United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Policy, Planning,
and Evaluation
(2126)	
EPA230-R-96-009
October T996
Indicators of the Environmental

Impacts of Transportation


Highway,  Rail, Aviation, and Maritime Transport

-------

-------
                                         FOREWORD

This document presents quantitative national estimates of the magnitude of transportation's impacts
on the natural environment. It is the most comprehensive compilation of environmental and
transportation data to date. This document addresses all primary modes of transportation (highway,
rail, aviation, and maritime transport) and all environmental media (air, water, and land resources),
and covers the full "life-cycle " of transportation, from construction of infrastructure and manufacture
of vehicles to disposal of vehicles and parts. The information presented in this report highlights that
the impacts of transportation are multi-media and extend beyond the air quality impacts of vehicle
travel.

In addition to presenting quantitative data, this report presents a framework for developing-various
types of indicators and for categorizing transportation activities that affect the environment. This
framework is useful for understanding the limitations and uses of different types of indicators and for
identifying existing data gaps. In some cases, where quantified indicators were not available from
existing sources, new indicators were developed for this report. In other cases, it is clear that
significant gaps in knowledge remain. The report concludes with a description of next steps in the
effort to develop and utilize indicators of the environmental impacts of transportation!

The development of this report involved cooperative work between EPA and DOT/BTS in collecting
data, and addresses issues on which these and other agencies can continue to collaborate to develop
tools for measuring and modeling impacts. This report was prepared under contract for the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation by Mark
Corrales, Michael Grant, and Evelyn Chan of Apogee Research, Inc.

This report is part of a series on transportation and the environment issued by the Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation. Additional information can be obtained by calling 202-260-4034.

-------

-------
                            TABLE  OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...,
                                                                                 .... 1
    INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE. ......................... .. .......................................... . ............. ., ...... . ........... . ........ j
    ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT ...................... ,. .......... . [[[ . ..... i
    STUDY APPROACH ... ............................ 1 ................ '...„ .......................................... . ......................... . ............ a
    WHAT INDICATORS CAN AND CANNOT PROVIDE..... .......... . ..................... . .............................. ; ............ m
    SELECTING APPROPRIATE INDICATORS ....... . .......... ................................ ! .............................................. iv
    CATEGORIZING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF TRANSPORTATION. ....................................... vii
    . THE INDICATORS FOR HIGHWAY, RAIL, AVIATION, AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION. ............. vizz
    NEXT STEPS .................... .. .................................... .. .................... . ...................................... .
I. STUDY APPROACH ________________________________________________________ . _______________________________________________ . _________________ .„ _______ ....i

    INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE. ........... . ................................................ ; ..................... . ............................. j
    ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT [[[ . [[[ 1
    PRIOR AND RELATED EFFORTS.. ................................ 1 [[[ 3
    SCOPE OF STUDY .............. . ................... . .......... . ......... . ............... ; ..................................... . ........... ; ............... 5
    PRODUCTS OF THIS STUDY. ............................... . ............................ . ....................... .... ............................... 7
    LIMITATIONS OF STUDY. [[[ . ...... . ................ . ................................................. 7

H. WHAT INDICATORS CAN AND CANNOT PROVIDE ___________ . ____________ ..... ___________________________________ ....... _____ 9
    THE LIMITATIONS OF INDICATORS. .............................. .. [[[ ...9
    HOW INDICATORS CAN BE USEFUL ........... . .......... ..... ................. . ......................................... . ................. JJ

HI.  SELECTING APPROPRIATE INDICATORS _______________ . _____________________________________________________________ . _______ ....13

    COMMONLY CITED "INDICATORS" HAVE LIMITATIONS ................... . ......... . ......... ." .................. . ......... 13
    FRAMEWORK -HOW TO DESIGN INDICATORS: ............................ . .............. .'. ..................... . ........ • ........ 15
    WHAT IS AN IDEAL INDICATOR? .................................................. . ...... . .............. , ..................................... 20
    AVAILABLE INDICATORS ....... . [[[ 23
    DATA GAPS [[[ ; ............... 23

TV.  CATEGORIZING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF TRANSPORTATION __________________________ 27

    FIVE BASIC ACTIVITIES CAUSING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ..... ......... .. ........... '...... ........................ 27
    DETAILED LIST OF ACTIVITIES CAUSING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............ . ............................... 28
V. THE INDICATORS ________________ ... _____ . ____________________________________________ .. ________________________________________________________________ 33

  HIGHWAY ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS                                           35
    •HOW EACH IMPACT IS PRESENTED IN THIS SECTION. [[[ 35
    1. ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE ..................... ..... ............................ : .............................. 41
    2. MOTOR VEHICLE AND PARTS MANUFACTURE [[[ . ........ : ............. 57
    3. ROAD VEHICLE TRAVEL ............................... .......... . [[[ ...... ............... 63

-------
    4. RAIL CAR MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT.	777
    5. DISPOSAL OF RAIL CARS AND PARTS	727

  AVIATION ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS                                •       123
    HOW EACH IMPACT IS PRESENTED IN THIS SECTION.	723
    /. AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND EXPANSION	727
    2. AIRCRAFT AND PARTS MANUFACTURE.	733
    3. AVIATION TRAVEL	,	737
    4. AIRPORT OPERATION	757
    5. DISPOSAL OF AIRCRAFT AND PARTS	755

  MARITIME ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS                                       157
    HOW EACH IMPACT IS PRESENTED IN THIS SECTION.	;	757
    1. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS.	767
    2. MANUFACTURE OF MARITIME VESSELS AND PARTS	769
    3. MARITIME TRAVEL	773
    4. MARITIME VESSEL MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT	789
    5. DISPOSAL OF MARITIME VESSELS AND PARTS	793

VI. NEXT STEPS			.	195
    COLLECT RAW DATA OR LOCAL DATA WHERE NEEDED	795
    DEVELOP NEW ESTIMATES OF CERTAIN IMPACTS	795
    DESCRIBE EFFECTIVENESS OF MITIGATION OPTIONS	796
    CONSIDER IMPACTS NOT LISTED HERE.	796
    SETUP ONGOING, CONSISTENT USE OF INDICATORS	796
    REGULARLY UPDATE OUTDATED, ONE-TIME ESTIMATES	797
    CONDUCT POLICY ANALYSIS	797
    PROVIDE STATE AND LOCAL TOOLS	79S

BIBLIOGRAPHY			.....199
                    >

APPENDIX A. INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRAVEL MEASURES		A-l

  MODE: HIGHWAY                                                          A-2
    INFRASTRUCTURE.	<	A-2
    TRAVEL	A-6

  MODE: RAIL                                                             A-13
    INFRASTRUCTURE.	A-73
    TRAVEL	A-15

  MODE: AVIATION                                                         A-18
    INFRASTRUCTURE                                                         A-18
    TRAVEL                                                                 A-20

  MODE: MARITIME                                                         A-29
    INFRASTRUCTURE.	A-29
    TRAVEL	,	,...A-30

APPENDIX  B. ADDITIONAL STATISTICS ON IMPACTS		B-l
  HEALTH EFFECTS                                                           B-l
  TOXIC RELEASES                                                           B-3
  MONETIZED VALUES                                                        B-4

-------
                                                                             Executive Summary
                                EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY
 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

 In early 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated a study to develop environmental
 indicators for the transportation sector. The purpose of this report is the following:

 1.  Develop a logical framework for thinking about indicators
 2.  Identify and categorize the full range of environmental impacts of transportation
 3.  Develop indicators of these impacts
 4.  Quantify the impacts at the national level, using the indicators
 5.  Assess data gaps and recommend next steps

 This report presents the most comprehensive compilation of environmental and transportation data to
 date. The term "indicators" is used throughout this report to refer to quantitative estimates of the
 magnitude or severity of environmental impacts of transportation. These indicators may be based on
 either measurements or modeling and may refer to either historical or projected estimates.

 This report addresses all four primary modes of transportation:

     *   Highway1
     4   Rail                                                                          ;    •
     *   Aviation                         .
     *   Maritime2            '  •  '

 In addition, this report addresses all environmental media—air, water, and land resources. It covers
 the full "life-cycle" of transportation, from construction of infrastructure and manufacture of vehicles
 to disposal of vehicles and parts.

 In addition to presenting quantitative data, this report presents a valuable framework for developing
 various types of indicators and categorizing transportation activities  affecting the environment. It also
 identifies existing data gaps. The report concludes with a description of next steps in the effort to
 develop and utilize indicators of the environmental impacts of transportation.


 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT

 The report is organized in the following sections:

     4  Study approach
     *  What indicators can and cannot provide
     4  Selecting appropriate indicators
     4  Categorizing the environmental impacts of transportation
     4  Indicators for highway, rail, aviation, and maritime transportation
 In this report, the term "highway" is used to refer to mobile sources of travel on all roads, not only those in the
National Highway System.                                                               •
2 In this report, the term "maritime" is used to refer to all mobile sources of travel on water, including ocean-
going vessels, inland barges, and recreational boats.

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
     4   Next steps
     4   Bibliography
     4   Appendices on infrastructure and travel measures and additional statistics

 Each is summarized briefly below.

 STUDY APPROACH

 This study may be viewed in the context of numerous related efforts to develop and utilize
 environmental indicators. Other such efforts generally have been limited, however, in that they have
 examined a smaller number of environmental issues ( only air quality) or have focused on total
 environmental change rather than isolating transportation's share of that change.

 This study is uniquely broad, since it covers several modes of transportation and all environmental
 media. It is an attempt to address a wide range of issues at a summary level.

 This study has some important limitations as well:

                              LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

     4  It provides only national estimates of impact, not local details.
     4  It is not a textbook on the environmental issues, although it describes each environmental
        impact briefly.
     4  It de-emphasizes the impacts of related infrastructure ( gas stations, the petroleum industry,
        etc).
     4  Aesthetics/visual impacts, historic preservation, nonrenewable energy use, and social and
        community impacts are not included.
     4  Impacts of related development are not included here (impacts of new housing enabled by
        road construction).
     4  The benefits of travel are outside the scope of this study, although they should be weighed
        along with the environmental impacts of travel in a broader policy analysis.
The study's scope was limited to providing the following products, which correspond to the goals set
out initially:

                               PRODUCTS OF TfflS STUDY

       1. Framework for indicators
       2. ' Categories including all impacts
       3. Indicators
       4. Quantitative data
       5. List of data gaps and recommended next steps

-------
                                                                           Executive Summary
WHAT INDICATORS CAN AND CANNOT PROVIDE

In using indicators, it is important to keep in mind that they can be misapplied, and that care should be
taken to consider what indicators can and cannot provide.

                     WHAT INDICATORS CANNOT OR SHOULD NOT DO

    *   Isolate effects of individual regulations
           Indicators may show improvement in a certain area (e.g., mobile source air emissions and
               air quality) but generally will not describe the root causes underlying that
               improvement. In other words, they may show the net results but not why the situation
               improved. For example, indicators may show falling air emissions, but these could
               result either from policy-driven per-mile emissions reductions or from reduced travel
              .due to an economic downturn or rising fuel prices.
    4   Provide a full  economic analysis
           In particular, indicators do not provide information about the benefits of travel and related
               activities.  For example, deicing salt application has significant environmental
               impacts but it also has enormous benefits in allowing travel and saving lives during
               storms. Also, indicators say nothing about the costs of policies that might alleviate
               environmental impacts.  Some solutions may be quite costly, and these costs should
               be balanced against the environmental impacts.
    4   Define acceptable levels of impact or rates qf progress
           Indicators may describe objectively the amount of impact or rate of progress, but policy
               decisions must be made subjectively about whether a given impact or rate of progress
               is acceptable. ,
    4   Set true priorities
               Indicators of environmental impact alone should not be used for setting priorities for
               regulatory action.  The cost-effectiveness of policy options should also be considered.
               This combines costs and benefits, whereas indicators of environmental impact
               describe only potential benefits of policies.

As long as these limitations are understood, indicators can be extremely useful in transportation and
environmental policy discussions.

                         WHAT INDICATORS CAN BE USED FOR

    4   Provide broad perspective on transportation and environmental issues
    4   Encourage, a comprehensive look at all environmental impacts
    4   Track progress of policies as a whole
    4   Highlight remaining problems        '
    4   Help set priorities, particularly for research and among issues needing new or improved
        policies
    4   Educate the public, media-focused offices, and others
    4  Feed into economic/policy analysis

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 SELECTING APPROPRIATE INDICATORS

 One important goal of this study was to consider the types of indicators that would be most
 appropriate for tracking the environmental impacts of transportation. To do so, we first examined the
 limitations of commonly cited indicators and considered what an ideal indicator would look like. A
 framework was presented that demonstrates how indicators may be designed to focus on different
 stages of the link between transportation and the environment, from outputs to outcomes (see the
 graphic entitled "Causes and Effects of Transportation Activities")-  Finally, the report highlighted
 data gaps that make, the use of ideal indicators impossible at present, but point to areas where research
 would be most beneficial (see the graphic entitled "Data Availability").

 In the process of de" ling ideal indicators and identifying data gaps, we noted several areas where the
 ideal is not available.  This report, therefore, describes ideal indicators as long-term objectives
 requiring further data collection and modeling. The indicators actually quantified in the report are
 often simply measures of emissions or outputs, because data on outcomes were generally unavailable.
 In some cases, even emissions or habitat change data were not available, in which case the report cites
 measures of activities that lead to those emissions  or habitat changes.

 Many discussions of the impacts of transportation  use activity measures rather than true indicators of
 environmental outcomes.  For example, many reports cite vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) as an
 indicator of transportation's potential impacts on the environment. Such measures are seriously
 flawed for the purpose of assessing environmental impacts, however.

                LIMITATIONS OF VMT AND  OTHER COMMON MEASURES

     *   Results are more important to track than activities.
     *   Impacts per VMT or other activity measure vary a great deal by location.
     4   Impacts per VMT or other activity measure vary over time.
     4   Average impacts are not useful when one should be measuring marginal impacts (the effects
         of incremental increases in travel are marginal impacts; there may be thresholds or other
         circumstances so that the impact associated with additional  VMT differs from the average
         impact per VMT).
     4  The benefits per passenger-mile traveled (PMT) or per ton-mile are not equal for all modes
         and locations.

 As stated above, though, VMT and other activity measures may be the only relevant quantitative data
 providing perspective on certain impacts. This report refers to activity measures where necessary and
 discusses them further in an appendix.

