GARVEE debt issued nationally had reached just over $5 billion. PUBlIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS States are increasingly looking to the private sector as another potential source of highway and transit funding, either in addition to or in concert with new credit and financing tools. There is a long history of private sector involvement in providing highway transportation dating back to the late 1700s and early 1800s when numerous private toll roads were built to open interior areas of the country for commerce and settlement. In more recent times, private residential and commercial real estate developers have contributed directly to the growth of the transportation network by constructing local property access roads and upgrading adjacent collector or arterial routes, or by paying impact fees to local governments for use in improving the regional transportation system. While private sector involvement in highway financing and construction slowed somewhat with the advent of dedicated public funding for highways, there has been renewed interest in private sector involvement in highway construction programs in recent years as highway budgets have been stretched. A variety of institutional models are being used including; concessions for the long-term operation and maintenance of individual facilities or entire highway systems; purely private sector highway design, construction, financing, and operation; and, public-private partnerships in designing, constructing, and operating major new highway systems. While a few states currently account for the majority of private sector financing, many more have expressed interest in the potential for greater private sector involvement. A public-private partnership (PPP) is a broad term that collectively refers to contractual agreements formed between public and private sector partners, where the private sector partner steps outside of its traditional role and becomes more active in making decisions as to how a project will be completed. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has a number of initiatives underway to help remove barriers to greater private sector involvement in highway construction, operation and maintenance. These include workshops to provide states with resources to overcome barriers to PPP implementation; development of model legislation for states to use in drafting new or more flexible laws and regulations; development of a PPP Web site containing links to many PPP resources, both domestic and international; case studies of how states and local governments have overcome institutional barriers to PPP implementation; and, creation of Special Experimental Program 15 (SEP-15) that provides states the flexibility to waive certain Title 23 rules and regulations on an experimental basis to evaluate alternative approaches to PPP project delivery (FHWAs website, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2004cpr/chap6d.htm#body).
15-12
Ohio
Kentucky
FUNDING NEEDS Recommended projects have been identified elsewhere in this document, primarily in Chapters 8 (Roadway) and 9 (Bus and Rail Transit). A recapitulation and the associated costs are provided below in Figure 15-5 and 15-6. These figures do not include the approximate $1.03 billion programmed in the current 2008-2011 OKI Transportation Improvement Program.
Figure 15-5 Regional Summary of Plan Expenditures (millions) Operations & Maintenance Roadway Bus and Rail Transit Intelligent Transportation Systems Freight Bicycle and Pedestrian TOTAl
Source: OKI. * Includes cost estimate for Brent Spence Bridge Project. Costs provided in terms of YOE=year of expenditure
$ 2511 (Chapter 8) (Chapter 9) (Chapter 10) (Chapter 11) (Chapter 12) $ 6299* $ 767 $ $ $ 66 69 28
$ 9740*
Ohio
Kentucky
15-13
Figure 15-6 Distribution of Plan Expenditures
0.68% 7.87%
0.71%
0.29% 25.76%
O&M Roadway Transit ITS Freight Bike/Ped
64.70%
Source: OKI.
ESTIMATION OF PROJECT COSTS This plan makes the best estimate of total project costs. When available, cost estimates have been obtained from other planning partners in the region including ODOT, KYTC, INDOT, county engineer offices and local jurisdictions. Where necessary, planning level estimates derived from actual projects in the region are used to estimate project costs. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, costs for the replacement of the Brent Spence Bridge are assumed to be from new revenue sources designed to handle mega projects. The project is not considered part of the fiscally constrained plan. Project costs for items in the Rail Transit Vision Plan are not considered to be part of the recommendations of this plan and are not accounted for in this fiscal analysis. YEAR OF ExPENDITURE COSTS SAFETEA-LU requires that this plans fiscal constraint demonstration include estimates of project costs in terms of dollars for the year of expenditure (YOE). In other words, a project that is built in a future year would include inflation in the cost estimate. For example, 2010 projects would have the cost in terms of 2010 dollars, 2020 projects would have the cost in terms of 2020 dollars. Year of expenditure cost estimation requires a current or base year cost estimate, the implementation date (year) of the project and an inflation factor for the project to reflect the cost in terms of the implementation year.
15-14
Ohio
Kentucky
Base year cost Base year project cost (BY) is developed in the documented planning process that generated the concept of the project. Some projects not originating in a documented study are estimated by staff as noted above. year of IMpleMentatIon The year in which the project is constructed is estimated by staff. Staff considered information from various corridor studies, perceived complexity of the construction process, environmental challenges, availability of right of way and revenue flow to assign projects into implementation time frames. The time frames are consistent with air quality conformity analysis years for the region of 2015, 2020 and 2030. InflatIon factor The year of expenditure is the product of the base year cost and an inflation factor. The factor is dependent on the inflation rate and the number of years between the BY and the YOE. OKI has estimated a yearly inflation rate based on information from several sources. For this plan update the inflation rate (i) is four percent per year. The formula for converting base year cost estimates to year of expenditure cost estimates is: YOE Cost = BY Cost Estimate x Inflation Factor YOE Cost = BY Cost Estimate x [1+ (i / 100)](YOE BY) Inflation rates are developed using input from each of the three states. Each state has provided estimated inflation rates which have been amalgamated into a regional estimate for this plan update. The various phases of a project (design, right of way, utilities and construction) may have different historical rates and estimates for the future. OKI has chosen to use the average construction inflation rate because the phases are not that different and construction is the largest component of total project cost in most cases. Review of the figures provided by each state yields four percent, four percent and three and one half percent for years beyond 2008 for Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana, respectively. Therefore OKI is using four percent for the yearly inflation rate for estimating year of expenditure cost estimates. SUMMARY Federal legislation requires the OKI 2030 Regional Transportation Plan to demonstrate that its recommendations are fiscally constrained, that is, financial resources can be reasonably expected to be available to cover the costs of the plan. As outlined above in the Funding Expectations section, approximately $7.53 billion is estimated to be available for all transportation expenditures in the OKI region over the life of the plan. The estimated cost of the recommendations of this plan is an estimated $7.2 billion. Because the value or cost of recommended projects in this plan is less than the resources reasonably expected to be available, this plan demonstrates financial constraint.
Ohio
Kentucky
15-15
Chapter 16 Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts Assessment
Ohio
Kentucky
CHAPTER 16 EConomiC, SoCiAl And EnviRonmEnTAl imPACT ASSESSmEnT

inTRoduCTion Impact assessment is a process to evaluate the effects a transportation project may have on those using the transportation system, as well as the greater community. The assessment process is an integral part of project planning and development that shapes the outcome of a project (U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA. Community Impact Assessment, September 1996). Impact assessments consist of both a quantitative and qualitative measures. They may be economic, social or environmental impacts, or even all three. Consideration of such impacts is not only required by law, but is simply good planning. This chapter will examine quantitative and qualitative impacts of the plan on the community as a whole and on particular social groups where appropriate. EConomiC imPACT Economic impacts of transportation projects can be measured both for the transportation users through benefit-cost analysis and the greater community through job creation. Benefit-Cost AnAlysis Benefit-cost analysis provides a quantitative evaluation of the impact of a transportation project or group of projects on the public and users of the transportation system. The potential benefits to users include reductions in travel time, travel costs and emissions, and an increase in travel safety. The benefits and costs of a base case are compared to those of a proposed alternative. The largest project in the long range plan is the replacement of the Brent Spence Bridge. Because the bridges replacement has an impact on the entire OKI region and beyond, its economic impact was evaluated utilizing the Surface Transportation Efficiency Analysis Model (STEAM), a benefit-cost analysis tool developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). A sophisticated computer program, STEAM utilizes output files from the OKI travel demand model in its calculations to evaluate economic impacts to travelers throughout the entire planning area. STEAM compares the costs and benefits of retaining and maintaining the existing transportation system and committed projects with and without the bridge replacement. Results of the analysis are expressed in a benefit-cost ratio, which is the monetized benefits divided by their costs (Figure 161).
Figure 16-1 STEAm Analysis Summary Total monetized benefits for transportation users: Total costs to public agencies: Difference: Benefit/cost ratio:
SOURCE: OKI.
$116,614,300 $65,904,200 $50,710,100 1.8
Ohio
Kentucky
16-1
The benefit-cost ratio of 1.8 means that for every dollar spent on the Brent Spence Bridge project those using the transportation system will reap $1.80 in travel time and travel cost savings as well as in increased safety and lower emissions. Detailed results of the STEAM analysis can be found in Appendix E. JoB CreAtion Economic impacts of transportation projects can be measured through job creation. Although data is not available at the local level, measures at the national level show the substantial and growing impact of roadway investment on job creation. The total number of jobs supported by roadway investment including construction-related jobs, jobs in supplier industries, and jobs supported indirectly throughout the economy rose about 12.5 percent, from 1.65 million jobs in 1997 to 1.85 million jobs in 2007 as a result of increased roadway investment from all levels of government. In other words, every $1 billion of federal roadway investment plus the accompanying state match supports 30,076 jobs (U.S. Department of Transportation). SoCiAl oR EnviRonmEnTAl JuSTiCE (EJ) imPACT The concept EJ is rooted in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discriminatory practices in programs and activities receiving federal funds. Transportation planning regulations issued in October 1993 require that metropolitan planning processes be consistent with Title VI. In February 1994, President Bill Clinton signed an executive order which amplified the provisions of Title VI by requiring federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority and low income populations (Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations). In compliance with this directive, OKI incorporated EJ evaluation into its long-range planning process. Specific groups in the OKI region identified for EJ evaluation include the elderly, minority population, people with disabilities, population in poverty, and zero car households (Figure 16-2).
Figure 16-2 Definitions of Environmental Justice Population Groups Elderly Minority population People with disabilities Population in poverty Zero car households
SOURCE: 2000 U.S. Census.
aged 65 or older persons from every racial category except White Alone plus all Hispanic persons non-institutionalized persons aged 16 to 64 years with any disability persons below the poverty level occupied housing units for which there is no car
16-2
Ohio
Kentucky
environmentAl JustiCe PoPulAtion ConCentrAtion identifiCAtion Concentrations of EJ populations within the OKI region were identified by establishing thresholds equal to the regional averages for the various target populations according to 2000 census data (Figure 16-3).
Figure 16-3 2000 Environmental Justice Population Thresholds Environmental Justice Population Group Elderly (65+ years) Minority population People with disabilities (16-64) Population in poverty Zero car households
SOURCE: 2000 U.S. Census.
2000 OKI Region Total Population 221,093 300,718 196,888 173,901 71,694
Threshold 11.7% 15.9% 16.3% 9.4% 9.8%
Data for each EJ population were aggregated by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ), the geographic unit used in OKIs transportation analysis. Using as a basis a methodology developed by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) and adding refinements, OKI classified geographic areas both exceeding the threshold values and having a numerical incidence of more than 100 as target zones for impact assessment purposes. Figures 16-4 through 16-8 highlight the concentrations of the target populations by TAZ in the OKI region. The maps are summarized in tabular form to more clearly determine which capacity-adding Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) amd recommended fiscally-constrained plan projects fall within a higher EJ concentrated area (Figure 169).
Ohio
Kentucky
16-3
Figure 16-4 Elderly Population Concentrations and Plan Projects
SOURCE: OKI.
16-4
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 16-5 Minority Population Concentrations and Plan Projects
SOURCE: OKI.
Ohio
Kentucky
16-5
Figure 16-6 People With Disabilities Concentrations and Plan Projects
SOURCE: OKI.
16-6
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 16-7 Households in Poverty Concentrations and Plan Projects
SOURCE: OKI.
Ohio
Kentucky
16-7
Figure 16-8 Zero Car Household Concentrations and Plan Projects
SOURCE: OKI.
16-8
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 16-9 Plan Projects and Environmental Justice Populations (X indicates project is located in or near an EJ group)
Ohio
Kentucky
Plan id Facility SR 4 Bobmeyer Road SR 4 Bypass SR 4 Bypass US 27 Wayne-Madison Road Cincinnati-Dayton Road SR 4 Bypass Oxford State Road Double Stack Clearance SR 747 US 27 US 27 US 27 Washington Boulevard Extension Grand Boulevard CR 113 SR 63 Extension IR 75 IR 75 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Elderly Minority
TiP id
County
Population in Poverty
Zero Car Households
207
Butler
212
Butler
217
Butler
218
Butler
220
Butler
222
Butler
230
Butler
233
Butler
240
Butler
244
Butler
250
Butler
254
Butler
255
Butler
256
Butler
X X X X X X
258
Butler
266
Butler
14114
Butler
20499
Butler
24664
Butler
75971
Butler
16-9
16-10 Facility SR 4 Bypass SR 4 US 27 CR 20 (Tylersville) SR 122 Oxford Connector Butler-Warren Road Amelia-Olive Branch Relocation Aicholtz Road Extension Aicholtz Road Widening Old SR 74 - Phase 1 SR 28 Improvements SR 32-Bauer Road SR 32-DeLaPalma/McKeever SR 32-Batavia Interchange Aicholtz Road Connector Clough Pike Widening Eastgate South Drive SR 32/Bach-Buxton Interchange SR 32/Glen Este-Withamsville Overpass Heitman Lane Extension Old SR 74 SR 32-Herold Road X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Elderly Minority People with Disabilities Population in Poverty Zero Car Households
Plan id
TiP id
County
Ohio
76290
Butler
Kentucky
76380
Butler
77099
Butler
78073
Butler
79686
Butler
80516
Butler
81988
Butler
401
82581
Clermont
402
82552
Clermont
403
82554
Clermont
404
82557
Clermont
406
Clermont
408
82590
Clermont
414
82589
Clermont
417
82588
Clermont
433
82553
Clermont
436
Clermont
437
82559
Clermont
438
22970-2
Clermont
440
22970-1
Clermont
441
82561
Clermont
442
82582
Clermont
445
82587
Clermont
Plan id Facility SR 32-Frontage Road Business 28 - Phase 2 SR 125 IR 275 SR 28 Business SR 28 SR 28 Rail Emission Reduction Project Signal System Improvements Signage ML King Drive SORTA Madisonville Transit Hub SORTA Avondale Transit Hub SORTA Bond Hill Transit Hub SORTA Lockland Transit Hub SORTA Oakley Transit Hub SORTA Springdale/Tri-County Transit Hub SORTA Evanston/Xavier Transit Hub Reading Road (US 42) SORTA Lower Price Hill Transit Hub SORTA Northside Transit Hub SORTA Walnut Hills Transit Hub US 27 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Elderly Minority
TiP id
County
Zero Car Households
Ohio
446
82586
Clermont
Kentucky
447
Clermont
75303
Clermont
76289
Clermont
79111
Clermont
82140
Clermont
82563
Clermont
601
Hamilton
X X X X X X
602
Hamilton
603
Hamilton
604
Hamilton
605
Hamilton
606
Hamilton
607
Hamilton
608
Hamilton
609
Hamilton
610
Hamilton
X X X X X X
612
Hamilton
614
Hamilton
615
Hamilton
616
Hamilton
617
Hamilton
618
Hamilton
16-11
16-12 Facility Vine Street/Jefferson Ebenezer Road SORTA West Side/Western Hills Transit Hub X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SORTA Real-time information system Ohio River Trail (Lunken Airport to Downtown) IR 71 Blue Rock Road Ohio River Trail (Lunken Airport to Salem Road) Intermodal Barge to Rail Facility IR 75 I-71 SORTA Replacement of Radio Communications SORTA Uptown Transit Improvements Cheviot Road South Gilmore Road Cincinnati Streetcar Phase II Uptown Loops SR 4 Delhi Road Red Bank Road X X X X X X X X Elderly Minority People with Disabilities Population in Poverty Zero Car Households
Plan id
TiP id
County
Ohio
619
Hamilton
Kentucky
620
Hamilton
621
Hamilton
627
Hamilton
630
Hamilton
631
Hamilton
632
Hamilton
633
Hamilton
634
Hamilton
635
Hamilton
637
Hamilton
640
Hamilton
641
Hamilton
642
Hamilton
644
Hamilton
649
Hamilton
650
Hamilton
654
Hamilton
655
Hamilton
Plan id Facility SR 264 (Glenway Avenue) Eastern Corridor Oasis Line US 27 US 42 (Reading Road) Blue Rock Road Reading Road Cheviot Road/North Bend Road North Bend Road Harrison/Race SR 32 relocated Paddock Road / SR 4 Clough Pike Access Management SORTA Uptown Transit Hubs (2) Harrison Avenue US 27 Ridge Road Harrison Avenue Montana Avenue IR 71 Increase Rail Freight Capacity North Bend Road North Bend/Cheviot X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Elderly Minority
TiP id
County
Zero Car Households X X X X X X
Ohio
656
Hamilton
Kentucky
657
Hamilton
658
Hamilton
659
Hamilton
661
Hamilton
663
Hamilton
664
Hamilton
667
Hamilton
668
Hamilton
669
Hamilton
670
Hamilton
X X X X X X X X
673
Hamilton
675
Hamilton
678
Hamilton
681
Hamilton
682
Hamilton
683
Hamilton
691
Hamilton
692
Hamilton
693
Hamilton
695
Hamilton
696
Hamilton
16-13
16-14 Facility Ohio Hub Passenger /Midwest Regional Rails Cincinnati Terminal Facility X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Western Hills Viaduct West McMillan Street Corridor US 127 IR 74 IR 71/IR 75 IR 74/IR 275 US 22 IR 75 IR 75 IR 75 IR 74 IR 75 IR 75 IR 74 IR 75 IR 75 Bethany Road Core Loop Road northeast Core Loop Road southeast Butler-Warren Road Elderly Minority People with Disabilities Population in Poverty Zero Car Households
Plan id
TiP id
County
Ohio
697
Hamilton
Kentucky
698
Hamilton
699
Hamilton
8347
Hamilton
25354
Hamilton
75119
Hamilton
75765
Hamilton
75880
Hamilton
76256
Hamilton
76257
Hamilton
77889
Hamilton
77944
Hamilton
82278
Hamilton
82282
Hamilton
82284
Hamilton
82286
Hamilton
82288
Hamilton
801
Warren
803
Warren
804
Warren
805
Warren
Plan id Facility SORTA Southwest Warren County Transit Hub Columbia Road Towne Boulevard Towne Boulevard / I-75 Overpass IR 71 New Connector SR 741 Mason Montgomery Road Waterstone Connector Columbia Road IR 71 IR 71 IR 75 Bethany Road TANK Southbank Shuttle Shelter/ Bike/ Aesthetic Improvements TANK Real-Time Passenger Information TANK New Fare Collection System US 42 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Elderly Minority
TiP id
County
Zero Car Households
Ohio
806
Warren
Kentucky
807
Warren
808
Warren
809
Warren
810
Warren
812
Warren
814
Warren
838
Warren
846
Warren
847
Warren
848
Warren
849
Warren
10754
Warren
81986
Warren
132
Boone, Campbell, Kenton
133
134
X X X
102
Boone
16-15
16-16 Facility KY 18 (Burlington Pike) striped bike/ ped lanes X X X IR 71 SB ramp IR 71/75 KY 237 (Gunpowder Road) KY 3060 (Frogtown) IR 71/75 KY 3157 (Mall Road) KY 338 (Richwood Road) KY 3076 (Mineola Pike) Frogtown Road Connector ExtensionNorth US 25 New Connector Camp Ernst Road KY 18 (Burlington Pike) access management TANK CVG Airport Transit Hub KY 14 KY 18 (Burlington Pike) walkways KY 236 (Donaldson Road) KY 237 striped bike/ped lanes KY 842 KY 842 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Elderly Minority People with Disabilities Population in Poverty Zero Car Households
Plan id
TiP id
County
Ohio
103
Boone
Kentucky
105
Boone
110
Boone
113
Boone
114
Boone
115
Boone
116
Boone
120
Boone
122
Boone
124
Boone
126
Boone
127
Boone
128
Boone
131
Boone
135
Boone
140
Boone
141
Boone
142
Boone
143
Boone
144
Boone
145
Boone
Plan id Facility KY 3157 US 25 US 42 US 42 walkway US 42 US 42 TANK Florence Transit Hub KY 1829 (Industrial Road) IR 71/75 KY 536 IR 71/75 South Airfield Road (Bypass) IR 275 KY 237 KY 237 KY 237 US 25 US 25 US 25 IR 471 SB ramp KY 9 IR 275 IR 471 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Elderly Minority
TiP id
County
Zero Car Households X X X
Ohio
146
Boone
Kentucky
147
Boone
148
Boone
149
Boone
150
Boone
151
Boone
152
Boone
6-106.50
Boone
6-14.00
Boone
6-158.00
Boone
6-18.00
Boone
6-193.00
Boone
6-8000.20
Boone
6-8001.10
Boone
6-8001.21
Boone
6-8001.25
Boone
6-8200.10
Boone
6-8200.40
Boone
6-8200.70
Boone
302
Campbell
304
Campbell
310
Campbell
311
Campbell
16-17
16-18 Facility KY 8 KY 709 KY 9 TANK Long Term: I-471 Transit Way TANK NKY Transit Hub TANK Monmouth Street Corridor / Newport Super Stop X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X KY 8 KY 1120 KY 2345 US 27 US 27 KY 536 KY 547 US 27 KY 9 IR 471 AA-I-275 Connector Triangle Access IR 71/75 KY 1501 (Hands Pike) KY 1303 KY 1303 KY 236 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Elderly Minority People with Disabilities Population in Poverty Zero Car Households
Plan id
TiP id
County
Ohio
317
Campbell
Kentucky
320
Campbell
324
Campbell
327
Campbell
328
Campbell
329
Campbell
330
Campbell
331
Campbell
332
Campbell
333
Campbell
334
Campbell
335
6-352.00
Campbell
6-156.00
Campbell
6-46.20
Campbell
6-8101.01
Campbell
6-8104.00
Campbell
6-8105.01
Campbell
6-8105.03
Campbell
702
Kenton
703
Kenton
706
Kenton
707
Kenton
711
Kenton
Plan id Facility KY 371 KY 8 KY 8 US 25 US 25 US 25 KY 536 Dudley Pike IR 71/75 KY 1072 KY 17 Madison/James/Decoursey Madison/Scott/Greenup KY 8 KY 16 KY 236 KY 536 TANK Long Term: Expansion Buses TANK Madison Avenue Corridor TANK Edgewood Park and Ride TANK Short Term: Expansion Buses TANK Short Term: I-75/71 Transit Way TANK Turkeyfoot Park and Ride X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Elderly Minority
TiP id
County
Zero Car Households X X
Ohio
712
Kenton
Kentucky
713
Kenton
714
Kenton
715
Kenton
716
Kenton
717
Kenton
719
Kenton
720
Kenton
721
Kenton
722
Kenton
723
Kenton
726
Kenton
X X
727
Kenton
731
Kenton
732
Kenton
733
Kenton
734
Kenton
735
Kenton
736
Kenton
737
Kenton
738
Kenton
739
Kenton
740
Kenton
16-19
16-20 Facility US 25 US 25 US 25 US 25 US 25 KY 371 (Buttermilk Pike) KY 536 IR 75 KY 842 KY 1120 KY 16 KY 16 Scenic Drive US 50 / I-275 / SR 1 SR 1 US 50 US 50 Wilson Creek Road X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Elderly Minority People with Disabilities Population in Poverty Zero Car Households
Plan id
TiP id
County
Ohio
741
Kenton
Kentucky
742
Kenton
743
Kenton
744
Kenton
745
Kenton
6-107.00
Kenton
6-162.00
Kenton
6-17.03
Kenton
6-204.00
Kenton
6-273.00
Kenton
6-344.11
Kenton
6-344.21
Kenton
501
Dearborn
504
Dearborn
505
Dearborn
506
Dearborn
507
Dearborn
508
Dearborn
Plan id Facility US 50 Bicycle and pedestrian projects Pribble Road US 50 IR 275 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Elderly Minority
TiP id
County
Zero Car Households X
Ohio
509
Dearborn
Kentucky
510
Dearborn
512
Dearborn
X X
600726
Dearborn
800426
Dearborn
SOURCE: OKI.
16-21
imPACt of PlAn ProJeCts on eJ Communities OKI used a variety of quantitative performance measures and qualitative evaluation to assess whether components had any adverse or disproportionate impacts on the target populations as well as to ascertain whether benefits were equitably distributed. The measurement methodology employed by OKI to evaluate the impact of transportation projects on the target populations was developed partly from OKIs travel demand forecasting model process and partly using non-modeling techniques. In certain cases, different techniques are required for evaluation of roadway and transit modes. For the quantitative measures, three scenarios were prepared: a 2005 base year; 2030 conditions in the absence of a plan with only projects in the current Fiscal Year 2008 to 2011 TIP and current transit service (2030 base); and a 2030 future plan with a fiscally constrained set of programs and projects. Then, several measures compared the relative treatment of the EJ populations and non-EJ populations. Qualitative evaluation was used when quantitative measures were not available or applicable. Figure 16-10 contains the list of quantitative and qualitative performance measures used in the analysis.
16-22
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 16-10 Quantitative and Qualitative Performance Measures Used to Assess Environmental Justice Impact Mobility Travel time to work Percentage of vehicle miles traveled in congestion Accessibility Population and employment served by transit Percentage of population within 40 minutes transit travel time of a college or university Reliability Congestion management to improve travel times Dependable transit service as measured by percent of ontime arrivals Safety Vehicular travel with reduction in crashes Transit travel with reduction in crashes and increased security Equity Supply of transportation infrastructure and services Displacement of residents and business Social structure Expenditures on roadway projects Expenditures on transit projects Other Regional Performance measures Environmental impacts Fiscal or financial impact System performance indicators
SOURCE: OKI.
Mobility Looking ahead to the year 2030, congestion is expected to increase significantly. Mobility for travelers is expected to decline even with significant investments in both new and expanded roadways and improved transit. However, the scenario will be worse if nothing is done. Proposed improvements will lessen the severity of mobility deficiencies. For example, the average travel time to work by car for the general population is expected to increase from about 22 minutes currently to over 27 minutes in 2030 if no improvements are made. This amounts to about a 25 percent increase. Implementation of the plan reduces the time to just under 27 minutes, which is a 23 percent increase (Figure 16-11). Minority target zones will continue to enjoy lower travel times on average compared to all populations.
Ohio
Kentucky
16-23
The average travel time to work by car for minority target zones is expected to increase from about 16 minutes currently to 17 minutes in 2030 if no improvements occur. This amounts to about a six percent increase. On average, implementation of the plan has no significant negative impact on work trips to and from minority target zones. The average travel time to work by car for low income target zones is expected to increase from about 19 minutes currently to 22 minutes in 2030 if nothing is done. This amounts to about a 17 percent increase. On average, implementation of the plan has no meaningful negative impact on work trips to and from low income target zones.
Figure 16-11 Comparative Travel Times to Work by Auto (average travel time in minutes) Population Group All Populations Minority Target Zones Low Income Target Zones
SOURCE: OKI.
2005 22.0 16.1 18.6
2030 Base 27.3 17.2 21.7
2030 Plan 26.9 17.1 21.5
Auto travel time for non-work activities, which are assumed to occur primarily in the off peak time period, increases slightly for all populations; however, this increase is insignificant (Figure 16-12). Auto travel time to hospitals and universities is shorter for the EJ populations than the total population in the region. Travel times to the nearest shopping center are shorter for minority, elderly and zero car household target zones than the population as a whole and almost equal to the total population for low income and disabled target zone populations under the base scenario (Figure 16-12). All EJ groups, except the population with disabilities, have shorter travel times in 2030 under both the base and plan scenarios. Congestion, as measured by traffic volume to roadway capacity ratios exceeding 0.85, will increase between 2005 and 2030. In 2005, for the total population in the region, 19 percent of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) during peak travel times were under congested conditions. This is expected to increase to 30 percent in 2030 without plan implementation and to 27 percent with plan implementation. For populations residing in minority and low income target zones, the percentages of peak period trips under congestion were higher than the total population in 2005, but these communities will benefit as well from the congestion reducing facets of the plan (Figure 16-13). Under the plan, peak period congestion will increase 43 percent for the region as a whole, 29 percent for trips originating in minority target zones and only one percent for travelers from low income target zones. A similar situation exists with daily trip congestion, which is a measure of the average percentage of miles traveled in congestion over the course of an entire day. While the percent of VMT under congestion will increase between 2005 and 2030 for all groups, implementation of this plan will likewise temper those increases for all groups.
16-24
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 16-12 Comparative Non-Work Travel Times by Auto (off peak period in minutes) Hospital Population Group All Populations Minority Target Zones Low Income Target Zones Elderly Target Zones Disabled Target Zones Zero Car Household Zones University Population Group All Populations Minority Target Zones Low Income Target Zones Elderly Target Zones Disabled Target Zones Zero Car Household Zones Shopping Population Group All Populations Minority Target Zones Low Income Target Zones Elderly Target Zones Disabled Target Zones Zero Car Household Zones
SOURCE: OKI.
2005 10.6 6.6 7.3 8.2 9.7 5.7 2005 12.4 8.9 8.4 9.9 11.5 7.0 2005 14.0 9.2 14.1 12.0 14.8 11.1
2030 Base 11.9 6.9 7.8 8.9 10.8 5.8 2030 Base 13.5 9.3 8.9 10.5 12.6 7.3 2030 Base 15.1 9.5 14.8 12.9 15.8 11.5
2030 Plan 11.8 6.9 7.7 8.8 10.8 5.7 2030 Plan 13.5 9.2 8.8 10.5 12.5 7.3 2030 Plan 15.0 9.4 14.7 12.9 15.8 11.4
Ohio
Kentucky
16-25
Figure 16-13 Percentage of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Experiencing Congestion Peak Period Population Group All Populations Minority Target Zones Low Income Target Zones daily Population Group All Populations Minority Target Zones Low Income Target Zones
SOURCE: OKI.
2005 19.2% 29.5% 22.7% 2005 3.2% 4.1% 4.3%
2030 Base 30.3% 40.4% 28.7% 2030 Base 6.5% 8.4% 6.3%
2030 Plan 27.4% 38.1% 23.0% 2030 Plan 5.7% 7.9% 4.4%
Accessibility Currently, the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) and the Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky (TANK) provide good overall service from their respective service areas to the Cincinnati Central Business District (CBD). Central city neighborhoods, served by many routes and a large number of buses running at relatively short headways, enjoy very good radial access to the CBD. Suburban locations are served primarily by commuter service comprised of more express service but fewer runs. Figure 16-14 indicates that regional population within a quarter mile of a transit route will drop between 2005 and 2030 if no changes are made but will increase under this plan. More employment will be accessible to transit service in 2030 under both the base and plan scenarios but almost 50,000 more workers will have access under this plan than without it.
Figure 16-14 Population and Employment Served by Transit (within one-quarter mile of transit route) 2005 Population Employment
SOURCE: OKI.
2030 Base 639,617 607,742
2030 Plan 708,984 656,814
696,226 538,731
The major recommendations in this plan, which include improved service, creation of hubs, and streetcar service, enhance accessibility for both EJ and non-EJ communities to all areas served by existing transit companies. Improved bus service on existing routes and new routes are recommended to improve accessibility to areas not currently served well or at all. The new bus service proposed in Chapter 9 of this plan provides enhanced connectivity. New transit hubs will make transit use more convenient, efficient and safer. These public transportation options will be especially important to the regions increasing elderly population. Due to their wide dispersal throughout the region and
16-26
Ohio
Kentucky
as the elderly transition to a non-driving lifestyle, they will require new transportation options to prevent increased isolation from society. The concept of aging in place refers to the ability to continue to live in ones home safely, independently, and comfortably, regardless of age, income, or ability level (National Aging in Place Councils Web site, www.naipc.org). The ability to age in place is supported by the public transit recommendations of this plan. Pedestrian recommendations in Chapter 12 are another resource for not only elderly populations as single occupant vehicle (SOV) driving is no longer a viable option for them, but also the disabled and zero car households. Finally, the combination of transportation and land use planning discussed in Chapter 3 is another critical element in serving populations throughout their entire life cycle, through more dense and mixed use development. The ability to walk to retail, medical, social and employment opportunities without the need of any vehicular transportation, supports a vibrant, diverse, and inclusive community. The combination of the Cincinnati Streetcar and TANKs SouthBank Shuttle improves mobility for members of the EJ communities. The streetcar is envisioned to circulate not only around the CBD but also connect downtown Cincinnati with Uptown. The SouthBank Shuttle is a circulator route that connects the Cincinnati and northern Kentucky riverfront business, restaurant and entertainment areas for visitors and residents alike. Implementation of this plan will successfully improve accessibility of residents of EJ communities to other parts of the region. Public transit improvements, though modest in terms of percent of new dollars spent, provide significant enhancements to the overall accessibility to jobs, retail shopping, and universities. Included in this plans recommendations are 17 new transit hubs, four new park and ride facilities and 30 new bus routes including new fixed routes, employment and neighborhood shuttles, and recommendations for rail transit development. Reliability Needs identified in the congestion management process led to the recommendation of projects which produce more reliable travel times on roadways and transit for both EJ and non-EJ travelers. In this plan, a multi-faceted approach consisting of access management, operational improvements and capacity expansion projects are directed toward increasing reliability of travel on the regions roadways. Numerous projects included in this plan are designed to maintain or enhance the reliability of the OKI regions transit systems which currently operate very reliably. (Fiscal year 2007 on-time arrivals for TANK were at 94 percent. A 93 percent ontime arrival rate for fiscal year 2000 was reported by SORTA). Continuation and expansion of the buses on shoulders program, addition of new hubs, park and rides, as well as projects related to capital improvements, operations and maintenance will likely positively impact transit reliability for both EJ and non-EJ travelers. Safety Recommended plan projects including additions to ARTIMIS, other intelligent transportation systems, automatic vehicle locators, design upgrades and access management are intended to increase safety for all travelers on the roadways in
Ohio
Kentucky
16-27
the planning area. Cameras, radio communications and off-street hub projects included in this plan are geared towards enhancing the safety and security of the regions transit operations. EJ and non-EJ groups choosing or dependent upon mass transit will benefit from the recommended safety projects as they improve the major providers current safety records. In fiscal year 2007, TANK reported a crash rate of 4.5 crashes per 100,000 miles for demand responsive service and 6.2 crashes per 100,000 miles for fixed-route service. Crash rates for SORTA were not available. Equity Evaluation of the supply of roadway infrastructure is difficult. Urbanized areas of the region have a dense network of streets and roadways, as well as high density development, while some of the outlying areas have roadway systems which are essentially the same as they have been for many years. Transit supply and service clearly favor the urbanized areas where density of employment and population make bus service more efficient. There is no evidence that any one group of citizens is over or under served by the regional transportation system. Another measure of equity may be the number of families and businesses displaced during the implementation of transportation projects. OKI supports projects that minimize the impacts on all segments of the population and encourages appropriate mitigation measures when such impacts are unavoidable. Care must also be taken to avoid not only displacement, but also the damage to neighborhood social fabric which can be caused when implementing transportation projects. Erecting physical and psychological barriers, whether intended or not, can destroy the cohesiveness of communities. OKI supports projects that minimize the impacts on a neighborhoods quality of life. Appropriate mitigation measures should be part of the project when such impacts are unavoidable. The dollar value of roadway projects by area type is another measure of equality. Analysis of the current TIP reveals that expenditures benefiting EJ target zones for capacity expansion type projects is about $909 million versus $39 million for non-EJ target zones (Figure 16-15). Capacity expansion projects in this plan show combined expenditures of $6.1 billion for projects related to EJ target zones and $262 million for non-EJ target zones (Figure 16-16). Both the TIP and plan scenarios show a large proportion of the dollars spent where congestion is most severe. Another measure of equity is the share of expenditures dedicated to transit projects. This plan proposes an increase in the share of dollars spent on transit project in comparison to the 2004 plan update. The proposed bus service increases with new bus routes and better connectivity along with proposed rail service in the Eastern Corridor Oasis and Cincinnati Streetcar provide an equitable solution to improving the mobility.
16-28
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 16-15 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Capacity Expansion Expenditures
4%
EJ Non EJ
96%
SOURCE: OKI.
Figure 16-16 Plan Capacity Expansion Expenditures
4%
EJ Non EJ
96%
SOURCE: OKI.
Ohio
Kentucky
16-29
Other Regional Performance Measures Figure 16-17 provides a comparison of additional measures for comparing the 2005 scenario, 2030 base and the 2030 plan.
Figure 16-17 Environmental, Financial and System Performance Comparisons measure Environmental VOC emissions (tons per day) NOx emissions (tons per day) PM2.5 emissions (tons per day) Fuel consumption (gal/day) Financial System cost per person per year System Performance Lane Miles Daily vehicle miles of travel Daily vehicle hours of travel Daily transit ridership Average peak highway speed (mph)
SOURCE: OKI.
2005 67.34 132.84 2.31 3,096,116 179.24 27,236 50,886,608 1,274,256 86,910 42.59
2030 Base 30.05 29.46 1.00 3,554,036 156.91 27,487 69,131,544 2,375,522 92,158 40.41
2030 Plan 31.68 29.06 0.90 3,518,358 171.47 27,876 68,402,880 2,291,224 104,489 41.15
EnviRonmEnTAl imPACT National policy to protect the environment was established in 1970 through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The policy calls for stewardship with each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations and a sustainable environment balanced with other needs of present and future generations. Decisions that involve federal funds are the target of this policy. For decisions on transportation funds, regulations for implementing NEPA call for an environmental review process at the project level. This process is intended to result in decisions that are based on understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment (40 CFR Section 1500.1b). Federal decisions for funding transportation improvements are based on metropolitan transportation plans that determine project eligibility for FHWA funding. The 1994 Environmental Policy Statement clarifies that environmental considerations are to be integrated into every phase of transportation decision making and is supported by FHWA. For metropolitan transportation planning, a 1995 FHWA policy memorandum specifies that Metropolitan Transportation Planning should include consideration of the protection of important natural ecosystems and biological resources and provide for incorporation of ecological considerations early in the transportation system planning and development process.
16-30
Ohio
Kentucky
The need for regional transportation planning to account for the environmental as well as transportation needs is specified in a series of metropolitan planning factors contained in federal guidance. Those planning factors define the scope of metropolitan transportation planning. With each renewal of federal transportation legislation, these factors are revised to reflect changing perceptions of transportation needs and problems. For consideration of the environment, the environmental planning factor has expanded from account for the overall environmental effects of transportation decisions to the current, broader mission of protect and enhance the environment. new environmentAl regulAtions Some environmental effects of transportation are routinely considered during transportation planning. The effects of construction are considered during project planning, design and engineering as part of a federally required environmental review process. Transportations other major environmental effects are related to traffic impacts, such as vehicle emissions, and to the reciprocal impacts of land use change and transportation improvements. The environmental effects that extend beyond the project level are addressed by metropolitan transportation planning to different degrees. The environment has a new prominence in transportation planning for metropolitan areas like the OKI region. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires a greater consideration of transportation effects on the environment and a more proactive approach to environmental protection than prior federal law. New provisions include requirements for developing metropolitan transportation plans (Section 6001: Environmental Considerations in Planning; regulations at 23 CFR Sec 450.322). One requirement is for the transportation plan to include a discussion of potential mitigation of environmental effects, which involves consulting with federal and state agencies on types of strategies for avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for transportation effects. The other requirement calls for consulting with state and local environment based agencies concerning the plans development. Mitigation Mitigation is a process for reducing adverse environmental impacts. Mitigation has been applied at the transportation project level for many years but it is a new issue for metropolitan transportation planning. Mitigation is a sequential process in which impacts are to be avoided, minimized if avoidance is not feasible, or offset as a last resort. Mitigation to offset impacts may involve creating, restoring, enhancing or preserving damaged environmental resources or disrupted ecological functions. For regional level transportation planning, discussions of potential mitigation will be guided by the following definition: environmental mitigation activities means strategies, policies, programs, actions, and activities that, over time, will serve to avoid, minimize, or compensate for (by replacing or providing substitute resources) the impacts to or disruption of elements of the human and natural environment associated with the implementation of a long-range metropolitan transportation plan. The human and natural environment includes, for example, neighborhoods and communities, homes and businesses, cultural resources, parks and recreation areas, wetlands and water sources, forested and other natural areas, agricultural areas, endangered and threatened
Ohio
Kentucky
16-31
species, and the ambient air. The environmental mitigation strategies and activities are intended to be regional in scope, and may not necessarily address potential projectlevel impacts (23 CFR Sec. 450.104). Conceptually, mitigation is the same process at regional and project scales. For project planning and design, mitigation is integral to the development and analysis of alternatives and begins by developing an understanding of the affected environment. Mitigation activities at a regional level can focus on policy. The type, location and scale of mitigation activities will depend on the type, location and scale of potential transportation impacts on the region. The outcome of agency consultations, availability of funding, value and location of environmental resources, and the timing and location of development are among the considerations that will help determine how, where, and when mitigation occurs. Mitigation strategies at a project level might involve modifying project design or location, or purchasing property prior to project development. At a regional level, avoidance might involve modifying plan recommendations, for example, to encourage local growth strategies that include efficient development patterns. At any scale, the avoidance and minimization of environmental effects can be facilitated by advance planning. For this plan, avoidance depends on considering transportation needs along with the potential for transportation induced environmental effects. Strategies that protect the natural environment in advance of transportation improvement projects include the approach recommended in OKIs Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) for better local comprehensive plans that enable communities to conserve greenspace and protect natural system functions through the development process while simultaneously making efficient use of public tax dollars. Where environmental effects cannot be avoided or minimized, mitigation to counterbalance impacts is another option. At a regional level, the conventional approach is onsite mitigation, which conserves numerous small sites but does not fully replace the environmental values or functions that were lost. The preference of FHWA is for mitigation banks where environmental resources or functions are created, restored, enhanced or protected to offset damage in other areas. For the OKI region, the approach to mitigation should be based on consideration of the value and vulnerability of this regions environmental resources. New Consultations The new federal environmental requirements significantly elevate proactive consultations in developing this plan. They use consultations as a major mechanism for advancing consideration of the environment during the formulation of recommendations to improve transportation. The interagency coordination represented by the consultations is not new. For years, metropolitan transportation planning has been defined as a three C process that is a continuing, comprehensive, transportation planning process carried out cooperatively by states and local communities. The new provisions for consultation are tied to provisions for public participation plans and for visualization of transportation strategies. The perspectives of environment based agencies optimize
16-32
Ohio
Kentucky
the potential for recommending transportation improvements that avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts and for developing high quality and affordable mitigation strategies that account for regional conservation priorities. The requirement for new regional scale consultations is linked to the efficient and effective expenditure of public funds. The national environmental policy was intended to integrate environmental consideration into decision making from the outset, (NEPA and Transportation: Need and Strategies for Early Involvement, U.S. EPA), but its implementing regulations created an evaluation process that focuses mostly on environmental impacts during project development. It has been observed that the high costs of the Environmental Impact Statement process and its outcomes have created pressure for earlier involvement to integrate environmental considerations into federal funding decisions. As a metropolitan planning organization, OKI has coordinated and consulted with a number of public, private and non-profit agencies and organizations on regional or sub-regional transportation studies, plans and programs (Figure 16-18). Consultations include agencies that are responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation and historic preservation. Coordination and consultation occurs as necessary in formal and informal settings, on long and shortterm bases, and in individual contacts and group discussions.
Figure 16-18 Agencies and Organizations Consulted by OKI
Federal and state environmental agencies Federal and state natural resources agencies US Army Corps of Engineers National Park Service State historic preservation offices Local government planning commissions Local government environmental services departments Regional water and sewer districts or departments Soil and water conservation districts Resource conservation and development districts Flood control districts Local park districts and departments Local watershed planning groups Local colleges and universities
SOURCE: OKI
Consultation with resource agencies in corridor studies has enabled OKI to develop the most appropriate strategies for mitigating environmental impacts. Key environmental resource agency personnel have served on OKI committees. Environmental resource agencies are also invited to review and comment on the plan and other major documents.
Ohio
Kentucky
16-33
The potential for consulting with these same agencies more specifically on this plan is strengthened by their participation in OKI planning efforts. These include planning commissions which are represented on OKIs Board of Directors and standing committees and are involved in implementing the SRPP. Soil and water conservation districts are members of the OKI Regional Conservation Council. Water and wastewater utilities participate on the OKI Groundwater Committee and on site specific projects. OKI is also expanding coordination with environment based agencies through its Greenspace Program. For example, OKI staff has discussed conservation issues with county park districts and county park and recreation department staff. Relationships with these and other conservation agencies is being expanded as OKI develops environmental information and implements the greenspace provisions of the SRPP. This improved coordination will further the consultations involved in addressing SAFETEA-LU requirements. Assessing regionAl environmentAl resourCes Environmental information is needed to address SAFETEA-LUs new requirements for consultation on plan development and discussion of potential mitigation. For discussing mitigation strategies with the greatest potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by the metropolitan transportation plan information is needed for identifying and prioritizing the regions most significant environmental resources. Guidance issued by ODOT on July 21, 2006 indicates that metropolitan transportation plans should determine the environmental resources that are worth investments of future mitigation funds. The guidance also refers to developing information to indicate variations in the value and vulnerability of regional environmental resources. Environmental resources may be considered for their conditions and distribution, variations in watershed conditions, risk of resource degradation, potential development effects on resources and potential to control resource stressors. The environmental information needed for the mitigation discussion overlaps with information needed for consultation on this plans development. OKI is working to gain a clear understanding of environmental resources of regional significance prior to discussing a regional approach to mitigation of environmental functions potentially affected by the transportation plan. This understanding will involve consideration of priorities for their conservation, protection and/or mitigation, which in turn will involve analyses of regionally significant environmental resources and consultation with appropriate agencies and organizations. OKI has Geographic Information Systems (GIS) based maps of many of the regions major natural resources and several types of greenspace conservation areas in different stages of development. OKI is updating or otherwise refining information on the various environmental resources to provide maps and data relevant for regional and local planning and analysis. Once the components of this plan were solidified, OKI overlaid the fiscally constrained plan and capacity adding TIP projects on environmental resources to illustrate their proximity (Figures 16-19 to 16-22). In general, the recommended multimodal list of projects, while dispersed geographically, have higher concentrations
16-34
Ohio
Kentucky
in already urbanized areas. New transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities will use existing rights of way and will have little or no impact on the natural environment. Most new roadway facilities will also use existing rights of way and will have modest impacts on the natural environment. Some impacts on the environment will occur where roadways are widened within the existing or expanded right of way. No significant impacts are noted at this time on historic sites, endangered species or other noted environmental categories with the exception of the Fourth Street Bridge which will cross the Licking River within an historic district in Covington, Kentucky. The maps are summarized in tabular form to more clearly determine which environmental resources may be impacted by particular plan projects (Figure 16-23). In addition to working to ensure the utility of GIS environmental information for transportation planning, OKI is developing information on the regions listed species of concern, reviewing federal and state priorities for conserving habitat, and investigating mapping for prime agricultural soils. To indicate variations in value and vulnerability of surface water resources, OKI is developing a database of streams and watersheds with information on water quality conditions and watershed and stream protection efforts. To augment maps and databases, the SRPP commits OKI to investigate models for estimating the economic and environmental values of natural systems for use by local governments. In compliance with SAFETEA-LU regulations, OKI will work in consultation with federal, state and tribal land management, wildlife, and regulatory agencies to discuss potential types of environmental mitigation activities to restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by this plan. The discussion may focus on policies, programs, or strategies at a macro level, rather than at the project level (Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 30/Wednesday, February 14, 2007/page 7276).
Ohio
Kentucky
16-35
Figure 16-19 Surface Water Resources
SOURCE: OKI.
16-36
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 16-20 Threatened and Endangered Species
SOURCE: OKI.
Ohio
Kentucky
16-37
Figure 16-21 Historic Resources and Parklands
SOURCE: OKI.
16-38
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 16-22 EPA Superfund Sites
SOURCE: OKI.
Ohio
Kentucky
16-39
16-40 Figure 16-23 Plan Projects and Environmental Resources (X indicates project is located in or near an environmental resource) Facility Designated Wild and Scenic River Wetlands Bat Historic Districts 100 Year Floodplain Threatened and Endangered Species State and Regional Parks X Conservation Areas EPA Superfund Sites SR 4 Bobmeyer Road SR 4 Bypass SR 4 Bypass US 27 Wayne-Madison Road X X X X X X X CincinnatiDayton Road SR 4 Bypass Oxford State Road Double Stack Clearance SR 747 US 27 US 27 US 27 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Ohio
Kentucky
Plan id
TiP id
County
207
Butler
212
Butler
217
Butler
218
Butler
220
Butler
222
Butler
230
Butler
233
Butler
240
Butler
244
Butler
250
Butler
254
Butler
255
Butler
256
Butler
Ohio
Plan id Facility Bat
TiP id
County
Designated Wild and Scenic River Wetlands Historic Districts
100 Year Floodplain
Threatened and Endangered Species State and Regional Parks
Conservation Areas
EPA Superfund Sites
Kentucky
258 Grand Boulevard CR 113 SR 63 Extension X X X X X X X X X X X IR 75 IR 75 SR 4 Bypass SR 4 US 27 CR 20 (Tylersville) SR 122 Oxford Connector Butler-Warren Road AmeliaOlive Branch Relocation X X X X
Butler
Washington Boulevard Extension X X X
266
Butler
14114
Butler
20499
Butler
24664
Butler
75971
Butler
76290
Butler
76380
Butler
77099
Butler
78073
Butler
79686
Butler
80516
Butler
81988
Butler
401
82581
Clermont
16-41
16-42 Facility Designated Wild and Scenic River Wetlands Bat Historic Districts 100 Year Floodplain Conservation Areas Threatened and Endangered Species State and Regional Parks EPA Superfund Sites
Aicholtz Road Extension Aicholtz Road Widening Old SR 74 Phase 1 X X SR 28 Improvements SR 32-Bauer Road SR 32DeLaPalma/ McKeever SR 32-Batavia Interchange Aicholtz Road Connector Clough Pike Widening Eastgate South Drive SR 32/BachBuxton Interchange X X X X X
Ohio
Plan id
TiP id
County
Kentucky
402
82552
Clermont
403
82554
Clermont
404
82557
Clermont
406
Clermont
408
82590
Clermont
414
82589
Clermont
417
82588
Clermont
433
82553
Clermont
436
Clermont
437
82559
Clermont
438
22970-2
Clermont
Ohio
TiP id
County
100 Year Floodplain
Conservation Areas
EPA Superfund Sites
Kentucky
440
22970-1
Clermont
SR 32/ Glen EsteWithamsville Overpass Heitman Lane Extension X X Old SR 74 SR 32-Herold Road SR 32Frontage Road X X Business 28 - Phase 2 SR 125 IR 275 SR 28 Business SR 28 Eastgate North Frontage Road (Eastgate Drive North) Tina Drive Extension SR 28 X X
441
82561
Clermont
442
82582
Clermont
445
82587
Clermont
446
82586
Clermont
447
Clermont
75303
Clermont
76289
Clermont
79111
Clermont
82140
Clermont
82555
Clermont
82558
Clermont
X X
82563
Clermont
16-43
Rail Emission Reduction Project Signal System Improvements Signage ML King Drive SORTA Madisonville Transit Hub SORTA Avondale Transit Hub SORTA Bond Hill Transit Hub SORTA Lockland Transit Hub SORTA Oakley Transit Hub SORTA Springdale/TriCounty Transit Hub X
Ohio
Plan id
TiP id
County
Kentucky
601
Hamilton
602
Hamilton
603
Hamilton
604
Hamilton
605
Hamilton
606
Hamilton
607
Hamilton
608
Hamilton
609
Hamilton
610
Hamilton
Ohio
TiP id
County
100 Year Floodplain
Conservation Areas
EPA Superfund Sites
Kentucky
612
Hamilton
SORTA Evanston/ Xavier Transit Hub Reading Road (US 42) SORTA Lower Price Hill Transit Hub SORTA Northside Transit Hub SORTA Walnut Hills Transit Hub US 27 Vine Street/ Jefferson Ebenezer Road SORTA West Side/Western Hills Transit Hub X X X X
614
Hamilton
615
Hamilton
616
Hamilton
617
Hamilton
618
Hamilton
619
Hamilton
620
Hamilton
621
Hamilton
16-45
SORTA Real-time information system Ohio River Trail (Lunken Airport to Downtown) X X X X X X X IR 71 Blue Rock Road Ohio River Trail (Lunken Airport to Salem Road) X X X X Intermodal Barge to Rail Facility IR 75 I-71 X X X X SORTA Replacement of Radio Communications
Ohio
Plan id
TiP id
County
Kentucky
627
Hamilton
630
Hamilton
631
Hamilton
632
Hamilton
633
Hamilton
634
Hamilton
635
Hamilton
637
Hamilton
640
Hamilton
Ohio
TiP id
County
100 Year Floodplain

X
Conservation Areas
EPA Superfund Sites
Kentucky
641 Cheviot Road South Gilmore Road X X
Hamilton
SORTA Uptown Transit Improvements
642
Hamilton
644
Hamilton
649
Hamilton
Cincinnati Streetcar Phase II Uptown Loops SR 4 Delhi Road Red Bank Road X SR 264 (Glenway Avenue) Eastern Corridor Oasis Line X US 27 US 42 (Reading Road) X X X X
650
Hamilton
654
Hamilton
655
Hamilton
656
Hamilton
657
Hamilton
658
Hamilton
659
Hamilton
16-47
16-48 Facility Designated Wild and Scenic River Wetlands Bat Historic Districts 100 Year Floodplain Conservation Areas
X X
Ohio
Plan id
TiP id
County
EPA Superfund Sites
Kentucky
661 Reading Road Cheviot Road/ North Bend Road X North Bend Road Harrison/Race SR 32 relocated X X X X X X X X X X Paddock Road / SR 4 Clough Pike Access Management SORTA Uptown Transit Hubs (2) Harrison Avenue US 27 Ridge Road Harrison Avenue X
Hamilton
Blue Rock Road
663
Hamilton
664
Hamilton
667
Hamilton
668
Hamilton
669
Hamilton
670
Hamilton
673
Hamilton
675
Hamilton
678
Hamilton
681
Hamilton
682
Hamilton
683
Hamilton
Ohio
TiP id
County
100 Year Floodplain

