1 / 45

Transportation Conformity in Atlanta

. What is Atlanta?This is not as easy to answer as one might think

aliya
Download Presentation

Transportation Conformity in Atlanta

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    6. Additional 2.3 million people over the next 25 years w/in 13-county area alone. Sprawl!Additional 2.3 million people over the next 25 years w/in 13-county area alone. Sprawl!

    8. Result of legal challenge GA EPD relied on national EPA guidance for the Atlanta SIP which extended the attainment year from 1999 to 2004 Guidance was challenged in multiple, successful lawsuites across the country\ USEPA declined to defend the guidance and Atlanta was reclassified SIP Requirements Post-1999 ROP SIP Attainment SIP by July 2004 (2004 attainment year) Submitted w/ previous M5 MVEB Issues related to M5 budgets/M6 conformity No action taken on the SIP. EPA wants to wait until after ozone season is complete to determine effectiveness of SIP. RFG Requirement By January 2005 Currently stayed while appeals process is being completed (waiver request)Result of legal challenge GA EPD relied on national EPA guidance for the Atlanta SIP which extended the attainment year from 1999 to 2004 Guidance was challenged in multiple, successful lawsuites across the country\ USEPA declined to defend the guidance and Atlanta was reclassified SIP Requirements Post-1999 ROP SIP Attainment SIP by July 2004 (2004 attainment year) Submitted w/ previous M5 MVEB Issues related to M5 budgets/M6 conformity No action taken on the SIP. EPA wants to wait until after ozone season is complete to determine effectiveness of SIP. RFG Requirement By January 2005 Currently stayed while appeals process is being completed (waiver request)

    10. A lot to say about the plan (Bond program, etc), but will limit to air quality related issues b/c of time….A lot to say about the plan (Bond program, etc), but will limit to air quality related issues b/c of time….

    11. A lot to say about the plan, but will limit to air quality related issues b/c of time…. Expanded to include 18 counties more than halfway through process (expanded boundary adopted by ARC Oct 03, approved by DCA Feb 04, approved by Governor Feb 04)A lot to say about the plan, but will limit to air quality related issues b/c of time…. Expanded to include 18 counties more than halfway through process (expanded boundary adopted by ARC Oct 03, approved by DCA Feb 04, approved by Governor Feb 04)

    12. Functionally a lapse, but not a real one. Triggered by expiration of TIP, not 3-year cycle. Resource decision. No point in completing one analysis and then performing another on a plan that would not have changed substantially within 6-month time period.Functionally a lapse, but not a real one. Triggered by expiration of TIP, not 3-year cycle. Resource decision. No point in completing one analysis and then performing another on a plan that would not have changed substantially within 6-month time period.

    13. All 8 counties now have voting rights on TCC and TAQC, but Board membership not expanded.All 8 counties now have voting rights on TCC and TAQC, but Board membership not expanded.

    14. Prior to ARC expansion, PI in “3” counties was managed by GDOT and communicated to ARC. After expansion, standard ARC PI process conducted in each of the 8 new counties. GHPMO responsible for PI in Hall County. GDOT responsible for PI in Carroll County.Prior to ARC expansion, PI in “3” counties was managed by GDOT and communicated to ARC. After expansion, standard ARC PI process conducted in each of the 8 new counties. GHPMO responsible for PI in Hall County. GDOT responsible for PI in Carroll County.

    22. ULSD – EPD initiative to obtain ULSD in the metro-Atlanta area earlier than the 2006 federal phase in date. Needed to support emissions control technologies for heavy-duty sector Smart Corridors - Initiative announced by Governor Sonny Perdue to retime metro-Atlanta’s traffic signals. Effort will focus on most congested areas first ULSD – EPD initiative to obtain ULSD in the metro-Atlanta area earlier than the 2006 federal phase in date. Needed to support emissions control technologies for heavy-duty sector Smart Corridors - Initiative announced by Governor Sonny Perdue to retime metro-Atlanta’s traffic signals. Effort will focus on most congested areas first

    25. Prior to expansion of urbanized area/nonattainment area, ARC performed conformity analysis for 13-county 1-hour NAA. 3 counties outside of ARC 10-county MPO planning boundary were including in modeling domain, to include creation of land use and pop/emp estimates needed for DRAM/EMPAL. GDOT acted on 3 counties behalf at every major milestone through committee representation. 3 counties outside of ARC MPO boundary prior to 2000 urbanized area expansion now included in their entirety in expanded ARC MPO boundary. Due to existing agreements for inclusion of these counties in ARC modeling domain , no technical changes to 1-hour conformity determination process. Prior to expansion of urbanized area/nonattainment area, ARC performed conformity analysis for 13-county 1-hour NAA. 3 counties outside of ARC 10-county MPO planning boundary were including in modeling domain, to include creation of land use and pop/emp estimates needed for DRAM/EMPAL. GDOT acted on 3 counties behalf at every major milestone through committee representation. 3 counties outside of ARC MPO boundary prior to 2000 urbanized area expansion now included in their entirety in expanded ARC MPO boundary. Due to existing agreements for inclusion of these counties in ARC modeling domain , no technical changes to 1-hour conformity determination process.