 This report also presents a framework for describing different types of indicators, based on the extent
 to which they address end results rather than activities. The framework, shown in the flow chart,
 suggests that an indicator may be designed to focus on activities (e.g., VMT), outputs such as
 emissions and habitat changes (e.g., tons of CO2 emitted or acres paved), or outcomes/end results
 (e.g., number of illnesses caused by mobile source  pollution).  This framework is often used to
 emphasize the need for results-oriented measures.  Again, this study made clear that such indicators
 are generally unavailable at present, and output measures must be used in the short term.
IV

-------
                  +
                                < UJ
                                I— rr

                               ~S<^
                               : S EC in
                                >0
                                    CO
                                    CO
                                    Ul
                                    DC

                                    Q

                                    UJ
UJ
t
>

O

z:
o

I
DC
o
Q.
CO
u_
O


6
UJ
IX.
LL
111
Q
(O
UJ
CO
=5
<
O
              HI
              CC

              CO
              o
              Q.
              X
              HI
t-
             i
                                                     O
                             00
           CO < O '3

           1 .£ co
           LU£
             i

                  HI Z
? ^ o ,  ^ c   -

       *li
       <<  5
                                        u.

                   ' o
                                   i—
                                   0
                   HI
                   CO
             CO
             O


             O
             Z
             o
             u
             HI
.  to
O CO

«1

-------
       s\
       cc

       il
 c
 o
 E
	in!


J2  *£


^  51


"co  I1
1^
 CO  mi
-
 w











jo
CO
_0
13
jr:
*••••
^5
CO
Q.











0
tn
I:
Q.
•f i
.*. o> S
f/f f* «JU
'Hi c: UJ
CO P n.
O -i= S-
CC > co
•0 UJ 3>
^ °
o>
2
CO
0
Q.
X
LU



~— . CO
CO o>
0 0)
> c
t ^
JS S
o *^r
c -Q
t= co
< ac
CO
0
CO
CO
E
UJ
CO
•=:
t5

0
g
S




o



®










®






@


^^

i
i
**




O



O










o






o




a
3 ''-.:'••'•
t
&
>
^ ' '




O



o










o






o


©
•
^1
tl
£ 0
1 =
-& m
                                             ec
                                                   _o>

                                                   ja
                                                   co
                                                   .o

                                                   "o.
                                                   o_
                                            o
                                             _o

                                             JQ

                                             CO
                                              "O
                                           .-  S
                                                      CD

                                                      -Q
                                                      CO


                                                      "o
                                                      CO
                                                      Q.
                                                      CO
O
0
CD
CO
o
"1
o
Q.
co
£Z
_co
"co
t±
0
Q.
CO
1
•4— »
d
 CO


'o
 CO


1
 o
T3
 c

-a
 o
 o
C3
                                                          _,
                                                          CO

                                                          "co

                                                          -
                                                          i


                                                          O

                                                          "a
                                                               o
                                                               co
                                                               a_

                                                               E
                                                                    CD

                                                                    CO


                                                                    CO

                                                                    CO
                                                                    o
                                                                    CL
                                                                    co
es do not indicate
                                                                     co
                                                                    ^S
                                                                     co
                                                                    T3

                                                                    JX>

                                                                    ^3
                                                                     CO

-------
                                                                           Executive Summary
 We recommend that improved indicators be developed through data collection and modeling efforts,
 to reach the long-term goal of designing ideal indicators of transportation's environmental
 implications.  The characteristics of indicators that should be developed over time are described
 below:

                                   THE IDEAL INDICATOR

     *  Focuses on results (i.e., outcomes, such as number of illnesses caused, not activities or
         outputs, such as tons emitted)
     *  Isolates transportation's share of the impact
     +  Provides a useful level of detail to the intended audience
     *  Is stated in comparable units (allowing comparisons among impacts, modes, etc.)
     *  Is in meaningful units (i.e., the quantity is compared to a standard or goal)
     *  Is reasonably certain

 These are the traits that should be sought in ongoing development of new indicators.  For the purposes
 of this study, we have been able to design indicators that meet only some of these criteria. Most
 indicators, in this study isolate transportation's share and provide sufficient detail at the national level.
 Many  are not in comparable units (e.g., dollars) because of the additional analysis required and
 uncertainty introduced when dollar terms are used. The units are more meaningful if the quantities
 are compared with standards or goals, but such benchmarks are not yet available for most of these
 indicators. Additional work is needed to develop ideal indicators.


 CATEGORIZING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF TRANSPORTATION

 An important contribution of this study is the relatively comprehensive nature of the list of
 environmental impacts. We have quantified a much wider range of impacts than is typically included
 in a single study. To do so, we utilized a categorization scheme that groups the impacts logically and
 encourages a broad perspective of the environmental implications of transportation. This  scheme is
 based on grouping impacts by the activities that cause them rather than by environmental media, such
 as water and air. The advantage of this approach is that it follows the way data are collected and the
 way activities are commonly thought about  and addressed in policy discussions.  The five basic
 activities included are as follows:

         BASIC TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES AFFECTING THE ENVIRONMENT

 1.  Infrastructure construction, maintenance, and abandonment (e.g., bujtlding roads)
2.  Vehicle and parts manufacture                   .                     •
3.  Vehicle travel                              •
4.  Vehicle maintenance and support
5.  Disposal of used vehicles and parts

Within each of these five broad activities, several individual activities and their impacts are described.
                                                                                         vn

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
THE INDICATORS FOR HIGHWAY, RAIL, AVIATION, AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

This report contains not only a listing of available indicators but also the values of those indicators for (
recent years.  The body of the report contains these quantitative data and graphics, while the
indicators are listed in tables below for each of the four modes.

It is important to note two points about what is included in these tables: First, indicators are listed
only where they have been quantified at the national level; if an impact has not been quantified, no
"potential" indicator is listed here. For each specific activity and its impact, the table provides a
summary of the availability of quantitative data for indicators of outcomes, output, and activity.

Second, the tables show only the best indicator for each impact rather than listing alternative types of
indicators. The exceptions are when multiple indicators are needed to address all aspects of an issue
or where some indicators  are otherwise insufficient. Although outcome indicators are theoretically the
most desirable type of indicator, actual quantified outcome data are often unavailable or of poor
quality. As a result, output indicators—such as emissions levels—tend to be the most reliable and •
valid measures available in most cases. Activity indicators are presented in these tables when they are
the best available indicators or when outcome and output indicators are not adequate.
vm

-------
O
 CO
 DC
 O
 o
 o
<
o
o

oc
\ •%
Si
> ''
'$•4 !
* *Q
^ x^-t* t
..O > -
•sli
S> tH ;j£
>*53 aT^
^~i!
Jit









a*
s
y



















intenance
i
Sj
«

«u
•£>
a


<*
£
e
jS
.-*
CO
National estimates of
fragmentation and other in
are not available. Some us<
state data are available.
co
c
—
"O
CB -d
CO &
oo u
CB 3
M "^^
1 1
||
^ ^

2 S
•s-
• Cumulative land area coven
. by roads
• New land area taken for
roadway use

>>
ca
Z CO
J= «
SP'S
J3 O
si
t-» ca
• States repot
related well

\
"2
3 >>
™-^ TO
-a ?
§ 'S
^ o

O .C
S 00
^
3 *.
3 2
SǤ
u-" <-* ,'
Emissions result from use i
heavy machinery, pesticide
application, and discovery
hazardous material in the r
of-way.
•p n
"3 ,9
IS 0
CO S
CO
.ti o
^ -
T3 -S
H
i 1 •
C-> C
< [I]
o 51 o •
' • Changes in surrounding wal
quality conditions near typii
construction site
• States reporting contaminati
problems at maintenance
facilities
S
• ••— >
co 0
S -B
« v>
U = -H,
u ca c>
CO — ' ki
^ S £•
"S ^S 1 'g
•*-> O P.' !— '
Slf 1
o g1 S "§>
O, -a -o js

3
j
3 l
3
o
3
o

S 8
S §
TD C
w .2j
3-|
§ S '
3 "O '
11-. ill
Deicing creates costs in ter
installing corrosion protect
features during bridge
construction and maintenai
Data is available on the nui
of roadside trees killed per
due to salting typical road.

•o
CO
3
"ca
"S3
ca
0
^4
O
e!
3
a

(Data unavailable)
|l -
^ S • •« ob
u3"^ § o .9
11 fi|
o .g o ' g S
•j •§ ]S £3 oo ^
^ o *~^ ca *^ ca

3
3
o
X
™
3
U
if

3
>
•o
3
CO '
>
!
)
S
S CO
Road runoff's share of pol
loading to nearby water bo
has been estimated locally.
(0
ca
"03
r«
CO
"S
2 '

CO
oo .
C3
O CO

(So.
*Q
• Average pollutant
concentrations of various
metals, suspended solids, an
toxic organics in road runof:
• Quantity of oil and grease
loading via road runoff
CB X3
CO fc^
" 3 'a,
f-fi
c/T -— -^-
^ Sf
- .g 3
S C vH'
- .e ir
§ Si's
> o c
os -s e









4_ ,
3
3
>~»
t!
J
J>



















i
|
^
S
s
5*
?$
^


S
>
1

r4
o
Impacts of imported
products/components are n
included in statistics;











m .5 o .^
• Quantity of reported release:
of toxic chemicals included
TRI database
• Quantity of CO, NO2, PM-1
TP, S02, VOC released to ai



I
3
c
3
ca
a




—
j
^

3

I , -
J CO
•g §
O "Z
3 "g

-------


"o
K

fc
o
2 -r o
0 g 3
•*•* C3 u
.§ £ J
S § E
*•*•( S c
•&I1

to i *
O GJ3 *~
 £ 0
S ti o >
Health and welfare impacts hi
been estimated. Road transpo
shares of total national emissi
of fugitive dust and PM-10 hi
also been estimated.













t
S
fe
• Quantity of fugitive dust
10) emitted

• Cases of chronic respiratory
illness, asthma attacks,
respiratory restricted activity
days, and premature deaths
due to particulates associated
with motor vehicles

E
0
CO
c
o
!A
5
in
3
•O
O
3 03

t2 s


CFCs are being phased out.
•o
1
s
fa
C
8
0
u
o
<£? vi
•^ o
11
as


c/
"fj
• Quantity of CFCs, HFCs
emitted from all sources
• Percentage of emissions
attributable to motor veh

(Data unavailable)
VI
g '00
DO "
li _O
I =3
2P g
-1

ll
Cfl >

S o


ess
Since noise dissipates from it:
source, a national aggregate
noise emissions level is not
meaningful. Recent exposure
estimates are not available.














•£ «>
> n-
 2^
Some of the .quantity spilled i
generally recovered, and is nc
permanent release to the
environment. Amount recovei
is not measured.














"c3
s
• Type and quantity of mal
reported released

(Data unavailable)

"S

o
c
—
1
"S o
So.
CO
x B
0 S
9 oo
a .c

ffi -a





















• Approximate number of
animals killed







J2
1

C*

-------
co

o
|-sg
•*•* ra i
35 I j
I'll
0

a
OB
c
li
"S "CB 2
2 "SB E
HMtf *S C
*~• S 2
S3 ^ i
f i |
»-
*s
s2 ^ f

-*i
21 -
1-2


o W
ill
111
OSS










,
•1

^








-














:-g
g
o.
• a
1
u
§
s
-H
s
?

^S
•5;
*«5^
•^
1

"*

00
• Number of terminals and
types of materials used durin
terminal operations


•a

43
I
&
o

l_^
0
&

c
cC
O1






? .
3

3
3
3
S
3
Q,

oo '
oo —
-S J
cs £;
1 j|
3 • O -
I S-5
JO ~4 ' o

i f? g
1 en M
" 2 c
S5 •§ g
KJ 'S " *O
t c
S es
) *-"
> ca
u. £X
^ ^
| 8
i c
eo ^

11
g SPg1
s'll
u t*-<
•3 a
Some of the quantity released is
generally recovered or cleaned-
up, and is not a permanent
release to the environment.
Amount recovered is not
measured.
„
• Number of active petroleum
U'STs
S
CO
ea
o

*o
l-H
I JS '
*S • «3
o **
O Qi
u-i W)
o g
J3 S
.£} «
| S
7i "^ c
3 ° .2
g> § 1
S 3 -a
j2 o £
S M CC
£ •a S
g> S 8
: S fe

^ oo 5
a "B1 *
2 S 1
f 2 1



lo 13 '
H ^
§§>
- !s
5 "§'
>b R
K ^
1 '«^
i m
i "^
; c
ce



























'.-8
£
"^3
C
' a,,
*^
•H
"§
^
^*

1
I

«n
Percentage of all landfilled '
material is known.

• Number of vehicles scrapped
quantity of various materials
in vehicle, percentage of mas
Jandfilled







U
2
H
5
st

I-






?
3
s

S
3
3
2
CS
Q,






wi
>
3
3


0


Improperly disposed oil's share
of total motor oil disposed has
also been estimated.

• Quantity of used motor oil
improperly disposed







3?
s

3
a

3
S
a






2?
3
s

3
(Data unav







—
2

o
3


£;
Recovery/recycle rate for used
tires and their share of the solid
v waste stream have also been
estimated.

• Quantity of used tires
landfilled or stockpiled







"G?
3
s
"s
is

3
«
a






'o1
3

3
3
1
a










«
u


Recovery/recycle rate for spent
batteries and their share of lead
and total tonnage in the solid
waste stream have also been
estimated.
VI
• Quantity of lead-acid batterie
discarded into municipal
waste stream







'oT
3
a
"3
s

3
CS
a .


.



r
3

3
jj
J




!
6
i _ .
2
3
H *

!
;



-------
 to

 co
as
1
 CO

Cf
 to



*-»
o
55

g-tf g
O ^ a
§51
S aT Mrf 3 Q
J*j* t* -<5
^ w su
•3 .S .a

<5 lo

oT
a1
Output Indicators
Emissions, Habitat Cha
or Exposure Measure

=
~3
as g
i-j C*
2«
CS g
••* *Ss
^3 o


«!
1 02
Ss =
111









1


















t-A
1

•§
C!
§
;2
^


^

•S
3
^
1
••a
u
n


Q
O
I
cS
C/3 >^
I §
S &J2
Is S u.
National estimates of 1
fragmcnlation and oth
are not available. Rail
be elevated, surface, o
underground.
•3
O tn
He
*~ o

8-1
o o •—
es § *~"
= "g "o
jd -S -o
*o ra E
21 =
^ i z

p o
> ^3
O i-
• Cumulative land area c
by surface track
• New land area taken fo






2T


c
3
"5
Q,


CS
t3
CS
•a
cr
CS

Q
C.
en
•5
CS
CS
s
1
L
a> ^o
Creosote is a toxic prc
is applied to rail cross

1
CO
% -a
e i
^ .^
o g
J3 "°
1 =
3 o
z P




(Data unavailable)






2?

CS
'«
>
CS
c
3
re
"«
9-


|
o
2
<2
O
o
CO .^
Emissions durin
and maintenanci







„










•










j£
•S
^^^
s
1
£2
IS
igj
r~*

s
2. Rail Car a

'o
i
Impacts of imported
products/components
included in statistics.











