Practitioners Guide to Incorporating Greenhouse Gas Emissions into the Collaborative Decision-Making Process (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

50 This chapter outlines an analysis framework for considering GHG emissions in trans- portation planning and project development. The framework assists in answering the questions identifi ed in Chapter 2 for each of the key decision points. The information provided in this chapter is structured around the four levels of decision making identi- fi ed in the Transportation for Communities: Advancing Projects Through Partnerships (TCAPP) framework: • Long-range transportation planning (LRP), including statewide, metropolitan, and other regional planning; • Programming (PRO), including statewide and metropolitan transportation im- provement programs; • Corridor planning (COR); and • Environmental review through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (ENV) and project permitting (PER). The framework provides checklists, strategy options, options for analytical methods, and a basic overview of calculation methods and data sources for each method. A range of tools and methods applicable for different scales and resource inputs is provided. Although the planning process is relevant for different scales of analysis, the level of detail and tools and methods that are appropriate for GHG analy- sis and strategy development may differ widely from situation to situation. The frame- work and resource materials presented here are intended to be useful for planning at all scales of analysis and in all geographic contexts. They are also designed to be multimodal, including analysis methods for transit as well as highway travel. The framework is organized around 13 key questions grouped into fi ve basic steps of analysis (Table 3.1). 3 ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK FOR CONSIDERING GHG EMISSIONS IN DECISION MAKING

51 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS The five analysis steps and 13 key questions are, for the most part, common across all four levels of the TCAPP framework. However, they may be addressed at different decision points in each level, and require somewhat different analysis methods. The 13-question process is presented as an idealized process. There may be iterations among the various questions, and local agencies may consider issues in a different sequence than presented here. The analysis framework identifies how the 13 key questions map to the TCAPP key decision points. The relationship between GHG analysis steps and the TCAPP steps is diagrammed for each level of the TCAPP framework in Figures 3.1 through 3.4. These figures show where, in each decision process, information on GHG emissions can be incorporated into key decision points. Appendix A provides much greater detail on GHG emissions analysis and methods that will be of great benefit to Guide users. TABLE 3.1. GHG ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK AND KEY QUESTIONS Analysis Step Key Questions I. Determine information needs 1. What stakeholders should be included in GHG strategy development and evaluation? 2. What is the scope of the GHG emissions analysis? II. Define goals, measures, and resources 3. What goals, objectives, and policies relate to GHG emissions reduction? 4. What GHG-related evaluation criteria and metrics will be used? 5. What are the baseline emissions for the region or study area? 6. What is the goal or target for GHG emissions reduction? 7. How will GHG considerations affect funding availability and needs? III. Define range of strategies for consideration 8. What GHG emissions reduction strategies should be considered? 9. Are strategies and alternatives consistent with a long-range plan and/or other relevant plan that meets GHG emissions reduction objectives? IV. Evaluate GHG benefits and impacts of candidate strategies 10. What calculation methods and data sources will be used to evaluate the GHG impacts of projects and strategies? 11. What are the emissions and other impacts of a particular project, strategy, or design feature? V. Select strategies and document overall GHG benefits and impacts of alternatives 12. What GHG emissions reduction strategies should be part of the plan, program, or project? 13. What are the net emissions impacts for the overall plan, program, corridor, or project alternatives considered and the selected alternative?

52 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Figure 3.1. Incorporating GHG emissions into long-range transportation planning. II. Dene Goals and Measures III. Dene Range of Strategies for Consideration I. Conrm Information Needs IV. Evaluate GHG Benets/Impacts of Candidate Strategies V. Select Strategies and Document Overall GHG Benets/Impacts Approve LRTP scope (LRP-1) Approve vision and goals (LRP-2) Approve evaluation criteria, methodologies, performance measures (LRP-3) Approve transportation deciencies (LRP-4) Approve strategies (LRP-6) Approve plan scenarios (LRP-7) Adopt preferred plan scenario (LRP-8) Adopt LRTP (LRP-10) Approve nancial assumptions (LRP-5) 5. What is the baseline GHG emissions projection? 6. What is the target GHG emissions reduction? 8. What level of analysis is required to support decision making? 9. What are the emissions impacts of a particular project or strategy? 7. What GHG emissions reduction strategies should be considered? 2. What is the scope of GHG emissions to be considered? 4. What metrics will be used? 11. What are the net emissions impacts for the overall LRP alternatives considered and the selected alternative? 10. What GHG emissions reduction strategies should be included in plan scenarios? 3. What goals relate to GHG emissions reduction? 1. What stakeholders should be included? Figure 3.2. Incorporating GHG emissions into programming. Approve revenue sources (PRO-1) Approve methodology for project costs and criteria for allocating revenues (PRO-2) Approve project list drawn from adopted plan scenario (PRO-3) Approve project prioritization (PRO-4) Adopt TIP (PRO-6) Approve TIP by governor and incorporate into draft STIP (PRO-7) Reach consensus on draft STIP (PRO-8) Approve STIP with respect to conformity and scal constraint (PRO-9) Reach consensus on draft TIP (PRO-5) II. Dene Goals and MeasuresI. Conrm Information Needs III. Evaluate GHG Benets/Impacts of Candidate Strategies IV. Select Strategies and Document Overall GHG Benets/Impacts 8. What level of analysis is required to support project selection? 2. What is the scope of GHG emissions to be considered? 4. What metrics will be used? 11. What are the net emissions impacts of the TIP? 10. What GHG emissions reduction projects should be included in the TIP? 3. What goals relate to GHG emissions reduction? 1. What stakeholders should be included?

53 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Figure 3.3. Incorporating GHG emissions into corridor planning. Approve scope of corridor planning process (COR-1) Approve problem statements and opportunities (COR-2) Approve goals for the corridor (COR-3) Reach consensus on scope of environmental review and analysis (COR-4) Approve range of solution sets (COR-6) Adopt preferred solution set (COR-7) Approve evaluation criteria, methodologies, and performance measures for prioritization (COR-8) Adopt priorities for implementation (COR-9) Approve evaluation criteria, methodologies, and performance measures (COR-5) II. Dene Goals and Measures III. Dene Range of Strategies for Consideration I. Conrm Information Needs IV. Evaluate GHG Benets/Impacts of Candidate Strategies V. Select Strategies and Document Overall GHG Benets/Impacts 5.What is the baseline GHG emissions projection? 6.What is the target GHG emissions reduction? 8.What level of analysis is required to support decision making? 9.What are the emissions impacts of a particular strategy? 7.What GHG emissions reduction strategies should be considered? 2. What is the scope of GHG emissions to be considered? 4.What metrics will be used? 11. What are the net emissions impacts for the overall corridor alternatives considered and the selected alternative? 10. What GHG emissions reduction strategies should be included in corridor scenarios? 3.What goals relate to GHG emissions reduction? 1. What stakeholders should be included? Reach consensus on scope of environmental review (ENV-1) Approve and publish notice of intent (ENV-2) Approve purpose and need Reach consensus on project purpose (ENV-3/PER-1) Reach consensus on study area (ENV-4) Approve full range of alternatives (ENV-6/PER-3) Approve alternatives to be carried forward (ENV-7/PER-4) Approve draft EIS (ENV-8) Approve preferred alternative Approve nal NEPA EIS (ENV-9) Approve evaluation criteria, methodologies, and performance measures (ENV-5) 2. Define Goals and Measures 3. Define Range of Strategies for Consideraon 1. Confirm Informaon Needs 4. Evaluate GHG Benefits/Impacts of Candidate Strategies 5. Select Strategies and Document Overall GHG Benefits/Impacts 5.What is the baseline GHG emissions projec on? 6.What is the target GHG emissions reduc on? 8.What level of analysis is required to support decision making? 9.What are the emissions impacts of a par cular alterna ve? 7.What GHG emissions reduc on strategies should be considered? 2.What is the scope of GHG emissions to be considered? 4.What metrics will be used? 11. What are the net emissions impacts for the alterna ves considered and the selected alterna ve? 10. What GHG emissions reduc on strategies should be part of the project? 3.What goals relate to GHG emissions reduc on? 1.What stakeholders should be included? Figure 3.4. Incorporating GHG emissions into the NEPA process and permitting.

