Incorporating

Greenhouse Gas
Emissions in Long
Range Transportation
Sector
Akshay Kalambur, Texas A&M University
Kingsville,Texas.
Abstract: The purpose of this project is to develop a methodology
and run a simulation in the MOVES model to estimate emissions
from the vehicles. This paper critically reviews some of the factors
that influence gas emissions from different types of vehicles, roads
and fuels, and focuses on existing methods to quantify emissions.
The trend in the average emissions of CO2 equivalent in four key
states namely Arizona, Texas, Utah and California in the US were
estimated. Results demonstrated that only low levels of emissions
occurred from urban restricted access roads and diesel fuel among
from the factors used in transportation. Methods are then
suggested for future research in this field to reduce the emissions.
The abbreviations D, G used in the report stand for the fuel types
of Diesel and Gasoline respectively and the codes ON, RR, RU,
UR and UU stand for the off network, rural restricted, rural
unrestricted, urban restricted and urban unrestricted types of roads.
The codes PC, TB, CLHT, SUSHT, SULHT, CSHT, PT, SB and
RT stand for passenger car, transit bus, combination long haul
truck, single unit short haul truck, single unit long haul truck,
combination short haul truck, passenger truck, school bus and
refuse truck respectively.

of carbon dioxide equivalent. William Rees who originally

proposed such a definition was also the founder of the
definition of Ecological Footprint that later came to be
known as Carbon Footprint.
Evidence has been found out that the largest sources of
transportation GHG in 2008 were mainly from passenger
cars, light duty trucks, pickup vans and minivans [1].
Basically GHG emissions are comprised of these gases
namely carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides and methane.
According to recent research, it is confirmed that around
more than 90 percent of any GHG emissions is mainly due
to CO2 emissions. The emissions are quantified as carbon
dioxide equivalent. There is an effect of the GHG emissions
from the other gases such as CH4 etc but recent research
shows that this percentage of effect is very less compared to
that of carbon dioxide emissions [2]. The contribution of
gases to the GHG emissions as estimated by EPA is
illustrated in Figure1.
100
80
60
40
20
0

83

10.3

4.5

2.2

Figure1. GHGs as a percentage of tera-grams of CO2

equivalent.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND MODELS USED

Keywords: Greenhouse Gases, Models, Carbon dioxide,

Transportation sector emissions, Simulations, Tera-Grams .

1. INTRODUCTION
Greenhouse gas emissions are a major source of pollutants
and gases which cause harm to the environment. In fact,
GHG or greenhouse gases are defined as gases in the
atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the
thermal infrared range. Water vapor, carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxides and ozone are the primary
greenhouse gases in the Earths atmosphere. GHG provides
a benefit by keeping temperature of the Earth warmer for
human habitation. As CO2 is the major contributor of the
emissions, GHG emissions are generally quantified in terms

Early research on this topic was focused on how the GHG

emissions occurred and what were the problems of these
emissions if they increased. Recent research is aimed on the
reduction of the emissions of these gases since there is a
vast increase in population from the early period to the
recent times and also the number of vehicles on the roads,
commuter distance traveled per day, fuel-mileage and new
vehicle technologies. These changes have increased
transportation and use of vehicles to a greater extent than
what it was some years ago. Recent research also shows
that CO2 is the main unit for the quantification since it has
the Global Warming Potential value of 1 [2].
US EPA showed early evidence that transportation sector
emissions accounted for 1745.5 tera-grams CO2 equivalent
in 2009, which represented nearly 33 percent of the entire

CO2 emissions. The tera -grams is a unit for quantifying the

emissions. It also shows that light duty vehicles including
passenger cars and light-duty trucks represented around 64
percent of the emissions and the medium-and heavy-duty
trucks around 20 percent. From 1990 to 2009, an increase
of 17 percent in the transportation emissions was derived
[2]. The trend in emissions from transportation sector
during 1990-2009 estimated [2] in terms of tera-grams
(million metric tons) of carbon dioxide equivalent is
depicted in Table 1.
Table I: CO2 Emissions (tera-grams) from fossil fuel
combustion in transportation end-use sector.
Fuel/vehicle