S
§1
o ^
• Quantity of reported re
of toxic chemicals inch
in TRI database






2T
3

"5
>
cs
c
s
_C3
"a
s









Toxic releases







































»^
3. Rail Trave

"cs
c
Q
•c _
*s Jr?
Rail's share of total n
emissions has also bee
estimated.











•o"
O Z
> ^
• Quantity of CO, NOX,
S02,PM-10,C02,CH<
and ammonia released






2?

re
"re
>
re
C
S
CS
CS
Q







eo
C
Exhaust emissio
• S2 "3 °
» g 'op  13 "5


C3 -. 'o 
-------







Oi
s
£• -
fi
' o
•Tft. -
Indicator;
ilareJ'Jiavellj
foil Measure

s 2 <
£ 1 S
y .fa *G
<£o
^
cx

R

j"\ ^ ^

•as i
.a s 5
3!i
*•* S3 «5
a s o
-&!'*«

O & 0,
g 1
•£j W
T3 o
~!
3} &^<
S 8 a
§ js s
111
^
;








1
































12

i
8
fti
U
1
S
i

M~


1
00
J=
"i ^
jy o
'o ^
t|._, 
W3 ^
Environmental <
of rail tank intei
been quantified.









"S

•"«
E
u
00 . •'
u
"o . '
«£•

ca
3
O

^-N
5
3
3
3
S
en .
-•-^
3 :
2
3 "E. -
3 w "5
" 73 a.
iQ - 
C I— *-*
S C3
S U 0
3 .. 0
^3 " C
t/I C C3
0 0 C
IP
Si-1

•_ J

e =
-2 S
KJ O "O
= 'C B
•3 o «
s-s-l
Rail's share of
emfssions from
has also been es


II"
° -o
>> JJ
•2 . |. •
§ =
o' S
•
•o
•v" SB
l-< «
t (]_)
X W
O *~"

n "°
8 § -
s >
s ><

•1CO

^-^ '
n
3
3
3
s
jp
s
3
x
S
3 .
3

*

2
3
\
1 1


































1
1
e
S
a
ss
53
§

5S


1
C3
I ...

^3
^
o
•o .
C
J
No information
ofparts, oil, etc,
•u
ll
of new cars i
^ those dispo;

•2 -2
§ t"
O' °
*







KJ
5
2
3-

si

^-^
C
3
i
3
3
3



"ro
en
3
2
•5
=


3 .

3 •
o
3

-------









1


ctivity Indicators
ifrastraclure, Travel, or
ther Action Measure
< SO
o
£

S3
So
o — „
Output Indicn
Emissions , Hobiti
Exposure Measur
=2
12 i
«^3
fj W
53 g»

c*
CD P£
1 = 2
S — =
45 CM J2
ail









*s
««•
13
^






















1
5
ft
cS

*
Q
8"
s
a
1
1
•2
'•§

I


5
1

S^i
•»»»
^N
r4
•S
§
.s1"?
C r^
o a
§.1
— «
II
•= 1 -
C ca (2
3 p •§
ft. S J3


Number of airports
constructed
Length of runways
constructed
Cumulative number of
airp.orts
* , •
.





2
1
3
a
B




s*

GS
S
es
C
3
C3
S
o
es
C
es
c

c
o
a.
3
«
•5

S
ss
z

.0
.0 >>'§•§
'? 2 S S
•~ o - ^
"y CX £> TD
•Q 53 ^ o
*^ •« trf ^±
1115
'||>11 „
s § "i « «
rS § •§ 1 t
U on > S .5


Number of airports
constructed
Length of runways
constructed
"






(Data unavailable)




JU*

C3
"5
C3
3
C3
5

o
"o
s .
CO
o
o

C°" dJ
— CJ
n c
3 ra
•21
c c
2 -3
S? £
£ "c
m «
c
x: S?
.ts g -S o
* — "i °
.« *— O c§
c ^ ^ c)
&°1'1
£-§§"§
IS C3 E «
2 fc o & a
* °%% &
•a .S u. C «
g S ° -a *
_ >> «? c «j
•3 « g ra £
o & B T2 (2
>> e a P >2
0 5 S o 3

CO
Quantity of deicing agent
used
•
T)
H
£ 2
0 o
'.-. C3
S CO
• Percentage of urc
directly to surfac




3T
xj

"S
1
3
«
«
C/S
•a
0
1*
o
00
c
5
5
•o

o
C3
"3
«










VI

Cumulative number of
airports
Number/percent of airpo
with paved runways
•






(Data unavailable)




2?

s
93
C5
C
3
C3
CS







O
3

4_(
0
&
<































s^
1
u
»•
8
•g
to
1C
p^


|

S^
•tw»
""3

-------
'

09
1:

o
|| j
•p»« *?
TS aT<*

^^"S *
« 2 4

111

0
§'
"« 5 '
III
S* jf |
s ^ •»
^*\ '^
•2 i
_g K
CS Bt
ty S
jsi
^% &3
,s g «
IS 8
s § S
OiSS








3
^




























»^i
2k
-.5
s
1
^
: -c2
« t*-<
There are cases where fuel
dumping in the atmosphere has
" occurred. For most pollutants,
altitude of emissions is unknowi
although damage is known to di
depending on altitude.


§
1
3
CO
C
8

1
o
c*
•Z
•o-
c
• Quantity of CO2,.CH4,
released



•
i
3
3
3
3
3




«
3
I
>
•o
3
13
&
H


For most pollutants, altitude of
emissions is unknown.











O
> fli
• QuantityofCO, NOX, '
SO2, PM, and butadien
released




a
5
J5
3
3
3
3
5



3
>
*~*
:>
? .
j .
3 «>
— c
sj .2
^ 'co
. co
o '£ '
J 33


Improvements in aircraft design
has reduced noise despite
tremendous growth in airline
traffic.










— fc
 . -



























c
•S
"S
1
O
1
^*














u
^.
• Quantity of GO, NOX, "<
and PM released




3
3
a
S-
*J
^
X
S
•a
^
1
5
2 "c -
3 CD


-




















1
s
5i
ls*i
e
P
,s»
's-,
••«
i
•n
c

Longevity of the airline fleet,
exportation, and recycling result
relatively low rates of aircraft
scrappage. '
•o
g
o
1

'o
S3
J3
J
z ,



(Data unavailable)




?
3
5
S
a
a.


,_,
3
X
o
•a
X
i
u
<"

-------



1

6
2-3-2
1 il
U &^ JM

5 2 c
t|Jj|3 9 C
fll
>• w t.

u <•? 5
< So
d
S
« 1
t Indicator;
is, Habitat Cl
c Measure
* ° =
°*^z g
•»•• «4 P
•s s
O ps w

s
S 3
5 «
"S "3
w 5
it
BJ D
Outcome I
Health or Eci
Measure





S3




















a
i
^
,S
a
o
••e

S
K
«

1
•X3
1
Jf. Construction
00 as
•e .5 £
e '* fj 1 I" e ! -g I
•S "o '5>"^ •= ** ^ J? 2
S| |gja Sail
1*5 -si IN*
•s S|§ | 151 |
ffi||.i^l
f ilJiim
SiSf&i&H
gfil'liili

3
CO
lo
^ 00
>v ea
=5 £
C3 „.?
*O S
11
o 5
o-s
•
_
'8
i
I
1
•a
(~4
o
Ir
C3
a


eo
"a «
1 1
•^ O
•II
IJ
5|
u H
S.5
55 a

w
DO ~C
ut C O
o °3> E
'5s!'
2 •= 'i
0 C3 _00
0 0 §
l-li
5 g fe















*«
o s-x"3 «
•— > MJ C O
o g ca g
oo 5 « B.'c'
•3 -§ ^ g .1
•§ > 1 -g g
'E.I is H
S*^ ° fe -o
3 « _r t2 e
^ ° « -rj .5
O' -5 o 3 &
C^M
O
'S |
es o
W CQ
O — en
n. " «
.2 S S
•a _ o
oo .2 „
131
II!
8 |it3
2 1 §
55 TS ^
•



o
"a
6
D.

Habitat disruption ai
contamination from
dredged material

.H 3" " §"
J s J g
Allocating the amount of
loss caused by a port is di
because shoreline habitat
may be caused by a wide
of factors.
"3
S
o
o.

2. Manufacture




,










•« '.s
ll
T3 3,
c u
ty of reported
c chemicals in
itabase
'•§ •g-s
« S f
^•sg
•






JJ
3
C3
(Data unavail

2
3
1 -
C ^
§ 0. •
S -o
g;
Toxic releases durin
of maritime vessels i

































1
3. Maritime Tra















.0
CJ ^
o ^
- g
iffi*
.0
O s
S8
^ IS "O
"•§ A< K
f°l





^^^
(D
H
(Data unavail




CO
g
Air pollutant emissii

-------



-
*
.'o
^ i
Iff
'es
**•*' ^
"T5 aT^
•SH
#1l
•~* Js ^
'O CM ^£
O
aT
•• CD

OS
2 §

*» "S! a
SJ 4» I;
i$>utlnai<
isiofas^f&bj
idsiifeslcfe
ot%
s
s
03 |g

ll
1 "2
Cop
8 ja S
_2 :*-* w
s § §
OffiS





1
<



'en the highly local nature
problem, national outcor
icators, and even output
icators are unavailable.
.S .3 -a -a
O S .S .S


(Data unavailable)








'3?
3
"S *
1 '
3
Q




(Data unavailable)


.0
•a
CD
05
3 f
e 22
0 0
|1
b_l CS
~ -a
•a c
*j CB
D ."^
rt ta
E s:

2 u

al environmental impacts
sed by introduction of
mative species are difficul
mate, since effects may ta
•emelv lone time to occur.
•K 3' — '.r: -C
P ta O to X
t-i o c 
o --.
J-l ^
.S 05

Q *^rt
'6 j
ll
J 5
1 1 :
Z .= ,




(Data unavailable)
05
u .
o
&•
5J
C
5
o
5
"o
3
3
•S









.S
.
<1> o

o =5,
•O w
C 'oi
ts a
uantity of oil
izardous was
.S. waters
CX.C D




(Data unavailable)

05
'c
c
s ^ •
azardous mat
iring transpoi
K -3



national indicators of anil
ies from vessel collisions :
liable, but studies have be
ducted for individual soec
0 o > c











^ '
ta unavailabl
9-
_>•
•a

S-3-
• Numbers of certain
endangered species
collisions with vessi




05
5
a
3
^





ll
•n Ci
• Quantity of garbage
generated by the inarit
sector (amount disposi
sea is unknown)








to
3
'3 . i
5
3
S
'03
05
-2 c
0 -—
tu .*_•
a, c
05 O 05
• Numbers of certain
" killed by entanglem
plastic marine debri
05
C3

•a
°o
05
oo
c
E. -
verboard dun
O





is
p
• Percentage of commer
vessels with on-board
sanitation devices








'e?
ta unavailabl
CS
1s
•5 3
> T3
•*- "O
.05 J,
• Percentage of shellf
reported contaminat
sewage dumping




y •
wage dumpii
si-i
oo























ance and Support
f
•S
>|s
3
J
Maritime
. ^





^

• Number of marine rep
establishments


t-1


g

1 "S

uantity ofha:
lllutants emil
a a




(Data unavailable)


oo
c
1
1 c
_3 0
sleases of pol
rminal operat
& 2























sels and Parts
£•

$
:*
1
1
.S
•^


o
:t scrappage estimates are
vailable, but changes in fl
may provide some
rmation.
1 S 8-2
w 3 5 .S


(Data unavailable)








'a?
3
—
1
1




(Data unavailable)


•a
05
5
3
•a 05 '
° S
11
S 03
|1
w=5

-------
                                                                      Executive Summary
NEXT STEPS

There are several logical next steps in the effort to develop and utilize indicators of the
environmental impacts of transportation.  This study has taken initial steps in presenting a
framework for the design of ideal indicators and a comprehensive list of impacts. It has also
provided quantitative data on various impacts. There are still, however, considerable gaps in the
data and analyses needed to fully describe indicators in this area. Next steps include the
following:

4   Collect raw data or local data where needed

        There are several areas in which local or state data exist but have never been aggregated
        at the national level. There are other areas in which raw data would have to be collected
        for development of indicators. Examples include the following:

        4  Wetlands impacts
        4  Habitat fragmentation and disruption from all modes
        4  Hazardous materials entering the environment
        4  Maritime terminal operation releases
        4  Emissions during construction and maintenance of infrastructure
        4  Leaking underground storage tank (LUST) releases attributable to transportation
        4  Scrappage of aircraft, marine vessels, and rail cars/locomotives

4   Develop new estimates of certain impacts

        National estimates of certain impacts have not been developed to date.  In some cases,
        such estimates could be developed without the collection of additional  raw data. Existing
        or new models could be applied to develop new national estimates of certain
        environmental impacts. In particular, new estimates of the following impacts are needed:

        4  Emissions from road construction and paving
        4  Impacts of and quantities of emissions from aircraft at high altitudes
        4  Deicing runoff impacts on water quality
        4  Quantities released from spills and leaks at airports
        4  Other runoff impacts on water quality
        4  Motor vehicle scrappage (tons disposed of, by material)
        4  Noise exposure (updated estimates)
        4  Roadkill (some data collection may be needed)

        At least two types of estimates should be developed:

        4  Measures of emissions, loadings, or ambient levels, and
        4  Actual health or welfare risks
xvm

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
    Describe effectiveness of mitigation options

        Various mitigation options, such as noise barriers, runoff detention ponds, and wetlands
        mitigation efforts, for example,.have been studied to some extent. It would be useful to
        track the effectiveness of such efforts and the extent of their utilization in cases where
        more direct, accurate estimates of actual results are difficult to obtain.

    Consider impacts not listed here

        Environmental damage may be caused by several transportation-related activities not
        included in this study:

        *  Gas stations, including auto repair and maintenance
        *  Parking facilities (lots and garages)
        4  Related land-use development patterns                  '
        *  Petroleum industry (transportation's share of these upstream impacts)
        *  Steel industry (transportation's share of these upstream impacts)
        *  Chemical industry (transportation's share of these upstream impacts)

    Set up ongoing, consistent use of indicators

       Implementing the findings and recommendations in this study will require an organized,
       broad initiative to begin using a consistent set of indicators. This effort  should take into
       account the various state, federal, and private efforts to track the environmental impacts
       of transportation and use those data in the policy process.