54 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS DETERMINE INFORMATION NEEDS What Stakeholders Should Be Included in GHG Strategy Development and Evaluation? Key Decision Points: LRP-1, PRO-2, COR-1, ENV-1 Objective Identify key stakeholders who should be included in the development and analysis of GHG mitigation strategies. Discussion Stakeholder involvement is an integral part of the collaborative planning and decision- making process. The TCAPP website provides guidance on stakeholder collaboration. This initial step in GHG planning ensures that key stakeholders with specific interests in GHGs and climate change issues are included in the process. Table 3.2 provides a checklist of key types of stakeholders that should be considered as part of GHG analysis. TABLE 3.2. KEY STAKEHOLDERS IN GHG PLANNING AND ANALYSIS ____ State DOT ____ Policy & Executive ____ Planning ____ Environmental ____ Project Development ____ Traffic Operations ____ Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)/Regional Planning Agency (RPA) ____ Transit agencies—policy, capital planning, and operations ____ Counties and municipalities ____ Port authorities ____ Federal resource agency ____ Other state agencies ____ Environmental—policy, air quality, permitting ____ Energy ____ Planning ____ Housing/Economic and Community Development ____ Industry ____ Freight/logistics ____ Utilities ____ Construction ____ Advocacy groups ____ Philanthropic organizations ____ Academic/research ____ General public

55 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS What Is the Scope of GHG Emissions Analysis? Key Decision Points: LRP-1, PRO-2, COR-1, ENV-1 Objective Define the scope of GHG emissions considered as part of LRP or transportation im- provement program (TIP) development, corridor planning, or project development and environmental documentation. Discussion This step involves determining (1) the emissions sources to be included, (2) the modes to be included, (3) the time frame of analysis, and (4) the geographic boundaries of the analysis. Table 3.3 provides a checklist and explanation of each option. The scoping of GHG emissions may depend on issues that are considered in subsequent steps, such as any relevant policies or goals related to GHG emissions reductions. See Grant et al. (2010) discussion of target metrics, emissions sources covered, and measurement benchmarks. Scope Consideration Discussion Emissions Source Direct emissions from vehicles (tailpipe emissions) Direct calculation; should be included in all cases. Full fuel-cycle emissions Includes emissions from production and transport of fuel (including electricity generation). Important if strategies using alternative fuels (e.g., biofuels, electricity, hydrogen) are to be examined. See “Vehicle and Fuel Life-Cycle Emissions” in Appendix A. Construction, maintenance, and operations May be important for capital-intensive strategies such as new construction, but existing data are limited. See “Emissions from Construction, Maintenance, and Operations” in Appendix A. Induced travel Includes emissions from increased travel over time in response to improved travel conditions. May be important for strategies providing significant time and/or cost savings (particularly to highway travelers) or impacts on land use patterns. See “Indirect Effects and Induced Travel” in Appendix A. Modes Private vehicles Passenger cars, passenger trucks, and motorcycles. Typically included in all analyses. Commercial vehicles Light commercial trucks, single-unit trucks, combination trucks, and intercity buses. Typically included in most analyses, but may be omitted if looking only at strategies affecting passenger travel. Transit: Buses Important to include if strategies that affect the level or efficiency of transit service are to be evaluated. Transit: Rail Light rail, streetcar, heavy rail, and commuter rail. Intercity passenger rail For statewide and/or interregional analysis. Air For statewide and/or interregional analysis. Freight rail and marine May be included for comprehensive transportation sector analysis; important if strategies that involve mode shifting from truck to rail are to be analyzed. TABLE 3.3. SCOPE OF GHG EMISSIONS CONSIDERED (continued on next page)

56 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS DEFINE GOALS AND MEASURES What Goals, Objectives, and Policies Relate to GHG Emissions Reduction? Key Decision Points: LRP-2, PRO-2, COR-3, ENV-3 Objective Identify relevant policies related to GHG emissions reduction, as well as goals and objec- tives for the plan or project that may inform what types of GHG emissions reduction tar- gets should be set, metrics evaluated, analysis methods used, and strategies considered. Discussion Policies may include external policies and goals (e.g., federal or state); policies, goals, and objectives established by a higher-level planning document, such as a long-range transportation plan (LRTP); and goals and objectives established by stakeholders for a particular transportation plan, corridor study, or project. Participants should be aware of any existing policies that relate to GHGs, such as federal requirements or guidance for addressing GHG emissions in transportation planning, state reduction targets, long-range plan goals, or agencywide policies to take actions that reduce GHG emis- sions. Stakeholders in plan or project development may set specific goals and objec- tives consistent with these policies, or in the absence of such policies may still decide that reducing GHG emissions is a goal of the plan or project. GHG-related policies, goals, and objectives, as well as the importance placed on GHG emissions reduction, may affect the scope of GHG emissions to be considered (as defined in Step 2). TABLE 3.3. SCOPE OF GHG EMISSIONS CONSIDERED (CONTINUED) Scope Consideration Discussion Other School buses, refuse trucks, government fleets. May be included as part of highway vehicle travel inventories (private and commercial vehicles). Time Frame Base year: ____ Horizon/analysis year(s): _____ _______ Cumulative for period: ______ to ______ GHG emissions reductions from a strategy or alternative may be compared against GHG emissions in the base year, and/or baseline GHG emissions in the horizon/analysis year. Cumulative GHG emissions reductions may also be of interest. Geographic Boundaries State MPO planning area Corridor (boundaries defined in corridor study or other studies) Roadway segment (defined endpoints) Other: ____________________ Usually, the geographic analysis area for a state or metropolitan long-range plan or TIP will be the respective state or the MPO planning area. A corridor study may address only a single transportation facility that is the focus of the study, or it may be defined to include a broader area of influence as set forth in the study scope.

