DOCSLIB.ORG

Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region Review and Recommendations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region Review and Recommendations Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region Review and Recommendations final report prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with Sprinkle Consulting, Inc. February 2010 www.camsys.com final report Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region Review and Recommendations prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400 Cambridge, MA 02140 with Sprinkle Consulting, Inc. date February 2010 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 Review of Peer Region Practices in Project Evaluation, Selection, and Funding Allocation ............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 CMAQ Funding Allocation and Evaluation Methods (General) ......... 2-1 2.2 TDM Funding Allocation and Evaluation Methods (General) ............ 2-3 2.3 Existing DRCOG TDM Funding Allocation Method ............................ 2-4 2.4 TDM Allocation Methods (Peer Regions) ............................................... 2-7 Atlanta, Georgia .......................................................................................... 2-8 Phoenix, Arizona ...................................................................................... 2-13 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ..................................................................... 2-15 San Francisco, California ......................................................................... 2-17 Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas ......................................................................... 2-19 Washington, D.C. ...................................................................................... 2-21 2.5 TDM Fund Distribution – Comparative Table ....................................... 2-25 2.6 Summary of Peer Region Review ........................................................... 2-27 3.0 TDM Project Evaluation Methods in the Denver Region ........................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Methods Used for Projecting Cost-Effectiveness of Projects Applying for Funding ................................................................................ 3-1 3.3 Methods Used for Post-Project Effectiveness Evaluation ..................... 3-2 3.4 Interview Findings ..................................................................................... 3-3 Evaluation Methods ................................................................................... 3-3 Survey Challenges ...................................................................................... 3-3 Limitations of Existing Evaluation Tools ................................................ 3-3 Data Issues ................................................................................................... 3-4 Inter-Agency Relationships and Program Balance ................................ 3-4 Project Selection Process ............................................................................ 3-4 3.5 Recommendations ...................................................................................... 3-5 4.0 Cost-Effectiveness of TDM Projects ............................................................... 4-1 4.1 Range of Cost-Effectiveness Reported for Denver Region Projects .... 4-1 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i 8148.001 Table of Contents, continued 4.2 Range of Cost-effectiveness Reported from Elsewhere......................... 4-4 CMAQ Evaluations .................................................................................... 4-4 Washington, D.C. – Commuter Connections Program ......................... 4-6 Other Estimates in Literature .................................................................... 4-7 4.3 Summary ...................................................................................................... 4-8 5.0 Recommendations for TDM Pool Project Scoring and Selection Process ................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Recommendations ...................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Example for Revised Scoring and Selection Process ............................. 5-3 6.0 Funding Allocation Recommendations .......................................................... 6-1 6.1 Overview ...................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Recommended Approach for Developing TDM Program Funding Levels ............................................................................................ 6-2 6.3 Summary of Funding Allocation Recommendations ............................ 6-6 Appendix A – Recommendations for the CMAQ Reporter Appendix B – Framework Agreement from Atlanta ii Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 8148.001 Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region List of Tables Table 2.1 FY 2009 Funding Levels for Atlanta Regional TDM Programs ........ 2-13 Table 2.2 FY 2010 Funding Levels for Metro Washington TDM Programs ..... 2-23 Table 2.3 Comparative Analysis Table .................................................................. 2-25 Table 4.1 Range of Cost-Effectiveness CMAQ of TDM-Funded Projects Nationwide ................................................................................................. 4-6 Table 5.1 Current Evaluation Factors Used in Project Scoring and Ranking .... 5-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. iii Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region List of Figures Figure 2.1 FY 2009 Allocation of DRCOG CMAQ Funding .................................. 2-6 Figure 2.2 Relationship of TDM Projects and Roles in Atlanta ........................... 2-11 Figure 2.3 Commuter Connections Structure ........................................................ 2-22 Figure 4.1 Projected Cost-Effectiveness for FY 2008-2009 DRCOG-Funded TDM Pool Projects ..................................................................................... 4-2 Figure 4.2 Cost-Effectiveness Estimated from Denver Region TDM Post- Project Evaluations (Pool Projects and RideArrangers) ....................... 4-3 Figure 4.3 Median Cost-Effectiveness of CMAQ TDM-Funded Projects Nationwide ................................................................................................. 4-5 Figure 4.4 Cost-Effectiveness for MWCOG Commuter Connections Program Elements ..................................................................................... 