   Regularly update outdated, one-time estimates

       Several of the indicators in this report have been quantified only once, or only
       sporadically in surveys or one-time modeling exercises. These estimates should be
       updated regularly. Examples of such outdated or one-time estimates that require updating
       include the following:

       *  Noise exposure (especially for road travel)
       *  Air toxic emissions during travel
       4-  Runoff (typical concentrations of pollutants in runoff)
       *  Use of airport deicing agents                                              '

   Conduct policy analysis

      Now that this study has compiled data on environmental impacts, and as improved
      indicators are developed, they should be used to improve national policy understanding.
      This could entail several types of relatively modest studies, which could provide policy-
      relevant results.

      f  Compare across modes, across media, across impacts
      *  Compare with other environmental issues
     • *  Consider costs of policies
                                                                                     xix

-------
                                                                       Executive Summary
    Provide state and local tools

        Ideally, further work would determine which impacts vary directly with VMT and which
        vary based on various other parameters. This work would essentially consist of
        developing true models to predict the magnitudes of various impacts, based on inputs
        such as VMT, temperature, or other causal factors such as those listed in the report.
        Some such models exist, such as the highway runoff predictive model, or noise models,
        but they do not exist for very many of these impacts. Also, the models typically require
        numerous site-specific inputs that are costly to collect. New models could be developed,
        perhaps for screening purposes.
xx

-------
                                                                                 Study Approach
                                I.   STUDY APPROACH
 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

 In early 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated a study to develop environmental
 indicators for the transportation sector. The purpose of this report is the following:

 1.  Develop a logical framework for thinking about indicators
 2.  Identify and categorize the full range of environmental impacts of transportation
 3.  Develop-indicators of these impacts                                   ,
 4.  Quantify the impacts at the national level, using the indicators
 •5.  Assess data gaps and recommend next steps

 This report presents the most comprehensive compilation of environmental and transportation data to •
 date. The term "indicators" is used throughout this report to refer to quantitative estimates of the
 magnitude or severity of environmental impacts of transportation. These indicators may be based on
 either measurements or modeling, and may refer to .either historical or projected estimates.

 This report addresses all four primary modes of transportation:

     *   Highway1
     +   Rail
     *   Aviation
     *   Maritime2.  '                                        •

 In addition, this report addresses all environmental media—air, water, and land resources. It covers
 the full "life-cycle" of transportation, from construction of infrastructure and manufacture of vehicles
 to disposal of vehicles and parts.

 In addition to presenting quantitative data, this report presents a valuable framework for developing
 various types of indicators and categorizing transportation activities affecting the environment. It also
 identifies existing data gaps. The report concludes with a description of next steps in the effort to
 develop and utilize indicators of the environmental impacts of transportation.


 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT

 The  report is organized in the following sections:

   I. STUDY APPROACH
        This section describes the study's goals and policy context. It also describes
        the study's scope and limitations.
1 In this report, the term "highway" is used to refer to mobile sources of travel on all roads, not only those in the
National Highway System..
2 In this report, the term "maritime" is used to refer to all mobile sources of travel on water, including ocean-
going vessels, inland barges, and recreational boats.

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
    H.  WHAT INDICATORS CAN AND CANNOT PROVIDE
       This section clarifies the purpose of developing environmental indicators of
       transportation's environmental impacts by describing how such indicators can
       and should be used. We emphasize, however, that there are certain types of
       analysis for which indicators are insufficient and should be used only with
       caution.

    ID. SELECTING APPROPRIATE INDICATORS
       Many of the "indicators" commonly cited to gauge environmental impacts
       have significant limitations. This  section discusses those shortcomings. We
       then present a framework for thinking about what types of indicators would
       be most appropriate. Ideal indicators are contrasted with available ones, and
       general data gaps are identified.

    IV. CATEGORIZING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF TRANSPORTATION
       Transportation affects the environment in numerous ways. In this section, we
       present a scheme for categorizing the full range of activities making up the
       "transportation sector" and list the impacts resulting from each.

    V.  THE INDICATORS
       In this section, we present the numbers. For each environmental impact,
       indicators are listed, with quantitative estimates. We also describe each
       impact briefly, and list the mam causal factors and location-specific variables
       that determine the magnitude of the impact in a given location or in a specific
       year. This section covers highway, rail, aviation, and maritime indicators.

    VI. NEXT STEPS
       This section addresses the gaps in the current list of indicators. The need to
       collect data and develop estimates of certain impacts. The usefulness of
       setting up ongoing, consistent use of indicators is also discussed, along with
       the types of policy studies that could be conducted using these indicators.

    BIBLIOGRAPHY
       Selected references are included.

    APPENDIX A. INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRAVEL MEASURES
       This appendix provides a discussion of how indicators of infrastructure and
       travel activities are relevant to environmental indicators. Quantitative data are
       provided.

   APPENDIX B. ADDITIONAL STATISTICS ON IMPACTS
       This study uncovered a wide range of statistics that were not always ideal as
       indicators, but relevant and useful in providing additional perspective on
       various environmental impacts. Some of these statistics are provided in this
       section.

-------
                                                                                  Study Approach
 PRIOR AND RELATED EFFORTS
 We view this study as part of a broad effort among decision makers, scientists, and the public to better
 understand and take into account environmental results. It may be helpful, therefore, to place this
 report in the context of the various prior and related efforts at developing environmental indicators or
 assessing the impacts of transportation.

 Performance measurement has gained renewed attention across the public and private sectors in
 recent years. Several high profile reports, including the National Performance Review and
 Reinventing Government,3 have stressed measuring the value of public programs in terms of the
 extent to which they are attaining goals. These reports and related initiatives have spurred further
 development and reporting of indicators. New requirements have also increased the attention given to
 indicators. OMB Circular A-l 1 requires that performance indicators be included in budget documents,
 and ISTEA mandates development and use of performance indicators related to air quality and other
 factors for assessment of the effects of the surface transportation system.4

 It is clear that numerous types of indicators have been developed to track the effects of government
 prograrhs or the status of environmental quality generally. This study differs from most or all of those
 efforts because it attempts to discern the environmental impacts of a single "sector". Rather than
 measuring the effects of a.program or tracking environmental quality in general, we are attempting to
 isolate the effects of the set of activities and infrastructure that constitute the transportation sector.

 In this study, we have drawn upon an enormous range of prior literature, including the following
 notable efforts:

     +  The OECD and others, including some states, have discussed or presented indicators of the
         environmental impacts of transportation.5 These studies are useful because they demonstrate
         a pragmatic, local perspective or provide insightful discussions of conceptual issues in
         indicator design. Most of these reports, however, address a limited range of impacts (e.g.,
         only ah" pollution) or offer simple activity-based measures (e.g., tonne-kilometers of
         hazardous waste transported).

     4  Performance measures for the National Transportation System are being developed by the
         U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and a recent report mentioned some
         environmental measures. The 34-page draft report, however, devoted merely 2 pages to
         environmental indicators, addressed a limited range of impacts and modes, and provided no
         actual numbers.6 The DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) has recently been
         working on environmental statistics.
3 See National Performance Review 1993. Also see Status Reports under the same name. Also, see Osborne,
David, and Ted Gaebler, Reinventing Government: How Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public     '
Sector. Addison-Wesley: 1992.
4 Section 6001(b)(3), in Title VI (Research) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
5 For example, see OECD, 1993; SRI International, 1993 for state efforts; and IndEco Strategic Consulting, Inc.,
1995 for Canadian indicator development.
6 Indicators are suggested in Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1995b. A companion working paper, Cambridge
Systematics 1995a, classifies environmental measures as "secondary" concerns that should be given less weight
than the "primary" issues of economic and social impacts. This contradicts the Federal Highway Administration's
Environmental Policy Statement (1994) which states, "Social, economic, and environmental issues must be
considered equally...in reaching project decisions."

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
     *   The literature on the economic-costs of transportation contains a significant amount of
         information on certain impacts, particularly air pollution's effects. Apogee Research's 1994
         study, The Costs of Transportation, for example, reviews quantitative estimates of air
         pollution costs. These studies, however, generally address a limited range of environmental
         impacts and in less depth. Estimates given in dollar terms entail additional uncertainty and
         sometimes controversy compared with non-economic measures of these effects.

     4   Several detailed reviews of transportation's environmental impacts are available, providing
         thorough explanations of these impacts.  We have chosen not to duplicate those discussions
         in this report. We have, however, drawn upon those reviews. For example, three books,
         Highway Pollution, The Environmental Impact of Railways, and Ecological Risks of
         Highways, provide useful discussions but few numbers.7

     4   Many studies are available which report on transportation's impacts for individual projects,
         including Environmental Impact Statements and Reviews (EISs and EIRs),8 as well as
         academic papers. These provide a useful perspective on how impacts are determined by
         various location-specific parameters.

     *   Some reports generalize results to the national level but typically address only one impact
         (e.g., a review of highway runoff predictive models). These are useful for a more complete
         understanding of certain impacts.

In addition to these highly relevant studies, we also drew on other literature that covered
environmental indicators more broadly. S,ome of these provide useful discussions of how indicators
should be designed and point to available data sources. An important limitation to these, it should be
noted, is that they do not isolate the environmental changes that result from a particular set of
activities, such as travel. Some examples of such efforts include the following:

     4   Apogee Research recently prepared a 7995 Indicators Report for EPA, a compilation of
         readily available environmental indicators organized according to environmental goals, such
         as clean water. The report includes graphics and statistical information on dozens of aspects
         of environmental quality.

     *   EPA's Compendium of Selected National Environmental Statistics and Guide to Selected
         National Environmental Statistics in the Federal Government are examples of recent efforts
         to disseminate data on several environmental media.9

     *   EPA is engaged in ongoing efforts to develop  improved indicators of environmental quality,
         focused on results.10 EPA also has a Center for Environmental Statistics in the Office of
         Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. EPA is furthermore leading the long-term Environmental
7 Hamilton and Harrison, 1991; Carpenter, 1994; and Atkinson and Cairns in Cairns et al., 1992; respectively.
8 For example, see FAA, 1990; U.S. DOT/FHWA and MD DOT, 1995; or U.S. DOT/FRA, 1994a.
9 EPA databases are available on-line through the EPA web page at "www.epa.gov"
10 For example, see EPA's 1995 report Prospective Indicators for State Use in Performance Partnership
Agreements. Specific offices have initiatives as well: EPA's Office of Water created an Indicators Workgroup.
Also see EPA's annual Accompanying Report of the National Performance Review, in which EPA cited the
commitment to developing measurable environmental goals.

-------
                                                                                 Study Approach
         Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). EPA's 1994 Strategic Plan articulates goals
         for the agency and a 1995 report addresses EPA's information resources management.11

      *  The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has published widely read reports on the state
         of the environment for many years.12 In 1991 CEQ convened an Interagency Committee on
         Environmental Trends. The Worldwatch Institute issues State of the World reports annually,
         with a global focus.13 The United Nations and European Union also have major initiatives to
       ;  collect and disseminate environmental data.14

      4  EPA's National Water Quality Inventory reports to Congress15 summarize data from the
         states (required by the Clean Water Act Section 305(b)), covering topics such as the
         percentage of assessed river-miles meeting certain standards and the share of impairment
         attributable to certain broad types of causes (e.g., urban runoff). The Intergovernmental Task
         Force on Monitoring Water Quality has issued reports on more detailed measures of
         conditions.  Federal Status and Trends Programs are coordinated among numerous agencies
         and seek a nationwide strategy for monitoring environmental quality.

 This study has drawn upon and taken into consideration all of these prior and ongoing efforts related
 to indicators and environmental impacts, but it has also attempted to build upon those efforts and go
 beyond them.

 SCOPE OFSTUDY

 MULTIMODAL AND MULTIMEDIA
 This study is unique in its attempt to quantify the full range of environmental impacts that result from
 transportation. Two features of the study are important. It is both multimodal and multimedia:

 4  MULTIMODAL- ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION17

     *  Highway
     «•  Rail      ,
     >  Aviation                                      •            "            •         .
     *  Maritime
11 U.S. EPA, 1995h.
  Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality.
13 World watch Institute, 1994.
  The U.N. has developed a core set of environmental indicators for sustainable development and has asked
member countries to gather data in these common formats. The European Environment Agency, based in
Denmark, issued a 600-page study called the Dobris Assessment, Europe's Environment, covering global and
European data.
1? U.S. EPA, 19.94b.
^Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality, September 1994.
  Transport by pipeline is sometimes included in such listings but is outside the .scope Of mis study. Pipeline does
carry a significant amount of material, however, and could be considered for analysis in a separate effort.

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 4  MULTIMEDIA- ALL ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA18   '

     4  Air
     *  Water
     4  Waste (solid/hazardous)
     *  Habitat


 WHICH TYPES OF IMPACTS WERE EXCLUDED
Addressing all modes and all media already implies a vast scope. For this reason, we have chosen to
limit the scope somewhat to emphasize the direct, short-run impacts of operating vehicles and the
infrastructure that most directly supports them (e.g., highways, train tracks, airports, and ports). We
have de-emphasized or excluded the indirect, upstream, downstream, and historical impacts. These
emphases are summarized below with some examples of each type of impact.

                                   IMPACTS EMPHASIZED

     4  Direct impacts of travel and its key infrastructure (e.g., hazardous materials incidents
        during transport, runoff of deicing compounds)

     *  Short-run variable costs and certain ongoing costs (impacts that are related to the amount
        of travel or other activities, such as construction and maintenance, and can be tracked on an
        annual basis; e.g.,  air pollutant emissions from vehicle operation)

                        IMPACTS DE-EMPHASIZED OR EXCLUDED

     *  Impacts of other related infrastructure (e.g., auto repair shops, shipyards)

     *  Certain long-run costs, including some fixed costs (e.g., no analysis of the historical
        destruction of wetlands and forests to build existing highways or the environmental benefits
        that would accrue if land use reverted to historical uses)
     4  Upstream impacts (e.g., some examination of the manufacture of vehicles, but not the raw
        inputs into that process, such as the impacts of the steel or chemical industry; very limited
        consideration of gasoline/oil refining19)
     *  Downstream impacts (some consideration of the disposal of tires, waste oil, and vehicles,  ,
        but not a full analysis of all disposal impacts)
18 Habitat is listed as a separate category, despite the fact that it can be affected by air, water, or waste. "Habitat"
here refers more to physical disruption of habitat through road construction, than to pollution of habitat.
Likewise, waste can enter the air or water and affect habitat but is considered as its own category in this listing.
These distinctions are not essential since these "media" are not used in the report as a major categorization
scheme. Instead, we categorize impacts by activities that cause them, as discussed later.
19 A number of sources provide information on the upstream impacts of fuel extraction, transportation, refining
and distribution.  U.S. EPA, 1995c, includes data on toxic releases from the petroleum refining industry; Ross, et
al., 1995, provides information on upstream emissions of CO, HC, and NOX per mile for Model Years 1993,'
2000, and 2010 passenger cars; DeLuchi, 1991, provides data on upstream greenhouse gas emissions (CEU, N2O,
NMOC, CO, NOx, and COi), including emissions from materials manufacture and vehicle assembly, per mile.

