newFinalReport.docx

Carpool Effects on Air Quality in Los Angeles
Lan Shi, Jikun Lian, Yu Wan
Table of Contents
Abstract
This Report is focusing on the functions and positive impacts that can be brought by carpool system. The
research team has focused on one of the largest metropolitan in U.S.--Los Angeles. Having researched the
current traffic situation, the project team has figured out that the current traffic congestion is very heavy
in Los Angeles. Furthermore, the current environmental issue related with traffic congestion is very
significant. Based on the vehicle increasing data by Eric Wilson, the traffic volume has kept an increasing
rate of 14% in the past 6 years. Furthermore, the air pollutants, including NOx, HC ROG, and CO2, has
an over 11% increasing rate in the past 6 years, and the light duty automobiles are the main contributor to
this situation.
Having analyzed the current background, our team proposed an adequate solution pattern based on
carpool system. The current carpool system is very developed in United States, and the carpool market in
Los Angeles has a great degree of vacancy for future development.
The project team analyzed the potential benefits in two different aspects. First of all, the improvement on
congestion and environmental issue. The project team use the database provided by California
Environmental Protection agency—EMFAC. By researching on the data from year 2010, 2020 and 2030
in the south coast area, the detailed emission rate of different kinds of pollutants along with the speed
categories will be shown. After that, the project team researched the increasing rate for car sharing in the
south coast area, and the percentage of self-driving and car sharing will be known. Then, based on the
emission rate change with the 20 years period, the influence of car sharing will be noticed.
The second point will be the congestion, having searched the increasing rate of vehicle in the entire U.S.
region. Then the team continues the research by focusing on the traffic volume increase in the south coast
area. Then traffic volume change will not only related with the car sharing effect, but will have some
influence.
Last but not least, the project team evaluate the revenue of the carpool system. There are two different
way of charging the riders. By charging the optimal price, which is the price where marginal rate equals
to marginal benefits, there will more riderships in the metropolitan area. However, the government need
to subsidies the carpool system for future operation. If the company charge the riders on the equilibrium
price, the carpool companies will have enough revenue to operate by themselves, but not enough people
will consider use carpool since it is a bit expensive.

1, Introduction
Los Angeles, one of the most prosperous metropolitan in U.S. Having enjoyed a booming industrial
development in the last century, Los Angeles has been constantly developed for over 100 years without
any big issues. Nowadays, as the number of employment increasing in an enormous speed in the
metropolitan area, an increasing number of people are attracted by the charisma of this great city, and thus
in turn caused very heavy traffic issue in this area. Based on Car Sharing: A New Approach to Urban
Transportation Problems by Richard Katzev, the Between 1990 and 2000, the proportion of commuters
driving alone increased from 73% in 1990 to 76% in 2000. Nationally, transit ridership remained fairly
stable at approximately 5% of the commuters. It is obvious that the increase on traffic volume is very
significant.
Figure 1-1 The Trend of Carsharing
With the increase on current traffic volume, the related problems were brought to Los Angeles as well.
The L.A., Bakersfield area has remained as one of the most polluted cities in the last 7 years (Margot
Roosevelt, Los Angeles Times, 2011). Because of heavy pollution came from the traffic emission and
industrial development, the Bakersfield area has very heavy ozone and toxic particles contents. From the
“State of Air report”, more than 90% of the Californian live in unhealthful air conditions, and most of
them pollution came from transportation field. The research results of Walsh can also be a strong support
on this point. Automobile are a major source of carbon dioxide, which may claim as the
Another influence on the increasing number of vehicles is the traffic congestion. Based on Richard
Katzev’s idea, the traffic tie-ups, especially during commute times, are estimated to cost the United States

1.2 billion hours of lost time and 2.2 billion gallons of gasoline each year, to say nothing of the estimated
$30 billion annual loss in productivity alone.
So what will carpool system brought to us? Based on Richard Katzev’s concepts. The benefits of car-
sharing is mostly focused on two sections: The environmental impact and congestion impact. In most of
the metropolitan areas, especially Los Angeles, self-driving has always been considered to be the most
efficient way for commuting. Every single work day, over million of vehicles passing through the main
highway connection of the Greater Los Angeles area, and very heavy congestion happen everyday. With
the increasing number of waiting cost keep accumulating on the transportation model, every single driver
in the waiting line will face a comparatively high marginal cost if they choose to enter the current traffic
system (Authur, 2014). If car-sharing system can be applied on the traffic system, the passengers per
vehicle will increase, this in turn will decrease the number of vehicles, and relieve the level of congestion
in certain degree.
The environmental issue is mostly caused by the waste gas emitted from vehicles. Based on the AQI
standards, five different pollutants: Ozone, floating particles, NOx, SOx and CO, are the main
components of the air pollution. All of them are created from incomplete fuel combustion. Even though
the technology internal combustion engine has developed in a large degree, the air pollution is still very
heavy in recent years. By applying carsharing system in certain area, this situation will be ameliorated.
First of all, with the number of vehicles decreasing, the total emission inventories will correspondly goes
down to the lower level. Second, according to survey data, most of the carsharing companies in U.S.
applied brand of cars like Honda, Toyota, Tesla, etc, which are fuel-saving types of sedans (U.S. Bureau
of Census, 2001). Based on these aspects, Carsharing will improve our air quality in a large degree.
Ride sharing or carpooling also continued to be a very developed system for future traffic development
trend. Based on the ideas from Richard Katzev, carsharing is based on the distinction between automobile
access and ownership. Carsharing divorces the notion of automobile use form ownership by providing
individuals with convenient access to a shared fleet of vehicles. In this perspective, carsharing system will
grow into a competitive alternative to private ownership of property. CarSharing system will not only
bring the convenience to our society, but will move the economy from market-based to access-based,
where people can find service based on their need rather than ownership (Rifkin, J, 2000). The future plan
to carsharing system is to build an efficient and self-adjusting traffic system in which customers can enjoy
their traveling and simultaneously, create energy-saving and environmentally friendly society with their
own efforts.

