# Paper No. 06 - 2567 Estimation of Fuel Use by Idling Commercial Trucks By Linda Gaines (630) 252
- 4919

## E
- mail: lgaines@anl.gov Anant Vyas (630) 252
- 7578 

## E
- mail: avyas@anl.gov John L. Anderson (630) 252
- 6510

## E
- mail: jlanderson@anl.gov Center for Transportation Research Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, Illinois 60439 Submitted for presentation at and inclusion in the compact disc of the 85 th

### Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board Washington, D.C. January 22

–26, 2006 Word Count: Text

–6,137; Three Figures

–750; Two Tables

–500. Total Word Count

–7,387 The submitted manuscript has been created by the University of Chicago as operator of Argonne National Laboratory (“Argonne”) under contract No W - 31 - 109 - ENG - 38 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U. S. Government retains for itself, and others acting on its behalf, a paid - up, nonexclusive, irrevocable worldwide license in said article to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distri bute copies to the public, and perform publicly and display publicly, by or on behalf of the Government.L. Gaines, A. Vyas, and J.L. Anderson 1 

## Estimation of Fuel Use by Idling Commercial Trucks Linda Gaines, Anant Vyas, and John L. Anderson Center for Transportation Res earch Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, IL 60439 ABSTRACT This paper uses the recently published 2002 Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) to determine the number of commercial trucks in the categories that are most likely to idle for periods of over 0.5 h at a time. On the basis of estimated numbers of hours for both overnight idling by sleepers and long
- duration idling by all size classes during their workdays, the total fuel use by idling trucks is estimated to be over 2 billion gallons per year. Workday idling is determined to be a potentially much larger energy user than overnight idling, but data are required before any definitive conclusions can be reached. Existing technologies can reduce overnight idling, but development may be needed to reduce workday idling. INTRODUCTION Idling of heavy vehicles, in particular trucks, has become a subject of great interest in the past few years because of the large quantity of petroleum used and emissions created without any productive movement of goods accomplished. (In 2000, for example, Argonne National Laboratory [Argonne] estimated that over 800 million gallons of diesel are used annually just for overnight idling of sleeper cabs [1] .) Recent milestones include a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report published in 2000 (1) , the inclusion of idling reduction in the 2001 National Energy Policy (2) , and the 2004 National Idling Reduction Planning Conference. Of special interest recently was a series of regional workshops held by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in an attempt to help states harmonize their inconsistent idling regulations. Because this topic has aroused such broad interest, published information spreads rapidly and is often quoted (and misquoted) widely. Our previous esti mate of the number of trucks that might idle overnight (1) , which was based on the 1997 Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) (3), found its way into numerous documents. However, in 2004, long after that work was completed, the 2002 VIUS (4)became avail able, and we use this paper to provide an updated and carefully documented estimate based on the 2002 VIUS. In addition, since many trucks idle for long periods during working hours, we will also estimate the contribution of non
- overnight idling to total i dling fuel use. TRUCK CATEGORIES Trucks are classified in eight gross
- vehicle
- weight (GVW) classes. Gross vehicle weight means empty vehicle weight plus cargo weight. The classes were formulated over 50 years ago when truck transport was not very prevalent. The eight classes are shown in Figure 1. Note that the USEPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) subdivide class 2 intoL. Gaines, A. Vyas, and J.L. Anderson 2 

### 2A (6,001

– 8,500 lb) and 2B (8,501

– 10,000 lb) for regulatory purposes (emissions and fuel economy). Data Sources Two public data sources are often used for trucks: i. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Highway Statistics and ii. The Bureau of the Census’ VIUS. The FHWA publishes Highway Statistics annually, while the VIUS is conducted every five years in the calendar years ending in 2 and 7. The last VIUS was conducted in 2002. The Highway Statistics provides truck population, vehicle miles, and fuel use data for three types of trucks: i. Trucks with two axles and four tires, ii. Single
- unit trucks with six tires or more, and iii. Combination trucks. The VIUS data provide detailed information related to over 200 attributes of each sampled truck. The 2002 VIUS provides data on 80 million class 1 and 2 trucks and 4 million single
- unit trucks, i ncluding personal
- use vehicles, plus data on 1.4 million combination trucks in GVW class 3– 8 (4) . The Highway Statistics give data on 85 million two
- axle, four
- tire trucks; 5.7 million other single
- unit trucks; and 2.3 million combination trucks (6) . Becau se the VIUS data give more information than is necessary for our analysis, we will use it VIUS data in this paper. Our analysis also excludes trucks that were not in use while the survey was conducted. Figure 2a shows commercial truck populations, and Figure 2b shows commercial truck fuel use by class. Note that the large numbers of trucks that are personal
- use vehicles have now been excluded. Even with those vehicles removed, the smallest and largest classes dominate both fuel use and numbers of vehicles and therefore should be the focus. Classes 1