57 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS For the project development and environmental permitting step in particular, an important question is whether GHG emissions reductions are part of the purpose and need for the project. If they are, it may be especially important to demonstrate quanti- tatively that the project reduces emissions and include additional GHG reduction and/ or mitigation strategies as appropriate. If GHG emissions reductions are not part of the purpose and need, GHGs may still be an important consideration, but this should be determined in consultation with project stakeholders. Additional resources in Appendix A discuss federal and state guidance and regula- tions regarding GHG consideration in transportation planning and project develop- ment (current as of the fall of 2010). What GHG-Related Evaluation Criteria and Measures Will Be Used? Key Decision Points: LRP-3, PRO-2, COR-5, ENV-5 Objective Define the GHG-related evaluation criteria and metrics to be used to measure the im- pact of a transportation project or program under consideration. Discussion This step involves determining what GHG-related measures will be reported, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), total GHGs, or another proxy or related measure such as ve- hicle miles traveled (VMT) or energy consumption. It also involves determining other GHG-related criteria on which projects and strategies will be evaluated, such as cost- effectiveness and feasibility. Table 3.4 provides a list of potential metrics. The evalua- tion criteria and metrics selected should be consistent with any higher-level planning documents, such as the LRTP. TABLE 3.4. GHG-RELATED METRICS Carbon dioxide (CO2) Carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), including: • Methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) • Refrigerants VMT (as proxy) Energy consumption (Btu) Cost-effectiveness (dollars/ton GHG or VMT) Other: ___________________________ CO2 represents about 95% of all mobile-source GHG emissions. A complete accounting of GHGs will also include CH4, N2O, and refrigerants, which can collectively be measured in CO2e based on the global warming potential of each. The GHG contri- bution of these other gases is usually small and may not be worth the additional effort of estimating them with precision. CH4 and N2O can be calculated from emission factor models such as MOVES (Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator) and EMFAC (Emission

58 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Factors), but refrigerants cannot. However, it may be important to include them when strategies that might affect these particular GHGs are evaluated. Examples include natu- ral gas vehicles (which have high methane emissions) and programs to recapture refrig- erants. In other cases, it may be reasonable to simply factor CO2 emissions by a ratio of total GHGs to CO2 emissions by vehicle type to gain a complete accounting of GHG emissions (i.e., CO2e). Black carbon is a potential GHG, but existing science and analytic methods are insufficient to support quantifying it in a GHG inventory. Appendix A pro- vides further details on the various types of GHGs and how to calculate them. VMT may be an adequate proxy for GHG emissions if only strategies affecting VMT are analyzed. It will not be an appropriate metric for strategies that affect traffic flow conditions or vehicle and fuel technology, and its usefulness will be limited for strategies that include mode shifting to transit or rail (which may increase VMT for some vehicle types while decreasing it for others with different efficiency). The trans- portation agency may also decide to focus on energy consumption, which can be mea- sured in British thermal units (Btu), as a supplement or alternative to GHG emissions. The relationship between energy consumption and GHG emissions depends on the fuel type. However, if alternative fuel strategies are not being evaluated, GHG emis- sions will closely track energy consumption. Energy consumption may be of interest to stakeholders for other reasons (e.g., energy security, energy independence) aside from the environmental motivations associated with climate change. Cost-effectiveness is typically measured in dollars spent per metric ton of GHG emissions reduced. The cost-effectiveness calculation may be based only on the direct costs of implementing a project or strategy, or it may include other monetary and nonmonetary costs and benefits such as vehicle operating cost savings, travel time savings, crash cost savings, or the value of air pollution and health benefits. Costs can be distinguished according to costs to the public sector versus net costs or benefits to society as a whole. A negative cost per ton indicates that the strategy results in net social benefits. Tables A.6 and A.7 in Appendix A provide evidence from the literature on the cost-effectiveness of different transportation strategies. Other common evaluation criteria include • Feasibility: Including political, institutional, financial, and/or technical feasibility; • Equity: The extent to which different population groups are positively or nega- tively affected; • Certainty: The level of confidence that the projected GHG emissions reductions can actually be achieved; • Leakage: Whether the projected GHG emissions reductions might result in GHG increases outside of the planning area (e.g., a project to apply cordon pricing around a city might reduce GHG emissions within that city, but increase emissions elsewhere if trips are diverted to other locations); and • Synergistic effects: Whether the project or strategy is likely to lead to other out- comes or support other actions that will further reduce GHG emissions.

59 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS For additional information, refer to Grant et al. (2010) for a discussion of target metrics, emissions sources covered, and measurement benchmarks. What Are the Baseline Emissions for the Region or Study Area? Key Decision Points: LRP-4, PRO-5, COR-3, ENV-6 Objective Establish a baseline (no-action) GHG emissions inventory using the selected GHG- related metric(s) and scope of emissions considered for both the base year and any analysis year(s). The baseline inventory should account for any adopted state, multi- state, and federal regulations such as vehicle fuel efficiency standards, GHG emissions standards, and low-carbon or renewable fuel standards. Discussion The baseline inventory is normally developed considering all relevant transportation activity occurring within the study area (e.g., MPO model area, defined corridor), as well as the adopted baseline land use and socioeconomic forecasts. Different options exist for developing a baseline inventory. The method should be selected by consider- ing factors such as data availability, level of effort, and the accuracy or precision of the information needed. In addition, the method for developing the baseline inven- tory is likely to serve as a starting point for analyzing the GHG impacts of proposed alternatives. If quantitative emissions reduction targets or metrics related to a percentage reduc- tion in emissions are not set, it may not be necessary to develop a baseline inventory. Instead it may only be necessary to evaluate the expected change in GHG emissions as a result of a particular project or strategy, either quantitatively or qualitatively. Two of the methods presented in Table 3.5 are oriented primarily toward a sys- tems- and/or network-level analysis: • VMT trend extrapolation with VMT-based emissions factors (Method A); and • Travel demand and emissions factor models (Method B). Two additional methods are more suited to corridor- or project-level analysis: • Traffic counts, forecasts, and transit operating data with emissions factors (Method C); and • Traffic simulation models (Method D).