-------
                                                                                 Study Approach
      4  Indirect impacts (e.g., no analysis of the effects of industrial or residential development that
         arises near new roads/airports, effects on a natural area such as a lake when a road is built
         close to it)         '

      4  Cultural, aesthetic, and some resource depletion issues (No analysis of these impacts. The
         focus here is on pollution and habitat disruption. Cultural and aesthetic (e.g., visual)20
         impacts are more "social" effects than environmental, as defined here. Nonrenewable
         resource depletion (i.e., the use of oil) is not included because it does not damage the
         environment per se. We view it as a self-regulating economic phenomenon, where increasing
         shortages in oil would drive up prices and encourage more efficient use or a shift to
         alternatives. Depletion of living resources, on the other hand, such as forests or wetlands, is
         considered here as an impact on habitats.)

 PRODUCTS OF THIS STUDY
 The study's scope is limited to providing the following products, which correspond to the goals set
 out earlier:

 1.  Framework for, indicators
 2.  Categories including all impacts
 3.  Indicators   '.
 4.  Quantitative data
 5.  List of data gaps

 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY
 In addition,to'the bounds discussed above, this study has the following limitations:

 4  NOT A PRIMER
        This study  does  not provide  a  full introduction to the nature of each
        environmental impact.  Primers are available  elsewhere  which thoroughly
        explain these impacts. For a complete explanation of how highways generate
        contaminated water  runoff,  for example,  those  other sources should be
        consulted.

 4  NATIONAL ONLY
        The study does-not provide indicators or tools that can simply be applied at
        the local level to assess  the environmental impacts of a single project or for a
        given urban area.  Instead,  national-level estimates are provided  of the total
        impacts of transportation.

The text does, of course, provide basic introductions to these impacts and references to studies that
can be used in local assessments.                                  .
  For information on visual impacts of highway projects, see DOT/FHWA, 1981.

-------

-------
                                                            What Indicators Can and Cannot Provid
            II.   WHAT INDICATORS  CAN  AND  CANNOT
 THE LIMITATIONS OF INDICATORS
 Given the current level of interest in the use of indicators and performance measures, there is some
 risk that the benefits of indicators could be overemphasized. While very useful, indicators are more a
 tool than an answer to all policy questions, and can be misapplied if their limitations are not
 understood.

 There are several important policy uses to which indicators cannot and should not be applied. They
 include the following:

                      WHAT INDICATORS CANNOT OR SHOULD NOT. DO

      4  Isolate effects of individual regulations
      *  Provide a full economic analysis
      4  Define acceptable levels of impact or rates of progress
      4  Set true priorities      .        /        '


 Each of these limitations is briefly explained below.


 INDICATORS CANNOT ISOLATE THE EFFECTS OF INDIVIDUAL REGULATIONS
 The indicators presented in this report describe the effects of all existing transportation infrastructure
 and activities and cannot isolate the effects that result from a single regulation or even set of
 regulations. In other words, the indicators are based on total costs rather than incremental or marginal
' costs of a particular requirement or activity.

 When presented with total costs, one may be tempted to divide them by a measure of activity such as
 vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) and assume that this average impact is equivalent to a marginal  impact.
 For example, if one chemical's total impact is  2 billion tons of pollution, the national average is about
 1 ton per 1,000 VMT. This does not mean, however, that a policy that reduces VMT by 1,000  would
 reduce, emissions by 1 ton. Speeds and many other local factors determine the effectiveness of any
 policy. In effect, the indicators represent the total environmental costs of transportation rather than the
 incremental or marginal costs of changes in level of activity or infrastructure. This issue is raised
 again in  the discussion of selecting appropriate indicators. Unfortunately, one cannot accurately
 assess the effects of policies using most types of indicators.


 INDICATORS CANNOT PROVIDE A FULL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Policy decisions must be based on a full range  of criteria, including the costs and benefits of various
options. Environmental indicators only describe an upper bound on the potential environmental
benefits of additional policy efforts. They exclude several important pieces of information:

     4   Costs of policies/Benefits of travel: The environmental damage from transportation may
         constitute a substantial cost to society and the environment, but the costs of solving the
         problem may be large as well. Transportation provides great benefits which-may be lost if

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
        policies restrict travel. Some statutes limit the extent to which costs can be considered in
        environmental protection decisions (e.g., ambient air quality standards are health-based, and
        the Delaney Clause in food and drug law requires protection of health at any cost). It is
        widely accepted, however, that costs are an important consideration in governmental
        decisions. Indicators provide no information on the cost of addressing an environmental
        impact.

     4-  Policy effectiveness: How much of the environmental impact could actually be alleviated
        through feasible policy measures? It is unlikely that the entire harm described by the
        indicator could be removed through a single policy.

     *  Other benefits of policies: There are often non-environmental benefits to certain policies.
        For example, promoting walking may create a more livable neighborhood. This is not
        captured in an environmental indicator of pollution.
INDICATORS CANNOT DEFINE ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF IMPACT OR RATES OF PROGRESS
Indicators that show "large" impacts may be interpreted as meaning that action must be taken to
address a certain environmental problem. This would not be a completely accurate interpretation, at
least according to the economist's view of the world. The neoclassical microeconomic argument
would be that some level of pollution is acceptable. If the marginal cost of reducing the pollution is
equal to the marginal cost of the pollution, then further reductions would cost more than they would
be worth. It is possible that society is unwilling to improve environmental quality further in cases
where it would be exceedingly costly to do so. Political factors, public opinion, and legal
requirements all make the reality more complex than this simple economic argument would suggest,
of course. The point is simply that an indicator that seems to show a "large" impact is not an ironclad
argument that something must be done.

Rates of progress are equally difficult to interpret. Would a 2 percent annual improvement in a certain
environmental Indicator represent rapid or unacceptably slow progress? Such an indicator is open to
some interpretation, and in some cases even 10 percent annual progress may be deemed insufficient.
Trends in indicators must be interpreted carefully.

INDICATORS CANNOT SET TRUE PRIORITIES
In some cases, indicators cannot be put into comparable units, such as dollars of impact or numbers of
people injured. In those cases, it is clearly very difficult to use the indicators to set priorities. Even
when seemingly common units  are used, such as tons released, the units may not be truly comparable,
since a ton of benzene causes more harm than a ton of NOX, and the harm may be greater if it is
released to a water supply near  a city than if it enters the air in a rural area.

Furthermore, even when indicators are in comparable units (such as numbers of people affected with
respiratory problems or dollars of damage) it may still be inappropriate to set regulatory or budgetary
priorities based solely on such indicators. This is because, again, the costs of policies are not being
considered. Just because runoff is a bigger problem than tire disposal, for example, it may be much
less expensive to solve the tire problem. Setting priorities based on cost-effectiveness rather than just
environmental costs will accomplish more environmental benefit for a given, fixed budget.

That being said, we know that society  often  sets some rough priorities based on the size of various
problems, without considering the costs of fixing those problems. It may be reasonable to use
10

-------
                                                           What Indicators Can and Cannot Provid
 indicators as a first tier of priority-setting, in the allocation of budgetary resources, for example,
 where cost-effectiveness analysis would be impractical.


 HOW INDICATORS CAN BE USEFUL
 Given all of the caveats described above, one might be left with the impression that indicators are not
 useful. That is far from true. As long as they are used appropriately, indicators are a very powerful
 policy-making tool. Some of the uses of indicators are listed and then discussed below.

                           WHAT INDICATORS CAN BE USED FOR

      •»  Provide broad perspective
      4  Encourage a comprehensive look at all environmental impacts
      *  Track progress of policies as a whole                     '
      •»  Highlight remaining problems
      *  Help set priorities, particularly for research and among issues needing new or improved
         policies
     -*  Educate the public, media-focused offices, and others
      *  Feed into economic/policy analysis
 PROVIDE BROAD PERSPECTIVE
 Indicators can .provide a sense of the magnitude of transportation's environmental impacts relative to
 other issues. Transportation could be compared with other sources of environmental damage, for
 example, or these problems could be viewed relative to other large policy issues such as health,
 education, economic problems, and crime. Indicators are very useful in conveying the importance of
 an issue at the broad level. In this capacity, they can assist in resource allocation at the national level.


 ENCOURAGE A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK
 In the process of developing indicators, this,study has had to identify the full range 'of environmental
 impacts of transportation. Likewise, in the process of using indicators, policy makers and the public
 become aware of the whole gamut of ways transportation affects our environment. The awareness and
 education that results is one of the often overlooked benefits of using indicators.


 TRACK PROGRESS OF POLICIES AS A WHOLE
 Indicators allow us to track progress, to measure success: While the results of a particular policy
 initiative may not be discernible, the overall impacts of all of our activities, planned and unplanned,
 can be seen with the appropriate indicators. This provides feedback that allows society to make mid-
 course corrections and learn from past experience:


 HIGHLIGHT REMAINING PROBLEMS
In using indicators to take a comprehensive look at environmental impacts, we may stumble upon a
 "sleeper" issue:  a problem that has been overlooked or neglected. Indicators encourage a full review
                                                                                        11

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
of environmental issues and can highlight areas that have been ignored or have not been successfully
addressed.
HELP SET RESEARCH PRIORITIES
Indicators can also be useful in setting research priorities. The potential benefits of research are larger
when it is focused on the most significant environmental problems.

Reviewing the full range of impacts can be helpful in setting priorities. As discussed above, indicators
ideally would not be used as the sole method of priority setting, but they still can be valuable in this
role.
EDUCATE THE PUBLIC, MEDIA-FOCUSED OFFICES, AND OTHERS
Indicators are useful for educating the public about the range of issues, progress of policies, and
remaining challenges. They can provide a relatively simple overview of an issue such as
transportation's environmental effects.

They are also useful in governmental offices traditionally organized by environmental media, such as
air or water. For example, for a water-focused office, indicators could summarize the water quality
implications of a particular sector, such as transportation.


FEED INTO ECONOMIC/POLICY ANALYSIS
Indicators are an excellent starting point for policy analysis because they compile key quantitative
data on environmental impacts.

Now that we have taken account of the ways in which indicators should and should not be used, we
can consider how the most appropriate indicators can be selected. The next section examines the
question of how to design indicators.
12

-------
                                                                 Selecting Appropriate Indicators
                      SELECTING  APPROPRIATE INDICATORS
 In this section, we examine the limitations of commonly cited indicators and then consider what an
 ideal indicator would look like. We do so by presenting a framework that demonstrates how indicators
 may focus on different stages of the link between transportation and the environment. Finally, this
 section highlights data gaps that make use of ideal indicators unavailable at present, pointing to areas
 in which research would be most beneficial.

 COMMONLY CITED "INDICATORS" HAVE LIMITATIONS
 Many of the measures often presented as indicators of transportation's environmental impacts are
 flawed. Some examples of these measures and their limitations are listed in the table below.

                 LIMITATIONS OF COMMONLY CITED "INDICATORS"
           MEASURE
 VMT
 MPG

 Emissions per vehicle-mile
Emissions per PMT or per ton-
mile

Modal split

Acres of wetlands lost
Only a partial determinant of impacts. Increased VMT will
not increase emissions if technology improves, for example.

Only a partial determinant of impacts.

This is not a constant for all locations and all years. An
average national impact for one year cannot be applied to
other years or locations. Also, incorrectly implies that
benefits per VMT are constant.

Same as above. Incorrectly implies that benefits per PMT or
ton-mile are equivalent for different modes.

Only a partial determinant of impacts.

Does not consider the severity of the loss; assumes any acre
lost has equal value. May not consider mitigation efforts,
Perhaps the most important limitation to these measures is that they do not directly address the actual
impact, perhaps with'the exception of the wetland measure. They only measure activities that play
some role in leading to the impact. The need for results-oriented measures is discussed in the section
on ideal indicators.                                    '                        :  •

The limitations of such measures can be briefly summarized as follows, and are discussed in some
more detail elsewhere in the report:

                LIMITATIONS OF VMT AND OTHER COMMON MEASURES

     *   Results are more important to track than activities.
     *   Impacts per VMT or other activity measure vary a great deal by location.
     +   Impacts per VMT~or other activity measure vary over time.
     «•   Average impacts are not useful when one should be measuring marginal impacts (the-effects
        of incremental increases in travel are marginal impacts; there may be thresholds or other
                                                                                       13

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
         circumstances so that the impact associated with additional VMT differs from the average
         impact per VMT).
         The benefits per passenger-mile traveled (PMT) or per ton-mile are not equal for all modes
         and locations.
 While very limited as indicators, these types of measures do play some very important roles:

                     USES OF VMT AND OTHER COMMON MEASURES

     4-  They are critical data in models that predict environmental impacts. Local and national
        analyses depend on these component data to model possible future impacts.

     *  They convey the magnitude and pervasiveness of the transportation system.

     *  They allow simple, rapid, cross-modal comparisons.

     *  They help explain historical and ongoing impacts, allowing policy makers to focus efforts on
        these causal factors. For example, it may be helpful to observe that the fraction of commuters
        driving to work alone ranges from just, 46 percent in New York State to 73 percent in
        Michigan.21 In several cities, one third to one half of workers use public transportation,
        compared with under one tenth in most cities and one twentieth nationwide.22 Such
        comparisons may spur certain locations to reexamine their policies or infrastructure.

 Some of these activity measures are discussed in Appendix A, which deals with infrastructure and
 travel measures, as they relate to environmental quality.

 One other type of indicator commonly cited deserves particular mention here. That is the group of
 indicators measuring mitigation or control efforts. These are often programmatic measures that track
 the dollars spent on mitigating environmental impacts or measure results such as the number of miles
 of noise barrier installed, for example. Some of these measures  go even further, to assess the
 effectiveness of those mitigation or control efforts, citing statistics such as "current controls have .
 reduced emissions per mile by 90 percent" or "these mitigation  efforts are effective in 85 percent of
 the cases." This report does not focus on mitigation or control efforts; instead, it looks at the net
 impacts that result after such efforts have been attempted. This is not to say that such measures would
 be useless. Measures of mitigation and control can be useful for the following purposes:

                    USES OF MITIGATION AND CONTROL INDICATORS

     *  To determine how well mitigation and control efforts are working
     *  To identify those practices or technologies that are  most effective
     4-  To identify where such methods are not being implemented, to determine the need for
        technology transfer, education, or incentives.
21 See World Resources Institute 1992. That report ranks cities based on usage of transit, walking, and
carpooling; time spent commuting; and share of population with commutes longer than 45 minutes.
^APTA, 1995.
14

-------
                                                                 Selecting Appropriate Indicators
 While development of mitigation and control indicators would be useful for these purposes, they are
 not well suited for the goal of this study, which is to track the environmental impacts of
 transportation.