2, Background
a. Traffic condition: car number and congestion.
The purpose of this project is to conduct research on how carpool can relieve the traffic pressure and
improve air quality in Los Angeles. The project is absolutely necessary and important since transportation
pressure has become one of the most significant issues to prevent future development of Los Angeles.
Congestion has harassed the urban traffic system for a very long time. Congestion increases travel time,
air pollution, carbon dioxide emissions and fuel use due to the inefficiency of automobile operation, the
time that American waste sitting in traffic is more than quintuple between 1982 and 2005.
The main contributor to traffic congestion is the increasing number of cars, a report from 2000 census
measured the percentage of household that did not own or otherwise have access to an automobile, only
16.53% of the Los Angeles household did not own a car, this ratio is lower than most of other cities, that
means people in Los Angeles rely more on private cars.
However, from the perspective of sustainable development for future transportation, continuously
increasing the number of private cars is not a good idea, instead, developing public transportation and
increase the usage of cars can benefit both the transportation and the environment. The following graph
shows the American Community Survey in 2008, Los Angeles’s condition is unsatisfactory.
Figure 2-1 Commuting by Public Transit

The following table indicates that the congestion in Los Angeles is more serious than NYC and Chicago.
This is firstly because of the high ratio of private cars in LA, and it’s also a result of the relatively
undeveloped public transportation infrastructure.
Table 2-1: Congestion Cost of LA, NYC, Chicago
Such traffic conditions and the large number of private cars brings enormous potential to carpool service.
b. Environmental Impact from the Traffic
Air Quality Index, also known as AQI, is a good indicator of air quality created by The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). The AQI is calculated based on the levels of five major
pollutants in the air, including ozone, suspended particles, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
Based on EPA’s data, the AQI of Los Angeles last year is 61.2, which is above the California
Mean AQI (40), and U.S. Mean AQI (38.9). Indeed, the congested traffic in Los Angeles causes serious
impacts on the environment in the city. Although the smog and soot levels have dropped significantly in
Southern California over the last decade, the Los Angeles region still has the highest levels of ozone
nationwide, violating federal health standards an average of 122 days a year (Tony Barboza, 2014).
Specially, Los Angeles have the nation’s highest levels of ozone and fine particle pollution.
c. Current Carpool
To effectively relieve the air pollution, carpooling is an innovative approach that can be applied. In order
to drive one of the vehicles in the fleet, car-share members simply telephone the organization’s
reservation system or book it online. To pick up the car, they need only walk a short distance to the
nearest site of the organization’s cars. A variety of vehicle types are usually available in the fleet to give
members an efficient way to meet infrequent needs, such as hauling, moving, and transporting large
groups. The car-sharing organization pays all of the costs of vehicle maintenance, service, and repairs.
The same is true for insurance coverage, parking, and the cost of gasoline. (Richard Katzev, 2003)

By 2011, carpool shares 9.7% of the people in transportation. It’s quite a large part, but still less than its
percentage in 1970(more than 20%). However, with the development of the internet and mobile apps,
carpool now is much more convenient and efficient. Many application of carpool has come to people’s
vision, such as Uber. Additionally, the current policy is positive for carpool since it encourages people to
make fully use of their cars, as the appearance of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, which is a
dedicated facility to carpoolers.
3. Research Methodology
For this methodology, it has 2 parts.
The first part is mainly concerned with the reduction of emissions, the implement of expected carpool
service is one important variable, the emission analysis will firstly estimate the emission of some
polluting gases (suspended particles, carbon monoxide(CO), nitrogen dioxide(NO2), and sulfur
dioxide(SO2)) without the application of carpool service(the original data from EMFAC), and then
consider the emission condition in 2025 with carpool service, after calculation, the reduction of each kind
of polluting gas could be discovered. In addition, in order to analysis the extent of the previous emission
reduction, the time will be introduced into analysis. Apparently, with the large number of carpool
vehicles, the emission will reduce, if some year without carpool service after 2025 in the future(eg. 2030)
has the approximately the same emissions with the optimized result in 2025, the effectiveness of
emissions reduction from carpool can be measured as five years’ progress.
The second part is concerned with the social benefit, undoubtedly, the implement of carpool will reduce
congestion and reduce fuel consumption and emissions, hence, the benefit includes the saved congestion
cost and the saved environmental cost, each benefit could be measured; on the perspective of carpool
service’s cost, this data is relatively harder to investigate, however, the cost to provide these service is
mainly for the vehicle cost, once the congestion and environmental benefits of carpool is larger than its
cost, that means it will be worthy to be implemented.
From one website of car sharing, some data is shown and is helpful to this project.
In 2010, the number of carpool vehicle in North America is 10405, it’s average growth rate in its past ten
years(2000-2010) is 53%, the estimated number of it in 2025 is 6,132,157, if Los Angeles be put into
analysis, and multiply its population proportion, the number of vehicles used for carpool is 315,368, in
order to make the analysis clear, the project team made an assumption that each carpool vehicle takes 3
passengers, and reduces the use of 2 private cars. That means in 2025, if the carpool service maintain the
stale growth, there will be a reduction of 630,736 cars in 2025, that’s a 5.4% reduction of total vehicle
number (the estimated vehicle number of Los Angeles in 2025 is 11,704,904 due to the EMFAC
database).