60 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS TABLE 3.5. BASELINE INVENTORY: CALCULATION METHODS AND DATA SOURCES Method Comments Method A: VMT trend extrapolation with VMT-based emissions factors Appropriate CDMF levels: LRP, PRO, COR Description: This is the simplest approach available for transportation GHG emissions inventory development at a substate level. It relies on externally generated data to develop a regional estimate of GHG emissions. Situations in which to apply: • Travel model not available, does not cover all modes, or forecasts for analysis year(s) not yet developed. • Detailed or precise inventory not needed. Calculation methods: • Highway (passenger and commercial vehicles): — Obtain historic VMT data by vehicle type for the past 10 or more years for the analysis area from the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). — Extrapolate to future years using trend projection (see Appendix A) or using a projection already developed by a state or regional agency. — Apply GHG emissions factors (g/mi) appropriate for base and horizon years (see Appendix A). • Transit: — Obtain National Transit Database (NTD) service and fuel consumption data for the past 5 to 10 years and apply GHG emissions factors (see Appendix A). Consult with local transit agencies to project service levels for future years under existing service plans (e.g., continue same level, grow in proportion to population) and characteristics of transit fleet (fuel type and efficiency). Emissions from buses running on public roads should be subtracted from the highway inventory to avoid double-counting, because buses will be included in vehicle counts. Data sources: • HPMS: historic VMT data. • The Climate Registry’s General Reporting Protocol: Emission rates (g/gal for CO2, g/mi for CH4 and N2O). Emission rates in g/gal can be converted to g/mi using fuel economy estimates as described in Appendix A. • National Transit Database (NTD): Historic transit VMT and fuel consumption by transit mode. • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID): Historic GHG emission rates for electricity (g/mW-h). Grams per megawatt-hour emission rates can be converted to grams per mile using vehicle efficiency estimates, which are commonly expressed in kilowatt-hours per mile (kW-h/mi); 1 megawatt = 1,000 kilowatts. • U.S. Department of Energy’s Annual Energy Outlook: Projections of fuel efficiency by mode and regional emissions rate (for electricity consumption) through 2030. (continued on next page)

61 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Method Comments Method B: Travel demand and emissions factor models Appropriate CDMF levels: LRP, PRO, COR Description: This approach uses the regional or statewide travel demand model and HPMS data to develop forecasts of VMT by road type and vehicle type and speed, to which emission factors from EPA’s MOVES model or another emission factor model (such as EMFAC) are applied. Situations in which to apply: • LRP, PRO: Recommended when travel model is available and a no-build scenario has been developed. • COR: Recommended when travel model has sufficient network detail to represent traffic conditions in study corridor. Calculation methods: • Run the regional travel demand model for the no-build scenario; output link-level volumes and speeds by MOVES road type. • Run MOVES to obtain a lookup table of CO2 emission factors by vehicle type, facility type, and speed (see Appendix A). • Adjust emissions factors for any differences in future year vehicle efficiency and/or carbon content standards not reflected in MOVES (see Appendix A). • Apply adjusted MOVES emissions factors to travel demand model output (see Appendix A). • Calculate base and horizon year(s) transit VMT by mode based on performance statistics (route miles and headways) from the travel demand model or operating data and projections from local transit agencies (see Method A above). • Apply transit emissions factors (see Appendix A). Data sources: • HPMS and travel demand model outputs (VMT by speed and vehicle type). • MOVES emissions factors (g/mi). • VMT percentage distribution by vehicle type could come from HPMS, roadside vehicle counts, inspection and maintenance program odometer data, or MOVES national defaults. • Other data (transit, emissions) as shown in Method A above. Method C: Traffic counts, forecasts, and transit operating data with emissions factors Appropriate CDMF levels: COR, ENV Description: Traffic counts and transit vehicle frequencies for the base year are projected to future years using growth factors and multiplied by roadway segment length, and VMT or speed-based emission factors are applied. Situations in which to apply: • When this method is already being used to determine base year and design year no-build traffic forecasts with associated traffic capacity analyses for documenting project need. • When the analysis is focused on improving GHG emissions from a subset of a roadway network as opposed to a regional network change. • When an adopted regional forecasting model is not available, but it is expected that area population and employment growth will not follow the growth trends of the previous 10 years. TABLE 3.5. BASELINE INVENTORY: CALCULATION METHODS AND DATA SOURCES (CONTINUED) (continued on next page)

62 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Method Comments Method C: Traffic counts, forecasts, and transit operating data with emissions factors (continued) Calculation methods: • Identify road network links to be assessed, including all those whose traffic is expected to be affected by the project. • Conduct traffic counts to determining existing volumes and peaking characteristics on links. • Determine existing land use served by links. • Determine trip generation by land use. • Identify existing through trips. • Identify percentage of various vehicle types in existing traffic. • Determine future land use served by each link in the design year. • Grow traffic volumes to the design year based on additional land use, while assuming trip generation and peaking characteristics similar to the base year. • Determine the number of congested and uncongested hours or periods per year based on peaking characteristics and road capacity. • Estimate link speeds during congested periods. There could be more than one congested speed given that different hours will have different levels of congestion. The link speed limit can be assumed for uncongested periods. • Determine VMT traveled broken down by speed (base year and no-build design year) within the GHG study area. • Apply MOVES or EMFAC emissions factors to determine GHG emissions for the base year and design year. If including transit service in the analysis: • Obtain transit vehicle operating data for the current year and expected future year conditions (number of vehicles per day, by vehicle and fuel type, by route length within the study area). • Apply transit vehicle emissions factors from MOVES or EMFAC (diesel, gasoline, or natural gas), or another source for alternative fuel vehicles, to VMT by bus type. • Subtract transit emissions from total on-road emissions (assuming buses are included in traffic counts). Data sources: • Available counts, forecasts, and vehicle mix from past studies or ongoing traffic monitoring programs. • New project area traffic counts, forecasts, and vehicle mix done specifically for the project. • Transit operating data (current and expected or planned future). • Land use growth forecasts from land use plans, recently approved traffic impact assessments, and/or interviews with local planners. • Road link characteristics. • MOVES or EMFAC model. TABLE 3.5. BASELINE INVENTORY: CALCULATION METHODS AND DATA SOURCES (CONTINUED) (continued on next page)

63 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Method Comments Method D: Traffic simulation model Appropriate CDMF levels: COR, ENV Description: A traffic simulation model is used in conjunction with operations-based emissions factors to model current and forecast operating conditions and GHG emissions. Situations in which to apply: Traffic simulation models offer an opportunity to add additional detail in both traffic capacity analysis and GHG analysis. Simulations can account for the effect on GHG emissions of intersection and interchange operations, including queuing in highly congested situations, as well as design characteristics such as sharp curves and steep grades. Simulations might be used in GHG analysis when • Simulation modeling is already being done as a part of traffic capacity analysis. • It is important to the selection of a preferred alternative to capture additional subtleties in traffic-related GHG emissions. • It is important to capture the affect of project design and operations on the emissions of a variety of different motor vehicle types (e.g., bus fleets using buses with different fuel types). • The GHG study area is focused enough to make it reasonable to create and run a simulation model. Simulations are typically used for analysis in areas with heavy peaking, congestion, queuing, or stop-and-go operations. Simulations are generally done to analyze peak travel periods and are often focused on a portion of a road network. Therefore, simulation model results would need to be used with results from Method C to capture all GHG emissions across the links potentially affected by a proposed project. Calculation methods: • Standard traffic simulation models can be used (see Appendix A for an overview of these models). • Outputs from simulation models useful to GHG emissions include VMT by vehicle type and speed, the number of hours spent idling, and fuel consumption (if available). Existing traffic simulation models do not provide outputs of GHG emissions, so these need to be postprocessed as described below. • If the traffic simulation model produces fuel consumption estimates, CO2 emission factors can be applied directly as shown in Appendix A. • If the traffic simulation model does not produce fuel consumption estimates, either (1) average speeds should be calculated by link and used in conjunction with speed-based emissions factors from MOVES or EMFAC, or preferably, (2) the detailed traffic model output should be postprocessed for use with the MOVES model. Practice in this area is still evolving and is discussed in Appendix A, “Applying MOVES in Project-Level Analyses.” Data sources: • Traffic forecasts derived from Method C above and intersection and/or interchange turning movement studies. • Design characteristics taken from conceptual or preliminary designs, including lanes, grades, and curves. Note: CDMF = collaborative decision-making framework. TABLE 3.5. BASELINE INVENTORY: CALCULATION METHODS AND DATA SOURCES (CONTINUED)