4-7 Figure 5.1 Concept for Scoring Projects .................................................................... 5-5 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. v Transportation Demand Management Project Evaluation and Funding Methods in the Denver Region Executive Summary This study was undertaken to assess the current approach to funding and eval- uating transportation demand management (TDM) projects funded in the Denver region, and to recommend changes to project selection processes, funding, and evaluation procedures that could improve the cost-effectiveness of the region’s TDM projects. The study included the following activities which are summarized in this report: • A review of TDM evaluation methods and funding procedures used around the country; • Interviews with TDM service providers regarding evaluation approaches and methods; • A review of pre- and post-project evaluation data for previous DRCOG area regionally funded TDM programs/projects; and • Recommendation of TDM evaluation and funding methods and concepts for DRCOG’s project selection and monitoring processes. Discussion of Key Issues CDOT and DRCOG asked the study team to consider whether the region is spending its TDM dollars effectively. DRCOG currently funds TDM through the region’s Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds. In FY 2009, a total of just over $3 million (12 percent of CMAQ funds) was allocated to TDM activities. A TDM Pool that funds local projects received $1.0 million, or 32 percent, while the regional RideArrangers program run by DRCOG received $2.1 million, or 68 percent. The TDM Pool funds individual projects sponsored by local and regional TDM service providers on a biannual basis, through a competitive application process. All TDM Pool project applications must submit projections of cost-effectiveness (cost per vehicle-mile of travel reduced), as part of their application, and some sponsors have conducted post- project evaluations. The RideArrangers program is also routinely evaluated for cost-effectiveness. Based on a review of estimates provided by project sponsors for projects funded in FY 2008-2009, pre-project estimates of cost-effectiveness generally perform favorably on DRCOG’s scoring system and fall within the range of what might be expected based on a review of other TDM projects nationwide. However, good post-project evaluation data is not available for most of the TDM Pool projects, and therefore it is difficult to assess actual performance
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Statewide Logistics Plan for North Carolina
    Statewide Logistics Plan for North Carolina An Investigation of the Issues with Recommendations for Action APPENDICES By George F. List, Ph.D, P.E. P.I. and Head, Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering North Carolina State University Robert S. Foyle, P.E. Co-P.I. and Associate Director, ITRE North Carolina State University Henry Canipe Senior Manager TransTech Management, Inc. John Cameron, Ph.D. Managing Partner TransTech Management, Inc. Erik Stromberg Ports and Harbors Practice Leader Hatch, Mott, MacDonald LLC For the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management May 13, 2008 Appendices Appendix A: Powerpoint Slide Sets Presentations include: Tompkins Associates North Carolina Statewide Logistics Proposal North Carolina Statewide Logistics Plan Cambridge Systematics Freight Demand and Logistics – Trends and Issues Highway Freight Transportation – Trends and Issues Rail Freight Transportation – Trends and Issues Waterborne Freight Transportation – Trends and Issues State DOTs and Freight – Trends and Issues Virginia Statewide Multimodal Freight Study - Phase I Overview Global Insight Shifts in Global Trade Patterns – Meaning for North Carolina 5/5/2008 North Carolina Statewide Logistics Proposal Presented to: North Carolina State University Project Team Charlotte, NC March 13, 2008 Caveat… This presentation and discussion is from the Shipper’s perspective… ASSO C I ATES CONFIDENTIAL — Use or disclosure of this information is restricted. 2 1 5/5/2008 North American Port Report (1/08) A majority of the Supply Chain Consortium respondents to the North American Port Report survey believe that their supply chain network is not optimal with respect to the ports used for their ocean freight. Significant opportunities exist from getting all aspects of the supply chain aligned to optimizing costs and customer service.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Hazards Incorporates the State-Mandated “Safety” and “Noise” Elements of the General Plan
    7 HAZARDS ENVIRONMENTAL A. OVERVIEW Environmental Hazards incorporates the state-mandated “Safety” and “Noise” elements of the General Plan. The Chapter addresses natural and man-made hazards in the City, including earthquakes, landslides, floods, sea level rise, wildfire, air and water pollution, hazardous materials, and aviation accidents. It includes a summary of emergency preparedness in San Leandro, with policies that provide the foundation for disaster planning in the City. The Element also addresses noise issues, with the dual objective of mitigating existing noise problems and avoiding future disturbances and conflicts. The overall purpose of this Element is to minimize the potential for damage and injury resulting from environmental hazards. The State Government Code requires that the Element identify and evaluate the hazards that are present and establish appropriate goals, policies, and action programs to reduce those hazards to acceptable levels. Environmental hazards define basic constraints to land use that must be reflected in how and where development takes place. Public education is critical to the successful implementation of this Element. Although San Leandrans are generally aware that the City is located in “earthquake country,” there is still much that can be done to improve readiness and response when disaster strikes. The Environmental Hazards Element takes a pro-active approach to emergency preparedness, emphasizing mitigation and reduced exposure to hazards as well as response and recovery. This Element is closely coordinated with the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), a federally mandated plan to reduce exposure to hazards and ensure eligibility for federal disaster preparedness and relief funds. 7-1 SAN LEANDRO GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD S The Element also sets forth a pro-active strategy for addressing noise issues in the community.