3.1 Reduction of emission in 30 years.
3.1.1 Introduction to methodology
The first methodology applied on this model is the year reduction of emission. In this model, a
comparison between former emission rate and future emission rate are calculated. Based on the total
number of vehicles existed in this area is researched and conducted. Based on the EMFAC emission
software, the emission rate of different types of waste are surveyed as well. Only the AQI required wasted
will be listed. Then, from the data surveyed by CarSharing Association, the annually increasing rate of
total vehicles and riderships in U.S. will be conducted. This number will be processed further by
combining the population distribution of the entire U.S. Since the vehicle riderships are strongly bonded
with the population and the prosperity of a metropolitan area, this inference is rational. In the end, the
deduction rate of light duty automobiles will be reached. This number will only engage with the LDA
rather than the entire number of vehicles. So the emission rate will be conducted in this equation:
𝐸1 ∗ 𝐸1 − 𝐸2 ∗ 𝐸2
𝐸1 − 𝐸2
E1: The total emission rate before carpool
V1: Total number of vehicles before carpool
E2: The emission rate of light duty automobile before carpool
V2: Number of vehicles that carpool can deduct.
The new emission inventories will only be the E1*V1-E2*V2. This will be the final emission inventories.
It will be utilized to compare with the former emission inventories.
3.1.2 Calculation and Data Analysis
The base year of our analysis is 2010, and we choose 2025 and 2030 as two future years that are going to
be estimated and compared.
Based on the location and terrain of Los Angeles, in the website of EMFAC, the options we did are as
follow:
Data Type Emission Rates
Region Air Basin ~ South Coast
Calendar Year 2010, 2025, 2030
Season Annual Average

Vehicle Category EMFAC 2011 Categories - All
Model Year Aggregated
Speed Aggregated
Fuel All
Table 3-1: The Parameters used in EMFAC
The data type will be emission rate instead of emission inventories, since the emission rate is a more
precise number for future prediction rather than emission inventories. The region will be concentrate on
the South Coast of the Air Basin area, which covered the entire portion of the Greater Los Angeles Area.
Model year and speed will be aggregated values and the fuel will contain both gasoline and diesel.
First of all, the basic emission rate data are conducted from the EMFAC software, based on the standards
showed above, the emission rate of year 2010. 2025 and 2030 are extracted. Then based on the emission
rate factor composite from different types of vehicles, the emission rate will be merged into a new table
which only show the total emission rate on different waste on that year.
The next step is the combination with the carpool deduction. The vehicle number of Los Angeles area is
11,704,904 (CarSharing Association, 2010). The carpool service has a stable increasing rate of 5.4%,
which means a reduction of 630,736 light duty automobiles will be conducted in 2025. This number will
be V2 in the equation we had above. The corresponding value will be:
V1=11704904 vehicles
V2=630736 vehicles
E1=0.9392 grams/miles-veh
E2=0.6516 grams/miles-veh
Based on the equation we had before, the new emission rate and new emission inventories are shown
belong.
Before Carpool
Emission Rate
CO_RUNEX NOX_RUNEX PM10_RUNEX PM2_5_RUNEX SOX_RUNEX
(gms/mile) (gms/mile) (gms/mile) (gms/mile) (gms/mile)
0.939158563 0.108783009 0.002980018 0.002757752 0.004177149
Emission Inventories

10992760.82 1273294.675 34880.82335 32279.21975 48893.13361
Table 3-2: Emission rate and emission inventories before carpool
After Carpool
Emission Rate
0.955535158 0.111541215 0.003028679 0.002802491 0.004208752
Emission Inventories
10581756.87 1235226.152 33540.10531 31035.25454 46608.42551
Table 3-3: Emission rate and emission inventories before carpool
Based on the table we had above, the emission inventories before and after carpool effect are all
calculated for year 2025. From the table, it is obvious that the emission inventories of CO will decrease
from 10992760.82 grams/mile to 10581756.87 grams/mile. The decreasing rate is 3.739%. Other
corresponding emission rate deductions are also shown at the tables below.

Figure 3-1: Carpool Effect On Emission Rate

Figure 3-2:Carpool Effect On Emission Inventories
Figure 3-3: Carpool Effect on emission Inventories
Additionally, the impact will be more obvious if the scope is widen to the yearly increase. Without the
effect of carpool, the emission rate of different pollutants will decrease as well due to green belt system
and internal combustion engine upgrade. However, the change of emission rate will show different if the
comparison is made along the timeline change. In the graphs below, the emission rate of different types of
pollutants are all compared on the timeline change. It is obvious that the carpool effect make the emission
rate level in 2025 to a degree which the non-carpool effect need more than 5 years to reach.

Figure3-4:CO emission Inventories Change In 10 Years
Figure 3-5: NOx Emission Inventories Change In 10 Years
3.2 Comparing between benefit and cost of carpooling application
3.2.1 Introduction of methodology
In order to make quantitative analysis of carpooling application to prove its effectiveness, the
corresponding benefits and cost need to be calculated. Carpool has two major benefits, reducing the cost

of environment impact and the cost of congestion. Thus, the total benefit equals to the cost of
environment impact adding the cost of congestion. While for the cost of carpooling application, it should
be the cost to popularize the carpooling application. However, the related data is hard to obtain, and a
substitutive method should be used. Since the carpooling corporations do not pay any salary to the drivers,
it can be assumed the only output is the money spent on the vehicle. If the benefit of carpool is greater
than the cost buying the carpooling vehicles, it can be concluded that the benefit must surpass the cost to
popularize carpool.
3.2.1 Data Collection
3.2.1.1 Benefit of Carpool
To figure out the benefit of carpool, the differences between calendar year 2010 and 2025 of the cost of
environment impact and congestion should be calculated. The cost environment impact can be
represented by the cost of wasted fuel due to traffic delay. Based on an report released by Texas
Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University in 2011, top 10 most congested corridors in USA was
obtained. Seven of them were in Los Angeles and are shown in the following Figure. Based on the data,
the total fuel wasted and cost of congestion of the seven congested highways are 22.71 million gal./yr.
and $1631.31 million/year, respectively. Since the seven top congested highways are quite representative,
their result of the cost of fuel wasted and congestion can be used to simulate the ones in Los Angeles in
calendar year 2010. Using a linear relationship model and knowing the total amount of vehicles in the
seven top congested highways are 721798 and the number of vehicles in Los Angeles in 2010 is around
10375850, the total fuel wasted and cost of congestion of Los Angeles in 2010 are 326.46 million
gallon/year and $23 billion, respectively. To calculate the total cost of environment impact, an assumption
that the average gasoline price is $3 among all year is made. Therefore, the total cost of environment
impact is $0.97 billion in 2010.
Since the number of vehicles in 2025 is approximately 11704904 using the data in EMFAC, the number
of vehicles in Los Angeles applying the carpool can be calculated minus the amount of vehicles used in
carpooling application by the year 2025, which is around 11074168. After building a linear relationship
model between year 2010 and 2025, and between using or without carpooling application, the team can
get the following results: the total cost of environment impact and congestion cost in 2025 without
applying carpool are $33.51 billion and $1.12 billion. While the total cost of environment impact and
congestion cost in 2025 using carpool are $31.70 billion and $1.06 billion. The difference between the
sum of congestion cost and the cost of environment impact is approximately $1.87 billion.
Ran
k
Corridor
Name
Beginning
Location
Destination Length Fuel
Wasted(millions
gallons/year)
Cost of
Congestion(million
$/year)
1 I-110 NB LA harbor fwy 3.1 2.17 95
2 I-110 NB LA harbor fwy 6.5 3.67 158.17
3 I-405 NB LA San Diego 13.1 6.06 269.93