 Part of the reason that so many inappropriate measures are used as indicators of environmental
 impacts is that a consistent framework is not being used to understand the process and design
 appropriate indicators. Such a framework is presented below.


 FRAMEWORK:  HOW TO DESIGN INDICATORS
The figure on the following page presents a framework for the design and selection of environmental
indicators. It demonstrates how transportation activities (e.g., construction of infrastructure)
ultimately lead to impacts. It highlights the fact that indicators can be focused on any one of several
stages. Thus,- indicators could measure the root causes such as land use changes, or the activities
themselves (e.g., VMT), or the "outputs" of those activities (e.g., emissions), or finally, the actual
results, such as changes in public health. The figure also shows that unrelated activities, such as
industrial operations, also contribute to total emissions, making it difficult to isolate the impacts of
transportation if indicators are measuring ambient levels of pollution or public health, for example.

The framework shown here is very similar to a framework that has been used by EPA's Office of
Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, and the general approach has been found to be useful in a variety of
efforts. Variations of this framework have been used by-the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, for example,
and cited by the U.S. General Accounting Office in its EPA Management Review of  1988, in a chapter
entitled "Environmental Measures and Links  to Program Activities Are Needed to Assess Program
Effectiveness" (GAO 1988). Because it has been found useful in past efforts, we have adapted the
framework to use in designing transportation  environmental indicators.                  "
                                                                                        15

-------







CO
UJ
E
>
F
o
o
F
<

cc
OFTRANSPO
1
Ul
u.
LL
UJ
O
Z
0
z
Ul

A
,— .
Ul
oc
3
CO
o
&
u


•^


C3 I
11 1
10 1
"
;


*
/ __ —
^»|
j— _
11




u
FRASTRUCTUR
z

'


Jjj/r
^ff
!-i-
fc CO 1
ul "* 1
m > 1
S"J I
1
f
00
J2§°S
CO g f£ O
ui £

^
A

z s i
< m 5 £ ^
°| si - ^Sfe
ll P- 1 111
ll II '""I"
o £ §
o > s
CO 1
J
to
Ul
cc
Q

Ul



- - .
- - - '
', : . .-••.-. •:'.'.' '•.•-"•
•••-.. , ".--'• -: ...: ',





to " ""•
: - . '-.I—'-1 - '
: 3 " •
'- :'-. -''" :!0'^i
: : :-.--.-
J •-•_'• ' • .
• .':
•

- • - '





**f ii & ^^
^J "T* ^^
5 ** <


A A






_•
i
t
L- rH
CO
11 o
n —
=5 S
i < > i
5 §

• . , ,
. ' ' ' ,


i- ui
O w
if





1 '- ':'. i -












: '.""-'
• I ;•

















-------
                                                                  Selecting Appropriate Indicators
 The stages shown in the framework are listed below, with some examples of what is included in each
 stage or what might be measured at each stage. These are not fully developed indicators in most cases,
 and are not the actual quantitative indicators reported in this study.  They are simply examples
 representative of the range of factors that could be measured. The relative merits of various types of
 indicators are discussed in the section, "What is an Ideal Indicator?" The actual indicators quantified
 in this study are presented in Section V.
 EXAMPLES OF INDICATORS TARGETING VARIOUS STAGES IN THE FULL TRANSPORTATION
 CYCLE
 ROOT CAUSE INDICATORS
 Root cause indicators provide information on underlying factors, such as land use, demographics,,and
 economics, that influence transportation activities. However, they are far removed from the actual
 environmental effects and so tend to be poor measures of environmental damage. While these
 measures do not provide a great deal of information for estimating the environmental consequences of
 transportation, they do help explain the reasons why certain impacts may be increasing or decreasing.
 As a result, tracking these root causes may have useful policy implications.  Examples include the
 following:

                   LAND USE (including demographics and geographic issues)

 Population growth rate
 Density (commercial, residential, or mixed; per square mile or zonal mile)
 Transit access
 Pedestrian environment factor (level of pedestrian accessibility)
 Bike friendliness (including climate, terrain, safety issues, etc.)

                                        ECONOMICS

 Costs of travel by various modes
 Income       -     -  '                               '                              ,
 Attitudes about environmental protection, transit, etc.
 Knowledge/level of information regarding transportation costs (internal and environmental) and travel
 alternatives


 ACTIVITY INDICATORS
 Activity indicators provide information on transportation actions, such as infrastructure construction
 and maintenance; travel; and vehicle manufacture, maintenance, and disposal. In addition,
transportation infrastructure and vehicle fleet characteristics are included as indicators because they
may change over time and have continuing impacts (e.g., habitat fragmentation continues due to
existing roadways).  Activities often have direct environmental consequences, and tend to be the most
consistently tracked indicators over time. However, the level of environmental damage associated
with a specific activity or jset of infrastructure varies by location and over time. Examples include the
following:
                                                                                         17

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
                 INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
Number of lane miles constructed annually
Percent of roads that are paved/unpaved
Number of transit stations
Quantity of deicing compounds applied
                           VEHICLE AND PARTS MANUFACTURE

Number of vehicles manufactured
Number of railcars purchased by transit agencies
Number of new aircraft delivered
Number of registered vehicles

                                         TRAVEL

Vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) (or VMT per capita)
Passenger-miles traveled (PMT) (or PMT per capita)
Number of trips
Average vehicle occupancy (AVO)
Modal split (percentage using transit, walking, driving alone, etc.)
Speeds (peak and off-peak)
Acceleration, stops, etc.
Congestion levels (e.g., share of travel in level of service "F', number of delay hours)
Gallons of fuel used (or average MPG for a given city or year)

                         VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT

Number of cleaning or refueling stations/terminals
Number of active petroleum underground storage tanks

                           DISPOSAL OF VEHICLES AND PARTS

Number of vehicles scrapped
Number of used tires landfilled
Percent of mass landfilled or recycled
OUTPUT INDICATORS
Output indicators provide information on land take, emissions, ambient concentrations, or exposure.
They provide quantitative information about the actual environmental change that results from
transportation activities.

Ambient concentrations can be directly measured. However, they are by definition a local measure
(i.e., ambient ah" quality for a metropolitan area, water quality for a body of water), and thus, national
measures related to ambient concentrations generally do not provide a significant amount of detailed
information (e.g., number of metro areas exceeding the NAAQS, number of states reporting poor
18

-------
                                                                    Selecting Appropriate Indicators
  water quality due to runoff). In addition, ambient concentrations alone do not explain what portion of
  the problem is attributable to a specific source (i.e., measuring ambient air quality does not directly
  provide information about the contribution of transportation).

  On the other hand, emissions can be estimated for a specific type of activity and tracked over time.
  However, emissions estimates are generally based on models, which .may be somewhat flawed and
  require improvement over time. Examples of each .of these indicators include the following:

                               HABITAT CHANGES/LAND TAKEN

  Acres of various types of land disrupted or divided by roads, by type of land, including changes in
  habitat fragmentation caused by transportation (e.g., number and size of parcels of forest or other
  ecosystem)    ..        -          .     •
  Acres of various types of land destroyed, accounting for mitigation/restoration (e.g., classified by
  summarized wetland functions and values)
  Number of threatened/endangered species in affected areas

                                         EMISSIONS23

 Tons emitted by mode, location, and chemical                     .
 Levels of noise pollution                     .
 Number of vehicles in use violating emissions standards

                                      AMBIENT LEVELS

 Parts per million of pollutant in ambient atmosphere, by location and chemical, for various averaging
 times                                                                                      °
 Number or percentage of areas in nonattainment of Federal air quality standards
 Stream miles not meeting designated uses  .

                                 EXPOSURE TO POLLUTANTS

 Number of, people living in nonattainment areas
 Estimated amount of exposure in ppm-hours or other units
 Population near .hazardous waste sites
 Population downstream of areas with water quality problems or drinking affected water


 OUTCOME INDICATORS
 Outcome indicators are measures of end results. They provide quantitative information pn health,
 environmental, and welfare effects resulting from transportation and are theoretically the most
 desirable type of indicator. Unfortunately, quantified data on outcomes are often unavailable or
 uncertain. Estimating end results generally requires using models (such as emissions dispersion
 models and dose-response functions) that may involve various assumptions and introduce uncertainty.
 Quantifying end results in dollar terms for purposes of comparison adds an additional step with

  Emissions is a term typically used for pollutants released to the atmosphere, while discharge is the term used
for pollutants released to bodies of water. To avoid repetition of both words, this report used the term emissions
to denote releases of any type of pollutant to air, water,  or land.             "   .
                                                                                           19

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
considerable uncertainty. As a result, many of the current outcome indicators are nonspecific (e.g.,
states reporting habitat loss).

                              EFFECTS OF HABITAT CHANGE

Changes in abundance of various species caused by transportation
Changes in species diversity caused by transportation
Other detailed measures of:
       Fishery impacts (e.g., number offish kills, changes in catch, and economic impacts on
       fishing, recreation)
       Forestry impacts
       Agricultural impacts
       Avian species impacts

                           EFFECTS OF POLLUTANT EMISSIONS

Expected (estimated) number of cases of a given health effect (e.g., cancer cases) attributable to
transportation emissions
Percentage of all cases thought to be caused by transportation
Risk level (i.e. probability that an individual will be affected)
Dollar costs of health or welfare impacts (e.g., dollars of textile damage from corrosive air pollution)
Person-days in exceedance of ambient standard (this is a measure of ambient levels but is also an
indicator of their effects)

The indicators listed above are representative of a very wide range of possible measures. The next
section discusses how one might go about selecting the most appropriate types of measures from
among these choices, taking into account both the traits of an ideal measure and the reality of existing
data gaps.


WHAT IS AN IDEAL INDICATOR?
Using the framework presented above, we can begin to consider the types of indicators that are most
appropriate. Data limitations and practical constraints currently require the use of indicators that are
less than ideal. It is important to consider, though, what an ideal indicator would look like so that
improved measures can be developed hi the long term.

We believe that ideal indicators  would have the following characteristics:

                        CHARACTERISTICS OF IDEAL INDICATORS

     4  Results-oriented
     *  Limited to only the share of harm attributable to transportation
     4  Detailed enough for the target audience
     •  Presented in comparable units (e.g., dollars)
     4-  Presented in meaningful units (e.g., compared with a standard or goal)
     4  Reasonable level of certainty
20

-------
                                                                  Selecting Appropriate Indicators
 Essentially, an indicator should accurately describe the actual damage caused by transportation in
 units allowing comparison between indicators and providing a clear sense of the importance of the
 impact Each of these issues is briefly explained below.

 RESULTS-ORIENTED
 Results-oriented indicators would focus on the last stages of the pro'cess shown in the framework,
 namely health, environmental quality, and welfare. The advantage of results-oriented measures is that
 they measure the factors with which people are really concerned. Unfortunately, actual measurements
 of these results are typically scarce. This necessitates modeling, making the indicators less certain.
                            RESULTS-ORIENTED INDICATORS

 PROS         Measure the problem itself; get incentives right
               Data often available for overall extent of problem

 CONS i       Data often unavailable to attribute share of damage to a single sector
               Data often uncertain, based on numerous modeling assumptions
               Do not explain causes of problem or solutions
 Another problem with pure results-oriented measures is that they provide no insight into possible
 solutions, or what the specific root causes are. Even if one knew how many cases of cancer are caused
 by automobiles, one would still need to understand more about why so many people are exposed to
 these pollutants, why emissions are so high per mile, how much travel occurs and why, and so on. To
 better understand root causes and possible solutions, policy makers often measure activities such as
 miles traveled, average vehicle occupancy, or miles per gallon. The disadvantage to measuring root
 causes or travel activities is that they are not equivalent to the problem one is trying to solve. Using
 indicators of VMT, for example, does not set the perfect incentives. Tracking VMT suggests the goal
 is to reduce VMT, but the real goal is to reduce health or other problems. Thus, VMT could remain
 constant, but a shift to more polluting vehicles would still pose a threat.

 Perhaps a larger challenge, though, in developing results-oriented measures, is limiting the indicator
 to transportation's share of the impact, as explained below.

 LIMITED TO ONLY THE SHARE OF HARM ATTRIBUTABLE TO TRANSPORTATION
Data are often available for at least overall health indicators, such as the number of Americans dying
from respiratory diseases in a given year. The'problem with such indicators is attributing some share
of these effects to a single set of activities, such as transportation. Ideally one would like to know the
number of deaths caused by air or water pollution from transportation. Even if one can measure
ambient air quality or the number of cases of respiratory disease, it is difficult to isolate the share of
these problems that stems from transportation (see the following figure). Industrial and other sources
contribute emissions and it is often impossible to measure transportation's impacts separately. The
exceptions would be in cases where transportation emits a unique pollutant (e.g., perhaps road salt or
car batteries) or entails an activity that could be observed and counted directly, such as the acreage of
wetlands filled by highway projects.
                                                                                          21

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
If transportation's share of impacts cannot be directly measured, it must be modeled. Modeling
results-oriented measures introduces some uncertainty and sometimes requires data that are
unavailable or impractical to obtain.' For example, it is difficult to accurately estimate the amount of
pollution entering lakes that results from automobiles.24                                  '  .

Because of these data limitations, results-oriented measures focused on only transportation's share of
the problem are currently very difficult to develop. This report therefore presents many indicators
focused on emissions, an earlier stage in the process shown in the framework above.

   The variety of sources of air pollution mean that it is difficult to determine
   transportation's share of impacts by measuring ambient pollution levels alone.
                                      Ambient Levels of
                                           Pollution
                 Mobile Sources
Stationary and Other Sources
DETAILED ENOUGH FOR THE TARGET AUDIENCE
The design of indicators must take into account the audience. Indicators that are ideal for regional
officials implementing highway programs may not be useful to Congress in considering new
legislation. The appropriate level of detail depends on the consumers of the information. We have
chosen to attempt a balance between excessive detail (e.g., numerous measures of flora and fauna
impacts) and insufficient detail (e.g., total dollar cost of all environmental impacts, VMT growth rate,
or total tons emitted for all air pollutants added together).

PRESENTED IN COMPARABLE UNITS (E.G., DOLLARS)
Ideal indicators would be expressed in comparable units, to allow comparisons among impacts,
modes, and media. Dollars are one common unit that has been used to assess some environmental
impacts, but there is considerable uncertainty and sometimes controversy over using such units.
Estimates in common terms currently are not available for many of the impacts. This report does not
present indicators in common units.
34 Estimates of air deposition do exist, as discussed in the section presenting indicators.
22

-------
                                                                  Selecting Appropriate Indicators
 PRESENTED IN MEANINGFUL UNITS (E.G., COMPARED WITH A STANDARD OR GOAL)
 Meaningful units provide a sense of how important an impact is. Indicators expressed in terms of tons
 emitted or percentage improvement per year, for example, are limited because they do not convey a
 sense of how many tons is  "bad" or what rate of progress is "good." Comparison with a standard
 places the impact in context. The standard,could be a legal one or a goal set through the political
 process. Compliance rates or comparisons with health standards provide such a perspective.
 Unfortunately, there are not yet sufficient standards or related data to allow indicators that provide
 this full level of context for all environmental impacts of transportation. Developing such standards
 and data would make indicators even more useful.