    [Show full text]
  • Bakersfield Californian, Commentary, Sunday, July 16, 2006
    Air-quality regulators seek input BY SARAH RUBY, Californian staff writer Source: Seyed Sadredin, air pollution control officer at the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Bakersfield Californian, Saturday, July 22, 2006 Locals are invited to talk air quality with those whose job it is to clean it up. Seyed Sadredin, the San Joaquin Valley's top air regulator, and others will convene in Delano and Bakersfield next Wednesday to discuss air problems and strategies to solve them. Here's a rundown, frequently-asked-question style, of a few things that might come up on Wednesday. We hear so much bad news about the valley's air. Is there any good news? Yes. Some 500 pollution regulations have cut emissions from stationary sources -- factories, refineries and other non-moving polluters -- by at least half since the early 1990s. Also, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is taking measures to recognize the valley for having gone three years without a violation of the federal standard for dust and other coarse particles. Are we going to meet the 2013 deadline for reducing ozone pollution, also known as smog? If we do, it's not going to be easy. We'll need to reduce ozone emissions by 60 percent, the district says. With its powers limited to regulating pollution from stationary sources, the district only controls 40 percent of the valley's emissions, according to district figures. The other 60 percent -- cars, trucks, ships, planes and anything else that moves -- is regulated by state and federal agencies. Can we get an extension on the ozone rule? Yes.
    [Show full text]
  • SACOG Board of Directors
    Sacramento Area Council of Governments SACOG Board of Directors December 15, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. SACOG Board Room, 1415 L Street, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95814 SACOG Salutes: SACOG’s 2016 Regional Awards Ceremony will begin at 9:30 a.m. The SACOG Board of Directors Meeting will follow the awards ceremony. The Board may take up any agenda item at any time, regardless of the order listed. Public comment will be taken on the item at the time that it is taken up by the Board. We ask that members of the public complete a request to speak form, submit it to the Clerk of the Board, and keep their remarks brief. If several persons wish to address the board on a single item, the chair may impose a time limit on individual remarks at the beginning of the discussion. Action may be taken on any item on this agenda. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Directors Buckland, Cabaldon, Clerici, Crews, Douglass, Duran, Flores, Frerichs, Griego, Hodges, Jankovitz, Johnson, Joiner, Kennedy, Miklos, Neu, Onderko, Peters, Powers, Samayoa, Sander, Saylor, Schenirer, Slowey, Stallard, Suen, Veerkamp, West, Yuill, Vice-Chair Serna, Chair Rohan, and Ex-Officio Member Benipal Public Communications: Any person wishing to address the Board on any item not on the agenda may do so at this time. After 10 minutes of testimony, any additional testimony will be heard following the action items. Presentations: • Recognition of Outgoing Board Members Consent: 1. Approve Minutes of the November 17, 2016, Board Meeting 2. Approve the Transportation Development Act Claims for the Cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, and Yuba City 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Joshua Widmann
    .Ralph and Goldy Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies . .UCLA School of Public Affairs . San Francisco Bay Area’s Spare the Air/Free Morning Commute Program: Program Effectiveness in Comparison to the Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles Area Strategy and Suggestions for Enhancing Ridership Data Collection and Monitoring Joshua Widmann The Ralph and Goldy Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies Spare the Air/Free Morning Commute Program: An Analysis of Program Effectiveness and Suggestions for Enhancing Ridership Data Collection and Monitoring UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles San Francisco Bay Area’s Spare the Air/Free Morning Commute Program: Program Effectiveness in Comparison to the Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles area strategy and Suggestions for Enhancing Ridership Data Collection and Monitoring Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Masters in Urban Planning Joshua Widmann [email protected] March - April 2006 Joshua Widmann 1 Spare the Air/Free Morning Commute Program: An Analysis of Program Effectiveness and Suggestions for Enhancing Ridership Data Collection and Monitoring TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Introduction 1.1 Background 7 1.2 Air Quality Background 7 1.3 The Regions 9 1.4 Explanation of 2005 Spare the Air/Free Morning Commute Program: Results of July 26, 2005 Episode Document 10 2. Literature Review: History and Geographic Comparison 2.1 San Francisco Bay Area 14 2.2 Los Angeles 16 2.3 Washington, D.C. 19 2.4 Exceedance Days Compared 20 2.5 Downtown Job Share Compared 21 2.6 Transit, Spare the Air/Code Red Occurrences, and Population 23 Compared 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Healthy Air Program Moving Into the Valley Alerts Abandoned in Favor of Taking Charge by KEN CARLSON Modesto Bee, Saturday, July 5, 2008