– 3 use both gasoline and diesel fuel; higher classes use almost exclusively diesel. The abbreviations SU and C refer to single
unit trucks and combinations (tractor
- trailers), respectively. The 2002 VIUS provides information related to truck type, truck body type, trailer type, and trailer configuration for combination trucks; model year; annual miles; fuel economy in miles per gallon (MPG); average weight; empty weight; percentages of annual miles in trips of dif ferent length; and many other attributes. Each sampled truck is assigned to a GVW class on the basis of two different ways: (i) average weight and (ii) the truck’s vehicle identification number (VIN). The Census Bureau summaries are by average weight
- basedGVW class. We FIGURE 1 Truck Classes (5).L. Gaines, A. Vyas, and J.L. Anderson 3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2A 2B 345 6SU 6C 7SU 7C 8SU 8C GVW classnumber of trucks (millions) diesel gasoline

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

1 2A 2B 345 6SU 6C 7SU 7C 8SU 8C GVW classfuel use (billion gallons) diesel gasoline

FIGURE 2a Number of commercial trucks FIGURE 2b Fuel use by commercial trucks (class 1 - 8). (class 1 - 8). 

### also use the average weight
- based GVW classes in our analysis to be consistent. The sampling frame design measures of sampling variability and coefficients of variation in the 2002 VIUS are described in reference 7. The mircrodata compact disc of the 2002 VIUS was released in early 2005, and so the survey represents the latest data related to the nation’s trucks. A sampled truck’s annual miles are assigned to trips of different length, grouped by five distance ranges:

• 50 miles or less,
• 51

– 100 miles,
• 101

–200 miles,
• 201

–500 miles, and
• More than 500 miles. The Census Bureau created a primary trip range field for each sampled tru ck by selecting the group with the highest percentage. If the highest value occurred in more than one group, the primary trip range was selected randomly. For example, if a truck tractor with sleeper cab has its annual miles distributed as 10% in 101

–200 -miles group, 45% in the 201

–500
- miles group, and 45% in the more
- than
- 500
- miles group, it could be assigned either to the 201

–500
- mile group or the more
- than
- 500
- mile group. Also, a truck assigned to a group in the less
- than
- 500
- miles range could also have some (or substantial) miles in trips of over 500 miles. Aside from analysis by percentage annual miles in various distance groups, we also analyze annual miles to identify trucks that travel long distances. The 2002 VIUS data file contains 98,682 records , of which 3,250 records are for “Not in Use: trucks that have zero VMT. The number of useful records is therefore 95,432. Out of these useful records, 18,053 records do not have any MPG information. We first summarized the 77,379 records that have MPG inf ormation and created a lookup table by two variables: (i) average weight
- based GVW and (ii) body type. The average known MPGs from this lookup table were assigned to the 18,053 records that did not have any MPG information. This MPG information is used for computing fuel consumption by various categories of trucks
. 

### Light Trucks Almost all trucks with GVW less than 10,000 lb have two axles and four tires (8)and are classified as light trucks. A majority of these light trucks (83%) are used for personal transportation (4) . Excluding trucks that are not in use, 13.3 million light trucks are used forL. Gaines, A. Vyas, and J.L. Anderson 4 

### commercial purposes. These trucks fall in four categories: (i) pickup, (ii) minivan, (iii) sport utility vehicle, and (iv) full
- size van. Nearly 97.5% of personal
- use light trucks are gasoline
powered, while 89.3% of commercial light trucks are gasoline
- powered. The top five types of businesses using these trucks are (i) construction; (ii) services; (iii) agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting; (iv) retail trade; and (v) manufacturing. The services category includes information services; waste management, landscaping, or administrative/support services; arts, entertainment, or recreational services; accommodation or food services; and other services. Together, thes e five business types use 76% of all commercial light trucks. Single Unit Heavy Trucks The single unit trucks in GVW class 3– 8 have several body types. The top five body types ranked by truck population are (i) flatbed/ platform, (ii) pickup, (iii) dump, (iv) basic enclosed van, and (v) step or multi
- stop van. These five body types account for 68% of the single unit trucks in GVW class 3

– 8. The same five body types rank among the top five by fuel use, but not in the same sequence. The rankings by fuel use are (i) dump, (ii) basic enclosed van, (iii) flatbed/ platform, (iv) pickup, and (v) step or multi
- stop van. Together, these five body types account for 62% of the fuel use by single unit trucks in GVW class 3

