Assessing the Effects of Freight Movement on Air

Quality

Talking Freight Seminar

April 20, 2005

There is growing concern about the future performance of our freight system

Truck traffic is contributing to worsening highway congestion at a faster rate than passenger traffic Since 1993, truck traffic on urban highways has increased by more than

twice as much as passenger traffic

The capacity of our freight rail system shrank significantly in the past Since 1975, ton-miles moved has increased by nearly 100%, but road and

track miles decreased by over 40%

Globalization is stressing our already constrained port system Waterborne imports grew 67% between 1990 and 2003

e.g., container moves at Port of LA doubled 1999-2004

Continued rapid growth in air freight could strain our aviation system

Why is performance such an issue?

The linkages between efficient and reliable freight transportation and economic performance are strong

Shippers and carriers optimize logistics and supply-chain management around transportation system performance

Congestion could force costly redesigns of logistics systems leading to decreases in economic productivity

Demand across all modes is expected to increase significantly Diesel exhaust is a primary source of air pollution

Needed investments could be difficult to implement due to air quality concerns – from conformity to NEPA

We need to improve our understanding of freight emissions

Air quality is a regional issue

Most previous studies of freight transportation emissions have looked only at the national level

Little research comparing freight emissions across regions

Emission inventories done for SIP purposes are not sufficient No distinction between freight and non-freight activity (e.g.,

passenger rail vs. freight rail)

No distinction of non-road equipment used for freight at ports and airports

May not estimate emissions by operational mode (idling, etc.)

FHWA’s study

Assessing the Effects of Freight Movement on Air Quality at the National and Regional Level, April 2005

Fill a void in the current understanding of the air quality impacts of freight transportation

Evaluate current methods, current and future regulations, and likely demand trends

Assess the contribution of freight movement (by mode) to emissions in six metropolitan regions

Investigate emissions reductions strategies that state and local practitioners can implement

Recommend needed progressions in methods given likely trends

Freight Contribution to Total Emissions (National Level)

NOx Emissions, 2002 PM-10 Emissions, 2002 As percent of: As percent of:

Mode Tons Percent All Mobile

Sources All

Sources Tons Percent All Mobile

Sources All

Sources Heavy-duty Vehicles 3,782,000 66.8% 33.0% 17.9% 120,000 64.7% 23.3% 0.5% Freight Railroads 857,200 15.1% 7.5% 4.1% 21,300 11.5% 4.1% 0.1% Marine Vessels 1,011,000 17.9% 8.8% 4.8% 44,000 23.7% 8.5% 0.2% Air Freight 8,200 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 300 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% Total 5,658,400 100% 49.4% 26.8% 185,600 100% 36.0% 0.8%

Source: ICF Consulting, Impacts of Freight Movement on Air Quality, Draft Report, FHWA 2005.

New Emission Standards Affecting Freight

Trucks

Very stringent NOx and PM standards for trucks take effect in 2007

By 2020, NOx and PM emission factors will be 5 to 15 times lower than current levels

Rail

First standards took effect in 2002; EPA has announced plans for stringent standards (similar to those for trucks)

Very slow fleet turnover (some locomotives > 40 yrs old)

Marine

First standards took effect in 2004; EPA has announced plans for stringent standards (similar to those for trucks)

No EPA authority to regulate foreign-flagged vessels

Aircraft

ICAO sets standards; difficult tradeoff between NOx and noise

Estimated Effects of New StandardsChange in Average NOx Emissions Rates Compared to 2002

Combination Trucks

Combination Trucks

Locomotives

Locomotives

Marine Vessels

(Containerships)

Aircraft Aircraft

Marine Vessels

(Containerships)

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%2010 2020

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Truck Rail Barge Air

But, demand is expected to grow significantly…

2000

2020

64%

49%More than double

15%

Billions of Ton-Miles

Future Freight NOx Emissions at the National Level

Heavy-Duty

Trucks Freight Rail Commercial

Marine Air Freight Freight Total Year tons chnge tons chnge tons chnge tons Chnge tons chnge

2002 3,782,000 857,200 1,011,000 8,200 5,658,400 2010 2,186,900 -42% 563,200 -34% 987,200 -2% 10,000 22% 3,747,299 -34% 2020 662,600 -82% 486,400 -43% 938,600 -7% 12,400 51% 2,099,999 -63%

Air Freight0.2%

Heavy-Duty

Trucks67%

Freight Rail15%

Commercial Marine

18%

Commercial Marine

26%

Freight Rail15%

Heavy-Duty

Trucks58%

Air Freight0.5%

Air Freight1.2%

Heavy-Duty

Trucks31%

Freight Rail23%

Commercial Marine

44%

2002 2010 2020

Future Freight PM-10 Emissions at the National Level

Heavy-Duty

Trucks Freight Rail Commercial

Marine Air Freight Freight Total Year tons chnge tons chnge tons chnge tons chnge tons chnge

2002 120,000 21,300 44,000 300 185,600 2010 65,380 -46% 15,730 -26% 42,930 -2% 290 -3% 124,329 -33% 2020 34,760 -71% 12,990 -39% 44,080 0% 270 -10% 92,099 -50%

2002 2010 2020

Commercial Marine

24%

Freight Rail11%

Heavy-Duty

Trucks65%

Air Freight0.4%

Air Freight0.6%

Heavy-Duty

Trucks52%

Freight Rail13%

Commercial Marine

35%

Commercial Marine

48%

Freight Rail14%

Heavy-Duty

Trucks38% Air

Freight0.7%

Freight NOx Emissions at the Regional Level

Heavy-duty trucks are responsible for more than ¾ of freight emissions in each of the regions