    Healthy Air program moving into the valley Alerts abandoned in favor of taking charge By KEN CARLSON Modesto Bee, Saturday, July 5, 2008 On summer days when smog shrouded the Northern San Joaquin Valley, air quality officials released "Spare the Air" alerts to urge individuals and businesses to take measures to reduce the pollution. Spare the Air is no more. It has been replaced by the Healthy Air Living program in the eight- county San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Instead of just reacting to bad air days, the new program urges people to do things year-round to clean the air. The program kicks off Sunday with Healthy Air Living Week in the San Joaquin Valley air basin, with activities planned from Stockton to Bakersfield to showcase what people can do to reduce air pollution. The district is sponsoring the Modesto Nuts game Sunday night at John Thurman Field. The main event in Modesto will be a bicycle commute on McHenry Avenue between 7 and 9 a.m. Wednesday. People riding their bikes to work can first gather at the Fun Sport Bikes store in McHenry Village shopping center for refreshments and to enter a drawing. They will then ride downtown on McHenry with a police escort. Also Wednesday, a conference will be held at the University of California at Merced, focusing on the development of electric cars, fuel cells and other clean energy technology. Air district officials say they nixed Spare the Air because the program focused on one-day pollution episodes and didn't produce the permanent changes in behavior needed to improve air quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Spare the Air• Cool the Climate a Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area
    SPARE THE AIR• COOL THE CLIMATE A BLUEPRINT FOR CLEAN AIR AND CLIMATE PROTECTION IN THE BAY AREA DRAFT 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN JANUARY 10, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... ES/1 The Challenge ......................................................................................................... ES/1 Goals and Objectives .............................................................................................. ES/2 The Vision for 2050 ................................................................................................. ES/2 Pollutants Addressed ............................................................................................... ES/4 The 2017 Control Strategy ...................................................................................... ES/5 What the 2017 Plan Will Accomplish ....................................................................... ES/6 CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND VISION .................................................................1/1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1/1 Goals and Objectives of the 2017 Plan .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Yolo-Solano Air 2014
    YOLO-SOLANO AIR 2014 Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District Published January 2015 lean air is something easy to take for granted, especially in our community. The air we breathe is clean almost every day. In fact, in 2014 our air quality met federal health standards on 364 days. That record of air quality lets our community breathe easy. C But at the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, we work hard every day to ensure our air remains clean generations into the future and that we are good neighbors to communities with greater air pollution problems. As our economy and population grow, more cars and trucks hit the road and drive more miles. Transportation contributes roughly 75 percent of our summer air pollution and a significant share of particulate emissions year-round. In addition, economic development in our communities has led to new potential sources of air pollution, many of them innovative. It is against that backdrop that we strive to protect the air quality of Yolo-Solano and reduce our regional impact. We have successfully reduced air pollution emitted in our communities despite growth in vehicles miles traveled. That takes persistent, effective work from our talented, dedicated staff as well as cooperation from the businesses and residents of Yolo-Solano. We ask the public to help us shape policy, reduce wood burning and reduce their driving. For your help, we thank you. In this report you’ll find information on how we work to protect your air quality as well as learn about of 2014 accomplishments and our 2015 goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming And
    Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee September 11, 2013 Item Number 4b MTC Resolutions 4035, Revised and 3925, Revised Subject: Cycle 2/OneBayArea Grant Program - Project Selections and Programming Revisions Background: The Cycle 2 Surface Transportation Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (STP/CMAQ) OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) Program adopted by the Commission in May 2012 establishes commitments and policies for investing roughly $800 million in federal funds for regional programs and local programs through FY2016. Under this program, the county congestion management agencies (CMAs) administer OBAG ($320 million), selecting projects within their respective counties, which involve a competitive project selection process. The County CMAs also issue solicitations and award grants for two other Cycle 2 programs: the Regional Safe Routes to School Program and the Priority Conservation Area Program (North Bay only). As projects are selected, MTC staff confirms funding eligibility and includes the projects in the respective program, processes TIP revisions to include the projects in the federal TIP, and provides periodic follow-up reports to the Commission. In addition, staff reports changes to STP/CMAQ funding for the regional programs managed by MTC. OneBayArea Grant Program The Commission has made $320 million available to the counties based on a formula using population, Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations, and prior housing production factors. The deadline for submitting projects for Commission review was July 30, 2013. As of this date, the CMAs are proposing 147 projects totaling roughly $230 million as part of this action. The CMA’s project selections have been reviewed by staff to confirm that the Commission’s OBAG policies have been met.