X X X
Conservation Areas
EPA Superfund Sites
Kentucky
691 IR 71 Increase Rail Freight Capacity X X X X North Bend Road North Bend/ Cheviot
Hamilton
Montana Avenue
692
Hamilton
693
Hamilton
695
Hamilton
696
Hamilton
697
Hamilton
Ohio Hub Passenger /Midwest Regional Rails Cincinnati Terminal Facility Western Hills Viaduct West McMillan Street Corridor US 127 IR 74 IR 71/IR 75 IR 74/IR 275 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
698
Hamilton
699
Hamilton
8347
Hamilton
25354
Hamilton
75119
Hamilton
75765
Hamilton
16-49
X X X X X X X X X X
Ohio
Plan id
TiP id
County
EPA Superfund Sites
Kentucky
75880 IR 75 IR 75 IR 75 IR 74 IR 75 IR 75 IR 74 IR 75 IR 75 Bethany Road Core Loop Road northeast X Core Loop Road southeast Butler-Warren Road SORTA Southwest Warren County Transit Hub Columbia Road X X X X X X X X
Hamilton
US 22
76256
Hamilton
76257
Hamilton
77889
Hamilton
77944
Hamilton
82278
Hamilton
82282
Hamilton
82284
Hamilton
82286
Hamilton
82288
Hamilton
801
Warren
803
Warren
804
Warren
805
Warren
806
Warren
807
Warren
Ohio
TiP id
County
100 Year Floodplain

X X
Conservation Areas
EPA Superfund Sites
Kentucky
808 Towne Boulevard / I75 Overpass IR 71 New Connector X X X X X SR 741 Mason Montgomery Road Waterstone Connector Columbia Road X IR 71 IR 71 IR 75 Bethany Road X X X X
Warren
Towne Boulevard
809
Warren
810
Warren
812
Warren
814
Warren
838
Warren
846
Warren
847
Warren
848
Warren
849
Warren
10754
Warren
81986
Warren
132
Boone Campbell Kenton
TANK Southbank Shuttle Shelter/ Bike/Aesthetic Improvements
16-51
TANK Real-Time Passenger Information X TANK New Fare Collection System X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X US 42 KY 18 (Burlington Pike) striped bike/ped lanes IR 71 SB ramp IR 71/75 KY 237 (Gunpowder Road) KY 3060 (Frogtown) IR 71/75 KY 3157 (Mall Road) KY 338 (Richwood Road)
Ohio
Plan id
TiP id
County
Kentucky
133
134
102
Boone
103
Boone
105
Boone
110
Boone
113
Boone
114
Boone
115
Boone
116
Boone
120
Boone
Ohio
TiP id
County
100 Year Floodplain

X
Conservation Areas
EPA Superfund Sites
Kentucky
122
Boone
KY 3076 (Mineola Pike) Frogtown Road Connector ExtensionNorth X X X X X X X X US 25 New Connector Camp Ernst Road KY 18 (Burlington Pike) access management X TANK CVG Airport Transit Hub X X X X KY 14 KY 18 (Burlington Pike) walkways KY 236 (Donaldson Road) X
124
Boone
126
Boone
127
Boone
128
Boone
131
Boone
135
Boone
140
Boone
141
Boone
142
Boone
16-53
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Ohio
Plan id
TiP id
County
EPA Superfund Sites
Kentucky
143 KY 842 KY 842 KY 3157 US 25 US 42 US 42 walkway US 42 US 42 TANK Florence Transit Hub KY 1829 (Industrial Road) IR 71/75 KY 536 IR 71/75 South Airfield Road (Bypass) IR 275 KY 237 KY 237
Boone
KY 237 striped bike/ped lanes
144
Boone
145
Boone
146
Boone
147
Boone
148
Boone
149
Boone
150
Boone
151
Boone
152
Boone
6-106.50
Boone
6-14.00
Boone
6-158.00
Boone
6-18.00
Boone
6-193.00
Boone
6-8000.20
Boone
6-8001.10
Boone
6-8001.21
Boone
Ohio
TiP id
County
100 Year Floodplain

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Conservation Areas
EPA Superfund Sites
Kentucky
6-8001.25 US 25 US 25 US 25 IR 471 SB ramp KY 9 IR 275 IR 471 KY 8 KY 709 KY 9 TANK Long Term: I-471 Transit Way TANK NKY Transit Hub
Boone
KY 237
6-8200.10
Boone
6-8200.40
Boone
6-8200.70
Boone
302
Campbell
304
Campbell
310
Campbell
311
Campbell
317
Campbell
320
Campbell
324
Campbell
327
Campbell
328
Campbell
329
Campbell
TANK Monmouth Street Corridor / Newport Super Stop KY 8 KY 1120
330
Campbell
X X
X X
331
Campbell
16-55
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Ohio
Plan id
TiP id
County
EPA Superfund Sites
Kentucky
332 US 27 US 27 KY 547 KY 536 US 27 KY 9 IR 471 AA-I-275 Connector Triangle Access IR 71/75 KY 1501 (Hands Pike) KY 1303 KY 1303 KY 236 KY 371 KY 8 KY 8 US 25
Campbell
KY 2345
333
Campbell
334
Campbell
6-156.00
Campbell
6-352.00
Campbell
6-46.20
Campbell
6-8101.01
Campbell
6-8104.00
Campbell
6-8105.01
Campbell
6-8105.03
Campbell
702
Kenton
703
Kenton
706
Kenton
707
Kenton
711
Kenton
712
Kenton
713
Kenton
714
Kenton
715
Kenton
Ohio
TiP id
County
100 Year Floodplain

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Conservation Areas
EPA Superfund Sites
Kentucky
716 US 25 KY 536 Dudley Pike IR 71/75 KY 1072 KY 17 Madison/ James/ Decoursey Madison/Scott/ Greenup KY 8 KY 16 KY 236 KY 536 TANK Long Term: Expansion Buses TANK Madison Avenue Corridor
Kenton
US 25
717
Kenton
719
Kenton
720
Kenton
721
Kenton
722
Kenton
723
Kenton
726
Kenton
727
Kenton
731
Kenton
732
Kenton
733
Kenton
734
Kenton
735
Kenton
736
Kenton
16-57
TANK Edgewood Park and Ride X TANK Short Term: Expansion Buses X TANK Short Term: I-75/71 Transit Way X X TANK Turkeyfoot Park and Ride X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X US 25 US 25 US 25 US 25 US 25 KY 371 (Buttermilk Pike) KY 536 IR 75 KY 842 KY 1120 X
Ohio
Plan id
TiP id
County
Kentucky
737
Kenton
738
Kenton
739
Kenton
740
Kenton
741
Kenton
742
Kenton
743
Kenton
744
Kenton
745
Kenton
6-107.00
Kenton
6-162.00
Kenton
6-17.03
Kenton
6-204.00
Kenton
6-273.00
Kenton
Ohio
TiP id
County
100 Year Floodplain

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Conservation Areas
EPA Superfund Sites
Kentucky
6-344.11 KY 16 Scenic Drive US 50 / I-275 / SR 1 SR 1 US 50 US 50 Wilson Creek Road US 50 Bicycle and pedestrian projects Pribble Road US 50 IR 275
Kenton
KY 16
6-344.21
Kenton
501
Dearborn
504
Dearborn
505
Dearborn
506
Dearborn
507
Dearborn
508
Dearborn
509
Dearborn
510
Dearborn
512
Dearborn
600726
Dearborn
800426
Dearborn
SOURCE: NOTE HISTORIC PLACES NOT INCLUDED AS COLUMN DUE TO NO PROJECTS BEING LOCATED IN VICINITY OF SUCH RESOURCE.
16-59
Air QuAlity imPACt At the metropolitan level, the effect of vehicle emissions on air quality is a major consideration in transportation planning. Individual vehicle trips may seem insignificant, but their cumulative effect is a major determinant of an areas air quality. This plan is required to demonstrate compliance with air quality requirements and include recommendations that contribute to air quality. Transportation Conformity Transportation conformity is a mechanism to ensure that federal funding and approval are given to those transportation activities that are consistent with air quality goals as contained in the State Implementation Plans (SIP). Pursuant to provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, U.S. EPA designated a nine county area in the Cincinnati area as a basic nonattainment area for ozone under the 0.08 ozone standard in April 2004. In December 2004, U.S. EPA designated an eight county Cincinnati area as nonattainment under the annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standard. The Cincinnati ozone nonattainment area includes the Ohio counties of Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton and Warren, the Kentucky counties of Boone, Campbell and Kenton, and Lawrenceburg Township in Dearborn County Indiana (Figure 16-24). The PM2.5 nonattainment area is identical except for the exclusion of Clinton County. The area is on target to meet the SIP attainment goal for ozone in 2009 and PM2.5 in 2010. OKI has determined that the fiscally constrained projects in this plan are consistent with the air quality goals of the ozone and PM2.5 attainment plans Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana. The plan will remain consistent with the maintenance of the ozone and PM2.5 standard through 2030. Details on OKIs air quality conformity findings and the conformity process can be found in Appendix F. The quantitative findings demonstrate that the regions ozone forming vehicle emissions do not exceed the established motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2008 through 2030. The findings further demonstrate that the regions motor vehicle emissions of fine particulate matter will not cause or exacerbate exceedances of the fine particulate matter standard. OKI qualitatively finds that no goals, directives, recommendations or projects identified in the plan contradict, in a negative manner, any specific requirements or commitments of the applicable SIP. The daily PM2.5 standard was revised by the U.S. EPA in 2006 to further protect public health. In 2009, U.S. EPA is scheduled to designate those areas not attaining the new PM2.5 daily standard and set an attainment timeframe for meeting the standard. In 2008, U.S. EPA completed its review of the national air quality standard for ozone and replaced the 0.08 parts per million with a new 0.075 parts per million standard. U.S. EPA is scheduled to designate ozone nonattainment areas and set an attainment date for meeting the new ozone standard in 2010.
16-60
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure 16-24 Ozone Nonattainment Area
SOURCE: OKI.
Transportations Contribution Ozone is formed through chemical reactions induced when sunlight reacts with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), principally hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Transportation related sources are a major contributor of these pollutants. In the OKI region, transportation sources account for about one half of the total regional emissions of VOCs and about a third of NOx emissions. Industry sources, such as power plants, account for one third of all VOC emissions and almost two thirds of NOx emissions. The remaining contribution comes from area sources which include individually insignificant sources that when added together, have a significant impact. Area sources include gas powered lawn equipment, oil-based paints, boats and dry cleaners.
Ohio
Kentucky
16-61
The Clean Air Acts ability to meet its objectives and to ensure that improvements in air quality will not be reversed by growth in travel is strengthened by SAFETEA-LU. Many of the programs continued in SAFETEA-LU, which began under its predecessor TEA-21, gives state and local officials tools for adapting the transportation system to meet the Clean Air Act requirements. These tools include increased funding, flexibility to mix project types, such as transit and bicycle, and metropolitan and statewide planning requirements. This plan defines local commitments to promote alternatives to automobile travel and to enhance mobility while minimizing roadway construction. Air quality is a key criterion for OKI in making decisions for transportation plans, programs and projects. The pollutant impact of transportation sources has been significantly reduced through federal legislation requiring vehicles to meet stricter emissions standards and rules implemented in the OKI region by the state of Ohio and the Commonwealth of Kentucky for cleaner fuels and vapor recovery systems at the fuel pumps. These actions have resulted in lower emission rates per motor vehicle. These technology based air quality benefits will be the primary contributor to lower total emissions from vehicles. From a 2008 base year to 2030, ozone forming emissions from vehicles in the OKI region are forecasted to decrease by over 100 tons per day. Regional Commitment To Clean Air Through this plan, OKI has recommended behavior based strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled. These travel demand management (TDM) strategies encourage using alternatives to SOV travel and shifting trips out of peak travel period, or even eliminating some trips all together. The TDM strategies identified in this plan include increased telecommuting and flexible work schedules through employers, expanded rideshare programs, additional opportunities for safe bicycle and pedestrian travel, parking management and growth management planning as an alternative to roadway expansion. This plan also identifies improved transit as a critical component in improving air quality. Expanded bus service, development of rail transit and improved access to the transit system through park and ride lots and transit centers, would attract additional transit ridership thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled. The plan also identifies measures aimed at easing congestion through improved traffic flow. These measures, such as access management, traffic signal coordination, and incident management programs, generally have a positive impact on emissions because of a decrease in stop and go travel and reduced delay due to accidents or construction. Roadway improvements that reduce traffic bottlenecks can also have a positive impact on regional air quality. Projects demonstrating measurable reductions in vehicle emissions are eligible for federal funding through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program. OKIs TIP includes 38 projects utilizing $46 million in CMAQ. OKIs Regional Clean Air Program continues to market its successful do your share for cleaner air campaign that provides valuable information to the community, businesses and the media on air quality topics. Ozone and particulate matter pollution are critical issues in the tri state region and OKIs commitment to bringing these issues to the forefront is evident through this program. Improved air quality leads to better quality
16-62
Ohio
Kentucky
of life and enhanced economic vitality. In 2007, an aggressive advertising campaign was placed on radio and television as well as in print and on the Internet. Through partnerships with the various radio and television stations, the clean air program was able to secure a significant amount of value added support. This included mentions during traffic and weather reports. In addition, clean air materials were distributed at various events, helping to further spread the word about air quality issues throughout the region. lAnd use develoPment PAtterns Another environmental effect relevant to metropolitan level planning is the transportation and land use connection. This connection is reciprocal in that new development may necessitate transportation improvements for reducing development related congestion or carrying more traffic, or transportation improvements may lead to new development spurred by better access or mobility. In metropolitan areas across the country, the dominant outcome of the transportation and land use connection is an expanding pattern of relatively low density development. One effect of low density development patterns can be degradation or loss of natural resources, or an impairment of natural system functions. The incremental effects that occur at project level can create local, regional or state level impacts. Where development encroaches on a stream corridor, for example, or where impervious surfaces cover 10 to 25 percent or more of a watershed, the results of impaired stream functions are typically visible as entrenched stream channels, eroded streambanks, polluted or lifeless streams, and frequent overflows and low flows. As a consequence, additional public funds must often be spent to remedy problems by constructing stormwater facilities, repairing flood damage, stabilizing streambanks, and otherwise compensating for malfunctions and damage to natural systems. It was the growing consequences of ecosystem damage and multiple public outlays that prompted stronger federal legislation to integrate environmental considerations into transportation planning at the metropolitan level. As part of its effort to implement the SRPP, OKI is encouraging the development of complete and up to date local comprehensive plans to strengthen the connection between land use and transportation planning and to help conserve natural resources and ecosystem functions. One of six subject areas in the SRPP is Natural Systems in which goals, objectives and policies address protecting natural resources and ecosystem functions. SummARY This chapter addresses the transportation needs of the regional population, including target EJ populations. In fact, the improvements recommended directly provide increased transit opportunities to most of the target areas. Projects in OKIs TIP and in this plan provide positive impacts for all segments of the population in terms of travel time savings, emissions reductions, congestion relief and accessibility. Care must continually be taken to minimize the impacts of projects to neighborhoods. SAFETEA-LUs new environmental requirements enable regional scale transportation planning to provide more meaningful consideration of transportations environmental effects and advance efforts to protect the environment. OKI will further implement this
Ohio
Kentucky
16-63
plan, the SRPP and SAFETEA-LU by engaging appropriate federal, state, and local environment based agencies in discussions to compare the plan with environmental information and identify potential environmental mitigation that is regional in scope. At the same time, this new process will advance comprehensive planning at regional and local levels to produce better transportation investments and contribute to success in maintaining and restoring environmental resources and functions for future generations. After examination, OKI has determined that the fiscally constrained projects in this plan are consistent with the air quality goals of the ozone and PM2.5 attainment plans for Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana. This plan will remain consistent with the maintenance of the ozone and PM2.5 standard through 2030.
16-64
Ohio
Kentucky
Appendix A Summary of Progress Made Since 2004 Plan
Ohio
Kentucky
Appendix A SummAry of progreSS mAde Since 2004 plAn

inTroducTion This appendix provides a list of transportation related projects that have been completed by OKI since the last plan update in 2004. Some of these projects may have been referenced previously in this plan. It is important to identify these projects to illustrate the variety and number of transportation plans and projects that affect residents, businesses and workers in the region. This list is separated into eight categories by type of project and include Land Use Commission recommendations, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, Transportation Enhancements (TE) funded projects, corridor studies, special studies, county transportation plans, and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) projects, lAnd uSe commiSSion In January 2005, the OKI Land Use Commission produced an interim report containing trends and conditions for strategic regional issues, goals, objectives and policies. With that action, the Land Use Commission completed a specific nine task scope of work. In April 2005, the Board of Trustees adopted the groundbreaking Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) for growth and development. Implementation of the policy plan commenced immediately pursuant to an action plan and timeline. The first implementation action was to establish criteria in the TIP, worth up to five points, for scoring proposed transportation projects on how they furthered a local comprehensive plan, thoroughfare plan, or small area plan. In early 2006, guidance on writing an effective local government comprehensive plan was produced, along with several model ordinances for use by local governments at their discretion. Over time, OKI staff met with a number of local officials to promote better comprehensive plans. OKI entered into three contracts to assist communities in writing their comprehensive plans, all of which are underway. OKIs greenspace program was refocused to help implement the SRPP and the new Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) environmental regulations. OKI staff also started a landmark project to produce a Web site based fiscal impact analysis model for use by local governments across the region. Implementation of the SRPP is being accomplished by OKI and by various jurisdictions and organizations on a voluntary basis. TrAnSiT Clermont transportation ConneCtion (CtC) In 2007, CTC began operating two fixed route services including one from New Richmond to downtown Cincinnati and one from Felicity to Eastgate via Amelia. Also in 2007, CTC created a strategic development plan with goals to improve transportation options to county residents, maximize existing resources through more efficient operations, reduce peak hour demand for roads and highways, and increase transportation options for zero car households and persons with disabilities. southwest ohio regional transit authority (sorta) In 2007, SORTAs Metro buses began using the I-7 left shoulder lane for an express bus route between Kenwood and Kings Island. This new operational improvement helps
Ohio
Kentucky
A-
buses bypass congestion as it occurs on the interstate. The Government Square transit hub in downtown Cincinnati began renovation construction in 2005 and was completed in 2007. transit authority of northern KentuCKy (tanK) Beginning in late 2006, TANK added 10 new Bus Rapid Transit style buses to the fleet. These buses offer many comforts usually found in over-the-road buses such as high backed, wide cushioned reclining seats and individual air vents and lamps. In January 2008, TANK placed its first hybrid electric buses into service. The vehicles are powered by a battery-powered electric motor that provides most of the vehicles power at slower speeds. A smaller clean diesel engine takes over only when the bus reaches higher speeds. Bicycle And pedeSTriAn proJecTS During 2004 to 2005, OKI carried out a pilot bicycle parking program under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality CMAQ program placing 35 bike racks and two bike lockers at 5 locations. Bike racks have been installed on all 110 TANK buses. Significant progress on the regional trails since the last plan includes the following; Extension of the Little Miami Scenic Trail south from Milford, through Terrace Park, to the Little Miami Golf Center on Newtown Road. Construction of the Lebanon Connector Trail from downtown Lebanon to the Little Miami Scenic Trail near Kings Mill. A multi-jurisdictional feasibility study for the Miami 2 Miami Connection was managed by OKI and identified specific routes and facilities. Construction and planning for segments of the connection are underway in Butler and Warren counties. A multi-jurisdictional feasibility study was managed for the Williamsburg Batavia Hike/Bike Trail in Clermont County. Funding has also been secured for a portion of the trail. There are active projects in Cincinnati, Anderson Township and New Richmond for the Ohio River Trail connecting Cincinnati to New Richmond along the Ohio River. Plans for Cincinnatis Central Riverfront Park include the trail. A portion of the West Fork Mill Creek Trail was built in Woodlawn and this was subsequently extended north to Glenwood Gardens County Park. Extension of the Great Miami Trail from Montgomery County south through Franklin in Warren County and additional segments built in Middletown and Fairfield in Butler County. Construction of the Dearborn Trail through Greendale, Lawrenceburg and Aurora in Dearborn County. In 2005, OKI updated the bike route guide maps for the four Ohio counties. Seventy-seven issues of the OKI Bicycle E-Info Newsletter were electronically distributed. The distribution list has grown to include nearly 250 individuals.
A-2
Ohio
Kentucky
Over 5,000 copies of Wanna Bike? - a 2004 promotional brochure for bicycling in the region - have been distributed through bike shops, events and requests. The brochure contains information about shared use paths, mountain bike trails and road riding in the region. OKI organized and conducted eight Walkable Communities workshops (April 2004), a Safe Routes to Schools program workshop (2006), a presentation on the Portland, Oregon bicycle program (2007), and annual presentations at the TE workshops. Reimbursement to OKI staff for the use of personal bicycles to conduct OKI business was implemented in the 2005 revision of the OKI Employee Handbook. The rate for bicycle miles is 0/mile. Definition of priority cycling resources in the region including more detailed inventories of on street facilities and regional trail facilities. As part of the updated 2008 Regional Bicycle Plan, a primary shared road network was developed. OKI participates in annual bike-to-work promotions during National Bike Month programs in May. The OKI Bike Route Guides are used by cyclists to assist in finding commuting routes. Additionally, approximately 180 requests for bicycle information are filled annually. TrAnSporTATion enhAncemenTS progrAm SummAry The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and SAFETEA-LU all included a requirement that 0 percent of federal Surface Transportation Program funding be dedicated to a TE program. These types of projects add community or environmental value to planned or completed transportation projects. The three general categories of enhancement projects include bicycle/pedestrian, historic/archaeological and scenic/environmental. Between 2004 and early 2008, an additional nine projects were approved to receive federal funding totaling $4.755 million. Two of these, the Purple People Bridge on the Ohio River in Cincinnati and a streetscape project on Five-Mile Road in Anderson Township, have already been completed. Three more, Williamsburg streetscape, Mount Adams Steps, and SuttonFive Mile Trail, are scheduled for construction in 2008. Two other projects are due to go to construction in 2009. The remaining two TE projects are programmed further in the future. Taken collectively, between the years 2000 and early 2008, 3 separate projects in the four Ohio counties of the OKI region received a total of $3.5 million in OKI allocated federal TE funding. The local sponsors contributed a total of $7 million in matching local funds for a total investment of nearly $20.5 million. As the TE program has grown through the last decade, its popularity has increased substantially and the demand for funding continues to grow. As of early 2008, OKI staff was monitoring and assisting local sponsors on approximately 2 projects which are in the active stage of development. These projects are expected to apply for an estimated $6 million to $8 million in OKI allocated TE funding in the near future, whereas OKIs
Ohio
Kentucky
A-3
annual allocation from ODOT is about $2 million. Beyond these active projects, staff has also coordinated with a similar number of applicants, who are in the earlier stages of project development, and may be applying for funding in future years. A summary of the current status of all OKI funded projects from 2000 through early 2008 is presented in Figure A-.
figure A-1 Transportation enhancements project Status (Through march 2008) fiscal year (fy) fy01 fy02 fy03 project Lebanon Railroad Reconstruction Building Rehab. Waynesvilles Old Lockup Springdale Streetscaping Little Miami River Bike/Hike Bridges Cincinnati Bicycle Grates West Sharon Road Bike Path Murray Road Hike-Bike Trail Oxford Bikeway & Raised Crosswalks fy04 Market Street Hub Improvement SR 129 High Street Bridge Replacement Delhi Springhouse Renovation SR 747 L&N (Purple People) Bridge Fairfield Bike Path fy05 SR 4 Streetscape (Fairfield) SR 73 Streetscape (Springboro) fy06 Lebanon Streetscape Five-Mile Road Shared-Use Trail Oxford Road Bridge Springfield Pike Streetscape - Phase II federal Share $236,000 $56,708 $294,026 $745,000 $266,650 $03,000 $339,986 $39,576 $205,600 $,200,000 $80,225 $26,788 $238,749 $4,600 $760,000 $472,000 $600,000 $480,000 $26,000 $66,862 $8,460 $31,697 $0 $23,000 $190,000 $8,000 $50,000 $480,000 $3,500 $65,465 local Share $59,000 $87,829 $636,591 $,453,836 $66,662 $46,35 $0 $8,604 $5,400 Total Status
$295,000 $44,537 $930,617 $2,198,836 $333,32 $149,315 $339,986 $48,80 $257,000 $,200,000 $26,685 $58,485 $238,749 $264,600 $950,000 $590,000 $750,000 $960,000 $57,500 $827,327
Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed
A-4
Ohio
Kentucky
fiscal year (fy) fy07
project Central Parkway Streetscape Gilbert Avenue Streetscape Muddy Creek Bikeway (Mason)
federal Share $66,050 $674,960 $347,780 $592,000 $704,000 $647,000 $553,000 $217,596 $600,000 $536,000 $665,600 $13,472,756
local Share $65,262 $68,740 $86,945 $48,000 $276,000 $73,000 $88,300 $54,000 $,00,000 $34,000 $87,500 $7,003,106
Total
Status
$826,32 $843,700 $434,725 $740,000 $980,000 $,360,000 $74,300 $271,596 $,700,000 $670,000 $853,00 $20,475,862
Completed Completed Completed Completed Construction in 2008 Construction in 2008 Construction in 2008 Construction in 2009 Construction in 2009 Construction in 20 Construction in 203
fy08
Five Mile Streetscape (Anderson Township) Main Street Streetscape (Williamsburg)
fy09
Mt. Adams Steps (Cincinnati) Sutton - Five Mile Trail (Anderson Township) Buckwheat Sidewalks (Miami Township) Lebanon Streetscape Final Phase
fy11 fy13
Asbury Sidewalks (Anderson Township) Muddy Creek Trail - Phase II (Mason)
2000 to 2008 Totals

SOURCE: OKI.
figure A-2 corridor, Special and county Transportation plans and Studies corridor Studies
Ohio
date of completion June 2005 August 2005 June 2006 September 2006 January 2007 February 2007 Concluding in summer 2008 March 2008 August 2004 2005 June 2004
Dixie Highway Corridor Study Southwest Warren County Transportation Study The Dixie Fix: Envisioning the Future of Dixie Highway Southeastern Indiana Gateway: US 50 Transportation and Land Use Plan Uptown Transportation Study Western Hamilton County Transportation Study Special Studies Its Architecture And Strategic Plan Traffic Analysis For Alexandria Pike Boone County Transportation Plan Dearborn County Transportation Plan
i-471 corridor
countrywide Transportation plans
Kentucky
A-5
Tip proJecTS OKI solicited applications for Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) applications from Ohio entities in 2004, 2006 and 2008. There was also a special 2007 solicitation for STP projects in Ohio. In 2006, OKI solicited projects from Northern Kentucky for SNK (STP funds allocated to Northern Kentucky). This is the first time that SNK funds had been sub-allocated to OKI. Due to the lower funding levels of STP and CMAQ federal funds available to Dearborn County, OKI has been working with the County Engineer to develop projects using funds specified for Dearborn County. Presently, no projects are being funded with STP or CMAQ funds sub-allocated to OKI for Dearborn County. ODOT has sub-allocated approximately $22 million in federal STP funds and $2 million in CMAQ funds annually to OKI for projects located in the Ohio portion of the region. KYTC sub-allocates approximately $ 3.7 million in federal SNK funds annually to OKI for projects located in the Kentucky portion of the region. In addition, OKI receives approximately $77,000 in federal STP funds and $97,000 in federal CMAQ funds for projects in the Indiana portion of the region. A summary of projects that were either implemented (contract/let) or cancelled since the 2004 plan are presented in Figure A-3. This figure includes all federally funded projects, not just those using OKI sub-allocated federal funds.
figure A-3 federally funded projects implemented or deleted Since July 1, 2004 pid ohio 25400 8/19/2004 District 8 District-wide Contract to replace roadside delineators in FY 05 Ground mounted sign replacement contract for FY 04 Apply polyester painted pavement markings in FY 07 Apply polyester painted pavement markings in FY 08 Apply fast dry alkyd paint for auxiliary markings in FY 06 Apply fast dry alkyd paint for auxiliary markings in FY 07 Pavement marking contract for FY 05 Contact Let delete date facility location description reason
24588
9/30/2004
District 8
District-wide District-wide state routes Districtwide state routes Various state and interstate routes district-wide District-wide District-wide
Contract Let
25387
2/6/2004
District 8
Cancel per district Cancel per district Cancel per district Cancel per district Contract Let
25388
2/6/2004
District 8
25389
2/6/2004
District 8
25390 24584
2/6/2004 4/4/2005
District 8 District 8
A-6
Ohio
Kentucky
pid 24642 24989 76555 76558 76562 24643 25392
delete date 4/28/2005 7/30/2005 7/30/2005 7/30/2005 7/30/2005 9/7/2005 2/3/2005
facility District 8 District 8
location District-wide District-wide OKI OKI OKI
description Bridge deck sealing for FY 05 General project inspection for FY 05 Regional Transportation Planning FY 06 Regional Ozone Program FY 06 Rideshare Program FY 06 Bridge deck sealing for FY 06 Guardrail repair and upgrading contract for FY 06 and FY 07 Apply fast dry water base pavement markings in FY 06 Replacement of prismatic retro reflectors General project inspection for FY 06 Regional Transportation Planning FY 07 Maintenance contract for highway lighting for FY 06 and FY 07 Apply polyester painted pavement markings in FY 06 Comprehensive Transportation Impact Study District-wide microsurfacing on general system. Routes to be selected Western Hamilton County Corridor Study
reason Contract Let Contract Let Completed
Completed Completed Contract Let Contract Let
District-wide District-wide Various state and interstate routes district-wide District-wide District-wide OKI
Contract Let
2538
3/22/2006
District 8
788 24990 76556
7/2/2006 7/30/2006 7/30/2006
Contract Let
Contract Let Completed
Contract Let
25394
8/23/2006
District 8
District-wide
25385
2/3/2006
District 8
District-wide state routes OKI
Cancelled
75848
2/3/2006
Study
Completed
Contract Let
2527
/0/2007
District 8
District-wide
75846
2/28/2007
OKI
Completed
Ohio
Kentucky
A-7
pid 2540 25393
delete date 9/26/2007 /7/2007
facility District 8 District 8
location District-wide District-wide
description Bridge deck sealing project for FY 08 Guardrail repair and upgrading contract for FY 08 General system crack sealing in FY 08 Guardrail Rebuilding Pavement Markings Bridge Replacement Install replacement prismatic retro reflectors Install left turn lanes and realign intersection Resurfacing Construct three bus shelters, upgrade existing handicap ramps, resurfacing Breiel Boulevard Bridge Replacement Install by contract a maximum of 8 traffic signals-FY 05 and FY 06 Bridge Replacement (92 foot 3 span bridge) Bridge maintenance contract for FY 06 Construct a streetscape along SR 4 in the City of Fairfield
reason Contract Let Contract Let
25375 Butler 7550 755 2065 24536
2/3/2008
District 8
District-wide
Contract Let
7/5/2004 7/5/2004 0/20/2004 2/6/2004
CR 8 Various SR 748 SR 4
Rural areas Various routes in Butler County 1.87 Miles North of SR 26 District-wide Intersection of US 42 and Butler/ Warren Roads Indiana State Line to SR 28 Breiel Boulevard from SR 22 to Central Avenue .36 Miles east of SR 503 District-wide 2.71 Miles North of SR 129 (Over Little Indian Creek) District-wide In the vicinity of Mulhauser Road
Contract Let Contract Let Contract Let Cancel per district Contract Let
20901 22849
3/3/2005 3/30/2005
US 42 SR 26
Contract Let Contract Let
7765
4/5/2005
Breiel Blvd.
20330
5/25/2005
SR 73
Contract Let
24535
7//2005
District 8
703 24636
7/2/2005 7/2/2005
SR 732 District 8
Contract Let
Contract Let
777
8/4/2005
SR 4
A-8
Ohio
Kentucky
pid
delete date 8/4/2005
facility Forest Park Preserve
location Intersection of New London Road and Timberman Road Preble County Line to .47 Miles East of SR 744 At Nichols Road .0 miles north of Oxford south corporation line and 0.97 miles north of SR 73 OKI Curb, gutter and storm sewer from SR 129 to Princeton Road, paved shoulder from Princeton to Millikin HamiltonSCL to NCL
description Repair base and pave existing gravel road to Forest Run Wildlife Preserve Resurfacing, milling, striping and pavement markings Culvert Replacement Replace bridge BUT-732-0843 and replace floor and paint bridge BUT-732-043 (toll revenue credits) Butler County Intermodal Freight Study Widen existing road from two lanes to three lanes (PIDs18961 and 2063 combined into PID18961) Pavement planing, asphalt resurfacing, replace raised pavement markers, painting & striping Pavement planing, asphalt resurfacing, replace raised pavement markers, painting & striping Install a traffic signal
reason Contract Let
77833
20240 20338
8/24/2005 10/19/2005
SR 22 SR 77
Contract Let
2754
2/4/2005
SR 732
80445
2/3/2005
Study
Contract Let
18961
/23/2006
CR 19 (CincinnatiDayton Road)
Contract Let
Contract Let
21931
2//2006
SR 4 Bypass
21934
2//2006
SR 4
Hamilton southeast corporate line to northeast corporate line Intersection of CR 8 (Princeton Road) and TR 3 (Lesourdsville West Chester Road) Hamilton NCL to 0.34 miles north of New Miami NCL Various routes in Butler County Various priority system routes-I-7, I-75, SR 26 and US 27
Contract Let
79034
3/7/2006
CR 8 (Princeton Road)
Contract Let
19348
6/2/2006
US 27 Butler County US 27
Planing & resurfacing mainline and shoulders Pavement Markings Crack sealing
Contract Let
7552
7/8/2006
2503
7/26/2006
Ohio
Kentucky
A-9
pid
delete date
facility
location Bridge carries SR 73 over Mutton Run from 0.88 to 0.89 miles east of SR 503 From 0.4 miles west to 0.26 miles east of SR 503 Middletown NCL to Montgomery county line; Hamilton NCL to SR 4; 0.49 miles west of Monroe to WCL to Warren Intersection of SR 63 & IR 75 (Environmental cleared under PID 0752) Between Hamilton and Middletown Between Tylersville Road and SR 129 in West Chester and Liberty Townships Hamilton/Butler county line to 1.93 miles south Portions of SR 22 and US 27 in Butler County and SR 732 in Preble County 1.98 miles south of Oxford NWCL to .88 miles south of Oxford NWCL City of Monroe
description Replace concrete slab of bridge 731160, SFN:0901172
reason Contract Let
23980
9/20/2006
SR 73
24597
2//2006
SR 73
Reconstruct vertical curves and widen the roadway to meet current design standards Resurfacing
Contract Let
Contract Let
22850
2/3/2006
SR 4/SR 4B/SR 63/ SR 747
24659
2/3/2006
IR 75/SR 63
Modify intersection and completion of access control on SR 63 in Monroe and two bridge replacements Crack sealing Widen SR 747 from two lanes to four lanes Cincinnati-Dayton Road Safety Upgrade Plane and pave
Contract Let
25308
2/3/2006
SR 4
Cancelled Contract Let
75899
1/9/2007
SR 747 CR 19 (CincinnatiDayton Road) SR 22
Contract Let
24708
2/3/2007
75897
3//2007
Butler Portion Deleted
24440
3/7/2007
US 27
Widen to three lanes; adding center turn lane; curb and gutter; sidewalks; lighting; signal improvement Plan and pave SR 63 Maintenance and preventative maintenance contract for FY 08
Contract Let
76207
3/7/2007
SR 63
25398
8/5/2007
District 8
District-wide
A-0
Ohio
Kentucky
pid
delete date
facility
location From 5. miles west of SR 748 to 5.04 miles west of SR 748
description Replace deteriorated 02 by 66 slabtop culvert. Minor roadway alignment modifications Rehabilitate bridges BUT-127-1964 and PRE-5030 by replacing concrete slab superstructures Demolition of two commercial and one residential structure for utilities relocation for PID 7948 Renovate existing operations building to visitors center Tree removal and utility relocation prior to widening project PID 7948 Two-way left turn lanes
reason Contract Let
25347
9/26/2007
SR 26
Contract Let
8476
3/5/2008
US 27
From .48 to .38 miles south of county line
clermont Contract Let .56 miles east of IR 275 to 1.98 miles west of SR 48
77219
7/28/2004
SR 28
22919
7/30/2004
US 52
Chilo Lock Park .56 miles east of IR 275 to 1.98 miles west of SR 48 .63 miles east of Milford corporation line, upgrade signal at Wolfpen-Pleasant Hill Road US 50 to WolfpenPleasant Hill Road
Contract Let
Contract Let
7728
8//2004
SR 28
Contract Let
7606
0/6/2004
SR 3
244
/24/2004
US 50
Relocate WolfpenPleasant Hill Road to permit installation of left turn lane on US 50 New Interchange Study Replace bridge
Contract Let
87
2/2/2004
SR 32
At Herold Road Bridge No. CLE133-1243, SFN: 1303309 (spans Poplar Creek) White Oak Road/ Lewis Road/Bristold Lakes Drive Intersection .38 Miles East of SR 727
Study Complete Cancel per District
25379
2/2/2004
SR 33
75307
2/2/2004
SR 25
Intersection Improvement/ Realignment Bridge Repair
Cancel per Applicant
21794
12/9/2004
SR 3
Contract Let
Ohio
Kentucky
A-
pid 86 8408 22835
delete date 2/3/2004 1/19/2005 2/3/2005
facility SR 32 SR 222 US 50
location At Bauer Road 1.890 Km South of US 50 SR 28 to .26 miles west of SR 3 0.9 miles south of SR 25 to Clermont/Hamilton County line from Clermont /Hamilton County line to 0.6 miles south of 5Mile Road Bridge carries US 52 over Bear Creek .50 miles south of SR 25 to SR 25 US 52 to SR 756 and SR 232 to SR 743 Bridges are on/over priority system routes in Clermont and Hamilton counties .25 Miles West of SR 33 to Brown County Line From US 50 to SR 3 US 52 to SR 222 1.29 Miles East of New Richmond East Corporate Line Eastern termini of the east bound onramp to SR 32 from SR 32 .56 miles east of IR 275 to 1.98 miles west of SR 48
description New Interchange Study Culvert Replacement Resurfacing Add lane to I-275 and rehabilitate existing pavement; plans completed under PID 10914
reason Cancel per Sponsor Contract Let Contract Let Contract Let
25523
3/3/2005
IR 275
752
3/3/2005
US 52
Replace Bridge No. CLE-52-1934, SFN: 1301950 Widen pavement to two 2-foot lanes with four-foot shoulders Resurfacing
Contract Let
Contract Let
22430
3/7/2005
SR 32
20245
4/28/2005
SR 743/SR 756
Contract Let
Bridge cleaning
Contract Let
2467
8/22/2005
Various Bridges
277 2508
9/1/2005 9/7/2005
SR 32 SR 32
Resurfacing
Contract Let
Plane and pave SR 32 Pavement planning, asphalt resurfacing on SR 33 and SR 25 Three bridge replacement (toll revenue credits) Repair vertical failure of embankment Widen to five lanes
22848
9/21/2005
SR 33
22379
0/5/2005
US 52
Contract Let
Contract Let
76159
0/5/2005
SR 32
7948
10/19/2005
SR 28
Contract Let
A-2
Ohio
Kentucky
pid 22377
delete date /2/2005
facility SR 232
location 0.67 miles west of SR 222 SR 32 to SR 222 Branch Hill-Guinea Pike at Wards Corner Road At CR 07 (Shayler Road) From 2.62 miles north of SR 28 to 2.72 miles north of SR 28 From 0. miles east of US 50 to 0.58 miles east of SR 32 5.70 to 6.70 miles north of SR 25 .0 Miles South of Concord Hennings Mill Road .6 Miles South of SR 25 to 0.56 Miles South of SR 25 Bridges are on/over priority system routes in Clermont and Hamilton Counties 0. Miles South of Deerfield Road County-wide (Clermont County)
description Bridge Replacement Widen SR 125: install two-way left turn lanes between SR 32 and SR 222 Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement Landslide repair project, project identified by Clermont County manager Crack seal a portion of I-275 in Clermont County Relocate curve and correct drainage problems Bridge Rehabilitation Reconstruct horizontal curves and widen roadway to provide two 2-foot lanes (no additional lanes) Bridge Cleaning
245
/6/2005
SR 25
055
2/7/2005
CR 2 CR 33 (Clough Pike)
Contract Let
7725
3//2006
Contract Let
Contract let
25369
5//2006
SR 48
75679
7/26/2006
SR 33
Cancel per District
4252
//2006
SR 33
Contract Let
2738
/22/2006
SR 33
Contract Let
Contract Let
24598
/24/2007
SR 232
Contract Let
2468
3/7/2007
Various Bridges
21796 25253
4/8/2007 6/27/2007
SR 28 Various
Minor Rehabilitation of Four Culverts Ground mounted sign replacement for FY 08
Ohio
Kentucky
A-3
pid
delete date
facility
location Routes in Loveland: Clermont CountySR 48 (LM 6.45 to 6.80), Warren County-SR 48 (LM 0.00 to 0.30) Twin mainline SR 32 bridges over SR 276. Bridge Nos. CLE-321314 L/R, SFNs: 300458/300466 Bridge No. CLE727-0320, SFN: 30477. Bridge carries SR 727 over Stonelick Creek Res. Spillway At Glen-Este Withamsville Vicinity of Beechmont Mall At Broadway Over IR 75 From 1.09 miles south of Montgomery corporate line to Montgomery northern corporate line Indiana State Line to IR 275 West Interchange At IR 275 Glendale-Milford road to Kemper Road including bridge work Arlington Heights to north of Kemper Road
description Urban paving project in the City of Loveland
reason Cancelled
79387
9/20/2007
SR 48
75633
0/2/2007
SR 32
New reinforced concrete decks, structural steel painted, minor bridge work (toll revenue credits) Bridge Rehabilitation
Contract Let
Contract Let
75627
/30/2007
SR 727
75297 hamilton 75109 275 7522
3/5/2008
SR 25
Intersection Improvement Construct park-andride lot Bridge Painting (Three) Replace the concrete deck of SR 56 over IR 75 Planing and resurfacing
Contract Let
7/7/2004 0/4/2004 /0/2004
SR 25 US 52 SR 56
Contract Let Contract Let Contract Let
Cancel per applicant
2438
/23/2004
US 22
280
2/3/2004
IR 74
Minor Rehabilitation
Contract Let
20956
2/4/2004
IR 74
Interchange study, resurfacing, slide repair, guardrail repair, sign upgrade Resurfacing
Contract Let
Cancel per district
2707
2/4/2004
IR 75
A-4
Ohio
Kentucky
pid
delete date
facility
location City of Cincinnati: from 2.48 miles east of Cincinnati Corporate line to 0.56 miles west of SR 264 Trail connects Seymour Preserve off Estes Avenue to Caldwell Park/ Preserve on North Bend Road From US 22 to the City of Montgomery/Village of Indian Hill Corporate line Bridge No. HAM275-3571, SFN: 36786. Bridge carries 8-Mile Road over IR 275 Along US 22/SR 3 (Montgomery Road) between Courtland Avenue and Smith Road Bridge carries ODNR bike path over Elm Avenue in Terrace Park .05 miles east of Indiana State Line to Cleves Corporate Line
description Plane and resurface
reason Cancel per district
24474
2/4/2004
US 50
75262
2/4/2004
Caldwell/ Seymour Trail
Construct a multiuse (bike/hike) trail and greenway on new alignment
Cancelled
24192
2/3/2004
SR 26
Plane and resurface a portion of SR 26
75642
2/3/2004
IR 275
Replace existing concrete deck, raise bridge for 6.5 clearance over IR 275, paint structural steel Construct a streetscape
Cancel per district
7767
2/3/2004
US 22
77797
1/19/2005
Elm Avenue
Repair stone masonary arch bridge HAM-ELMAV0000 Upgrading
Contract Let
Contract Let
4983
2/3/2005
US 50
78499
3/7/2005
IR 275/ ARTIMIS Amber Plan
From the US 27 interchange to the SR 4 interchange
Design and installation of equipment between Hamilton County Emergency Management and ARTIMIS Resurfacing
Contract Let
2283
3/3/2005
US 22
0.59 miles north of US 22 DA to 0.26 miles south of Cincinnati Corporate Line
Contract Let
Ohio
Kentucky
A-5
pid
facility
location 0.64 miles north of IR 75 to .03 miles south of Cincinnati Corporate Line IR 74 to 0.06 Miles West of SR 4 Intersection of US 50 and SR 264
description Resurfacing
reason Contract Let
22832
US 27
22385
4/28/2005
IR 275
Crack Seal Install signal at intersection and construct left turn lane for westbound US 50 Install activated flashing signs to alert motorists to stopped traffic-work included in PID 24533 Construct Phase II of a streetscape along Springfield Pike (SR 4) Rehabilitate and resurface existing park drives and parking areas Rehabilitate SR 562 New Haven Road bridge replacement and expansion Resurfacing Microsurface a portion of IR 7
23265
4/28/2005
US 50
See PID 24533
78087
6/3/2005
SR 562
From IR 75 to 0.5 miles east of IR 75
7773
7//2005
SR 4
SR 4 in the City of Springdale Various locations within Lake Isabella and Miami Whitewater Forest From IR 75 to IR 7 Over IR 74 Norwood SCL to Norwood NCL 0.07 miles south of US 50 to the Silverton/Madeira Corporate Line From 0.2 miles west of Reading/ Amberly Corporate Line to US 22 At US 22 and US 22DA over Eggleston Avenue 0.24 Miles South of North Bend NCL
Contract Let
78268
9/1/2005
Lake Isabella SR 562 IR 74 US 22
Contract Let
25499 246 22836
9/21/2005 0/5/2005 11/29/2005
Cancel per District Cancel per District
25196
11/29/2005
IR 7
Crack Seal
75676
11/29/2005
SR 26
Cancel per District
7578
11/29/2005
US 22/US 22D
Install rigid overlays and minor bridge work: Bridge Nos. HAM-22-0091 R and HAM-22-0007L Deck replacement and painting
Cancel per District
21791
2/2/2005
US 50
Contract Let
A-6
Ohio
Kentucky
pid 76034 7672
delete date 2/2/2005 2/2/2005
facility US 50 IR 275
location Fairbanks Avenue to Mt. Echo Road Southbound lanes just north of Kilby Road 0.595 Km E of Mariemont East Corporate Line to 0.29 Km E of Newtown Road Bridge No. HAM71-1435, SFN: 3105164; at Cooper Road over IR 7 .03 mi. S. of Montgomery Corporate line to .4 miles north of IR 275. 0.8 miles south to 2.72 miles north of Hamilton/ Warren line From 0.2 miles south of Kemper Road to 0.2 miles north of Kemper Road 0.28 Miles West of Indian Hill East Corporate Line Along 5-Mile Road from State Road to Clough Road then extending north in 5-Mile Road to Newtown Road Relocate bridge from Oxford Road to a walking trail at the Willey Road Senior Center/ Crosby Township 0.0 Miles West of Loveland-Madeira Road
description Widening to Standard Width Slide Repairs
Safety Upgrade
Contract Let
19044
/27/2006
US 50
7523
2//2006
IR 7
Install rigid concrete overlay on bridge; Work includes raising structure over interstate Phase 4-Phases ,2 and 4 combined for construction. Widen to five lanes. RWsee PID 75879
Contract Let
Contract Let
75882
2/8/2006
US 22
77277
2/8/2006
US 27
Add left turn lanes for northbound and southbound US 27 at Kemper Road Culvert Replacement Construct shareduse trail
Contract Let
21792
3/8/2006
SR 26
Contract Let
Contract Let
22938
3/8/2006
CR 504 (Five Mile Road)
7774
3/8/2006
Oxford Road
Relocate and reconstruct a bowstring arch bridge to the Willey Road Senior Center/Crosby Township Civic Culvert Replacement (combined with PID 21792 for construction)
Contract Let
Completed
7228
3/6/2006
SR 26
Ohio
Kentucky
A-7
pid 22844
facility SR 25
location Cincinnati ECL to Clermont County Line Silverton North Corporate Line to Kenwood Road R/R: Woodside Place to Vine Street; I/I: at Vine Street/Jefferson Avenue Various portions of US 42, US 52 and US 27, all in the City of Cincinnati From 0.3 miles south of IR 74/IR 275 to 0.09 miles north of IR 74/IR 275 From 0.46 miles east of SR 264 to 0.02 miles west of IR 7 From Ebenezer Road to Race Road From 0. miles east of US 42 to 0.07 miles east of US 22 Various priority system routes IR 7 from IR 275 to SR 48 and IR 275 from US 42 to US 22 Winton Road to 0. miles east of US 42
description Resurfacing
reason Contract Let
18953
4/5/2006
US 22
Add Turning Lane and Curbed Median Reconstruction/ Rehabilitation and Intersection Improvement Plane and resurface
Contract Let
Contract Let
24485
5/2/2006
M.L. King (CR62)
Contact Let
24473
5/7/2006
US 42
77076
6/7/2006
SR 28
Construct left turn lane on SB SR 28 for turn to EB IR 74/IR 275 entrance ramp Resurface 6th Street Expressway and perform minor bridge work Minor pavement repair and pavement inlet repair Crack sealing
Contract Let
Contract Let
24691
6/2/2006
US 50
Contract Let
7820
6/2/2006
SR 264
75675
7/27/2006
IR 275
Cancel per District Contract Let
Crack Seal
25190
8/9/2006
IR 7
80990
8/9/2006
IR 275
Overlay of .5 for maintenance of traffic prior to phase of PID 22386
Contract Let
A-8
Ohio
Kentucky
pid
delete date
facility
location
description Two-part study for rail grade separation, includes right-of-way and construction. Right-of-way and construction eliminated. Concrete pavement restoration
reason Study completed
75918
9/28/2006
CR 456
0.5 miles north of US 42 in Sharonville
25225
0/6/2006
SR 26
0.4 miles west of Galbraith Road to 0.2 miles west of the Reading/ Amberly Village Corporation line Dry Fork Road to Harrison Road (omitting the overlap with IR 275)
Contract Let
Plane and resurface
Contract Let
25269
//2006
IR 74
77000
/3/2006
IR 275/ Mosteller
IR 275 at Mosteller Road
Westbound and eastbound IR 275 off ramps widen and reconstructed. Includes rightof-way and PE. Construction in PID 22386. Rehabilitation and widening. Project includes 28 structures. Bridge Paining (Eight) Phase I (PE and right-of-way only). Widen to five lanes. Combined with PID 75882 for construction Crack seal a portion of I-7
Contract Let
22386
11/9/2006
IR 275
0.06 miles west of SR 4 to 0. miles east of US 42 At US 22 DA From 0.30 miles north of IR 275 to .4 miles north of IR 275 (Cornell to Kemper) Hamilton County from Silverton/Madeira Corporation Line to 0.26 miles south of Blue Ash/ Montgomery Corp.
Contract Let
22380
2/30/2006
US 22
Cancelled Completed
25065
2/3/2006
US 22
Cancelled
25346
2/3/2006
IR 7
Ohio
Kentucky
A-19
pid
delete date
facility
location From .8 miles south to 2.72 miles north of Hamilton/ Warren County LineFields Ertel to Foster Viaduct From 300 north of Galbraith Road on IR 75 southbound exit ramp to Galbraith Road Cincinnati Corporate line to Village of Mariemont From 0.06 miles south of Banning Road to 0.08 miles north of Banning Road Between IR 7 and Loveland-Madeira Road City of SpringdaleGlensprings Drive to northern corporate line Gilbert Avenue between Eden Park Drive and East McMillan Street Central Parkway between Broadway and 2th Street At Carthage/ Norwood Lateral Entrance On IR 75 from IR 74 to Sharon Road and On SR 562 from IR 75 to IR 7
description Phase 2 (PE and right-of-way only) Widen to five lane. See PID 75882 for construction Remove slip ramp right turn on Galbraith, construct standard right turn lane Plane and pave
reason Completed
75879
2/3/2006
US 22
Contract Let
80066
/8/2007
IR 75
Contract Let
25297
/24/2007
US 50
76378
/24/2007
US 27
Construct right turn lane and center median
Contract Let
7765
/24/2007
IR 275
Construct noise barriers at various locations, both north and south sides Urban paving
Contract Let
Contract Let
75507
/3/2007
SR 4
7800
3/29/2007
Gilbert Avenue Central Parkway US 42
Streetscape Project
Contract Let
7805
3/29/2007
Streetscape Project
Contract Let
77547
4/4/2007
Intersection Realignment Overhead Sign Replacements
Contract Let
Contract Let
24533
4/8/2007
IR 75
A-20
Ohio
Kentucky
pid
delete date
facility
location On US 27 at Two Intersections: Windermere Way and Belmont Avenue
description Minor widening, construct new curb and sidewalks, resurface pavement, construct left turn lanes Urban paving in Cincinnati including US 22, US 42 and US 52 Urban paving in Cincinnati including SR 264, US 22, US 27 and US 27 DA Install ramp meters for eastbound entrance ramps Urban paving
reason Contract Let
24503
5//2007
US 27
Contract Let
7577
5/2/2007
US 22
Various Routes
Contract Let
75876
5/6/2007
SR 264
Various Routes From Harrison/ Rybolt Interchange to the Spring Grove Interchange City of Indian Hill western corporate line to eastern corporate line County-wide (Hamilton County) Improvements are on Church Street, Main Street, and Round Bottom Road Along Five Mile Road between SR 25 (Beechmont Avenue) and State Route in Anderson Township Bridge over Vine Street from Erkenbrecher to the Zoos parking lot Mt. Adams wall along IR 47
Contract Let
78082
5/23/2007
IR 74
Contract Let
75503
6//2007
SR 26
24537
7/8/2007
Various
Ground mounted sign replacements in FY 2008 Traffic signal interconnection systemtotal of six signals through the Village of Newtown Streetscape Project
Contract Let
Contract Let
7700
7/8/2007
SR 32
Contract Let
80797
7/8/2007
CR 504 (Five Mile Road)
77706
8//2007
Vine Street Pedestrian Bridge
Construct new pedestrian bridge
Contract Let
7752
8/8/2007
IR 47
Minor rehabilitation and repair to the Mt. Adams Slope Stability System
Contract Let
Ohio
Kentucky
A-2
pid
delete date
facility
location
description Various signing, striping, vegetation removal, skid surface treatments, etc. to improve safety Bridge Overlay (Three) Construct a sidewalk and steps to re-establish the connection between Mt. Adams and the riverfront Bridge Replacement
reason Contract Let
82159
8/5/2007
IR 75
From the Western Hills Viaduct to IR 275 .6 Miles south of SR 26 Between the Mt. Adams neighborhood and the Cincinnati riverfront Bridge No. HAM126-2943, SFN: 305342. Bridge carries SR 26 over a tributary of Little Miami River 2.06 miles south of IR 275 to Hamilton/ Butler line and on US 42 south from US 42 to US 42 From east of Elwynne to eastern corporate line (deleted and combined with PID 8662) Kemper Lane to Delta Avenue From 2 miles south to 1.98 miles north of IR 74. Bridge spans a tributary of the Great Miami River From 0.05 miles west of Race Road to 0.05 miles south of Race Road From south corporate line to north corporate line
21798
/6/2007
US 27
80757
/8/2008
Mt. Adams Steps
Contract Let
75648
1/9/2008
SR 26
77599
1/9/2008
US 42
Urban paving project
Contract Let
79399
/0/2008
US 22
Urban paving project in the City of Silverton (TIP Amendment -008) Acquire limited access right-ofway and safety improvements Replacement of Bridge No. HAM128-0296, SFN: 304265. Project deleted and added to PID 75890. Intersection improvementadd right turn lane on Race Road, eliminate three curb islands Urban paving project in North College Hill
Project Deleted
11895
/25/2008
US 50 (Columbia Parkway)
Contract Let
Project Deleted
75626
2/29/2008
SR 28
Contract Let
76376
3/5/2008
SR 264
77745
3/5/2008
US 27
Contract Let
A-22
Ohio
Kentucky
pid Warren 2803 2235 11932 19725
delete date
facility
location
description
reason
/2/2004 /2/2004 12/9/2004 12/9/2004
SR 32/SR 730 SR 48 SR 23 SR 74
On SR 32 and SR 730 in Warren and Clinton counties At Lower Springboro Road 0.19 Miles West of US 42 Mason NCL to Springboro SCL SR 73, SR 74 and various city streets From 2.6 miles west to 2.24 miles west of US 42 .25 miles to .65 miles north of SR 63 Along SR 73 between Clearcreek-Franklin Road and SR 74 At Union Road Monroe ECL to Lebanon WCL Along Broadway (SR 48) and Mulberry Streets in Lebanon Baxter Street to Montgomery County Line 3.45 miles east of Butler County line to SR 48 From 0.87 miles west of SR 74 to 0.85 miles west of SR 741; from 0.22 miles west of SR 74 to 0.20 miles west of SR 74
Rehabilitate two structures Intersection Improvement Culvert Replacement Resurfacing Construct Bike PathCity not pursuing (2/0/02) Replace culvert no. WAR-73-6.47 Reconstruct Curve
Contract Let
Contract Let Contract Let Contract Let Cancel per Applicant
22328
2/3/2004
SR 73
77900
3/2/2005
SR 73
Contract Let
22427
3/7/2005
SR 74
Contract Let
77226
6/3/2005
SR 73
Construct a streetscape
Contract Let
20679 19941
6/6/2005 7//2005
IR 75 SR 63
Bridge Deck Replacement Planing and resurfacing existing pavement Construct a streetscape in the City of Lebanon Construct bikeway along Great Miami River Resurfacing
778
7//2005
Lebanon Streetscape Great Miami Bikeway SR 22
Contract Let
22394
8/9/2005
Contract Let
19677
8/22/2005
Contract Let
22373
/2/2005
SR 73
Overlay and rehabilitate two bridges in Springboro
Contract Let
Ohio
Kentucky
A-23
pid
delete date
facility
location On SR 63 from 0.5 miles west of IR 75 to 0.6 miles east of IR 75; on IR 75 at SR 63 From the southern Springboro corporate line to SR 73 Ohio Department of Natural Resources park entrance road .45 miles north of SR 23
description Replace SR 63 bridge over IR 75 for proposed single point interchange. Accelerated from PID 24659 Replace SR 63 bridge over IR 75 for proposed single point interchange. Accelerated from PID 24659 Culvert construction/repair Waste water treatment plant replacement Relocate Bunnell Hill Road to eliminate five leg intersection, straighten curve on SR 48 at Pekin Road Resurfacing Paving and asphalt resurfacing on SR 23
reason Contract Let
79715
2/9/2006
IR 75/SR 63
Contract Let
24319
3/8/2006
SR 74
7883
4/5/2006
Mathers Mill IR 7
Contract Let
24405
5/6/2006
Contract Let
Contract Let
22677
5/7/2006
SR 48
At Bunnell Hill Road/Pekin Road
22834
5/25/2006
SR 74
.0 miles north of IR 71 to Mason NCL Franklin north corporate line to the Warren/ Montgomery County line Various routes in Warren County From the Butler/ Warren County Line to Commerce Drive Various routes in the City of Lebanon including SR 48, SR 63, SR 23 and US 42 IR 75/State Route 22 Interchange
22840
6/2/2006
SR 23
78694
8/7/2006
Various
Correct unsafe roadway conditions by adding and replacing guardrail Urban paving project in the City of Middletown Urban paving project in the City of Lebanon
Contract Let
77743
9/21/2006
SR 22
Cancel per District Contract let
75504
9/26/2006
SR 48
76038
2/3/2006
IR 75
Study the existing interchange for geometric and capacity improvements
Completed
A-24
Ohio
Kentucky
pid NP
facility SR 23
location From SR 63 north to SR 23 0.2 to 0.84 miles east of Butler county Line
description Two-lane roadway Installing raised median, turn lanes and realignment of intersections for access management Bridge Replacement SFN: 8305048 over a branch of Todd Fork Offset and lengthen left turn lanes on US 42 at SR 73 Urban paving project
reason Completed Contract Let
22027
2//2007
SR 63
258
2/28/2007
SR 32
.36 miles south of Clinton County Line From 0.2 miles south of SR 73 to 0.2 miles north of SR 73 From .5 miles west of SR 74 to Mason east corporate line Clermont/Warren County line to Warren/Clinton County Line IR 7 ramps, Western Row Road and Kings Island Drive 0.22 miles south of SR 23 to 0.06 miles south of SR 23
Contract Let
Contract Let
76375
3/6/2007
US 42
Contract Let
7764
6//2007
US 42
Plane and pave
Contact Let
2537
8/5/2007
SR 28
78084
0/2/2007
IR 7
Intersection improvement
Contract Let
24602 Kentucky 400.0
2/2/2007
SR 28
Replacement of the railroad bridge and box culvert on existing alignment Northern Kentucky Rideshare Program FY 06 OKI Regional Transportation Planning FY 06 (See Ohio Line Items) Northern Kentucky Rideshare Program FY 07
Contract Let
7/30/2005
Boone, Campbell and Kenton
Completed
Completed
40.0
7/30/2005
400.02
7/30/2006
Completed
Ohio
Kentucky
A-25
pid
delete date
facility
location
description OKI Regional Transportation planning FY 07 (See Ohio Line Items) Replace bridge and approaches Widen to five lanes
reason Completed
40.02
7/30/2006
Boone 058.0 36.0 6-225.0 2/3/2004 6/7/2005 7//2006 KY 842 KY 07 (Turfway Road) New Connector KY 237 Over Utterback Creek US 25 to KY 77 (Thoroughbred Avenue) Between Walton and Nicholson At the intersection of US 42 in Florence At the intersection with Rogers Lane in Burlington Weigh Facility along IR 7 Cincinnati/ Northern Kentucky International Airport Near Richwood At KY 22 including connections to KY 20 Intersection with IR 75 Walton Gaines Tavern History Center Along KY 8 and extending east to Tanners Lane Cancel per District Contract Let
Scoping study for new roadway Construct a southbound left turn lane on KY 237 (toll credits) Construct a left turn lane on northbound 237 at Roger Lane (toll credits) Add Restroom Construct infrastructure for biodiesel fuel and one-year buy down (toll credits) Construct an idleaire facility Airport Access Interchange Improvements (toll credits) Construct a right turn lane on KY 338 to southbound IR 75 (toll credits) Restoration of property and minor repairs Construction of sidewalks and pedestrian connection across IR 7/75
Completed Cancelled
6-4
0/2/2006
Cancelled
6-5.00
0/2/2006
KY 237
6-0.00
/7/2006
IR 7
Contract Let Cancelled
6-219.0
2/2/2006
Airport
6-219.0
2/3/2006
IdleAire
Cancelled See 8000.20 & 8000.2
6-8000
3/3/2007
IR 275
Contract Let
6-207.0
4/20/2007
KY 338
TE 5
5//2007
Walton Gaines
Contract Let
Contract Let
TE 2
5//2007
KY 8
A-26
Ohio
Kentucky
pid 6-06.
facility KY 1829 (Industrial Road) IR 275
location From US 42 to US 25 (first phase) From milepost .00 to the Ohio River Bridge From IR 275 north three miles toward KY 8 From IR 275 north three miles toward KY 8 From IR 275 north three miles toward KY 8 0.5 miles north of county route 5306 Between mileposts 8.90 and 10.60 Milepost 8 to Milepost 20 At the intersection with Riviera Drive in Bellevue Campbell County On Park Avenue at KY 8 All steel bridges and bearings on IR 47, except the Daniel Carter Beard Bridge
description Widen roadway to five lanes Structural overlay (toll credits) Reconstruct and widen (toll credits) Reconstruct and widen (toll credits) Reconstruct and widen (toll credits)
reason Contract Let
6-2028
5/25/2007
Contract Let
6-52.00
9/28/2007
KY 237
Contract Let
6-52.0
9/28/2007
KY 237
Contract Let
6-52.02 campbell 055.0 959.00 5003.0
9/28/2007
KY 237
Contract Let
7/2/2004 2/3/2004 2/4/2005
KY 2925 KY 8 KY 8
Replace the bridge over Owl Creek Shoulder stabilization on KY 9 Slide Repairs Increase turning radius at intersection for better traffic flow (toll credits) I-47 Corridor Study (toll credits) Construct a left turn lane (toll credits) Powerwash and paint
6-209.0
9/29/2006
KY 8
2/3/2006 6-205.0 3/23/2007
Study Park Avenue
Study Initiated Contract Let
Contract Let
6-8.00
4/20/2007
IR 47
Kenton City of Covington on Madison Avenue, Pike Street and Seventh Street Installation of historic boulevard lighting, planters, sidewalk improvements and urban landscaping Contract Let
308.0
2/3/2004
Various
Ohio
Kentucky
A-27
pid 17.90 33.20 7.03
delete date 2/28/2005 6/7/2005 8/26/2005
facility IR 75 KY 7 KY 303
location Brent Spence Bridge From Apple Drive to Pelly Drive Autumn Road to Richardson Road Brent Spence Bridgefrom Kyles Lane in Kentucky to Ezzard Charles Drive in Ohio From KY 7 at Highland Pike directly to Fidelity Investments Roebling Suspension Bridge over the Ohio River Kenton County Hands Pike On KY 7 at Independence Station Road On KY 6 at KY 2045 (Cox Road) Royal Drive in Ft. Mitchell Old Edgewood section of the city Along KY 8 in Ludlow
description Brent Spence Bridge congestion relief project Widen to five lanes Widen to five lanes Replacement of bridge, preliminary engineering, environmental, design, right-ofway, utilities New two-lane connector
reason Contract Let
Contract Let Contract Let Study Complete
6-7.0
2/3/2005
IR 75
6-350.0
4/28/2006
KY 072 (new)
Contract Let
6-220.2
9/29/2006
KY 7
Structural analysis
Contract Let
6-.00 6-8307 6-995.0 6-999.0 TE 0 TE 9
/7/2006 2/3/2006 2/3/2006 2/3/2006 2/3/2006 2/3/2006
IR 75 KY 50 KY 7 KY 6 Royal Drive Lyndale Road
Add restroom to weight facility (toll credits) Scoping Study Construct a northbound left turn lane on KY 7 Construction of left turn lanes Construct a sidewalk Construct a sidewalk on Lyndale Road Streetscape revitalization and beautification project Construct ingress/ egress roadways via 3th Street to office development
Contract Let
Completed Deleted
Deleted Contract Let Contract Let
Contract Let
6-820
/8/2007
KY 8
6-8306
3/3/2007
3 Street
th
Office development in Covington
Deleted
A-28
Ohio
Kentucky
pid
delete date
facility
location
description Reconstruct the intersection and improve site distance through horizontal realignment
reason Contract Let
6-996.0
6/22/2007
KY 7
On KY 7 at the intersection of KY 4
indiana dearborn Bridge over Central Railroad Company of Indiana, 0.35 miles north of US 50 Various Along IR 465 and IR 74 from Marion County to Dearborn county On US 50 from SR 56/SR 350 to SR At Georgetown Road Surrounding Greendale From SR to US 52 At RP 224.5 Bridge rehabilitation Contract Let
0207
6/30/2006
SR
040008
2/3/2006
US 50
Pump Station replacements Riprap repair
040097
2/3/2006
IR 74
050098 940584 940805 060003 07006