– 8. In terms of fuel economy, the five least
- fu el
- efficient single
- unit body types are (i) concrete mixer, (ii) low boy, (iii) trash/ garbage, (iv) open
- top van, and (v) pole/logs/pipe. Together, these five least
- fuel
- efficient trucks account for 23% of the fuel consumption by Class 3– 8 single unit tru cks with only concrete mixer (no. 9) and garbage trucks (no. 6) ranked among the top 10 fuel consumers. Combination Trucks Among truck tractors, 666,300 have cab sleepers and 721,900 do not. Nearly 500,000 of the sleepers have some part of their annual VM T in trips of longer than 200 miles, while nearly 210,000 non
- sleepers have some part of their VMT in trips of over 200 miles. Newer (model year 1997 and later) truck tractors with sleepers total 407,000, average 107,000 miles/year, and have 63% of annualmiles in trips over 200 miles. Common carriers and owner operators use their sleepers more intensively, with truck tractors of model year 1995 and newer for common carriers and model year 1991 and newer for owner operators averaging more than 60,000 annual miles per vintage. Such sleepers total 296,300 for common carriers and 128,600 for owner operators. The intensively used older sleepers, not included in the 407,000 mentioned above, total 96,000, average 74,270 miles/year, and have 57% of annual miles intrips over 200 miles. When added to the above 407,000 newer model (1997 and later) sleepers, the sum exceeds 500,000. We also analyzed sleeper trucks by annual miles traveled. Sleepers traveling over 80,000 miles/year total 380,000, average 119,000 miles/year, and have nearly 65% of their annual miles in trips longer than 200 miles. An additional 76,000 sleepers have 60,000

– 80,000 annual miles, and 46% of these miles involve trips longer than 200 miles. These two groups sum to 456,000 sleepers. Some more sleepers in the 40,000

– 60,000
- annual
- mile category would idle overnight because they average over 50,000 miles/year and 34% of miles traveled are for trips longer than 200 miles. Paul Abelson of LandLine magazine (9)used his technical judgment of the prob ability of overnight idling for sleeper trucks by trailer type and estimated that over 490,000 sleepers would idle overnight. Thus, by several different lines of reasoning, nearly half a million sleepers travel long distances, are subjected to the 11 hours/day and 8 days/70 hours
- of
- service rules, and are likely to idle overnight if an alternative supply of hotel power is not available.L. Gaines, A. Vyas, and J.L. Anderson 5 

### Some 91,000 truck tractors without a sleeper cab have over 40% of their annual miles in trips longer than 200 miles, and another 129,000 tractors have lesser percentages of annual miles in trips longer than 200 miles. In terms of annual miles, 139,000 non - sleeper truck tractors have over 80,000 annual miles, average 113,000 miles/year, and have 29% of their annual miles in trips longer than 200 miles. When on overnight trips, the drivers of these non
- sleeper trucks will have to rest somewhere outside and return to the truck after rest. A majority of non
- sleeper truck tractors (512,000) are employed in short trips and may idlewhile waiting for loading/unloading and during stops for meals and other breaks. In terms of average annual miles, 400,000 such trucks travel over 50,000 miles, with 23.4% of annual miles in trips longer than 200 miles. An additional 113,000 truck tractor s travel 40,000

– 50,000 miles annually. The five most often pulled trailers are (i) the basic enclosed van, (ii) the dump, (iii) the flatbed/platform, (iv) the low boy, and (v) the tanker for liquid or gas. They account for 77% of the non
- sleepers. The five tractors that have the highest fuel consumption are (i) the basic enclosed van, (ii) the dump, (iii) the tanker for liquid or gas, (iv) the flatbed/platform, and (v) insulated refrigerated van. They account for 82% of the fuel consumption by non
- sleepers. TRUCK IDLING The type of truck idling that has received the most attention has been that of sleeper cabs, parked overnight at truck stops, rest areas, or by the side of the road, with the engine left on to keep the sleeping driver comfortable and to keep the engine fluids warm and the batteries charged. Of course, only drivers of sleepers, generally class 8C trucks (see below), are likely to engage in this type of behavior. Several technical options that can be installed on trucks, such as small heaters and auxiliary power units (APUs), are available to provide the services needed when the main engine is shut off. In addition, electrical plug
- in options are available at some truck stops and depots. These are described in Stodolsky et al . (1)and listed onthe EPA Smartway web site (10) . Another type of idling is done by various vocational trucks during their workdays. These trucks are using their main engines to accomplish work other than moving the vehicle down the road. Examples include cement mixers th at rotate and asphalt trucks that heat their loads to keep it from getting too viscous. The industry term for this kind of application is “power take
- off” (or PTO). We do not include PTO in the accounting of truck idling because useful work is being accomp lished. The third type of idling is important but has not as yet been evaluated to see how much energy is being used. It is most succinctly described as “waiting” and can be divided into two categories, depending on whether the truck is simply parked or waiting in a queue, needing to move forward every few minutes to maintain its place in the line. The term for waiting in a line is “creep mode.” Note that these categories exclude time during travel from place to place when the truck is stuck in traffic an d must idle. The trucks that are simply parked could utilize the same devices as the overnight idlers if no comfortable waiting place were available for the drivers. Trucks in a line would require some alternative to restarting the engine frequently if thi s idling were to be avoided. Possibilities include scheduling, delicatessen
- style numbers, and engineering to use APUs to power creep mode. Overnight Idling Although there may be cases of trucks idling overnight for other reasons, by far the most common reason is that the driver is sleeping in the vehicle and requires heat or air conditioningL. Gaines, A. Vyas, and J.L. Anderson 6 