 REASONABLE LEVEL OF CERTAINTY
• An ideal indicator would have a reasonable degree of certainty. Nearly all indicators at the national
 level—from root causes to  outcomes—have some unavoidable degree of uncertainty. Total national
 VMT is not directly measured but instead is estimated based on traffic counts from a sample of roads.
 Undertaking the additional  step of estimating emissions requires modeling assumptions, which further
 reduce certainty. Estimating end results (e.g., health effects, damage) again introduces a series of
 assumptions which deters from the certainty of the final indicator.  While outcome indicators measure
 what is most important to people, it is important to balance the goal of having results-oriented
 indicators with the goal of reasonable certainty.
 AVAILABLE INDICATORS
 As the preceding discussion makes evident, ideal indicators are a long-term goal but are rarely
 available. This report presents results-oriented measures, or outcome measures, where they are
 available. Most of the indicators presented here, however, are output measures, or measures of
 emissions and habitat change rather than actual results. They are presented as interim solutions, with
 the understanding that ideal'indicators should be developed.

              (
 DATA GAPS
 Ideal indicators are not yet available for most of the environmental impacts of transportation, largely
 as a result of data gaps. This section gives an overview of those gaps.

 LOCAL VERSUS NATIONAL DATA
 Particularly in national-level data, the necessary statistics are not available to describe many of the
 impacts associated with various modes of transportation. This is because most impacts are first
 measured or estimated locally, in environmental impact statements (EISs) or laboratory, studies, for
 example, and then converted to national estimates. National estimates may be compiled in a few
 different ways: 1) by directly observing, or counting, all of a given transportation impact (e.g.,
 counting every acre of wetland affected on a project-by-project basis) and then adding up the
 numbers; 2) by observing typical impacts,  ideally based on a representative sample, and multiplying
 by a scaling variable like VMT; 3) by forming a multivariate model, scaling up to a national estimate
using several variables rather than VMT alone; or 4) by observing the total impact (e.g., ambient air
 quality or human morbidity) and estimating the fraction attributable to transportation. Each of these
 approaches has been used for some estimates of transportation's impacts, and we present the most
reliable of the various figures available.

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
SUMMARY TABLES OF DATA GAPS ORGANIZED BY ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
The specific data gaps in national environmental indicators for transportation will become apparent in
the presentation of actual indicators, but the charts below provide an overview of the broad areas
where more information is needed. The summary table provides a synopsis of the general types of
environmental impacts that should be measured, and the next table provides a sketch of where data
gaps exist. It should be noted that where the table states "good indicators" are available, the term
"good" is used in a relative sense. Very few excellent indicators exist, since they would require
further research and development. As a result, the table simply identifies areas in which data are
generally better.

It is important to note that these tables, unlike the rest of the report, classify impacts by environmental
medium, such as air or water. This approach (organizing by media) is taken only in these tables, as a
convenient means to provide a brief summary and because much of the necessary scientific research is
medium-specific.

Following these tables on data gaps, the next section of this report introduces the primary
classification scheme actually used to categorize impacts and indicators of those impacts
24

-------
.
I
• •£
1 1
1 1

1 i
H ,

1 5
1
I
Land Resources
• , -
J
1
Wafer Resources





I-
.§
•§
•1
1
1
d
1

1 .
u
CO
"o
•C
"«
o -
o

O  '
Land taken for infrastructure.
Extraction of road building
materials. Abandoned rubble
from road works. Road vehicl
withdrawn from service. Wasi
oil, tires, batteries. '

™ -a
S rt
Surface and groundwater
pollution from runoff (lubrici
coolants, vehicle deposits, ro
salt). Modification of water
systems from road building.
Engine and evaporative
emissions of CO, HC, NOX, PM,
lead. Emissions of CO2 from
fossil fuel combustion. CFCs
released during vehicle
manufacture and disposal.
c«
CO
3
"°,
^•o '„'
& i i"
«S! c/r ^
Sf.S S
•^ 1 a
§ 1 a
as < 55




«5
S3
'3
s
13

' o
•a «
S 2"
Land taken for rights-of-way <
terminals. Dereliction of obso
facilities. Abandoned lines,
equipment, and stock.


P
Oil and grease. Creosote froi
track beds.
Engine and evaporative
emissions of CO, HC, NOX, PM.
Emissions of CO2 from fossil
fuel combustion. CFCs released
during vehicle manufacture and
disposal.
,
3>
c
VI
I •
£•
'§ £t
*i '" 'a ^
^ ^ t- ?>
111!




%
'o •
c
*c5

3

a 8
Land taken for infrastructure.
Dereliction of obsolete faciliti
Aircraft withdrawn from servi
Buffer zones for noise
abatement.

o so
oO C
Modification of water tables,
river courses, and field draim
in airport construction. Deici
chemicals and degreasers on
runways.
Engine and evaporative
emissions of CO, HC, NOX, PM.
Emissions of CO2 from- fossil
fuel combustion. CFCs released
during vehicle manufacture and
disposal. •







s
'111 .
"<3 O ON
^ < <

ca
03
4-1
03
O
CA
CO

0
•**
en
E

c
Land taken for'infrastructure.
Dereliction of obsolete port
facilities and canals. Vessels a
craft withdrawn from service.
Land disposal of dredged
material.

g .
.2 oo
Discharge of ballast wash, oil
spills. Modification of water
systems during port construct
and canal cutting and dredgin
Sanitation device discharge.
Engine and evaporative
emissions of CO, HC, NOX, PM.
Emissions of CO2 from fossil
fuel combustion. CFCs released
during vehicle manufacture and
disposal.



8 A
i "2 '
^1 § '
*7\ c/r
111
•is g Js
111'












OS
OS
Q
W
O
g
Q
•o
o
n.
a
-a
Cu
r-T
Os
Os
m
X
o
kH
3
0
OO











-------
       (/)!
      *•*

       ^
       CO
      I
.2-1


II
=  »
"c5  01
 S>  tol


   
   LU
   O)
   co
   o
   a.
   x
   UJ
   «•
   a>  en
   cu  co
   •=  *;
   i^  M
   —  .Q
   t=  co
   <  x:
   CO


   o

   CO
   co



   UI
   o
   <
o as
                           o


O




o








o







o











c
o
1 •'.
£
eu
to
&


O




o








o







o













m 15
15. 2
to g-
£ 5
*g -j3
j5 0


Q
0


JB
.^^
CO
_o
"o.
0.

.0 o
*S £Z
O "-3
Q. 0
CO C
£i "^
"*~* CO

O =—
—5
^S CO
co yo
-o 2
^ E
CO cO
CD 52
S CO
"O
O CD
-0 -Q
CD CO
1 1

65








-------
                                           Categorizing'the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
        IV.   CATEGORIZING THE  ENVIRONMENTAL
                                  TRANSPORTATION
 One of the potential benefits of environmental indicators is that they encourage a comprehensive view
 of impacts. A key part of this study was the development of a scheme to categorize the full range of
 environmental impacts of transportation. This section describes this scheme and summarizes the
 impacts we have considered. The section after this one lists the actual quantitative indicators of each
 impact.        ,                                                                             ,

 Many reports citing the impacts of transportation do not use a set of categories, often focusing on air
 pollution and noise to the exclusion of other impacts. Some include a few additional impacts, but not
 in any organized, comprehensive manner. A long list of impacts without a scheme for categorizing
 them logically can be confusing.                 •

 Some governmental agencies are traditionally organized by environmental medium. That is to say,
 there is an air office, a water office, a hazardous waste office, and so on. While this approach has
 some advantages, it is not well suited for an examination of a single industrial sector or group of
 related activities, such as transportation.

 We have chosen to classify the impacts of transportation according to five key types of activities
 rather than by media.-Focusing on  activities as the primary organizing principle makes the categories
 easy to understand and policy relevant. The key activities that are involved in transportation are listed
 below.                                        .
FIVE BASIC ACTIVITIES CAUSING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The five basic groups of transportation activities that cause environmental impacts are listed below.'
These are listed in a somewhat chronological order, following the life cycle, of transportation.

         BASIC TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES AFFECTING THE ENVIRONMENT

1.  Infrastructure construction, maintenance, and abandonment
2.  Vehicle and parts manufacture
3.  Vehicle travel                                       .
4.  Vehicle maintenance and support
5.  Disposal of used vehicles and parts                               •

As noted earlier, these groups cover a wider range than typically considered. This study and most data
sources emphasize the third group, vehicle travel, but we have included at least some information on
each of these steps in the full life cycle of transportation.
                                                                                        27

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 DETAILED LIST OF ACTIVITIES CAUSING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
 Each of the five basic types of transportation activities can be subdivided into several types of
 environmental impacts. For example, vehicle travel causes exhaust emissions, noise, and hazardous
 materials spills. Infrastructure development results in disrupted habitat as well as emissions during
 construction or maintenance. The environmental impacts are listed below, as subcategories of the five
 basic transportation activities.

 It should be noted that the lists below identify the impacts but are not the actual indicators that would
 be used to measure those impacts. The indicators of these impacts are shown in the section following
 this one.
2S

-------
                                            Categorizing the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
              HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES AND THEIR IMPACTS

 1. Road Construction and Maintenance .
      4  Habitat disruption and land take for road and right-of-way
      4  Emissions during construction and maintenance
      4  Releases of deicing compounds
      4  Highway runoff "

 2. Motor Vehicle and Parts, Manufacture                                  .               ,
      4  Toxic releases and other emissions

 3. Road Vehicle Travel
      4  Tailpipe and evaporative emissions   '
      *  Fugitive dust emissions from roads
      *  Emissions of refrigerant agents from vehicle air conditioners                        '
      4  Noise           .                                           -
      4  Hazardous materials incidents during transport
      *  Roadkill

 4. Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Support
      4  Releases during terminal'operations: tank truck cleaning, maintenance, repair, and refueling
      *  Releases during passenger vehicle  cleaning, maintenance, repair, and refueling
      4  Leaking underground storage tanks containing fuel

 5. Disposal of Motor Vehicles and Parts25
      4  Scrappage of vehicles
      4  Improper disposal of motor oil
      4  Tire disposal
      4  Lead-acid batteries  disposal
  The disposal of used motor oil and tires could have been classified as part of vehicle maintenance. It occurs
during maintenance, not only at final disposal of the vehicle and its parts. We have chosen to include it in this
category, however, for convenience and because waste disposal policy issues differ from those involved with
other impacts of vehicle maintenance.
                                                                                          29

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
                 RAIL TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES AND THEIR IMPACTS
                                                           /
 /. Railway Construction, Maintenance, and Abandonment
      4  Habitat disruption and land take
      4  Emissions during construction and maintenance

 2. Rail Car and Parts Manufacture
      4  Toxic releases

 3. Rail Travel26
      4  Exhaust emissions
      4  Noise
      4  Hazardous materials incidents during transport

 4. Rail Car Maintenance and Support
      4  Releases during terminal operations: car cleaning, maintenance, repair, and refueling
      4  Emissions from utilities powering rail27
                                                                 \
 5. Disposal of Rail Cars and Parts2*
      4  Rail car and parts disposal
26 Emissions of refrigerant agents could also be included here, but no data were identified to address this potential
impact.
17 Emissions from utilities powering rail could also be categorized as a part of rail travel but are listed here
because it is a stationary source legally and emissions do not occur at the point of travel.
28 Disposal of oil and other used parts could be included here, but no relevant data were identified.
30

-------
                                            Categorizing the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
              AVIATION TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES AND THEIR IMPACTS

 1. Airport Construction, Maintenance, or Expansion
      4  Habitat disruption and land take
      4  Emissions during construction and maintenance
      4  Releases of deicing compounds           •
      4  Airport runoff                               ,

 2. Aircraft and Parts Manufacture
      4  Toxic releases

 3. Aviation Travel
      4  High altitude emissions                                      -  •          •
      4  Low altitude/ground level emissions
      4  Noise impacts
      4  Hazardous materials incidents during transport

 4. Airport Operation
      4  Emissions from ground support equipment involved in aircraft loading, cleaning,
         maintenance, repair, and refueling

 5. Disposal of Aircraft and Parts29
      4  Airplane and parts disposal                                    .
29 The disposal of used motor oil and tires could have been classified as part of vehicle maintenance. It occurs
during maintenance, not only at final disposal of the vehicle and its parts. We have chosen to include it in this
category, however, for convenience and because waste disposal policy issues differ from those involved with s
other impacts of vehicle maintenance.
                                                                                           31

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
            MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES AND THEIR IMPACTS

 1. Construction and Maintenance of Navigation Improvements
     4  Direct deterioration of habitats and water quality from dredging or other navigation
        improvements
     *  Habitat disruption and contamination from disposal of dredged material
     *  Habitat disruption and land take for ports and marinas

 2. Manufacture of Maritime Vessels and Parts
     4  Toxic releases

 3. Maritime Vessel Travel
     4  Air pollutant emissions
     4  Habitat disruption caused by wakes   id anchors
     *  Introduction of non-native species
     •  Hazardous materials incidents during transport
     *  Wildlife collisions
     *  Overboard dumping of solid waste
     4  Sewage dumping

 4. Maritime Vessel Maintenance and Support
     4  Releases of pollutants during terminal operations

 5. Disposal of Maritime Vessels and Parts
     4  Scrappage of old vessels and dilapidated parts
32

-------
                                                                                 The Indicators
                                  V.   THE  INDICATORS
 This section of the report presents the actual indicators and uses them to quantify the various
 environmental impacts of transportation.  Separate subsections describe the following modes:
     4   Highway                                             •
     *   Rail                                                               '
     *   Aviation
     4   Maritime

As explained in the previous section, the primary categories used here are types of activities. The
discussion of each environmental impact includes the following information:
     *   Presentation of indicators
     *   Description of impact
     *   Causal factors

Three types of indicators are presented throughout this report:

     *  Outcome/Results Indicators
         Outcome indicators are measures of end results. They provide quantitative information on
        health, environmental, and welfare effects resulting from transportation, and are theoretically
        the most desirable type of indicator. Examples of good outcome indicators include the number
      •  of cases of headaches or other human health symptoms incurred, the number of animals killed,
        and the extent of wetlands or other specific habitats destroyed. Unfortunately, in many instances
        quantitative data are available for only crude outcome indicators, such as the number of states
        reporting wetland degradation or groundwater contamination. In other cases, large uncertainties
        exist regarding transportation's share of a given outcome. While this information is useful, it is
        not a sufficient indicator for most environmental  or policy analysis.