SOURCE: OKI.
2/3/2006 2/3/2006 2/3/2006 2/28/2007 2/28/2007
US 50 SR Bike/Ped SR 46 SR 62
District pavement project Intersection Improvement Bike/pedestrian trail roadway HMA overlay, preventive maintenance Slide Correction
Contract Let Contract Let Contract Let Eliminated
Suspended
Ohio
Kentucky
A-29
Appendix B OKI 2030 Regional Transportation Plan Project Scoring Process
Ohio
Kentucky
APPENDIX B OKI 2030 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROJECT SCORING PROCESS

BACKGROuND This scoring process is intended to assist selection of worthy capacity related roadway and transit projects for the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. Its basis is a procedure originally adopted on February 3, 2004 by the OKI Intermodal Coordinating Committee and Board of Directors to evaluate Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and ODOT Transportation Review Advisory Committee (TRAC) projects. It has been adapted to fit the nature of the Regional Transportation Plan development. Most recently the criteria have been revised on November 30, 2007 to include consideration of freight and land use elements. The process makes best use of available data and points of emphasis in the federal transportation bill. Maintenance projects are not included since they are of high importance and are assumed to be part of the plan. This process provides a systematic approach to ranking the numerous projects which will need to be evaluated in the development of a financially constrained regional transportation plan. This is also an opportunity to incorporate the intent of SAFETEALUs eight planning factors. A numeric ranking for each project will be determined for a relative comparison with other projects. This scoring process is meant to provide information for decision making and development of a recommended list of projects in the plan. Public input and OKI leadership will determine the final recommended list of projects. ThE PROJECT SCORING PROCESS Several criteria are evaluated in the scoring process. The first five apply to all projects and provide a potential of 50 points. A project is then scored under the roadway or the transit sections, either of which provide a potential for another 40 points. Finally, all applications are subjected to a hybrid benefit/cost evaluation which can provide up to 0 additional points, giving a total possible of 00. A description of the criteria and the OKI 2030 Regional Transportation Plan Project Scoring Process follows. Overall CriteriOn 50 pOints pOssible Environmental Justice The Environmental Justice criterion addresses the emphasis placed on transportation impacts on minority, low income, elderly and zero-car household populations. Impacts could include such things as affects on travel times, division of neighborhoods, or increases in noise and air pollution. This is a subjective evaluation. Projects are awarded points as follows: Overall benefits (good to excellent) Overall benefits (fair to good) Overall benefits (none to fair) five points three points one point
Ohio
Kentucky
B-
Economic Vitality The economic vitality criterion awards points for projects that serve to support existing, expanding or new non-retail employment centers. Projects that have a significant positive impact are awarded five points. Otherwise a score of zero points is given. Air Quality/Energy The air quality or energy criterion relates to continued efforts to improve the regional air quality and encourage investment in more environmentally friendly forms of fuel use. As measures, the reduction in VMT (vehicle miles of travel), VHT (vehicle hours of travel) and Emissions Reduced will be considered to allocate up to 0 points. Depending on the intensity of the improvement, a subjective high (seven to 10 points), medium (four to six points), or low (zero to three points) score is assigned. Examples of these measures include installation of a natural gas refueling station (Emissions Reduced), intersection signal improvements (VHT reduced), construction of a new roadway link reducing circuitous travel (VMT reduced), a new bus on an existing route reducing headway (VMT and VHT reduced), a new compressed natural gas bus on a new route. Multimodal/Intermodal The multimodal or intermodal criterion awards points based on the projects ability to include and/or enhance more than the primary mode or specifically address freight needs. If the proposed project facilitates intermodal integration and connectivity, or includes design elements for more than one transportation mode up to ten points may be obtained. An example of multimodal integration would be a roadway reconstruction project that creates adequate space for bicycle use, even though a formal bike path is not part of the design. Another example would be a bus purchase by a transit operator where the specifications called for bicycle racks to be included. An example of multimodal investment is a roadway widening project that provides bus turnouts at designated bus stops, or a bus pre-emption feature in the traffic signal design. If a transit operator proposed a project for a park and ride lot or transfer center that also provided a linkage to an existing bike path and provided bike racks, the maximum of 10 points could be scored. Corridor Study/ Land use Plan Recommendation The corridor study or land use plan recommendation criteria awards up to 0 points for projects identified as high priority through a formal corridor study or comprehensive planning process. This is meant to recognize the significant overall detailed planning invested in key transportation corridors. Important yet lower priority projects may be awarded five points and projects with little or no status relative to a corridor study or a comprehensive plan will be scored zero points in this category. Local/Regional Priority The local/regional priority criterion reflects the relative importance of each project as indicated by affected communities. It is important that OKI have a sense of the local situation and preference for solutions to transportation problems. Local communities are asked to review and prioritize all projects within their area. The prioritized project listings received from the city, county or state agencies are used to assign high,
B-2
Ohio
Kentucky
medium or low priority. Scoring is assigned 10, six or three respectively. rOadway prOjeCts - 40 pOints pOssible Safety The safety criterion measures two facets. First, using a set of measures that deal with accidents per million vehicle miles (MVMT) and personal injury, a range of zero to five points are possible. This represents the current conditions of the location. A second set of measures assesses the impact the proposal will have on the existing situation, ranging from zero to five points. New facilities will be scored based on existing routes it is designed to alleviate, if any. Average Daily Traffic (ADT)/Facility Type The average daily traffic (ADT) or facility type combines two features which are a barometer of a roadways significance in the regional system. This combination allows for the consideration of both current volume and functional hierarchy. This combination permits the roadways with high volumes to be assigned a high score even if the facility is not high on the functional class system. ADT and functional class are readily available. High volume roadways on the interstate system will score highly, up to five points. Low volume local roads will be scored lower. The scoring process table lists the ranges. Existing Congestion Level The existing congestion level uses observed travel time and delay estimates to assign up to five points for highly congested locations, three points for moderate congestion and zero for little or no congestion. 2030 Level of Service 2030 Level of Service is a two-step criterion. Levels A through E/F produce scores ranging from one point to five points, based on forecasted 2030 conditions. The extent to which the proposal alleviates the future level of congestion has a range of zero to five points. If the proposal does not improve the congestion at all, zero points are awarded. Any new facility will be scored based on existing routes it is designed to alleviate, if any. Freight Corridors The freight corridors factor provides points for corridors based on percentage of truck traffic within the project area. Up to five points are awarded. Feasibility Some projects have merit but lack feasibility due to economic or social constraints, such as lack of political or public will, right of way availability or other issues. The feasibility criterion is an indication of the likelihood of a project to advance to construction or implementation based on these factors. Those projects which appear to be highly feasible will be scored five points. Those projects perceived as unfeasible will score zero points. Moderate and marginally feasible projects will score four and two points respectively.
Ohio
Kentucky
B-3
transit prOjeCts - 40 pOints pOssible Type The type of project being sought relates to the score as shown. The term type may include but not necessarily be limited to vehicle replacement, service support, fixed facilities such as park and ride, stations or bus barns and vehicle expansion. The range again reflects the importance of maintaining and supporting the existing service, as opposed to expansion activities. Projects can receive up to 10 points in this category. Ridership Impact An important component of transit projects is their ridership impact. Investments should be oriented to at least maintaining the existing ridership, if not increasing it. The scores of zero, seven, and 0 points echo this philosophy. Safety and Security The significance of the improvement to overall safety and security is reflected in the scoring range of from zero to 0 points. Timing and Analysis Level The sooner a proposal can be put in place, the sooner its impact will be felt in the region. Timing and analysis level is the criterion that assigns a value to this as follows. Projects which could be implemented within five years (matches transit operators approximate long range planning horizon) are awarded 10 points. Improvements to, or expansion of the system, such as opening new transit hubs, that are anticipated to be implemented after five years and are included in a local planning study or transit development plan are awarded five points. Those that are anticipated to be implemented after five but are not included in a local planning study or transit development plan are awarded zero points. benefit/COst ratiO - 10 pOints pOssible The final scoring section makes use of a hybrid benefit/cost analysis. The extensive variability in project type and the amount of time it would take to do a true benefit/ cost analysis has led to the selection of this method. While cost is readily available, the benefit side is represented by a surrogate that is valued according to the score awarded up to this point for the subject proposal (the points, in effect, represent the intrinsic benefit to the region). The point subtotal (maximum 90) is divided by the cost of the proposal in millions. The subsequent value (which can have a very wide numerical range) is then scored from two to 0 points via the scale shown in the scoring process. When added to the previous subtotal, a maximum of 100 points is possible.
B-4
Ohio
Kentucky
Ohio
Kentucky
ALL PROJECTS (50)

MEASuRE
Type
TRANSIT PROJECTS (40)

POINTS CRITERION MEASuRE POINTS
CRITERION
Environmental Justice
Economic Vitality Ridership Impact
Air Quality (Emission Reduction) Safety/Security
Local/Regional Priority
Multi/Intermodal Timing & Analysis Level
Benefits (good to excellent) Benefits (fair to good) Benefits (none to fair) Significant Enhancement No Significant Enhance. Significant Moderate Low High Medium Low 3+ mode or intermodal 2 mode design Primary mode only High Moderate No status 0 5 Subtotal 0 Mid/long term & part of local Plan (> 5 years) Long term & not part of local plan (> 5 years) (add overall & transit)
5 3 1 5 0 7-0 4- 0-3 10 3 0 5 0
Bus replacement Service support Fixed facility Vehicle Expansion Other Increase Maintain No impact Essential Significant Moderate Minimal None Near term (< 5 years)
0 8 4 2 0 7 0 10 8 4 0 0 5 0
OKI 2030 Regional Transportation Plan Project Scoring Parameters (page 1 of 2)
Corridor Study/Land Use Plan Recommendation
Benefit/Cost
(Subtotal points divided by cost in millions)
Total Points
Greater than 000 Greater than 00 Greater than 10 Greater than 5 Greater than (Maximum 100)
0 8 4 2
B-5
OKI 2030 Regional Transportation Plan Project Scoring Parameters (page 2 of 2)

ROADWAY PROJECTS (40) CRITERION Safety MEASuRE > 9 crashes per MVMT > 7 crashes per MVMT > 5 crashes per MVMT > 3 crashes per MVMT > crashes per MVMT High impact Medium Impact Low Impact 40k+ or Freeway\Expressway 30k+ or Principal Arterial 20k+ or Minor Arterial 10k+ or Collector Less than 0k or Local High Moderate Little or none E/F D C B A High impact Medium Impact Low Impact 25% or greater 20 to <25% 5 to <20% 0 to <5% 5 to <0% <5% High Moderate Marginal Not feasible (add overall & roadway) POINTS 5 4 3 2 5 3 0 5 4 3 2 5 3 0 5 4 3 2 5 3 0 5 4 3 2 0 5 4 2 0
Impact on Safety ADT/Facility Type
Existing Congestion Level (based on observed delay) 2030 Level of Service
Level of Service Impact
Freight Corridors (% Truck)
Feasibility
Subtotal
B-
Ohio
Kentucky
Appendix C Public Participation Progress Sheet
Ohio
Kentucky
APPENDIX C PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRESS SHEET

