Uncertain socioeconomic projections used in travel demand and emissions models: could plausible errors result in air quality nonconformity?

A sensitivity analysis of plausible errors in population, employment, fuel price, and income projections is conducted using the travel demand and emissions models of the Sacramento, CA, USA, region for their transportation plan. The results of the analyses indicate that plausible error ranges for household income and fuel prices are not a significant source of uncertainty with respect to the region's travel demand and emissions projections. However, plausible errors in population and employment projections (within approximately one standard deviation) may result in the region's transportation plan not meeting the conformity test for nitrogens of oxides (NO_x) in the year 2005 (i.e., an approximately 16% probability). This outcome is also possible in the year 2015 but less likely (within approximately two standard deviations or a 2.5% probability). Errors in socioeconomic projections are only one of many sources of error in travel demand and emissions models. These results have several policy implications. First, regions like Sacramento that meet their conformity tests by a very small margin should rethink new highway investment and consider contingency transportation plans that incorporate more aggressive emissions reduction policies. Second, regional transportation planning agencies should conduct sensitivity analyses as part of their conformity analysis to make explicit significant uncertainties in the methods and to identify the probability of their transportation plan not conforming. Third, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should clarify the interpretation of “demonstrate” conformity of transportation plans; that is, specify the level of certainty that it considers a sufficient demonstration of conformity.