### and electricity to stay comfortable. Drivers remain in their sleeper compartments to sleep and relax during the off
- duty periods required by the federal hours
- of
- service regulations. It is not yet known how recent changes in these regulations will affect total idling time. By definition, and by law, this type of idling is limited to those trucks that have sleeper compartments; almost all of these are class 8C (combinations), but there are some in classes 6 and 7 as well. Even if the air temperature is moderate, the driver may leave the engine idling because open windows invite intrusions and let in polluted air and noises from other trucks. The number of hours varies greatly, from those drivers who get the truck warm, turn it off, and then curl up under heavy blankets for the night, to those who claim they never turn their trucks off for fear they will not start again. A survey conducted at truck stops by the University of California at Davis showed a broad distribution from about 500 hours/year, up to over 3,500 (see Figure 3, in which the horizontal axis is hours/yr idled, and the vertical axis is number of trucks). Truckers report idling from 1 to 10 hours per day . This is consistent with the typical 6 hours per day estimated by the American Trucking Associations and the 1,800 hours/year estimated by Caterpillar as the result of an informal survey it performed (11) . However, although overnight idling has been discu ssed often, no good statistical data exist, and this work will perform a sensitivity analysis on this important parameter, around a baseline estimate of 6 hours per day, 300 days per year. Use of auxiliary power units and other idling
- reduction devices cou ld eliminate most of this overnight idling. The 2002 VIUS reports over 665,000 sleepers in use, and almost 60% of these travel over 80,000 miles per year (or 270 miles/day for 300 days). Note that we are using miles per year here rather than distance trav eled because the distance
- from
- home field in VIUS is actually defined as trips that are a given distance from the home base and may not actually reflect trip lengths. The trucks that travel the longest distances in a year travel the farthest each day and are most likely to be idling overnight, but if a truck’s route is short and includes several stops each day, the driver can run out of hours far enough from home to have to rest in the truck. We therefore estimated overnight idling hours for a conservative case by assuming that trucks going over 80,000 miles annually idled 6 hours/day, 300 days/year, and those traveling 60,000

– 80,000 miles idled 70% of that time; 40,000

– 60,000 miles, 40% of that time; and under 40,000 miles, 10% of that time. Trucks without sleepers are assumed not to idle overnight, and idling fuel use was assumed to be 0.8 gal/h. On the basis of these estimates, total fuel use for idling overnight is about 685 million gallons. Table 1 shows fuel use by distance classes and trailer type. Thefuel use of Class 6 and 7 sleepers is shown to be negligible. Note that team drivers can drive through the night, so a more detailed analysis should include information on teams and exclude overnight idling for them. Because no comprehensive data exist o n idling hours, we performed a simple sensitivity analysis to several parameters. To get an upper bound on the fuel used by overnight idling, we considered all sleepers idling 10 hours/day at 1 gallon/hour. This value triples the conservative estimated fuel use to almost 2 billion gallons and is clearly unrealistic. However, the high degree of uncertainty associated 0 25 50

5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 + Hours per YearNumber of Trucks

FIGURE 3 Range of idling times reported (12).L. Gaines, A. Vyas, and J.L. Anderson 7 

### with assumptions highlights the need to get better data on actual overnight idling practice. Onboard computers could be used to collect these d ata. Idling as Part of the Working Day Although it is well known that trucks often idle in the course of the workday, no detailed analysis exists. We will give some examples of situations in which trucks generally idle for extended periods, either at restor in creep mode, and provide rough estimates of the time and energy use for these examples. Again, we will perform sensitivity analysis to gain some insight into whether this workday idling is a significant contributor to total energy use by idling truck s. TABLE 1 Fuel Used while Idling for Sleeper Trucks, by Selected Body Types and Miles Driven Category Class 8C w/Sleeper (Body Type) Miles Driven Category (mi/yr) Number of Trucks Total Fuel Used (gal/yr) Idle Time per Truck