Date Activity Description Announced that the Long Range Plan is updating its current plan and asked for comments on the bike portion Asked for comments on the Bike Plan portion of the LRP Update A few members of the ICC offered to assist Staff in the 2008 LRP Update at the June ICC meeting. As follow-up, OKI Staff convened a meeting immediately following the July ICC inviting any members who wished to attend. The group reviewed the timeline and shared why they were interested in assisting. All viewed OKI as the primary, if not only, regional leader in terms of regional issues and potential solutions. The topic of sketch- or scenario-planning was discussed and staff committed to review potential options for application. In May staff began identifying/touring sites for Public Meetings and by the end of July had confirmed all (4) meeting facilities to host the first round. Participant(s) Environmental Justice Sensitive
05/0/07
Cincinnati Cycle Club Bikewriter Cincinnati Cycle Club Bikewriter
Don Burrell
No
07/0/07
Don Burrell
No
7/0/07
Post ICC meeting with members
Bob Koehler, Mary Luebbers, ChengI Tsai, Bernadette Dupont, Reggie Victor, Martha Kelly, Don Burrell, Steve Sievers, Steve Johns, Andrew Aiello, Andy Reser, Robyn Bancroft, Regina Fauver, Larisa Sims, Florence Parker
No
7/3/07
Meeting Facilities
Robyn Bancroft Florence Parker
Yes
Ohio
Kentucky
C-
Date
Activity
Description Plan Update Presentation # consisted of a 5 minute PowerPoint presentation covering a general overview of the Plans importance; Updates purpose, goals, new features, timeline, public participation efforts, September Open Houses; and, existing and future regional demographics. Handed out 25 flyers to city staff for distribution at their discretion
Participant(s)
Environmental Justice Sensitive
8/7/07
ICC Meeting
Bob Koehler, Robyn Bancroft and Mary Luebbers
No
8/7/07
City of Lebanon
Larisa Sims, Jason Millard, City of Lebanon,
No
8/8/07
Community Councils
E-mailed the flyer of the regional map of the Open House locations with dates and times to the (8) community council presidents in the Uptown study area for distribution in their business districts and publication in their newsletters. Plan Update Presentation # consisted of a 5 minute PowerPoint presentation covering a general overview of the Plans importance; Updates purpose, goals, new features, timeline, public participation efforts, September Open Houses; and, existing and future regional demographics.
Florence Parker
Yes
8/9/07
Executive Committee
Bob Koehler, Robyn Bancroft and Mary Luebbers
No
C-2
Ohio
Kentucky
Date
Activity
Description
Participant(s) Larisa Sims, Mayor Donnie Hastings, Karla Schmeltzer (Main Street Coordinator, Oren Turner (Public Utilities Intern) and Michaela Horton (Library Intern) Larisa Sims, Mark McCormack (Planning Commission) and Bryan Messmore (Administrator)
8/9/07
City of Aurora
Distributed multiple flyers for the open house (with brief explanation and reference to website)
No
8/9/07
Dearborn County
Distributed multiple flyers for the open house (with brief explanation and reference to website) Provided employment, population and labor force data from long range plan socioeconomic database for Hamilton County and City of Cincinnati Provided population, household and employment projections from long range plan Bob Koehler received phone call from Ms. Kocica. She requested we send her the Public Open House flyer distributed at the August Executive Committee Meeting. E-mailed flier to SORTA staff to be included in SORTA Board member packets for Board mtg Distributed multiple flyers for the open house Distributed multiple flyers for the open house (with brief explanation and reference to website)
No
8/9/07
Pam Mullins
Mary Luebbers
No
8/9/07
Judge Moore
Mary Luebbers
No
8/9/07
Phone Call
Robyn Bancroft
No
8/3/07
SORTA Board
Don Burrell, Stephan Louis, Perri Allen Bob Koehler Milton Dohoney, Jr., City Manager, City Department Heads and Larisa Sims
No
8/4/07
KYTC D-6
No
8/4/07
City of Cincinnati
No
Ohio
Kentucky
C-3
Date
Activity
Description
Participant(s) Teri Whitmore, Martin Hudson, Mary Mahoney, John Creech, interns and Larisa Sims Bill Brock, City Manager, Kevin Chesar, Planning Director and Larisa Sims Dina Minneci, Township Administrator, Andy Meyer, Planning Staff and Larisa Sims Mayor Robert (Bo) Bemmes and Councilman Bob Ashbrock, Larisa Sims
8/4/07
City of Hamilton
Distributed multiple flyers for the open house (with brief explanation and reference to website) Distributed multiple flyers for the open house (with brief explanation and reference to website) Distributed multiple flyers for the open house (with brief explanation and reference to website)
No
8/4/07
City of Monroe
No
8/5/07
Liberty Township
No
8/28/07
City of Reading
Distributed multiple flyers for the open house E-mailed the flyer of the regional map of the Open House locations with dates and times to the Campaign Organizer for distribution. Presentation #2 Existing Future Conditions, CMP, Transit Safety, Land Use E-mailed the flyer of the regional map of the Open House locations with dates and times to Xavier students for distribution. Presentation #2 Existing Future Conditions, CMP, Transit Safety, Land Use Addressed concern about condition of KY 8 in light of additional subdivisions; school bus safety; gravel trucks destroying road; gravel trucks posing safety hazard, impaired sight lines; accidents at intersections.
No
9/7/07
Ohioans for Health, Environment and Justice
Florence Parker
Yes
9//07
ICC Meeting
Bob Koehler, Andy Reser, Robyn Bancroft, Mary Luebbers
No
9/2/07
Xavier University
Brandy Williams
No
9/3/07
Executive Committee
Bob Koehler, Andy Reser, Robyn Bancroft, Mary Luebbers
No
0/5/07
Carol Woods
Mary Luebbers
No
C-4
Ohio
Kentucky
Date
Activity
Description Presentation #3- Public Participation Update, Prioritization Process Review Presentation #3- Public Participation Update, Prioritization Process Review Presentation #4 Fiscal Constraint Presentation #4 Fiscal Constraint Summary of comments received from the four open houses held on the LRP update specific to bike update Meeting with City of Cincinnati Staff Project Reviews Presentation given to the City of Cincinnati Planning Commission Presentation #5 Draft Project List Presentation #5 Draft Project List In October staff began identifying/touring sites for Public Meetings and by the end of January had confirmed all (8) meeting facilities to host the second round. Presentation #6 Draft Project List Consensus of ICC Committee Presentation #6 Draft Project List Consensus of ICC Committee Presentation given to the Conservation Council
Participant(s)
Environmental Justice Sensitive No
0/9/07
ICC Meeting
Robyn Bancroft, Bob Koehler
0//07
Board of Directors
Robyn Bancroft, Bob Koehler
No
/6/07 /8/07
ICC Meeting Executive Committee Cincinnati Cycle Club Bikewriter City of Cincinnati City of Cincinnati Planning ICC Meeting Board of Directors
Bob Koehler Bob Koehler
No
No
/2/07
Don Burrell
No
/9/07
Bob Koehler Bob Koehler, Robyn Bancroft Bob Koehler Bob Koehler
No
2/7/07
Yes
/8/08 /0/08
No No
/3/08
Meeting Facilities
Florence Parker Regina Fauver
Yes
2/2/08
ICC Meeting Executive Committee OKI Regional Conservation Council
Bob Koehler
No
2/4/08
Bob Koehler
No
3/3/08
Bob Koehler
No
Ohio
Kentucky
C-5
Date
Activity
Description Presentation # 7 Update from Public Open Houses, Draft 2030 Regional Transportation Plan to be placed in library of all 8counties, ODOT, KYTC, OKI and on website Presentation # 7 Update from Public Open Houses, Draft 2030 Regional Transportation Plan to be placed in library of all 8counties, ODOT, KYTC, OKI and on website Presentation given to the Home Builders Association
Participant(s)
4/8/08
ICC Meeting
Robyn Bancroft
No
4/0/08
Board of Directors
Robyn Bancroft
No
5/4/08
Home Builders
Bob Koehler Bob Koehler, Robyn Bancroft, Regina Fauver, Dave Shuey, Mark Policinski, Florence Parker Bob Koehler, Robyn Bancroft Bob Koehler, Robyn Bancroft
No
5/29/08
Public Hearing
Comments received from public
No
6/0/08 6/2/08
ICC Meeting Board of Directors
Final Presentation Adoption of Plan Final Presentation Adoption of Plan
No No
C-6
Ohio
Kentucky
Appendix D Needed But Not Fiscally Constrained Projects
Ohio
Kentucky
Appendix d needed But not FiscAlly constrAined projects state Ohio county All Facility Regional Light Rail Planning Golf Course to County Line South Gilmore Avenue Tylersville Road Allen Road Bethany Road Breiel Boulevard Butler Warren Road Butler Warren Road Carmody Boulevard Carmody Boulevard Central Avenue Central Avenue (Coles Road) Central Avenue/IR 75 Overpass CincinnatiDayton CincinnatiDayton Road CincinnatiDayton Road location Corridors identified in Regional Rail Transit Plan Hamilton-Mason Road to SR 63 SR 4 to Boehm Drive SR 747 to Cincinnati-Dayton Road Union Centre Drive to CincinnatiDayton Road Cincinnati Dayton to Butler Warren Breiel Boulevard Barrett and Bethany Tylersville Road to Hamilton Mason Road SR 73 to Germantown Road Central Avenue to Germantown Road (SR 4) Sutphin Street to Breiel Boulevard Marshall Road to Dixie Highway Dixie Highway to Union Road South Corporation Line to SR 63 Crescentville Road to West Chester Road Maud Hughes Road to SR29 description Preliminary engineering/draft EIS
Ohio
Butler
New five lane facility
Ohio
Butler
Add two lanes
Ohio
Butler
Build three lane section making vertical and horizontal improvements Add two lanes Widen to three lanes and add bikepath Bus Shelters: bus pull offs Widen one lane in each direction Widen three to four lanes
Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio
Butler Butler Butler Butler Butler Butler Butler Butler Butler
Add one lane Rebuild Roadway
Add one lane Rebuild Roadway
Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio
Butler Butler Butler Butler
Extend Roadway
Widening/improvements Add one lane
Add one lane and replace RR bridge
Ohio
Kentucky
D-
state Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio
county Butler Butler Butler Butler Butler Butler Butler
Facility CincinnatiDayton Road Columbia Avenue Cox Road Eaton Road FairfieldBrookville connector Hamilton Mason Road Hendrickson Road Highland Street LaFayette Avenue Lawton RoadTodhunter Road Connector Lefferson Road LesourdsvilleWest Chester Road Liberty One Drive Main Street Marshall Road Marshall Road Mauds Hughes Road Miller Road Millikin Road
location Milliken Road to Monroe South Corporation Line Reinartz to Carmody Boulevard Barrett to Tylersville Beissinger Road to Main Street Fairfield to Brookville Maud Hughes intersection Cincinnati-Dayton Road to Breiel Boulevard Roosevelt Boulevard to Lefferson Road South Verity Parkway to South Main Street Lawton Road Breiel Boulevard to Cincinnati-Dayton Road Cincinnati-Dayton Road to Tylersville Road IR75 8th Avenue to South Corporation limit Riverview Avenue to Miller Road Bonita Drive to Leffercon Road Bridge 2.500 Miller Road to Decker Road IR 75
description Add one lane
Rebuild Roadway Widen to three lanes Add two lanes New two lane roadway near airport
Improve intersection and replace RR bridge Extend roadway
Ohio
Butler
Rebuild roadway
Ohio
Butler
Rebuild; add bikepath connection
Ohio
Butler
Extend Lawton Road to Todhunter Road
Ohio
Butler
Widen roadway
Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio
Butler Butler Butler Butler Butler Butler Butler Butler
Add one lane
Widen from Yankee to Cox and new overpass over IR75 Rebuild Roadway Extend roadway Extend roadway Replace RR bridge and realign road Extend roadway New interchange
D-2
Ohio
Kentucky
state Ohio Ohio Ohio
county Butler Butler Butler
Facility N. Gilmore Road Nelbar Street New London Road Oxford State Road/ Greentree Connection Princeton Road Reinartz Boulevard River Road
location Holden Boulevard to Symmes Road University Boulevard to SR73 Ross Hanover Road to D Street Cincinnati-Dayton Road to Greentree Road Maud Hughes to Yankee Road University overpass Southgate Boulevard to Miamidale Drive SR 4 to Hamilton County Line Union Centre Boulevard to Tylersville Road Port Union Road to Union Centre Boulevard Ross Avenue to Rockford Drive SR4 to Wayne Madison Central Avenue to Grand Avenue N. Gilmore Drive to SR 4 Nelbar Street to N. Terminus University Boulevard University to Kehr Road Eaton Avenue to Cleveland Avenue Todhunter Road to SR 63
description Widen to three lanes Add two lanes Add one lane Rebuild roadway
Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio
Butler Butler Butler Butler
Improve geometry and add turn lanes Rebuild: add lanes Widen
Ohio Ohio
Butler Butler
Ross Road Seward Road
Add one lane Widen to three lanes
Ohio
Butler
Seward Road
Widen to three lanes
Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio
Butler Butler Butler Butler Butler Butler Butler
SR 29 SR 63 Sutphin Street Symmes Road Tytus Avenue University Boulevard University Park Boulevard Washington Boulevard Yankee Road
Add one lane New four lane roadway Widen roadway Widen to five lanes Rebuild roadway Bus shelters; upgrading handicap ramps-curbing Extend roadway
Ohio Ohio
Butler Butler
Add three lanes Extend (Salzman) roadway
Ohio
Kentucky
D-3
state Ohio
county Butler
Facility Yankee Road
location University Boulevard to Oxford State Road Linn Road to SR 63 Lawton to Cincinnati-Dayton Road In Trenton, Busenbark to N. Miami Street (SR 77) In Middletown, Bridge over Great Miami River, Trenton-Franklin Road to Carmody Boulevard In Hamilton, US 27 to SR 4 In Hamilton, Stahlheber Road to Main Street South of Oxford John Gray to SR 28 SR 28 to Wards Corner Road From existing College Drive to the Clough Pike/Taylor intersection Extended from Clough to Aicholtz Clough Pike to Old SR 74 Clough Pike to SR 25 Loveland Miamiville to Branch Hill Guinea Road Branch Hill Guinea to SR 48 Nine Mile Road to IR 275
description Widen roadway
Ohio Ohio
Butler Butler
Yankee Road SR 63
Road Extension/Realignment Add two lanes
Ohio
Butler
SR 73
Widen
Ohio
Butler
SR 22
Add one lane
Ohio Ohio
Butler Butler
SR 29 SR 77
Add two lanes Add two lanes
Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio
Butler Butler Clermont Clermont
US 27 US 27 Branch HillGuinea Pike College Drive
New two-lane US 27 parkway connector west Widen to five lanes Widen to three lanes New extension with two through lanes, eight-foot berms and turn lanes at access points. New four-lane facility with sidewalks Widen to three lanes with access management Add third lane Add one lane with sidewalks
Ohio
Clermont
Eastgate Boulevard Extension Mount CarmelTobasco Road Mt. CarmelTobasco Road Wards Corner
Ohio
Clermont
Ohio Ohio
Clermont Clermont
Ohio Ohio
Clermont Clermont
Wards Corner SR 25
Widening one lane with sidewalks Add one lane WB
D-4
Ohio
Kentucky
state Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio
county Clermont Clermont Clermont Hamilton
Facility SR 3 Widening SR 32 SR 33 Burnet Avenue Dana Avenue Dry Fork Road East Crescentville Road Harrison Avenue Harrison Avenue Ridge Road IR 7 Rail Transit Ancor Connector Anderson Ferry Road Auburn Avenue Baughman Road Beechmont (US 25) and Markley/ Paddison Intersection Bicycle Connectivity Bicycle Connectivity
location US50 to Wolfpen Pleasant Hill North of overlap with US 50 KY 9 to IR 7 Reading Road to Forest Avenue Victory Parkway to IR 7 IR 74 to New Haven Road (City of Harrison) SR 747 to Cincinnati-Dayton Road Queen City Avenue to Cincinnati Corporation Line IR 74 West off ramp to Race Road Highland to Woodford Road Kings Island to CVG Airport/Florence SR 32 (R) to Broadwell Delhi/Delhi Pike to Cleves Warsaw Road Dorchester to William Howard Taft Oxford Road and Edgewood Road Markey/Paddison Intersection
description Add third lane with additional turn lane if necessary Relocate west of existing route New Ohio River Bridge at Meldahl Dam and upgraded SR 33 Upgrade traffic operations by adding turn lanes, street widening and parking restrictions Add one lane Widen road add two lanes, paved shoulders, graded shoulders Widen to three lanes with new residential frontage road Add one lane
Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton
Ohio
Hamilton
Ohio
Hamilton
Ohio Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton
Closed loop signal Add one lane High frequency light rail line and enhanced bus service as generally defined in NSTI Two lane facility with appropriate turn lanes Provide sidewalks on both sides of road, add lanes at selected locations, eliminate entrance/exit Improve traffic operations, remove parking as necessary and improve intersection Lane Addition Upgrade traffic operations and safety with alignment of intersection and possible traffic signalization Create shared roads/use paths when road upgrade new construction occurs. Create shared roads/use path as road are upgraded
Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton
Ohio
Hamilton
Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton
Ohio
Hamilton
City of Cheviot
Ohio
Hamilton
City of Harrison
Ohio
Kentucky
D-5
state Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio
county Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton
Facility Bicycle Connectivity Bicycle Connectivity Bicycle Connectivity Bicycle Connectivity Bicycle Connectivity Bicycle Connectivity Bicycle Connectivity Bicycle Connectivity Bicycle Connectivity Bicycle Connectivity Bicycle Connectivity Bike/Ped Little Miami Scenic Trail
location Village of Addyston Village of North Bend City of Cincinnati Colerain Township Crosby Township Delhi Township Green Township Harrison Township Miami Township Village of Cleves Whitewater Township City of Cincinnati, Anderson Township-Lunken Airport to Old Beechmont Avenue City of Cincinnati State Avenue to Central Avenue Sheits Road to Old Blue Rock Road (Colerain Township) New Haven Road to East Miami River Road (Colerain Township) Old Blue Rock to Sheed Road (Colerain Township) East Miami River road to Sheits Road (Colerain Township) Intersection (Crosby Township)
description Create shared roads/use paths as roads are upgraded Create Shared Roads/Paths as roads are upgraded Create Shared Roads/Paths as roads are upgraded Create Shared Roads/Paths as roads are upgraded Create Shared Roads/Paths as roads are upgraded Create Shared Roads/Paths as roads are upgraded Create Shared Roads/Paths as roads are upgraded Create Shared Roads/Paths as roads are upgraded Create Shared Roads/Paths as roads are upgraded Create Shared Roads/Paths as roads are upgraded Create Shared Roads/Paths as roads are upgraded Separate Shared Use Path (Bike/ Hike Trail) across Little Miami River next to Beechmont Bridge
Ohio
Hamilton
Bike/PedOhio River Trail Blue Rock Road Blue Rock Road
Separate Shred Use Paths (Bike/ Hike Trail) across Mill Creek Widen Road, paved shoulders, fix horizontal/vertical deficiencies, access management New Alignment for new bridge
Ohio
Hamilton
Ohio
Hamilton
Ohio
Hamilton
Blue Rock Road Blue Rock Road Blue Rock/ River Roads
Additional through lane at intersection, Access Management Widen road, paved shoulders, fix horizontal/vertical deficiencies, Access Management) Addition of left/right turn lanes
Ohio
Hamilton
Ohio
Hamilton
D-6
Ohio
Kentucky
state Ohio
county Hamilton
Facility Boudinot Avenue Boudinot Avenue Bridgetown/ Taylor/ Ebenezer/ Hutchinson Burnett Avenue Campbell Road Carolina Trace Clifton Avenue Corridor Commuter Rail Cooper Road Delta/ Eastern/ Kellogg Dry Fork Road Duck Creek Road Ebenezer Road Eden Avenue Eighth Street Viaduct Erkenbrecher Avenue Erkenbrecher Avenue Este Avenue
location Glenway Avenue to Harrison Avenue Glenway Avenue to Harrison Avenue Green Township
description Restrict on-street parking as needed, signal system monitoring, improve intersection, signal system Improvements at intersections Signal timing, lane additions includes intersection of Ebenezer/ Hutchinson to the north Upgrade traffic operations, add turn lanes and restrict parking Upgrade road Lane addition
Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton
Ohio Ohio Ohio
Reading Road to Forest Avenue Harrison Limits (City of Harrison) New Biddinger Road and West Road McMillan to Spring Grove Avenue Cincinnati to Lawrenceburg, Indiana US 42 to Reed Hartman Road At railroad Overpass IR 74 to New Haven Road (City of Harrison) Kennedy Road to Red Bank Road Werk Road to Rapid Run Road (Green Township) William Howard Taft to ML King Eighth Street Viaduct over Mill Creek Burnet to Harvey Burnet to Harvey Seymour Avenue to North Bend Road
Ohio
Hamilton
Improved traffic operations and intersection improvements Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) compliant vehicles Add one lane Intersection improvements, bridge replacement Widen road, paved shoulders, graded shoulders Add two lanes in each direction Intersection improvements, realignment, widening to three lanes Improve traffic operations and extend Eden to McMillan Complete repairs
Ohio
Hamilton
Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton
Ohio
Hamilton
Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton
Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton
Ohio Ohio Ohio
Widen roadway Widen roadway Add four lanes
Ohio
Kentucky
D-7
state Ohio
county Hamilton
Facility Freeman Avenue Bridge Galbraith Road Glenway Road Harrison Avenue Harrison Avenue Study Harrison Avenue Study Harvey Avenue Corridor Highland Avenue Corridor IR 7
location Freeman Avenue Bridge over Sixth Street Expressway Blue Ash Road to Kenwood Road Boudinot Avenue to Federal Harrison Avenue (City of Harrison) Harrison Avenue (Colerain Township) Harrison Avenue (Green Township) ML King to Forest
description Superstructure replacement
Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton
Add one lane Add one lane On street parking limits, signal timing, road realignment Access management, center left turn lanes, lane addition Access management, center left turn lanes, lane addition Add one lane
Ohio
Hamilton
ML King and McMillan IR 7 to the Uptown Taft/McMillan to Dana/Duckcreek Montgomery Road to IR 7 IR 74/Harrison Avenue Interchange to Spring Grove Avenue IR 74/IR 275 (Miami Township) IR 74/IR 275 (Colerain Township) IR 74/IR 275 (Green Township) IR 74/IR 275 overlap (Miami and Whitewater Townships) IR 275 (north) to Cincinnati CBD
Improve traffic operations, restrict parking, improve intersections, add turn lanes Improve interstate access. May include new or modified interchange Add one lane in each direction Realign ramp from Montgomery Road to IR 7 Ramp Metering
Ohio
Hamilton
Ohio Ohio Ohio
IR 7 IR 7 IR 74 Ramp Metering
Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton
IR 74/IR 275 IR 74/IR 275 IR 74/IR 275 IR 74/IR 275
Reconfiguration of Eastern Interchange, add lane Reconfiguration of Eastern Interchange, add lane Reconfiguration of Eastern Interchange, add lane Reconfiguration of Eastern Interchange, add lane
Ohio
Hamilton
IR 75 Rail Transit
High frequency light rail line and enhanced bus service as generally defined in North South Transportation Initiative Add two lanes (one lane each)
Ohio
Hamilton
IR 7
Dana/Duck Creek to Kenwood Road
D-8
Ohio
Kentucky
state Ohio
county Hamilton
Facility IR 7/ Montgomery road southbound entrance ramp Kilby Road
location Ramp from Montgomery Road to southbound IR 7
description Realign ramp from Montgomery Road to southbound IR 7
Ohio
Hamilton
Harrison Avenue to US 50 (Whitewater and Harrison Townships) Harrison Avenue to US 50 (Harrison Township) Between Virginia Avenue and Ashtree Drive IR 7 Phase I IR 7 Phase 0 IR 7 Phase III Cross Town Connector Butler County line to Kemper road Spring Grove Avenue to Vine Street Reading Road, Clifton, Central Parkway, Highland, Dixmyth, IR 7/IR 75 Harrison Avenue to Marvin Road Burnet and Harvey
Upgrade road
Ohio
Hamilton
Kilby Road
Upgrade road
Ohio
Hamilton
Kirby Road
Add one lane
Light Rail and Bus Light Rail and Bus Light Rail and Bus Light Rail and bus Mill Road Mitchell Avenue ML King Drive Corridor
High frequency light rail line and enhanced bus service High frequency light rail line and enhanced bus service High frequency light rail line and enhanced bus service High frequency light rail line and enhanced bus service Add one lane Add two lanes
Ohio
Hamilton
Upgrade and widen to nine lanes from Reading to Clifton, five lanes from Clifton to Central, intersection improvements Add one lane
Ohio
Hamilton
New Biddinger Road New EastWest Connector New Haven Road New Haven Road
Ohio
Hamilton
Improved east-west connection
Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton
Harrison Avenue to Caroline Trace Road Crosby Road to SR 28
Add two lanes Widen road, paved shoulders, fix horizontal/vertical deficiencies, access management
Ohio
Kentucky
D-9
state Ohio
county Hamilton
Facility New Haven Road
location Oxford Road and Miami Whitewater Forest (Crosby Township) Carolina Trace to Dry Fork Road
description Widen road, curb, gutter, access management
Ohio
Hamilton
New Haven Road
Widen road, paved/graded shoulders, pavement replacement, reconfigure intersection, access management Continuation of road widening from bridge Add one lane Add two lanes Construct a new three-lane roadway Construct a new three-lane roadway Study to investigate a new Ohio River Crossing
Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio
New Haven Road Newtown Road North Bend Road Northern Avenue Extension Northern Avenue Extension Ohio River Crossing Study
IR 74 to Harrison (City of Harrison) US 50 to SR 32 Westwood Northern Boulevard to IR 74 Burnet to Harvey
Ohio
Hamilton
Burnet to Harvey
Ohio
Hamilton
Western Hamilton County (Cincinnati, Delhi, North Bend, Addyston and Miami Township) Brent Spence/ Carroll Cropper Salem Road (City of Cincinnati) to New Richmond Uptown Village of Addyston
Ohio
Hamilton
Ohio River Trail Parking Structures Pedestrian Connectivity Pedestrian Connectivity Pedestrian Connectivity Pedestrian Connectivity Pedestrian Connectivity
Creation of a separate shared use path (bike/hike trail) along Kellogg/ US 52 Corridor Provide two new major public parking structures Sidewalk/crosswalks, access management, inventory sidewalk gaps Sidewalk/crosswalks, access management, inventory sidewalk gaps Sidewalk/crosswalks, access management, inventory sidewalk gaps Sidewalk/crosswalks, access management, inventory sidewalk gaps Sidewalk/crosswalks, access management, inventory sidewalk gaps
Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton
Ohio
Hamilton
Colerain Township
Ohio
Hamilton
Whitewater Township Miami Township
Ohio
Hamilton
Ohio
Hamilton
City of Harrison
D-0
Ohio
Kentucky
state Ohio
county Hamilton
Facility Pedestrian Connectivity Pedestrian Connectivity Pedestrian Connectivity Pedestrian Connectivity Pedestrian Connectivity Pedestrian Connectivity Pedestrian Connectivity Pedestrian Connectivity Pedestrian/ Bicycle
location Harrison Township
description Sidewalk/crosswalks, access management, inventory sidewalk gaps Sidewalk/crosswalks, access management, inventory sidewalk gaps Sidewalk/crosswalks, access management, inventory sidewalk gaps Sidewalk/crosswalks, access management, inventory sidewalk gaps Sidewalk/crosswalks, access management, inventory sidewalk gaps Sidewalk/crosswalks, access management, inventory sidewalk gaps Sidewalk/crosswalks, access management, inventory sidewalk gaps Sidewalk/crosswalks, access management, inventory sidewalk gaps Interconnected system of street shared bicycle lanes/improved pedestrian crossing at major intersections Increase turning radius, removal of on-street parking as needed Intersection improvements Realignment of roads
Ohio
Hamilton
Green Township
Ohio
Hamilton
Crosby Township
Ohio
Hamilton
City of Cincinnati
Ohio
Hamilton
City of Cheviot
Ohio
Hamilton
Village of Cleves
Ohio
Hamilton
Delhi Township
Ohio
Hamilton
Village of North Bend Uptown
Ohio
Hamilton
Ohio
Hamilton
Queen City Avenue Race Road/ West Fork Race/ Reemelin Roads Rail Transit Eastern Corridor Wasson Line Rail Transit IR 74 Corridor Rapid Run Pike Reading Road (US 42)
Western Hills Viaduct to White Street (Cincinnati) Race/West Fork Intersection Race/Reemelin Intersection (Green Township) Wasson Line
Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton
Ohio
Hamilton
Rail transit plus feeder bus
Ohio
Hamilton
IR 74 Corridor
Rail transit plus feeder bus
Ohio
Hamilton
Covedale to Glenway (Cincinnati) Victory Parkway to Langdon Farm road
Add two lanes
Ohio
Hamilton
Add one lane
Ohio
Kentucky
D-
state Ohio
county Hamilton
Facility Remington/ Loveland Madeira Ridge Road Ridge Road Rybolt Road Rybolt Road Rybolt Road/ Wesselman Sharon Road
location US 22 to IR 275
description Add two lanes
Galbraith Road to Benson Street IR 7 to Madison (Cincinnati) Harrison Avenue to Taylor Road IR 74 to Wesselman (Green Township) Rybolt/Wesselman (Green Township) Winton Road to Northland Boulevard Chester road to IR 75 Sheed/Harrison Intersection (Green Towhship) Uptown Kenwood Road/ Galbraith Avenue area
Add two lanes Add one lane Add one lane and access management Widen road and access management Intersection and bridge improvement Add two lanes
Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton
Sharon Road Sheed Road/ Harrison Avenue Signal System SORTA Longer TermKenwood/ Galbraith Transit Hub South/Werk Roads SpringdaleTransit Service Springdale Road Springdale traffic signal system upgrade SR 28 SR 28 SR 264
Add two lanes Intersection improvements/ realignment Signal system coordination and optimization of 69 traffic signals Mini transit hub for Metro and other services in the area including pedestrian connections to adjacent
Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton
Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton
South/Werk Roads (Green Township) City of Springdale
Intersection improvements/ realignment Transit
Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton
Flat Top Drive to Winton Road City of Springdale
Add one lane Replace and expand signals/ITS
Ohio Ohio Ohio
SR 28 SR 28 City of Cincinnati/ Boudinot/ Crookshank to Cleves Warsaw
Addition of left/right turn lanes Access management, widen road Restrict turn lanes, widen to five lanes, improve intersections at Sidney/Prosperity with realignment
D-2
Ohio
Kentucky
state Ohio Ohio
county Hamilton Hamilton
Facility SR 264 Statewide Trails Project Statewide Trails Project Statewide Trails Project Statewide Trails Project Statewide Trails Project Transit
location Cheviot/Moonridge Drive to Harrison Harrison TownshipIndiana and Ohio Line Indiana and Ohio Line Whitewater Township (Indiana and Ohio Line City of Cincinnati, Westwood, Queen City Avenue Green TownshipBridgetown Area Clifton Avenue and/or Vine Street, Route 5 Phase II: Museum Center Broadway Commons Uptown Institutions
description Widen road, improve intersection at Harrison and Glenway/Race Bikeway Trail
Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton
Bikeway Trail Bikeway Trail
Ohio
Hamilton
Bikeway Trail
Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton
Bikeway Trail Construct two transit hubs, implement new shuttle, reduce headways and new bus stop signage and information
Ohio
Hamilton
TransitStreetcar
Ohio Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton US 27 US 27
Implementation of a Transportation Management Association Signal timing, lane addition near cemetery, service roads Access management, signal system monitoring, road widening as parcels redevelop Add one lane in each direction or widen lanes and add a center turn lane. Eliminate Neave intersection Improve capacity, improve intersections, restrict parking, provide bike/pedestrian facilities. Conduct preliminary engineering
Springdale Road to Raeann Drive Kirby Road to Springdale (Cincinnati, Colerain, Green) Cincinnati/Sixth Street Viaduct to Village of Addyston McMicken to Erkenbrecher, Nixon, Taft/ Jefferson/McMillan. Short Vine, William Howard Taft/ McMillan Westbourne Drive to Glenway Avenue Queen City Avenue to Harrison Avenue Carolina Trace to Harrison Avenue (City of Harrison)
Ohio
Hamilton
US 50
Ohio
Hamilton
Vine Street Corridor
Ohio Ohio Ohio
Werk Road Werk Road West Road
Improve intersection with left/right turn lanes Monitor traffic signal operations, improve intersection Upgrade road
Ohio
Kentucky
D-3
state Ohio
county Hamilton
Facility Whitewater Township/ Dearborn Connectivity Wilmer Avenue Winton Road Wooster Road IR 7 IR 275 SR 4 SR 4 SR 32 SR 32 SR 32
location Whitewater Township/Dearborn County Beechmont Avenue to Kellogg Avenue North Bend Road to Lake Ridge Road Beechmont Avenue to Kellogg Avenue Interchange at IR 275 US 52 to Five Mile Road SR 4 (Hamilton County) SR 747 to Glendale Milford Road From Newtown Corporation line SR 25 to Clough Pike SR 32/25/ Wilmer/Wooster interchange In Milford, US 50 to Shawnee Run Road Bridgetown Road from Moonridge Drive to Harrison Avenue Bridgetown/ Glenway/Race (Green Township) Bridgetown Road to Werk Road (Green Township) IR 75 to IR 7 (Cincinnati) Sharon Road to Crescentville Kenwood Road to Galbraith Road Silverton Corporation Line to IR 7
description Study to identify potential areas for improved east/west connectivity
Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton
Add one lane, geometric improvements Add one lane Add one lane, geometric improvements Eliminate a loop ramp at IR 275 Add two lanes Access modification road improvements Add one lane Add lanes Add two lanes Interchange improvements. Grade separation Add two lanes Add one lane in each direction from Moonridge Drive to Harrison Avenue Signal timing, lane additions, grade separation, continuous flow intersection Access management study, intersection improvement, eliminate residential street access Add two lanes Add two lanes Add two lanes Widen US 22/SR 3
Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton
SR 26 SR 264
Ohio
Hamilton
SR 264
Ohio
Hamilton
SR 264
Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio
SR 562 SR 747 US 22 US 22
D-4
Ohio
Kentucky
state Ohio
county Hamilton
Facility Reading Road Widening
location 200 south of Hauck Road to 400 south of Crescentville Road Addyston East Corporation Line to Fairbanks Avenue At rail overpass Eggleston Avenue to Bains Street Reagan Highway to Seven Hills Drive IR 275 to John Gray Glen Parker Avenue to Ashtree Between Butler Warren Road and Mason Corporation Line
description Provide northbound and southbound turn lanes to Hauck Road, replace existing signal at Reading/Hauck intersection Add one lane each direction, with center turn lane at select locations Add two lanes and geometric improvements Add one lane Add one lane Add two lanes Geometric improvements with walls
Ohio
Hamilton
River Road (US 50) Riverside Drive (US 52) US 52 US 27 US 27 US 27 (Hamilton Avenue) Bethany Road
Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio
Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton
Ohio
Warren
Assuming completion of PID 8896 (20 project), widen Bethany Road (three lane to five lane facility) Bikeway Connectivity
Warren Warren Warren Warren Warren Warren
Bikeway Connectivity Butler-Warren Road Butler-Warren Road CincinnatiDayton Road Fields-Ertel Glosser & Bunnel Roads Fields-Ertel to SR 42 Bethany to SR 63 SR 22 to SR 73 Butler Warren Road to Wilkens Road Glosser north to SR 23/south to Fujitec Drive/ Bunnel to McKinley IR 75 to SR 23 Cincinnati-Dayton Road to Union Road Greentree Road to Union Road
Widen to five lanes Widen to five lanes, extend to SR 63 Widen to five lanes Widen to five lanes Add one lane only, extend Glosser
Ohio Ohio Ohio
Warren Warren Warren
Greentree Road Hendrickson Road IR 75/ Greentree Road Interchange
Add one lane, reprofile, realign roadway Add one lane New Interchange
Ohio
Kentucky
D-5
state Ohio
county Warren
Facility IR 75/ Manchester road Interchange Kings Mill/ Grandin Manchester Road Manchester Road Mason Montgomery Road Mason Road
location Dixie Highway to Union Road
description New Interchange
Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio
Warren Warren Warren Warren
Bridge over Little Miami River Cincinnati-Dayton Road to Union Road Union Road to SR 23 City of Mason Socialville fosters Road to Western Row Road Butler-Warren Road to Concord Crossing (City of Mason) City of MonroeExtend to Union Road City of Mason/City of Lebanon-US 42 to SR 48 Fields-Ertel to Socialville-Fosters City of MiddletownUnion Road to SR 22 Union Road to SR 23 Fields-Ertel to US 42 Fields Ertel and Tylersville Road Butler-Warren Road to US 22/3
Four lanes Widen to five lanes Widen to three lanes, realign offset intersections Widen one lane in each direction
Ohio
Warren
Add one lane
Ohio
Warren
MasonMontgomery Road MasonMorrowMillgrove Wilkens Boulevard Outer Loop Road Shaker/ Industrial Drive Snider Road Snider Road SocialvilleFosters Road/Old 3C Highway SR 48
Roadway extension
Ohio
Warren
Widen to five lanes
Ohio Ohio
Warren Warren
Add one lane in each direction New roadway
Ohio
Warren
Widen to five lane width
Ohio Ohio Ohio
Warren Warren Warren
Add one lane Widen one lane in each direction Capacity and profile improvements
Ohio
Warren
Mason-MorrowMillgrove Road to Stephens Road (south of US 22/3) Stephens Road to Fosters-Maineville SR 63 and Greentree Road
Widen one lane in each direction
Ohio Ohio
Warren Warren
SR 48 SR 74
Widen to three lanes Relocate and widen
D-6
Ohio
Kentucky
state Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio
county Warren Warren Warren Warren
Facility SR 74 SR 63 SR 74 Stubbs Mills Road Transit Union Road Union Road US 22 US 22 Western Row Road Extension SR 48
location SR 63 and US 42 IR 75 and SR 74 US 42 and Kings Mill road Mason-MorrowMillgrove Road to US 22/3 Warren County SR 63 SR 22 Market to Shaker Road Old Mill to MorrowCozaddale Bridge over Little Miami River Extend across Little Miami River SR 73 to Montgomery County Line Monroe Corporation Line/IR 75 to SR 74 City of LebanonGreentree Road to West Street IR 7 to SR 48 Realign with Bullitsville Road from KY 20 to KY 237 US 42 to KY 338 Over IR 75 at Mall Road Interchange From KY 8 to IR 275 From US 42 to IR 75 at Walton
description Widen one lane in each direction Widen one lane in each direction Widen one lane in each direction Realign roadway/bridge over Little Miami Bus circulator system Widen to five lane width Widen to five lane width Widen to five lanes-not including bridge over Little Miami Two lanes each direction New extension
Warren Warren Warren Warren Warren Warren
Ohio
Warren
Add two lanes
Ohio
Warren
SR 63
Add two lanes
Ohio
Warren
SR 23
Add one lane
Ohio Kentucky
Warren Boone
SR 23 Graves Road
Add two lanes Widen/improve
Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky
Boone Boone Boone
Hicks Pike IR 75 IR 75
Widen/improve Provide walkway attached to ramp structureincludes sidewalk Major widening in each direction future additional capacity 06 008 A0075 5.00 Beaver Road major widening
Kentucky
Boone
KY 292
Ohio
Kentucky
D-7
state Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky
county Boone Boone Boone
Facility KY 4 KY 4 KY 8 (Burlington Pike) KY 8 (Burlington Pike) KY 8 (Burlington Pike) KY 8 (Burlington Pike) KY 20 (Petersburg Road) KY 20 (Petersburg Road) KY 20 (Petersburg Road) KY 20 (Petersburg Road) KY 20 (Petersburg Road) KY 20 (Petersburg Road)-West KY 536
location From Stevenson Mill Road to IR 75 From IR 7 to KY 6 From Woolper Road to KY 338 at Burlington From Woolper Road to Middle Creek Road From Middle Creek Road to Petersburg From KY 338 to Ridge/Greenview Road From Bullittsville to KY 237 From Roberts Lane to Bullittsville Near Petersburg
description Reconstruction Reconstruction Reconstruction and widening
Kentucky
Boone
Reconstruction
Kentucky
Boone
Minor spot reconstruction
Kentucky
Boone
Eliminate the depressed median and add additional lane in each direction Reconstruction
Kentucky
Boone
Kentucky
Boone
Reconstruction
Kentucky
Boone
Relocation-reconstructs and/or eliminates Petersburg Hill Reconstruction
Kentucky
Boone
From Ashby Fork Road to KY 8 in Idlewild From KY 237 to Merrie Drive From KY 8 in Idlewild to Roberts Lane From KY 338 to 500 feet west of US 42 From KY 20 to Kenton County Line At IR 275 Exit From US 25 to KY 303 Camp Ernst Road to US 42
Kentucky
Boone
Major widening
Kentucky
Boone
Reconstruction and widening
Kentucky
Boone
Reconstruction
Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky
Boone Boone Boone Boone
KY 8 KY 8 KY 842 Longbranch Road
Reconstruct with curb, gutter, sidewalks and bicycle paths Extend KY 8 to IR 275 Extension Widen/improve
D-8
Ohio
Kentucky
state Kentucky
county Boone
Facility MaherFrogtown Road (KY 3060) Connector New
location From US 25 to Maher Road
description Realignment of Maher Road and extension of Frogtown Road
Kentucky
Boone
From IR 7/75 Interchange to US 25 north of KY 295 From KY 829 (Industrial Road) to US 42 From KY 4 to KY 338 From KY 829 to US 25 IR 75 to US 27 IR 7 northbound to IR 7/75 northbound Interchange at KY 3076 From KY 8 to US 42 Greenview Road to IR 75 IR 275 to Airport North/South from Airport to US 50 in Ohio Cherry Tree Lane to Mineola (KY 3076) US 42 to KY 295 (Chambers Road) KY 8 from Pendry Park to Silver Grove At KY 9 From AA Highway to Ohio State Line At North Fort Thomas Avenue
New four-lane connector
Kentucky
Boone
US 25
Reconstruct and widen
Boone Boone Boone Boone
US 42 US 42 IR 7 IR 7 NB ramp IR 275 IR 75 KY 8 (Burlington Pike) KY 22 KY 22 Connector/ Ohio River Bridge KY 236 KY 338 Bike Trail Enzweiler Road IR 275 KY 20
Reconstruction Reconstruction Extension along new alignment Add one lane
Boone Boone Boone
Reconstruct to urban diamond Improve collector/distributor system Major widening from Greenview Road to IR 75 Add two lanes New connector road from KY 22/Greater Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport to US 50 Add two lanes Reconstruction Pave bike trail Terminate intersection with KY 9 Major widening. 06 09 A0275 54.00 Reconstruct intersection
Kentucky Kentucky
Boone Boone
Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky
Boone Boone Campbell Campbell Campbell Campbell
Ohio
Kentucky
D-9
state Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky
county Campbell Campbell Campbell Campbell
Facility KY 20 KY 20 KY 632 (Moock Road) KY 892 (Carothers Road) KY 998 KY 2238 KY 2345 KY 2345 KY 445 (River Road) KY 445 (River Road) KY 536
location Between Bellevue and Fort Thomas From Grand Avenue to Wilson Avenue From KY 9 to US 27 From Mildred Dean Elementary School to US 27 From AA Highway to US 27 From KY 2345 southeast to IR 275 From West Johns Hill Road to KY 9 From IR 275 bridge to Sentinel Point From KY 20 to US 27 From KY 8 to KY 20 From KY 936 (Pond Creek Road) to US 27 From KY 9 to KY 8 From KY 445 to KY 998 From Lower Eight Mile to KY 566 From Clark Street to Tower Hill Road From KY 996 to KY 735 From KY 998 to KY 547 From Tower Hill Road to KY 445 From KY 547 to Lower Eight Mile From Pendry Park through Melbourne and Silver Grove
description Provide bikeway along Memorial Parkway Construct sidewalks Reconstruction Reconstruction with sidewalks and turn lanes Reconstruct Pooles Creek # Three Mile Road-major widening at Wilder. 06 09 D2238 59.0 Reconstruction Construct curb and gutter section Reconstruction to provide additional turn lanes at the intersections Reconstruction with curb, gutter and sidewalks Reconstruction/relocation (proposed as NEW KY 536 routing extension) Reconstruction Reconstruction Reconstruction Reconstruction includes new railroad underpass Reconstruction Reconstruction Reconstruction Reconstruction New shared use trail
Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky
Campbell Campbell Campbell Campbell Campbell Campbell Campbell
Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky
Campbell Campbell Campbell Campbell Campbell Campbell Campbell Campbell Campbell
KY 547 KY 8 KY 8 KY 8 KY 8 KY 8 KY 8 KY 8 KY 8
Kentucky
Campbell
KY 9
Additional signing and lighting along AA Highway
D-20
Ohio
Kentucky
state Kentucky
county Campbell
Facility KY 9
location From KY 632 to bridge over railroad near Wilder/ Newport City Limits From South Licking Pike to KY 0 From KY 0 to KY to KY 2924 From KY 2924 to KY 9 Tenth Street to south of Carothers Road New bridge north of IR 275 from KY 6 at KY 77 intersection to KY 9 south of Three Mile Creek From AA Highway near Pooles Creek Road to CSX industrial site
description Rehab
Campbell Campbell Campbell Campbell
KY 95 KY 95 KY 95 New
Reconstruction with curb, gutter and sidewalks-maintenance??? Reconstruction Reconstruction Construct new connector through Cote Brilliante area New connector
Kentucky
Campbell
New Bridge
Kentucky
Campbell
New bridge and approach road from AA Highway to CSX industrial site New connection from Tenth Street to KY 8 Rail and bus SR 2925 IR 7 IR 275 KY 8 KY 8
Bridge and approach road to provide access
Kentucky
Campbell
City of Newport
Construct new facility to connect Tenth Street (KY 20) near IR 47 to KY 8
Campbell Campbell Campbell Campbell Campbell Campbell
Southeastern Corridor From US 27 to Cline Middle School US 27 to US 52 Ohio AA Highway to Ohio State Line KY 547 to KY 998 Dayton to Pendleton County Line KY 77 to KY 936 (Pond Creek Road) KY 9 to KY 8
Recommended for further study Reconstruct E. Alexandria Pike Extension along new alignment Add two lanes Add one lane, sidewalks, and bikepaths Stabilization and reconstruction
Kentucky Kentucky
Campbell Campbell
KY 536 KY 536
Reconstruction with new bridge over Licking River New two lane connector
Ohio
Kentucky
D-2
state Kentucky Kentucky
county Campbell Campbell
Facility KY 824 KY 2 (Persimmon Grove Park) KY 632 KY 2238 KY 2938 US 27
location KY 2 to US 27 KY 0 to KY 824
description Reconstruct/realign and upgrade to collector Reconstruct/realign and upgrade to collector Reconstruct/realign Major widening Reconstruction, add climbing lane Major widening
Campbell Campbell Campbell Campbell
Moock Road KY 9 to IR 275 overpass US 27 to KY 9 From .0 mile south of KY 0 to KY 709 From East Alexandria Pike to KY 2345 (Martha Lane Collins Boulevard) IR 47 to KY 892 (Carothers Road) Intersection of US 27 and Overlook Drive in Fort Thomas Murnan Road/ Ripple Creek Road and East Alexandria Pike Intersections Murnan Road to IR 47 From KY 9 eastbound ramp to Murnan Road From KY 709 to KY 9 eastbound ramp South of Walton From New Dolwick Connector to Mineola Pike in Boone County City of Ludlow-from US 25 to KY 8 From Werner Drive to Kyles Lane
Kentucky
Campbell
US 27
Major widening
Kentucky Kentucky
Campbell Campbell
US 27 US 27
Reconstruction Reconstruct intersection
Kentucky
Campbell
US 27
Reconstruction of intersections
Kentucky Kentucky
Campbell Campbell
US 27 US 27
Add two lanes Major widening
Campbell Kenton Kenton
US 27 IR 75 KY 07
Major widening Construct new interchange Reconstruction/widening 06 0509 D07 .00
Kentucky Kentucky
Kenton Kenton
KY 072 KY 072
Reconstruct Widen Highland Avenue
D-22
Ohio
Kentucky
state Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky
county Kenton Kenton Kenton
Facility KY 4 KY 486 KY 6
location From US 25 to KY 7 From KY 6 to Old Madison Pike From US 25 in Boone County to KY 7 From IR 275 to Grand Avenue From KY 7 to KY 77 From KY 536 to Hands Pike From KY 3072 to KY 6 From KY 4 to KY 3072 City of Independencefrom Independence Station Road to Locust Lane From Pendleton County Line to KY 4 From Porter Road to Grand Avenue From KY 4 to KY 2042 From KY 536 to KY 2044 From KY 2042 to KY 536 KY 303 to KY 7 From KY 77 in Ryland Heights to KY 77 near Fairview From Marshall Road to KY 77 KY 6 to KY 77 Fowler Creek Road to KY 6
description Reconstruction Reconstruction Reconstruct
Kenton Kenton Kenton Kenton Kenton Kenton
KY 6 KY 6 KY 6 KY 7 KY 7 KY 7
Reconstruct with street lighting Major widening. 06 059 D006 46.20 Major widening Reconstruction Reconstruction Reconstruction with urban section
Kentucky
Kenton
KY 77
Reconstruct
Kenton Kenton Kenton Kenton Kenton Kenton
KY 77 KY 77 KY 77 KY 77 KY 829 KY 930
Reconstruct with bikeway-add turn lane at KY 930 Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruct Reconstruction of Richardson Road Reconstruct
Kenton Kenton Kenton
KY 2045 KY 2047 KY 2047
Reconstruct via portion of KY 2044 Corridor Reconstruct Widen
Ohio
Kentucky
D-23
state Kentucky
county Kenton
Facility KY 2373
location From the Dolwick Connector to KY 37
description Widen
Kentucky
Kenton
KY 2978
Reconstruct Hartman Road and extend via Erlanger Road corridor to intersect with KY 07 From Farrell Drive to Highland Pike City of Villa Hillsfrom Collins Road to Prospect Point Drive From Buttermilk Pike to Amsterdam Road From US 25 to KY 7 From Boone County Line to Bromley City Limits City of Covingtonfrom Russell Street to Scott Street From Swaim Ct. to Western Avenue in Covington From KY 072 to KY 7 From US 25 to KY 303 Ritchie Avenue to Erlanger/Crescent Springs Road From KY 930 to KY 9 (AA Highway) near Springdale Locust Pike to AA Highway Turkeyfoot Road to Hands Pike Boone and Kenton Counties-IR 75/7 Corridor Edgewood: Dudley Road Intersection Reconstruction Major widening of Amsterdam Road
Kentucky Kentucky
Kenton Kenton
KY 387 KY 37
Kentucky
Kenton
KY 37
Reconstruct with urban section and bikeway along Collins Road Widen Reconstruct and correct major slip area Major widening for one additional lane on Fifth Street (Not possible!!-City Difficult existing ROW Major widening. 06 059 D0008 40.0 Reconstruct Reconstruct Dudley Pike Extension of Ritchie Avenue
Kentucky Kentucky
Kenton Kenton
KY 37 KY 8
Kentucky
Kenton
KY 8
Kentucky
Kenton
KY 8
Local Local Local
Kentucky
Kenton
New
Construct new bridge and connector over Licking River New bridge over the Licking River Widen to five lanes Full build-out (206 implementation schedule)
New Bridge Richardson & Old Madison TANK Long Term: IR 75/7 Transit Way US 25
Kentucky
Kenton
D-24
Ohio
Kentucky
state Kentucky Kentucky
county Kenton Kenton
Facility US 25 US 25
location From IR 275 to KY 072 (Kyles Lane) From Grant County Line to Boone County Line City of Covingtonfrom IR 7/75 to 2th Street Park Hills Park Hills Park Hills IR 275 to KY 072 IR 75 to AA Highway KY 7 in Nicholson to KY 536 Latonia Avenue to 26th Street Intersection at Rich Road Holds Branch Road to the IR 275 westbound ramps At IR 7/75 Interchange From WCKY Radio Tower to KY 8 IR 75 to Henry Clay Avenue North Dearborn Road to IR 74 SR to SR 48
description Reconstruction Reconstruct
Kentucky
Kenton
US 25
Major widening for two additional lanes. 06 059 B0025 28.00 Roundabout realigning Arlington Road Roadway realignment/driveway closures at Ft. Mitchell garage St. Joseph Lane intersection realignment Major widening Major widening Major widening Reconstruct and widen Remove traffic bottlenecks and safety hazards Reconstruct and widen
Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky
Kenton Kenton Kenton Kenton Kenton Kenton Kenton Kenton Kenton
US 25 US 25 US 25 IR 75 IR 275 KY 6 KY 7 KY 7 KY 7
Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Indiana Indiana
Kenton Kenton Kenton Dearborn Dearborn
KY 236 KY 37 KY 072 Bright to IR 74 Connector SR to SR 48 Connector
Interchange improvements Reconstruct Amsterdam Road Add one lane New two-lane roadway New four-lane roadway
SOURCE: OKI 2030 Regional Transportation Plan 2008 Update.
Ohio
Kentucky
D-25
Appendix E Detailed Results of STEAM Benefit-Cost Process
Ohio
Kentucky
Appendix e detAiled Results of steAM Benefit-Cost pRoCess
Ohio
Kentucky
E-
E-2
Ohio
Kentucky
Ohio
Kentucky
E-3
E-
Ohio
Kentucky
Ohio
Kentucky
E-
E-
Ohio
Kentucky
Ohio
Kentucky
E-
E-
Ohio
Kentucky
Ohio
Kentucky
E-
E-0
Ohio
Kentucky
Ohio
Kentucky
E-
E-2
Ohio
Kentucky
Ohio
Kentucky
E-3
E-
Ohio
Kentucky
Appendix F Air Quality Conformity Process
Ohio
Kentucky
Appendix F Air QuAlity ConFormity proCess Air QuAlity ConFormity determinAtion oF the oki 2030 regionAl trAnsportAtion plAn And the oki Fy 2008-2011 trAnsportAtion improvement progrAm in the CinCinnAti-middletown-wilmington oh-ky-in, Combined stAtistiCAl AreA For nAtionAl Ambient Air QuAlity stAndArds (nAAQs) teChniCAl doCumentAtion, April 2008
introduCtion The Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI) is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the greater Cincinnati and northern Kentucky area responsible for transportation planning and air quality conformity. In April 2007, OKI is scheduled to adopt its fiscal year 2008 to 2011 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Amendment four to the OKI 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. This report documents that fiscal year 2008 to 2011 TIP and Amendment four of the plan are in conformance with the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) of Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana, and complies with the Clean Air Act, and the analysis is in accordance with federal Transportation Conformity Regulations, 40 CFR Parts 5 and 93. The analysis is also in accordance with other applicable federal and state requirements such as the Ohio State Transportation Conformity Rules, Ohio Administration Code Part 3745-0-0 through 20 and the Commonwealth of Kentuckys Conformity of Transportation Plans, Programs and Projects: 40 KAR 50:066. Methodologies and results of the conformity determination are presented in this report. This report documents the process used by OKI to make an air quality conformity assessment for the regions fiscal year 2008 to 2011 TIP and Amendment four to the plan, describes the applicable conformity criteria, provides a description of OKIs conformity analysis process and discusses how that process was applied to assess the proposed projects, describes the development of emission estimates, lists the projects included in the roadway and transit networks, makes findings of conformity for the Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana portions of the nonattainment area, and discusses the interagency consultation and public participation process. ConFormity CriteriA Pursuant to provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 990, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated a nine county area in the Cincinnati area as a basic nonattainment area for ozone under the eight hour ozone standard in April 2004. In December 2004, U.S. EPA designated an eight county Cincinnati area as nonattainment under the annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standard. The Cincinnati ozone nonattainment area includes the Ohio counties of Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton and Warren, the Kentucky counties of Boone, Campbell and Kenton, and Lawrenceburg Township in Dearborn County Indiana. The PM2.5 nonattainment
Ohio
Kentucky
F-
area is identical except for the exclusion of Clinton County. The OKI Regional Council of Governments, as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), consists of Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren, Boone, Campbell, Kenton, and Dearborn counties. The plan and TIP address the MPO area only. The cities of Franklin and Carlisle in Warren County are part of the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission (MVRPC) planning area. Projects within this portion of Warren County have been included in the conformity analysis. Clinton County is outside of the OKI region, but is part of the nonattainment area. The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) is the lead planning agency for Clinton County. The Clinton County emissions analysis has been prepared by ODOT and has been included in this conformity determination. Ozone is formed through chemical reactions induced when sunlight reacts with volatile organic compounds (VOCs; principally hydrocarbons) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). VOCs and NOX occur from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Transportation related sources are a major contributor of these pollutants. Since heat speeds the reactions, ozone levels are typically highest during hot summer days. PM2.5 refers to a complex mixture of fine particulates, primarily from fossil fuel combustion. PM2.5 is emitted directly and will also form indirectly through reactions with precursor emissions, especially NOX. EPAs Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93) requires transportationh plans and programs to demonstrate consistency with the applicable SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets or interim conformity tests by performing a regional emissions analysis. A regional emissions analysis uses quantitative and qualitative analysis to estimate the total transportation related emissions of VOC, NOX, and PM2.5 for certain future years, and may include the effects of any emission control programs which are already adopted or committed to in the submitted SIP. Revised ozone SIPs were submitted in 2007. In spring 2008, U.S. EPA found the regions motor vehicle emissions budgets to be adequate for use in conformity determinations. The ozone mobile source budgets for the combined Ohio and Indiana portion of the nonattainment area are 46.00 tons of VOCs and 9.36 tons of NOX per summer day. The ozone mobile source budgets for the Kentucky portion of the area for the purposes of transportation conformity are 9.9 tons of VOCs and 2.36 tons of NOX per summer day. OKI must demonstrate that mobile sources do not exceed these levels for the budget year 2008 and analysis years beyond the budget year. PM2.5 SIPs were submitted in April 2008, and the PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions budgets, contained in the PM2.5 SIPs, have not completed the adequacy review process. In the absence of adequate PM2.5 budgets, areas may demonstrate that mobile source PM2.5 emissions do not exceed year 2002 baseline year emissions. Criteria and procedures required for demonstrating conformity of transportation plans and programs are specified in EPAs Transportation Conformity Regulations. The applicable conformity criteria and procedures are summarized as follows: A determination should be made that the endorsed transportation plan and program will be consistent with the emissions budget in the submitted control strategy SIP or redesignation request. An assurance should be given that no goals, directives, recommendations or projects identified in the transportation plan and program contradict in a negative
F-2
Ohio
Kentucky
manner with any specific requirements or commitments of the applicable implementation plan. Transportation plans and programs should provide for the expeditious implementation of transportation control measures in the applicable implementation plan. Transportation plan and program conformity determinations will be based on the most recent emissions estimates, which in turn are to be based on the most recent population, employment, travel, and congestion estimates as determined by the MPO or other authorized agency. A determination should be made that the transportation plans and programs do not increase the frequency and severity of existing violations of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). okis ConFormity proCess TransporTaTion neTworks The conformity analysis involves the use of the six TRANPLAN based transportation networks developed for OKIs 2005 conformity finding for the Air Quality Conformity Determination for Amendment number two to the plan. Each transportation network consists of separate roadway and transit components. ODOT provided emissions data for Clinton County. Details on the conformity analysis for Clinton County are later in this report. The five networks specifically developed for use in this conformity process represented the baseline condition for PM2.5 (2002), the ozone SIP budget year (2008), an interim year (200), a second interim year (2020), and the plan horizon year (2030). All regionally significant projects regardless of the funding source were evaluated for their impacts on air quality in the maintenance area. The 2002 transportation network includes all facilities that were open to traffic in the year 2002. The 2008 transportation network includes OKIs 2005 base year network plus projects in the 2008 to 2011 TIP that are expected to be open to traffic before July 1, 2008. The 2010 transportation network includes the 2008 network plus projects in the 2008 to 2011 TIP that are expected to be open to traffic before July 1, 2010. The 2020 transportation network includes the 2010 network plus projects in the 2008 to 2011 TIP and the plan that are expected to be open to traffic before the year 2020. The 2030 transportation network includes the 2020 network plus projects in the 2008 to 2011 TIP and the plan that are expected to be open to traffic before the year 2030. oki Travel DemanD moDel Transportation system performance was estimated using the OKI Travel Demand Model Version 7.5. The OKI Travel Demand Model is composed of TRANPLAN programs, CUBE Voyager programs and a series of FORTRAN programs written by OKI. It is a state of the practice model that uses the standard four phase sequential modeling approach of trip generation, distribution, modal choice and assignment. The model uses demographic and land use data and capacity and free-flow speed characteristics for each roadway segment in the network to produce a loaded highway network with forecasted traffic volumes with revised speeds based on specified speed to capacity relationships.
Ohio
Kentucky
F-3
Travel analysis zones are the basic geographic unit for estimating travel in the OKI model. The OKI region is subdivided into 1608 traffic analysis zones to permit detail as well as manageability. A variety of socioeconomic data items are used in the OKI transportation planning process. These data are used primarily to forecast future travel patterns by serving as independent variables in OKI trip generation equations and include population or household and group quarter, households, household vehicles, employment by category and zone of work, labor force participation by zone of residence, and area type. The principal data requirements of the OKI travel demand forecasting model are population and employment. From these variables, other characteristics including households, labor force, and personal vehicles may be derived. Chapter 4 of the plan provides a complete demographic overview of the region. OKI utilizes both base year 2005, and 200, 2020 and 2030 future year data in the planning process. Planning data are maintained at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level, and originate in the 2000 U.S. Census of Population and Housing. Base year 2005 and future year data for each variable are developed through various methods. More detailed explanation of base year and future year data generation for each of the above mentioned categories of planning data follows. All of the variables represent the latest OKI planning assumptions. population Population data for base year 2005 and future years 200, 2020 and 2030 originate with the 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Utilizing ArcView GIS, population data at the zonal level for 2000 was derived from the area proportion allocation of block level population. As a tri-state regional planning agency, OKI uses county level projections as prepared by the respective state data centers (Ohio Department of Development Office of Strategic Research, Kentucky State Data Center and Indiana Business Research Center) as control totals. The most current projections include years 2005 to 2030. These projections were released by the Ohio and Indiana state data centers in 2003 and the Kentucky State Data Center in 2004. Population projections at the zonal level are calculated by multiplying household size by the projected zonal households. Household size is factored so that, in each county, the sum of the zonal populations equals the control total. households Household data for base year 2005 originates with the 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Utilizing the geographic information system (GIS) ArcMap, household data at the zonal level for 2000 was derived from the area proportion allocation of block level households. Year 2000 household data was updated to 2005 with residential building permits issued between January 2000 and December 2004. The residential building locations were geocoded in ArcMap, and then aggregated to the TAZs. The housing unit totals for each TAZ were converted to households by applying a vacancy rate, an adjustment for permitted but unbuilt units, and subtracting demolitions where data was available. These households were then added to the year Census 2000 zonal household total to arrive at 2005 households for each TAZ.
F-4
Ohio
Kentucky
The preparation of household projections was accomplished by calculating the number of households for a projected county population using ratios of householders to total population by age specific cohorts derived from the 2000 Census for each analysis year. Disaggregation to TAZs was determined by historical trends, existing and future land use, topography, flood plain information, availability of land, local knowledge and other factors. household vehicles Base and future year household vehicle data were obtained from the 2000 Census of Population and Housing. The 2000 Census is the only source of household vehicle data available at the block group level. Average vehicles per household were calculated for block groups then applied to the TAZs associated with each block group. The 2005, 200, 2020 and 2030 vehicles per household level was held at the 2000 level based on the fact that, since 2002, the number of vehicles per household has exceeded the number of drivers per household. labor Force The OKI labor force is a function of the population as determined by a labor force participation ratio or the number of employed persons in the labor force per persons 6 and over). Household data for base year 2005 originates with the 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Utilizing GIS ArcMap, household data at the zonal level for 2000 was derived from the area proportion allocation of block group level employed labor force. The labor force projections for 2005, 200, 2020 and 2030 were based on the most recent projections of national labor force participation rates by age and sex cohorts from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for each of those years. These rates were then applied to the projected county age and sex cohorts, and adjusted to eliminate the unemployed to arrive at a county employed labor force control total. Employed labor force at the zonal level is calculated by multiplying the labor force participation rate by the zonal population. The labor force participation rate is adjusted so that, in each county, the sum of the zonal labor force counts equals the control total. employment Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW or ES202) data for 2005 was utilized as the primary tool to calculate employment at the zonal level. Individual business records containing physical location, number of employees and SIC code were geocoded through ArcMap and aggregated to the TAZ level. This data set was supplemented by other sources of data to complete the commuting employment picture in the OKI region. Each zones employment was divided according to the SIC code into three classes which include retail, office, and industrial, and based upon the potential for generating trips. For future year employment projection, calculation was first made of the employment at the regional level. At the regional level, employment is a calculation of the regions employed labor force minus workers who live in the region but commute out to work, plus workers who live outside the region but commute in to work. The regional total was disaggregated first to the county level based on historic trends and expected changes in the countys share of the regions employment and then to the TAZ level.
Ohio
Kentucky
F-5
Disaggregation to TAZs was determined by historical trends, existing and future land use, topography, flood plain information, availability of land, local knowledge and other factors. Area type For each analysis year, each TAZ is assigned an area type designation as central business district (CBD), urban, suburban or rural based on population and employment densities. moDel CalibraTion OKIs Travel Demand Model has been validated to observed traffic volumes for the model base year 2005. The modeling network encompasses the entire ozone nonattainment area with the exception of Clinton County, Ohio. The modeling network also includes Greene, Miami and Montgomery counties in Ohio and the remainder of Dearborn County in Indiana. The difference between estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and 2005 observed VMT is less than one percent. A highway screenline analysis compares the screenline observed and simulated traffic volume discrepancies with the ODOT standard of maximum desirable deviation. The comparison shows that the model performs at a satisfactory level and all the errors were under the ODOT curve. Further information can be found in OKIs 2007 report, OKI/MVRPC Travel Demand Model Methodology/ Validation Report. For the calibration, OKI used over 3000 traffic counts collected through 2006 by the ODOT, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC), many county and local governments, transportation engineering consultants, and OKI. These traffic counts cover nearly 50 percent of the links in the OKI portion of the modeling network. The methodology provides consistency with past emission inventory and conformity analysis work performed by OKI. loCal inpuTs anD posT-moDel proCessing OKI incorporates a variety of sources of local data to both improve and confirm the accuracy of VMT, as well as other travel related parameters. Free flow speeds used on the roadway and transit networks are based on travel time studies performed locally. The OKI post processing program, IMPACT, uses the loaded roadway network to generate VMT by hour, VMT by speed distribution and VMT by facility type. These tables are then included as input into MOBILE6.2. Two separate sets of VMT tables are generated one for the four Ohio counties plus Dearborn County Indiana, and a second for the three Kentucky counties. The VMT by hour tables utilize hourly traffic distribution and directional split factors for different roadway types as developed by OKI. The main source of the data was the permanent traffic counting stations located throughout the OKI region for the years of 1998 to 2002. This data was supplemented with data collected at coverage count stations which are locations with counts taken on only one to two days. The stations were classified by area type urban and rural, and functional classification freeway, arterial and collector. Speeds representing various loaded conditions with traffic volumes are estimated using techniques from the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual. This permits the estimation of speeds as conditions vary from hour to hour on the different facility types throughout the region. The IMPACT program performs the appropriate summation by area and roadway type as well as regional totals. OKI has also developed seasonal conversion factors to adjust traffic volumes to summer conditions. The factors were derived from local data collected at
F-6
Ohio
Kentucky
permanent traffic counting stations during 1994 to 1997 utilizing the average daily traffic monthly conversion factors for June, July and August. Further information on OKIs IMPACT program is documented in the report, Travel Demand Model Summary Reporting and Impact Summary Reporting: OKI/MVRPC Travel Demand Model Users Guide, OKI 2003. emission FaCTor moDel OKIs conformity assessment utilized U.S. EPAs emissions model MOBILE6.2 to develop emission factors for VOCs, NOX and PM2.5. The MOBILE6.2 input file contains local parameters, developed through consultation with ODOT and OEPA, for temperature, fuel programs and fuel characteristics. The local parameters are combined with the VMT tables from the OKI Travel Demand Model to produce one set of emission factors measured in grams per mile for the appropriate calendar year from 952 to 2050. These emission factors are then multiplied by VMT. The methodologies incorporated into MOBILE6.2 for estimating emissions are based on methods and research conducted by U.S. EPA. OKIs development of MOBILE6.2 input values were guided by the U.S. EPAs document, Technical Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for Emission Inventory Preparation, January 2002. MOBILE6.2 inputs and outputs are included in the appendices. projeCts inCluded in the trAnsportAtion network The transportation plan includes a number of projects, which, due to their scope and regional significance, trigger the need for a new finding of conformity. Sections 93.126 and 93.27 of the Transportation Conformity Rule cite a number of project types, such as safety and maintenance projects that may be excluded from the regional emissions analysis required to determine conformity. Due to their nature, the exempt projects will not affect the outcome of the regional emissions analysis nor will they add substance to the analysis. The plans roadway projects listed in Figure F- are considered nonexempt in regards to air quality and thus require conformity finding. OKIs highway and transit networks include the existing transportation system plus all regionally significant projects regardless of funding source. Regionally significant project means a non-exempt transportation project that is on a facility that serves regional transportation needs.
Ohio
Kentucky
F-7
Figure F-1 non-exempt projects pid Kentucky boone 27 New Connector KY 237 to KY 3168 (Limaburg) at Gateway Blvd. IR 275/KY 22 Interchange and KY 20 reconstruction IR 275/KY 22 Interchange and KY 20 reconstruction From IR 275 north three miles toward KY 8 From IR 275 north three miles toward KY 8 From US 42 at Gun Powder to Woodcreek Drive (south section) From Woodcreek Drive to Rogers Lane (middle section) From Rogers Lane to KY 18 (north section) IR 275 to south intersection of Old Taylor Mill Road From KY 2373 to southbound IR 75 onramp Intersection of KY 236 and KY 842 IR 75 to the Licking River New two-lane connector Airport access interchange improvements with new ramp IR 275 westbound to KY 22 southbound and upgrade KY 20 Airport access interchange improvements with new ramp IR 275 westbound to KY 22 southbound and upgrade KY 20 Reconstruct and widen to four lanes Reconstruct and widen to four lanes Reconstruct and widen to four lanes Reconstruct and widen to four lanes Reconstruct and widen to four lanes plan id Facility location description Additional Non-Exempt Projects Identified for the 2010 Highway Network
6-8000.20
108
IR 275
6-8000.21
108
IR 275
6-52.00 6-52.0 6-8001.10
KY 237 KY 237 KY 237
6-8001.21 6-8001.25 kenton 6-344.
KY 237 KY 237
KY 6 KY 37 (Buttermilk Pike) KY 842 KY 20
Reconstruct and widen to five lanes Add lanes on KY 37 from KY 2373 to southbound IR 75 onramp Construct a park-and-ride facility Reconstruct KY 20 with four through lanes
6-07.00 6-204.00 6-273.00 Ohio butler 44
72
CR 3
Bridge over Great Miami River, 0.81 to .0 miles north of SR 4
Liberty-Fairfield Road bridge replacement; add two lanes
F-8
Ohio
Kentucky
pid 24664
plan id
Facility IR 75
location From Cincinnati-Dayton Road to 0.2 miles south of Middletown corporate line Vicinity of existing IR 75/State Route 29 From Crescentville Road to Commercial Drive Grand Avenue to IR 75 and from Union Road to Middletown east corporate line SR 25 and AmeliaOlive Branch Road .4 miles north of IR 275 to .18 miles south of the Hamilton/Warren county line (Kemper to Fields-Ertel) IR 275 to 0.07 miles south of Waycross Road
description Rehabilitate roadway, add median lane in both directions Complete IR 75 interchange at SR 29 and extend Cox Road Add two lanes
7597 76380
IR 75 SR 4
79686 Clermont 75303 Hamilton
811
SR 22
Widening
42
SR 25
Intersection improvement/parkand-ride construction
75880
625
US 22
Widen to five lanes to increase capacity and improve safety
8347
US 27
Widen to four lanes
Additional Non-Exempt Projects Identified for the 2020 Highway Network indiana dearborn 504 505 0600726 US 50/IR 275/SR SR US 50 US 50 Connector US 50 to Nowlin Avenue and SR intersection Over Tanners Creek in the City of Lawrenceburg Eastbound connector ramp from US 50 to IR 275 Upgrade intersection Realign and widen to four lanes New four lane bridge for westbound traffic Right hand eastbound lane will be extended 700
0800426 Kentucky boone 6-93.00 0
IR 275
South Airfield Road (Bypass) South Airfield Road (Bypass)
From KY 18 to Turfway Road From KY 18 to Turfway Road
6-93.0
0
Ohio
Kentucky
F-9
pid 6-93.02
plan id 0
Facility South Airfield Road (Bypass) Frogtown Road Connector ExtensionNorth IR 7 southbound ramp IR 7/75
location From KY 18 to Turfway Road
description New five-lane roadway
24
KY 3060 Frogtown Road to KY 536
New four-lane extension from Frogtown Connector from KY 3060 Frogtown Road to KY 536
05
IR 7/75 southbound to IR 7 southbound KY 18 (Burlington Pike) Interchange US 42/US 27 Interchange IR 7/75 at KY 536 (Mt. Zion Road) See 14.01 for study Mt. Zion and Richwood Road Interchanges KY 338 (Richwood Road) Interchange US 42 to KY 536 (Mt. Zion Road) From IR 275 north three miles toward KY 8 (KY 295) Chambers Road to US 25 (Dixie Highway) From US 42 to IR 75 From just east of US 25 to KY 303 (Turkeyfoot Road) US 42 to US 25 KY 338 (Richwood Road) to KY 3060 (Frogtown Road) KY 3060 (Frogtown Road) to KY 536 (Mt. Zion Road)
Add one lane Interchange improvementsramp widening and additional turn lanes Interchange improvementsramp widening and additional turn lanes Improve interchange and widen KY 536 to five lanes east to US 25 Improve interchange and widen KY 536 to five lanes east to US 25 Add three lanes and improve IR 75 interchange, add auxiliary lane each direction between KY 536 and KY 338 Widen/improve to four lanes Reconstruct and widen to four lanes Widen to five lanes from Chambers Road to US 25 and IR 75 interchange improvement Widen to five lanes Widen roadway to five lanes Widen/improve to four lanes Add two lanes
0
5
IR 7/75
6-4.00
2
IR 7/75
6-4.0
2
IR 7/75
6-18.00
20
IR 7/75 KY 237 (Gunpowder Road) KY 237
3 6-52.02 20 6-158.00 6-06.50 4 6-8200.10 7
KY 338 (Richwood Road) KY 536 KY 1829 (Industrial Road) KY 3060 (Frogtown) US 25
6-8200.40
US 25
Widen to five lanes
F-0
Ohio
Kentucky
pid 6-8200.70
plan id
Facility US 25
location KY 536 (Mt. Zion Road) to KY 1829 (Industrial Road) From KY 1829 to IR 7/75 From KY 237 to KY 842 From IR 275 to the AA Highway-new connector road From IR 275 to the AA Highway-new connector road Near Northern Kentucky University KY 9 interchange From IR 47 southbound to IR 275 westbound KY 8 interchange Riviera Drive to Hallam Avenue (Bellevue) From th Street to 4th Street From th Street to 4th Street US 27 to KY 9 AA Highway to KY 0 From Martha Layne Collins Boulevard to IR 275 From KY 54 to Campbell County Park Buttermilk Pike Interchange Brent Spence Bridge Brent Spence Bridge
description Widen to five lanes Major widening to provide dual left turns at IR 75 southbound and dual right turns at KY 1829 Add two lanes
148 5 Campbell 6-8105.01
US 42 US 42
AA-IR 275 Connector AA-IR 275 Connector Triangle Access 30 302 IR 275 IR 47 southbound ramp IR 47 KY 8 KY 9 KY 9 KY 536 KY 547 332 KY 2345 US 27
Construct a new two-lane connector (NKU Loop Road) New four-lane connector from KY 9 to KY 2345 New connector KY 2345 to KY 2238 Reconstruction Add one lane Construct a new southbound off-ramp from IR 471 to KY 8 Add one lane and improve intersection Construct a new route with four through lanes Construct a new route with four through lanes Extension of existing roadway Reconstruction, add climbing lane Add two lanes Widen to five lanes
6-8105.02 6-8105.03
6-8104.00
303 37
6-8101.01 6-8101.02 6-352.00 6-56.00
318 318
6-46.20 kenton 72 702 6-7.03 702
IR 7/75 IR 7/75 IR 75
Auxiliary lane extension and interchange improvements Reconstruct and add lanes to address safety and congestion concerns Replace bridge with 4-lane capacity
Ohio
Kentucky
F-
pid 6-7.04
plan id 704 74 73 723 72 79 734
Facility IR 75 KY 8 KY 8 KY 7 KY 37 KY 536 KY 536 KY 536 KY 072 KY 303 KY 303 US 25
location Brent Spence Bridge 4th Street from Main Street to IR 75 5th Street from IR 75 to Main Street Intersection at Moffet Road Avon Drive to IR 7/75 KY 7 to KY 6 KY 6 to KY 77 Boone County Line to KY 7 At IR 7/75 interchange Dudley to US 25 KY 536 to Richardson IR 275 to Dudley Pike
description Add four lanes (two lanes each direction) Modify alignment; add approach lane to IR 75 Add two lanes Remove traffic bottlenecks and safety hazards Add two lanes Add three lanes Two-lane facility on new alignment Widen to five lanes Local improvements and interchange improvements Add bike lanes and add two lanes north of IR 275 Widen to five lanes Add two lanes
6-62.00
718 722 706 707 76
ohio butler 80516 81988 257 805 202 22 230 266 78073 76290 206 255 Oxford Connector Butler-Warren Road S. Gilmore Road Bobmeyer Road CincinnatiDayton Road Grand Boulevard CR 20 (Tylersville) SR 4 Bypass US 27 From US 27 to SR 73 From Tylersville Road to Bethany Road Resor to Mack Bobmeyer Road to Bypass SR 4 West Chester Road to IR 75 Existing Grand Boulevard to Peck Boulevard Lakota Hills to Wetherington Southern terminus to northern terminus Ross to Millville Construct a new two-lane connector road Widen to five lanes Add southbound lane Extend Bobmeyer Road to Bypass SR 4 Widen to three lanes Four-lane extension of Grand Boulevard and railroad overpass Widen to five lanes Widen to four lanes, six lanes between Symmes and Tylersville Roads Widen to four lanes
F-2
Ohio
Kentucky
pid
plan id
Facility
location From Merry Day Drive/ Melanee Lane to the Oxford corporation line (toll credits for right-ofway) Mt. Carmel-Tobasco to Eastgate Boulevard extension Cook Road to SR 28 east junction Glen Este-Withamsville Road to Bach-Buxton Road Mt. Carmel-Tobasco to Eastgate Boulevard Eastgate Boulevard to Glen Este-Withamsville Eastgate Boulevard to Bach-Buxton North Old SR 74 to Tina Drive Olive Branch-Stonelick to east terminus of Heitman Lane Clough Pike to Olive Branch-Stonelick Road at SR 32 Olive Branch-Stonelick Road to Armstrong Boulevard Bauer Road to Half Acre Road McKeever and DeLaPalma Intersection at SR 32 Approximately .5 miles north of SR 32 to .0 miles south of SR 32, including portions of SR 32 Branch Hill Guinea to SR 48 SR 28 to Cook Road
description Widening US 27 including the addition of a center turn lane, sidewalks, street lighting and signals
77099
US 27
Clermont 436 447 82552 82553 82554 82557 82558 402 433 403 404 435 Clough Pike Widening Business 28Phase 2 Aicholtz Road Extension Aicholtz Road Connector Aicholtz Road Widening Old SR 74Phase Tina Drive Extension Heitman Lane Extension AmeliaOlive Branch Relocation Old SR 74 SR 32Frontage Road SR 32DeLaPalma/ McKeever Roadway widening to three lanes with curb and gutter Widening to five lanes New five-lane roadway Widen existing Aicholtz/Rust Lane to three lanes Widen to five lanes Widen to three lanes New two-lane connector with turn lanes at Old SR 74 Intersection Widen to three lanes New three-lane connector and ramp improvements Widening to three lanes with four foot page shoulders and curb and gutter New three-lane frontage road
82561
44
82581
40
82582
442
82586
446
82589
44
Grade separated interchanges Reconstruct interchange with SR 32 and construct continuous flow intersection at SR 32 and Bells Lane Add one lane Widen to five lanes with curb and gutter and sidewalks
76289
IR 275
406 79 405
SR 28 Improvement SR 28 Business
Ohio
Kentucky
F-3
pid 82140 82563
plan id 432 430
Facility SR 28 SR 28 SR 32/ Glen EsteWithamsville Overpass SR 32/BachBuxton Interchange SR 32-Herold Road SR 32-Batavia Interchange WolfpenPleasant Hill Road
location From 0.44 miles west of IR 275 to IR 275 southbound exit ramp Branch Hill-Guinea Pike to SR 48 Glen Este-Withamsville Road
description Widen to five lanes Widen to three lanes New Glen Este-Withamsville overpass Extend five lane BachBuxton extension with SR 32 interchange New interchange Convert existing half interchange to full Relocate Wolfpen-Pleasant Hill Road
22970-
440
22970-2
438
Elick Lane to Old SR 74 000 west of existing Herold Road intersection on SR 32 SR 32 interchange in Village of Batavia SR 3 to Allen Drive
82587 82588
445 47 418
hamilton 667 North Bend Road Ebenezer Road Blue Rock Road Blue Rock Road Red Bank Road Montana Avenue IR 7 Monfort Heights Road to West Fork Road SR 264/Taylor/ Bridgetown to Hutchinson Colerain Avenue to Spring Grove Avenue Sheits Road to Cheviot Road US 50 to IR 7 Farrell to Boudinot Pfeiffer Road to IR 275 Ohio Approaches to Brent Spence Bridge Overlap section of IR 74 and IR 275 from 0.2 miles west of IR 275 to eastern IR 74/IR 275 interchange Widen to four lanes south of IR 74, widen to six lanes north of IR 74 Widen to four lanes Add center turn lane Widen with additional through lane from Old Blue Rock to Sheits Road Add two lanes Add center turn lane Add one lane northbound, Pfeiffer to IR 275; add one lane southbound, Pfeiffer to SR 26 Reconfiguration of Ohio approaches to Brent Spence Bridge
620 66 632 655 69 637
759
643
IR 7/IR 75
25354
6
IR 74
Widen to eight lanes
F-4
Ohio
Kentucky
pid
plan id
Facility
location IR 74 from .07 miles east of IR 275 to .48 miles east of IR 275; IR 275 from .63 miles east of IR 74 to .07 miles west of Ronald Reagan Highway From Dry Fork Road to Harrison Road excluding the IR 275 overlap Interchange at SR 562 (Norwood Lateral) From 0. miles south of Paddock Road to 0.08 miles north of Kemper Road From 0. mile north of Harrison Avenue to 0. mile south of Paddock Road From south of SR 562 to north of SR 4 From 0.38 miles south to 0.40 miles north of Mitchell Avenue (PE carried in PID 76257) At SLM 3.68, 3.85 and 4.5 (PE carried in PID 76257) From 0.56 miles east of Montana Avenue to Elmore Street overpass (PE carried in PID 76257) From 0.4 miles north of Mitchell Avenue to 0.2 miles north of SR 562 (PE carried in PID 76257) From 0.3 miles south of Shepherd Lane to 0.2 miles north of GlendaleMilford Road (PE under PID 76256) 390 north of Sharon Road to Cameron Road
description
75765
6
IR 74/IR 275
Reconstruct and widen IR 275 on overlap portion with IR 74, four lanes in each direction
77944
IR 74
Widen to six lanes Access modificationsinterchange improvement Four continuous lanes each direction with an auxiliary lane where warranted, upgrade interchanges Upgrade interchanges Widen for additional through lanes, reconstruct interchanges as needed Reconstruction of Mitchell Avenue interchange (Phase of IR 75 corridor projects) Replace Monmouth Street overpass and convert to through street between Colerain and Central Parkway (Phase 2 of IR 75 corridor projects) Improve Colerain/Beekman interchange with associated work on IR 74 (Phase 3 of IR 75 projects) Reconstruct IR 75 from north of Mitchell interchange through SR 562 interchange (Phase 7 of IR 75 projects) Reconstruct IR 75 between Shepherd Lane and GlendaleMilford Road (Phase 8 of IR 75 projects) Widening to three-lane section
635
IR 75
76256
639
IR 75
76257
636
IR 75
77889
IR 75
82278
IR 75
82282
IR 75
82284
IR 74
82286
IR 75
82288
IR 75
650
SR 4
Ohio
Kentucky
F-5
pid
plan id 670 618 658 681
Facility Paddock Road/SR 4 US 27 US 27 US 27
location IR 75 to Sharon Road Kirby Road to Springdale Road Virginia Avenue to Spring Grove Avenue IR 74 to Washburn
description Add two lanes Widen to six lanes with access management and signal timing improvements Add center turn lane Interchange improvements at IR 74
warren 81986 801 Bethany Road Between Butler-Warren Road and the Mason Corporate line City of Mason-West Mason Corporate limit to Mason-MorrowMillgrove Road City of MiddletownUnion road to SR 22 City of Middletown-SR 22 to Union Road Barrett road to Tylersville Road Locust Avenue to Stone Hollow Court City of MiddletownDixie Highway to Village Drive City of MiddletownTowne Boulevard to Union Road Fields-Ertel to Socialville-Fosters Extend Waterstone Drive over IR 7 to Duke Drive Kings Mill Road to Mason-MorrowMillgrove Road Fields-Ertel/MasonMontgomery SR 74/Kings Mill Road interchange Widen to three lanes with rightof-way for five lanes Widen from two to three lanes and connect Bethany and Mason-Morrow-Millgrove Roads between Butler-Warren Road and SR 48 New four-lane roadway New two-lane road connecting development on southeast corner of Union Road/SR 22 to new signalized intersection Widen to five lanes Add three lanes Add two lanes
801
Bethany Road
803
Core Loop Road NE Core Loop Road SE Butler-Warren Road Columbia Road Towne Boulevard Towne Boulevard/IR 75 Overpass Wilkens Boulevard Waterstone Connector Columbia Road IR 7 IR 7
804
805 807 808
809 815 846
New roadway overpass Add one lane in each direction Extend Waterstone Drive across IR 7 and connect with Duke Drive Widen from two to four lanes Interchange Improvement Interchange Improvement
847 810 849
F-6
Ohio
Kentucky
pid 0754
plan id
Facility IR 75 New Connector
location 3.40 miles north of the Hamilton/Butler County line to the Montgomery County line SR 23 to US 42Lebanon
description Major rehabilitation of existing pavement, raise bridges, add median lanes. Upgrade SR 22 interchange New two lane connector
812
Additional Non-Exempt Projects Identified for the 2030 Highway Network indiana dearborn 50 52 Kentucky boone 128 Camp Ernst Road KY 236 (Donaldson Road) KY 842 KY 3076 (Mineola Pike) KY 357 (Mall Road) US 25 US 42 IR 47 KY 9 KY 709 KY 237 to IR 7 at KY 4 From Cherry Tree Lane to Mineola Pike (KY 3076) KY 842 and KY 18 intersection IR 275 to KY 236 (Donaldson Road) KY 18 to Woodspoint Drive KY 338 to Walton IR 75 to KY 842 US 27 to KY 8 IR 275 to US 27 US 27 to KY 9 Upgrade existing road and extension, four-lane divided, partially controlled access facility Add two lanes Construct grade separation Widen/improve to four lanes from KY 236 to IR 275 Four-lane extension from KY 18 to Woodspoint Drive Widen to four lanes from KY 338 to Walton Add two lanes Major widening Add two lanes Reconstruct and widen East Alexandria Connector to four lanes Scenic Drive Pribble Road Wilson Creek Road to SR 48 SR 48 to SR 1 Add two lanes Add two lanes
42 45 22 6 26 02 Campbell 3 304 320 kenton 73 7 703
KY 8 KY 236 KY 50 (Hands Pike)
4th Street Bridge over Licking River Cherry Tree Lane to US 25 KY 6 to KY 7
Add three lanes Add two lanes New three-lane facility south of existing KY 50 F-7
Ohio
Kentucky
pid
plan id 75 74
Facility US 25 US 25
location KY 236 to Hallam Avenue Park Hills: Entire length
description Add one lane Four to two lanes with landscape median and sidewalk connectivity
ohio butler 222 240 258 WayneMadison Road Oxford State Road Washington Boulevard Extension SR 63 Extension 250 254 256 hamilton 604 ML King Drive Reading Road (US 42) Delhi Road Cheviot Road/North Bend Road Ridge Road Central Parkway to Reading Road Clinton Springs to Paddock Greenwell Avenue to City limits West Fork to Poole Road Widen to four lanes with twltl from Central Parkway to Clifton, eight lanes from Clifton to Reading Add one lane SR 747 US 27 US 27 SR 4 to SR 73 Spurlino Way to SR 4 Extend Washington Boulevard in Hamilton across Great Miami to US 27 US 27 Eastward to existing SR 63 at SR 4 Princeton Road to SR 4 (north junction) Millville area Millville to Stillwell Beckett Add two lanes Add lanes New four-lane extension
20499
New two-lane facility Widen to five lanes Realignment, includes SR 29 realignment Widen to three lanes
64
654
Widen to four lanes
664
Add one lane each direction and intersection improvement
682
IR 7 to Highland
Add two lanes
698
Western Hills Viaduct West McMillan Street Corridor
Western Hills Viaduct
Access modification Reconstruction to standard width, IR 7 access in conjunction with IR 7/MLK interchange
699
Central Parkway to Clifton
F-18
Ohio
Kentucky
pid
plan id
Facility
location
63
IR 7
IR 47 to Reading Road
692
IR 7
Taft/McMillan to Dana/ Duck Creek US 50 to Eight Mile Road Elsinore to Forest
description Restrict IR 47 northbound from Roading Road exit; evaluate freeway management system, eliminate left entrance/ exits New interchange at MLK. Widen to five lanes southbound and six lanes northbound. Realign ramp from US 22 to southbound IR 7 New four-lane facility Widen to five lanes
669 659 warren 848

