Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
102 <br />Estimated Impacts <br />Th,q regional emission reductions associated with reducing the number of new drive - <br />through facilities are expected to be minimal, primarily because of the small amount of <br />travel impacted relative to the total highway vehicle mobile source inventory. At best, <br />such measures may be effective in reducing localized CO hoispots. <br />Controls on extended vehicle idling of heavy duty vehicles may have a larger emissions <br />reduction impact in commercial urban areas than will the limitations of drive- through <br />facilities. This is because of the higher unit emissions of heavy duty vehicles compared <br />to light duty automobiles. <br />Program Costs and Other Considerations <br />The proposed California law on heavy duty truck idling would require funding for <br />public awareness, facility inspection, law enforcement, and truck operator education. It <br />could also incur additional cost to truck operators by shortening starter life, but would . <br />also reduce the costs of fuel consumption and engine wear. <br />Elimination of existing drive- through facilities would require compensation of the <br />affected businesses and physical modifications to the facilities. The affected market <br />segments would be shopping and personal business trips that use-these facilities, <br />primarily in• suburban areas. <br />The costs associated with efforts to influence the design or limit the number of new <br />drive - through facilities would largely be limited to small administrative costs to manage <br />the new development code. Costs'to building owners and operators could be minced; <br />with lower construction costs and higher operating costs if buildings must be kept open <br />for longer periods of time. <br />Impiementption Considerations <br />Because most heavy - duty - vehicles operate across jurisdictional boundaries, laws to <br />restrict heavy -duty vehicle idling should be implemented statewide rather than locally <br />so as to ease enforcement. tin the case of California, the proposed law w6i ld be enforced <br />by air pollution control districts through routine inspections of facilities with heavy - <br />duty truck activity and through response to public complaints. The California Highway <br />Patrol and local law enforcement agencies would have discretionary enforcement au- <br />thority. The Technical Advisory Committee suggested that current resource constraints <br />on enforcement of traffic safety regulations might stake it necessary to develop new <br />funding or cost sharing mechanisms between law enforcement and air pollution control <br />agencies in order to enforce the proposed restrictions f2 ?. . <br />Extaided V&kteldung 6 <br />