(h/yr) Fuel Used to Idle (gal/yr)/trk Fuel Used to Idle (gal/yr) iIdle % of Total Fuel Used Dump < 40,000 20,535 46,014,662 0 0 0 0.0 40,000–60,000 3,797 35,481,756 720 576 2,187,072 6.2 60,001 –80,000 4,872 65,079,191 1,260 1,008 4,910,976 7.5 > 80,000 7,233 145,494,922 1,800 1,440 10,415,520 7.2 Flatbed/platform < 40,000 31,666 91,204,132 0 0 0 0.0 40,000–60,000 14,840 142,730,487 720 576 8,547,840 6.0 60,001 –80,000 15,105 205,347,095 1,260 1,008 15,225,840 7.4 > 80,000 41,132 852,593,119 1,800 1,440 59,230,0 80 6.9 Tank —liguid/gas < 40,000 6,724 24,066,861 0 0 0 0.0 40,000–60,000 4,055 36,194,736 720 576 2,335,680 6.5 60,001 –80,000 4,523 53,669,123 1,260 1,008 4,559,184 8.5 > 80,000 20,916 392,994,386 1,800 1,440 30,119,040 7.7 Basic enclosed van < 40,000 34,239 129,082,598 0 0 0 0.0 40,000–60,000 25,541 235,177,541 720 576 14,711,616 6.3 60,001 –80,000 33,500 400,281,941 1,260 1,008 33,768,000 8.4 > 80,000 213,425 4,225,423,766 1,800 1,440 307,332,000 7.3 Insulated reefer < 40,000 5,91 4 21,147,647 0 0 0 0.0 40,000–60,000 5,458 53,092,054 720 576 3,143,808 5.9 60,001 –80,000 7,293 93,097,435 1,260 1,008 7,351,344 7.9 > 80,000 59,659 1,350,114,617 1,800 1,440 85,908,960 6.4 Other * < 40,000 42,166 101,965,371 0 0 0 0.0 40,000–60,000 11,839 116,466,377 720 576 6,819,264 5.9 60,001 – 80,000 10,257 145,308,684 1,260 1,008 10,339,056 7.1 > 80,000 34,917 747,101,232 1,800 1,440 50,280,480 6.7 Class 8C w/sleeper totals 659,606 9,709,129,733 657,185,760 6.8 Class 7C w/sleeper totals 4,802 45,830,198 1,800 1,440 6,914,880 15.1 Class 6C w/sleeper totals 1,652 23,364,721 1,800 1,440 2,378,880 10.2 * Other includes beverage, curtainside, low boy, pole, dry bulk tank, insulated non - re efer, open top, car carrier, livestock, mobile

home toter, drop frame, unknown.L. Gaines, A. Vyas, and J.L. Anderson 8 

### It is necessary to disaggregate trucks into categories based on the type of service they perform and to examine their daily operations. First consider the large trucks thatmove raw materials, intermediate products, and final consumer goods around the country to and from ports and production plants to distribution centers, retail outlets, and construction sites. Drivers of these trucks may need to park and find the right per son to process paperwork, obtain a dock assignment, wait in line for their turn at the loading dock, then wait again while goods are unloaded from or loaded onto their trucks, check the load, and complete more paperwork when they are done. The time involve d varies by location, time of day, and type of operation, but it can be from 0.5 hour to as long as 6 hours for a single stop. Similarly, trucks can be delayed in queues at border crossings for as long as 4 hours. Several measures are being used or couldbe developed to reduce this wasteful idling time. First, many companies (like Wal
- Mart) use a technique known as “drop and hook” to avoid the delay caused by the need to wait while trailers are being loaded or unloaded. If the entire trailer load is goingto this site, the truck driver can back the trailer into the loading dock and separate the tractor from the trailer, leaving the tractor free to pick up another trailer and proceed on its way. This type of operation requires more trailers than tractors. If only part of the load is for the site, the driver must wait until that part is unloaded before proceeding to the next stop on his/her route. Another technique that can be used is scheduled pick
- up or delivery times. This technique is being tried at thePort of Long Beach. However, real
- time electronic communication is required for this to work well. Otherwise, delays on route can cause drivers to miss their scheduled slots. For locations without scheduling, it would be possible to avoid queues of trucks in creep mode by instituting a take -a- number system, similar to that used in delicatessens. Drivers could then park, turn off their engines, and wait in comfortable areas (such as some shippers already provide) until their numbers were called. Even border crossings could provide this service. Another situation in which long
- duration (>0.5 hour) idling occurs spans a wide class of vehicle service types. Almost all drivers have an hour off for lunch; during this time, the vehicle may be left idling, especially if the weather is warm. One expert writes, “R emember, the cab sits on top of a 500