5 I-605 SB LA San Gabriel 4.8 1.64 703.45
6 I-10 EB LA Santa Monica 14.9 4.67 203.99
7 I-10 WB LA Santa Monica 12.6 3.83 169.84
10 I-110 SB LA LA 2.5 0.67 30.93
Table 3-4: Cost of Some Selected Highway
3.2.1.2 Cost of Carpool
No matter who owns the car, the carpool service company or private, the main cost of carpool service is
the cost for cars, from the Uber’s official website, the cheapest and the most popular service is UberX, the
illustrate model on that web page is Toyota Prius, this report selects Prius to calculate the approximate
cost of carpool in 2025, the price given by the official site is $24200. Because the trend of carpool
vehicles are growing fast, the total amount of cars in the future(2025) is 315,368, without considering the
depreciation of old car and buy a new car, the total cost each year is 315,368*24200/15 = $508,793,706.7
= $0.5 billion USD.
By comparison of the benefit ($1.87 billion) and cost ($0.5 billion) of carpooling application, it can be
concluded that the carpooling application is worth to invest.
4. Conclusion
4.1, Environment and transportation effect of carpool
The carpool system has a very positive impact on reducing the number of vehicle and the emission
inventories.
Based on the carpool effect calculation, the total number of vehicles in 2010 is 11,704,904, and the
estimated vehicle use in 2025 could reduce 5.4%, the reduction will be 630,736 light duty automobiles.
The reduction of emission pollutants is very significant. In the first model, with the effect of carsharing,
the decreasing number on light duty automobile is very significant, and the emission inventories of all the
AQI pollutants all decrease in a large degree. In the second model, the annual change on pollutants
emission is also obvious. From the graphs above, the carpool effect can lead the air quality level to a
better stand which is 10 years prior to the no carpool effect.
It is somewhat interesting that the emission rate is increasing in a very small percentage for in this ten
years period. Even though it is a little contradict to the initial assumption that carsharing will decrease the
emission, actually it is not. First of all, it is reasonable to see this change happen, since less vehicles will
be operated on the roadway system, the average raiders in one vehicle will increase for sure. Based on the
mechanism of internal combustion engine. With more people riding in same vehicles, the emission rate
from engine will increase as well.

4.2, Cost and benefit analysis.
From the analysis above, the cost of the expected number of carpool service is $0.5 billion, the benefit of
it is $1.86 billion , its cost is only 26.9% of its benefit, Another interesting result is that the reduction of
congestion cost is much more than the reduction of environmental cost. Anyway, carpool is a
transportation mode of high rate of return from an economic point of view.
4.3, Application in the future.
4.3.1 Composition of transportation means and people’s traffic preference
Apparently, the cities with high ratio of private car are more potential markets of carpool, because a large
number of private cars will cause the traffic condition relatively more congested, this is also the reason
why Los Angles has more serious traffic condition than NYC(which has a larger population). In addition,
people lives in such cities like LA tend to use the "point to point” transportation, carpool's user
experience could successfully meet their requirements.
4.3.2 Develop with internet
With the development of mobile internet and useful software, carpool will become more convenient,
people can find the right vehicle in the shortest possible time, and the vehicle can also play the biggest
role, Uber popularity manifestation of this trend.
4.3.3 Usability
Carpool is both beneficial and environment friendly when compared with normal private car driving,
however, public transportation like bus and metro are much better, when it comes to the cities with a
developed public transportation infrastructures, carpool’s effect may not be so significant as this project.
Due to the public transport’s large volume, low pollution and low price, it should be the highest priority
of being used.
References
1,Carfree Census Database http://www.bikesatwork.com/blog/carfree-census-database-is-gone
2,American Community Survey
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t
3.http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/27/local/la-me-california-air-20110427
4. http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-0430-air-pollution-20140430-story.html
5. http://www.usa.com/los-angeles-ca-air-quality.htm
6. Richard Katzev. Car Sharing: A new approach to urban transportation problems. Published in
Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2003, page 65-86.

The 10 most congested highways in USA report. By Texas Transporation Institute at Texa A&M
University. <http://mobility.tamu.edu/corridors/summary-tables/,http://www.businessinsider.com/most-
congested-roads-america-2011-10>
7. 2003 TTI Urban Mobility Report.
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24000/24010/mobility_report_2003.pdf
8. Five Friday Facts: Car Sharing, Eric Wilson, July 20th, 2012
http://2ndgreenrevolution.com/2012/07/20/five-friday-facts-car-sharing/
9. EMFAC, California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, 2010—2030
http://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/
10. Urban Economics--Urban Transit, Arthur O’Sullivan, 2012, 8th edition.
11. Highway vehicle activity trends and their implications for global warming, Transportation and
global climate change, Walsh, M, 1993
12. The age of access. New York: Penguin Putnam Inc, Rifkin, J, 2000
13. Carsharing, 2014, http://www.carsharing.net/
14. Factfinder, total population in U.S., 2015
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
Appendix
1. The EMFAC emission rate tables
2010
Veh_Class Fuel
CO_RU
NEX
NOX_RU
NEX
PM10_RU
NEX
PM2_5_RU
NEX
SOX_RU
NEX
(gms/mil
e)
(gms/mile
)
(gms/mile) (gms/mile)
(gms/mile
)
LDA GAS
2.263205
328
0.2039019
1
0.0035589
21
0.00322522
3
0.0036124
69

