Transportation Conformity Implementation Knoxville Regional TPO Case Study

1. Transportation Conformity ImplementationKnoxville Regional TPO Case Study STAQS August 26, 2009

2. Overview of Presentation • Background on Knoxville Region • Case Studies on Conformity Process • Lessons Learned • Technical Issue Resources • Interagency Consultation Procedures • Future Challenges

3. Background • Started with TPO in 1998 • Major Long Range Transportation Plan/Conformity Updates in 1999, 2002, 2005 and 2009. • Other significant Conformity Updates in 2006 (associated with PM2.5) & 2007 (associated with SAFETEA-LU Compliant Plan requirement)

4. Knoxville Region Air Quality Status • Knox County Designated as Maintenance Area for Ozone under 1-hour Standard in 1993. • 8-hour Ozone Standard significantly enlarged nonattainment area to include 6 counties plus 1 partial county in the region in 2004. • 4 of 6 counties in Ozone Nonattainment Area plus 1 additional partial county designated nonattainment for PM2.5 in 2005.

5. Knoxville Nonattainment Areas

6. Broad Overview ofTransportation Conformity Process • Interagency Consultation is Key • Attempt to start conformity process well in advance of deadlines • Set timelines and milestones for key decision/consensus points and review periods • Don’t reinvent the wheel – borrow from what has worked in the past and improve on what hasn’t

7. Deadline of June 1, 2005 to complete 1st Conformity Determination Kicked-off conformity process with 1-day workshop in August 2004 Over 20 participants Handed out Documentation Binder Case Study – 2005 Conformity Determination for 8-hour Ozone Standard

8. Case Study - Workshop Topics • Workshop Topics Included: • Identify Roles for each Interagency Partner • Discussion of communication formats (email, teleconference, face-to-face, etc…) • Review and Comment period lengths • Coordination Issues with Lakeway Area MPO which shares portion of Nonattainment Area • Determination of Analysis Years and Tests • Off-model analysis techniques • Preliminary modeling and planning assumptions • Preliminary Timeline • Determined need for monthly conference calls

9. Case Study - Timeline

10. Case Study – Key Interagency Discussion Items • Meeting 2 (September 9, 2004 and September 13, 2004) • Discussion of Memorandum of Agreement between TPO, TDOT and Lakeway Area TPO • Agreement on proposed analysis years • Meeting 3 (October 5, 2004) • Presentation on travel demand model parameters and assumptions • Meeting 4 (November 16, 2004) • Discussion of MOBILE model inputs • Meeting 5 (December 8, 2004) • Further refinement of MOBILE model inputs • Meeting 6 (January 5, 2005) • Discussion on appropriate humidity input • Meeting 6 (January 26, 2005) • Discussion of exempt / regional significance status of proposed highway projects for LRTP • Meeting 7 (February 9, 2005) • Finalization of MOBILE modeling inputs • Meeting 8 (March 1, 2005) • Discussion of results from preliminary emissions tests

11. Case Study – Evolution to Current Day • Most recent CDR adopted in May 2009 • New attempts to better define “Regional Significance” and “Exempt” project statuses • Incorporate improvements in Travel Demand Forecasting capabilities for speed data • Account for projected long-term growth in diesel truck traffic

12. Used Federal definition as starting point. Created a set of “questions” to help determine if specific projects in Long Range Plan listing should qualify as Regionally Significant. What are the exempt status and functional classification of the project? Would it typically be included in the regional travel demand model? Does the facility provide direct connectivity between two roadways classified as Principal Arterials or Interstates? Does the facility provide direct regional connectivity to a Major Activity Center? Does the project add significant capacity? What is the length of the project? What is current AADT? 40 CFR 93.101 - Regionally Significant Project means a transportation project (other than an exempt project) that is on a facility that serves regional transportation needs (such as access to and from outside the area outside of the region, major activity centers in the region, major planned developments such as new retail malls, sports complexes, etc., or transportation terminals as well as most terminals themselves) and would normally be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area’s transportation network, including at a minimum all principal arterial highways and all fixed guideway transit facilities that offer an alternative to regional highway travel. Updated “Regional Significance” Criteria

13. LRTP Regional Significance Screening

14. Case Study Summary & Takeaways • Lay the ground rules as early as possible in the process - possibly develop a specific “Pre-analysis Consensus Plan” • Set regular IAC meetings/conference calls for duration of conformity determination process • Develop schedule and identify key milestone/consensus points at beginning of process and update as needed • Document all meetings and key decision points through Meeting Minutes and send out for review by IAC • Utilize resources that all IAC members bring to the table

15. Lessons Learned • Tailor Travel Demand Modeling Domain to provide necessary Air Quality information • Adjust Scale of Travel Demand Model – limit amount of “off-model” analysis that is required • Discuss project phasing issues before adoption of Plan • Stay involved with development of State Implementation Plan – know what assumptions and inputs are being used to develop MVEB • Conformity requirements compel the need for greater regional coordination - can strengthen the planning process

16. Technical Issue Resources • Guidance for development of MOBILE6 inputs – EPA document from August 2004 • Off model VMT estimation techniques – FHWA document from October 2004

17. Technical Issue Resources • On-road mobile source emission inventory updates from State Environmental Agency • Provided inputs for vehicle age distribution and meteorological inputs among others

18. Interagency Consultation Procedures • Tennessee in process of updating the state’s Transportation Conformity SIP • Strengthens Interagency Consultation Procedures and codifies requirements • One key aspect is standardized consultation timelines (see following slide) • Peer Exchange report on Best Practices in AQ Interagency Consultation Processes prepared through the “Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program” held October 2008 in Albany, NY

19. Draft Conformity SIP Consultation Timeline

20. Future Challenges • Timing of Ozone & PM2.5 SIPs with respect to implementation of MOVES • Aligning a schedule of Conformity ‘Triggers’ over next several years to avoid multiple conformity determinations • Continued Coordination with Lakeway Area MTPO – Possible boundary expansion? • Improving Air Quality in the Region Source: American Lung Association, State of the Air Report 2009

21. Acknowledgements Assistance from ‘Primary’ IAC Members: • EPA Region 4 • FHWA TN Division • TN Dept. of Environment & Conservation • Tennessee DOT • Knox County Air Quality Management

22. Questions? Contact Information: Michael D. Conger, P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer Knoxville Regional TPO 400 Main Street, Suite 403 Knoxville, TN 37902 Phone: 865.215.3813 Fax: 865.215.2068 Email: mike.conger@knoxtrans.org