– 800 lb heat sink that could be over 200oF. On a 50

– 60o day, the cab can be like an oven after sitting for 20

– 30 minutes.” (9)This problem becomes less severe for smaller vehicles. Another class of vehicles that idles for significant periods during the workday is dump trucks, which idle while being loaded, are then driven to the dump site where they dump their loads, and return to be reloaded, subse quently repeating the process. Depending on the operation, it might be reasonable to shut the engine off during loading. This might require a climate control system independent of the main engine for operation in extreme weather. Next we consider smaller vehicles. As a general rule, smaller vehicles are easier to start, warm up faster, and are more likely to be stolen, so they are less likely to be left idling when the driver is not in them. However, some types of trucks have been observed to idle for significant periods when making deliveries or performing other jobs. These include leased refrigerated straight trucks, bakery trucks, and linen
- supply company trucks (often walk
- in vans), which idle from 10 minutes to one hour at a time. Similarly, heavy voc ational straight trucks, including refuse haulers, public works crew trucks, and newspaper delivery trucks, may idle for 20

– 30 minutes at each stop (13) . Utility trucks idle as well, sometimes most of the day, but at least in some cases, these are providi ng a useful service by creating a place for workers to warmL. Gaines, A. Vyas, and J.L. Anderson 9 

### up when they come down from utility poles or up out of manholes. For such situations, heaters or APUs could provide the same service with less energy use and emissions. Other than these utility vehicles, we have not identified instances where small trucks are idled for long periods. The owners of the many pickups and vans that perform household and commercial repairs and installations or transport produce from small farms all seem to recognize how much money they save by simply turning their vehicles off when not in use. Fuel Use for Workday Idling Given these general observations and essentially no actual data, we did some simple modeling to determine to what extent extended workday idling could b e an important problem. The short answer is that, given the large numbers of vehicles potentially involved, the fuel use for this type of idling could be much larger than that for overnight idling, and data should be obtained. This section details the assu mptions made in order to scope out the energy use for extended workday idling. We first had to estimate the per
- hour fuel use for extended idling. The only data point we have is that idling large sleeper tractors use approximately 0.8 gal/h (or more depen ding on idle speed and accessory loads). We assumed that smaller trucks would use proportionately less fuel at idle; thus, if a vehicle class achieved twice the fuel economy as a class 8 tractor, it would burn half as much fuel at idle (0.4 gal/h). We th en had to estimate the idling hours for different types of trucks. This estimate was highly uncertain. We identified several classes of trucks that might idle for extended periods and estimated the possible extent of idling. Our first attempt assumed that all vehicles of that type idled for the maximum time; these estimates did not seem reasonable, so we revised our numbers downward on the basis that (i) only a subset of the vehicles were high idlers or (ii) the need was only present part of the year. In each case, we assumed that the vehicles that traveled the longest distances spent most of their time on the road, and those that traveled under 40,000 miles per year were driven less because much of the time, they were stopped waiting for something or someon e and were idled most. We assigned the maximum idling hours to the under
- 40,000
- mile trucks, 75% of maximum to those driven 40,000

– 60,000 miles, 50% to those driven 60,000

– 80,000 miles, and 25% to those driven more than 80,000 miles. In each case, we assu med that the vehicle operated for 300 days per year and estimated a typical number of hours idled per day for the body type. Vans and dump trucks were assigned 2 hours/day; utility vehicles, 3 hours/day; platform trucks, tankers, and garbage trucks, 1 hour /day; and all other trucks, 0.5 hour/day. As shown in Table 2, even these relatively conservative estimates yield a total fuel use of almost 2.5 billion gallons annually (7% of the fuel used by these trucks), leading us to conclude that idling during the w orkday consumes a significant amount of fuel and should be examined in detail. Table 2 was constructed by identifying types of trucks that were likely to idle and specifically adding hours for them over an assumed low baseline. However, the idling hours by some delivery vans could be underestimated, and accounting for increased idling by those numerous large trucks would significantly increase the total. Similarly, it would be appropriate to identify types of trucks, such as pickups, for which we could no t identify any reason to idle routinely and subtract these types of trucks. Subtracting pickup trucks reduced the first estimate by almost 500 million gallons per year because of the large number of pickups in commercial service (over 7 million). This modi fication illustrates the high degree of sensitivity of theseL. Gaines, A. Vyas, and J.L. Anderson 10 

### results to individual inputs. It is clear that actual data on idling practices of trucks during the workday must be sought. TABLE 2 Fuel Used by Commercial Trucks Idling on the Job by Selected Body Type and Miles Driven Category

All Commercial

Body Types Miles Driven Category (mi/yr) Number of Trucks Total Fuel Used (gal/yr) Ave. mpg Idle Time (h/yr) Idle Fuel Flow Rate