LDA DSL
0.523940
772
0.9154744
43
0.0904557
85
0.08321932
4
0.0033171
9
LDT1 GAS
5.327172
158
0.5095531
23
0.0076207
93
0.00690009
2
0.0041795
87
LDT1 DSL
0.717084
801
1.1675497
75
0.1439005
61
0.13238851
5
0.0035024
29
LDT2 GAS
2.824844
314
0.3636337
32
0.0033438
75
0.00304685
1
0.0049287
37
LDT2 DSL
0.622947
395
1.1901204
29
0.1233794
8
0.11350912
1
0.0034349
7
LHD1 GAS
3.081571
904
0.7787502
09
0.0022995
47
0.00211716
7
0.0061345
84
LHD1 DSL
0.762767
432
5.6752737
54
0.0381324
57
0.03508186
1
0.0050107
44
LHD2 GAS
3.724460
745
0.8064713
68
0.0025572
36
0.00231325
8
0.0061656
78
LHD2 DSL
0.741743
388
5.4290558
56
0.0390458
28
0.03592216
3
0.0050342
81
MCY GAS
31.10664
733
1.2764520
69
0.0015415
62
0.00120582
9
0.0019157
39
MDV GAS 3.180141
0.4383482
2
0.0029654
9
0.00271326
2
0.0061983
08
MDV DSL
0.334571
449
0.5797913
26
0.0575909
21
0.05298364
9
0.0032350
09
MH GAS
15.03108
246
1.5704422
2
0.004691
0.00406723
3
0.0061737
48
MH DSL
0.581009
489
7.6106794
5
0.2127415
61
0.19572223
9
0.0106816
62
Motor Coach DSL
3.047446
493
14.187164
48
0.4877834
16
0.44876074
3
0.0165101
85

OBUS GAS
3.562635
23
1.4129356
65
0.0010891
32
0.00099483
9
0.0061007
88
PTO DSL
4.780388
262
15.745430
87
0.6154730
57
0.56623521
2
0.0205377
72
SBUS GAS
30.37037
784
2.4103528
9
0.0102081
28
0.00872270
2
0.0079374
19
SBUS DSL
2.484017
121
11.651325
25
0.5287285
15
0.48643023
3
0.0123490
04
T6 Ag DSL
1.849075
268
9.7496017
66
0.4383279
76
0.40326173
7
0.0108764
83
T6 Public DSL
0.942872
881
9.2969848
67
0.2652477
0.24402788
4
0.0108071
76
T6 CAIRP heavy DSL
1.104004
729
7.2382362
73
0.2600838
91
0.23927718
0.0107482
34
T6 CAIRP small DSL
0.877529
229
6.1147779
47
0.2208622
7
0.20319328
9
0.0107459
12
T6 OOS heavy DSL
1.104004
729
7.2382362
73
0.2600838
91
0.23927718
0.0107482
34
T6 OOS small DSL
0.877529
229
6.1147779
47
0.2208622
7
0.20319328
9
0.0107459
12
T6 instate
construction heavy
DSL
1.527258
821
9.1342718
03
0.3409323
07
0.31365772
2
0.0107675
28
T6 instate
construction small
DSL
1.091694
843
7.3110135
47
0.2574940
57
0.23689453
3
0.0107491
25
T6 instate heavy DSL
1.513324
509
9.0415511
39
0.3374333
52
0.31043868
4
0.0107653
98
T6 instate small DSL
1.079040
461
7.2101144
24
0.2539137
54
0.23360065
4
0.0107464
43
T6 utility DSL
0.562961
021
7.5458586
14
0.1647866
12
0.15160368
3
0.0107493
52

T6TS GAS
9.753436
735
2.5231882
61
0.0029550
41
0.00263408
5
0.0061972
93
T7 Ag DSL
4.078750
909
16.494685
28
0.6869710
87
0.6320134
0.0165233
08
T7 CAIRP DSL
2.856985
395
12.121422
31
0.5368148
17
0.49386963
2
0.0163652
29
T7 CAIRP
construction
DSL
2.869775
367
12.184722
15
0.5397017
46
0.49652560
7
0.0163664
31
T7 NNOOS DSL
2.110874
612
8.8654063
09
0.3553506
96
0.32692264
0.0164051
82
T7 NOOS DSL
2.856985
395
12.121422
31
0.5368148
17
0.49386963
2
0.0163652
29
T7 other port DSL
T7 POAK DSL
T7 POLA DSL
1.656267
373
8.2512356
41
0.2537200
45
0.23342244
1
0.0165427
78
T7 Public DSL
2.387829
991
16.135222
38
0.5017555
76
0.46161513
0.0165870
44
T7 Single DSL
2.590470
373
14.054357
44
0.4589027
94
0.42219057
1
0.0163967
3
T7 single
construction
DSL
2.602857
069
14.135405
57
0.4615418
36
0.42461848
9
0.0163982
22
T7 SWCV DSL
3.077996
296
15.472222
26
0.5984654
15
0.55058818
2
0.0166384
4
T7 tractor DSL
3.660934
435
14.622537
22
0.6077532
77
0.55913301
5
0.0163996
76
T7 tractor
construction
DSL
3.769451
304
14.898919
69
0.6152892
8
0.56606613
8
0.0164022
05
T7 utility DSL
1.188932
466
13.137043
59
0.2778273
37
0.25560115
0.0163920
21