SOURCE: OKI.
SR 32 relocated US 42 (Reading Road) IR 7
Interchange at Western Row Road
Upgrade to full interchange
The 2008, 2010, 2020 and 2030 transit networks contain all current fixed route service as provided by the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA/Metro), the Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky (TANK), the Middletown Transit System (MTS) and the Clermont County Transportation Connection (CTC). Non-exempt and fiscally constrained additions to current transit service are described in the text that follows. 2010 TransiT neTwork inCluDes CurrenT serviCe plus: kenton County TANK Turkeyfoot park and ride near KY 1303 and KY 1829, served by Route 19x hamilton County Metro transit hubs (Xavier/Evanston, Cincinnati Zoo and Western Hills) Clermont County CTC Williamsburg\Batavia\Eastgate shuttle 2020 TransiT neTwork inCluDes 2010 TransiT neTwork plus: boone County TANK Florence transit hub near US 42 and I-7/75 Campbell County TANK Northern Kentucky University (NKU) transit hub kenton County TANK Edgewood park and ride TANK I-7/75 transit way hamilton County Metro transit hubs Lower Price Hill in the vicinity of Eighth and State Streets Metro expanded bus service Uptown/downtown connector service via Vine Street Harrison Avenue between Bridgetown and Rybolt
Ohio
Kentucky
F-9
Reading Road north of Reading to Sharonville River Road (US 50) from Addyston to Lawrenceburg at Walnut SR 32 to Newtown and Eastgate to downtown via US50 Metro new express/reverse commuter service between downtown and I-74 at Rybolt Road between downtown and I-275 at US 42 via I-75 between downtown and I-275 at Loveland-Madeira Road via I-7 Metro new service Lower Price Hill to Walnut Hills via Liberty Street New passenger rail Streetcar, Cincinnati CBD along Race and Elm with connection to Uptown Eastern Corridor - Oasis Line rail transit

2030 TransiT neTwork inCluDes 2020 TransiT neTwork plus: boone County TANK Greater Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International (CVG) Airport transit hub (29x, 2x and new crosstown service) Campbell County TANK I-47 transit way boone, Campbell & kenton TANK New crosstown service, CVG airport to TANK hub to NKU hub. hamilton County Metro transit hubs Avondale vicinity of Avondale Town Center Lockland vicinity of Williams and Wyoming Oakley vicinity of Madison and Ridge Road Springdale/Tri-County Mall area Blue Ash Fields-Ertel Madisonville Kenwood/Galbraith ConFormity determinAtion For the ohio And indiAnA portion oF the nonAttAinment AreA OKI has determined that the recommended projects in this amended OKI 2030 Regional Transportation Plan are consistent with the air quality goals of SIP and the conformity requirements under the eight hour ozone standard and the annual PM2.5 standard. Figure F-2 shows the ozone conformity analysis years and tests performed for the Ohio and Indiana portion of the nonattainment area. OKIs quantitative conformity findings for ozone forming emissions of VOC and NOx are found in Figure F-3. Clinton County, Ohio is part of the ozone nonattainment area and is included in the VOC and NOx totals. The emissions from the Ohio counties of Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren include the impact of lower vapor pressure gasoline (7.8 RVP) as a SIP commitment. PM2.5 conformity analysis years and tests are found in Figure F-4. Figure F-5 shows the quantitative conformity finding for annual PM2.5 and NOx emissions in the Ohio portion of the PM2.5 nonattainment area. Annual PM2.5 and NOx emissions in the Indiana portion of the PM2.5 nonattainment area are found in Figure F-6.
F-20
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure F-2 Conformity Analysis Years and Tests for the Ohio and Indiana Portion of the nonattainment Area ozone Analysis year 2008 200 2020 2030
SOURCE: OKI.
Ozone Conformity test <=2008 Budget <=2008 Budget <=2008 Budget <=2008 Budget
which requirement Fulfilled Ozone budget year Interim year Interim year Last year of Plan
pollutants VOC, NOx VOC, NOx VOC, NOx VOC, NOx
Figure F-3 Quantitative Conformity Findings of Ozone-forming Emissions (tons per day) for the Ohio1 and indiana portion2 of the Nonattainment Area 2008 ohio/indiana voC budget ohio/indiana voC emissions ohio/indiana nox budget ohio/indiana nox emissions 46.00 40.56 9.36 88.84 2010 46.00 35.6 9.36 73.45 2020 46.00 22.50 9.36 29.33 2030 46.00 23.38 9.36 22.84
SOURCE: OKI. Includes Clinton County. 2Dearborn County emissions are for the nonattainment portion only.
Figure F-4 Conformity Analysis Years and Tests for the Ohio and Indiana Portion of the nonattainment Area pm2.5 Analysis year 200 2020 2030
SOURCE: OKI.
PM2.5 Conformity test <=2002 Baseline <=2002 Baseline <=2002 Baseline
Which Requirement Fulfilled First analysis year, no more than 5 years in the future Intermediate year Last year of Plan
pollutants Direct PM2.5, NOx Direct PM2.5, NOx Direct PM2.5, NOx
Figure F-5 Quantitative Conformity Findings of PM2.5 Emissions (tons per year) for the Ohio Portion of the Nonattainment Area 2010 ohio Annual direct pm2.5 2002 baseline ohio Annual direct pm2.5 emissions ohio Annual nox 2002 baseline ohio Annual nox emissions
SOURCE: OKI.
2020 70.6 253.9 38057.8 9253.
2030 70.6 254.0 38057.8 797.6
70.6 404. 38057.8 23295.0
Ohio
Kentucky
F-2
Figure F-6 Quantitative Conformity Findings of PM2.5 Emissions (tons per year) for the Indiana Portion of the Nonattainment Area 2010 indiana Annual direct pm2.5 2002 baseline indiana Annual direct pm2.5 emissions indiana Annual nox 2002 baseline indiana Annual nox emissions
SOURCE: OKI. Dearborn County emissions are for the nonattainment portion only.