    26. Prior to expansion of urbanized area/nonattainment area, ARC performed conformity analysis for 13-county 1-hour NAA. 3 counties outside of ARC 10-county MPO planning boundary were including in modeling domain, to include creation of land use and pop/emp estimates needed for DRAM/EMPAL. GDOT acted on 3 counties behalf at every major milestone through committee representation. 3 counties outside of ARC MPO boundary prior to 2000 urbanized area expansion now included in their entirety in expanded ARC MPO boundary. Due to existing agreements for inclusion of these counties in ARC modeling domain , no technical changes to 1-hour conformity determination process. Prior to expansion of urbanized area/nonattainment area, ARC performed conformity analysis for 13-county 1-hour NAA. 3 counties outside of ARC 10-county MPO planning boundary were including in modeling domain, to include creation of land use and pop/emp estimates needed for DRAM/EMPAL. GDOT acted on 3 counties behalf at every major milestone through committee representation. 3 counties outside of ARC MPO boundary prior to 2000 urbanized area expansion now included in their entirety in expanded ARC MPO boundary. Due to existing agreements for inclusion of these counties in ARC modeling domain , no technical changes to 1-hour conformity determination process.

    27. Prior to expansion of urbanized area/nonattainment area, ARC performed conformity analysis for 13-county 1-hour NAA. 3 counties outside of ARC 10-county MPO planning boundary were including in modeling domain, to include creation of land use and pop/emp estimates needed for DRAM/EMPAL. GDOT acted on 3 counties behalf at every major milestone through committee representation. 3 counties outside of ARC MPO boundary prior to 2000 urbanized area expansion now included in their entirety in expanded ARC MPO boundary. Due to existing agreements for inclusion of these counties in ARC modeling domain , no technical changes to 1-hour conformity determination process. Prior to expansion of urbanized area/nonattainment area, ARC performed conformity analysis for 13-county 1-hour NAA. 3 counties outside of ARC 10-county MPO planning boundary were including in modeling domain, to include creation of land use and pop/emp estimates needed for DRAM/EMPAL. GDOT acted on 3 counties behalf at every major milestone through committee representation. 3 counties outside of ARC MPO boundary prior to 2000 urbanized area expansion now included in their entirety in expanded ARC MPO boundary. Due to existing agreements for inclusion of these counties in ARC modeling domain , no technical changes to 1-hour conformity determination process.

    28. ARC conducted conformity determination for entire 20-county area. For those portions of the NAA outside of ARC planning area, transportation plans developed by GDOT or GHMPO, whichever is applicable. Took almost 1 year! To develop 8-hr modeling methodology!ARC conducted conformity determination for entire 20-county area. For those portions of the NAA outside of ARC planning area, transportation plans developed by GDOT or GHMPO, whichever is applicable. Took almost 1 year! To develop 8-hr modeling methodology!

    29. At the SAME time ARC is trying to develop modeling methodology, EPD considering voluntary bump-up to Moderate to provide more time to demonstrate attainment, 2010 as opposed to 2007. Implications of reclassification during 2004 were huge! Changes emissions analysis requirements, B/NB test required. ARC wanted to avoid this test due to modeling complications associated with B/NB test. What is the Build scenario for ring counties w/o an existing model? Remember, GDOT model only for 2030 so B/NB could only easily be done for that year. Additional time needed to model twice the amount of roadway and transit networks, and then run the model twice as many times.At the SAME time ARC is trying to develop modeling methodology, EPD considering voluntary bump-up to Moderate to provide more time to demonstrate attainment, 2010 as opposed to 2007. Implications of reclassification during 2004 were huge! Changes emissions analysis requirements, B/NB test required. ARC wanted to avoid this test due to modeling complications associated with B/NB test. What is the Build scenario for ring counties w/o an existing model? Remember, GDOT model only for 2030 so B/NB could only easily be done for that year. Additional time needed to model twice the amount of roadway and transit networks, and then run the model twice as many times.

    42. Another aspect of IAC is need to get buy-in from federal partners for proposed planning and technical work. This was often the hardest part of the conformity, i.e., it was more difficult at times to deal with presenting and explaining modeling methodologies than doing the technical work itself. Example of 8-hr modeling methodology – Time it took, back and forth with EPA, finally having to sit down with them at a laptop to get there suggestions in as they wanted them!Another aspect of IAC is need to get buy-in from federal partners for proposed planning and technical work. This was often the hardest part of the conformity, i.e., it was more difficult at times to deal with presenting and explaining modeling methodologies than doing the technical work itself. Example of 8-hr modeling methodology – Time it took, back and forth with EPA, finally having to sit down with them at a laptop to get there suggestions in as they wanted them!

More Related