T7IS GAS
48.53009
239
6.7871675
38
0.0025471
78
0.00209167
7
0.0068131
23
UBUS GAS
18.56504
382
3.5883439
1
0.0043334
69
0.00383544
4
0.0077754
99
UBUS DSL
3.092763
582
17.291556
73
0.2848600
14
0.26207122
7
0.0249330
81
All Other Buses DSL
1.738913
746
9.3420589
9
0.4285087
23
0.39422802
5
0.0108481
47
2025
Veh_Class Fuel
CO_RUN
EX
NOX_RU
NEX
PM10_RU
NEX
PM2_5_RU
NEX
SOX_RU
NEX
(gms/mile
)
(gms/mile
)
(gms/mile) (gms/mile)
(gms/mile
)
LDA GAS
0.651625
961
0.0603557
15
0.0021256
41
0.00197224
4
0.0036222
89
LDA DSL
0.093035
311
0.2723666
63
0.0077455
17
0.00712587
6
0.0030798
8
LDT1 GAS
1.412866
324
0.1384659
88
0.0030136
32
0.00279615
3
0.0041857
5
LDT1 DSL
0.156304
626
0.3624512
87
0.0214958
82
0.01977621
1
0.0031247
78
LDT2 GAS
0.836426
937
0.0865912
86
0.0020993
36
0.00194783
8
0.0049150
97
LDT2 DSL
0.127143
266
0.3715600
72
0.0111379
55
0.01024691
9
0.0031052
19
LHD1 GAS
0.596093
98
0.2460914
8
0.0005744
68
0.00053301
2
0.0061476
78

LHD1 DSL
0.616609
842
2.0158199
56
0.0206612
69
0.01900836
8
0.0049617
69
LHD2 GAS
0.308345
194
0.1863441
87
0.0003783
59
0.00035105
5
0.0061696
86
LHD2 DSL
0.587378
501
1.8515556
9
0.0198833
73
0.01829270
3
0.0049652
43
MCY GAS
19.38284
696
1.1474470
92
0.0002456
21
0.00021121
0.0019710
89
MDV GAS
1.295069
579
0.1514116
89
0.0021566
79
0.00200100
4
0.0062558
78
MDV DSL
0.090988
289
0.2585930
62
0.0085544
76
0.00787011
8
0.0030864
21
MH GAS
0.560394
753
0.2658574
15
0.0004341
62
0.00040283
1
0.0059777
39
MH DSL
0.478232
026
4.6212088
21
0.1042022
6
0.09586608
1
0.0108030
5
Motor Coach DSL
0.920116
6
1.7744831
46
0.0710532
63
0.06536900
2
0.0162732
83
OBUS GAS
0.738745
792
0.3510811
21
0.0002741
54
0.00025436
9
0.0060959
39
PTO DSL
0.802346
408
2.0134440
55
0.0431209
5
0.03967127
4
0.0202015
04
SBUS GAS
5.097395
816
0.9489554
2
0.0021565
98
0.00200096
7
0.0074982
31
SBUS DSL
0.580733
858
7.8822666
23
0.0556928
49
0.05123742
1
0.0122824
08
T6 Ag DSL
0.417834
576
1.1539705
96
0.0464727
81
0.04275495
8
0.0105888
94
T6 Public DSL
0.292714
089
2.3227596
8
0.0330625
23
0.03041752
1
0.0106728
76

T6 CAIRP
heavy
DSL
0.355805
123
0.9184348
77
0.0379233
45
0.03488947
7
0.0105832
67
T6 CAIRP small DSL
0.341044
765
0.8571261
71
0.0358539
69
0.03298565
1
0.0105826
16
T6 OOS heavy DSL
0.355805
123
0.9184348
77
0.0379233
45
0.03488947
7
0.0105832
67
T6 OOS small DSL
0.341044
765
0.8571261
71
0.0358539
69
0.03298565
1
0.0105826
16
T6 instate
construction
heavy
DSL
0.384712
677
1.0385700
48
0.0419960
87
0.0386364
0.0105842
3
T6 instate
construction
small
DSL
0.354474
079
0.9119296
75
0.0377466
92
0.03472695
7
0.0105830
6
T6 instate heavy DSL
0.383312
685
1.0321569
97
0.0417852
57
0.03844243
6
0.0105844
01
T6 instate small DSL
0.354957
566
0.9138047
98
0.0378137
04
0.03478860
8
0.0105830
94
T6 utility DSL
0.287762
569
0.6368925
14
0.0282250
54
0.02596705
0.0105839
63
T6TS GAS
0.839746
793
0.3474468
14
0.0003211
04
0.00029793
2
0.0060765
52
T7 Ag DSL
0.982707
152
1.9064534
03
0.0780082
92
0.07176762
9
0.0161723
51
T7 CAIRP DSL
1.007879
261
2.0153375
84
0.0817278
52
0.07518962
4
0.0161639
02
T7 CAIRP
construction
DSL
1.008521
752
2.0173413
56
0.0817971
78
0.07525340
4
0.0161638
89
T7 NNOOS DSL
0.871891
893
1.6128663
14
0.0676285
34
0.06221825
1
0.0161634
58

T7 NOOS DSL
1.007902
387
2.0154066
22
0.0817305
1
0.07519206
9
0.0161639
01
T7 other port DSL
T7 POAK DSL
T7 POLA DSL
1.533933
81
3.2148369
49
0.1299919
56
0.1195926
0.0162006
63
T7 Public DSL
0.602270
214
6.0676726
99
0.0573365
24
0.05274960
2
0.0164260
71
T7 Single DSL
0.799852
011
1.3973054
84
0.0598265
55
0.05504043
0.0161666
4
T7 single
construction
DSL
0.800366
09
1.3988246
18
0.0598896
12
0.05509844
3
0.0161665
39
T7 SWCV DSL
0.679129
839
6.1136229
88
0.0628507
61
0.0578227
0.0163560
26
T7 tractor DSL
1.014834
874
2.0282128
48
0.0821534
01
0.07558112
9
0.0161655
75
T7 tractor
construction
DSL
1.019627
55
2.0417344
41
0.0826288
43
0.07601853
5
0.0161657
1
T7 utility DSL
0.655259
951
0.9848052
21
0.0449556
05
0.04135915
6
0.0161671
86
T7IS GAS
27.76675
976
4.2278330
29
0.0002046
17
0.00018985
1
0.0065062
94
UBUS GAS
9.890326
88
2.6289762
22
0.0019999
22
0.00185559
8
0.0076200
17
UBUS DSL
2.161371
054
11.243093
44
0.1999476
81
0.18395187
3
0.0232765
38
All Other Buses DSL
0.412144
867
1.1640522
77
0.0454586
31
0.04182194
1
0.0106349
56