1990

2000

2005

2009

Passenger cars

621.4

640.6

658

593.3

Light-duty trucks
Heavy & Medium
duty trucks

309.1

446.4

478.7

485.9

38.7

36

34.9

30.6

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.3

Passenger Cars

7.9

3.7

4.2

3.9

Light-duty trucks
Heavy & Medium
duty trucks

11.5

20.1

25.8

26.7

190.5

309.6

360.6

321.8

Gasoline

Buses
Diesel Fuel

The U.S EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has

developed several models like the MOBILE model,
MOVES (Motor Vehicles Emissions Simulator) model for
use by general public and also business firms to calculate
the transportation GHG emissions and find out effective
means and methods to reduce them. The modeling in this
MOBILE model involves programming using the
UNIX/LINUX programming languages [3].
The MOVES model has increased functionality when
compared to the MOBILE Model. The model allows users
to input many parameters such as Vehicle types, Time
periods, Geographical areas, Pollutants, Operating
characteristics of the vehicles such as cold start, idle
conditions etc and also the road types or condition of the
road to be model. The model is then run and the run
calculates the bulk emissions rates and displays it to the
user. The user manual is available on the website [4]. An
example with full details about a sample model is shown in
the appendix attached with this report.
3. SIMULATIONS AND CASE STUDIES
3.1 Case Study 1: Arizona Region: The focus of this case
study is in the region of Arizona. The counties selected are

the counties of Apache, Coconino and Cochise. The

important inputs in the MOVES model are time spans in
which the time aggregation level is set to hour, and the
years 2008, 2009 and 2010 are selected. All the months in
these years were selected and all the road types present in
the model namely Off network, Rural restricted access,
Rural unrestricted access, Urban restricted access and
Urban unrestricted access were selected. The start hour was
taken as 11:00-11:59 am and the end hour is specified as
11:00-11:59 pm. The simulation was designed to run on
weekdays. The geographic bounds for this simulation are
set in the Arizona state and the counties selected are
mentioned earlier. The selection is set to region. The next
selection is the vehicle/equipment to be input in the model
and here the fuel-vehicle combination is selected for two
types of fuel-vehicle combinations namely Combination
Long Haul truck which runs on diesel fuel and a Passenger
car and a transit bus both running on gasoline. In this
simulation, the user is interested to find out the emissions
from the gases CO, Oxides of Nitrogen, Ammonia,
Nitrogen Oxide and Nitrogen Dioxide for the processes of
Running Exhaust, Start Exhaust, Crankcase Running, Start
and Extended Idle Exhaust and Extended Idle Exhaust in
the vehicles. The total energy consumption is also
calculated.
The output database is named as ARI_RESULTS and the
units are then specified for mass, energy and distance as
pounds, kilo joules and miles. Also, the activity is selected
as distance traveled, source hours, source hours idling,
operating and parked, population and starts. The other
specifications are also mentioned as required by the user in
this section of the model creation. Error check is then done.
The execution of the model is started and the Runspec is
executed and the processing of the model takes place for
some time depending on the inputs and then the results are
displayed.
3.2 Case Study 2: Texas Region: This time the focus of the
user is on the South Texas region. The counties selected for
this case study are the counties of Kleberg, Nueces,
Kenedy, Cameron and Brooks. The processes selected are
exactly similar to the ones selected for case study 1.The
important inputs in this case study are diesel fuel with
single-unit short and long haul truck, combination short and
long haul truck and the fuel used in the passenger car and
the transit bus is gasoline. The output database was created
and named as TEX_RESULTS and the units are then
specified.
3.3. Case study 3: Utah Region: The main area of focus of
the case study is in the region of Utah. The counties
selected are the counties of Beaver, Box Elder and Cache.