(gal/h) Fuel Used to Idle (gal/yr)/trk Fuel Used to Idle (gal/yr) Idle as x% of Total Fuel Used Minivan < 40,000 1,175,532 1,038,768,478 17.7 600 0.262 157 184,897,237 17.8 40,000 –60,000 65,009 178,620,070 17.7 450 0.262 118 7,668,858 4.3 60,001 –80,000 17,384 86,127,314 13.0 300 0.357 107 1,861,425 2.2 Full - size (LD) van < 40,000 2,040,986 2,040,445,188 13.2 600 0.352 211 430,462,502 21.1 40,000 –60,000 69,063 240,504,381 13.1 450 0.354 159 11,007,904 4.6

> 80,000 9,400 51,618,036 17.3 150 0.268 40 378,173 0.7 Dump < 40,000 724,547 1,019,392,773 5.8 600 0.800 480 347,782 ,560 34.1 40,000 –60,000 49,005 490,693,938 4.9 450 0.947 426 20,882,131 4.3 60,00– 80,000 23,529 326,154,539 5.1 300 0.910 273 6,422,033 2.0

> 80,000 23,977 483,093,921 5.3 150 0.875 131 3,148,678 0.7 Flatbed/platform < 40,000 939,658 1,217,696,747 7 .4 300 0.627 188 176,757,289 14.5 40,000 –60,000 49,334 370,892,077 6.4 225 0.725 163 8,047,609 2.2 60,00– 80,000 25,770 321,901,976 5.7 150 0.814 122 3,146,653 1.0

> 80,000 50,924 1,012,165,598 5.6 75 0.829 62 3,164,563 0.3 Service – utility < 40,000 248,756 368,030,625 7.7 900 0.603 542 134,909,748 36.7 40,00– 60,000 4,924 28,084,098 8.2 675 0.566 382 1,880,728 6.7 60,00– 80,000 718 4,313,840 11.3 450 0.411 185 132,671 3.1

> 80,000 913 8,736,854 10.3 225 0.450 101 92,541 1.1 Tank – liquid/gas < 40,000 177,128 379,586,263 5.5 300 0.844 253 44,829,487 11.8 40,000 –60,000 16,329 143,096,007 5.7 225 0.814 183 2,990,785 2.1 60,001 –80,000 12,016 146,697,628 5.9 150 0.786 118 1,417,481 1.0

> 80,000 35,401 673,812,671 5.9 75 0.786 59 2,088,059 0.3 Trash/garbage < 40,000 77,520 305,197,033 4.4 300 1.055 316 24,524,509 8.0 40,000 –60,000 12,016 119,502,504 5.0 225 0.928 209 2,508,941 2.1 60,001 –80,000 2,733 35,901,942 5.2 150 0.892 134 365,802 1.0

> 80,000 949 18,234,173 5.9 75 0.786 59 55,975 0. 3 Basic enclosed van < 40,000 650,517 1,469,253,265 7.3 600 0.636 381 248,087,579 16.9 40,000 –60,000 107,404 817,171,943 6.5 450 0.714 321 34,501,470 4.2 60,001 –80,000 94,550 1,052,739,306 6.3 300 0.737 221 20,891,048 2.0

> 80,000 302,672 5,873,032, 985 6.1 150 0.761 114 34,534,379 0.6 Insulated reefer < 40,000 96,268 292,236,464 6.7 600 0.693 416 40,001,509 13.7 40,000 –60,000 20,414 161,964,407 6.2 450 0.748 337 6,874,908 4.2 60,001 –80,000 17,325 202,947,017 6.0 300 0.773 232 4,019,400 2.0

> 8 0,000 70,694 1,556,874,982 5.6 150 0.829 124 8,786,254 0.6 Multi - stop van < 40,000 372,892 662,599,461 8.6 600 0.540 324 120,712,945 18.2 40,000 –60,000 17,268 84,280,278 9.6 450 0.483 218 3,755,790 4.5 60,001 –80,000 3,077 24,132,931 8.5 300 0.546 164 503,904 2.1

> 80,000 1,265 11,870,995 10.1 150 0.459 69 87,172 0.7 Other van < 40,000 54,471 77,343,236 8.8 600 0.527 316 17,232,644 22.3 40,000 –60,000 1,193 5,713,537 9.6 450 0.483 218 259,478 4.5 60,001 –80,000 513 3,062,867 11.2 300 0.414 124 63, 759 2.1

> 80,000 377 3,480,504 10.9 150 0.426 64 24,073 0.7 Drop frame < 40,000 6,304 18,859,832 6.2 600 0.748 449 2,830,699 15.0 40,000 –60,000 1,810 14,755,498 5.9 450 0.786 354 640,556 4.3 60,00– 80,000 1,364 15,423,848 6.3 300 0.737 221 301,379 2 .0