2020 9.76 3.74 571.28 4.63
2030 9.76 3.63 571.28 00.06
9.76 5.84 571.28 322.02
VOC and NOx emissions in the Ohio and Indiana portion of the ozone nonattainment area do not exceed the 2008 VOC or NOx budget the budget year 2008, the intermediate years 2010 and 2020, or the plan year 2030. Annual Direct PM2.5 and annual NOx emissions in the Ohio and Indiana portion of the PM2.5 nonattainment area do not exceed the 2002 baseline emissions for the first analysis year 2010, the intermediate year 2020, or the plan year 2030. OKI qualitatively finds no factors in the TIP or the plan that would cause or contribute to a new annual PM2.5 violation or exacerbate an existing violation in the years before 200 for the Ohio and Indiana portion of the PM2.5 nonattainment area. OKI qualitatively finds that no goals, directives, recommendations or projects identified in the plan contradict in a negative manner any specific requirements or commitments of the applicable state implementation plan. The applicable implementation plan does not contain any transportation control measures (TCM), therefore, nothing in plan can interfere with their timely implementation. ConFormity determinAtion For the kentuCky portion oF the nonAttAinment AreA OKI has determined that the recommended projects in this plan are consistent with the air quality goals of the SIP and the conformity requirements under the eight hour ozone standard and the annual PM2.5 standard. Figure F-7 shows the ozone conformity analysis years and tests performed for the Kentucky portion of the nonattainment area. OKIs quantitative conformity findings for ozone forming emissions of VOC and NOx are found in Figure F-8. The emissions include the impact of reformulated gasoline (RFG) as a SIP commitment. PM2.5 conformity analysis years and tests are found in Figure F9. Figure F-10 shows the quantitative conformity finding for annual PM2.5 emissions.
F-22
Ohio
Kentucky
Figure F-7 Conformity Analysis Years and Tests for the Kentucky Portion of the Nonattainment Area - ozone Analysis year 200 2020 2030
SOURCE: OKI.
PM2.5 Conformity test <=2002 Baseline <=2002 Baseline <=2002 Baseline
Which Requirement Fulfilled Analysis year no more than 5 years in the future Intermediate year Last year of Plan
pollutants Direct PM2.5, NOx Direct PM2.5, NOx Direct PM2.5, NOx
Figure F-8 Quantitative Conformity Findings of Ozone-forming Emissions (tons per day) for the Kentucky Portion of the Nonattainment Area 2008 N. Kentucky VOC Budget N. Kentucky VOC Emissions N. Kentucky NOx Budget N. Kentucky NOx Emissions
SOURCE: OKI.
2010 9.9 9.57 2.36 18.38
2020 9.9 6.97 2.36 8.17
2030 9.9 7.08 2.36 6.20
9.9 9.9 2.36 21.28
Figure F-9 Conformity Analysis Years and Tests for the Kentucky Portion of the Nonattainment Area pm2.5 Analysis year 2008 200 2020 2030
SOURCE: OKI.
Ozone Conformity test <=2008 budget <=2008 budget <=2008 budget <=2008 budget
Which Requirement Fulfilled Budget year Interim year Interim year Last year of Plan
pollutant VOC, NOx VOC, NOx VOC, NOx VOC, NOx
Figure F-10 Quantitative Conformity Findings of PM2.5 Emissions (tons per year) for the Kentucky Portion of the Nonattainment Area 2010 N. Kentucky Direct PM2.5 2002 Annual Baseline N. Kentucky Direct PM2.5 Annual Emissions N. Kentucky Annual NOx 2002 Baseline N. Kentucky Annual NOx Emissions
SOURCE: OKI.
2020 164.68 68.75 9509.84 2623.4
2030 164.68 71.80 9509.84 969.64
164.68 04.63 9509.84 5943.48
Ohio
Kentucky
F-23
VOC and NOx emissions in the Kentucky counties of the nonattainment area do not exceed the SIP budget for the budget year 2008, the intermediate years 2010 and 2020, or the plan year 2030. Annual Direct PM2.5 and annual NOx emissions in the Kentucky portion of the nonattainment area do not exceed the 2002 baseline emissions for the first analysis year 2010, the intermediate year 2020, or the plan year 2030. OKI qualitatively finds no factors in the TIP or the plan that would cause or contribute to a new annual PM2.5 violation or exacerbate an existing violation in the years before 2010 for the Kentucky counties of the nonattainment area. OKI qualitatively finds that no goals, directives, recommendations or projects identified in the plan contradicts in a negative manner any specific requirements or commitments of the applicable state implementation plan. The applicable implementation plan does not contain any transportation control measures (TCMs), therefore, nothing in plan can interfere with their timely implementation. interAgenCy ConsultAtion And publiC involvement OKI has engaged in consultation procedures with ODOT, the Ohio EPA, KYTC, the Kentucky Division of Air Quality, the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission, the U.S. EPA, and the U.S. Department of Transportation before making this conformity determination and throughout the conformity process as appropriate. The draft document was made available on the OKI website. The interagency consultation process was undertaken in accordance with OKIs Transportation Conformity Consultation Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), as adopted by the OKI Board of Directors on April 10, 2008. The Conformity MOU sets forth policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such activities to applicable implementation plans developed according to Part A, Section 0 and Part D of the Clean Air Act. The Conformity MOU can be found on OKIs website. Interagency consultation was initiated on February 21, 2008 with a conference call. Appropriate conformity analysis years and tests, as well as a schedule, were determined. The draft amendment document and air quality conformity finding were distributed to the interagency consultation members on April 25, 2008. Public comments were accepted thru May 29, 2008 with a public hearing held on May 29, 2008, 5:30 pm at OKI, 720 East Pete Rose Way, Suite 420, Cincinnati, OH 45202. All public comments, whether written or oral, are documented in the final report.
F-24
Ohio
Kentucky
exhibit A indiana mobile6.2 input/output Files
Ohio
Kentucky
F-25
MOBILE6.2 Input Files (IN.SCN) Same for all analysis years, except for calendar year value. * Mobile6 file for Dearborn County, IN * created 4/9/07, ajr post em62in.06c ******************* Header Section ************************ MOBILE6 INPUT FILE : POLLUTANTS : HC NOx CO PARTICULATES : * PARTICULATES REPORTED IN *.PM FILE REPORT FILE : in.rpt DATABASE OUTPUT : WITH FIELDNAMES : DATABASE EMISSIONS : 2211 1111 22 DAILY OUTPUT : EMISSIONS TABLE : inemiss.tb1 RUN DATA ******************* Run Section *************************** VMT BY HOUR : INHVMT.D SPEED VMT : INSVMT.D VMT BY FACILITY : INFVMT.D EXPAND BUS EFS : REBUILD EFFECTS : 0.10 ******************* Summer Scenario Section ********************** SCENARIO RECORD : Indiana Emissions - CY20xx CALENDAR YEAR : 2010 EVALUATION MONTH : 7 SEASON : 1 MIN/MAX TEMP : 62.0 91.3 FUEL PROGRAM : 1 FUEL RVP : 9.0 PARTICLE SIZE : 2.5 PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV DIESEL SULFUR : 43 ******************* Annual Scenario Section ********************** SCENARIO RECORD : Indiana Emissions - CY20xx CALENDAR YEAR : 2010 EVALUATION MONTH : 7 MIN/MAX TEMP : 47.0 64.0 FUEL PROGRAM : 1 FUEL RVP : 9.0 PARTICLE SIZE : 2.5 PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV DIESEL SULFUR : 43 ******************* End of Run **************************** END OF RUN VMT By Hour (all analysis years, INHVMT.D) VMT BY HOUR 0.0478 0.0719 0.0796 0.0666 0.0563 0.0532 0.0545 0.0543 0.0515 0.0523 0.0560 0.0565 0.0504 0.0377 0.0266 0.0209 0.0197 0.0171 0.0142 0.0156 0.0188 0.0224 0.0251 0.0310 2008 VMT by Facilty Type (INFVMT.D) VMT BY FACILITY 1 0.245 0.538 0.212 0.005 0.267 0.515 0.212 0.005 0.270 0.509 0.217 0.005 0.268 0.495 0.232 0.005 0.267 0.492 0.237 0.005 0.263 0.504 0.228 0.005 0.259 0.495 0.242 0.005 0.258 0.492 0.246 0.004 0.266 0.488 0.241 0.004 0.269 0.476 0.250 0.004 0.273 0.480 0.242 0.004 0.307 0.468 0.221 0.004 0.296 0.473 0.227 0.004 0.261 0.502 0.233 0.004 0.252 0.497 0.247 0.004 0.265 0.489 0.242 0.004 0.264 0.495 0.237 0.004 0.281 0.468 0.248 0.004 0.305 0.479 0.211 0.005 0.289 0.494 0.212 0.005 0.256 0.486 0.253 0.005 0.246 0.514 0.235 0.005 0.234 0.522 0.239 0.005 0.237 0.527 0.231 0.005
... Identical distribution for all veh. types with the exception of diesel transit buses 26 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002
F-26
Ohio
Kentucky
0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003
0.963 0.963 0.963 0.963 0.963 0.963 0.963 0.963 0.963 0.963 0.963 0.963
0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030
0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
2008 VMT by SPEED VMT 1 1 0.0000 1 2 0.0000 1 3 0.0000 1 4 0.0000 1 5 0.0000 1 6 0.0000 1 7 0.0000 1 8 0.0000 1 9 0.0000 1 10 0.0000 1 11 0.0000 1 12 0.0000 1 13 0.0000 1 14 0.0000 1 15 0.0000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Speed bin (INSVMT.D) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1704 0.1800 0.1864 0.2152 0.2216 0.2090 0.2285 0.2325 0.2289 0.2449 0.2320 0.2139 0.2129 0.2007 0.2197 0.2212 0.2155 0.2416 0.2103 0.2021 0.2367 0.2024 0.2005 0.1933 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0084 0.0089 0.0092 0.0106 0.0109 0.0103 0.0113 0.0114 0.0113 0.0121 0.0114 0.0105 0.0105 0.0099 0.0108 0.0109 0.0106 0.0119 0.0104 0.0100 0.0117 0.0100 0.0099 0.0095 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1054 0.1047 0.1045 0.0952 0.0938 0.0938 0.0898 0.0904 0.0919 0.0892 0.0931 0.0979 0.1028 0.1076 0.1027 0.1008 0.0988 0.0944 0.0867 0.0891 0.0951 0.1029 0.1056 0.1039 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0428 0.0465 0.0465 0.0390 0.0385 0.0384 0.0370 0.0373 0.0378 0.0369 0.0383 0.0401 0.0420 0.0438 0.0420 0.0413 0.0405 0.0389 0.0356 0.0365 0.0391 0.0420 0.0431 0.0423 0.0133 0.0071 0.0066 0.0107 0.0104 0.0111 0.0108 0.0104 0.0099 0.0096 0.0092 0.0077 0.0076 0.0092 0.0093 0.0088 0.0099 0.0086 0.0102 0.0113 0.0108 0.0113 0.0116 0.0121 0.0340 0.0300 0.0300 0.0319 0.0316 0.0314 0.0307 0.0308 0.0312 0.0307 0.0315 0.0324 0.0336 0.0347 0.0337 0.0332 0.0327 0.0320 0.0298 0.0303 0.0322 0.0336 0.0343 0.0338 0.0085 0.0074 0.0069 0.0069 0.0067 0.0071 0.0069 0.0067 0.0064 0.0061 0.0059 0.0050 0.0049 0.0059 0.0059 0.0057 0.0063 0.0055 0.0065 0.0073 0.0069 0.0073 0.0074 0.0077 0.6392 0.6299 0.6235 0.6081 0.6037 0.6170 0.6028 0.5975 0.5989 0.5863 0.5937 0.6052 0.5982 0.6033 0.5912 0.5926 0.6019 0.5813 0.6273 0.6320 0.5851 0.6091 0.6066 0.6172 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9782 0.9810 0.9824 0.9824 0.9829 0.9818 0.9823 0.9830 0.9837 0.9843 0.9848 0.9873 0.9875 0.9850 0.9848
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9855 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9838 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9858 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9833 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9814 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9823 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9814 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9810 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9802 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
2008 MOBILE6.2 Output Report (IN.RPT) *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: IN.SCN (file 1, run 1). * *************************************************************************** * Reading Hourly VMT distribution from the following external * data file: INHVMT.D * Reading Hourly, Roadway, and Speed VMT dist. from the following external * data file: INSVMT.D * Reading Hourly Roadway VMT distribution from the following external * data file: INFVMT.D Reading User Supplied ROADWAY VMT Factors * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Indiana Emissions - CY20xx File 1, Run 1, Scenario 1. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # M616 Comment: User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels.
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV
Ohio
Kentucky
F-27
* Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b HDDV DEFEAT DEVICE EFFECTS ARE PRESENT. THE REBUILD FRACTION IS 0.10. * Reading Ammonia (NH3) Basic Emissiion Rates * from the external data file PMNH3BER.D * Reading Ammonia (NH3) Sulfur Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMNH3SDR.D M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Nominal Fuel RVP: Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2008 July Low 62.0 91.3 75. 9.0 8.6 30. No No No No
(F) (F) grains/lb psi psi ppm
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3728 0.3705 0.1273 0.0359 0.0004 0.0019 0.0857 0.0055 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 1.025 1.053 1.746 1.230 1.631 0.310 0.594 0.503 2.98 1.114 Composite CO : 9.67 11.41 15.70 12.50 15.65 1.214 1.027 2.752 19.76 10.741 Composite NOX : 0.685 0.860 1.238 0.956 2.910 0.776 1.064 9.880 1.23 1.692 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0009 0.0017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 7.955 0.372 0.724 Composite CO : 103.95 3.436 2.759 Composite NOX : 7.686 13.259 11.986 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Indiana Emissions - CY20xx File 1, Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # M616 Comment: User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels.
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: 2008 July Low 47.0 (F) 64.0 (F) 75. grains/lb
F-28
Ohio
Kentucky
Nominal Fuel RVP: Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR:
9.0 psi 9.0 psi 30. ppm No No No No
LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3728 0.3705 0.1273 0.0359 0.0004 0.0019 0.0857 0.0055 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.875 0.967 1.596 1.128 1.297 0.310 0.594 0.503 2.18 0.991 Composite CO : 12.16 14.76 19.90 16.08 15.65 1.214 1.027 2.752 17.62 13.435 Composite NOX : 0.674 0.900 1.302 1.003 3.019 0.776 1.064 9.880 1.42 1.716 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0009 0.0017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 6.508 0.372 0.724 Composite CO : 98.68 3.436 2.759 Composite NOX : 8.574 13.259 11.986 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2008 MOBILE6.2 Particulate Matter Output Report (IN.PM) *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: IN.SCN (file 1, run 1). * *************************************************************************** * * * * # # # # Indiana File 1, # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Emissions - CY20xx Run 1, Scenario 1. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2008 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns No
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3728 0.3705 0.1273 0.0359 0.0004 0.0019 0.0857 0.0055 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0037 0.0039 0.0043 0.0040 0.0428 ---------------0.0142 0.0050 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0574 0.0310 0.1336 -----0.0115 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0162 0.0446 0.0675 -----0.0059 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0014 0.0004 0.0008 0.0027 0.0001 0.0007 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0041 0.0044 0.0049 0.0045 0.0441 0.0740 0.0764 0.2037 0.0143 0.0231 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0114 0.0117 0.0122 0.0118 0.0516 0.0813 0.0837 0.2155 0.0206 0.0308 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0114 0.0094 0.0168 0.0085 0.0159 0.0379 0.0033 0.0111 NH3: 0.1017 0.1011 0.0996 0.1007 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0921 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0009 0.0017 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.1035 ----------ECARBON: -----0.1526 0.3108 OCARBON: -----0.1199 0.2442 SO4: 0.0004 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.1039 0.2769 0.5580 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.1123 0.2853 0.5664 SO2: 0.0263 0.0628 0.0439 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # Indiana File 1, # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Emissions - CY20xx Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 2008 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns No LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh
Ohio
Kentucky
F-29
<6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3728 0.3705 0.1273 0.0359 0.0004 0.0019 0.0857 0.0055 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0037 0.0039 0.0043 0.0040 0.0428 ---------------0.0142 0.0050 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0574 0.0310 0.1336 -----0.0115 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0162 0.0446 0.0675 -----0.0059 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0014 0.0004 0.0008 0.0027 0.0001 0.0007 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0041 0.0044 0.0049 0.0045 0.0441 0.0740 0.0764 0.2037 0.0143 0.0231 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0114 0.0117 0.0122 0.0118 0.0516 0.0813 0.0837 0.2155 0.0206 0.0308 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0114 0.0094 0.0168 0.0085 0.0159 0.0379 0.0033 0.0111 NH3: 0.1017 0.1011 0.0996 0.1007 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0921 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0009 0.0017 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.1035 ----------ECARBON: -----0.1526 0.3108 OCARBON: -----0.1199 0.2442 SO4: 0.0004 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.1039 0.2769 0.5580 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.1123 0.2853 0.5664 SO2: 0.0263 0.0628 0.0439 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2010 VMT by Facilty Type (INFVMT.D) VMT BY FACILITY 1 0.246 0.539 0.210 0.006 0.268 0.516 0.211 0.005 0.271 0.508 0.216 0.005 0.269 0.493 0.234 0.005 0.268 0.488 0.239 0.005 0.264 0.501 0.230 0.005 0.260 0.490 0.245 0.005 0.260 0.487 0.249 0.005 0.268 0.483 0.244 0.005 0.271 0.471 0.254 0.004 0.275 0.475 0.246 0.004 0.311 0.461 0.224 0.004 0.300 0.466 0.230 0.004 0.265 0.496 0.234 0.004 0.256 0.490 0.250 0.004 0.269 0.482 0.245 0.004 0.266 0.491 0.239 0.004 0.282 0.462 0.251 0.004 0.305 0.478 0.212 0.005 0.288 0.495 0.212 0.006 0.256 0.485 0.254 0.005 0.248 0.511 0.236 0.005 0.237 0.518 0.240 0.005 0.239 0.524 0.232 0.005 ... Identical distribution for all veh. types with the exception of diesel transit buses 26 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 2010 VMT by SPEED VMT 1 1 0.0000 1 2 0.0000 1 3 0.0000 1 4 0.0000 1 5 0.0000 Speed bin (INSVMT.D) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0047 0.0044 0.0000 0.0000 0.0134 0.0070 0.0065 0.0108 0.0105 0.0090 0.0078 0.0073 0.0072 0.0070 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9776 0.9805 0.9819 0.9820 0.9825
GVWR:
F-30
Ohio
Kentucky
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1791 0.1890 0.1966 0.2259 0.2331 0.2201 0.2405 0.2452 0.2416 0.2577 0.2451 0.2274 0.2269 0.2141 0.2339 0.2353 0.2280 0.2546 0.2195 0.2107 0.2474 0.2137 0.2123 0.2045
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0095 0.0097 0.0099 0.0100 0.0101 0.0098 0.0101 0.0102 0.0102 0.0104 0.0104 0.0103 0.0105 0.0105 0.0107 0.0106 0.0103 0.0106 0.0094 0.0093 0.0105 0.0102 0.0103 0.0100
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0935 0.0934 0.0957 0.0876 0.0870 0.0864 0.0842 0.0851 0.0861 0.0846 0.0874 0.0908 0.0950 0.0983 0.0951 0.0936 0.0912 0.0887 0.0801 0.0814 0.0882 0.0935 0.0960 0.0941
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0464 0.0502 0.0485 0.0419 0.0414 0.0414 0.0396 0.0400 0.0407 0.0394 0.0412 0.0436 0.0459 0.0481 0.0458 0.0450 0.0438 0.0417 0.0380 0.0389 0.0417 0.0455 0.0469 0.0461
0.0112 0.0109 0.0105 0.0100 0.0096 0.0093 0.0078 0.0077 0.0092 0.0093 0.0089 0.0099 0.0087 0.0102 0.0114 0.0109 0.0114 0.0117 0.0121 0.0856 0.0821 0.0830 0.0840 0.0840 0.0828 0.0823 0.0832 0.0838 0.0836 0.0849 0.0864 0.0895 0.0912 0.0900 0.0890 0.0868 0.0865 0.0781 0.0786 0.0859 0.0877 0.0894 0.0875
0.0075 0.0073 0.0070 0.0067 0.0065 0.0062 0.0052 0.0052 0.0062 0.0063 0.0060 0.0067 0.0058 0.0069 0.0076 0.0073 0.0077 0.0078 0.0081 0.5858 0.5757 0.5663 0.5506 0.5445 0.5594 0.5433 0.5362 0.5376 0.5244 0.5310 0.5415 0.5322 0.5378 0.5245 0.5265 0.5399 0.5178 0.5749 0.5810 0.5264 0.5494 0.5450 0.5578
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.9813 0.9819 0.9825 0.9833 0.9839 0.9845 0.9870 0.9871 0.9846 0.9844 0.9852 0.9834 0.9855 0.9829 0.9810 0.9818 0.9809 0.9805 0.9797 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
2010 MOBILE6.2 Output Report (IN.RPT) *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: IN.SCN (file 1, run 1). * *************************************************************************** * * * * Reading Hourly VMT distribution from the following external data file: INHVMT.D Reading Hourly, Roadway, and Speed VMT dist. from the following external data file: INSVMT.D
* Reading Hourly Roadway VMT distribution from the following external * data file: INFVMT.D Reading User Supplied ROADWAY VMT Factors * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Indiana Emissions - CY20xx File 1, Run 1, Scenario 1. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # M616 Comment: User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels.
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b HDDV DEFEAT DEVICE EFFECTS ARE PRESENT. THE REBUILD FRACTION IS 0.30. * Reading Ammonia (NH3) Basic Emissiion Rates * from the external data file PMNH3BER.D * Reading Ammonia (NH3) Sulfur Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMNH3SDR.D M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm.
Ohio
Kentucky
F-3
Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Nominal Fuel RVP: Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV
2010 July Low 61.0 95.0 75. 9.0 8.5 30. No No No No
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3478 0.3890 0.1336 0.0359 0.0003 0.0020 0.0860 0.0054 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.884 0.923 1.608 1.098 1.380 0.196 0.478 0.445 3.33 0.988 Composite CO : 8.88 10.21 14.03 11.19 12.02 1.013 0.847 2.099 20.91 9.665 Composite NOX : 0.583 0.729 1.116 0.828 2.227 0.470 0.820 7.819 1.21 1.396 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0010 0.0018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 5.145 0.311 0.668 Composite CO : 36.53 2.744 2.479 Composite NOX : 7.111 11.327 10.698 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Indiana Emissions - CY20xx File 1, Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # M616 Comment: User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels.
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Nominal Fuel RVP: Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2010 July Low 47.0 64.0 75. 9.0 9.0 30. No No No No
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3478 0.3890 0.1336 0.0359 0.0003 0.0020 0.0860 0.0054 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.729 0.831 1.428 0.984 1.035 0.196 0.478 0.445 2.18 0.856 Composite CO : 11.21 13.11 17.57 14.25 12.09 1.013 0.847 2.099 17.73 12.061 Composite NOX : 0.566 0.758 1.166 0.862 2.281 0.470 0.820 7.819 1.42 1.411 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0010 0.0018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi):
F-32
Ohio
Kentucky
Composite VOC : 3.868 0.311 0.668 Composite CO : 36.75 2.744 2.479 Composite NOX : 7.283 11.327 10.698 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2010 MOBILE6.2 Particulate Matter Output Report (IN.PM) *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: IN.SCN (file 1, run 1). * *************************************************************************** * * * * # # # # Indiana File 1, # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Emissions - CY20xx Run 1, Scenario 1. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: 2010 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns No
LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3478 0.3890 0.1336 0.0359 0.0003 0.0020 0.0860 0.0054 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0037 0.0037 0.0040 0.0038 0.0327 ---------------0.0142 0.0045 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0367 0.0220 0.0977 -----0.0084 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0103 0.0317 0.0496 -----0.0043 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0004 0.0008 0.0026 0.0001 0.0007 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0040 0.0042 0.0045 0.0043 0.0342 0.0475 0.0546 0.1499 0.0143 0.0180 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0114 0.0115 0.0118 0.0116 0.0417 0.0548 0.0619 0.1617 0.0206 0.0257 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0114 0.0095 0.0167 0.0084 0.0160 0.0379 0.0033 0.0112 NH3: 0.1017 0.1014 0.1006 0.1012 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0923 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0010 0.0018 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.0780 ----------ECARBON: -----0.0994 0.2774 OCARBON: -----0.0781 0.2180 SO4: 0.0006 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0786 0.1820 0.4985 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.0870 0.1903 0.5068 SO2: 0.0261 0.0626 0.0439 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # Indiana File 1, # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Emissions - CY20xx Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2010 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns No
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3478 0.3890 0.1336 0.0359 0.0003 0.0020 0.0860 0.0054 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0037 0.0037 0.0040 0.0038 0.0327 ---------------0.0142 0.0045 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0367 0.0220 0.0977 -----0.0084 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0103 0.0317 0.0496 -----0.0043 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0004 0.0008 0.0026 0.0001 0.0007 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0040 0.0042 0.0045 0.0043 0.0342 0.0475 0.0546 0.1499 0.0143 0.0180 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0114 0.0115 0.0118 0.0116 0.0417 0.0548 0.0619 0.1617 0.0206 0.0257 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0114 0.0095 0.0167 0.0084 0.0160 0.0379 0.0033 0.0112 NH3: 0.1017 0.1014 0.1006 0.1012 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0923 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0010 0.0018 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.0780 -----------
Ohio
Kentucky
F-33
ECARBON: OCARBON: SO4: Total Exhaust PM: Brake: Tire: Total PM: SO2: NH3:
----------0.0006 0.0786 0.0053 0.0030 0.0870 0.0261 0.0451
0.0994 0.0781 0.0044 0.1820 0.0053 0.0030 0.1903 0.0626 0.0270
0.2774 0.2180 0.0031 0.4985 0.0053 0.0030 0.5068 0.0439 0.0270
2020 VMT by Facilty Type (INFVMT.D) VMT BY FACILITY 1 0.251 0.535 0.208 0.006 0.273 0.512 0.210 0.005 0.277 0.503 0.215 0.005 0.274 0.487 0.234 0.005 0.273 0.482 0.240 0.005 0.269 0.495 0.231 0.005 0.265 0.484 0.246 0.005 0.264 0.480 0.251 0.005 0.273 0.476 0.246 0.005 0.275 0.464 0.256 0.004 0.280 0.468 0.247 0.004 0.317 0.455 0.224 0.004 0.305 0.460 0.230 0.004 0.270 0.491 0.234 0.004 0.261 0.484 0.251 0.004 0.274 0.476 0.246 0.004 0.271 0.485 0.240 0.005 0.287 0.456 0.253 0.004 0.310 0.472 0.213 0.005 0.293 0.489 0.212 0.006 0.261 0.479 0.256 0.005 0.253 0.506 0.236 0.005 0.242 0.514 0.240 0.005 0.244 0.519 0.231 0.005 ... Identical distribution for all veh. types with the exception of diesel transit buses 26 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004
2020 VMT by SPEED VMT 1 1 0.0000 1 2 0.0000 1 3 0.0000 1 4 0.0000 1 5 0.0000 1 6 0.0000 1 7 0.0000 1 8 0.0000 1 9 0.0000 1 10 0.0000 1 11 0.0000 1 12 0.0000 1 13 0.0000 1 14 0.0000 1 15 0.0000 1 16 0.0000 1 17 0.0000 1 18 0.0000 1 19 0.0000 1 20 0.0000 1 21 0.0000 1 22 0.0000 1 23 0.0000 1 24 0.0000 2 1 0.0000 2 2 0.0000 2 3 0.0000 2 4 0.0000
Speed bin (INSVMT.D) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1913 0.2018 0.2099 0.2407 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0076 0.0077 0.0112 0.0078 0.0000 0.0046 0.0043 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0845 0.0884 0.0856 0.0790 0.0000 0.0050 0.0046 0.0042 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0513 0.0523 0.0558 0.0519 0.0135 0.0022 0.0020 0.0066 0.0106 0.0113 0.0110 0.0106 0.0101 0.0097 0.0094 0.0079 0.0078 0.0093 0.0094 0.0090 0.0101 0.0088 0.0104 0.0115 0.0110 0.0115 0.0118 0.0123 0.0827 0.1014 0.1133 0.0932 0.0087 0.0076 0.0070 0.0070 0.0068 0.0072 0.0070 0.0068 0.0065 0.0062 0.0060 0.0050 0.0050 0.0060 0.0060 0.0057 0.0064 0.0056 0.0066 0.0074 0.0070 0.0074 0.0075 0.0079 0.5826 0.5484 0.5241 0.5274 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9778 0.9806 0.9821 0.9821 0.9826 0.9815 0.9820 0.9827 0.9834 0.9840 0.9846 0.9871 0.9872 0.9847 0.9845 0.9853 0.9835 0.9856 0.9830 0.9811 0.9820 0.9811 0.9807 0.9799 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
F-34
Ohio
Kentucky
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.2484 0.2347 0.2562 0.2613 0.2574 0.2743 0.2612 0.2427 0.2423 0.2289 0.2497 0.2512 0.2432 0.2712 0.2337 0.2243 0.2633 0.2280 0.2267 0.2184
0.0079 0.0077 0.0078 0.0079 0.0079 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0083 0.0083 0.0084 0.0083 0.0081 0.0082 0.0073 0.0073 0.0081 0.0080 0.0081 0.0079
0.0785 0.0780 0.0759 0.0767 0.0777 0.0762 0.0788 0.0821 0.0859 0.0889 0.0860 0.0846 0.0824 0.0800 0.0722 0.0734 0.0795 0.0845 0.0868 0.0851
0.0456 0.0457 0.0437 0.0441 0.0448 0.0433 0.0455 0.0482 0.0508 0.0532 0.0506 0.0497 0.0484 0.0460 0.0418 0.0429 0.0459 0.0503 0.0518 0.0509
0.0805 0.0794 0.0788 0.0835 0.0803 0.0799 0.0813 0.0830 0.0861 0.0879 0.0865 0.0855 0.0833 0.0828 0.0748 0.0753 0.0821 0.0844 0.0861 0.0843
0.5392 0.5545 0.5377 0.5265 0.5318 0.5182 0.5251 0.5360 0.5267 0.5328 0.5188 0.5208 0.5346 0.5118 0.5701 0.5767 0.5210 0.5448 0.5404 0.5534
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class LDDT12 HDDV DEFEAT DEVICE EFFECTS ARE PRESENT. THE REBUILD FRACTION IS 0.10. * Reading Ammonia (NH3) Basic Emissiion Rates * from the external data file PMNH3BER.D * Reading Ammonia (NH3) Sulfur Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMNH3SDR.D M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Nominal Fuel RVP: Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: VMT Distribution: LDGV -----0.2788 2020 July Low 62.0 91.3 75. 9.0 8.6 30. No No No No LDGT12 <6000 -----0.4388 LDGT34 >6000 -----0.1507 LDGT (All) -----HDGV -----0.0365 LDDV -----0.0003 LDDT -----0.0022 HDDV -----0.0876 MC -----0.0051 All Veh -----1.0000
Ohio
Kentucky
F-35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.422 0.515 0.826 0.595 0.614 0.070 0.225 0.302 2.98 0.533 Composite CO : 6.40 7.27 9.45 7.83 9.69 0.714 0.517 0.556 20.02 6.904 Composite NOX : 0.269 0.372 0.656 0.445 0.583 0.071 0.297 1.933 1.23 0.535 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 1.580 0.258 0.437 Composite CO : 17.87 0.739 1.015 Composite NOX : 2.129 2.711 4.700 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Indiana Emissions - CY20xx File 1, Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # M616 Comment: User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels.
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class LDDT12 M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Nominal Fuel RVP: Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: 2020 July Low 47.0 64.0 75. 9.0 9.0 30. No No No No
LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.2788 0.4388 0.1507 0.0365 0.0003 0.0022 0.0876 0.0051 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.376 0.491 0.791 0.567 0.491 0.070 0.225 0.302 2.19 0.495 Composite CO : 8.96 9.50 11.97 10.13 9.92 0.714 0.517 0.556 17.84 8.973 Composite NOX : 0.257 0.383 0.681 0.459 0.598 0.071 0.297 1.933 1.43 0.541 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 1.264 0.258 0.437 Composite CO : 18.30 0.739 1.015 Composite NOX : 2.184 2.711 4.700 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2020 MOBILE6.2 Particulate Matter Output Report (IN.PM) *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: IN.SCN (file 1, run 1). * *************************************************************************** * * * * # # # # Indiana File 1, # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Emissions - CY20xx Run 1, Scenario 1. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: 2020 July 30. ppm
F-36
Ohio
Kentucky
Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR:
43. ppm 2.50 Microns No
LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.2788 0.4388 0.1507 0.0365 0.0003 0.0022 0.0876 0.0051 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0036 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0121 ---------------0.0142 0.0035 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0090 0.0062 0.0177 -----0.0016 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0025 0.0089 0.0091 -----0.0008 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0017 0.0004 0.0008 0.0026 0.0001 0.0007 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0138 0.0120 0.0159 0.0294 0.0143 0.0066 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0112 0.0112 0.0113 0.0113 0.0213 0.0193 0.0233 0.0412 0.0206 0.0143 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0164 0.0084 0.0161 0.0377 0.0033 0.0114 NH3: 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.0223 ----------ECARBON: -----0.0196 0.0320 OCARBON: -----0.0154 0.0251 SO4: 0.0015 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0238 0.0394 0.0602 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.0322 0.0477 0.0685 SO2: 0.0252 0.0623 0.0440 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # Indiana File 1, # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Emissions - CY20xx Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2020 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns No
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.2788 0.4388 0.1507 0.0365 0.0003 0.0022 0.0876 0.0051 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0036 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0121 ---------------0.0142 0.0035 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0090 0.0062 0.0177 -----0.0016 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0025 0.0089 0.0091 -----0.0008 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0017 0.0004 0.0008 0.0026 0.0001 0.0007 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0138 0.0120 0.0159 0.0294 0.0143 0.0066 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0112 0.0112 0.0113 0.0113 0.0213 0.0193 0.0233 0.0412 0.0206 0.0143 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0164 0.0084 0.0161 0.0377 0.0033 0.0114 NH3: 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.0223 ----------ECARBON: -----0.0196 0.0320 OCARBON: -----0.0154 0.0251 SO4: 0.0015 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0238 0.0394 0.0602 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.0322 0.0477 0.0685 SO2: 0.0252 0.0623 0.0440 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2030 VMT by Facilty Type (INFVMT.D) VMT BY FACILITY 1 0.262 0.538 0.195 0.006 0.285 0.514 0.196 0.005 0.288 0.505 0.201 0.005 0.286 0.489 0.221 0.005 0.285 0.484 0.226 0.005 0.281 0.497 0.217 0.005
Ohio
Kentucky
F-37
... Identical distribution for all veh. types with the exception of diesel transit buses 26 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.010 0.949 0.035 0.002 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 0.003 0.963 0.030 0.004 2030 VMT by SPEED VMT 1 1 0.0000 1 2 0.0000 1 3 0.0000 1 4 0.0000 1 5 0.0000 1 6 0.0000 1 7 0.0000 1 8 0.0000 1 9 0.0000 1 10 0.0000 1 11 0.0000 1 12 0.0000 1 13 0.0000 1 14 0.0000 1 15 0.0000 1 16 0.0000 1 17 0.0000 1 18 0.0000 1 19 0.0000 1 20 0.0000 1 21 0.0000 1 22 0.0000 1 23 0.0000 1 24 0.0000 2 1 0.0000 2 2 0.0000 2 3 0.0000 2 4 0.0000 2 5 0.0000 2 6 0.0000 2 7 0.0000 2 8 0.0000 2 9 0.0000 2 10 0.0000 2 11 0.0000 2 12 0.0000 2 13 0.0000 2 14 0.0000 2 15 0.0000 2 16 0.0000 2 17 0.0000 2 18 0.0000 2 19 0.0000 2 20 0.0000 2 21 0.0000 2 22 0.0000 2 23 0.0000 2 24 0.0000 Speed bin (INSVMT.D) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0017 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1891 0.2019 0.2100 0.2386 0.2463 0.2326 0.2542 0.2593 0.2554 0.2723 0.2592 0.2407 0.2403 0.2268 0.2477 0.2492 0.2411 0.2693 0.2315 0.2221 0.2612 0.2259 0.2246 0.2162 0.0000 0.0044 0.0040 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0064 0.0209 0.0306 0.0066 0.0067 0.0065 0.0066 0.0067 0.0067 0.0068 0.0068 0.0068 0.0070 0.0071 0.0071 0.0070 0.0068 0.0070 0.0062 0.0062 0.0069 0.0068 0.0069 0.0067 0.0000 0.0050 0.0047 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0743 0.0981 0.1020 0.0718 0.0691 0.0687 0.0669 0.0677 0.0685 0.0673 0.0695 0.0723 0.0757 0.0784 0.0758 0.0746 0.0726 0.0706 0.0636 0.0646 0.0701 0.0744 0.0764 0.0749 0.0108 0.0041 0.0038 0.0087 0.0039 0.0042 0.0041 0.0039 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0752 0.0751 0.0741 0.0871 0.0656 0.0657 0.0613 0.0686 0.0624 0.0604 0.0649 0.0687 0.0724 0.0740 0.0705 0.0691 0.0673 0.0640 0.0581 0.0596 0.0639 0.0699 0.0720 0.0707 0.0024 0.0021 0.0019 0.0019 0.0064 0.0068 0.0066 0.0064 0.0098 0.0095 0.0092 0.0077 0.0076 0.0091 0.0092 0.0087 0.0098 0.0085 0.0101 0.0112 0.0107 0.0112 0.0115 0.0119 0.0696 0.0883 0.0931 0.0985 0.0890 0.0885 0.0911 0.0858 0.0930 0.0927 0.0924 0.0942 0.0751 0.0784 0.0772 0.0763 0.0744 0.0740 0.0668 0.0672 0.0734 0.0753 0.0768 0.0752 0.0082 0.0030 0.0028 0.0066 0.0064 0.0069 0.0067 0.0064 0.0061 0.0059 0.0057 0.0048 0.0047 0.0057 0.0057 0.0054 0.0061 0.0053 0.0063 0.0070 0.0067 0.0070 0.0072 0.0075 0.5853 0.5158 0.4885 0.4974 0.5234 0.5380 0.5199 0.5120 0.5139 0.5005 0.5071 0.5172 0.5295 0.5354 0.5216 0.5237 0.5377 0.5152 0.5738 0.5803 0.5246 0.5477 0.5432 0.5562 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9786 0.9813 0.9827 0.9828 0.9833 0.9822 0.9827 0.9833 0.9840 0.9846 0.9851 0.9876 0.9877 0.9853 0.9851 0.9858 0.9841 0.9861 0.9836 0.9818 0.9826 0.9818 0.9814 0.9806 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.277 0.276 0.285 0.288 0.293 0.330 0.318 0.282 0.273 0.286 0.283 0.300 0.323 0.305 0.273 0.265 0.253 0.255
0.485 0.482 0.478 0.465 0.469 0.456 0.462 0.494 0.487 0.478 0.487 0.457 0.472 0.490 0.481 0.509 0.517 0.522
0.233 0.237 0.232 0.243 0.233 0.210 0.216 0.220 0.236 0.232 0.226 0.239 0.200 0.199 0.242 0.221 0.226 0.217
0.005 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
F-38
Ohio
Kentucky
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class LDDT12 HDDV DEFEAT DEVICE EFFECTS ARE PRESENT. THE REBUILD FRACTION IS 0.10. * Reading Ammonia (NH3) Basic Emissiion Rates * from the external data file PMNH3BER.D * Reading Ammonia (NH3) Sulfur Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMNH3SDR.D M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Nominal Fuel RVP: Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2030 July Low 62.0 91.3 75. 9.0 8.6 30. No No No No
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.2788 0.4388 0.1507 0.0365 0.0003 0.0022 0.0876 0.0051 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.377 0.441 0.615 0.485 0.453 0.052 0.123 0.270 2.97 0.447 Composite CO : 6.16 6.95 8.33 7.30 9.32 0.668 0.394 0.303 19.98 6.494 Composite NOX : 0.231 0.326 0.483 0.366 0.186 0.032 0.147 0.707 1.24 0.355 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 1.184 0.258 0.330 Composite CO : 17.69 0.360 0.460 Composite NOX : 0.403 0.791 1.405 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Indiana Emissions - CY20xx File 1, Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # M616 Comment:
Ohio
Kentucky
F-39
User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels. * Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class LDDT12 M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Nominal Fuel RVP: Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2030 July Low 47.0 64.0 75. 9.0 9.0 30. No No No No
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.2788 0.4388 0.1507 0.0365 0.0003 0.0022 0.0876 0.0051 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.337 0.423 0.592 0.466 0.361 0.052 0.123 0.270 2.18 0.417 Composite CO : 8.73 9.06 10.55 9.44 9.54 0.668 0.394 0.303 17.80 8.467 Composite NOX : 0.218 0.334 0.496 0.375 0.190 0.032 0.147 0.707 1.44 0.358 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.911 0.258 0.330 Composite CO : 18.11 0.360 0.460 Composite NOX : 0.413 0.791 1.405 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2030 MOBILE6.2 Particulate Matter Output Report (IN.PM) *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: IN.SCN (file 1, run 1). * *************************************************************************** * * * * # # # # Indiana File 1, # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Emissions - CY20xx Run 1, Scenario 1. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2030 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns No
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.2788 0.4388 0.1507 0.0365 0.0003 0.0022 0.0876 0.0051 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0036 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0083 ---------------0.0142 0.0034 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0065 0.0034 0.0091 -----0.0008 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0018 0.0049 0.0046 -----0.0004 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0018 0.0004 0.0008 0.0026 0.0001 0.0007 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0101 0.0088 0.0092 0.0163 0.0143 0.0053 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0112 0.0112 0.0112 0.0112 0.0176 0.0162 0.0165 0.0281 0.0206 0.0130 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0164 0.0084 0.0161 0.0377 0.0033 0.0115
F-40
Ohio
Kentucky
NH3: 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.0156 ----------ECARBON: -----0.0120 0.0169 OCARBON: -----0.0095 0.0133 SO4: 0.0018 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0174 0.0259 0.0333 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.0257 0.0342 0.0416 SO2: 0.0252 0.0623 0.0440 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # Indiana File 1, # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Emissions - CY20xx Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2030 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns No
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.2788 0.4388 0.1507 0.0365 0.0003 0.0022 0.0876 0.0051 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0036 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0083 ---------------0.0142 0.0034 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0065 0.0034 0.0091 -----0.0008 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0018 0.0049 0.0046 -----0.0004 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0018 0.0004 0.0008 0.0026 0.0001 0.0007 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0101 0.0088 0.0092 0.0163 0.0143 0.0053 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0112 0.0112 0.0112 0.0112 0.0176 0.0162 0.0165 0.0281 0.0206 0.0130 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0164 0.0084 0.0161 0.0377 0.0033 0.0115 NH3: 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.0156 ----------ECARBON: -----0.0120 0.0169 OCARBON: -----0.0095 0.0133 SO4: 0.0018 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0174 0.0259 0.0333 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.0257 0.0342 0.0416 SO2: 0.0252 0.0623 0.0440 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Exhibit B Ohio MOBILE6.2 Input/Output Files MOBILE6.2 Input Files (OH.SCN) Same for all analysis years, except for calendar year value. * Mobile6 input file for Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren counties, * low RVP beginning summer 2008 * created 4/9/07 by ajr, includes annual scenario,low RVP,post 2007 ******************* Header Section ************************ MOBILE6 INPUT FILE : POLLUTANTS : HC NOx CO PARTICULATES : * PARTICULATES REPORTED IN *.PM FILE REPORT FILE : oh.rpt DATABASE OUTPUT : WITH FIELDNAMES : DATABASE EMISSIONS : 2211 1111 22 DAILY OUTPUT : EMISSIONS TABLE : ohemiss.tb1 RUN DATA ******************* VMT BY HOUR : SPEED VMT : VMT BY FACILITY : REG DIST : ANTI-TAMP PROG : Run Section *************************** OHHVMT.D OHSVMT.D OHFVMT.D OHREG.D 96 78 50 22222 21111111 1 12 098. 12111112
Ohio
Kentucky
F-4
FUEL PROGRAM : OXYGENATED FUELS : STAGE II REFUELING : 93 3 86. 86. EXPAND BUS EFS : REBUILD EFFECTS : ******************* SCENARIO RECORD : CALENDAR YEAR : EVALUATION MONTH : FUEL RVP : SEASON : MIN/MAX TEMP : PARTICLE SIZE : PARTICULATE EF : DIESEL SULFUR : ******************* SCENARIO RECORD : CALENDAR YEAR : EVALUATION MONTH : FUEL RVP : MIN/MAX TEMP : PARTICLE SIZE : PARTICULATE EF : DIESEL SULFUR : ******************* END OF RUN
1 .000 .420 .000 .036 2
0.10 Summer Scenario Section *************** Ohio Emissions - CY20xx 2010 7 7.8 1 62.0 91.3 2.5 PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV 43 Annual Scenario Section *************** Ohio Emissions - CY20xx 2010 7 9.0 47.0 64.0 2.5 PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV 43 End of Run ****************************
VMT By Hour (all analysis years, OHHVMT.D) VMT BY HOUR 0.0478 0.0719 0.0796 0.0666 0.0563 0.0532 0.0545 0.0543 0.0515 0.0523 0.0560 0.0565 0.0504 0.0377 0.0266 0.0209 0.0197 0.0171 0.0142 0.0156 0.0188 0.0224 0.0251 0.0310 Vehicle Age Distribution File (all analysis years, OHREG.D) REG DIST * OHREG.D * This file contains the Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren * vehicle age distribution for LDV,LDT1,LDT2,LDT3, * and LDT4 vehicles from ODOT/OEPA 2004 VIN decoding project. * MOBILE6 default distributions are used for the remaining * vehicle classes. * * LDV 1 0.0286 0.0381 0.0426 0.0379 0.0991 0.1052 0.0903 0.0968 0.0763 0.0745 0.0590 0.0502 0.0414 0.0335 0.0304 0.0232 0.0182 0.0128 0.0102 0.0066 0.0048 0.0023 0.0013 0.0009 0.0158 * LDT1 2 0.0278 0.0371 0.0412 0.0210 0.0450 0.0478 0.0564 0.0525 0.0865 0.0706 0.0922 0.0696 0.0503 0.0587 0.0469 0.0439 0.0418 0.0360 0.0280 0.0143 0.0074 0.0038 0.0044 0.0028 0.014 * LDT2 3 0.0345 0.0460 0.0511 0.0478 0.1204 0.1327 0.1232 0.1125 0.0802 0.0690 0.0550 0.0412 0.0269 0.0164 0.0120 0.0080 0.0095 0.0026 0.0029 0.0016 0.0016 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 0.0033 * LDT3 4 0.0287 0.0383 0.0424 0.0398 0.1031 0.1525 0.0769 0.0740 0.0677 0.0768 0.0578 0.0461 0.0317 0.0221 0.0252 0.0249 0.0219 0.0136 0.0124 0.0083 0.0068 0.0030 0.0021 0.0008 0.0231 * LDT4 5 0.0386 0.0514 0.0569 0.0489 0.1129 0.2054 0.1223 0.1113 0.0698 0.0629 0.0500 0.0078 0.0133 0.0043 0.0046 0.0037 0.0039 0.0030 0.0030 0.0021 0.0018 0.0005 0.0002 0.0000 0.0214 2008 VMT by Facilty Type (OHFVMT.D) VMT BY FACILITY 1 0.366 0.495 0.119 0.020 0.386 0.476 0.119 0.019 0.400 0.468 0.113 0.019 0.381 0.482 0.117 0.021 0.366 0.494 0.117 0.022 0.364 0.500 0.112 0.023 0.353 0.508 0.115 0.024 0.357 0.505 0.115 0.024 0.370 0.494 0.113 0.023 0.374 0.487 0.116 0.023 0.387 0.480 0.111 0.022 0.407 0.468 0.103 0.022 0.407 0.465 0.107 0.021 0.391 0.476 0.112 0.021 0.384 0.480 0.114 0.022 0.399 0.470 0.110 0.022 0.422 0.451 0.106 0.020 0.452 0.423 0.106 0.019 0.456 0.430 0.095 0.020 0.429 0.449 0.102 0.020 0.388 0.466 0.128 0.019
F-42
Ohio
Kentucky
... Identical distribution for all veh. types with the exception of diesel transit buses 26 0.215 0.734 0.032 0.019 0.215 0.734 0.032 0.019 0.215 0.734 0.032 0.019 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.215 0.734 0.032 0.019 0.215 0.734 0.032 0.019 0.215 0.734 0.032 0.019 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 2008 VMT by SPEED VMT 1 1 0.0000 1 2 0.0000 1 3 0.0000 1 4 0.0000 1 5 0.0000 1 6 0.0000 1 7 0.0000 1 8 0.0000 1 9 0.0000 1 10 0.0000 1 11 0.0000 1 12 0.0000 1 13 0.0000 1 14 0.0000 1 15 0.0000 1 16 0.0000 1 17 0.0000 1 18 0.0000 1 19 0.0000 1 20 0.0000 1 21 0.0000 1 22 0.0000 1 23 0.0000 1 24 0.0000 2 1 0.0000 2 2 0.0001 2 3 0.0001 2 4 0.0000 2 5 0.0000 2 6 0.0000 2 7 0.0000 2 8 0.0000 2 9 0.0000 2 10 0.0000 2 11 0.0000 2 12 0.0000 2 13 0.0000 2 14 0.0000 2 15 0.0000 2 16 0.0000 2 17 0.0000 2 18 0.0000 2 19 0.0000 2 20 0.0000 2 21 0.0000 2 22 0.0000 2 23 0.0000 2 24 0.0000 Speed bin (OHSVMT.D) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0020 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0008 0.0052 0.0024 0.0005 0.0004 0.0014 0.0013 0.0005 0.0004 0.0014 0.0014 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0022 0.0005 0.0000 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0576 0.0639 0.0703 0.0688 0.0638 0.0595 0.0637 0.0646 0.0622 0.0657 0.0644 0.0602 0.0590 0.0583 0.0604 0.0599 0.0604 0.0650 0.0587 0.0593 0.0694 0.0613 0.0609 0.0587 0.0000 0.0002 0.0021 0.0022 0.0001 0.0000 0.0018 0.0020 0.0002 0.0001 0.0016 0.0015 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0651 0.0847 0.0986 0.0890 0.0771 0.0706 0.0764 0.0779 0.0735 0.0788 0.0781 0.0716 0.0687 0.0661 0.0684 0.0678 0.0683 0.0736 0.0664 0.0671 0.0786 0.0694 0.0690 0.0664 0.0000 0.0011 0.0028 0.0029 0.0022 0.0023 0.0028 0.0026 0.0023 0.0022 0.0024 0.0025 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0905 0.1373 0.1574 0.1391 0.1103 0.0996 0.1117 0.1142 0.1029 0.1070 0.1151 0.1100 0.0942 0.0835 0.0812 0.0799 0.0805 0.0814 0.0756 0.0779 0.0868 0.0846 0.0853 0.0832 0.0010 0.0059 0.0080 0.0081 0.0079 0.0068 0.0090 0.0097 0.0071 0.0071 0.0080 0.0076 0.0053 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.2956 0.2595 0.2483 0.2709 0.2969 0.3035 0.3027 0.3022 0.3053 0.3021 0.3008 0.3059 0.3060 0.3053 0.3084 0.3083 0.3070 0.3108 0.3034 0.3024 0.3109 0.3057 0.3059 0.3039 0.0169 0.0110 0.0104 0.0120 0.0132 0.0141 0.0147 0.0142 0.0142 0.0136 0.0127 0.0121 0.0132 0.0171 0.0185 0.0178 0.0160 0.0141 0.0146 0.0155 0.0161 0.0184 0.0193 0.0199 0.2409 0.2096 0.1841 0.2058 0.2297 0.2400 0.2266 0.2249 0.2388 0.2342 0.2250 0.2309 0.2512 0.2601 0.2629 0.2660 0.2610 0.2558 0.2667 0.2586 0.2345 0.2481 0.2482 0.2538 0.0251 0.0232 0.0220 0.0245 0.0288 0.0301 0.0303 0.0297 0.0292 0.0284 0.0266 0.0252 0.0253 0.0252 0.0264 0.0253 0.0228 0.0200 0.0206 0.0219 0.0229 0.0260 0.0273 0.0284 0.2389 0.2330 0.2225 0.2114 0.2092 0.2136 0.2047 0.2017 0.2039 0.1990 0.2022 0.2068 0.2083 0.2145 0.2063 0.2055 0.2105 0.2013 0.2164 0.2223 0.2087 0.2193 0.2191 0.2221 0.0408 0.0411 0.0393 0.0382 0.0420 0.0436 0.0423 0.0414 0.0422 0.0412 0.0382 0.0372 0.0389 0.0355 0.0342 0.0333 0.0318 0.0291 0.0313 0.0334 0.0339 0.0366 0.0374 0.0386 0.0113 0.0110 0.0114 0.0121 0.0124 0.0127 0.0129 0.0130 0.0129 0.0127 0.0128 0.0130 0.0126 0.0122 0.0124 0.0126 0.0124 0.0122 0.0128 0.0124 0.0111 0.0116 0.0116 0.0119 0.0439 0.0348 0.0437 0.0337 0.0346 0.0362 0.0363 0.0353 0.0340 0.0329 0.0314 0.0296 0.0297 0.0379 0.0400 0.0383 0.0360 0.0314 0.0346 0.0379 0.0386 0.0432 0.0447 0.0467 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0989 0.1001 0.1123 0.0991 0.0994 0.0987 0.0991 0.0988 0.0988 0.0986 0.0990 0.1002 0.0993 0.0980 0.0974 0.0973 0.0963 0.0956 0.0965 0.0972 0.0976 0.0983 0.0983 0.0986 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0166 0.0273 0.0844 0.0274 0.0161 0.0165 0.0160 0.0161 0.0162 0.0163 0.0191 0.0240 0.0165 0.0170 0.0170 0.0171 0.0173 0.0176 0.0174 0.0172 0.0171 0.0168 0.0167 0.0165 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.7569 0.7552 0.6723 0.7511 0.7554 0.7516 0.7474 0.7496 0.7557 0.7595 0.7605 0.7597 0.7715 0.7686 0.7664 0.7710 0.7798 0.7922 0.7850 0.7770 0.7739 0.7608 0.7564 0.7512 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.368 0.490 0.121 0.021 0.355 0.500 0.124 0.021 0.352 0.507 0.120 0.022
2008 MOBILE6.2 Output Report (OH.RPT) *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: OH.SCN (file 3, run 1). * *************************************************************************** * Reading Hourly VMT distribution from the following external * data file: OHHVMT.D * Reading Hourly, Roadway, and Speed VMT dist. from the following external * data file: OHSVMT.D * Reading Hourly Roadway VMT distribution from the following external * data file: OHFVMT.D
Ohio
Kentucky
F-43
Reading User Supplied ROADWAY VMT Factors * Reading Registration Distributions from the following external * data file: OHREG.D M616 Comment: User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels. M601 Comment: User has enabled STAGE II REFUELING. * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Ohio Emissions - CY20xx File 3, Run 1, Scenario 1. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b HDDV DEFEAT DEVICE EFFECTS ARE PRESENT. THE REBUILD FRACTION IS 0.10. M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Nominal Fuel RVP: Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Ether Blend Market Share: 0.000 Ether Blend Oxygen Content: 0.000 Vehicle Type: GVWR: 2008 July Low 62.0 91.3 75. 7.8 8.0 30. No No No No Alcohol Blend Market Share: 0.420 Alcohol Blend Oxygen Content: 0.036 Alcohol Blend RVP Waiver: Yes
LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3623 0.3705 0.1385 0.0357 0.0004 0.0020 0.0851 0.0055 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.846 0.738 0.928 0.790 1.113 0.310 0.500 0.437 2.57 0.801 Composite CO : 9.58 10.57 12.52 11.10 11.75 1.204 0.843 2.331 16.11 9.832 Composite NOX : 0.730 0.957 1.396 1.077 3.042 0.861 1.155 10.058 1.29 1.787 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0009 0.0017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 5.815 0.355 0.628 Composite CO : 79.37 3.236 2.333 Composite NOX : 7.994 13.659 11.880 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Ohio Emissions - CY20xx File 3, Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates
F-44
Ohio
Kentucky
* from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Nominal Fuel RVP: Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Ether Blend Market Share: 0.000 Ether Blend Oxygen Content: 0.000 Vehicle Type: GVWR: 2008 July Low 47.0 64.0 75. 9.0 9.5 30. No No No No Alcohol Blend Market Share: 0.420 Alcohol Blend Oxygen Content: 0.036 Alcohol Blend RVP Waiver: Yes
LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3623 0.3705 0.1385 0.0357 0.0004 0.0020 0.0851 0.0055 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.813 0.757 0.974 0.816 0.980 0.310 0.500 0.437 2.06 0.794 Composite CO : 12.82 14.65 16.82 15.24 12.37 1.204 0.843 2.331 14.45 13.122 Composite NOX : 0.734 1.014 1.479 1.141 3.096 0.861 1.155 10.058 1.49 1.824 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0009 0.0017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 5.180 0.355 0.628 Composite CO : 76.47 3.236 2.333 Composite NOX : 8.817 13.659 11.880 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2008 MOBILE6.2 Particulate Matter Output Report (OH.PM) *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: OH.SCN (file 3, run 1). * *************************************************************************** * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Ohio Emissions - CY20xx File 3, Run 1, Scenario 1. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2008 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns No
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3623 0.3705 0.1385 0.0357 0.0004 0.0020 0.0851 0.0055 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0038 0.0038 0.0039 0.0038 0.0427 ---------------0.0142 0.0049 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0671 0.0295 0.1336 -----0.0115 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0189 0.0425 0.0675 -----0.0058 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0014 0.0004 0.0008 0.0027 0.0001 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0041 0.0043 0.0044 0.0043 0.0442 0.0865 0.0729 0.2037 0.0143 0.0228 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0114 0.0116 0.0117 0.0116 0.0517 0.0938 0.0802 0.2155 0.0206 0.0306 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0168 0.0085 0.0160 0.0379 0.0033 0.0112 NH3: 0.1017 0.1016 0.1012 0.1015 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0009 0.0017 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.1035 ----------ECARBON: -----0.1526 0.3108 OCARBON: -----0.1199 0.2442 SO4: 0.0004 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.1039 0.2769 0.5581
Ohio
Kentucky
F-45
Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.1123 0.2853 0.5664 SO2: 0.0263 0.0628 0.0439 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Ohio Emissions - CY20xx File 3, Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: 2008 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns No
LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3623 0.3705 0.1385 0.0357 0.0004 0.0020 0.0851 0.0055 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0038 0.0038 0.0039 0.0038 0.0427 ---------------0.0142 0.0049 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0671 0.0295 0.1336 -----0.0115 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0189 0.0425 0.0675 -----0.0058 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0014 0.0004 0.0008 0.0027 0.0001 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0041 0.0043 0.0044 0.0043 0.0442 0.0865 0.0729 0.2037 0.0143 0.0228 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0114 0.0116 0.0117 0.0116 0.0517 0.0938 0.0802 0.2155 0.0206 0.0306 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0168 0.0085 0.0160 0.0379 0.0033 0.0112 NH3: 0.1017 0.1016 0.1012 0.1015 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0009 0.0017 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.1035 ----------ECARBON: -----0.1526 0.3108 OCARBON: -----0.1199 0.2442 SO4: 0.0004 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.1039 0.2769 0.5581 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.1123 0.2853 0.5664 SO2: 0.0263 0.0628 0.0439 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2010 VMT by Facilty Type (OHFVMT.D) VMT BY FACILITY 1 0.363 0.468 0.148 0.021 0.383 0.447 0.150 0.020 0.395 0.443 0.142 0.020 0.374 0.456 0.148 0.022 0.358 0.470 0.149 0.023 0.357 0.477 0.142 0.024 0.345 0.484 0.147 0.025 0.348 0.482 0.146 0.025 0.361 0.471 0.144 0.024 0.364 0.464 0.149 0.023 0.378 0.458 0.141 0.023 0.397 0.450 0.130 0.023 0.399 0.445 0.134 0.022 0.385 0.453 0.140 0.022 0.376 0.457 0.144 0.023 0.391 0.448 0.138 0.023 0.415 0.429 0.134 0.021 0.444 0.401 0.135 0.020 0.449 0.410 0.121 0.021 0.423 0.426 0.130 0.021 0.382 0.435 0.164 0.020 0.363 0.463 0.152 0.022 0.350 0.473 0.155 0.022 0.346 0.481 0.150 0.023
... Identical distribution for all veh. types with the exception of diesel transit buses 26 0.197 0.762 0.023 0.018 0.197 0.762 0.023 0.018 0.197 0.762 0.023 0.018 0.045 0.921 0.025 0.009 0.045 0.921 0.025 0.009 0.045 0.921 0.025 0.009 0.045 0.921 0.025 0.009 0.045 0.921 0.025 0.009 0.045 0.921 0.025 0.009 0.197 0.762 0.023 0.018 0.197 0.762 0.023 0.018 0.197 0.762 0.023 0.018
F-46
Ohio
Kentucky
0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 2008 VMT by SPEED VMT 1 1 0.0000 1 2 0.0000 1 3 0.0000 1 4 0.0000 1 5 0.0000 1 6 0.0000 1 7 0.0000 1 8 0.0000 1 9 0.0000 1 10 0.0000 1 11 0.0000 1 12 0.0000 1 13 0.0000 1 14 0.0000 1 15 0.0000 1 16 0.0000 1 17 0.0000 1 18 0.0000 1 19 0.0000 1 20 0.0000 1 21 0.0000 1 22 0.0000 1 23 0.0000 1 24 0.0000 2 1 0.0000 2 2 0.0001 2 3 0.0001 2 4 0.0000 2 5 0.0000 2 6 0.0000 2 7 0.0000 2 8 0.0000 2 9 0.0000 2 10 0.0000 2 11 0.0000 2 12 0.0000 2 13 0.0000 2 14 0.0000 2 15 0.0000 2 16 0.0000 2 17 0.0000 2 18 0.0000 2 19 0.0000 2 20 0.0000 2 21 0.0000 2 22 0.0000 2 23 0.0000 2 24 0.0000
0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921
0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009
Speed bin (OHSVMT.D) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0020 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0008 0.0052 0.0024 0.0005 0.0004 0.0014 0.0013 0.0005 0.0004 0.0014 0.0014 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0022 0.0005 0.0000 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0576 0.0639 0.0703 0.0688 0.0638 0.0595 0.0637 0.0646 0.0622 0.0657 0.0644 0.0602 0.0590 0.0583 0.0604 0.0599 0.0604 0.0650 0.0587 0.0593 0.0694 0.0613 0.0609 0.0587 0.0000 0.0002 0.0021 0.0022 0.0001 0.0000 0.0018 0.0020 0.0002 0.0001 0.0016 0.0015 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0651 0.0847 0.0986 0.0890 0.0771 0.0706 0.0764 0.0779 0.0735 0.0788 0.0781 0.0716 0.0687 0.0661 0.0684 0.0678 0.0683 0.0736 0.0664 0.0671 0.0786 0.0694 0.0690 0.0664 0.0000 0.0011 0.0028 0.0029 0.0022 0.0023 0.0028 0.0026 0.0023 0.0022 0.0024 0.0025 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0905 0.1373 0.1574 0.1391 0.1103 0.0996 0.1117 0.1142 0.1029 0.1070 0.1151 0.1100 0.0942 0.0835 0.0812 0.0799 0.0805 0.0814 0.0756 0.0779 0.0868 0.0846 0.0853 0.0832 0.0010 0.0059 0.0080 0.0081 0.0079 0.0068 0.0090 0.0097 0.0071 0.0071 0.0080 0.0076 0.0053 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.2956 0.2595 0.2483 0.2709 0.2969 0.3035 0.3027 0.3022 0.3053 0.3021 0.3008 0.3059 0.3060 0.3053 0.3084 0.3083 0.3070 0.3108 0.3034 0.3024 0.3109 0.3057 0.3059 0.3039 0.0169 0.0110 0.0104 0.0120 0.0132 0.0141 0.0147 0.0142 0.0142 0.0136 0.0127 0.0121 0.0132 0.0171 0.0185 0.0178 0.0160 0.0141 0.0146 0.0155 0.0161 0.0184 0.0193 0.0199 0.2409 0.2096 0.1841 0.2058 0.2297 0.2400 0.2266 0.2249 0.2388 0.2342 0.2250 0.2309 0.2512 0.2601 0.2629 0.2660 0.2610 0.2558 0.2667 0.2586 0.2345 0.2481 0.2482 0.2538 0.0251 0.0232 0.0220 0.0245 0.0288 0.0301 0.0303 0.0297 0.0292 0.0284 0.0266 0.0252 0.0253 0.0252 0.0264 0.0253 0.0228 0.0200 0.0206 0.0219 0.0229 0.0260 0.0273 0.0284 0.2389 0.2330 0.2225 0.2114 0.2092 0.2136 0.2047 0.2017 0.2039 0.1990 0.2022 0.2068 0.2083 0.2145 0.2063 0.2055 0.2105 0.2013 0.2164 0.2223 0.2087 0.2193 0.2191 0.2221 0.0408 0.0411 0.0393 0.0382 0.0420 0.0436 0.0423 0.0414 0.0422 0.0412 0.0382 0.0372 0.0389 0.0355 0.0342 0.0333 0.0318 0.0291 0.0313 0.0334 0.0339 0.0366 0.0374 0.0386 0.0113 0.0110 0.0114 0.0121 0.0124 0.0127 0.0129 0.0130 0.0129 0.0127 0.0128 0.0130 0.0126 0.0122 0.0124 0.0126 0.0124 0.0122 0.0128 0.0124 0.0111 0.0116 0.0116 0.0119 0.0439 0.0348 0.0437 0.0337 0.0346 0.0362 0.0363 0.0353 0.0340 0.0329 0.0314 0.0296 0.0297 0.0379 0.0400 0.0383 0.0360 0.0314 0.0346 0.0379 0.0386 0.0432 0.0447 0.0467 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0989 0.1001 0.1123 0.0991 0.0994 0.0987 0.0991 0.0988 0.0988 0.0986 0.0990 0.1002 0.0993 0.0980 0.0974 0.0973 0.0963 0.0956 0.0965 0.0972 0.0976 0.0983 0.0983 0.0986 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0166 0.0273 0.0844 0.0274 0.0161 0.0165 0.0160 0.0161 0.0162 0.0163 0.0191 0.0240 0.0165 0.0170 0.0170 0.0171 0.0173 0.0176 0.0174 0.0172 0.0171 0.0168 0.0167 0.0165 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.7569 0.7552 0.6723 0.7511 0.7554 0.7516 0.7474 0.7496 0.7557 0.7595 0.7605 0.7597 0.7715 0.7686 0.7664 0.7710 0.7798 0.7922 0.7850 0.7770 0.7739 0.7608 0.7564 0.7512 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
2008 MOBILE6.2 Output Report (OH.RPT) *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: OH.SCN (file 3, run 1). * *************************************************************************** * Reading Hourly VMT distribution from the following external * data file: OHHVMT.D * Reading Hourly, Roadway, and Speed VMT dist. from the following external * data file: OHSVMT.D * Reading Hourly Roadway VMT distribution from the following external * data file: OHFVMT.D Reading User Supplied ROADWAY VMT Factors * Reading Registration Distributions from the following external * data file: OHREG.D M616 Comment: User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels. M601 Comment: User has enabled STAGE II REFUELING. * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Ohio Emissions - CY20xx File 3, Run 1, Scenario 1. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV
Ohio
Kentucky
F-47
* Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b HDDV DEFEAT DEVICE EFFECTS ARE PRESENT. THE REBUILD FRACTION IS 0.10. M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Nominal Fuel RVP: Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Ether Blend Market Share: 0.000 Ether Blend Oxygen Content: 0.000 Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2008 July Low 62.0 91.3 75. 7.8 8.0 30. No No No No Alcohol Blend Market Share: 0.420 Alcohol Blend Oxygen Content: 0.036 Alcohol Blend RVP Waiver: Yes
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3623 0.3705 0.1385 0.0357 0.0004 0.0020 0.0851 0.0055 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.846 0.738 0.928 0.790 1.113 0.310 0.500 0.437 2.57 0.801 Composite CO : 9.58 10.57 12.52 11.10 11.75 1.204 0.843 2.331 16.11 9.832 Composite NOX : 0.730 0.957 1.396 1.077 3.042 0.861 1.155 10.058 1.29 1.787 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0009 0.0017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 5.815 0.355 0.628 Composite CO : 79.37 3.236 2.333 Composite NOX : 7.994 13.659 11.880 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Ohio Emissions - CY20xx File 3, Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Nominal Fuel RVP: 2008 July Low 47.0 64.0 75. 9.0
(F) (F) grains/lb psi
F-48
Ohio
Kentucky
Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Ether Blend Market Share: 0.000 Ether Blend Oxygen Content: 0.000
9.5 psi 30. ppm No No No No Alcohol Blend Market Share: 0.420 Alcohol Blend Oxygen Content: 0.036 Alcohol Blend RVP Waiver: Yes
Vehicle Type: GVWR:
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3623 0.3705 0.1385 0.0357 0.0004 0.0020 0.0851 0.0055 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0038 0.0038 0.0039 0.0038 0.0427 ---------------0.0142 0.0049 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0671 0.0295 0.1336 -----0.0115 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0189 0.0425 0.0675 -----0.0058 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0014 0.0004 0.0008 0.0027 0.0001 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0041 0.0043 0.0044 0.0043 0.0442 0.0865 0.0729 0.2037 0.0143 0.0228 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0114 0.0116 0.0117 0.0116 0.0517 0.0938 0.0802 0.2155 0.0206 0.0306 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0168 0.0085 0.0160 0.0379 0.0033 0.0112 NH3: 0.1017 0.1016 0.1012 0.1015 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0009 0.0017 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.1035 ----------ECARBON: -----0.1526 0.3108 OCARBON: -----0.1199 0.2442 SO4: 0.0004 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.1039 0.2769 0.5581 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.1123 0.2853 0.5664 SO2: 0.0263 0.0628 0.0439 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Ohio Emissions - CY20xx File 3, Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: 2008 July 30. ppm 43. ppm
Ohio
Kentucky
F-49
Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR:
2.50 Microns No
LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3623 0.3705 0.1385 0.0357 0.0004 0.0020 0.0851 0.0055 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0038 0.0038 0.0039 0.0038 0.0427 ---------------0.0142 0.0049 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0671 0.0295 0.1336 -----0.0115 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0189 0.0425 0.0675 -----0.0058 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0014 0.0004 0.0008 0.0027 0.0001 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0041 0.0043 0.0044 0.0043 0.0442 0.0865 0.0729 0.2037 0.0143 0.0228 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0114 0.0116 0.0117 0.0116 0.0517 0.0938 0.0802 0.2155 0.0206 0.0306 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0168 0.0085 0.0160 0.0379 0.0033 0.0112 NH3: 0.1017 0.1016 0.1012 0.1015 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0009 0.0017 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.1035 ----------ECARBON: -----0.1526 0.3108 OCARBON: -----0.1199 0.2442 SO4: 0.0004 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.1039 0.2769 0.5581 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.1123 0.2853 0.5664 SO2: 0.0263 0.0628 0.0439 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2010 VMT by SPEED VMT 1 1 0.0000 1 2 0.0000 1 3 0.0000 1 4 0.0000 1 5 0.0000 1 6 0.0000 1 7 0.0000 1 8 0.0000 1 9 0.0000 1 10 0.0000 1 11 0.0000 1 12 0.0000 1 13 0.0000 1 14 0.0000 1 15 0.0000 1 16 0.0000 1 17 0.0000 1 18 0.0000 1 19 0.0000 1 20 0.0000 1 21 0.0000 1 22 0.0000 1 23 0.0000 1 24 0.0000 2 1 0.0000 2 2 0.0000 2 3 0.0001 2 4 0.0000 2 5 0.0000 2 6 0.0000 2 7 0.0000 2 8 0.0000 2 9 0.0000 2 10 0.0000 2 11 0.0000 2 12 0.0000 2 13 0.0000 2 14 0.0000 2 15 0.0000 2 16 0.0000 2 17 0.0000 2 18 0.0000 2 19 0.0000 2 20 0.0000 2 21 0.0000 2 22 0.0000 2 23 0.0000 2 24 0.0000 Speed bin (OHSVMT.D) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0020 0.0003 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0009 0.0040 0.0030 0.0004 0.0001 0.0014 0.0014 0.0001 0.0002 0.0015 0.0015 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0018 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1040 0.1122 0.1168 0.1158 0.1105 0.1045 0.1087 0.1089 0.1079 0.1130 0.1099 0.1032 0.1034 0.1036 0.1065 0.1055 0.1066 0.1142 0.1034 0.1051 0.1232 0.1093 0.1088 0.1047 0.0000 0.0000 0.0018 0.0020 0.0007 0.0003 0.0022 0.0019 0.0003 0.0003 0.0018 0.0017 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0634 0.0767 0.0880 0.0824 0.0721 0.0664 0.0725 0.0732 0.0685 0.0732 0.0735 0.0680 0.0646 0.0627 0.0643 0.0636 0.0643 0.0686 0.0622 0.0633 0.0741 0.0661 0.0658 0.0634 0.0000 0.0018 0.0033 0.0017 0.0023 0.0023 0.0019 0.0023 0.0025 0.0025 0.0017 0.0016 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0775 0.1175 0.1459 0.1262 0.1049 0.0930 0.1077 0.1102 0.0977 0.1041 0.1096 0.1030 0.0850 0.0735 0.0718 0.0708 0.0713 0.0726 0.0678 0.0696 0.0773 0.0745 0.0749 0.0732 0.0010 0.0060 0.0092 0.0086 0.0075 0.0078 0.0100 0.0099 0.0079 0.0076 0.0088 0.0083 0.0064 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2885 0.2638 0.2445 0.2661 0.2869 0.2950 0.2903 0.2900 0.2948 0.2890 0.2899 0.2970 0.3007 0.2994 0.3025 0.3030 0.3007 0.3020 0.2988 0.2962 0.2972 0.2969 0.2973 0.2970 0.0172 0.0105 0.0107 0.0116 0.0134 0.0130 0.0137 0.0136 0.0134 0.0130 0.0120 0.0115 0.0118 0.0174 0.0187 0.0179 0.0160 0.0141 0.0146 0.0155 0.0162 0.0185 0.0194 0.0202 0.2121 0.1877 0.1705 0.1775 0.1956 0.2061 0.1915 0.1920 0.2031 0.1978 0.1899 0.1967 0.2136 0.2236 0.2243 0.2265 0.2231 0.2175 0.2271 0.2219 0.2021 0.2146 0.2149 0.2195 0.0174 0.0177 0.0133 0.0178 0.0194 0.0208 0.0202 0.0204 0.0201 0.0195 0.0177 0.0170 0.0178 0.0175 0.0186 0.0178 0.0159 0.0140 0.0145 0.0153 0.0161 0.0184 0.0193 0.0200 0.2370 0.2240 0.2125 0.2110 0.2117 0.2165 0.2094 0.2057 0.2095 0.2046 0.2074 0.2120 0.2146 0.2196 0.2129 0.2128 0.2162 0.2078 0.2220 0.2254 0.2097 0.2213 0.2211 0.2246 0.0445 0.0414 0.0411 0.0415 0.0463 0.0476 0.0487 0.0473 0.0462 0.0448 0.0429 0.0407 0.0408 0.0385 0.0384 0.0369 0.0349 0.0310 0.0336 0.0363 0.0370 0.0409 0.0422 0.0439 0.0174 0.0169 0.0158 0.0177 0.0180 0.0185 0.0185 0.0184 0.0183 0.0180 0.0182 0.0185 0.0180 0.0176 0.0177 0.0179 0.0179 0.0174 0.0188 0.0184 0.0165 0.0173 0.0172 0.0176 0.0335 0.0267 0.0420 0.0270 0.0284 0.0300 0.0295 0.0292 0.0288 0.0282 0.0268 0.0259 0.0268 0.0329 0.0346 0.0335 0.0313 0.0285 0.0296 0.0311 0.0319 0.0350 0.0362 0.0374 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1035 0.1046 0.1286 0.1065 0.1046 0.1041 0.1048 0.1048 0.1047 0.1047 0.1052 0.1054 0.1047 0.1041 0.1041 0.1041 0.1037 0.1035 0.1035 0.1035 0.1036 0.1039 0.1040 0.1040 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0223 0.0245 0.0933 0.0253 0.0217 0.0221 0.0215 0.0216 0.0217 0.0218 0.0225 0.0225 0.0221 0.0226 0.0225 0.0227 0.0229 0.0233 0.0231 0.0229 0.0227 0.0224 0.0222 0.0221 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.7606 0.7669 0.6543 0.7569 0.7556 0.7520 0.7472 0.7486 0.7544 0.7576 0.7603 0.7650 0.7691 0.7663 0.7631 0.7672 0.7752 0.7856 0.7813 0.7755 0.7725 0.7610 0.7567 0.7524 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
2010 MOBILE6.2 Output Report (OH.RPT) *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: OH.SCN (file 3, run 1). * ***************************************************************************
F-50
Ohio
Kentucky
* Reading Hourly VMT distribution from the following external * data file: OHHVMT.D * Reading Hourly, Roadway, and Speed VMT dist. from the following external * data file: OHSVMT.D * Reading Hourly Roadway VMT distribution from the following external * data file: OHFVMT.D Reading User Supplied ROADWAY VMT Factors * Reading Registration Distributions from the following external * data file: OHREG.D M616 Comment: User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels. M601 Comment: User has enabled STAGE II REFUELING. * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Ohio Emissions - CY20xx File 3, Run 1, Scenario 1. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b HDDV DEFEAT DEVICE EFFECTS ARE PRESENT. THE REBUILD FRACTION IS 0.10. M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Nominal Fuel RVP: Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Ether Blend Market Share: 0.000 Ether Blend Oxygen Content: 0.000 Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2010 July Low 62.0 91.3 75. 7.8 8.0 30. No No Yes No Alcohol Blend Market Share: 0.420 Alcohol Blend Oxygen Content: 0.036 Alcohol Blend RVP Waiver: Yes
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels
Ohio
Kentucky
F-5
* from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Nominal Fuel RVP: Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Ether Blend Market Share: 0.000 Ether Blend Oxygen Content: 0.000 Vehicle Type: GVWR: 2010 July Low 47.0 64.0 75. 9.0 9.5 30. No No Yes No Alcohol Blend Market Share: 0.420 Alcohol Blend Oxygen Content: 0.036 Alcohol Blend RVP Waiver: Yes
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3376 0.3884 0.1452 0.0357 0.0003 0.0021 0.0853 0.0054 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0037 0.0036 0.0037 0.0037 0.0327 ---------------0.0142 0.0044 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0414 0.0184 0.0977 -----0.0084 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0117 0.0264 0.0496 -----0.0043 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0004 0.0008 0.0026 0.0001 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0040 0.0041 0.0042 0.0041 0.0343 0.0535 0.0456 0.1499 0.0143 0.0178 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0114 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0418 0.0609 0.0529 0.1617 0.0206 0.0255 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0166 0.0084 0.0161 0.0379 0.0033 0.0113 NH3: 0.1017 0.1017 0.1014 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ----------------
F-52
Ohio
Kentucky
VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0009 0.0018 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.0780 ----------ECARBON: -----0.0994 0.2774 OCARBON: -----0.0781 0.2180 SO4: 0.0006 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0786 0.1820 0.4985 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.0870 0.1903 0.5068 SO2: 0.0261 0.0626 0.0439 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Ohio Emissions - CY20xx File 3, Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: 2010 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns No
LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3376 0.3884 0.1452 0.0357 0.0003 0.0021 0.0853 0.0054 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0037 0.0036 0.0037 0.0037 0.0327 ---------------0.0142 0.0044 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0414 0.0184 0.0977 -----0.0084 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0117 0.0264 0.0496 -----0.0043 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0004 0.0008 0.0026 0.0001 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0040 0.0041 0.0042 0.0041 0.0343 0.0535 0.0456 0.1499 0.0143 0.0178 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0114 0.0115 0.0115 0.0115 0.0418 0.0609 0.0529 0.1617 0.0206 0.0255 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0166 0.0084 0.0161 0.0379 0.0033 0.0113 NH3: 0.1017 0.1017 0.1014 0.1016 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0009 0.0018 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.0780 ----------ECARBON: -----0.0994 0.2774 OCARBON: -----0.0781 0.2180 SO4: 0.0006 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0786 0.1820 0.4985 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.0870 0.1903 0.5068 SO2: 0.0261 0.0626 0.0439 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2020 VMT by Facilty Type (OHFVMT.D) VMT BY FACILITY 1 0.373 0.483 0.123 0.021 0.394 0.462 0.124 0.020 0.406 0.456 0.117 0.021 0.385 0.471 0.122 0.022 0.370 0.485 0.122 0.024 0.367 0.492 0.117 0.024 0.356 0.499 0.120 0.025 0.359 0.496 0.120 0.025 0.372 0.486 0.118 0.024 0.376 0.478 0.122 0.024 0.389 0.471 0.116 0.024 0.408 0.461 0.107 0.023 0.410 0.457 0.111 0.023 0.395 0.467 0.116 0.022 0.387 0.471 0.118 0.023 0.402 0.461 0.114 0.023 0.426 0.442 0.111 0.021 0.457 0.413 0.111 0.020 0.460 0.420 0.099 0.021 0.434 0.438 0.106 0.021 0.394 0.451 0.134 0.020 0.374 0.479 0.126 0.022 0.360 0.489 0.129 0.022 0.356 0.496 0.124 0.023 ... Identical distribution for all veh. types with the exception of diesel transit buses 26 0.204 0.729 0.047 0.021 0.204 0.729 0.047 0.021 0.204 0.729 0.047 0.021 0.018 0.926 0.048 0.008
Ohio
Kentucky
F-53
0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.204 0.204 0.204 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 2020 VMT by SPEED VMT 1 1 0.0000 1 2 0.0000 1 3 0.0000 1 4 0.0000 1 5 0.0000 1 6 0.0000 1 7 0.0000 1 8 0.0000 1 9 0.0000 1 10 0.0000 1 11 0.0000 1 12 0.0000 1 13 0.0000 1 14 0.0000 1 15 0.0000 1 16 0.0000 1 17 0.0000 1 18 0.0000 1 19 0.0000 1 20 0.0000 1 21 0.0000 1 22 0.0000 1 23 0.0000 1 24 0.0000 2 1 0.0000 2 2 0.0001 2 3 0.0002 2 4 0.0000 2 5 0.0000 2 6 0.0000 2 7 0.0000 2 8 0.0000 2 9 0.0000 2 10 0.0000 2 11 0.0000 2 12 0.0000 2 13 0.0000 2 14 0.0000 2 15 0.0000 2 16 0.0000 2 17 0.0000 2 18 0.0000 2 19 0.0000 2 20 0.0000 2 21 0.0000 2 22 0.0000 2 23 0.0000 2 24 0.0000
0.926 0.926 0.926 0.926 0.926 0.729 0.729 0.729 0.926 0.926 0.926 0.926 0.926 0.926 0.926 0.926 0.926 0.926 0.926 0.926
0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048
0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008
2020 MOBILE6.2 Output Report (OH.RPT) *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: OH.SCN (file 3, run 1). * *************************************************************************** * Reading Hourly VMT distribution from the following external * data file: OHHVMT.D * Reading Hourly, Roadway, and Speed VMT dist. from the following external * data file: OHSVMT.D * Reading Hourly Roadway VMT distribution from the following external * data file: OHFVMT.D Reading User Supplied ROADWAY VMT Factors * Reading Registration Distributions from the following external * data file: OHREG.D M616 Comment: User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels. M601 Comment: User has enabled STAGE II REFUELING.
F-54
Ohio
Kentucky
* * * *
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Ohio Emissions - CY20xx File 3, Run 1, Scenario 1. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class LDDT12 HDDV DEFEAT DEVICE EFFECTS ARE PRESENT. THE REBUILD FRACTION IS 0.10. M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Nominal Fuel RVP: Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Ether Blend Market Share: 0.000 Ether Blend Oxygen Content: 0.000 Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2020 July Low 62.0 91.3 75. 7.8 8.0 30. No No No No Alcohol Blend Market Share: 0.420 Alcohol Blend Oxygen Content: 0.036 Alcohol Blend RVP Waiver: Yes
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b M 48 Warning:
Ohio
Kentucky
F-55
there are no sales for vehicle class LDDT12 M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Nominal Fuel RVP: Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Ether Blend Market Share: 0.000 Ether Blend Oxygen Content: 0.000 Vehicle Type: GVWR: 2020 July Low 47.0 64.0 75. 9.0 9.5 30. No No No No Alcohol Blend Market Share: 0.420 Alcohol Blend Oxygen Content: 0.036 Alcohol Blend RVP Waiver: Yes
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.2697 0.4367 0.1632 0.0361 0.0002 0.0024 0.0866 0.0051 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0036 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0120 ---------------0.0142 0.0035 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0087 0.0042 0.0177 -----0.0015 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0024 0.0061 0.0091 -----0.0008 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0018 0.0004 0.0008 0.0026 0.0001 0.0007 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0138 0.0116 0.0111 0.0294 0.0143 0.0065 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0112 0.0112 0.0112 0.0112 0.0213 0.0189 0.0185 0.0412 0.0206 0.0143 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0115 0.0096 0.0164 0.0084 0.0161 0.0377 0.0033 0.0115 NH3: 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.0222 ----------ECARBON: -----0.0196 0.0320 OCARBON: -----0.0154 0.0251 SO4: 0.0016 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0238 0.0394 0.0602 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.0322 0.0477 0.0685 SO2: 0.0252 0.0624 0.0440 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270
F-56
Ohio
Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Ohio Emissions - CY20xx File 3, Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: 2020 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns No
LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.2697 0.4367 0.1632 0.0361 0.0002 0.0024 0.0866 0.0051 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0036 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0120 ---------------0.0142 0.0035 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0087 0.0042 0.0177 -----0.0015 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0024 0.0061 0.0091 -----0.0008 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0018 0.0004 0.0008 0.0026 0.0001 0.0007 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0138 0.0116 0.0111 0.0294 0.0143 0.0065 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0112 0.0112 0.0112 0.0112 0.0213 0.0189 0.0185 0.0412 0.0206 0.0143 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0115 0.0096 0.0164 0.0084 0.0161 0.0377 0.0033 0.0115 NH3: 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.0222 ----------ECARBON: -----0.0196 0.0320 OCARBON: -----0.0154 0.0251 SO4: 0.0016 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0238 0.0394 0.0602 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.0322 0.0477 0.0685 SO2: 0.0252 0.0624 0.0440 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2030 VMT by Facilty Type (OHFVMT.D) VMT BY FACILITY 1 0.360 0.467 0.154 0.020 0.380 0.447 0.155 0.018 0.392 0.442 0.147 0.019 0.372 0.454 0.154 0.021 0.357 0.467 0.154 0.022 0.356 0.474 0.147 0.023 0.344 0.480 0.153 0.023 0.347 0.477 0.152 0.023 0.360 0.468 0.149 0.023 0.364 0.460 0.154 0.022 0.377 0.454 0.147 0.022 0.397 0.446 0.135 0.022 0.398 0.441 0.140 0.021 0.383 0.451 0.146 0.021 0.375 0.455 0.150 0.021 0.390 0.445 0.144 0.021 0.413 0.427 0.140 0.020 0.442 0.399 0.141 0.018 0.447 0.408 0.126 0.019 0.421 0.425 0.135 0.020 0.379 0.434 0.169 0.018 0.360 0.461 0.158 0.020 0.347 0.471 0.161 0.021 0.344 0.479 0.156 0.021 ... Identical distribution for all veh. types with the exception of diesel transit buses 26 0.179 0.747 0.054 0.020 0.179 0.747 0.054 0.020 0.179 0.747 0.054 0.020 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.179 0.747 0.054 0.020 0.179 0.747 0.054 0.020 0.179 0.747 0.054 0.020 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009
Ohio
Kentucky
F-57
0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 2030 VMT by SPEED VMT 1 1 0.0000 1 2 0.0000 1 3 0.0001 1 4 0.0000 1 5 0.0000 1 6 0.0000 1 7 0.0000 1 8 0.0000 1 9 0.0000 1 10 0.0000 1 11 0.0000 1 12 0.0000 1 13 0.0000 1 14 0.0000 1 15 0.0000 1 16 0.0000 1 17 0.0000 1 18 0.0000 1 19 0.0000 1 20 0.0000 1 21 0.0000 1 22 0.0000 1 23 0.0000 1 24 0.0000 2 1 0.0000 2 2 0.0001 2 3 0.0004 2 4 0.0001 2 5 0.0000 2 6 0.0000 2 7 0.0000 2 8 0.0000 2 9 0.0000 2 10 0.0000 2 11 0.0000 2 12 0.0000 2 13 0.0000 2 14 0.0000 2 15 0.0000 2 16 0.0000 2 17 0.0000 2 18 0.0000 2 19 0.0000 2 20 0.0000 2 21 0.0000 2 22 0.0000 2 23 0.0000 2 24 0.0000
0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925
0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042
0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009
2030 MOBILE6.2 Output Report (OH.RPT) *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: OH.SCN (file 3, run 1). * *************************************************************************** * Reading Hourly VMT distribution from the following external * data file: OHHVMT.D * Reading Hourly, Roadway, and Speed VMT dist. from the following external * data file: OHSVMT.D * Reading Hourly Roadway VMT distribution from the following external * data file: OHFVMT.D Reading User Supplied ROADWAY VMT Factors * Reading Registration Distributions from the following external * data file: OHREG.D M616 Comment: User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels. M601 Comment: User has enabled STAGE II REFUELING. * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Ohio Emissions - CY20xx File 3, Run 1, Scenario 1. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV
F-58
Ohio
Kentucky
* Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class LDDT12 HDDV DEFEAT DEVICE EFFECTS ARE PRESENT. THE REBUILD FRACTION IS 0.10. M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Nominal Fuel RVP: Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Ether Blend Market Share: 0.000 Ether Blend Oxygen Content: 0.000 Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2030 July Low 62.0 91.3 75. 7.8 8.0 30. No No No No Alcohol Blend Market Share: 0.420 Alcohol Blend Oxygen Content: 0.036 Alcohol Blend RVP Waiver: Yes
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class LDDT12 M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Nominal Fuel RVP: Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: 2030 July Low 47.0 64.0 75. 9.0 9.5 30.
Ohio
Kentucky
F-59
Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Ether Blend Market Share: 0.000 Ether Blend Oxygen Content: 0.000 Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV
No No No No Alcohol Blend Market Share: 0.420 Alcohol Blend Oxygen Content: 0.036 Alcohol Blend RVP Waiver: Yes
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.2697 0.4367 0.1632 0.0361 0.0002 0.0024 0.0866 0.0051 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.339 0.388 0.445 0.404 0.285 0.051 0.109 0.248 2.09 0.376 Composite CO : 9.23 9.55 10.08 9.70 8.45 0.640 0.356 0.274 14.91 8.710 Composite NOX : 0.236 0.356 0.453 0.383 0.192 0.032 0.142 0.697 1.47 0.368 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.517 0.253 0.303 Composite CO : 16.03 0.351 0.414 Composite NOX : 0.418 0.814 1.384 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2030 MOBILE6.2 Particulate Matter Output Report (OH.PM) *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: OH.SCN (file 3, run 1). * *************************************************************************** * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Ohio Emissions - CY20xx File 3, Run 1, Scenario 1. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: 2030 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns No
LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.2697 0.4367 0.1632 0.0361 0.0002 0.0024 0.0866 0.0051 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0036 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0082 ---------------0.0142 0.0034 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0065 0.0034 0.0091 -----0.0008 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0018 0.0049 0.0046 -----0.0004 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0018 0.0004 0.0008 0.0026 0.0001 0.0007 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0101 0.0088 0.0092 0.0163 0.0143 0.0053 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0112 0.0112 0.0112 0.0112 0.0176 0.0162 0.0165 0.0281 0.0206 0.0130 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0115 0.0096 0.0164 0.0084 0.0161 0.0377 0.0033 0.0115 NH3: 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.0156 ----------ECARBON: -----0.0120 0.0169 OCARBON: -----0.0095 0.0133 SO4: 0.0018 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0174 0.0259 0.0333 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.0258 0.0342 0.0417 SO2: 0.0252 0.0623 0.0440 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Ohio Emissions - CY20xx File 3, Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: 2030 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns No Month: July
F-60
Ohio
Kentucky
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.2697 0.4367 0.1632 0.0361 0.0002 0.0024 0.0866 0.0051 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0036 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0082 ---------------0.0142 0.0034 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0065 0.0034 0.0091 -----0.0008 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0018 0.0049 0.0046 -----0.0004 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0018 0.0004 0.0008 0.0026 0.0001 0.0007 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0101 0.0088 0.0092 0.0163 0.0143 0.0053 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0112 0.0112 0.0112 0.0112 0.0176 0.0162 0.0165 0.0281 0.0206 0.0130 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0115 0.0096 0.0164 0.0084 0.0161 0.0377 0.0033 0.0115 NH3: 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0925 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.0156 ----------ECARBON: -----0.0120 0.0169 OCARBON: -----0.0095 0.0133 SO4: 0.0018 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0174 0.0259 0.0333 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.0258 0.0342 0.0417 SO2: 0.0252 0.0623 0.0440 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Exhibit C Kentucky MOBILE6.2 Input/Output Files MOBILE6.2 Input Files (KY.SCN) Same for all analysis years, except for calendar year value. * Mobile6 file for Boone, Campbell and Kenton counties * post 2005 analysis years, includes annual scenario * created 4/9/07,AJR, post 2005 ************************ Header Section ***************** MOBILE6 INPUT FILE : POLLUTANTS : HC NOx CO PARTICULATES : * PARTICULATES REPORTED IN *.PM FILE REPORT FILE : KY.RPT DATABASE OUTPUT : WITH FIELDNAMES : DATABASE EMISSIONS : 2211 1111 22 DAILY OUTPUT : EMISSIONS TABLE : kyemiss.tb1 RUN DATA ************************ Run Section ******************* VMT BY HOUR : KYHVMT.D SPEED VMT : KYSVMT.D VMT BY FACILITY : KYFVMT.D STAGE II REFUELING : 99 2 86. 86. EXPAND BUS EFS : REBUILD EFFECTS : 0.30 ********************* Summer Scenario Section **************** SCENARIO RECORD : KY EMISSIONS - CY20xx CALENDAR YEAR : 2010 EVALUATION MONTH : 7 FUEL RVP : 7.8 FUEL PROGRAM : 2 N PARTICLE SIZE : 2.5 MIN/MAX TEMP : 61.0 95.0 PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV DIESEL SULFUR : 43 ********************* Annual Scenario Section ***************** SCENARIO RECORD : KY EMISSIONS - CY20xx CALENDAR YEAR : 2010 EVALUATION MONTH : 7 FUEL RVP : 9.0 FUEL PROGRAM : 2 N PARTICLE SIZE : 2.5 MIN/MAX TEMP : 47.0 64.0 PARTICULATE EF : PMGZML.CSV PMGDR1.CSV PMGDR2.CSV PMDZML.CSV PMDDR1.CSV PMDDR2.CSV DIESEL SULFUR : 43 *********************************** END OF RUN ***************** END OF RUN VMT By Hour (all analysis years, KYHVMT.D) VMT BY HOUR 0.0478 0.0719 0.0796 0.0666 0.0563 0.0532 0.0545 0.0543 0.0515 0.0523 0.0560 0.0565 0.0504 0.0377 0.0266 0.0209 0.0197 0.0171 0.0142 0.0156 0.0188 0.0224 0.0251 0.0310 2008 VMT by Facilty Type (KYFVMT.D) VMT BY FACILITY
Vehicle Type: GVWR:
LDGV
Ohio
Kentucky
F-6
... Identical distribution for all veh. types with the exception of diesel transit buses 26 0.215 0.734 0.032 0.019 0.215 0.734 0.032 0.019 0.215 0.734 0.032 0.019 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.215 0.734 0.032 0.019 0.215 0.734 0.032 0.019 0.215 0.734 0.032 0.019 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007 0.029 0.927 0.037 0.007
1 0.465 0.485 0.496 0.473 0.457 0.458 0.443 0.445 0.460 0.461 0.476 0.502 0.500 0.483 0.472 0.488 0.511 0.536 0.549 0.524 0.473 0.460 0.446 0.444
0.349 0.332 0.328 0.341 0.353 0.357 0.365 0.364 0.354 0.349 0.342 0.331 0.329 0.339 0.344 0.335 0.319 0.297 0.297 0.312 0.330 0.349 0.359 0.363
0.156 0.155 0.147 0.155 0.157 0.151 0.157 0.156 0.152 0.157 0.149 0.136 0.140 0.147 0.152 0.146 0.141 0.139 0.125 0.135 0.169 0.160 0.164 0.160
0.031 0.028 0.029 0.031 0.033 0.034 0.035 0.035 0.034 0.033 0.033 0.032 0.031 0.031 0.032 0.031 0.030 0.027 0.029 0.029 0.028 0.031 0.032 0.033
2008 VMT by SPEED VMT 1 1 0.0000 1 2 0.0005 1 3 0.0005 1 4 0.0005 1 5 0.0006 1 6 0.0006 1 7 0.0006 1 8 0.0006 1 9 0.0006 1 10 0.0006 1 11 0.0006 1 12 0.0005 1 13 0.0000 1 14 0.0000 1 15 0.0000 1 16 0.0000 1 17 0.0000 1 18 0.0000 1 19 0.0000 1 20 0.0000 1 21 0.0000 1 22 0.0000 1 23 0.0000 1 24 0.0000 2 1 0.0000 2 2 0.0000 2 3 0.0000 2 4 0.0000 2 5 0.0000 2 6 0.0000 2 7 0.0000 2 8 0.0000 2 9 0.0000 2 10 0.0000 2 11 0.0000 2 12 0.0000 2 13 0.0000 2 14 0.0000 2 15 0.0000 2 16 0.0000 2 17 0.0000
Speed bin (KYSVMT.D) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0017 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0011 0.0014 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0054 0.0029 0.0002 0.0002 0.0034 0.0034 0.0002 0.0002 0.0033 0.0034 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0035 0.0034 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0878 0.0951 0.1001 0.1013 0.0939 0.0891 0.0913 0.0949 0.0916 0.0958 0.0921 0.0871 0.0859 0.0862 0.0886 0.0876 0.0889 0.0005 0.0000 0.0007 0.0005 0.0006 0.0000 0.0010 0.0003 0.0006 0.0006 0.0009 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1173 0.1327 0.1357 0.1356 0.1295 0.1199 0.1254 0.1248 0.1229 0.1281 0.1291 0.1196 0.1166 0.1143 0.1168 0.1155 0.1172 0.0000 0.0007 0.0016 0.0012 0.0003 0.0009 0.0013 0.0017 0.0003 0.0003 0.0011 0.0010 0.0005 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0860 0.1120 0.1249 0.1061 0.0953 0.0926 0.1004 0.0985 0.0924 0.0960 0.0996 0.0972 0.0893 0.0764 0.0699 0.0686 0.0696 0.0008 0.0042 0.0070 0.0077 0.0069 0.0063 0.0079 0.0075 0.0066 0.0064 0.0069 0.0065 0.0040 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2586 0.2345 0.2257 0.2301 0.2376 0.2407 0.2310 0.2308 0.2393 0.2353 0.2311 0.2366 0.2462 0.2602 0.2622 0.2614 0.2613 0.0172 0.0123 0.0097 0.0146 0.0138 0.0148 0.0148 0.0145 0.0145 0.0141 0.0130 0.0122 0.0141 0.0176 0.0191 0.0183 0.0165 0.0146 0.0150 0.0158 0.0165 0.0187 0.0197 0.0210 0.1968 0.1827 0.1672 0.1849 0.1963 0.2036 0.2037 0.2032 0.2031 0.1995 0.2023 0.2074 0.2065 0.2095 0.2111 0.2137 0.2106 0.0230 0.0185 0.0192 0.0205 0.0228 0.0238 0.0244 0.0243 0.0237 0.0230 0.0215 0.0203 0.0205 0.0221 0.0238 0.0228 0.0206 0.0182 0.0186 0.0197 0.0205 0.0233 0.0245 0.0248 0.2242 0.2143 0.2095 0.2082 0.2157 0.2216 0.2123 0.2118 0.2181 0.2132 0.2102 0.2159 0.2236 0.2224 0.2201 0.2215 0.2211 0.0461 0.0434 0.0811 0.0481 0.0450 0.0443 0.0498 0.0489 0.0423 0.0417 0.0467 0.0483 0.0392 0.0381 0.0366 0.0363 0.0347 0.0331 0.0358 0.0376 0.0381 0.0395 0.0394 0.0401 0.0293 0.0285 0.0298 0.0307 0.0314 0.0323 0.0325 0.0326 0.0324 0.0318 0.0321 0.0328 0.0318 0.0309 0.0313 0.0317 0.0313 0.0403 0.0357 0.0782 0.0328 0.0442 0.0465 0.0424 0.0421 0.0465 0.0452 0.0374 0.0352 0.0428 0.0443 0.0464 0.0444 0.0404 0.0356 0.0370 0.0393 0.0408 0.0463 0.0485 0.0504 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0553 0.0628 0.1092 0.0876 0.0576 0.0581 0.0592 0.0594 0.0586 0.0584 0.0637 0.0623 0.0565 0.0571 0.0582 0.0578 0.0571 0.0563 0.0556 0.0555 0.0559 0.0569 0.0575 0.0578 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1841 0.1884 0.0688 0.1685 0.1850 0.1844 0.1839 0.1852 0.1866 0.1880 0.1940 0.1921 0.1893 0.1902 0.1913 0.1927 0.1969 0.2016 0.1972 0.1935 0.1920 0.1873 0.1864 0.1844 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6327 0.6290 0.6192 0.6175 0.6233 0.6202 0.6148 0.6147 0.6197 0.6218 0.6143 0.6206 0.6326 0.6295 0.6246 0.6277 0.6337 0.6406 0.6409 0.6386 0.6362 0.6280 0.6240 0.6214 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
F-62
Ohio
Kentucky
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0953 0.0867 0.0884 0.1038 0.0916 0.0911 0.0876
0.1250 0.1138 0.1164 0.1362 0.1213 0.1207 0.1163
0.0690 0.0651 0.0680 0.0747 0.0746 0.0755 0.0737
0.2606 0.2572 0.2586 0.2631 0.2639 0.2647 0.2636
0.2060 0.2168 0.2108 0.1894 0.2008 0.2005 0.2055
0.2135 0.2277 0.2260 0.2045 0.2180 0.2178 0.2228
0.0306 0.0326 0.0317 0.0283 0.0298 0.0297 0.0305
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
2008 MOBILE6.2 Output Report (KY.RPT) *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: KY.SCN (file 2, run 1). * *************************************************************************** * Reading Hourly VMT distribution from the following external * data file: KYHVMT.D * Reading Hourly, Roadway, and Speed VMT dist. from the following external * data file: KYSVMT.D * Reading Hourly Roadway VMT distribution from the following external * data file: KYFVMT.D Reading User Supplied ROADWAY VMT Factors M601 Comment: User has enabled STAGE II REFUELING. * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # KY EMISSIONS - CY20xx File 2, Run 1, Scenario 1. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # M616 Comment: User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels.
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b HDDV DEFEAT DEVICE EFFECTS ARE PRESENT. THE REBUILD FRACTION IS 0.30. M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2008 July Low 61.0 95.0 75. 30. No No No Yes
(F) (F) grains/lb ppm
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3728 0.3705 0.1273 0.0359 0.0004 0.0019 0.0857 0.0055 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.755 0.785 1.274 0.910 1.012 0.285 0.545 0.441 2.27 0.823 Composite CO : 9.14 10.49 14.08 11.41 11.84 1.122 0.950 2.422 17.08 9.816 Composite NOX : 0.691 0.869 1.248 0.966 3.049 0.805 1.105 10.462 1.29 1.754 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0009 0.0017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 5.487 0.366 0.633 Composite CO : 83.00 3.367 2.424 Composite NOX : 7.953 13.777 12.473 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # KY EMISSIONS - CY20xx File 2, Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
Ohio
Kentucky
F-63
M616 Comment:
User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels.
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: 2008 July Low 47.0 64.0 75. 30. No No No Yes
LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3728 0.3705 0.1273 0.0359 0.0004 0.0019 0.0857 0.0055 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.725 0.791 1.289 0.918 0.890 0.285 0.545 0.441 2.06 0.810 Composite CO : 11.84 14.13 18.63 15.28 12.24 1.122 0.950 2.422 14.55 12.751 Composite NOX : 0.684 0.910 1.312 1.013 3.145 0.805 1.105 10.462 1.52 1.779 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0009 0.0017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 4.754 0.366 0.633 Composite CO : 76.47 3.367 2.424 Composite NOX : 8.942 13.777 12.473 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2008 MOBILE6.2 Particulate Matter Output Report (KY.PM) *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: KY.SCN (file 2, run 1). * *************************************************************************** * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # KY EMISSIONS - CY20xx File 2, Run 1, Scenario 1. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2008 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns Yes
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3728 0.3705 0.1273 0.0359 0.0004 0.0019 0.0857 0.0055 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0038 0.0039 0.0044 0.0040 0.0427 ---------------0.0142 0.0050 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0574 0.0310 0.1336 -----0.0115 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0162 0.0446 0.0675 -----0.0059 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0014 0.0004 0.0008 0.0027 0.0001 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0041 0.0044 0.0049 0.0045 0.0442 0.0740 0.0764 0.2037 0.0143 0.0230 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0114 0.0117 0.0122 0.0118 0.0517 0.0813 0.0837 0.2155 0.0206 0.0308 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0114 0.0095 0.0168 0.0085 0.0159 0.0379 0.0033 0.0111 NH3: 0.1017 0.1011 0.0996 0.1007 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0921 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL
F-64
Ohio
Kentucky
---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0009 0.0017 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.1035 ----------ECARBON: -----0.1526 0.3108 OCARBON: -----0.1199 0.2442 SO4: 0.0004 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.1039 0.2769 0.5581 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.1123 0.2853 0.5664 SO2: 0.0263 0.0628 0.0439 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # KY EMISSIONS - CY20xx File 2, Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: 2008 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns Yes
LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3728 0.3705 0.1273 0.0359 0.0004 0.0019 0.0857 0.0055 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0038 0.0039 0.0044 0.0040 0.0427 ---------------0.0142 0.0050 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0574 0.0310 0.1336 -----0.0115 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0162 0.0446 0.0675 -----0.0059 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0014 0.0004 0.0008 0.0027 0.0001 0.0006 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0041 0.0044 0.0049 0.0045 0.0442 0.0740 0.0764 0.2037 0.0143 0.0230 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0114 0.0117 0.0122 0.0118 0.0517 0.0813 0.0837 0.2155 0.0206 0.0308 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0114 0.0095 0.0168 0.0085 0.0159 0.0379 0.0033 0.0111 NH3: 0.1017 0.1011 0.0996 0.1007 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0921 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0009 0.0017 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.1035 ----------ECARBON: -----0.1526 0.3108 OCARBON: -----0.1199 0.2442 SO4: 0.0004 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.1039 0.2769 0.5581 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.1123 0.2853 0.5664 SO2: 0.0263 0.0628 0.0439 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2010 VMT by Facilty Type (KYFVMT.D) VMT BY FACILITY 1 0.422 0.307 0.239 0.031 0.442 0.289 0.240 0.029 0.452 0.291 0.227 0.030 0.426 0.302 0.240 0.032 0.410 0.314 0.242 0.033 0.411 0.322 0.232 0.035 0.396 0.327 0.241 0.036 0.398 0.326 0.240 0.036 0.412 0.318 0.235 0.035 0.413 0.311 0.243 0.033 0.427 0.308 0.231 0.033 0.453 0.303 0.211 0.033 0.452 0.299 0.217 0.032 0.437 0.305 0.226 0.032 0.424 0.309 0.234 0.033 0.440 0.303 0.225 0.032 0.463 0.288 0.219 0.030 0.488 0.266 0.219 0.028 0.501 0.272 0.197 0.030 0.478 0.281 0.211 0.030 0.427 0.281 0.263 0.028 0.415 0.307 0.247 0.032 0.401 0.315 0.252 0.032 0.400 0.322 0.245 0.034 ... Identical distribution for all veh. types with the exception of diesel transit buses 26 0.197 0.762 0.023 0.018 0.197 0.762 0.023 0.018 0.197 0.762 0.023 0.018
Ohio
Kentucky
F-65
0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.197 0.197 0.197 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.045 2010 VMT by SPEED VMT 1 1 0.0000 1 2 0.0005 1 3 0.0005 1 4 0.0005 1 5 0.0006 1 6 0.0006 1 7 0.0006 1 8 0.0006 1 9 0.0006 1 10 0.0006 1 11 0.0006 1 12 0.0005 1 13 0.0005 1 14 0.0000 1 15 0.0000 1 16 0.0000 1 17 0.0000 1 18 0.0000 1 19 0.0000 1 20 0.0000 1 21 0.0000 1 22 0.0000 1 23 0.0000 1 24 0.0000 2 1 0.0000 2 2 0.0000 2 3 0.0000 2 4 0.0000 2 5 0.0000 2 6 0.0000 2 7 0.0000 2 8 0.0000 2 9 0.0000 2 10 0.0000 2 11 0.0000 2 12 0.0000 2 13 0.0000 2 14 0.0000 2 15 0.0000 2 16 0.0000 2 17 0.0000 2 18 0.0000 2 19 0.0000 2 20 0.0000 2 21 0.0000 2 22 0.0000 2 23 0.0000 2 24 0.0000
0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.762 0.762 0.762 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921
0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009
Speed bin (KYSVMT.D) 0.0000 0.0011 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0034 0.0034 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0056 0.0001 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0004 0.0000 0.0011 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0006 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0006 0.0005 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.3077 0.3214 0.3160 0.3285 0.3165 0.3041 0.3145 0.3144 0.3103 0.3217 0.3167 0.3013 0.3034 0.3040 0.3108 0.3084 0.3117 0.3288 0.3060 0.3105 0.3497 0.3185 0.3168 0.3077 0.0000 0.0005 0.0002 0.0012 0.0006 0.0006 0.0003 0.0003 0.0006 0.0006 0.0002 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0881 0.1020 0.1020 0.0953 0.0965 0.0904 0.0904 0.0905 0.0933 0.0963 0.0925 0.0871 0.0874 0.0863 0.0875 0.0868 0.0877 0.0919 0.0857 0.0872 0.0978 0.0901 0.0898 0.0873 0.0000 0.0003 0.0017 0.0016 0.0005 0.0000 0.0021 0.0021 0.0002 0.0002 0.0018 0.0017 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0636 0.0767 0.0889 0.0814 0.0653 0.0629 0.0708 0.0718 0.0602 0.0627 0.0702 0.0697 0.0659 0.0589 0.0538 0.0528 0.0534 0.0518 0.0502 0.0522 0.0549 0.0570 0.0578 0.0570 0.0009 0.0057 0.0091 0.0108 0.0081 0.0086 0.0082 0.0083 0.0081 0.0079 0.0072 0.0068 0.0037 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.1761 0.1557 0.1565 0.1579 0.1623 0.1666 0.1610 0.1625 0.1665 0.1613 0.1621 0.1683 0.1647 0.1742 0.1740 0.1736 0.1731 0.1698 0.1707 0.1714 0.1688 0.1746 0.1756 0.1761 0.0183 0.0111 0.0106 0.0124 0.0129 0.0128 0.0152 0.0158 0.0130 0.0126 0.0139 0.0131 0.0145 0.0176 0.0196 0.0182 0.0165 0.0146 0.0150 0.0158 0.0165 0.0187 0.0196 0.0208 0.1396 0.1334 0.1232 0.1294 0.1426 0.1509 0.1468 0.1459 0.1484 0.1436 0.1445 0.1509 0.1545 0.1494 0.1496 0.1518 0.1491 0.1434 0.1544 0.1495 0.1291 0.1412 0.1412 0.1460 0.0252 0.0182 0.0368 0.0183 0.0229 0.0246 0.0229 0.0211 0.0236 0.0230 0.0189 0.0178 0.0202 0.0216 0.0227 0.0223 0.0202 0.0178 0.0183 0.0193 0.0201 0.0229 0.0240 0.0243 0.2015 0.1884 0.1839 0.1829 0.1916 0.1991 0.1902 0.1885 0.1952 0.1889 0.1879 0.1957 0.1985 0.2022 0.1992 0.2011 0.1998 0.1902 0.2067 0.2038 0.1780 0.1950 0.1952 0.2013 0.0435 0.0449 0.0744 0.0503 0.0505 0.0477 0.0543 0.0541 0.0486 0.0478 0.0515 0.0529 0.0411 0.0394 0.0379 0.0375 0.0359 0.0342 0.0369 0.0388 0.0393 0.0409 0.0408 0.0415 0.0234 0.0225 0.0237 0.0243 0.0250 0.0261 0.0261 0.0262 0.0260 0.0253 0.0258 0.0267 0.0257 0.0249 0.0251 0.0255 0.0250 0.0241 0.0262 0.0254 0.0217 0.0236 0.0236 0.0245 0.0390 0.0340 0.0742 0.0302 0.0372 0.0415 0.0369 0.0368 0.0395 0.0384 0.0326 0.0307 0.0405 0.0430 0.0449 0.0431 0.0392 0.0345 0.0359 0.0382 0.0396 0.0449 0.0470 0.0488 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0599 0.0912 0.1019 0.0989 0.0627 0.0634 0.0647 0.0650 0.0639 0.0635 0.0685 0.0699 0.0665 0.0618 0.0632 0.0626 0.0614 0.0602 0.0596 0.0596 0.0601 0.0617 0.0626 0.0630 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1779 0.1574 0.0755 0.1577 0.1787 0.1781 0.1776 0.1789 0.1803 0.1816 0.1875 0.1844 0.1775 0.1838 0.1849 0.1863 0.1905 0.1951 0.1907 0.1871 0.1856 0.1809 0.1800 0.1781 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6349 0.6319 0.6097 0.6175 0.6253 0.6221 0.6165 0.6165 0.6216 0.6238 0.6168 0.6213 0.6349 0.6318 0.6268 0.6300 0.6362 0.6435 0.6436 0.6412 0.6387 0.6301 0.6261 0.6234 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
2010 MOBILE6.2 Output Report (OH.RPT) *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: OH.SCN (file 3, run 1). * *************************************************************************** * Reading Hourly VMT distribution from the following external * data file: OHHVMT.D * Reading Hourly, Roadway, and Speed VMT dist. from the following external * data file: OHSVMT.D * Reading Hourly Roadway VMT distribution from the following external * data file: OHFVMT.D Reading User Supplied ROADWAY VMT Factors * Reading Registration Distributions from the following external * data file: OHREG.D M616 Comment: User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels. M601 Comment: User has enabled STAGE II REFUELING.
F-66
Ohio
Kentucky
* * * *
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Ohio Emissions - CY20xx File 3, Run 1, Scenario 1. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b HDDV DEFEAT DEVICE EFFECTS ARE PRESENT. THE REBUILD FRACTION IS 0.30. M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Nominal Fuel RVP: Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Ether Blend Market Share: 0.000 Ether Blend Oxygen Content: 0.000 Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2010 July Low 61.0 95.0 75. 7.8 7.9 30. No No Yes No Alcohol Blend Market Share: 0.420 Alcohol Blend Oxygen Content: 0.036 Alcohol Blend RVP Waiver: Yes
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds
Ohio
Kentucky
F-67
the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Nominal Fuel RVP: Weathered RVP: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Ether Blend Market Share: 0.000 Ether Blend Oxygen Content: 0.000 Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2010 July Low 47.0 64.0 75. 9.0 9.5 30. No No Yes No Alcohol Blend Market Share: 0.420 Alcohol Blend Oxygen Content: 0.036 Alcohol Blend RVP Waiver: Yes
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3376 0.3884 0.1452 0.0357 0.0003 0.0021 0.0853 0.0054 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.692 0.645 0.845 0.699 0.816 0.191 0.387 0.400 2.08 0.682 Composite CO : 11.79 12.91 14.40 13.31 10.12 0.991 0.664 1.857 14.89 11.687 Composite NOX : 0.606 0.810 1.157 0.904 2.324 0.487 0.795 7.943 1.48 1.458 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0009 0.0018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 3.171 0.298 0.600 Composite CO : 30.25 2.609 2.191 Composite NOX : 7.422 11.766 10.668 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2010 MOBILE6.2 Particulate Matter Output Report (KY.PM) *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: KY.SCN (file 2, run 1). * *************************************************************************** * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # KY EMISSIONS - CY20xx File 2, Run 1, Scenario 1. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: 2010 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns Yes
LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3478 0.3890 0.1336 0.0359 0.0003 0.0020 0.0860 0.0054 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0037 0.0037 0.0040 0.0038 0.0327 ---------------0.0142 0.0045 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0367 0.0220 0.0976 -----0.0084 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0103 0.0317 0.0496 -----0.0043 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0004 0.0008 0.0026 0.0001 0.0007 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0040 0.0042 0.0045 0.0043 0.0342 0.0474 0.0546 0.1499 0.0143 0.0179 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0114 0.0115 0.0118 0.0116 0.0417 0.0548 0.0619 0.1617 0.0206 0.0257 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0114 0.0095 0.0167 0.0084 0.0160 0.0378 0.0033 0.0112 NH3: 0.1017 0.1014 0.1006 0.1012 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0923 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0010 0.0018 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.0780 ----------ECARBON: -----0.0994 0.2774 OCARBON: -----0.0781 0.2179 SO4: 0.0006 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0786 0.1820 0.4984 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.0869 0.1903 0.5067 SO2: 0.0261 0.0626 0.0439 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
F-68
Ohio
Kentucky
* KY EMISSIONS - CY20xx * File 2, Run 1, Scenario 2. * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2010 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns Yes
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.3478 0.3890 0.1336 0.0359 0.0003 0.0020 0.0860 0.0054 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0037 0.0037 0.0040 0.0038 0.0327 ---------------0.0142 0.0045 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0367 0.0220 0.0976 -----0.0084 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0103 0.0317 0.0496 -----0.0043 SO4: 0.0003 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0015 0.0004 0.0008 0.0026 0.0001 0.0007 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0040 0.0042 0.0045 0.0043 0.0342 0.0474 0.0546 0.1499 0.0143 0.0179 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0114 0.0115 0.0118 0.0116 0.0417 0.0548 0.0619 0.1617 0.0206 0.0257 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0114 0.0095 0.0167 0.0084 0.0160 0.0378 0.0033 0.0112 NH3: 0.1017 0.1014 0.1006 0.1012 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0923 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0002 0.0010 0.0018 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.0780 ----------ECARBON: -----0.0994 0.2774 OCARBON: -----0.0781 0.2179 SO4: 0.0006 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0786 0.1820 0.4984 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.0869 0.1903 0.5067 SO2: 0.0261 0.0626 0.0439 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2020 VMT by Facilty Type (KYFVMT.D) VMT BY FACILITY 1 0.330 0.276 0.368 0.026 0.346 0.260 0.369 0.024 0.356 0.264 0.354 0.025 0.332 0.270 0.372 0.027 0.319 0.279 0.374 0.028 0.321 0.288 0.361 0.029 0.307 0.290 0.373 0.030 0.308 0.290 0.372 0.030 0.321 0.284 0.366 0.029 0.320 0.276 0.377 0.028 0.335 0.277 0.361 0.028 0.361 0.277 0.334 0.028 0.359 0.272 0.342 0.027 0.344 0.276 0.353 0.027 0.332 0.277 0.364 0.027 0.346 0.274 0.353 0.027 0.367 0.262 0.345 0.026 0.387 0.242 0.347 0.024 0.405 0.252 0.318 0.026 0.381 0.257 0.335 0.026 0.327 0.248 0.402 0.023 0.321 0.274 0.379 0.026 0.309 0.279 0.385 0.027 0.310 0.287 0.375 0.028
... Identical distribution for all veh. types with the exception of diesel transit buses 26 0.204 0.729 0.047 0.021 0.204 0.729 0.047 0.021 0.204 0.729 0.047 0.021 0.018 0.926 0.048 0.008 0.018 0.926 0.048 0.008 0.018 0.926 0.048 0.008 0.018 0.926 0.048 0.008 0.018 0.926 0.048 0.008 0.018 0.926 0.048 0.008 0.204 0.729 0.047 0.021 0.204 0.729 0.047 0.021 0.204 0.729 0.047 0.021 0.018 0.926 0.048 0.008 0.018 0.926 0.048 0.008 0.018 0.926 0.048 0.008 0.018 0.926 0.048 0.008 0.018 0.926 0.048 0.008 0.018 0.926 0.048 0.008
Ohio
Kentucky
F-69
0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 2020 VMT by SPEED VMT 1 1 0.0006 1 2 0.0005 1 3 0.0005 1 4 0.0006 1 5 0.0007 1 6 0.0007 1 7 0.0007 1 8 0.0007 1 9 0.0007 1 10 0.0007 1 11 0.0006 1 12 0.0006 1 13 0.0006 1 14 0.0000 1 15 0.0000 1 16 0.0000 1 17 0.0000 1 18 0.0000 1 19 0.0000 1 20 0.0000 1 21 0.0000 1 22 0.0000 1 23 0.0000 1 24 0.0000 2 1 0.0000 2 2 0.0000 2 3 0.0000 2 4 0.0000 2 5 0.0000 2 6 0.0000 2 7 0.0000 2 8 0.0000 2 9 0.0000 2 10 0.0000 2 11 0.0000 2 12 0.0000 2 13 0.0000 2 14 0.0000 2 15 0.0000 2 16 0.0000 2 17 0.0000 2 18 0.0000 2 19 0.0000 2 20 0.0000 2 21 0.0000 2 22 0.0000 2 23 0.0000 2 24 0.0000
0.926 0.926 0.926 0.926 0.926 0.926
0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.048
0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008
Speed bin (KYSVMT.D) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0032 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0006 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 0.0000 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0028 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0035 0.0013 0.0000 0.0005 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0044 0.0049 0.0029 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0006 0.0242 0.0015 0.0000 0.0003 0.0006 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0007 0.4805 0.4967 0.4911 0.4987 0.4940 0.4772 0.4879 0.4883 0.4856 0.5004 0.4916 0.4710 0.4763 0.4769 0.4852 0.4826 0.4864 0.5065 0.4800 0.4850 0.5294 0.4937 0.4917 0.4812 0.0000 0.0004 0.0049 0.0022 0.0005 0.0005 0.0014 0.0017 0.0005 0.0005 0.0013 0.0012 0.0002 0.0000 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0618 0.0694 0.0721 0.0731 0.0656 0.0640 0.0654 0.0655 0.0649 0.0658 0.0649 0.0641 0.0616 0.0606 0.0610 0.0606 0.0611 0.0630 0.0599 0.0608 0.0660 0.0625 0.0624 0.0611 0.0000 0.0008 0.0041 0.0040 0.0027 0.0025 0.0037 0.0034 0.0028 0.0027 0.0033 0.0031 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0543 0.0638 0.0732 0.0605 0.0566 0.0530 0.0544 0.0556 0.0503 0.0512 0.0570 0.0546 0.0529 0.0443 0.0400 0.0394 0.0397 0.0378 0.0374 0.0388 0.0395 0.0422 0.0429 0.0427 0.0013 0.0084 0.0330 0.0094 0.0089 0.0091 0.0104 0.0104 0.0092 0.0089 0.0092 0.0087 0.0082 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.1252 0.1095 0.1131 0.1103 0.1153 0.1198 0.1174 0.1183 0.1190 0.1142 0.1153 0.1244 0.1194 0.1291 0.1279 0.1276 0.1272 0.1232 0.1252 0.1258 0.1218 0.1286 0.1296 0.1305 0.0182 0.0197 0.0190 0.0269 0.0132 0.0141 0.0145 0.0154 0.0136 0.0132 0.0137 0.0129 0.0129 0.0188 0.0200 0.0198 0.0175 0.0154 0.0158 0.0167 0.0174 0.0199 0.0211 0.0214 0.1022 0.0940 0.0874 0.0921 0.1004 0.1069 0.1036 0.1021 0.1068 0.1020 0.1024 0.1078 0.1111 0.1101 0.1098 0.1116 0.1093 0.1038 0.1137 0.1097 0.0919 0.1029 0.1030 0.1073 0.0280 0.0353 0.0329 0.0312 0.0265 0.0275 0.0234 0.0223 0.0247 0.0240 0.0197 0.0413 0.0208 0.0248 0.0264 0.0253 0.0235 0.0208 0.0213 0.0224 0.0234 0.0263 0.0271 0.0281 0.1400 0.1279 0.1199 0.1268 0.1319 0.1408 0.1335 0.1326 0.1361 0.1306 0.1320 0.1394 0.1419 0.1431 0.1405 0.1421 0.1402 0.1318 0.1449 0.1418 0.1204 0.1356 0.1361 0.1412 0.0453 0.0545 0.1035 0.0554 0.0545 0.0542 0.0592 0.0591 0.0557 0.0548 0.0782 0.0605 0.0508 0.0411 0.0396 0.0392 0.0376 0.0358 0.0386 0.0405 0.0410 0.0426 0.0425 0.0433 0.0361 0.0344 0.0355 0.0355 0.0361 0.0382 0.0376 0.0374 0.0372 0.0357 0.0366 0.0384 0.0367 0.0359 0.0356 0.0362 0.0361 0.0339 0.0390 0.0382 0.0310 0.0346 0.0344 0.0361 0.0396 0.0522 0.0306 0.0559 0.0316 0.0332 0.0329 0.0318 0.0325 0.0316 0.0329 0.0367 0.0461 0.0423 0.0443 0.0424 0.0388 0.0342 0.0355 0.0377 0.0391 0.0441 0.0462 0.0480 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0619 0.0986 0.0660 0.1045 0.0908 0.0793 0.0897 0.0934 0.0924 0.0922 0.0948 0.1084 0.0758 0.0641 0.0657 0.0650 0.0636 0.0622 0.0615 0.0616 0.0622 0.0639 0.0650 0.0654 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1413 0.0625 0.0418 0.0592 0.1163 0.1282 0.1189 0.1165 0.1175 0.1184 0.1001 0.0738 0.1193 0.1465 0.1474 0.1486 0.1522 0.1562 0.1524 0.1492 0.1480 0.1440 0.1432 0.1416 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6640 0.6630 0.6350 0.6488 0.6537 0.6502 0.6441 0.6442 0.6499 0.6524 0.6451 0.6519 0.6646 0.6613 0.6560 0.6596 0.6669 0.6754 0.6750 0.6719 0.6690 0.6592 0.6547 0.6515 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV
F-70
Ohio
Kentucky
* Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class LDDT12 HDDV DEFEAT DEVICE EFFECTS ARE PRESENT. THE REBUILD FRACTION IS 0.30. M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: 2020 July Low 61.0 95.0 75. 30. No No No Yes
LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.2788 0.4388 0.1507 0.0365 0.0003 0.0022 0.0876 0.0051 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.357 0.448 0.715 0.516 0.461 0.076 0.245 0.344 2.51 0.464 Composite CO : 5.90 6.66 8.61 7.16 9.63 0.789 0.570 0.646 19.84 6.375 Composite NOX : 0.277 0.377 0.664 0.450 0.568 0.073 0.304 1.961 1.17 0.542 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.989 0.307 0.497 Composite CO : 17.35 0.930 1.178 Composite NOX : 2.075 3.003 4.827 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # KY EMISSIONS - CY20xx File 2, Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # M616 Comment: User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels.
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class LDDT12 M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV -----2020 July Low 47.0 64.0 75. 30. No No No Yes LDGT12 <6000 -----LDGT34 >6000 -----LDGT (All) -----HDGV -----LDDV -----LDDT -----HDDV -----MC -----All Veh ------
Ohio
Kentucky
F-7
VMT Distribution: 0.2788 0.4388 0.1507 0.0365 0.0003 0.0022 0.0876 0.0051 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.353 0.452 0.728 0.523 0.425 0.076 0.245 0.344 2.29 0.465 Composite CO : 8.65 9.12 11.44 9.71 10.53 0.789 0.570 0.646 16.82 8.667 Composite NOX : 0.258 0.385 0.683 0.462 0.578 0.073 0.304 1.961 1.38 0.545 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.925 0.307 0.497 Composite CO : 18.97 0.930 1.178 Composite NOX : 2.113 3.003 4.827 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2020 MOBILE6.2 Particulate Matter Output Report (KY.PM) *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: KY.SCN (file 2, run 1). * *************************************************************************** * * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # KY EMISSIONS - CY20xx File 2, Run 1, Scenario 1. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2020 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns Yes
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.2788 0.4388 0.1507 0.0365 0.0003 0.0022 0.0876 0.0051 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0035 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0122 ---------------0.0142 0.0035 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0090 0.0062 0.0177 -----0.0016 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0025 0.0089 0.0091 -----0.0008 SO4: 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0016 0.0004 0.0008 0.0026 0.0001 0.0007 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0138 0.0120 0.0159 0.0294 0.0143 0.0066 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0112 0.0113 0.0113 0.0113 0.0213 0.0193 0.0233 0.0412 0.0206 0.0143 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0165 0.0084 0.0161 0.0377 0.0033 0.0114 NH3: 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.0223 ----------ECARBON: -----0.0196 0.0320 OCARBON: -----0.0154 0.0251 SO4: 0.0014 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0238 0.0394 0.0602 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.0321 0.0477 0.0685 SO2: 0.0253 0.0624 0.0440 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # KY EMISSIONS - CY20xx File 2, Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: 2020 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns Yes
LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.2788 0.4388 0.1507 0.0365 0.0003 0.0022 0.0876 0.0051 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0035 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0122 ---------------0.0142 0.0035 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0090 0.0062 0.0177 -----0.0016 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0025 0.0089 0.0091 -----0.0008 SO4: 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0016 0.0004 0.0008 0.0026 0.0001 0.0007
F-72
Ohio
Kentucky
Total Exhaust PM: 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0138 0.0120 0.0159 0.0294 0.0143 0.0066 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0112 0.0113 0.0113 0.0113 0.0213 0.0193 0.0233 0.0412 0.0206 0.0143 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0165 0.0084 0.0161 0.0377 0.0033 0.0114 NH3: 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.0223 ----------ECARBON: -----0.0196 0.0320 OCARBON: -----0.0154 0.0251 SO4: 0.0014 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0238 0.0394 0.0602 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.0321 0.0477 0.0685 SO2: 0.0253 0.0624 0.0440 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2030 VMT by Facilty Type (KYFVMT.D) VMT BY FACILITY 1 0.281 0.242 0.455 0.021 0.294 0.228 0.458 0.020 0.304 0.233 0.442 0.021 0.281 0.235 0.462 0.022 0.270 0.243 0.464 0.023 0.273 0.253 0.450 0.024 0.260 0.253 0.463 0.024 0.261 0.253 0.462 0.024 0.272 0.249 0.456 0.024 0.270 0.240 0.467 0.023 0.284 0.242 0.450 0.023 0.311 0.245 0.420 0.023 0.308 0.240 0.429 0.022 0.294 0.243 0.441 0.022 0.282 0.243 0.453 0.022 0.295 0.241 0.441 0.022 0.314 0.232 0.433 0.021 0.330 0.214 0.436 0.020 0.350 0.225 0.403 0.022 0.328 0.228 0.422 0.022 0.274 0.214 0.494 0.019 0.272 0.239 0.468 0.021 0.261 0.243 0.474 0.022 0.262 0.251 0.464 0.023 ... Identical distribution for all veh. types with the exception of diesel transit buses 26 0.179 0.747 0.054 0.020 0.179 0.747 0.054 0.020 0.179 0.747 0.054 0.020 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.179 0.747 0.054 0.020 0.179 0.747 0.054 0.020 0.179 0.747 0.054 0.020 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009 0.024 0.925 0.042 0.009
2030 VMT by SPEED VMT 1 1 0.0007 1 2 0.0008 1 3 0.0021 1 4 0.0018 1 5 0.0013 1 6 0.0014 1 7 0.0014 1 8 0.0014 1 9 0.0014 1 10 0.0013 1 11 0.0013 1 12 0.0012 1 13 0.0007 1 14 0.0007 1 15 0.0000
Speed bin (KYSVMT.D) 0.0000 0.0038 0.0031 0.0006 0.0013 0.0013 0.0014 0.0014 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0012 0.0005 0.0000 0.0007 0.0000 0.0008 0.0218 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000 0.0004 0.0013 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0006 0.0012 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0061 0.0003 0.0012 0.0007 0.0009 0.0002 0.0012 0.0012 0.0008 0.0004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0010 0.0063 0.0061 0.0002 0.0005 0.0020 0.0018 0.0002 0.0002 0.0017 0.0016 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0006 0.0305 0.0049 0.0033 0.0012 0.0047 0.0055 0.0013 0.0020 0.0041 0.0039 0.0001 0.0005 0.0000 0.0026 0.0175 0.0167 0.0150 0.0089 0.0113 0.0094 0.0097 0.0112 0.0102 0.0084 0.0168 0.0067 0.0012 0.0000 0.0203 0.0221 0.0368 0.0251 0.0128 0.0126 0.0141 0.0129 0.0123 0.0128 0.0125 0.0235 0.0129 0.0184 0.0193 0.0218 0.0223 0.0399 0.0229 0.0227 0.0244 0.0217 0.0193 0.0218 0.0203 0.0257 0.0209 0.0191 0.0220 0.0250 0.0789 0.0900 0.0860 0.0902 0.0918 0.0927 0.0958 0.0961 0.0930 0.0912 0.1046 0.0911 0.0935 0.0736 0.0737 0.0367 0.0517 0.0273 0.0606 0.0442 0.0293 0.0301 0.0393 0.0380 0.0455 0.0320 0.0593 0.0435 0.0413 0.0432 0.0455 0.1041 0.0497 0.0994 0.0572 0.0697 0.0698 0.0660 0.0621 0.0582 0.0941 0.0942 0.0742 0.0472 0.0478 0.1298 0.0319 0.1026 0.0246 0.1031 0.1067 0.1063 0.1032 0.1082 0.1050 0.0687 0.0336 0.0925 0.1347 0.1356 0.6633 0.6530 0.5710 0.6472 0.6521 0.6483 0.6417 0.6418 0.6480 0.6508 0.6444 0.6516 0.6541 0.6604 0.6547
Ohio
Kentucky
F-73
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0009 0.0033 0.0020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0025 0.0040 0.0006 0.0014 0.0001 0.0008 0.0008 0.0001 0.0009 0.0014 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0007 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.5863 0.6021 0.5970 0.6075 0.6000 0.5855 0.5950 0.5954 0.5945 0.6068 0.5969 0.5795 0.5837 0.5836 0.5920 0.5896 0.5931 0.6125 0.5873 0.5918 0.6336 0.5997 0.5977 0.5876
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0494 0.0559 0.0580 0.0575 0.0532 0.0507 0.0522 0.0531 0.0504 0.0531 0.0531 0.0516 0.0499 0.0478 0.0479 0.0476 0.0479 0.0489 0.0471 0.0477 0.0507 0.0488 0.0488 0.0481
0.0000 0.0006 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0407 0.0553 0.0657 0.0512 0.0422 0.0417 0.0451 0.0445 0.0415 0.0403 0.0458 0.0463 0.0406 0.0345 0.0307 0.0298 0.0300 0.0283 0.0281 0.0293 0.0296 0.0321 0.0327 0.0334
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0989 0.0809 0.0845 0.0883 0.0916 0.0962 0.0930 0.0937 0.0940 0.0895 0.0922 0.0987 0.0964 0.1009 0.0996 0.0998 0.0994 0.0955 0.0978 0.0983 0.0938 0.1004 0.1013 0.1016
0.0185 0.0169 0.0155 0.0153 0.0162 0.0175 0.0190 0.0199 0.0210 0.0818 0.0721 0.0614 0.0647 0.0766 0.0817 0.0769 0.0776 0.0805 0.0769 0.0758 0.0806 0.0829 0.0879 0.0875 0.0890 0.0870 0.0819 0.0908 0.0874 0.0719 0.0817 0.0819 0.0856
0.0239 0.0218 0.0193 0.0203 0.0214 0.0216 0.0245 0.0257 0.0263 0.1138 0.1028 0.0977 0.0998 0.1060 0.1134 0.1067 0.1047 0.1091 0.1041 0.1054 0.1121 0.1169 0.1164 0.1138 0.1152 0.1136 0.1058 0.1175 0.1149 0.0959 0.1095 0.1100 0.1147
0.0721 0.0674 0.0624 0.0656 0.0688 0.0705 0.0758 0.0773 0.0792 0.0291 0.0275 0.0285 0.0283 0.0289 0.0308 0.0302 0.0300 0.0299 0.0285 0.0294 0.0311 0.0296 0.0289 0.0285 0.0291 0.0290 0.0270 0.0314 0.0307 0.0245 0.0277 0.0275 0.0290
0.0414 0.0379 0.0335 0.0347 0.0368 0.0381 0.0430 0.0450 0.0467 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0479 0.0485 0.0491 0.0480 0.0473 0.0471 0.0466 0.0466 0.0464 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.1368 0.1403 0.1443 0.1406 0.1375 0.1363 0.1323 0.1315 0.1299 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.6587 0.6667 0.6760 0.6754 0.6720 0.6688 0.6581 0.6532 0.6498 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class LDDT12 HDDV DEFEAT DEVICE EFFECTS ARE PRESENT. THE REBUILD FRACTION IS 0.30. M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: 2030 July Low 61.0 95.0 75. 30. No
F-74
Ohio
Kentucky
Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR:
No No Yes
LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.2788 0.4388 0.1507 0.0365 0.0003 0.0022 0.0876 0.0051 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.334 0.401 0.562 0.442 0.358 0.061 0.145 0.336 2.59 0.410 Composite CO : 5.65 6.32 7.54 6.63 10.20 0.791 0.470 0.387 20.73 5.997 Composite NOX : 0.239 0.329 0.485 0.369 0.175 0.033 0.149 0.718 1.12 0.359 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.633 0.325 0.411 Composite CO : 19.35 0.483 0.586 Composite NOX : 0.380 0.888 1.424 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # KY EMISSIONS - CY20xx File 2, Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # M616 Comment: User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels.
* Reading PM Gas Carbon ZML Levels * from the external data file PMGZML.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR1 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR1.CSV * Reading PM Gas Carbon DR2 Levels * from the external data file PMGDR2.CSV * Reading PM Diesel Zero Mile Levels * from the external data file PMDZML.CSV * Reading the First PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR1.CSV * Reading the Second PM Deterioration Rates * from the external data file PMDDR2.CSV M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class LDDT12 M111 Warning: The input dIesel sulfur level of 43.0 ppm exceeds the 2007 HDD Rule diesel sulfur limit of 15 ppm. Calendar Year: Month: Altitude: Minimum Temperature: Maximum Temperature: Absolute Humidity: Fuel Sulfur Content: Exhaust I/M Program: Evap I/M Program: ATP Program: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: 2030 July Low 47.0 64.0 75. 30. No No No Yes
LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.2788 0.4388 0.1507 0.0365 0.0003 0.0022 0.0876 0.0051 1.0000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.331 0.405 0.572 0.448 0.333 0.061 0.145 0.336 2.38 0.410 Composite CO : 8.37 8.63 10.01 8.98 11.15 0.791 0.470 0.387 17.56 8.161 Composite NOX : 0.217 0.333 0.491 0.373 0.178 0.033 0.149 0.718 1.32 0.357 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Composite VOC : 0.575 0.325 0.411 Composite CO : 21.15 0.483 0.586 Composite NOX : 0.387 0.888 1.424 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2030 MOBILE6.2 Particulate Matter Output Report (KY.PM) *************************************************************************** * MOBILE6.2.03 (24-Sep-2003) * * Input file: KY.SCN (file 2, run 1). * *************************************************************************** * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
Ohio
Kentucky
F-75
* KY EMISSIONS - CY20xx * File 2, Run 1, Scenario 1. * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: LDGV 2030 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns Yes
LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.2788 0.4388 0.1507 0.0365 0.0003 0.0022 0.0876 0.0051 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0035 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0084 ---------------0.0142 0.0033 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0065 0.0034 0.0091 -----0.0008 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0018 0.0049 0.0046 -----0.0004 SO4: 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0016 0.0004 0.0008 0.0026 0.0001 0.0007 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0101 0.0088 0.0092 0.0163 0.0143 0.0053 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0112 0.0112 0.0112 0.0112 0.0175 0.0162 0.0165 0.0281 0.0207 0.0130 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0165 0.0084 0.0161 0.0377 0.0033 0.0114 NH3: 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.0158 ----------ECARBON: -----0.0120 0.0169 OCARBON: -----0.0095 0.0133 SO4: 0.0016 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0174 0.0259 0.0333 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.0257 0.0342 0.0416 SO2: 0.0252 0.0623 0.0440 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # KY EMISSIONS - CY20xx File 2, Run 1, Scenario 2. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Calendar Year: Month: Gasoline Fuel Sulfur Content: Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content: Particle Size Cutoff: Reformulated Gas: Vehicle Type: GVWR: 2030 July 30. ppm 43. ppm 2.50 Microns Yes
LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh <6000 >6000 (All) --------------------------------------------------VMT Distribution: 0.2788 0.4388 0.1507 0.0365 0.0003 0.0022 0.0876 0.0051 1.0000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ---------------0.0000 0.0000 GASPM: 0.0035 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0084 ---------------0.0142 0.0033 ECARBON: -------------------------0.0065 0.0034 0.0091 -----0.0008 OCARBON: -------------------------0.0018 0.0049 0.0046 -----0.0004 SO4: 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0016 0.0004 0.0008 0.0026 0.0001 0.0007 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 0.0101 0.0088 0.0092 0.0163 0.0143 0.0053 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0022 0.0020 0.0020 0.0065 0.0010 0.0024 Total PM: 0.0112 0.0112 0.0112 0.0112 0.0175 0.0162 0.0165 0.0281 0.0207 0.0130 SO2: 0.0068 0.0088 0.0115 0.0095 0.0165 0.0084 0.0161 0.0377 0.0033 0.0114 NH3: 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.1017 0.0451 0.0068 0.0068 0.0270 0.0113 0.0924 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Veh. Type: GasBUS URBAN SCHOOL ---------------VMT Mix: 0.0001 0.0010 0.0019 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite Emission Factors (g/mi): Lead: 0.0000 ----------GASPM: 0.0158 ----------ECARBON: -----0.0120 0.0169 OCARBON: -----0.0095 0.0133 SO4: 0.0016 0.0044 0.0031 Total Exhaust PM: 0.0174 0.0259 0.0333 Brake: 0.0053 0.0053 0.0053 Tire: 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 Total PM: 0.0257 0.0342 0.0416 SO2: 0.0252 0.0623 0.0440 NH3: 0.0451 0.0270 0.0270 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Exhibit D Air Quality Impact Summary Reports
F-76
Ohio
Kentucky
2008 Air Quality Impact Summary Report (R7803) DAILY AIR QUALITY IMPACT FOR OKI REGION SUMMARY 22-APR-08
County or Network Network Vehicle VOC CO NOX PM Summer Township Road Miles Lane Miles Miles (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) VMT ==================================================================================================================== Boone County 236.45 639.31 3845162 3.728 41.606 7.944 0.131 4108921 Butler County 567.07 1473.35 7580422 7.025 82.156 15.673 0.256 7956602 Campbell County 191.02 506.98 2402104 2.322 25.991 4.949 0.082 2559702 Clermont County 416.74 972.04 5266800 4.949 57.081 11.042 0.178 5605512 Dearborn County 144.53 342.91 1294996 1.696 15.333 2.576 0.044 1381355 Hamilton County 1019.54 3042.53 21759850 20.388 235.831 45.484 0.734 23090276 Kenton County 225.19 587.32 3941337 3.812 42.646 8.124 0.134 4201805 Warren County 387.13 987.90 5707817 5.381 61.861 12.004 0.193 6094075 Montgomery Cnty 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Greene County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Miami County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Clark County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Preble County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Clinton County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Lawrenceburg Twp 24.16 68.73 558085 0.715 6.608 1.085 0.019 582000 State ==================================================================================================================== IN Not AQ Region 144.53 342.91 1294996 1.696 15.333 2.576 0.044 1381355 KY - OKI Only 652.65 1733.61 10188606 9.862 110.243 21.017 0.346 10870430 OH - OKI Only 2390.48 6475.82 40314892 37.743 436.929 84.203 1.360 42746464 OH - MVRPC Only 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 OH - Other 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 IN NonAttainment 24.16 68.73 558085 0.715 6.608 1.085 0.019 582000 ==================================================================================================================== Region 3211.81 8621.07 52356576 50.016 569.113 108.882 1.769 55580248 AQ Region 2414.64 6544.55 40872976 38.458 443.537 85.289 1.379 43328464 Intra-Zonal VMT ==================================================================================================================== Boone County 23546 0.021 0.255 0.046 0.001 Butler County 30619 0.027 0.332 0.060 0.001 Campbell County 10402 0.009 0.113 0.020 0.000 Clermont County 35899 0.032 0.389 0.071 0.001 Dearborn County 22743 0.028 0.269 0.042 0.001 Hamilton County 45056 0.040 0.488 0.089 0.002 Kenton County 12530 0.011 0.136 0.024 0.000 Warren County 33655 0.030 0.365 0.066 0.001 Montgomery Cnty 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Greene County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Miami County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clark County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Preble County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clinton County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lawrenceburg Twp 3120 0.003 0.034 0.006 0.000 ==================================================================================================================== Total Intra-Zonal 217570 0.201 2.380 0.425 0.007 AQ Region Total Intra-Zonal 148349 0.131 1.608 0.292 0.005 * Note: VMT reflects yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for CO are based on yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for VOC and NOX include a factor to represent summer travel. Transit VMT ==================================================================================================================== IN Not AQ Region 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KY - OKI Only 11360 0.005 0.042 0.173 0.004 OH - OKI Only 33957 0.006 0.121 0.511 0.011 OH - MVRPC Only 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 OH - Other 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 IN NonAttainment 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ==================================================================================================================== Total Transit 45317 0.010 0.163 0.684 0.014 AQ Region Total Transit 33957 0.006 0.121 0.511 0.011 ==================================================================================================================== * Note: VMT reflects yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for CO are based on yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for VOC and NOX include a factor to represent summer travel. ANNUAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT FOR OKI REGION SUMMARY 22-APR-08
County or Network Network Vehicle VOC CO NOX PM NH3 Township Road Miles Lane Miles Miles (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) ==================================================================================================================== Boone County 236.45 639.31 1307355136. 1167.299 18375.598 2563.736 44.386 132.726 Butler County 567.07 1473.35 2577343744. 2255.779 37280.012 5182.040 86.936 262.795 Campbell County 191.02 506.98 816715584. 729.222 11479.391 1601.586 27.728 82.915 Clermont County 416.74 972.04 1790712064. 1567.292 25901.777 3600.429 60.402 182.588 Dearborn County 144.53 342.91 440298688. 480.978 6520.617 832.853 14.949 44.700 Hamilton County 1019.54 3042.53 7398348800. 6475.286 107013.547 14875.229 249.551 754.362 Kenton County 225.19 587.32 1340054784. 1196.496 18835.229 2627.863 45.496 136.046 Warren County 387.13 987.90 1940657792. 1698.529 28070.668 3901.912 65.460 197.877 Montgomery Cnty 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Greene County 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Miami County 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clark County 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Preble County 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clinton County 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Ohio
Kentucky
F-77
Lawrenceburg Twp
24.16
68.73
189749088.
207.280
2810.096
358.922
6.442
19.264
State ==================================================================================================================== IN Not AQ Region 144.53 342.91 440298688. 480.978 6520.617 832.853 14.949 44.700 KY - OKI Only 652.65 1733.61 3464125952. 3093.017 48690.219 6793.185 117.611 351.688 OH - OKI Only 2390.48 6475.82 13707063296. 11996.886 198265.984 27559.607 462.348 1397.621 OH - MVRPC Only 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 OH - Other 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 IN NonAttainment 24.16 68.73 189749088. 207.280 2810.096 358.922 6.442 19.264 ==================================================================================================================== Region 3211.81 8621.07 17801236480. 15778.161 256286.938 35544.570 601.350 1813.273 AQ Region 2414.64 6544.55 13896811520. 12204.166 201076.078 27918.529 468.790 1416.885 Intra-Zonal VMT ==================================================================================================================== Boone County 8005640 7.263 86.623 15.479 0.272 0.813 Butler County 10410460 9.192 112.828 20.507 0.351 1.061 Campbell County 3536680 3.208 38.268 6.838 0.120 0.359 Clermont County 12205660 10.777 132.284 24.043 0.412 1.245 Dearborn County 7732620 9.495 91.554 14.422 0.263 0.785 Hamilton County 15319040 13.526 166.026 30.176 0.517 1.562 Kenton County 4260200 3.865 46.097 8.237 0.145 0.433 Warren County 11442700 10.103 124.015 22.540 0.386 1.167 Montgomery Cnty 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Greene County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Miami County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clark County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Preble County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clinton County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lawrenceburg Twp 1060800 0.937 11.497 2.090 0.036 0.108 ==================================================================================================================== Total Intra-Zonal 73973800 68.366 809.191 144.331 2.500 7.532 AQ Region Total Intra-Zonal 50438660 44.535 546.650 99.355 1.701 5.143 * Note: VMT reflects yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for CO are based on yearly average daily VMT. Transit VMT ==================================================================================================================== IN Not AQ Region 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KY - OKI Only 3408086 1.375 12.649 51.757 1.072 0.851 OH - OKI Only 10187250 1.758 36.339 153.384 3.204 3.664 OH - MVRPC Only 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 OH - Other 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 IN NonAttainment 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ==================================================================================================================== Total Transit 13595336 3.133 48.988 205.141 0.014 0.003 AQ Region Total Transit 10187250 1.758 36.339 153.384 0.011 0.012 ==================================================================================================================== * Note: VMT reflects yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for CO are based on yearly average daily VMT. 2010 Air Quality Impact Summary Report (R7803) DAILY AIR QUALITY IMPACT FOR OKI REGION SUMMARY 23-APR-08
County or Network Network Vehicle VOC CO NOX PM Summer Township Road Miles Lane Miles Miles (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) VMT ==================================================================================================================== Boone County 225.64 626.73 4352016 3.853 42.000 7.373 0.123 4641498 Butler County 571.72 1450.20 7805254 6.170 73.735 12.944 0.219 8182928 Campbell County 189.01 494.53 2391580 2.120 23.080 4.058 0.068 2554602 Clermont County 417.26 968.21 5318327 4.254 50.241 8.925 0.149 5642237 Dearborn County 144.53 342.91 1366164 1.533 14.334 2.244 0.039 1458221 Hamilton County 1033.98 3079.41 22170650 17.748 209.441 37.234 0.623 23538632 Kenton County 230.96 600.66 4018135 3.556 38.778 6.805 0.114 4283916 Warren County 387.02 969.07 6227882 4.997 58.834 10.483 0.175 6627122 Montgomery Cnty 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Greene County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Miami County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Clark County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Preble County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Clinton County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Lawrenceburg Twp 24.94 68.67 602820 0.659 6.325 0.964 0.017 626251 State ==================================================================================================================== IN Not AQ Region 144.53 342.91 1366164 1.533 14.334 2.244 0.039 1458221 KY - OKI Only 645.60 1721.92 10761733 9.529 103.859 18.235 0.305 11480017 OH - OKI Only 2409.98 6466.89 41522112 33.168 392.251 69.585 1.167 43990920 OH - MVRPC Only 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 OH - Other 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 IN NonAttainment 24.94 68.67 602820 0.659 6.325 0.964 0.017 626251 ==================================================================================================================== Region 3225.05 8600.39 54252832 44.889 516.768 91.028 1.528 57555412 AQ Region 2434.92 6535.56 42124932 33.827 398.576 70.549 1.184 44617172 Intra-Zonal VMT ==================================================================================================================== Boone County 26391 0.022 0.255 0.042 0.001 Butler County 31816 0.024 0.301 0.050 0.001 Campbell County 10094 0.008 0.097 0.016 0.000 Clermont County 33463 0.025 0.316 0.053 0.001 Dearborn County 17837 0.019 0.187 0.027 0.001 Hamilton County 46371 0.035 0.438 0.073 0.001
F-78
Ohio
Kentucky
Kenton County 11266 0.009 0.109 0.018 0.000 Warren County 33042 0.025 0.312 0.052 0.001 Montgomery Cnty 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Greene County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Miami County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clark County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Preble County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clinton County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lawrenceburg Twp 3499 0.003 0.033 0.006 0.000 ==================================================================================================================== Total Intra-Zonal 213779 0.170 2.048 0.338 0.006 AQ Region Total Intra-Zonal 148191 0.112 1.400 0.234 0.004 * Note: VMT reflects yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for CO are based on yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for VOC and NOX include a factor to represent summer travel. Transit VMT ==================================================================================================================== IN Not AQ Region 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KY - OKI Only 8163 0.003 0.028 0.110 0.002 OH - OKI Only 28922 0.005 0.083 0.375 0.006 OH - MVRPC Only 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 OH - Other 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 IN NonAttainment 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ==================================================================================================================== Total Transit 37085 0.008 0.111 0.485 0.008 AQ Region Total Transit 28922 0.005 0.083 0.375 0.006 ==================================================================================================================== * Note: VMT reflects yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for CO are based on yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for VOC and NOX include a factor to represent summer travel. ANNUAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT FOR OKI REGION SUMMARY 23-APR-08
County or Network Network Vehicle VOC CO NOX PM NH3 Township Road Miles Lane Miles Miles (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) ==================================================================================================================== Boone County 225.64 626.73 1479685376. 1211.886 18855.189 2379.735 41.919 150.548 Butler County 571.72 1450.20 2653786368. 1995.051 34187.914 4282.631 74.595 270.590 Campbell County 189.01 494.53 813137344. 665.973 10361.564 1307.744 23.036 82.731 Clermont County 417.26 968.21 1808231168. 1359.383 23294.883 2918.090 50.827 184.374 Dearborn County 144.53 342.91 464495968. 438.288 6175.452 725.530 13.159 47.259 Hamilton County 1033.98 3079.41 7538020864. 5666.892 97110.070 12164.718 211.885 768.605 Kenton County 230.96 600.66 1366166016. 1118.912 17408.645 2197.164 38.703 138.998 Warren County 387.02 969.07 2117479936. 1591.869 27278.855 3417.151 59.520 215.906 Montgomery Cnty 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Greene County 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Miami County 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clark County 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Preble County 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clinton County 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lawrenceburg Twp 24.94 68.67 204958992. 193.395 2724.922 320.140 5.806 20.853 State ==================================================================================================================== IN Not AQ Region 144.53 342.91 464495968. 438.288 6175.452 725.530 13.159 47.259 KY - OKI Only 645.60 1721.92 3658989312. 2996.771 46625.395 5884.643 103.657 372.277 OH - OKI Only 2409.98 6466.89 14117518336. 10613.195 181871.703 22782.586 396.827 1439.474 OH - MVRPC Only 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 OH - Other 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 IN NonAttainment 24.94 68.67 204958992. 193.395 2724.922 320.140 5.806 20.853 ==================================================================================================================== Region 3225.05 8600.39 18445963264. 14241.650 237397.484 29712.902 519.449 1879.864 AQ Region 2434.92 6535.56 14322477056. 10806.590 184596.625 23102.727 402.634 1460.327 Intra-Zonal VMT ==================================================================================================================== Boone County 8972940 7.448 86.595 14.253 0.254 0.913 Butler County 10817440 8.156 102.190 17.111 0.304 1.103 Campbell County 3431960 2.849 33.121 5.451 0.097 0.349 Clermont County 11377420 8.578 107.480 17.997 0.320 1.160 Dearborn County 6064580 6.378 63.628 9.332 0.172 0.617 Hamilton County 15766140 11.887 148.940 24.939 0.443 1.608 Kenton County 3830440 3.179 36.967 6.084 0.109 0.390 Warren County 11234280 8.470 106.128 17.771 0.316 1.145 Montgomery Cnty 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Greene County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Miami County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clark County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Preble County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clinton County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lawrenceburg Twp 1189660 0.897 11.238 1.882 0.033 0.121 ==================================================================================================================== Total Intra-Zonal 72684860 57.843 696.287 114.821 2.048 7.406 AQ Region Total Intra-Zonal 50384940 37.989 475.976 79.700 1.416 5.137 * Note: VMT reflects yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for CO are based on yearly average daily VMT. Transit VMT ==================================================================================================================== IN Not AQ Region 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KY - OKI Only 2448910 0.910 8.271 33.052 0.514 0.408 OH - OKI Only 8676650 1.380 24.953 112.534 1.820 2.144 OH - MVRPC Only 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Ohio
Kentucky
F-79
OH - Other 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 IN NonAttainment 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ==================================================================================================================== Total Transit 11125560 2.290 33.225 145.586 0.008 0.002 AQ Region Total Transit 8676650 1.380 24.953 112.534 0.006 0.007 ==================================================================================================================== * Note: VMT reflects yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for CO are based on yearly average daily VMT. 2020 Air Quality Impact Summary Report (R7803) DAILY AIR QUALITY IMPACT FOR OKI REGION SUMMARY
29-MAY-08
County or Network Network Vehicle VOC CO NOX PM Summer Township Road Miles Lane Miles Miles (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) VMT ==================================================================================================================== Boone County 231.52 676.27 5422886 2.953 38.108 3.449 0.085 5772906 Butler County 576.28 1488.12 9044152 4.035 62.828 5.321 0.143 9483312 Campbell County 196.36 531.54 2786368 1.522 19.580 1.778 0.044 2975521 Clermont County 424.04 989.87 6066716 2.739 42.144 3.612 0.096 6437728 Dearborn County 144.53 342.91 1626605 1.021 12.379 1.024 0.026 1737115 Hamilton County 1036.18 3152.60 23761844 10.739 165.068 14.162 0.375 25240180 Kenton County 230.94 629.14 4536580 2.465 31.880 2.879 0.072 4819385 Warren County 392.97 1023.87 7643925 3.461 53.100 4.563 0.120 8133353 Montgomery Cnty 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Greene County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Miami County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Clark County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Preble County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Clinton County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Lawrenceburg Twp 24.82 70.88 694906 0.425 5.288 0.427 0.011 723215 State ==================================================================================================================== IN Not AQ Region 144.53 342.91 1626605 1.021 12.379 1.024 0.026 1737115 KY - OKI Only 658.81 1836.95 12745834 6.940 89.568 8.106 0.201 13567814 OH - OKI Only 2429.47 6654.46 46516640 20.974 323.140 27.658 0.733 49294568 OH - MVRPC Only 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 OH - Other 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 IN NonAttainment 24.82 70.88 694906 0.425 5.288 0.427 0.011 723215 ==================================================================================================================== Region 3257.63 8905.20 61583980 29.360 430.375 37.215 0.971 65322712 AQ Region 2454.29 6725.34 47211548 21.399 328.428 28.085 0.744 50017784 Intra-Zonal VMT ==================================================================================================================== Boone County 33660 0.017 0.237 0.020 0.001 Butler County 35230 0.015 0.245 0.020 0.001 Campbell County 11911 0.006 0.084 0.007 0.000 Clermont County 37077 0.016 0.258 0.021 0.001 Dearborn County 19481 0.011 0.148 0.011 0.000 Hamilton County 48236 0.021 0.335 0.027 0.001 Kenton County 13171 0.007 0.093 0.008 0.000 Warren County 43406 0.018 0.302 0.024 0.001 Montgomery Cnty 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Greene County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Miami County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clark County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Preble County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clinton County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lawrenceburg Twp 3822 0.002 0.027 0.002 0.000 ==================================================================================================================== Total Intra-Zonal 245994 0.113 1.727 0.141 0.004 AQ Region Total Intra-Zonal 167771 0.071 1.165 0.094 0.003 * Note: VMT reflects yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for CO are based on yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for VOC and NOX include a factor to represent summer travel. Transit VMT ==================================================================================================================== IN Not AQ Region 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KY - OKI Only 8097 0.003 0.008 0.027 0.000 OH - OKI Only 34999 0.004 0.027 0.107 0.002 OH - MVRPC Only 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 OH - Other 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 IN NonAttainment 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ==================================================================================================================== Total Transit 43097 0.007 0.035 0.134 0.002 AQ Region Total Transit 34999 0.004 0.027 0.107 0.002 ==================================================================================================================== * Note: VMT reflects yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for CO are based on yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for VOC and NOX include a factor to represent summer travel. ANNUAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT FOR OKI REGION SUMMARY 29-MAY-08
County or Network Network Vehicle VOC CO NOX PM NH3 Township Road Miles Lane Miles Miles (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) ==================================================================================================================== Boone County 231.52 676.27 1843781248. 945.074 17614.961 1107.668 29.064 187.795 Butler County 576.28 1488.12 3075011584. 1342.288 30160.791 1759.211 48.472 313.540 Campbell County 196.36 531.54 947365184. 485.595 9050.865 569.138 14.933 96.492 Clermont County 424.04 989.87 2062683648. 900.392 20231.533 1180.059 32.514 210.319 Dearborn County 144.53 342.91 553045888. 301.766 5470.193 329.809 8.718 56.330 Hamilton County 1036.18 3152.60 8079027200. 3526.615 79241.898 4622.002 127.350 823.767 Kenton County 230.94 629.14 1542437376. 790.614 14736.010 926.633 24.313 157.103
F-80
Ohio
Kentucky
Warren County Montgomery Cnty Greene County Miami County Clark County Preble County Clinton County Lawrenceburg Twp
392.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.82
1023.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.88
2598934528. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 236268064.
1134.473 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 128.918
25491.273 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2336.933
1486.848 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 140.898
40.967 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.724
264.997 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 24.065
State ==================================================================================================================== IN Not AQ Region 144.53 342.91 553045888. 301.766 5470.193 329.809 8.718 56.330 KY - OKI Only 658.81 1836.95 4333583360. 2221.283 41401.840 2603.439 68.310 441.390 OH - OKI Only 2429.47 6654.46 15815657472. 6903.769 155125.500 9048.118 249.303 1612.623 OH - MVRPC Only 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 OH - Other 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 IN NonAttainment 24.82 70.88 236268064. 128.918 2336.933 140.898 3.724 24.065 ==================================================================================================================== Region 3257.63 8905.20 20938553344. 9555.735 204334.438 12122.266 330.055 2134.407 AQ Region 2454.29 6725.34 16051926016. 7032.687 157462.438 9189.017 253.027 1636.687 Intra-Zonal VMT ==================================================================================================================== Boone County 11444400 5.853 80.422 6.837 0.180 1.166 Butler County 11978200 5.097 83.210 6.721 0.189 1.221 Campbell County 4049740 2.071 28.458 2.420 0.064 0.412 Clermont County 12606180 5.364 87.572 7.073 0.199 1.285 Dearborn County 6623540 3.892 50.407 3.906 0.104 0.675 Hamilton County 16400240 6.978 113.928 9.202 0.259 1.672 Kenton County 4478140 2.290 31.469 2.675 0.071 0.456 Warren County 14758040 6.279 102.521 8.280 0.233 1.505 Montgomery Cnty 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Greene County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Miami County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clark County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Preble County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clinton County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lawrenceburg Twp 1299480 0.553 9.027 0.729 0.020 0.132 ==================================================================================================================== Total Intra-Zonal 83637960 38.378 587.015 47.844 1.318 8.525 AQ Region Total Intra-Zonal 57042140 24.271 396.258 32.005 0.899 5.816 * Note: VMT reflects yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for CO are based on yearly average daily VMT. Transit VMT ==================================================================================================================== IN Not AQ Region 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KY - OKI Only 2429292 0.822 2.490 8.042 0.128 0.101 OH - OKI Only 10499857 1.255 7.951 32.083 0.552 0.634 OH - MVRPC Only 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 OH - Other 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 IN NonAttainment 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ==================================================================================================================== Total Transit 12929150 2.077 10.442 40.125 0.002 0.000 AQ Region Total Transit 10499857 1.255 7.951 32.083 0.002 0.002 ==================================================================================================================== * Note: VMT reflects yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for CO are based on yearly average daily VMT.
2030 Air Quality Impact Summary Report (R7803) DAILY AIR QUALITY IMPACT FOR OKI REGION SUMMARY 30-MAY-08
County or Network Network Vehicle VOC CO NOX PM Summer Township Road Miles Lane Miles Miles (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) VMT ==================================================================================================================== Boone County 243.53 743.15 6445045 3.098 42.605 2.713 0.092 6855560 Butler County 586.21 1539.89 10179884 4.321 69.202 4.262 0.146 10680499 Campbell County 197.16 550.67 3141065 1.517 20.764 1.328 0.045 3356498 Clermont County 424.04 989.87 6873306 2.951 46.724 2.911 0.098 7294598 Dearborn County 152.37 367.83 1945739 1.024 13.928 0.814 0.028 2079146 Hamilton County 1041.80 3193.63 25050758 10.770 170.294 10.623 0.359 26621344 Kenton County 232.28 631.62 5061870 2.429 33.462 2.127 0.073 5375590 Warren County 393.28 1024.31 9099107 3.918 61.855 3.865 0.130 9686084 Montgomery Cnty 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Greene County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Miami County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Clark County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Preble County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Clinton County 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 Lawrenceburg Twp 24.82 70.88 741941 0.381 5.311 0.303 0.011 773383 State ==================================================================================================================== IN Not AQ Region 152.37 367.83 1945739 1.024 13.928 0.814 0.028 2079146 KY - OKI Only 672.96 1925.44 14647980 7.045 96.831 6.168 0.210 15587650 OH - OKI Only 2445.33 6747.70 51203056 21.960 348.076 21.661 0.734 54282520 OH - MVRPC Only 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 OH - Other 0.00 0.00 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 IN NonAttainment 24.82 70.88 741941 0.381 5.311 0.303 0.011 773383 ====================================================================================================================
Ohio
Kentucky
F-81
Region AQ Region
3295.48 2470.15
9111.85 6818.58
68538728 51944996
30.410 22.341
464.146 353.387
28.945 21.963
0.982 0.744
72722704 55055904
Intra-Zonal VMT ==================================================================================================================== Boone County 39033 0.018 0.258 0.015 0.001 Butler County 39433 0.016 0.268 0.016 0.001 Campbell County 13523 0.006 0.089 0.005 0.000 Clermont County 40274 0.016 0.274 0.016 0.001 Dearborn County 19241 0.009 0.138 0.008 0.000 Hamilton County 49235 0.020 0.335 0.020 0.001 Kenton County 14453 0.007 0.096 0.006 0.000 Warren County 54154 0.022 0.368 0.022 0.001 Montgomery Cnty 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Greene County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Miami County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clark County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Preble County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clinton County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lawrenceburg Twp 3727 0.002 0.025 0.001 0.000 ==================================================================================================================== Total Intra-Zonal 273073 0.115 1.851 0.109 0.004 AQ Region Total Intra-Zonal 186823 0.076 1.270 0.075 0.003 * Note: VMT reflects yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for CO are based on yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for VOC and NOX include a factor to represent summer travel. Transit VMT ==================================================================================================================== IN Not AQ Region 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KY - OKI Only 9154 0.003 0.005 0.009 0.000 OH - OKI Only 39974 0.005 0.015 0.036 0.002 OH - MVRPC Only 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 OH - Other 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 IN NonAttainment 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ==================================================================================================================== Total Transit 49129 0.009 0.020 0.045 0.002 AQ Region Total Transit 39974 0.005 0.015 0.036 0.002 ==================================================================================================================== * Note: VMT reflects yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for CO are based on yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for VOC and NOX include a factor to represent summer travel. ANNUAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT FOR OKI REGION SUMMARY 30-MAY-08
County or Network Network Vehicle VOC CO NOX PM NH3 Township Road Miles Lane Miles Miles (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) ==================================================================================================================== Boone County 243.53 743.15 2191315456. 990.359 19712.957 862.337 31.402 223.193 Butler County 586.21 1539.89 3461160448. 1434.542 33231.000 1404.020 49.599 352.913 Campbell County 197.16 550.67 1067962112. 482.663 9607.329 420.269 15.304 108.776 Clermont County 424.04 989.87 2336924160. 968.581 22437.094 947.973 33.488 238.281 Dearborn County 152.37 367.83 661551488. 304.091 6174.430 261.066 9.480 67.381 Hamilton County 1041.80 3193.63 8517257728. 3530.136 81775.211 3455.023 122.052 868.451 Kenton County 232.28 631.62 1721035776. 777.818 15482.363 677.271 24.662 175.293 Warren County 393.28 1024.31 3093696256. 1282.240 29702.953 1254.958 44.333 315.445 Montgomery Cnty 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Greene County 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Miami County 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clark County 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Preble County 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clinton County 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lawrenceburg Twp 24.82 70.88 252260048. 115.955 2354.408 99.549 3.615 25.694 State ==================================================================================================================== IN Not AQ Region 152.37 367.83 661551488. 304.091 6174.430 261.066 9.480 67.381 KY - OKI Only 672.96 1925.44 4980313088. 2250.839 44802.648 1959.877 71.368 507.262 OH - OKI Only 2445.33 6747.70 17409038336. 7215.500 167146.250 7061.973 249.472 1775.090 OH - MVRPC Only 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 OH - Other 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 IN NonAttainment 24.82 70.88 252260048. 115.955 2354.408 99.549 3.615 25.694 ==================================================================================================================== Region 3295.48 9111.85 23303168000. 9886.385 220477.766 9382.465 333.935 2375.427 AQ Region 2470.15 6818.58 17661298688. 7331.454 169500.656 7161.522 253.087 1800.783 Intra-Zonal VMT ==================================================================================================================== Boone County 13271220 5.998 87.730 5.252 0.190 1.352 Butler County 13407220 5.424 91.142 5.350 0.192 1.367 Campbell County 4597820 2.078 30.394 1.819 0.066 0.468 Clermont County 13693160 5.540 93.085 5.464 0.196 1.396 Dearborn County 6541940 3.223 46.830 2.560 0.094 0.666 Hamilton County 16739900 6.772 113.797 6.680 0.240 1.707 Kenton County 4914020 2.221 32.484 1.945 0.070 0.501 Warren County 18412360 7.449 125.166 7.347 0.264 1.877 Montgomery Cnty 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Greene County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Miami County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clark County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Preble County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Clinton County 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Lawrenceburg Twp 1267180 0.513 8.614 0.506 0.018 0.129 ==================================================================================================================== Total Intra-Zonal 92844820 39.217 629.243 36.923 1.330 9.464
F-82
Ohio
Kentucky
AQ Region Total Intra-Zonal
63519820
25.697
431.804
25.347
0.910
6.477
* Note: VMT reflects yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for CO are based on yearly average daily VMT. Transit VMT ==================================================================================================================== IN Not AQ Region 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 KY - OKI Only 2746359 0.984 1.462 2.688 0.104 0.082 OH - OKI Only 11992425 1.603 4.640 10.761 0.452 0.531 OH - MVRPC Only 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 OH - Other 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 IN NonAttainment 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ==================================================================================================================== Total Transit 14738784 2.587 6.102 13.449 0.002 0.000 AQ Region Total Transit 11992425 1.603 4.640 10.761 0.002 0.002 ==================================================================================================================== * Note: VMT reflects yearly average daily VMT. Emissions for CO are based on yearly average daily VMT.
Exhibit E-Clinton County Ohio Emission Report CLINTON FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION RURAL 01 INTERSTATE 02 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 06 MINOR ARTERIAL 07 MAJOR ARTERIAL 08 MINOR COLLECTOR 09 LOCAL URBAN 11 INTERSTATE 12 FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY 14 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 16 MINOR ARTERIAL 17 COLLECTOR 19 LOCAL TOTAL CLINTON FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION RURAL 01 INTERSTATE 02 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 06 MINOR ARTERIAL 07 MAJOR ARTERIAL 08 MINOR COLLECTOR 09 LOCAL URBAN 11 INTERSTATE 12 FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY 14 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 16 MINOR ARTERIAL 17 COLLECTOR 19 LOCAL TOTAL CLINTON FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION RURAL 01 INTERSTATE 02 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 06 MINOR ARTERIAL 07 MAJOR ARTERIAL 08 MINOR COLLECTOR 09 LOCAL URBAN 11 INTERSTATE 12 FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY 14 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 16 MINOR ARTERIAL 17 COLLECTOR 19 LOCAL TOTAL YEAR 2008 HPMS 2005 VMT 554300 0 322000 339140 5540 393470 GROWTH FACTOR PER YEAR 1.023 1.015 1.001 1.005 1.006 1.003 2008 VMT 592546 0 322966 344227 5639 397011
VOC 2008 POLLUTANT VOC EF BURDEN GM/MI TONS/DAY 0.791 0.849 0.934 0.964 1.035 1.067 0.517 0.000 0.333 0.366 0.006 0.467
2008 NOX EF GM/MI 2.264 1.757 0.975 1.026 0.890 0.759
NOX POLLUTANT BURDEN TONS/DAY 1.479 0.000 0.347 0.389 0.006 0.332
0 0 140870 21980 23940 8500 1809740
1.022 1.010 1.000 1.005 1.007 1.003
0 0 140870 22309 24442 8576 1858586
0.889 0.917 1.264 1.232 1.227 1.232
0.000 0.000 0.196 0.030 0.033 0.012 1.960
0.998 0.801 0.867 0.967 0.871 0.833
0.000 0.000 0.135 0.024 0.023 0.008 2.743
YEAR 2010 HPMS 2005 VMT 554300 0 322000 339140 5540 393470 GROWTH FACTOR PER YEAR 1.023 1.015 1.001 1.005 1.006 1.003 2010 VMT 618043 0 323610 347618 5706 399372
2010 NOX EF GM/MI 1.822 1.423 0.805 0.845 0.739 0.635
0 0 140870 21980 23940 8500 1809740
1.022 1.010 1.000 1.005 1.007 1.003
0 0 140870 22529 24777 8627 1891152
0.743 0.764 1.047 1.020 1.014 1.019
0.000 0.000 0.163 0.025 0.028 0.010 1.662
0.820 0.665 0.724 0.803 0.726 0.696
0.000 0.000 0.112 0.020 0.020 0.007 2.295
2020 NOX EF GM/MI 0.555 0.457 0.320 0.326 0.312 0.288
0 0 140870 21980 23940 8500 1809740
1.022 1.010 1.000 1.005 1.007 1.003
0 0 140870 23628 26453 8882 2053986
0.364 0.374 0.536 0.520 0.513 0.516
0.000 0.000 0.083 0.014 0.015 0.005 0.897
0.322 0.285 0.326 0.341 0.320 0.316
0.000 0.000 0.051 0.009 0.009 0.003 0.907
Ohio
Kentucky
F-83
CLINTON FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION RURAL 01 INTERSTATE 02 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 06 MINOR ARTERIAL 07 MAJOR ARTERIAL 08 MINOR COLLECTOR 09 LOCAL URBAN 11 INTERSTATE 12 FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY 14 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 16 MINOR ARTERIAL 17 COLLECTOR 19 LOCAL TOTAL
2030 NOX EF GM/MI 0.315 0.277 0.241 0.240 0.244 0.240
0 0 140870 21980 23940 8500 1809740
1.022 1.010 1.000 1.005 1.007 1.003
0 0 140870 24727 28129 9137 2216820
0.321 0.332 0.486 0.470 0.466 0.468
0.000 0.000 0.075 0.013 0.014 0.005 0.851
0.243 0.232 0.272 0.272 0.266 0.266
0.000 0.000 0.042 0.007 0.008 0.003 0.666
F-84
Ohio
Kentucky
exhibit F-mvrpC plan projects in warren County
Ohio
Kentucky
F-85
Exhibit G-OKI Transportation Conformity Consultation Memorandum of understanding
F-86
Ohio
Kentucky
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE OHIO-KENTUCKY-INDIANA REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, THE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, THE MIAMI VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION, THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY-REGION 5, THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION-OHIO DIVISION, THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION-INDIANA DIVISION, THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION-REGION 5 The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to implement section 176(c)(4)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 USC 7401 et seq.), the related requirements of 23 U.S. C. 109(j), and regulations under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 40, Part 93, Subpart A with respect to the conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects that are developed, funded or approved by the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and by Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and the Ohio Department of Transportation (Ohio DOT), the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) or other recipients of funds under title 23 USC or the Federal Transit Laws (49 USC Chapter 53). This MOU sets forth policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such activities to applicable implementation plans developed according to Part A, section 110 and Part D of the CAA. This is a MOU concerning the criteria and procedures for the conformity determination of transportation plans, programs and projects in the Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington OH-KY-IN, Combined Statistical Area for National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), pursuant to the CAA Amendments of 1990. The Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Middeltown-Wilmington OH-KY-IN area will have a separate state rule or agreement for transportation conformity consultation. Although the Kentucky agencies and Region 4 federal agencies are not parties to this agreement, the agencies are expected to participate in the consultation meetings and to review materials. These parties are: Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet (KEPPC); United States Environmental Protection Agency-Region 4 (U.S. EPA-R4); Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC); Federal Highway Administration-Kentucky Division (FHWA-KY); and Federal Transit Administration-Region 4 (FTA-R4). These parties do not need to be signatories to this MOU since Kentucky will submit a revision to the Kentucky SIP to address transportation conformity consultation procedures which will be the same or substantially similar to these procedures. The 10 parties to this MOU are as follows, hereafter referred to as all parties: Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments MPO (OKI) Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission (MVRPC) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Ohio Department of Transportation (Ohio DOT) Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) Federal Highway Administration-Ohio Division (FHWA-OH) Federal Highway Administration-Indiana Division (FHWA-IN) Federal Transit Administration-Region 5 (FTA-R5) United States Environmental Protection Agency-Region 5 (U.S. EPA-R5)
Ohio
Kentucky
F-87
This MOU will be submitted as a revision to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP) required by section 176 of the CAA Amendments of 1990 and will govern conformity determinations in the OKI MPO area. The OKI region consists of Dearborn County, Indiana; Boone, Campbell, and Kenton counties in Kentucky; Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren counties in Ohio. OKI is responsible for the air quality conformity determination for the regions transportation plans, projects and programs in these counties. Clinton County is outside of the OKI region, but is part of the ozone nonattainment area. Ohio DOT is the lead planning agency for Clinton County. MVRPC is the lead planning agency for the cities of Franklin, Carlisle and Springboro in Warren County Ohio. This MOU will continue to apply to any revised nonattainment area geographies resulting from future designations, or designation revisions for the criteria pollutants within the OKI areas. Execution of this MOU by each party shall be by signature of each partys representative. The provisions of this MOU shall be implemented through appropriate procedures, resolutions, or other means, in order to comply with the requirements of all federal and state laws and regulations relating to the conformity determination and development of applicable implementation plan revisions. This MOU along with Attachments A and B defines and delineates the roles, processes, and responsibilities of each signatory to this MOU.
F-88
Ohio
Kentucky
Attachment A Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol Conformity Procedures

