Item A: Sustainability Commission Recommendations

Home Browse Search

VMT Distribution per Mobile6 Model LCOG to CCAP Software Category Mobile6 Category CCAP Category LDGV46.55%Light Duty Gasoline Vehicles( Psgnr Cars) Passenger Vehicle-Gas 86.73% LDGT1-2 29.07%Light Duty Gasoline Trucks( <6000lbs gvw) Passenger Vehicle-Gas LDGT3-4 11.11%Light Duty Gasoline Trucks( >6000lbs gvw) Passenger Vehicle-Gas HDGV 4.17% Heavy Duty Gasoline Vehicles Heavy Truck-Gas 4.17% LDDV0.15%Light Duty Diesel Vehicles Passenger Vehicle-Dsl 0.35% LDDT0.20%Light Duty Diesel Trucks Passenger Vehicle-Dsl HDDV 8.23% Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles Heavy Truck-Diesel 8.23% MC0.52%MotorcyclesMotorcycles-Gas 0.52% 100.00% 100.00% Sources for this information: Susan Payne, Senior Planner, Lane Council of Governments OR DMV fleet composition for Eugene, 2002 Regional Transportation Model, o EPA Mobile 6 modeling Texas Transportation Institute, Urban Mobility Report 1982-2003. Solid Waste Eugene is fortunate to have a community level solid waste and recycling program. Data was available through this program for residential and commercial solid waste in tons for 1990 and 2005. Additionally, solid waste program estimates indicate that there may be from 10 to 20% more solid waste generated by “self-haulers” than is captured in the data. Solid waste volumes were adjusted upwards by 10% to account for this. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality regularly conducts Waste Characterization and Composition studies. The most recent report available was done in 2002 and also contains information from previous studies in 1992-93. The 2002 DEQ data was compiled specifically for Eugene and was used in the model for 2005 figures. Earlier data specific to Eugene was not available. Comparison of the DEQ data showed that the 1992-93 data for the “rest of Oregon” showed a similar profile to Eugene data. This data was used for the 1990 inventory. (See appendix #2 for actual figures used in the CACP model). There is some difference of opinion about methane recovery rates at Oregon landfills. OR DEQ reports that attempts to measure actual methane recovery have reported rates of about 42% at the Short Mountain facility, while professional opinion based on the fact that Short Mountain is a state of the art facility, estimate a recovery rate of 80%. The CACP model was run with both methane recovery rates. In both cases the GHG impact was negative. The 80% recovery rate was used in the model to maintain consistency with the state-level inventory. Sources for this information: Alex Cuyler and Nancy Young, Solid Waste and Recycling Analysts, City of Eugene Dave Allaway, OR Dept of Environmental Quality Pete Spendelow, OR Dept of Environmental Quality. 21