64 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS What Is the Goal or Target for GHG Emissions Reduction? Key Decision Points: LRP-4, PRO-2, COR-3, ENV-3 Objective Define a quantitative target or qualitative goal for GHG emissions reductions com- pared with the baseline inventory or forecast. Goals or targets may be externally de- termined (e.g., state or federal guidance or requirement) or may be established for the project or plan through a stakeholder and public involvement process. Discussion Quantitative targets may be expressed in absolute terms (metric tons of CO2 or CO2e), percentage terms, or as a not-to-exceed threshold. They may be expressed com- pared with a base year, historic year (e.g., 1990), or baseline forecast in the analysis year. A target may be set specifically for the transportation emissions to be affected by the plan or process (e.g., reduce net corridor emissions by 10% from baseline through project strategies), or the planning activity or project may be measured for its ability to contribute to a broader, cross-sectoral target (e.g., support the state’s effort to reduce GHG emissions by 20% in 2020 from 1990 levels). Options for expressing goals or targets are shown in Table 3.6. Not all projects or plans will have quantitative targets. In some cases, projects or strategies may be evaluated simply for their ability to contribute to GHG emissions reductions (expected direction of impact). In such cases, a qualitative goal may be established, such as “ensure that the project does not increase GHG emissions com- pared with the baseline,” or “ensure that project contributes to GHG emissions reduc- tions.” Quantitative targets are most likely to be applied at the system level (statewide or regional long-range transportation plan or improvement program), and less likely to be applied at a corridor or project level. However, the selection and scoping of cor- ridor and project studies should be consistent with regional and state-level long-range plans that have been developed to meet any applicable GHG reduction goals or targets. TABLE 3.6. GOAL OR TARGET REDUCTION OPTIONS Goal or Target Percentage reduction: ___% from year _____ levels by year _____ Absolute reduction: ___ metric tons CO2e versus baseline case or current year in year ____ Threshold value: no greater than ____ metric tons CO2e in year _____ Other:

65 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS How Will GHG Consideration Affect Funding Availability and Needs? Key Decision Points: LRP-5, PRO-1 Objective Determine how considering GHG issues in the transportation process may affect (1) available revenue sources and (2) revenue needs for planning and implementation. Discussion This question is most likely to be relevant at the long-range plan and programming levels, although it may also affect corridor- and project-level decisions. GHG consid- erations may affect transportation plan and program finance in at least three ways. First, revenue sources (such as federal or state funds) may be available that are specifically dedicated toward GHG emissions reduction or that require such reduc- tions as a condition for funding. As of the fall of 2010 there were no federal aid high- way programs specifically directed at GHG emissions reduction, although there has been discussion of incorporating GHG criteria into the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program or establishing a similar dedicated program for air quality and/or GHG improvements. The Federal Transit Administration’s Tran- sit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction (TIGGER) program has explicitly funded GHG emissions reduction projects. Second, some GHG emissions reduction strategies, such as tolling and pricing strat- egies, may generate additional transportation revenues that are then made available for implementation of GHG reduction strategies and/or other transportation purposes. Finally, the evaluation of GHG strategies within the planning and project develop- ment process may require additional planning funding in order to provide personnel resources to develop inventories, conduct planning for GHG strategies, and analyze emissions reductions. It is also possible that the desire to fund GHG emissions reduc- tions projects may be a significant factor influencing decisions about overall transpor- tation revenue streams. DEFINE RANGE OF STRATEGIES FOR CONSIDERATION What GHG Emissions Reduction Strategies Should Be Considered? Key Decision Points: LRP-6, PRO-3, COR-6, ENV-6 Objective Identify GHG emissions reduction projects or strategies that should be evaluated for inclusion in the LRTP, TIP, corridor plan, or project design. Discussion The process for screening potential GHG emissions reduction strategies typically in- volves four basic steps: • Identify projects or strategies already considered for other purposes, such as air quality improvement or congestion relief, that may also have GHG benefits;

66 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS • Develop a list of other potential strategies; • Assess the general magnitude of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, cobenefits and impacts, political feasibility, jurisdictional authority, and funding constraints for each strategy; and • Select strategies for further consideration based on these factors. At the screening stage, existing literature is generally used to assist in identify- ing the general level of benefit, cost, cost-effectiveness, and cobenefits associated with each GHG emissions reduction strategy. More detailed evaluation is often conducted at later stages to refine these estimates for local conditions. The screening stage may also consider what planned or proposed projects may increase GHG emissions and whether these projects should be evaluated further for their GHG impacts. Table 3.7 lists potential GHG emissions reduction projects and strategies and identifies the level(s) of TCAPP application for which each is most suited. Literature providing evidence on the benefits, costs, cost-effectiveness, and cobenefits of various strategies is summarized in Appendix A. It is likely that transportation agencies are already undertaking a number of these strategies. They may want to assess whether the benefits of existing strategies have been adequately quantified, or whether more analysis should be done to quantify these benefits. TABLE 3.7. POTENTIAL GHG REDUCTION PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES Potential GHG Emissions Reduction Projects and Strategies Likely Levels of Application LRP PRO COR ENV Transportation System Planning and Design ____ Bottleneck relief X X X X ____ High-occupancy vehicle/high-occupancy toll (HOV/HOT) lanes X X X X ____ Toll lanes or roads X X X X ____ Truck-only toll lanes X X X X ____ Fixed-guideway transit expansion X X X X ____ Intercity rail and high-speed rail X X X X ____ Bicycle facilities and accommodation X X X X ____ Pedestrian facilities and accommodation X X X X ____ Rail system improvements X X X X ____ Marine system improvements X X X ____ Intermodal facility and access improvements X X X X Transportation System Management and Operations ____ Traffic signal timing and synchronization X X X X ____ Incident management X X X X ____ Traveler information systems X X X X ____ Advanced traffic management systems X X X X ____ Access management X X X (continued on next page)