    [Show full text]
  • BOARD of DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING September 3, 2014
    BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING September 3, 2014 A meeting of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board of Directors will be held in the 7th Floor Board Room at the Air District Headquarters, 939 Ellis Street, San Francisco, California. Questions About an Agenda Item The name, telephone number and e-mail of the appropriate staff Person to contact for additional information or to resolve concerns is listed for each agenda item. Meeting Procedures The public meeting of the Air District Board of Directors begins at 9:45 a.m. The Board of Directors generally will consider items in the order listed on the agenda. However, any item may be considered in any order. After action on any agenda item not requiring a public hearing, the Board may reconsider or amend the item at any time during the meeting. This meeting will be webcast. To see the webcast, please visit http://www.baaqmd.gov/The-Air-District/Board-of- Directors/Agendas-and-Minutes.aspx at the time of the meeting. Public Comment Procedures Persons wishing to make public comment must fill out a Public Comment Card indicating their name and the number of the agenda item on which they wish to speak, or that they intend to address the Board on matters not on the Agenda for the meeting. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Matters, Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3 For the first round of public comment on non-agenda matters at the beginning of the agenda, ten persons selected by a drawing by the Clerk of the Boards from among the Public Comment Cards indicating they wish to speak on matters not on the agenda for the meeting will have three minutes each to address the Board on matters not on the agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2012 Annual Report Bay Area Air Quality Management District
    Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons California Agencies California Documents 2013 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2012 Annual Report Bay Area Air Quality Management District Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies Part of the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation Bay Area Air Quality Management District, "Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2012 Annual Report" (2013). California Agencies. 500. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies/500 This Cal State Document is brought to you for free and open access by the California Documents at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Agencies by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 2012 Annual Report Doing our part for clean air. Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2012 Annual Report // pg. 01 Our Mission and Vision. Vision A healthy breathing environment for every Bay Area resident. Mission To protect and improve public health, air quality, and the global climate. Table of Contents 02: We Spare the Air 10: Looking Closely 04: We Give Grants 12: Setting the Bar 06: We Work with Communities 14: Controlling Sources 08: Who We Are 16: Moving Forward 09: Letter from our Executive Officer 18: By the Numbers Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2012 Annual Report // pp. 02–03 We spare the air. The Air District’s summer and winter Spare the Air campaigns focus on educating and encouraging the public to rethink their everyday choices that contribute to air pollution. During the summer and throughout the year, the Spare the Air program urges residents to reduce their driving by walking, taking transit, or carpooling.
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 Annual Report - 50 Years of Progress Bay Area Air Quality Management District
    Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons California Agencies California Documents 2005 2005 Annual Report - 50 Years of Progress Bay Area Air Quality Management District Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies Part of the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation Bay Area Air Quality Management District, "2005 Annual Report - 50 Years of Progress" (2005). California Agencies. 445. https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/caldocs_agencies/445 This Cal State Document is brought to you for free and open access by the California Documents at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Agencies by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 2 0 0 5 ANNUAL REPORT BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 1 9 5 5 1 9 5 6 1 9 5 7 1 9 5 8 1 9 5 9 1 9 6 0 1 9 6 1 1 9 6 2 1 9 6 3 1 9 6 4 1 9 6 5 1 9 6 6 1 9 6 7 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 0 1 9 7 1 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 3 1 9 7 4 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 6 1 9 7 7 1 9 7 8 1 9 7 9 1 9 8 0 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 2 1 9 8 3 1 9 8 4 1 9 8 5 1 9 8 6 1 9 8 7 1 9 8 8 1 9 8 9 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 50 YEARS of PROGRESS> ���� ������ ������ ����� ������������ ������������� ������� The Bay Area Air Quality Management District ��������� (the Air District) is the public agency entrusted with regulating stationary sources of air ����������� pollution in the nine counties that surround San Francisco Bay: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, southwestern Solano, and southern Sonoma counties.
    [Show full text]