Huong Bui Truck Idling 5 9 05 Why do truckers idle Huong Bui Abstract Many of the 458 000 line haul trucks Heavy Class 7 and 8 of more than 26 000 lbs in the United States idle up to 40 of engine run time on average and this consumes approximately 875 million gallons of diesel fuels yearly Consequently idling imposes a high operating cost to trucking companies while simultaneously entailing a high cost to society in terms of health environment and national security Although many studies have proven truck idling alternatives such as truck stop electrification and auxiliary power units to be cost effective a large proportion of truckers are not motivated to adopt them Despite the plethora of benefits gained in adopting an idling alternative there remain barriers to implementation In order to address national idling inefficiencies and develop effective approaches to encourage truckers to idle responsibly it is necessary to understand truckers attitudes and behaviors and their effects on idling practices Truckers attitudinal and demographic data collected by the UC Davis idling research team is analyzed to understand behavioral variables that affect idling practices Contrary to past studies that stated that environmental attitudes affect behavior truckers who identify pro environmental attitudes do not exhibit higher idling hours than truckers who do not exhibit pro environmental attitudes Idling practice is independent of environmental concern Truckers idling behavior was related to the amount of training they received on reduced idling These results suggest that training for all truckers is necessary to reduce idling p 1 Huong Bui Truck Idling 5 9 05 Introduction Heavy duty truck idling imposes a high operating cost to trucking companies while simultaneously entailing a high cost to society in terms of health and the environment Many of the 458 000 line haul trucks trucks that fall under Heavy Class 7 and 8 of more than 26 000 lbs in the United States travel for more than 500 miles from home base each day and idle between 3 3 and 16 5 hours per day which accounts for up to 40 of engine run time depending on the season and operation Stodolsky et al 2000 Idling consumes approximately 2 5 of the total 35 billion gallons of diesel fuels consumed annually in the United States Jackson et al 2003 Stodolsky et al 2001 and idling accelerates the wear and tear of the engine Stodolsky et al 2000 which increases maintenance cost Idling emits 11 million tons of carbon dioxide 180 thousand tons of oxides of nitrogen mostly nitrous oxide and nitrogen dioxide and 5 thousand tons of particulate matter annually Carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides are greenhouse gases that contribute to the increase in global warming Particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide contribute to the smog in the air which is detrimental to human health There is an escalation of public health concerns that lead to high health care cost due to higher prevalence in asthma cardiovascular disease cancers eye impairment and noise pollution Polosa et al 2002 Health concerns especially become more serious when trucks idle in communities that are already disproportionately impacted by air pollution such as areas that inhabited by poor low minority populations CA ARB 2003 Idling is common practice for heavy duty trucks in operation in the US for one or more of the following reasons to power climate control e g heaters and air conditioners and sleeper compartment electrical appliances e g refrigerators microwave ovens and televisions to prevent start up problems in cold weather to drown out noise and to maintain brake system air pressure Broderick et al 2003 Also truckers have cited that they idle their engines for reasons of safety e g to provide cooling or heating when windows are closed and habit U S EPA 2002 Overall idling provides truckers comfort security and convenience on the road Although government and industry tend to be at odds on many environmental issues both groups agree that idling alternatives need to be implemented because the effects of idling is disadvantageous and undesirable Lutsey et al 2003 The trucking industry wants to reduce idling to save fuel consumption and reduce engine maintenance and local and state agencies have enacted idling restrictions and bans to reduce emissions Levinson 2001 Texas p 2 Huong Bui Truck Idling 5 9 05 Administrative Code 2001 In May 2001 the Bush administration issued the National Energy Policy that instructed the Environmental Protection Agency EPA and Department of Transportation DOT to collaborate with trucking industries to develop a plan to reduce emissions and fuel consumption from heavy duty trucks U S EPA 2002 The dire need to reduce emissions and fuel consumption prompted many agencies such as the Institute of Transportation Studies of University of California at Davis U S EPA California Air and Resource Board CA ARB 2003 and the Argonne National Laboratory to propose promising alternatives to idling Such alternatives consist of the direct fired heater fuel cell auxiliary power unit APU thermal storage direct heat with storage cooling and truck stop electrification Stodolsky et al 2001 Each of these alternatives falls into either of the two categories gridconnection shore power and on board auxiliary APUs and they are both being pursued by industry and the government Lutsey et al 2003 While cooperative industry government working groups are collaborating to address idling problems and despite the many studies that have emphatically proven that idling alternatives are cost effective and beneficial from a health and environmental stand point a large portion of truck drivers are not motivated to adopt the technologies Broderick 2004 pers comm The Argonne National Laboratory and the Institute of Transportation Studies of University of California at Davis have examined truckers habits and their understanding of idling Broderick 2004 pers comm but hardly any studies have delved into understanding why truckers are reluctant to adopt alternatives Previous studies have suggested that adoption of pro environmental behavior is influenced by convenience comfort and safety Cottrell 2003 Blake 2001 It follows that truckers attitudes affect the adoption of idling alternatives and it has been suggested that truckers who view their convenience comfort and safety as taking precedence over saving fuel and cleaner air would not be likely to adopt idling alternatives Spivey 2004 pers comm In
View Full Document
Unlocking...