67 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Potential GHG Emissions Reduction Projects and Strategies Likely Levels of Application LRP PRO COR ENV ____ Congestion pricing X X X X ____ Speed management (limits, enforcement) X X X ____ Truck and bus idle reduction X X X ____ Transit fare measures (discounts and incentives) X X ____ Transit frequency, Level of Service, and coverage X X ____ Transit priority measures (signal preemption, queue bypass lanes, shoulder running) X X X X Land Use and Smart Growth ____ Integrated transportation and land use planning X X ____ Funding incentives and technical assistance to local governments for code revision, planning, and design practices X X ____ Parking management and pricing X X X ____ Designated growth areas, growth boundaries, and urban service boundaries X ____ Transit-oriented development, infill, and other location-targeting incentives X X X ____ Freight villages and consolidation facilities X X Travel Demand Management and Public Education ____ Employer-based commute programs X X ____ Ridesharing and vanpooling programs X X ____ Telework and compressed work week X X ____ Nonwork transportation demand management programs (e.g., school pool, social marketing, individualized marketing) X X ____ Eco-driving X Vehicle and Fuel Policies ____ Alternative fuel and/or high-efficiency transit vehicle purchase X X X X ____ Alternative fuel and electric vehicle infrastructure X X ____ Government fleet purchases X Construction, Maintenance, and Operations Practices ____ Low-energy and/or low-GHG pavement and materials X X ____ Construction and maintenance equipment and operations X X ____ Alternative energy sources or carbon offsets X X X ____ Right-of-way management (e.g., vegetation) X X ____ Building and equipment energy efficiency improvements X X Other ____ X X X X Note: Inclusion of type of strategy or project in this table does not guarantee that it will reduce GHG emissions. The GHG impacts of any given strategy or project must be evaluated based on local conditions and data. TABLE 3.7. POTENTIAL GHG REDUCTION PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES (CONTINUED)

68 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Are Program, Corridor, or Project Alternatives Consistent with a Long-Range Plan and/or Other Relevant Plans That Meet GHG Emssions Reduction Objectives? Key Decision Points: LRP-6, PRO-3, COR-6, ENV-6 Objective Determine whether projects considered for the TIP, corridor alternatives and strate- gies, or project alternatives and strategies are consistent with a higher-level plan (such as an LRTP, strategic highway safety plan, state energy plan, or state climate action plan) that has been developed with GHG emissions reduction goals in mind. Discussion The LRTP is intended to be an overarching transportation policy document for a state or region. Projects listed in the TIP are expected to be consistent with the goals, objec- tives, policies, and major projects set forth in the LRTP. Corridor planning processes and projects selected for more detailed development activities should also be consistent with the long-range plan. In addition, if a corridor plan has been developed for a trans- portation corridor, projects evaluated within this corridor should be consistent with that plan. Ideally, the LRTP or corridor plan will have been developed considering both land use and transportation issues (e.g., as part of a regional or corridor vision for transportation and growth), because land use patterns can significantly affect transportation GHG emissions at this level. It is generally most practical and effective to set GHG emissions reduction targets at a transportation system or network level (plan or program), rather than for indi- vidual corridors or projects. However, an important test of whether the project or cor- ridor plan meets overall GHG emissions reduction goals is whether it is consistent with a broader plan or program. If a statewide or regional transportation plan has been developed with consideration of GHG emissions targets or the state has developed a state energy plan or climate action plan, then the corridor or project concept being evaluated, as well as any specific alternatives or strategies, should be consistent with that plan. Checking for consistency will allow the analyst to determine whether the project and any specific strategies being considered will support GHG emissions reduc- tion objectives. For example, programming a highway capacity expansion project that has not been included in a long-range plan evaluated for GHG emissions impacts may not be consistent with GHG reduction objectives. If the state or region has not yet developed a plan that considers GHG emissions reduction objectives, it may not be possible to screen projects or strategies according to this criterion. However, consideration may still be given to the type of project and whether it would be expected to increase or decrease GHG emissions.

69 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS EVALUATE GHG BENEFITS AND IMPACTS OF PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES What Calculation Methods and Data Sources Will Be Used to Evaluate the GHG Impacts of Projects and Strategies? Key Decision Points: LRP-3, PRO-2, COR-5, ENV-5 Objective Define what level of analysis is required to support the decision-making process, and identify appropriate analysis tools and data. Discussion Three general levels of analysis are defined here: order of magnitude assessment, sketch-level analysis, and analysis using network or simulation models. In practice, there may be a continuum of assessment methods from simpler to more complex. Different amounts of effort may be appropriate for different strategies based on the importance of that strategy for GHG emissions reductions, uncertainty with respect to its impacts, and availability of resources and data for assessment. This step may include consideration of how to evaluate projects or other strategies that are proposed specifically with the objective of reducing GHG emissions. It also may include consideration of how to evaluate the GHG impacts of projects or actions that are proposed for inclusion in the plan for other purposes such as mobility, safety, or air quality. Table 3.8 describes different calculation methods and data sources that can be considered for GHG analysis. Table 3.9 shows different types of analysis tools that can be used for GHG analysis. TABLE 3.8. CALCULATION METHODS AND DATA SOURCES Level of Analysis Comments (A) Order of magnitude assessment Description: This approach uses existing data from other sources to provide information on the approximated magnitude of benefits and cost-effectiveness that might be expected from different GHG emissions reduction strategies. Situations in which to apply: • Initial screening of strategies for more detailed analysis. • Limited time and resources available. • Locally specific estimates not needed. Calculation methods: • Review existing sources of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data. • Consider factors unique to metropolitan area that might affect effectiveness of specific strategies, such as: — Size of region, — Land use patterns, — Congestion levels, — Availability and competitiveness of transit and nonmotorized modes, — Amount of freight traffic in region, — Electricity generation sources (affects light and heavy rail transit benefits), and — Political climate and effects on feasibility (including public acceptability). (continued on next page)

70 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Level of Analysis Comments (A) Order of magnitude assessment (continued) Data Sources • A summary of cost-effectiveness by strategy is provided in Appendix A. See also “Strategy Impacts and Cost-Effectiveness” in the annotated bibliography. (B) Sketch-level analysis Description: This approach involves basic, off-model analysis (i.e., not using a travel demand or simulation model) of the GHG impacts of individual strategies, using a variety of methods as appropriate for each strategy. Situations in which to apply: • Strategy screening and/or selection is desired using locally specific data. • Limited time and resources are available. • Order-of-magnitude estimates are desired, but precise, rigorous estimates are not required. Calculation methods: A variety of analysis tools and methods, each with different data requirements, may be needed for different types of strategies. Examples of methods include elasticities, spreadsheet calculators, the COMMUTER or TRIMMS model, or other techniques such as the American Public Transportation Association methodology for transit GHG benefits. Refer to Table 3.10 for an overview of applicable tools by strategy. More details on analysis tools are provided in Appendix A. Data sources: Because of their wide variation, sketch methods are not described in detail in this report, but examples are provided in other reports as referenced in “GHG Analysis Tools” in Appendix A. (C) Network or simulation model analysis Description: This approach uses a network model, such as the regional travel demand model (in conjunction with other preprocessor, postprocessor, or off-model techniques) to analyze strategies at a systems level or a traffic simulation model to analyze strategies at a corridor or project level. Situations in which to apply: • Strong regional importance is placed on GHG emissions reductions and the desire to select the most effective and cost-effective strategies. • Robust calculations are needed to support meeting state and/or regional targets. • Sufficient data and analysis resources are available, including a travel demand model with adequate capabilities. Calculation methods: • Network models may be directly suitable for analyzing some strategies, such as major capacity improvements, transit investments, land use, pricing, and nonmotorized improvements; however, only the more sophisticated models may be suitable for some of these strategies. See Appendix A for further discussion. • Additional analysis tools and methods may be used in conjunction with travel model data for strategies that cannot be directly modeled. Examples include the use of a 4-D postprocessor to analyze microscale land use and nonmotorized changes, or the ITS Deployment and Analysis System (IDAS) model for analyzing intelligent transportation systems (ITS) strategies. • The use of traffic simulation models for strategy analysis is similar to their use for corridor- or project-level inventory development, as described in Step 5, Method D. Refer to Table 3.10 for an overview of methods by strategy. See Appendix A for more detail on these methods. Data sources: Network model and off-model techniques are not described in detail in this report. TABLE 3.8. CALCULATION METHODS AND DATA SOURCES (CONTINUED)