> 80,000 4,502 102,985,261 6.0 150 0.773 116 522,232 0.5 Other < 40,000 9,829,988 9,827,530,297 13.7 150 0.339 51 499,392,091 5.1 40,00– 60,000 503,006 1,842,295,205 12.5 112 0.371 42 20,912,173 1.1 60,001 –80,000 65,680 579,037,170 7.8 75 0.595 45 2,930,338 0.5

> 80,000 70,181 1,173,164,852 6.5 37 0.714 26 1,853,642 0.2 All commercial body type totals 18,147,256 36,982,024,815 9.4 2,491,143,761 6.7 Note: “Other” includes pickup, SUV, armored, concrete mixer, concrete pumper, cra ne, curtainside, low boy, pole, other service, street sweeper, tank (dry/bulk), tow/wrecker, vacuum, insulated non - reefer, open top, car carrier, livestock, mobile home toter, and unknown.L. Gaines, A. Vyas, and J.L. Anderson 11 

### CONCLUSIONS Extended idling by commercial trucks represents a sig nificant use of our petroleum resources, and much of this oil use could be avoided by installing idle
- reduction technologies, by adopting vehicle scheduling policies, or simply by turning the trucks off. Until now, attention has been focused on overnight i dling by tractor
- trailers with sleepers, which represent a very visible and obvious target for conservation and emission
- reduction efforts. However, commercial trucks of all sizes idle for extended periods (0.5 hour or more) during their workdays, for a variety of reasons, such as while drivers wait to pick up or drop off a load or as a means of providing a warm haven for workers fixing utilities or roads in inclement weather. The quantity of petroleum used by such trucks may be far greater than that used b y sleepers idling overnight. Although the length of time these vehicles idle is considerably shorter than the 6

– 10 hours that sleepers idle, the sheer number of vehicles more than makes up for it. The sum of overnight and workday idling of trucks may cons ume well over 2 billion gallons of oil (mostly diesel) annually in the United States. To develop an accurate estimate of idling fuel use, data on vehicles and fleets in many industries would have to be collected. Cost
- effective technologies exist for reduc ing overnight idling, but the fewer hours trucks idle per day while working will be somewhat of a barrier to their use in non
- sleepers, because the payback period will be longer than the two years that the trucking industry requires. Further, for those vehicles that idle in queues (creep mode), some technology development will be required to enable slow vehicle motion without the use of the main engine. One possibility is use of the auxiliary power unit to supply minimal motive power. It will be a challengeto extend the realm of idle
- reduction technologies to solve the problem of workday idling. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies at the U.S. Department of Energy for its continued support. Argo nne is operated by the University of Chicago under Contract W
- 31
- 109
- Eng
- 38, for the U.S. Department of Energy. REFERENCES 1. Stodolsky, F., L. Gaines, and A. Vyas, Analysis of Technology Options to Reduce Fuel Consumption of Idling Trucks , Argonne Natio nal Laboratory Report ANL/ESD
- 43, Argonne, IL (June 2000). 2. National Energy Policy , Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group (May 2001). 3. VIUS97, Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey: 1997

— Microdata file, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. (1999). 4. VIUS02, Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey: 2002

— Microdata file, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. (2004) 5. Commercial Carrier Journal, Industry Trends and Statistics(July 1984) (modified).L. Gaines, A. Vyas, and J.L. Anderson 12 

### 6. FHWA, Highway Statistics 2003, Table VM
- 1, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration web site http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs03/htm/vm1.htm (2004). 7. U.S. Census Bureau, 2004, 2002 Economic Census: V ehicle Inventory and Use Survey, Geographical Area Series

— United States, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 8. Davis, S.C., and L.F. Truett, Investigation of Class 2b Trucks (Vehicle of 8,500 to 10,000 lbs GVWR), Oak Rid ge National Laboratory Report ORNL/TM
- 2002/49, Oak Ridge, TN (2002). 9. Paul Abelson, LandLine Magazine, personal communication (July 2005). 10. EPA Smartway http://www.epa.gov/otaq/smartway/idlingtechnologies.htm (accessed 8/1/05). 11. David Orr, Caterpillar, personal communication (September 2003). 12. N. Lutsey, C.J.Brodrick, D. Sperling, and C. Oglesby , Heavy
- Duty Truck Idling Characteristics

— Results from a Nationwide Truck Survey , TRB Annual Meeting (January 2004). 13. Jim Winsor, Idle Thoughts on Engine Idling , Heavy Duty Trucking, http://www.heavydutytrucking.com/2004/04/120a0404.asp (accessed 7/25/05).