The next selection is the vehicle/equipment to be input in

the model and here the fuel-vehicle combination is selected
for two types of fuel-vehicle combinations namely
passenger truck, single-unit long and short haul truck,
combination long and short haul truck all running on diesel
fuel and the vehicle types passenger car and transit bus
running on gasoline. The other parameters were kept
constant like in case study 1 and 2. The output database was
named as UTAH_RESULTS and the units are then
specified.
3.4. Case study 4: California Region: The main area of
focus of the case study is in the region of California. The
counties selected are the counties of Alameda, Alpine and
Amador. The next selection is the vehicle/equipment to be
input in the model and here the fuel-vehicle combination is
selected for two types of fuel-vehicle combinations namely
refuse truck, single-unit short and long haul trucks,
combination short and long haul trucks and the passenger
truck all running on diesel fuel and the vehicle types school
bus and transit bus running on gasoline. The other
parameters of interest to the user are specified similar to
that of case studies mentioned above. The output database
was named as CAL_RESULTS and the units are then
specified for mass, energy and distance as pounds, kilo
joules and miles. The other inputs and parameters of
interest are specified similar to the previously mentioned
case studies.

show the trend in CO2 emissions over the three model

years.
ON

RR

RU

UR

UU

7000000
6000000
5000000
4000000
3000000
2000000
1000000
0

Figure 2.Trend in emissions as a function of road type.

D

8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000
4000000
3000000

4.

RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS

The results obtained by the MOVES model are processed

and some assumptions are considered such as distance
traveled by the vehicles is not constant and is not
considered a factor .Total energy consumption not only
depends on the distance traveled by the vehicle, but also
other factors such as the model parameters road type,
vehicle type, fuel type and on some other factors like
duration of travel of the vehicle, age of the vehicle, quality
of engine etc. Justification of this particular factor is rather
difficult and so is not considered.
Uncertainties exist in the correct interpretation of the results
since the discussion is limited to the results obtained as a
simulation rather than investigating the exact scenario. The
results might be deviant from the actual case in some
aspects since the simulation is designed to provide only an
accurate estimate and not the exact estimate of the trend in
vehicular emissions as a function of various single factors
like road, fuel and vehicle type. The analysis of how the
CO2 emissions in the four states vary as a function of single
factors namely road, fuel and vehicle types were studied
and the following graphs were generated, which clearly

2000000
1000000
0

Figure 3.Trend in emissions as a function of fuel type.

The above two figures clearly indicate the trend in
emissions as a function of road type and fuel type. Evidence
shows that the emissions from the diesel fuel is more
dominant than that of gasoline and for the road type urban
unrestricted access the emissions are dominant only in the
California compared to that of other states. The reasons for
this might be due to the high emissions from the vehicles in
these types of roads.
It can also be said that the fuel type gasoline is the best in
the fuels and the road type off-network has the lowest
emissions owing to its nature and in the individual states, it
is clearly seen that the lowest emissions from the road types
vary making it difficult to set a common road type as the
best selection. It can be concluded that for all the states
excluding California and neglecting the emissions from the

off-network road type, the road type urban restricted access

has the least emissions in the Arizona state and is
considerable over the states of Texas and is reduced to a
bare zero values in the state of Utah. The reason for this
might be that the state of Utah has more or less a desert
type of geographical conditions making it difficult for travel
to take place from place to place.
The emissions from the other GHGs also deserve
significant recognition and the trend can be noticed to be far
less than that of CO2 emissions. The following tables
indicate the trend for the four individual states over the
three model years as an average value of the emissions.
NH3

CO

NO2

NO

NOx

200
180

type of vehicle and the fuel it uses. The following table

illustrates the trend in emissions as a function of vehicle
type.
PC

TB

CLHT

SUSHT

SULHT

CSHT

PT

SB

RT
8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000
4000000
3000000
2000000
1000000
0

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Figure 4.Trend in emissions from the other GHGs over the

four model states.
The results indicate that the GHG CO dominates in the list
with exceedingly high values in the states of Arizona and
California when compared to that of Texas and Utah in
which the state Utah dominates Texas. Evidence shows that
across the states the emissions from the other GHGs
namely NO, NOX etc are very minimal in comparison to CO
emissions. The conclusion can be made that since the
emissions from the other gases are relatively low, they can
be neglected and the effects of various single factors on
their emissions be ignored since they are less significant
compared to CO2 emissions.
The trend in CO2 emissions as a function of another single
factor namely vehicle type deserves significant recognition.
This is because the emissions can vary depending on the