71 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS TABLE 3.9. EXAMPLE ANALYSIS TOOLS FOR GHG ANALYSIS Category of Tool Description Examples Travel demand and related models Regional, statewide, or subarea models of the transportation network. • Travel demand models (Cube, EMME/2, TransCAD, VISSUM) • Integrated transportation–land use models (PECAS, TRANUS, UrbanSim) • Intelligent Transportation Systems Deployment Analysis System (IDAS) Traffic simulation models Detailed models to evaluate traffic conditions on specific facilities or for areawide networks. • TSIS-CORSIM • VISSIM • Paramics • SimTraffic • TransModeler • SIDRA TRIP GHG inventory and policy analysis tools Tools specifically designed for creating GHG inventories and analyzing reduction strategies. • Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Transportation Emissions Guidebook • Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) • Climate and Air Pollution Planning Assistant (CAPPA) • Climate Leadership in Parks (CLIP) • FHWA carbon calculator tool • GreenDOT • GreenSTEP • State Inventory Tool (SIT) URBEMIS Other travel demand analysis tools Models and tools for assessing the impacts of strategies to reduce vehicle travel. • COMMUTER model • TRIMMS • Land use scenario planning tools (INDEX, Smart Growth INDEX PLACE3S, CommunityViz, CorPlan, and others) Emissions factor and fuel economy models Models for developing emissions or energy use factors that can be applied to travel changes. • GlobeWarm • MOtor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) • EMission FACtor model (EMFAC) • Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) model • VISION model Other off-model methods Application of elasticities, case examples, and other customized methods to analyze specific strategies. • Elasticities • Case examples • Other tools

72 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS What Are the Emissions Impacts of Specific Projects and Strategies? Key Decision Points: LRP-6, PRO-4, COR-6, COR-9, ENV-6, ENV-7, ENV-8 Objective Apply appropriate analysis tools to analyze strategies and estimate GHG emissions impacts of individual projects or strategies proposed for inclusion in a long-range plan, TIP, corridor plan, or project design. Discussion A variety of tools and methods are available for analyzing the GHG benefits of dif- ferent transportation projects, policies, strategies, or design features. These are briefly described below. There is considerable research and development underway on GHG analysis methods, and this list may not include all currently available tools or reflect the most recent updates to models. In addition, individual agencies or consultants have developed their own tools or methods for proprietary or internal use that could be ap- plied or adapted in other settings. Some of the available tools and methods calculate travel impacts but do not directly calculate GHG emissions. This listing is not a comprehensive assessment of these tools; examples of other tools not listed here may include transit ridership fore- casting models, freight analysis tools, and land use scenario planning tools. With any of these approaches, travel impacts (changes in VMT and, optionally, speeds by mode) can be used as a basis for estimating GHG emissions, if applied with emissions fac- tors developed from an emissions factor model or method. “GHG Analysis Tools” in Appendix A describes the analytical tools listed in Table 3.10, which shows how such tools can be used.

73 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS TABLE 3.10. GHG EVALUATION TOOLS BY STRATEGY Tool or Method G H G I n ve n to ry D ev el op m en t H ig h w ay N et w or k Im p ro ve m en ts U rb an T ra n si t E xp an si on In te rc it y R ai l an d B u s N on m ot or iz ed I m p ro ve m en ts R ai l an d M ar in e Im p ro ve m en ts IT S / O p er at io n s an d M an ag em en t S p ee d M an ag em en t Id le R ed u ct io n Tr an si t S er vi ce I m p ro ve m en ts R oa d w ay P ri ci n g La n d U se a n d S m ar t G ro w th TD M a n d P u b lic E d u ca ti on V eh ic le a n d F u el P ol ic ie s C on st ru ct io n a n d M ai n te n an ce P ra ct ic es Travel Demand and Related Models Travel demand models: Basica X X X Travel demand models: Enhancedb X X X Xc X X X X X Integrated transportation–land use models X X X Xc X X X ITS Deployment Analysis System (IDAS) X Traffic microsimulation models X X X GHG Inventory and Policy Analysis Tools Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Guidebook X X X X X X X Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) X Climate and Air Pollution Planning Assistant (CAPPA) X X X X X X X X X Climate Leadership in National Parks (CLIP) X X X X X X X FHWA carbon calculator tool X TBD GreenDOT X X X X X GreenSTEP X X X X X X X X X X State inventory tool X URBEMIS X X X (continued on next page)

74 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Tool or Method G H G I n ve n to ry D ev el op m en t H ig h w ay N et w or k Im p ro ve m en ts U rb an T ra n si t E xp an si on In te rc it y R ai l an d B u s N on m ot or iz ed I m p ro ve m en ts R ai l an d M ar in e Im p ro ve m en ts IT S / O p er at io n s an d M an ag em en t S p ee d M an ag em en t Id le R ed u ct io n Tr an si t S er vi ce I m p ro ve m en ts R oa d w ay P ri ci n g La n d U se a n d S m ar t G ro w th TD M a n d P u b lic E d u ca ti on V eh ic le a n d F u el P ol ic ie s C on st ru ct io n a n d M ai n te n an ce P ra ct ic es Other Travel Demand Analysis Tools COMMUTER model X X TRIMMS X X Land use scenario planning tools X X Emissions Factor and Fuel Economy Modelsd GlobeWarm X X X X X X X X MOVES X X X X X X X X X EMFAC X X X X X X X X X GREET X X VISION X X Other off-model methods Elasticities X X X X X X Case examples Various Other tools Various – see Appendix A for examples Notes: TDM = transportation demand management. aBasic regional travel demand models typically do not include transit or nonmotorized modes, auto ownership, freight, or time-of-day effects. bEnhanced regional travel demand models may include some or all of the following: transit networks and mode choice, nonmotorized conditions and mode choice, consideration of time-of-day shifting, a freight model, or feedback improvements to better capture network effects. cIntercity policy and project analysis requires a statewide model (with inclusion of transit for transit strategies). dEmissions factor and fuel economy models must be used in conjunction with transportation models to analyze strategies that affect travel activity. The strategies associated with these models cannot be analyzed by the models listed here directly, but they can be analyzed with the travel activity models that provide inputs to these emissions factor models. In addition to these models, other data sources exist for emissions factors for different modes, including the Department of Energy’s Annual Energy Outlook, the Transportation Energy Data Book, and EPA’s eGRID database. TABLE 3.10. GHG EVALUATION TOOLS BY STRATEGY (CONTINUED)