In accordance with the requirements under section 176 (c)(4)(C) of the CAA, Ohio EPA submitted a state implementation plan (SIP) revision to U.S. EPA on August 17, 1995. This submittal was found to be complete on October 5, 1995. In this submittal, Ohio EPA adopted state rules to meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart T, as published on November 24, 1993. Transportation conformity is required for all nonattainment or maintenance areas for any transportation related criteria pollutants [40 CFR 51.394 (b)]. On August 10, 2005, the President signed into law the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). SAFETEA-LU promotes more efficient and effective Federal surface transportation programs by focusing on transportation issues of national significance, while giving state and local transportation decision makers more flexibility for solving transportation problems in their communities. Section 6011 of SAFETEA-LU specifically addresses transportation conformity. One of the requirements, (f)(4)(E) states, Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the SAFETEA-LU the procedures under subparagraph (A) shall include a requirement that each state include in the state implementation plan criteria and procedures for consultation required by subparagraph (D) (i), and enforcement and enforceability (pursuant to sections 93.125 (c) and 93.122 (a) (4) (ii) of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in accordance with the Administrators criteria and procedures for consultation, enforcement and enforceability. States are no longer required to adopt all of the provisions of the federal conformity rule. The three required conformity SIP elements are: 1) 2) 3) consultation procedures [40 CFR 93.105] (Attachment B); procedures for determining regional transportation-related emissions [40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii)] (Attachment A); and enforceability of design concept and scope and project-level mitigation and control measures [40 CFR 93.125 (c)] (Attachment A).
In accordance with 40 CFR 93.105, the SIP or SIP revision shall include procedures for interagency consultation (federal, state and local), resolution of conflicts, and public consultation as described in Attachment B. Public consultation shall be developed in accordance with the requirements for public participation in 23 CFR Part 450. The SIP shall include procedures to be undertaken by OKI, state and federal DOTs, local air quality agencies and U.S. EPA, prior to making transportation conformity determinations, and by state and local air agencies and U.S. EPA with OKI, state and federal DOTs, in developing applicable implementation plans. OKI and Ohio DOT must provide reasonable opportunity for consultation with all parties and local air quality and transportation agencies as described in Attachment B. In accordance with 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), OKI will not include emissions reduction credits from any control measures that are not included in its transportation plan (TP) or transportation improvement program (TIP) and do not require a regulatory action, in the regional emissions analyses used in
Ohio
Kentucky
F-89
the conformity demonstration unless OKI, or FHWA/FTA obtains written commitments, as defined in 40 CFR 93.101, from the appropriate entities to implement those control measures. The written commitments to implement those control measures must be fulfilled by the appropriate entities. Prior to making a conformity determination on a TP or TIP, OKI will ensure the project design concept and scope are appropriately identified in the emissions analyses used in the regional conformity demonstration. In accordance with 40 CFR 93.125(c), prior to making a project-level conformity determination for a transportation project, FHWA/FTA must obtain from the project sponsor and/or operator written commitments, as defined in 40 CFR 93.101, to implement any project-level mitigation or control measures in the construction or operation of the project identified as conditions for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approval. The written commitments to implement those projectlevel mitigation or control measures must be fulfilled by the appropriate entities. Prior to making a project-level conformity determination, written commitments will be obtained before such mitigation or control measures are used in a project-level hot-spot conformity analysis [40 CFR 93.125(c)]. Consultation on these commitments will take place as a part of a consultation process prior to the project-level conformity analysis and determination. Interagency consultation for a project-level conformity analysis may occur separately from the consultation used during the development of a regional conformity demonstration.
F-90
Ohio
Kentucky
Attachment B Interagency Consultation Procedures I. General
Ohio EPA will submit these consultation procedures as a revision to the SIP, whereby all parties to this MOU and other organizations with responsibilities for developing, submitting, or implementing provisions of a SIP must consult with each other on the development of the SIP, the TP, the TIP, and associated conformity determinations in accordance with 40 CFR 93.105(b)(1). These procedures implement the interagency consultation process for OKI and include procedures to be undertaken by all parties to this MOU before making transportation conformity determinations on the TP and TIP in accordance with 40 CFR 93.105(a)(1) and 40 CFR 93.105(c)(3). This areas geographic coverage includes two MPOs, eight counties in three states: Dearborn County, Indiana; Boone, Campbell, Kenton counties in Kentucky; Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren counties in Ohio. OKIs TP and TIP address only the MPO area. Clinton County is outside of the OKI region, but is part of the nonattainment area. Ohio DOT is the lead planning agency for Clinton County. MVRPC is the lead planning agency for the cities of Franklin, Carlisle and Springboro in Warren County, Ohio. These analyses are combined to make a conformity determination for the OKI region. KYTC and IDEM are lead planning agencies for their respective areas not within the OKI region. Persons of any organizational level in the signatory agencies may participate in the of the interagency consultation group. All consultation will be open to the public, but not necessitate official public notification. Each agency chooses its representative for interagency consultation, and forwards that persons contact info to OKI whose representative is responsible for maintaining the participant list. Changes in representatives will be given to OKI. OKI will in turn redistribute it to all parties. OKI is responsible for convening meetings and providing an agenda. Interagency consultation frequency will be as needed, unless there is consensus among the consultation parties to meet on a specific schedule (i.e. quarterly, biannually, annually, etc.). In most cases, consultation will be via conference call and/or email unless the interagency consultation group decides that certain items may require a face-to-face meeting and could not be handled via conference call or email. Early in the TP and/or TIP development process, the MPO will develop a schedule for key activities and meetings leading up to the adoption of the TP, TIP or amendment to the TP or TIP. In developing the draft TP and/or TIP, the MPO brings important air quality conformity TP and/or TIP related issues to all parties in the interagency consultation group for discussion and feedback. OKI is responsible for making all materials used for these discussions available to the interagency consultation group prior to the consultation sessions. Similar consultation will occur with TP amendments if a new regional analysis is required. Public participation in the development of the TP and/or TIP will be provided in accordance with OKIs adopted Public Participation Procedures in accordance with 23 CFR 450. OKI will provide the interagency consultation group an opportunity to review the draft conformity analysis. This review will typically take place during the public review period. This is typically done by e-mail. The interagency consultation group will respond promptly to the OKI staff with any comments. Members of the public can comment on the draft conformity analysis in accordance with OKIs adopted public participation procedures. All comments received will be included in the final conformity documentation.
Ohio
Kentucky
F-9
OKI and Ohio EPA will be responsible for maintaining a list of any TCMs that are in the applicable SIP for the OKI area [see section IV a]. The following process provides for final documents to be provided to all interagency consultation group members as required by 40 CFR 93.105(c)(7): After the OKI Board of Directors (MPO Board) adopts the final TP or TIP and associated conformity determination, OKI will provide the final conformity documentation to FHWA and the interagency consultation group for a federal conformity finding. FHWA will initiate formal consultation and will provide 30 days for written comments from the interagency consultation group members. If appropriate, FHWA will issue the formal conformity finding on behalf of U.S. DOT. The TP update or amendment becomes effective the date the U.S. DOT conformity finding is issued. The TIP update or amendment only becomes effective after the U.S. DOT conformity finding is issued, and the FHWA approves the associated TIP update or amendment into Ohios State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). OKI will transmit electronic copies of the final conformity analysis to the interagency consultation group members and place a final copy on OKIs Web site.
II.
Consultation on Transportation Plans, Transportation Plan Amendments, Transportation Improvement Programs, and Transportation Improvement Program Amendments [40 CFR 93.105]
Consultation on all non-conformity related aspects of transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and amendments thereto shall be governed by the applicable participation plans developed pursuant to 23 USC 134/49 USC 5303(i)(5), (i)(6), and (j)(4) and 23 USC 135/49 USC 5304 (f)(3) and (g)(3). Consultation on conformity related aspects of these activities are delineated below. a) Consultation on Transportation Plan and Transportation Plan Amendment Conformity Process The federal conformity rules at 40 CFR Part 93 defines the criteria and procedures by which conformity will be established in accordance with 40 CF 93.105 (c), interagency consultation will include the following topics, as appropriate: travel forecasting and modeling assumptions; latest planning assumptions; motor vehicle emission factors to be used in conformity analysis; appropriate analysis years; determination of exempt projects and evaluating whether projects otherwise exempted (as listed in 93.126 and 93.127) should be treated as non-exempt.; determination of which minor arterials and other transportation projects should be considered regionally significant projects for the purposes of regional emissions analysis (in addition to those functionally classified as principal arterial or higher or fixed guideway systems or extensions that offer an alternative to regional highway travel; which projects should be considered to have a significant change in design concept and scope from the transportation plan or TIP; treatment of regionally significant projects (federal and non-federal funded) assumed in the transportation network and the year of operation; treatment of regionally significant projects that span MPO boundaries; status of TCM implementation; financial constraints and other requirements that affect conformity pursuant to federal statewide

