Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
102 <br />®' Estimated impaots <br />Thg regional emission reductions • associated with reducing the number of new drive - <br />through fadlities 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 hotapots. <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 />facilifies. This is because of the higher unit ernissioits of heavy duty vehicles compared <br />to light duty automobiles. <br />Program Costs and tatter 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 mixed; <br />with lower construction costs and higher operating costs if buildings must be kept open <br />for longer periods of time. <br />Implementation 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. Tit the case of California, the proposed law would 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 Californta Highway <br />Patrol and local law enforcement agendas would have discretionary enforcement au- <br />thoriry. the Technical Advisory Committee suggested that current zesource constraints <br />on enforcement of traffic safety regulations might make 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 (2 ?• <br />6 <br />Extended Vehic khtting <br />