This paper investigates the effect of heavy-duty (HD) vehicles (primarily road freight) on the traffic congestion–emissions relationship. Unlike previous studies, this research explicitly considers the effects of travel demand elasticity by vehicle class on total emissions. Modeling results show that, even as a small share of the traffic volume, HD vehicles can contribute a large share of total pollution emissions, especially for particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. HD vehicle emission rates are more sensitive to congestion than are light-duty (LD) vehicle emission rates, and thus greater emissions benefits may result from mitigating congestion for these vehicles. Potentially lower travel demand elasticity with respect to speed for HD vehicles further indicates vehicle class–specific benefits from congestion mitigation. Differences between LD and HD vehicles suggest greater air quality benefits from vehicle class–targeted congestion mitigation or lane and capacity management strategies. HD vehicle travel demand elasticity is a key parameter for predicting the net emissions effects of congestion. It is strongly recommended that analysis of emissions effects from congestion mitigation strategies include class-specific volume forecasts. However, the estimation of HD vehicle travel demand elasticity values has received scant attention in the literature.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ICF Consulting. Assessing the Effects of Freight Movement on Air Quality at the National and Regional Level.FHWA, Washington, D.C., April 2005.
2.
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., April 2012.
3.
Expanding and Updating the Master List of Compounds Emitted by Mobile Sources—Phase III. Publication EPA420-R-06-005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2006.
BarthM. J., and BoriboonsomsinK.Real-World Carbon Dioxide Impacts of Traffic Congestion. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2058, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 163–171.
6.
BarthM., ScoraG., and YoungloveT.Estimating Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Different Levels of Freeway Congestion. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1664, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 47–57.
7.
WoenselT. V., CretenR., and VandaeleN.Managing the Environmental Externalities of Traffic Logistics: The Issue of Emissions. Production and Operations Management, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2001, pp. 207–223.
8.
BrodrickC.-J., LacaE. A., BurkeA. F., FarshchiM., LiL., and DeatonM.Effect of Vehicle Operation, Weight, and Accessory Use on Emissions from a Modern Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1880, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 119–125.
9.
ScoraG., BoriboonsomsinK., and BarthM. J.Effects of Operational Variability on Heavy-Duty Truck Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Presented at 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010.
10.
Light-Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2009. Publication EPA420-S-09-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Nov. 2009.
11.
WheelerN., and FigliozziM.Multicriteria Freeway Performance Measures for Trucking in Congested Corridors. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2224, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 82–93.
12.
GajendranP., and ClarkN. N.Effect of Truck Operating Weight on Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions. Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 37, No. 18, 2003, pp. 4309–4317.
13.
HymelK. M., SmallK. A., and DenderK. V.Induced Demand and Rebound Effects in Road Transport. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 44, No. 10, 2010, pp. 1220–1241.
14.
HDR-HLB Decision Economics, Inc. Assessing the Full Costs of Congestion on Surface Transportation Systems and Reducing Them Through Pricing.U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2009.
15.
DowlingR., IresonR., SkabardonisA., GillenD., and StopherP.NCHRP Report 535: Predicting Air Quality Effects of Traffic-Flow Improvements: Final Report and User's Guide.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005.
16.
NolandR. B., and QuddusM. A.Flow Improvements and Vehicle Emissions: Effects of Trip Generation and Emission Control Technology. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2006, pp. 1–14.
17.
GoodwinP., DargayJ., and HanlyM.Elasticities of Road Traffic and Fuel Consumption with Respect to Price and Income: A Review. Transport Reviews, Vol. 24, No. 3, 2004, pp. 275–292.
18.
GrahamD. J., and GlaisterS.Road Traffic Demand Elasticity Estimates: A Review. Transport Reviews, Vol. 24, No. 3, 2004, pp. 261–274.
19.
OumT. H., WatersW. G.II, and YongJ.-S.Concepts of Price Elasticities of Transport Demand and Recent Empirical Estimates: An Interpretative Survey. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 26, No. 2, May 1992, pp. 139–154.
20.
WeisbrodG., VaryD., and TreyzG.NCHRP Report 463: Economic Implications of Congestion.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001.
21.
KonurD., and GeunesJ.Analysis of Traffic Congestion Costs in a Competitive Supply Chain. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 47, No. 1, Jan. 2011, pp. 1–17.
22.
AbdelwahabW. M.Elasticities of Mode Choice Probabilities and Market Elasticities of Demand: Evidence from a Simultaneous Mode Choice/Shipment-Size Freight Transport Model. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 34, No. 4, Dec. 1998, pp. 257–266.
23.
HLB Decision Economics, Inc. Freight Benefit/Cost Study: Phase III—Analysis of Regional Benefits of Highway–Freight Improvements.Publication FHWA-HOP-08-019. FHWA, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2008.
24.
OumT. H.Alternative Demand Models and Their Elasticity Estimates. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 23, No. 2, 1989, pp. 163–187.
25.
FigliozziM. A.The Impacts of Congestion on Commercial Vehicle Tour Characteristics and Costs. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 46, No. 4, July 2010, pp. 496–506.
26.
FigliozziM. A.The Impacts of Congestion on Time-Definitive Urban Freight Distribution Networks CO2 Emission Levels: Results from a Case Study in Portland, Oregon. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 19, No. 5, Aug. 2011, pp. 766–778.
27.
Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) 2010 User's Guide. Publication EPA-420-B-09-041. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Dec. 2009.
28.
BarlowT., and BoulterP.Emissions Factors 2009: Report 2—A Review of the Average-Speed Approach for Estimating Hot Exhaust Emissions. Publication PPR355. Department for Transport, United Kingdom, June 2009.
29.
SmitR., BrownA. L., and ChanY. C.Do Air Pollution Emissions and Fuel Consumption Models for Roadways Include the Effects of Congestion in the Roadway Traffic Flow?Environmental Modelling and Software, Vol. 23, Nos. 10–11, 2008, pp. 1262–1270.
30.
SugawaraS., and NiemeierD. A.How Much Can Vehicle Emissions Be Reduced? Exploratory Analysis of an Upper Boundary Using an Emissions-Optimized Trip Assignment. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1815, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 29–37.
31.
BigazziA. Y., and FigliozziM. A.Congestion and Emissions Mitigation: A Comparison of Capacity, Demand, and Vehicle Based Strategies. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 17, No. 7, Oct. 2012, pp. 538–547.