Other than Chicago, freight rail accounts for less than 10% of all freight emissions

Marine NOx emissions large only in regions with major ports

Freight Sources All Mobile Sources All Sources Region Tons NOx Tons NOx Freight % Tons NOx Freight % Baltimore 35,078 N/A N/A N/A N/A Chicago 122,164 241,375 51% 357,978 34% Dallas-Ft. Worth 58,030 143,392 40% 166,088 35% Detroit 100,809 196,756 51% 327,422 31% Houston 84,189 161,745 52% 291,001 29% Los Angeles 166,564 384,227 43% 425,954 39%

Freight PM-10 Emissions at the Regional Level

Trucking is still the largest contributor, though less so than with NOx In Chicago, rail freight accounts for 19% of total freight emissions Marine contributes 40% of freight PM-10 emissions in LA and Houston

Freight Sources All Mobile Sources All Sources Region Tons PM-10 Tons PM-10 Freight % Tons PM-10 Freight % Baltimore 996 N/A N/A N/A N/A Chicago 3,616 9,053 40% 62,273 5.8% Dallas-Ft. Worth 1,002 4,485 22% 105,326 1.0% Detroit 2,469 5,947 42% 114,313 2.2% Houston 2,314 4,906 47% 132,387 1.7% Los Angeles 4,091 15,196 27% 232,476 1.8%

Emissions Estimation Challenges – Trucking

Use of Mobile6 model

Mobile6 requires VMT by 16 truck classes – most agency count data identifies only 1 or 2 truck classes. Need to rely on defaults

NOx emission rates vary with speed – Mobile6 uses an average speed for each roadway link

Idling often ignored

Typical process does not account for extended truck idling (overnight, loading docks, long queues)

Congestion effects difficult to assess

Mobile does not account for acceleration/deceleration

Difficult to distinguish between frequent starts and stops (high emission rates) and moderate steady-state speeds (low emission rates)

Emissions Estimation Challenges – Freight Rail

Agencies must rely on data provided private railroads

Gross ton-miles by county, or fuel use by county if necessary

Data provided by railroads may be incomplete or inaccurate

Many railroad cannot provide data on switch yard locomotive operations – national defaults must be used

Emission factors are poor

Locomotive emission rates vary greatly with age, but standard emission factors do not account for this

Class II and III railroads often ignored

Often little or no data available from these carriers

Emissions Estimation Challenges – Marine Freight

Many regions use simplistic approach

Obtain data on total marine fuel sales by county

Assume fuel sales are representative of vessel activity – not true for oceangoing vessels that may buy fuel anywhere

Sophisticated approach is time consuming

Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Houston, NY/NJ, Portland

Requires detailed operational data (vessel calls, time in mode, engine power, etc.)

Port cargo handling equipment often ignored

SIPs lump this source in with other non-road equipment

Very few ports have quantified these emissions

Emissions Estimation Challenges – Air Cargo

FAA’s EDMS model used for all airport inventories

Estimates emissions based on landing and takeoff (LTO) cycle data and aircraft type data

Model currently cannot estimate aircraft PM emissions

Difficult to separate passenger and freight activity

Passenger planes carry 1/3 of air freight ton-miles (belly cargo)

Need to apportion passenger plane departures to “freight” and “non-freight,” based on freight weight vs. passenger weight

Airport ground support equipment often ignored

Some equipment may serve both passenger and cargo planes

Operational Strategies for Reducing Freight Fuel Use and Emissions

Trucking Rail Marine Air Reduced overnight idling Reduced switchyard idling Cold ironing (electrification) Increased load factors Reduced pick-up/drop-off idling

Reduced line haul speeds Reduced port equipment idling

Reduced vertical separation minimums

Port access improvements Reduced empty mileage Reduced hotelling time Reduced use of aircraft APUs

Reduced highway speeds Double tracking Reduced vessel speeds Improved runway efficiency Arterial signal synchronization

Train clearance improvement

Use of larger ships Use of continuous descent approach

Grade crossing separation Elimination of circuitous routings

Hull cleaning Electrification of ground support equipment

Driver training Reduced empty mileage

Freight transportation is a major source of national and regional NOx and PM-10 emissions National level – 50% of mobile source NOx emissions and 40%-52% at the

regional level (six study regions)

National level – 36% of mobile source PM-10 emissions and 22%-47% at the regional level (six study regions)

Trucking is the major source of NOx emissions at both the National and regional levels (67% and 77%-97%)

Need for improved emission inventory process Standard processes for integration into planning and project development

Impacts of operational strategies are not well understood Not properly captured in the tools for estimating emissions

Conclusions/Findings

What other types of environmental impacts are especially relevant to freight projects?

Community livability and environmental justice Location of many freight facilities may lead to a disproportionate impact on

minority and economically disadvantaged communities

Indirect and cumulative impacts of intermodal facilities Location outside of city centers could lead to sprawl

Noise Rail and airport capacity expansion projects usually expose sensitive

receptors

Hazardous waste Fill material produced by dredging could be contaminated and dredging

could cause re-suspension of contaminated sediment and destruction of wetlands and other habitat

Hazardous materials Increased risk of spills or releases

What needs to happen moving forward?

Increase the likelihood that transportation plans conform with air quality plans

Increase the awareness and effectiveness of alternative mitigation strategies

Expand the use of innovative tools and models for impact assessment and mitigation evaluation

Ensure that freight capacity enhancement projects adhere to environmental stewardship goals

Improve the timely delivery of needed projects