75 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS SELECT STRATEGIES AND DOCUMENT OVERALL GHG BENEFITS AND IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES What GHG Emissions Reductions Strategies Should Be Part of the Plan or Project? Key Decision Points: LRP-7, PRO-5, COR-6, COR-9, ENV-8 Objective Determine which strategies should be part of the final plan or project. Discussion The selection of final strategies will not be done considering GHG impacts in isolation, but rather as part of the larger process of selecting projects or strategies considering the full range of evaluation criteria established. Typically, some sort of multicriteria evaluation process will be used, such as a weighted scoring system (in which points are assigned to various evaluation factors) or a multicriteria matrix (in which impacts for each factor are arrayed in a table and evaluated qualitatively by decision makers). Projects or strategies that are specifically intended to support GHG emissions reduc- tions may be advanced at this time. This may include consideration of whether proj- ects or actions that increase GHG emissions should be excluded. Information on the GHG benefits and cost-effectiveness of individual strate- gies, developed in previous steps, may be considered as part of the overall process of developing a plan or project alternative. In addition, consideration should be given to potential interactive effects among strategies (synergies and antagonisms) to develop plan or project alternatives that include logical groupings of strategies. For example, a regional plan that includes transit as a GHG emissions reduction strategy may also logically include transit-supportive land use policies to enhance the benefits of transit. Roadway improvement projects to relieve congestion might logically include pricing to manage demand. What Are the Net Emissions Impacts for the Overall LRP, TIP, Corridor, or Project Alternatives Considered and the Selected Alternative? Key Decision Points: LRP-8, PRO-5, COR-7, COR-9, ENV-8 Objective Estimate GHG emissions for draft LRP alternatives and TIP, corridor, or project alter- natives compared with baseline emissions and GHG emissions reduction goals. Discussion This step is an assessment of the overall impacts of proposed and final alternative(s) considering the various GHG reduction or mitigation strategies that are proposed for inclusion. It may be conducted for multiple alternatives for the purpose of assisting with the selection of a preferred alternative or as documentation that the selected al- ternative meets its reduction target.

76 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Various methodologies are available for calculating GHG emissions at the overall plan or project level, similar to the methodologies used to calculate a baseline for the study area (Question 5). However, it may also be necessary to apply adjustments to account for strategies that cannot be directly modeled using the baseline assessment tools. The methods shown in Table 3.11 include • Travel demand and emissions factor models (Method A), • Travel demand model with enhancements and/or off-model strategy analysis (Method B), • Traffic forecasts and transit projections with emissions factors (Method C), and • Traffic simulation models (Method D). TABLE 3.11. CALCULATION METHODS AND DATA SOURCES FOR GHG ANALYSIS Method Comments (A) Travel demand and emissions factor models Appropriate CDMF levels: LRP, PRO, COR Description: This approach uses only the regional or statewide travel demand model and an emissions factor model to assess the GHG emissions associated with LRP, TIP, or corridor plan. Situations in which to apply: • Network model used to develop baseline GHG projections for LRP. • Off-model strategies not proposed for inclusion. • Off-model strategies assessed, but do not need to be included in GHG inventory. Calculation methods: • Run the travel demand model for the LRP, TIP, or corridor plan and output link-level volumes and speeds by MOVES road type. • Run MOVES to compute emission factors and apply to travel demand model output to calculate total emissions. For details on interfacing the travel demand model with MOVES, see Appendix A. • If the travel demand model does not have a transit component, determine transit VMT by mode and/or vehicle type under each plan alternative and apply emissions factors as detailed in Appendix A. Data sources: See Methods A and B in Table 3.5. (continued on next page)

77 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Method Comments (B) Travel demand model with enhancements and/ or off-model strategy analysis Appropriate CDMF levels: LRP, PRO, COR Description: This approach applies additional modeling enhancements and/or off-model techniques to include the impacts of strategies not directly assessed in the regional model (e.g., transportation demand management, nonmotorized investment, microscale land use design, traffic operations) in the quantitative inventory. Situations in which to apply: • Total GHGs need to be compared with state or regional targets. • There is a desire to include a full range of strategy impacts in the quantitative plan or TIP assessment. Calculation methods: • Run the travel demand model with the MOVES emissions factor model, incorporating any model enhancements developed for specific strategy analysis (see Appendix A). • Apply adjustments for off-model strategies as described in Appendix A. • Compare total emissions for the plan or TIP to target reductions, if applicable. Data sources: See Methods A and B in Table 3.5 and Appendix A. (C) Traffic forecasts and transit projections with emissions factors Appropriate CDMF levels: COR, ENV Description: Forecast traffic volumes and transit vehicle frequencies, multiplied by road segment length within the study area, to which are applied VMT or speed-based emissions factors. Situations in which to apply: • See Method C in Table 3.5. The same methods and level of detail would be used for the assessment of alternatives as for establishing base year and design year no-build conditions. • Traffic forecasts that account for induced development estimated as a part of an indirect impacts assessment may need to be developed. Calculation methods: • See Method C in Table 3.5. The same methods and level of detail would be used for the assessment of alternatives as for establishing base year and design year no-build conditions. However, they would be applied to each year from the opening of the proposed project to the design year. VMT by speed information would be generated for the year of project opening and the design year. • Interim year forecasts can be determined by straight-line projection unless information is available that indicates population and employment growth will occur at another rate. • The results for each year are totaled to obtain GHG emissions for the no-build alternative and each detailed study alternative over the life of the project. • No-build and build results are compared. Data sources: • See Method C in Table 3.5. • Growth rates from local land use plans. TABLE 3.11. CALCULATION METHODS AND DATA SOURCES FOR GHG ANALYSIS (CONTINUED) (continued on next page)

78 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Method Comments (D) Traffic simulation models Appropriate CDMF levels: COR, ENV Description: A traffic simulation model is used in conjunction with operations-based emissions factors to model current and forecast operating conditions and GHG emissions. Situations in which to apply: See Method D in Table 3.5. The same methods and level of detail would be used for the assessment of alternatives as for establishing base year and design year no-build conditions. Traffic forecasts that account for induced development estimated as a part of an indirect impacts assessment may need to be developed. Calculation methods: See Method D in Table 3.5. Data sources: See Method D in Table 3.5. TABLE 3.11. CALCULATION METHODS AND DATA SOURCES FOR GHG ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)