2030
Veh_Class Fuel
CO_RUNE
X
NOX_RU
NEX
PM10_RU
NEX
PM2_5_RU
NEX
SOX_RU
NEX
LDA GAS
0.60608328
2
0.0561588
05
0.00229825
0.00213239
7
0.0036186
59
LDA DSL
0.07328928
1
0.2388849
49
0.00499753
5
0.00459773
2
0.0030709
03
LDT1 GAS
1.00243458
3
0.0945765
06
0.00259763
1
0.00241017
3
0.0041833
94
LDT1 DSL
0.07460667
2
0.2544929
62
0.00439540
2
0.00404377
0.0030747
16
LDT2 GAS
0.74380270
6
0.0745198
07
0.00224453
3
0.00208255
7
0.0049080
69
LDT2 DSL
0.09351245
7
0.3062448
38
0.00563601
8
0.00518513
7
0.0030842
66
LHD1 GAS
0.31603737
9
0.1741526
05
0.00036413
4
0.00033785
6
0.0061445
99
LHD1 DSL
0.57886688
8
1.4482819
92
0.01776562
1
0.01634437
1
0.0049567
31
LHD2 GAS
0.17919596
7
0.1271251
03
0.000239
0.00022175
2
0.0061691
68
LHD2 DSL
0.54575411
7
1.2935356
84
0.01693256
7
0.01557796
2
0.0049607
02
MCY GAS
19.0506462
3
1.1434069
18
0.00022878
2
0.00019826
1
0.0019722
3

MDV GAS
1.08466442
7
0.1172595
71
0.00219660
3
0.00203808
6
0.0062546
21
MDV DSL
0.07002509
7
0.2335716
99
0.00473039
1
0.00435196
0.0030761
51
MH GAS
0.22141787
6
0.1736548
92
0.00021874
2
0.00020295
7
0.0059699
52
MH DSL
0.43498786
4
3.8605554
42
0.07086143
7
0.06519252
4
0.0108340
67
Motor Coach DSL
0.91841638
4
1.7774789
8
0.07117243
3
0.06547863
9
0.0162714
59
OBUS GAS
0.39900026
4
0.2185280
29
0.00020548
0.00019065
2
0.0060951
22
PTO DSL
0.81359300
4
2.0586738
91
0.04406382
7
0.04053872
1
0.0201992
71
SBUS GAS
2.99338014
2
0.6980006
88
0.00142811
4
0.00132505
4
0.0074608
95
SBUS DSL
0.71747736
9
5.9848486
35
0.05232745
7
0.04814126
0.0122831
23
T6 Ag DSL
0.41620937
4
1.1539876
83
0.04636049
8
0.04265165
8
0.0105862
57
T6 Public DSL
0.30203915
5
1.3433881
12
0.03174182
1
0.02920247
5
0.0106197
02
T6 CAIRP
heavy
DSL
0.35950124
3
0.9345414
83
0.03848289
3
0.03540426
2
0.0105826
98
T6 CAIRP
small
DSL
0.34181094
7
0.8616449
96
0.03597790
2
0.03309967
0.0105823
65
T6 OOS heavy DSL
0.35950124
3
0.9345414
83
0.03848289
3
0.03540426
2
0.0105826
98
T6 OOS small DSL
0.34181094
7
0.8616449
96
0.03597790
2
0.03309967
0.0105823
65

T6 instate
construction
heavy
DSL
0.38926398
4
1.0588017
1
0.04270979
4
0.03929301
0.0105830
85
T6 instate
construction
small
DSL
0.35620209
6
0.9220967
54
0.03802721
9
0.03498504
1
0.0105824
78
T6 instate
heavy
DSL
0.38945897
7
1.0593450
28
0.04273363
8
0.03931494
7
0.0105831
4
T6 instate
small
DSL
0.35648778
3
0.9232511
93
0.03806728
1
0.03502189
8
0.0105824
88
T6 utility DSL
0.28792502
2
0.6340564
79
0.02827230
7
0.02601052
3
0.0105825
97
T6TS GAS
0.43313054
1
0.2178981
85
0.00022494
3
0.00020871 0.0060713
T7 Ag DSL
0.98011949
3
1.9094768
66
0.07823492
0.07197612
7
0.0161679
53
T7 CAIRP DSL
1.00541139
8
2.0106240
6
0.08154024
6
0.07501702
6
0.0161635
13
T7 CAIRP
construction
DSL
1.00556745
9
2.0111086
21
0.08155708
3
0.07503251
7
0.0161635
1
T7 NNOOS DSL 0.87161902
1.6125460
59
0.06761398
1
0.06220486
3
0.0161633
81
T7 NOOS DSL
1.00540275
9
2.0105979
35
0.08153944
3
0.07501628
8
0.0161635
12
T7 other port DSL
T7 POAK DSL
T7 POLA DSL
1.21036246
6
2.6227806
27
0.10293378
7
0.09469908
4
0.0161633
77
T7 Public DSL
0.63964770
7
3.9046119
99
0.05223120
2
0.04805270
6
0.0162825
96

T7 Single DSL
0.81106364
2
1.4286944
35
0.06113471
4
0.05624393
7
0.0161648
53
T7 single
construction
DSL
0.81159896
9
1.4303192
51
0.06119467
7
0.05629910
3
0.0161648
16
T7 SWCV DSL 0.70873521
4.3643354
3
0.05908637
4
0.05435946
4
0.0162719
79
T7 tractor DSL
1.01136499
3
2.0243287
38
0.08203494
0.07547214
5
0.0161642
16
T7 tractor
construction
DSL
1.01457295
3
2.0335555
12
0.08236195
6
0.07577299
9
0.0161642
58
T7 utility DSL 0.658204
0.9809350
81
0.04531460
3
0.04168943
4
0.0161647
61
T7IS GAS
27.1929134
8
4.2012412
03
0.00017393
8
0.00016138
5
0.0064885
61
UBUS GAS
6.42779672
8
2.1757282
59
0.00110690
6
0.00102702
6
0.0075436
83
UBUS DSL
1.76590090
6
8.8737916
61
0.16822514 0.15476713
0.0225904
18
All Other
Buses
DSL
0.42293644
3
1.2090162
71
0.04699787
7
0.04323804
7
0.0106345
81
2035
Veh_Class Fue
l
CO_RUNE
X
NOX_RUN
EX
PM10_RUN
EX
PM2_5_RUN
EX
SOX_RUN
EX
LDA GA
S
0.5880316
28
0.053697432 0.002333408 0.002165018 0.00361950
5
LDA DS
L
0.0688973
92
0.229295627 0.004589165 0.004222032 0.00305748
8
LDT1 GA
S
0.7391322
23
0.065764738 0.002314786 0.002147739 0.00418735
5