Figure 5.Trend in CO2 emissions as a function of vehicle

type.
Evidence clearly shows that across the states, the state of
California dominates over the other states considered in the
case studies. The reason for this is already cited as the state
being more urban in terms of lifestyle and also that travel is
more in the state. The graph above clearly indicates that for
all the vehicle types considered in the California region, the
emissions from the vehicle type passenger truck dominates
the vehicular emissions, whereas it is the passenger car
which dominates in Arizona, Texas and Utah regions. The
other conclusion can be made that the vehicle type transit
bus is the one with the least emissions followed by vehicle
type school bus in the entire scenario. The reason for this is
the fuel vehicle combinations already mentioned in the
model descriptions and also that passenger cars are more
frequently used for travel than that of transit and school
buses.
Alternatives to reduce emissions: The alternatives to reduce
the emissions can be to incorporate the use of catalytic
convertors in heavy vehicles such as combination short and
long haul trucks, passenger trucks, single unit short and
long haul trucks so that the emissions are filtered to a
maximum and converted to less harmful forms of carbon
when they are released into the atmosphere.
Catalytic convertor is a device used to reduce the array of
emissions from an internal combustion engine. It works on
the principle that a catalyst can be used to start a chemical
reaction in which the products of combustion are converted

from their dangerous forms like carbon mono-oxide to less

dangerous forms like that of carbon dioxide [5] [7].

Figure 6.Schematic of a particulate matter filter with the

channels greatly exaggerated [8].
Figure (1): Diagram of a typical catalytic convertor with
metallic honeycomb structure [5].

Figure (2): Inner honeycomb structure of a typical catalytic

convertor [5].
The use of electricity and CNG instead of gasoline for the
passenger car and the transit bus can greatly reduce the CO2
emissions thus reducing the CO2 equivalent. Research also
shows that modifications in the fuel-injector technologies
for the gasoline engines can go a long way to ensure proper
combustion of the fuel and give better mileage.
The other method is to go for particulate matter reduction
technologies using filters. The particulate matter filter
which is very popularly used is the cordierite monolith
filter. The design of the filter is such that it is extruded in a
manner which results in longitudinal honeycomb pattern
channels with porous walls as shown in the figure below
[8].

5.

FUTURE RESEARCH

The future research in this area of reducing the

transportation sector emissions is that to find out all the
available fuel-vehicle combinations of the vehicles
traveling on the roadways and incorporate them into a much
better model to calculate the emissions effectively. Hope is
that future research brings out alternative fuels in the place
of diesel for the diesel fuel-vehicle combinations. Catalytic
Convertors, engineering design for the diesel engines,
improvements in fuel efficiency and rigorous incorporation
of air pollution control laws can go a long way to
effectively curb the threat of emissions.
REFERENCES
[1] EPA Report: Greenhouse gas emissions from the US
Transportation Sector 1990-2003. EPA reference number:
420-R-06-003, published on March 2006 by the EPA Office
of Transportation and Air Quality (6401A).
[2] EPA Report: Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2009. EPA Reference Number: EPA 430R-11-005, published on April 15, 2011 by the US EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460.
[3] MOBILE 6 Model: EPA Website Link:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/mobile.htm
[4] MOVES Model: EPA Website Link:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm
[5] Jan Kaspar, Paolo Fornasiero and Neal Hickey
Automotive catalytic converts: current status and some
perspectives. Catalysis Today 77 (2003), pg 419 - 449.
[6] Robert J. Farrauto and Ronald M. Heck Catalytic
convertors: state of the art and perspectives. Catalysis
Today 51 (1999), pg 351-360.

[7] M. Matti Maricq, Richard E. Chase, Ning Xu and Paul

M. Laing The Effects of the Catalytic Convertor and Fuel
Sulfur Level on Motor Vehicle Particulate Matter
Emissions: Light Duty Diesel Vehicles. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 36 (2002), pg 283-289.

[8] Jerry C. Summers, Stephane Van Houtte and Dimitrios

Psaras Simultaneous control of particulate and NOX
emissions from diesel engines. Applied Catalysis B:
Environmental 10 (1996), pg 139-15.