F-92
Ohio
Kentucky
and metropolitan planning regulations (this item is not a requirement for consultation); reliance on a previous regional emissions analysis; conformity process public participation procedures; and the need for interim TP (in the event of a conformity lapse). OKI is the lead agency for development of its transportation plans and amendments thereto. OKI is the lead agency for the development of the associated transportation conformity analyses for the Ohio counties of Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren, the Kentucky counties of Boone, Campbell and Kenton, and Dearborn County, Indiana. MVRPC, Ohio DOT, KYTC and IDEM are lead agencies for the conformity analyses for their respective areas outside the OKI region. OKI and the interagency consultation group will be provided the opportunity to review the Ohio DOT, and INDOT analyses prior to inclusion in the overall conformity document. The interagency consultation parties will participate in the plan development process, review associated documentation, and collaboratively decide on aspects of the conformity determination that must be determined through interagency consultation according to the regulations at 40 CFR Part 93. Opportunity for comment and participation is provided in the interagency consultation conferencing and by commenting on draft materials as described in the general of this document. If new designations for criteria pollutants occur that expand analyses areas beyond those defined above, interagency consultation will determine the parties responsible for conducting those analyses in accordance with 40 CFR 93.105(c)(2)(ii). b) Consultation and Notification Procedures for Conformity Analysis of TIP and TIP Amendments Federal conformity rules at 40 CFR Part 93 defines the criteria and procedures by which conformity will be established. Following OKIs notice that the TIP air quality conformity process has been initiated, OKI and Ohio DOT will coordinate the TIP transportation conformity interagency consultation process. Interagency consultation will include the same topics listed for the transportation plan (see section II. a) as well as the additional topics listed below in accordance with 40 CFR 93.105 (c). identification of exempt TIP projects; identification of exempt projects which should be treated as nonexempt; and determination of an interim TIP (in the event of a conformity lapse) inclusive of projects that can advance during a conformity lapse. For TIP amendments, OKI and Ohio DOT will consult as identified below: Consultation required in situations requiring a conformity determination, including but not limited to: add non-exempt, regionally significant project that has not been accounted for in the regional emissions analysis; and change in non-exempt, regionally significant project that is not consistent with the design concept and scope or the conformity analyses years. The interagency consultation group will be provided an opportunity to review the draft TIP or TIP amendment conformity documentation concurrent with the TIP public involvement review period. OKI will respond to any questions or comments from the consultation parties within 10 days. After the public review period OKI will adopt the final TIP or TIP amendment and conformity determination. OKI will provide the final TIP or TIP amendment and conformity documentation to
Ohio
Kentucky
F-93
the affected state DOT(s). The affected state DOT(s) will forward the documents to FHWA/FTA for final review, incorporation into the STIP and U.S. DOT conformity determination as required by 40 CFR 93.105 (c)(7) and 23 CFR 450.322 of the FHWA/FTA Statewide and Metropolitan Planning rule. Copies of the final TIP or TIP amendment and conformity documentation will be made available on OKIs Web site. III. Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program Interagency Consultation Agency Roles and Responsibilities [40 CFR 93.105(b)(2)] Ohio EPA, IDEM Reviews and comments on all aspects of the conformity determinations for the TP and TIP in a timely manner; Develops, solicits input on and adopts motor vehicle emission budgets; Seeks U.S. EPA approval for the use of motor vehicle emissions factors and mobile source budgets in conformity analyses; and Reviews and comments on the transportation plan and TIP development documentation and associated air quality analyses in as agreed in this document. Ohio DOT, INDOT Participates as a voting member of the OKI Board of Directors and committees as defined by the OKI agency bylaws; Project initiator for state sponsored transportation improvement projects in the OKI region; Works directly with OKI in providing and reviewing detailed project programming information; Defines the design concept and scope of state sponsored transportation improvement projects to conduct regional emissions analysis; Promptly notifies OKI of changes in design concept and scope, cost, and implementation year of regionally significant state sponsored projects; Assures project-level CO and PM hotspot analyses are included in OKI region transportation project NEPA documentation when required; Identifies and commits to project-level CO and PM mitigation measures for state sponsored transportation projects, as required; Implements TCMs for which Ohio DOT/KYTC/INDOT is responsible on the schedule that is found in the SIP; Maintains a list of TCMs in the SIP and progress toward implementing the TCMs; Works with local municipalities and other project sponsors to ensure that the above procedures are also implemented on locally sponsored highway projects; and Assists OKI with travel demand modeling and mobile source emissions estimating processes. For STIP and STIP amendments exclusively involving projects within the Cincinnati-MiddletownWilmington OH-KY-IN, Combined Statistical Area for NAAQS, but outside MPO boundaries, Ohio DOT, or INDOT will develop, coordinate, prepare and circulate conformity documentation for interagency consultation and public participation. OKI Develops, coordinates, and circulates transportation plan and TIP supporting and technical documentation for interagency consultation and public participation; Conducts transportation plan/TIP and air quality conformity public participation processes; Maintains demographic and land use data for travel demand forecasting and regional emissions analysis;
F-94
Ohio
Kentucky
Works with Ohio DOT, INDOT and local sponsors to define the design concept and scope of projects in the transportation plan and TIP to conduct regional emissions analysis; Prepares transportation plan/TIP conformity documentation; Includes funding for SIP mandated TCMs in the transportation plan and TIP if required; and Adopts transportation plan/TIP, performs the regional emissions analysis and makes conformity determinations. MVRPC, in the Cincinnati (Franklin, Carlisle, and Springboro) Air Quality Region: Develops, coordinates, and circulates transportation plan and TIP supporting and technical documentation for interagency consultation and public participation; Conducts transportation plan/TIP and air quality conformity public participation processes; Provides OKI with the design concept and scope of projects in the transportation plan and TIP to conduct regional emission analyses; Prepares transportation plan/TIP conformity documentation; Includes funding for SIP mandated TCMs in the transportation plan and TIP; and Adopts transportation plan/TIP and make conformity determinations. In the Cincinnati (Franklin, Carlisle, and Springboro) Air Quality Region OKI will: Maintains demographic and land use data for travel demand forecasting and regional emissions analysis; and Conducts the analysis and prepare transportation plan/TIP conformity documentation. If a new conformity determination is needed in the Cincinnati Air Quality Region due to transportation plan/TIP amendments in the MVRPC MPO only, MVRPC will be responsible for initiating interagency consultation and conducting the public participation process and OKI will conduct the conformity analysis and provide conformity documentation. U.S. EPA Administers and provides guidance on the CAA and transportation conformity regulations; Determines adequacy of motor vehicle emissions budget used for making conformity determinations; Reviews and comments on transportation plan and transportation improvement program documentation in keeping with participation plan requirements; and Reviews and comments on conformity determinations for the transportation plans and transportation improvement programs. FHWA/FTA Consults with U.S. EPA on transportation conformity determinations. Provides guidance on transportation planning regulations; Ensures that all transportation planning and transportation conformity requirements contained in 23 CFR Part 450 and 40 CFR Part 93, respectively, are met; Works with transit agencies to ensure that conformity procedures are implemented in transit agency-sponsored projects; and Makes transportation plan/TIP conformity determinations.
IV.
a.
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Consultation Process [40 CFR 93.105]

SIP Consultation Structure and Process in Ohio
Ohio EPA is responsible for preparing the SIP. If new transportation control strategies or TCMs are considered necessary to achieve and/or maintain federal air quality standards, the interagency
Ohio
Kentucky
F-95
consultation group will discuss possible TCMs for inclusion in the SIP. Ohio EPA will provide and update schedules for SIP development that will be available to all agencies and the public. Public involvement will be in accordance with Ohio EPAs public involvement procedures. Key documents will be posted on Ohio EPAs Web site. SIP development will normally cover inventory development, determination of emission reductions necessary to achieve and/or maintain federal air quality standards, transportation and other control strategies that may be necessary to achieve these standards, contingency measures, and other such technical documentation as required. Ohio EPA is responsible for informing OKI of any TCMs in the SIP and OKI is responsible for maintaining a list of these TCMs and is responsible for tracking progress toward implementation and will share the list and implementation schedule with the interagency consultation parties. The interagency consultation parties will determine as required by 40 CFR 93.113(c) (1) whether past obstacles to implementation of TCMs, which are behind the schedule established in the SIP, have been identified and are being overcome. The interagency consultation group will assure that state and local agencies provide approval and funding priority to TCMs that are approved in the SIP. The interagency consultation group will also consider revisions to the SIP to remove TCMs or substitute TCMs or other emission reduction measures. OKI and Ohio DOT develop the travel activity and emissions data that are used by Ohio EPA in establishing the on-road motor vehicle emission inventories for the SIP with consultation from Ohio EPA on the inputs for emission modeling. If new transportation control strategies are considered that may aid the region to achieve and/or maintain federal air quality standards, Ohio EPA will provide OKI and Ohio DOT with guidance for estimating their impacts on regional emissions This SIP process will define the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB), and its various components, that will be used for future conformity determinations of the TP and TIP. Prior to publishing the draft SIP, OKI, Ohio DOT, KYTC, KEPPC, INDOT and IDEM will have an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed MVEB. In accordance with 40 CFR 93.105 (b)(2)(iii) and 40 CFR 93.105 (c)(7) Ohio EPA will circulate the draft SIP for public review, and all comments will be responded to in writing prior to adoption of the SIP. The draft will be amended as needed in response to comments received. Ohio EPA will then transmit the final document with amendments, along with the public notice, public hearing transcript and a summary of comments and responses, to U.S. EPA. b. Agency Roles and Responsibilities [40 CFR 93.105(b)(2)(i)]
The following provides a summary on the roles and responsibilities of the different agencies with involvement in development and review of SIP submittals dealing with TCMs or emissions budgets. Ohio EPA, KEPPC, IDEM Responsible for air quality monitoring, preparation and maintenance of detailed and comprehensive emissions inventories, air quality modeling, and other air quality planning and control responsibilities; Responsible for preparing drafts of SIP submittals, revising those drafts, incorporating other agencies comments, attending and scheduling public hearings, preparing public hearing transcripts and responding to public comments; Responsible for timely SIP submittal to U.S. EPA; and Provides concurrence with TCM substitution in the SIP. Ohio DOT, KYTC, INDOT Assists in developing regional travel demand forecasts used in the SIP mobile emissions
F-96
Ohio
Kentucky
inventories and analyses of new TCMs; Assists in developing mobile source inventories and analyses as needed; and Participates in reviewing and commenting on draft SIP documents. OKI Responsible for developing regional transportation emissions analysis used in the SIP emissions inventories and analyses of new TCMs; Monitor and report on implementation of federal TCMs; Responsible for providing review and comments on draft SIP documents; and Provides concurrence with TCM substitution in the SIP. U.S. EPA Receives the Ohio EPA SIP submittals and has the responsibility to act on them in a timely manner; Reviews and comments on submittals through various meetings, workshops and hearing that are conducted; Provides guidance on the CAA; Determines adequacy of motor vehicle emissions budget used for making TP/TIP conformity findings; and Provides concurrence with TCM substitution in the SIP. FHWA/FTA Provides guidance on transportation planning regulation; and Participates in the SIP review and comment process. Please note: while these are key areas and agencies involved in the development of the SIP, participation in the SIP process by other agencies may occur.
V.
Project-level Conformity Determinations for Carbon Monoxide (CO) and/or Fine Particulate Matter (PM) [40 CFR 93.105 (c)(1)(i)]
Project sponsors are required to conduct project-level conformity analyses by the FHWA/FTA NEPA process. FHWA/FTA are responsible for making all project-level conformity determinations. FHWA/ FTA, with the participation of U.S. EPA, identifies the applicable procedures for CO and/or PM analyses. Project sponsors should use the most recently identified procedures. In accordance with 40 CFR 93.105 (c)(1)(i) and other applicable regulations, Ohio DOT, KYTC and INDOT will determine the following: 1. That FHWA/FTA, with U.S. EPA review participation, has approved the project-level CO and/or PM conformity analyses which are included in the projects environmental document prior to initiating federal authorizations. That the design concept and scope of the project has not changed significantly from that used by OKI, Ohio DOT, KYTC and INDOT in their most recent regional transportation conformity analyses of the TP and TIP.
2.
The OKI governing board or policy committee may periodically review and participate with Ohio DOT, KYTC, INDOT and other agencies as appropriate in the update of the CO and/or PM analyses. Through the NEPA process, Ohio DOT, KYTC and INDOT may provide technical guidance to project sponsors who use these procedures.
VI.
Monitoring of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)

[40 CFR 93.105 (c)(1)(iv)]
Ohio
Kentucky
F-97
As part of the conformity documentation for a TP and/or TIP, OKI will identify the status of SIP TCMs. If TCM emissions reductions are included as part of the motor vehicle emissions budget, OKI will estimate the portion of emission reductions that have been achieved. If there are funding or scheduling issues for a SIP transportation control measure, OKI will describe the steps being undertaken to overcome these obstacles, including means to ensure that funding agencies are giving these TCMs maximum priority. OKI may propose substitution of a new TCM or TCMs for all or a portion of an existing TCM that is experiencing implementation difficulties (see section VII below). VII. Conflict Resolution [40 CFR 93.105 (d)] Conflicts between any parties of this MOU that arise during consultation will be resolved as follows: 1. A statement of the nature of the conflict will be prepared and agreed to by the conflicting parties and shared with the remaining signatories. 2. Disagreeing parties will consult in a good faith effort to resolve the conflict in a manner acceptable to all parties. 3. If they are unsuccessful, the directors of the signatory agencies or their designees shall meet to resolve differences in a manner acceptable to all parties. 4. If none of the above steps produces a satisfactory resolution, the directors of the signatory agencies have 14 days to appeal to the governor(s) of the affected states. OKI will send correspondence to the directors of the signatory agencies informing them that attempts to resolve the conflict have failed and they plan to proceed with their conformity decision or policy in conflict. The 14-day appeal period will commence on the first normal business day following Ohio EPAs and IDEMs receipt of correspondence (whichever is later) via Certified U.S. Mail and/or other certified delivery from OKI. The appeal period will expire at midnight of the 14th calendar day following receipt of such notice. 5. If a party other than Ohio EPA or IDEM appeals to the Governor, that participant must inform the Ohio EPA or IDEM of the Governors response to the appeal. Ohio EPA or IDEM has an additional 14 calendar days from that notification of appeal to the Governor if it disagrees with the response. If Ohio EPA or IDEM appeals to their respective Governor, the final conformity determination must have the concurrence of the Governor. If Ohio EPA or IDEM does not appeal to the Governor within 14 days, OKI may proceed with the final conformity determinations. The Governor may delegate his or her role in the process, but not to the head or staff of Ohio EPA, Ohio DOT, IDEM, INDOT or OKI.
VIII. Public Consultation Procedures [40 CFR 93.105 (e)]

OKI will follow its adopted public participation procedures when making conformity determinations on transportation plans and programs. These procedures establish a proactive public participation process which provides opportunity for public review and comment by, at a minimum, providing reasonable public access to technical and policy information considered by OKI at the beginning of the public comment period and prior to taking formal action on a conformity determination for the TP and TIP, consistent with these requirements and those of 23 CFR 450.316(a). Meetings of OKI are open to the public. Any charges imposed for public inspection and copying should be consistent with the fee schedule contained in 49 CFR 7.43. These agencies also shall provide opportunity for public participation in conformity determinations for projects where otherwise required by law.
F-98
Ohio
Kentucky
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY CONSULTATION PROCEDURES Parties: OKI, MVRPC, Ohio EPA, Ohio DOT, IDEM, INDOT, FHWA, FTA and U.S. EPA LIST of SIGNATORIES
Note: Signatures appear on separate, multiple pages. Mark Policinski Executive Director Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments Donald R. Spang Executive Director Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission Chris Korleski Director Ohio Environmental Protection Agency James G. Beasley, P.E., P.S. Director Ohio Department of Transportation Daniel Murray Assistant Commissioner Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Air Quality Karl B. Browning Commissioner Indiana Department of Transportation Dennis Decker Division Administrator Ohio Division Federal Highway Administration (FHWA-OH is lead for U.S. DOT) Robert F. Tally, Jr., P.E. Division Administrator Indiana Division Federal Highway Administration Marisol Simon Regional Administrator Region 5 Federal Transit Administration Mary Gade Regional Administrator Region 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Robert J. Shook Chairperson
Ohio
Kentucky
F-99

OKI Land Range Transportation Plan 2030

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OKI Land Range Transportation Plan 2030

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

OKI Land Range Transportation Plan 2030

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OKI 2030 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN June 12, 2008

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

The OKI Board of Directors

Intermodal Coordinating Committee

OKI Staff Contributors

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

16 Plan Capacity Expansion Expenditures Chapter 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Chapter 1 Transportation Planning for the OKI Region

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Chapter 1 transportation planning for the oKi region

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Chapter 2 Public Participation

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Chapter 2 publiC partiCipatiON

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Figure 2-2 simulation photos

Access Management Principles

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

Indiana Regional Council of Governments

2030 Regional Transportation Plan

SOURCE: Figure 4- Population by County, 2005-2030.

number of TAZs 425 395 282 288 28 608

,42,460 325,758 20,697 7,360 28,445 ,688,720

Average Household Density 0.07 0.59 .45 2.86 6.49

number of Households 79,68 68,590 7,420 97,484 57,260 774,435

29,9 453,548 437,706 458,032 326,406 ,895,603

number of TAZs 345 396 357 34 69 ,608

958,470 433,025 87,288 90,5 9,786 ,688,720

Average Household Density 0.7 0.80 .48 2.88 6.86

number of Households 8,787 227,733 263,880 250,238 09,590 933,228

20,808 583,364 660,47 555,036 24,59 2,223,874