LDT1 DS
L
0.0772933
11
0.265516874 0.004383674 0.00403298 0.00306163
7
LDT2 GA
S
0.7023972
64
0.068265486 0.002304897 0.002138564 0.00490816
3
LDT2 DS
L
0.0877594
22
0.294164124 0.005072261 0.00466648 0.00306827
3
LHD1 GA
S
0.1877430
12
0.13787977 0.000239186 0.000221925 0.00614182
7
LHD1 DS
L
0.5689588
29
1.119831524 0.016675605 0.015341557 0.00495498
2
LHD2 GA
S
0.1412129
2
0.104512111 0.000183526 0.000170281 0.00616748
5
LHD2 DS
L
0.5409535
39
1.021062911 0.015661976 0.014409018 0.00495573
4
MCY GA
S
18.693367
72
1.139608029 0.000224058 0.000194531 0.00196364
MDV GA
S
0.9367412
5
0.091962457 0.002208404 0.002049034 0.00626036
9
MDV DS
L
0.0694418
17
0.232416723 0.004631073 0.004260587 0.00306293
3
MH GA
S
0.1676184
71
0.143761138 0.000160599 0.00014901 0.00595156
9
MH DS
L
0.4008463
11
3.404023217 0.04574656 0.042086837 0.01087232
9
Motor Coach DS
L
0.9159964
74
1.7783895 0.070577304 0.06493112 0.01628167
4
OBUS GA
S
0.2685551
5
0.168714887 0.000178423 0.000165547 0.00609250
8
PTO DS
L
0.8154551
19
2.069012584 0.044278481 0.040736203 0.02019801
9
SBUS GA
S
1.4389851
21
0.519579829 0.000623228 0.000578253 0.00743343
9

SBUS DS
L
0.8740554
24
4.516501874 0.051461583 0.047344656 0.01224949
1
T6 Ag DS
L
0.4108337
83
1.145475406 0.045350824 0.041722758 0.01059602
2
T6 Public DS
L
0.3042205
06
0.917805 0.030802444 0.028338248 0.01060722
2
T6 CAIRP heavy DS
L
0.3587770
05
0.939549846 0.038126476 0.035076358 0.01059376
7
T6 CAIRP small DS
L
0.3409659
01
0.863948514 0.035605018 0.032756616 0.01059371
1
T6 OOS heavy DS
L
0.3587770
05
0.939549846 0.038126476 0.035076358 0.01059376
7
T6 OOS small DS
L
0.3409659
01
0.863948515 0.035605018 0.032756616 0.01059371
1
T6 instate
construction heavy
DS
L
0.3889932
78
1.067018518 0.042396743 0.039005003 0.01059395
4
T6 instate
construction small
DS
L
0.3557673
01
0.926705742 0.037700219 0.034684202 0.01059375
9
T6 instate heavy DS
L
0.3893696
22
1.068523236 0.042448827 0.039052921 0.01059397
T6 instate small DS
L
0.3558982
13
0.927239605 0.037718481 0.034701002 0.01059376
3
T6 utility DS
L
0.2872131
11
0.635024822 0.027981911 0.025743358 0.01059374
2
T6TS GA
S
0.2778802
95
0.170895621 0.000180115 0.000167117 0.00606267
9
T7 Ag DS
L
0.9720787
9
1.90458474 0.077100151 0.070932139 0.01618447
3
T7 CAIRP DS
L
1.0024308
5
2.013079331 0.080665055 0.07421185 0.01618183
1
T7 CAIRP
construction
DS
L
1.0024897
26
2.01325945 0.080671235 0.074217536 0.01618183

T7 NNOOS DS
L
0.8694037
09
1.614747671 0.066906021 0.06155354 0.01618181
7
T7 NOOS DS
L
1.002431 2.013079076 0.080665081 0.074211875 0.01618183
1
T7 other port DS
L
T7 POAK DS
L
T7 POLA DS
L
1.2076557
76
2.627776869 0.101899377 0.093747427 0.01618180
8
T7 Public DS
L
0.6545794
67
2.662246222 0.049945406 0.045949774 0.01625075
3
T7 Single DS
L
0.8111020
65
1.438604607 0.060815176 0.055949962 0.01618228
2
T7 single
construction
DS
L
0.8114403
61
1.439633357 0.06085148 0.055983362 0.01618227
2
T7 SWCV DS
L
0.7389642
07
2.840759975 0.058047865 0.053404036 0.01625402
3
T7 tractor DS
L
1.0069056
52
2.024069606 0.081054986 0.074570587 0.01618224
3
T7 tractor
construction
DS
L
1.0090750
24
2.030411078 0.081275928 0.074773854 0.01618226
2
T7 utility DS
L
0.6569102
62
0.979633008 0.044916002 0.041322721 0.01618202
2
T7IS GA
S
26.993331
06
4.257831161 0.000160238 0.000148675 0.00646081
3
UBUS GA
S
3.9025479
07
1.504187698 0.000532164 0.000493761 0.00749837
2
UBUS DS
L
1.3928935
66
6.66489715 0.136274745 0.125372763 0.02192051
2
All Other Buses DS
L
0.4214369
57
1.211518275 0.04652896 0.042806643 0.01064246
7

newFinalReport.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to newFinalReport.docx

Similar to newFinalReport.docx (18)

newFinalReport.docx