    *   Output Indicators
        Output indicators provide information on emissions, ambient concentrations, land take, or
        exposure. These indicators tend to be more reliable than many of the available outcome
        indicators. Examples of good output indicators include the area of new land taken, quantity of
        air pollutants emitted, and quantity of oil spilled.  While these data are recognized as fairly
        accurate, much of the information is based on models or reports of incidents which may not be
        comprehensive. In most cases, estimates of actual exposure, such as the number of people
        exposed to air pollution from motor vehicle manufacture or the amount of hazardous materials
        spilled that actually enters the environment, are not reported.

    *  Activity Indicators
        Activity indicators provide information on infrastructure, travel, and other .transportation-related
        activities, such as vehicle and parts manufacture, maintenance, and disposal. Examples of
       infrastructure data include the number of railroad terminals, road mileage, and number of
    '  underground petroleum storage tanks.  Examples of travel and other activity measures include
       the number of vehicles scrapped, quantity of deicing agents used, energy consumed, and
                                                                                         33

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
        vehicle-miles traveled. Although these measures provide only an indirect indication of
        environmental impact, in some cases they are the best indicators available.
34

-------
                                                                        The Indicators: Highway
                     HlSHWAY €NVfRONIS!iiNTAL  INDICATORS
This section presents the quantitative indicators available for tracking the nationwide environmental
impacts of highway (on-road motor vehicle) transportation. For each of the five basic categories of
activities affecting the environment, the various impacts are listed.
HOW EACH IMPACT IS PRESENTED IN THIS SECTION

Each environmental impact is covered in one or more pages of text and graphics, with the following
key subsections:

4  Presentation of indicators

       The key indicators  that  have been quantified  are presented.  Outcome
     - indicators are listed first since they provide information on end results and
       are theoretically the most desirable type of indicator.  Unfortunately, actual
       quantified data are often unavailable or of poor quality. In many instances,
       the only available data on outcomes are the numbers of states reporting a
       problem. This information is often incomplete (not all states may examine the
       problem), vague  (states  may  define the  problem  differently),  or only
       somewhat relevant (the contribution of transportation to the problem may be
       unknown). As a  result, output indicators—such  as  emissions, data—are
       presented. These statistics may be  an easier and more valid  measure for
       policy makers ,to examine and track over time. Activity indicators  (defined
       broadly to include infrastructure, travel, and other activities) are listed when
       they are the best available indicators or when outcome and output indicators
       are not adequate. In some cases, local examples are also provided.

       To avoid repetition within  the  report, basic  infrastructure ,and  travel
       indicators are  listed in Appendix  A for  each  mode of  transportation.
       Appendix B  contains additional relevant statistics on monetized values of
       health and other impacts; these outcome indicators are listed separately since
       there is generally more uncertainty regarding  these figures.

*  Description of impact

       The  nature  of the impact  is  briefly' defined and explained  here.  More
       complete descriptions of these impacts are available in reference works listed
       in the bibliography.
   Causal factors: Variables that change over time and between locations
                                                                                          35

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
        Policy makers find it very useful to understand the driving forces behind
        environmental impacts. Understanding the key causal factors, such as VMT or
        emissions rates in grams per mile, is critical to explaining observed trends in
        indicators. They also help in estimating how local impacts may differ from national
        averages. These causal variables, then, explain how the impacts differ over time and
        geographic location. Most importantly, they suggest potential policy levers.  Policies
        can be designed to focus on any of the key variables (e.g., grams emitted per mile)
        that determine the magnitude of an environmental impact.
The following table provides an overview of the available indicators for each impact. It is important to
note two points about what is included in this table: First, indicators are listed only where they have
been quantified at the national level; if an impact has not been quantified, no "potential" indicator is
listed here. For each specific activity and its impact, the table provides a summary of the availability
of quantitative data for indicators of outcomes, output, and activity.  Second, the table shows only the
best indicator for each impact rather than listing various alternative types of indicators for a given
impact. The exceptions are when multiple indicators are needed to address all aspects of an issue or
where some indicators are otherwise insufficient. Although outcome indicators are theoretically the
most desirable type of indicator, actual quantified outcome data are often unavailable or of poor
quality. As a result, output indicators—such as emissions levels—tend to be the most reliable and
valid measures available in most cases. Activity indicators are presented in this table when they are
the best available indicators or when outcome and output indicators are not adequate.
36

-------

-













(\NSPORTATION
tr
1—
«•«•
FORS QUANTIFIED: HIGHVW
S
o
2!
_1
<
O
§
•z.
II
o
>.
DC
^£
S
s

J
1 ..


t.
o
05 - ,
|| j

O E^ J
||j
*** CB Uf
^J3 B3 C
U CM "^
^So
o
QQ .^igi
J||
111
til
OSS


,a»
Outcome IiidiiiatofsJ
; Health or Eiioit)gicall:JRei/iii
1 ::]\leiasure ^-y ;iB K:> : : ?*•• '%• :-' :



>

f




>*
M
^
1



















ctintenance
^
"a
§
•I
•§
g
-*3
M
^
^S
•^
ta
&
Ǥ
CO
National estimates of
fragmentation and other impac
are not available. Some useful
state data are available.

di



•o
B' .
ra -a
 o
u 3
1 t
^S
O ^
JH °*J
^ o v
r <->
C c
3 0 -
•a e
CO 2
— • c
O * = " :
i C3
! 1
^ !_, , .
Deicing creates costs in terms c
installing corrosion protection
features during bridge -
construction and maintenance.
Data is available on the numbei
of roadside trees killed per yeai
due to salting typical road. '





a
"cs
CO
T3
1'
O
•S •
n
03
s
a

(Data unavailable)

CB 't 1
DO ^
• States reporting degraded
wetlands integrity due to
salinity
• States reporting road saltin
a significant source of groi
water contamination
)
V*
3
3
3
5
o
5
J
o>
"O

3
3
J r
CO .
2
3
r-
Road runoffs share of polluta]
loading to nearby water bodies
- has been estimated locally.

ei

ca •

ra
•8
03
£ ' •
•s
1
u o
53 «
a, o,
• •
•a ,^,
• Average pollutant
concentrations of various
metals, suspended solids, ar
toxic organics in road runof
• Quantity of oil and grease
loading via road runoff

c
c: en
KJ J3
• River miles, lakes, and oce
shore miles impaired by ur
runoff (not just highways)







HH
3
^
-
J ,

3)



















tanufacture
^
^
£
•§
cs
•3J
.a
**S1
^
>^^
s*.
^
»
^

Impacts of imported
products/components are not
included in statistics.












w •£ 0 .!=
• Quantity of reported release
of toxic chemicals included
TRI database
• Quantity of CO, NO2, PM-1
TP, SO2, VOC released to a



(Data unavailable)




3
i .
•o
^
n
i
C3
3 co
•3 c
~ S
o "«

-------
"o
Z


.
O

Y* UM1y ^
O ^ -
!5J
If J
S*"* 3 C
^2 C <
Jj.
&
*
§L

£

•S
•H


£
5
CO
C
O
CO
u
tk_
O
•S 0
c "3
§ SB
a.s

CO
[o
• Quantity of CFCs, MFCs
emitted from all sources
• Percentage of emissions
attributable to motor veh

(Data unavailable)
CO
1 S2
00 0
a t:
•" .2
2 ^
o. c
00 o
C 0
g .!=

'o ^
« .33
|1
E o
W *
Since noise dissipates from its
source, a national aggregate
noise emissions level is not
meaningful. Recent exposure
estimates are not available.














CO
T! >U
> °-
• Typical noise emissions 1
by vehicle type and road

• Percentage of population
exposed to levels of roadway
noise associated with health
and other effects (1980 only)











-------
g
C
i
, r
5*
a*
' • 0
g
o.
•g
c
o




•
'• 1
c
1
g

c
c
•2-




0
P3
fB
3
• S3
<
s.
s
' oT








• Quantity of lead-acid
batteries discarded into
municipal waste stream

Recovery/recycle rate for spent
batteries and their share of lead
and total tonnage in the solid
waste stream have also been
estimated.
c
a.
5
X
o
CO
B.








^
B
c
1
a

S3

ST




O
c

23
I

2
re"








• Quantity of used tires
landfllled. or stockpiled

Recovery/recycle rate for used
tires and their share of the solid
waste stream have also been
estimated.
c
c
c
O.
C
CO
££.








B
I
c
£
s

S3
C
-£•




D
g
E:
C


^
B.
03
a"
re*








• Quantity of used motor oil
improperly disposed of

Improperly disposed oil's share
of total motor oil disposed has
also been estimated.
oo
r
"C
c
c
r
gf







a
ET
£
o1

g;
o;
a




B
c


^
S.
ET
CT
<5"
^~*







• Number of vehicles scrapped
quantity of various materials
in vehicle, percentage of mas
landfllled
CO -
Percentage of all landfllled
material is known.
i'
I
.0
-s
s«
S'
^5"*


s
a.
s?
^



^




v




















m, c
- ||
3. a.
- 3 co
, TO J
c5 o
re ot
^^ c



TO S OJ
1-1
°" S i
5 OQ *O

^ N-* J2

S » oo
| S g
3 ® ^"
»* M 3
g R TO
§' 2, v.
•
• 1!
en CT
J?" ^*
O |-i
s a
cro *^
- 0 0
S" 3
3 **,

>» g
re
a.
'-t
».
S
re
CO
• Number of active petroleum
USTs

Some of the quantity released is
generally recovered or cleaned-
up, and is not a permanent
release to the environment.
Amount recovered is not
measured.
Releases dun:
cleaning, mai
refueling
3 73
O &
O %
re £
3 %
•a ->
S <
55' o
§ S.
a. re

B
ET
c

p;

ET
c





B
P3
3

^3
P3
cr
-S








• Percentage of transit agencie
that wash bus fleets daily
CO
'
Releases dun
operations: ta
maintenance,
133
re w* ff
•"g n ff
-"'§ =
C3 ?r =
3 0 3
0- re1^-
' re S
*?> 5
c =•
2-oS
5" " .
TO

p
p
; C
£
p

c

±
\ ~~~^



.
O
I


*
-------

-------
                                                                     The Indicators: Highway
                        1. ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE

 Because of the space and infrastructure required by some roads, particularly multi-lane freeways, the
 construction and maintenance of roads can have a significant impact on natural resources in and
 around the right of way. Common problems associated with infrastructure include habitat disruption,
 hydrologic alterations, and polluted runoff. In addition, road.construction activities may have
 temporary, but significant, environmental impacts caused by land take for depots and road hauls,
 drilling and excavation activities, disposal of excess material, discovery of hazardous material in the
 right-of-way, and use of construction machinery. Such impacts are discussed below, and further
' material on infrastructure is available in  Appendix A.

                                         Air Pollutant Emissions during
                                         Construction/maintenance
                                                                  Habitat Disruption
    Application of
    De-icing
    Compounds
Highway Runoff
affecting Water
Quality
HABITAT DISRUPTION AND LAND TAKE FOR ROAD AND RIGHT-OF-WAY

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
    4   Of the 27 states that listed wetlands losses in their 1992 305(b) reports, 14 states reported
        they had losses due to highway construction (U.S. EPA, 1994b). Other sources of loss
        included agriculture (21 states), commercial development (19 states), and residential
        development (16 states).
                                                                                      41

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
          States Reporting Loss of Wetlands
                    Due to Highways
States Reporting
 Wetlands Loss
                                                                     Highway as a
                                                                        Cause
                                                                          14
                                   Source: U.S. EPA, 1994b.

     *   Eight states reported that road construction was a source of degraded wetlands integrity, out
         of 14 states that describe wetland integrity impacts (U.S. EPA, 1994b). Most states do not
         quantify wetlands areas affected by pollutants and their sources.

QuwmsD OUTPUT INOKATORS
     *   Nationwide, roads take up approximately 10.93 million acres of land, or 17,080 square miles
         of land, not including road shoulders and medians (Apogee estimate).30 Of this total:
        4-  Rural roads and highways take up approximately 8.47 million acres of land or 13,240
           square miles of land. This area is larger than that of the state of Maryland.
        4  Urban roads and highways take up approximately 2.46 million acres of land or 3,840
           square miles of land. This area is larger than that of the state of Delaware.
     *   Nationwide, roads occupy less than 0.5 percent of U.S. land area (Apogee estimate)/
     4   Interstate highways occupy approximately 457 square miles of land, or less than 0.01
         percent of U.S. land area.32
     *   In 1993, roads (including local and unpaved roads),occupied an average of about 1.1 mile of
         road per square mile of land (however, the amount of roads per square mile in urban areas is
         significantly higher) (Apogee estimate).33
     4   In 1993, interstate highways occupied an average of about 23 yards (0.013 mile) of road per
         square mile of land in the U.S. (Apogee estimate).34
                           , 31
QtMOTJBeo ACTIVITY tecarons
     4  Between 1983 and 1993, there was a net increase of 25,083 road miles in the U.S., a 0.6
        percent increase in road-mileage during the 10-year period (FHWA, 1995e).
M Values calculated based on number of lane miles in 1993 times average width per type of road: Interstate
highways-12 ft., Rural other arterials-11.9 ft., urban other arterials-11.8 ft., rural collectors-11 ft, urban
collcctors-11.3 ft, local roads-11 ft. (U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1994c).
3117,080 square miles of land, as calculated above, divided by 3,536,278 square miles U.S. land area.
32 Values calculated based on number of lane-miles in 1993 times average width per interstate highways (12 ft).
(U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1994c).
33 3,904,721 miles of road (U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1994c) per 3,536,278 square miles U.S. land area.
34 45,530 miles of interstate highway (U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1994c) per 3,536,278 square miles U.S. land area.
42

-------
                                                                         The Indicators: Highway
          Between 1988 and 1993, there was a net increase of 41,605 lane miles in the U.S. on non-
          local roads (interstate, other arterials, and collectors), a 1.5 percent increase in lane-mileage
          during the 5-year period (Apogee estimate).35
          In 1993, roadway projects under construction consisted of 504 miles of new routes and 3,188
          miles of capacity additions (EHWA,  1994c).
          From 1989 to 1993, an average of 13,724 miles of roadway were under construction in each
          of the 5 years. System preservation represents the largest portion of roadway projects.
          Construction of new routes fell by 24 percent nationwide between 1989 and 1993. Growth
          rates in some regions, however, are much higher (FHWA,  1994c).
          From 1989 to 1993, an average of 529 miles of new routes and 2,933 miles of capacity
          additions were under construction annually (FHWA, 1994c).36
 OTHER QUANTIFIED DATA AND LOCAL EXAMPLES
      4  Some states track acreage of wetlands lost and gained as a result of highway construction,
         with the objective of realizing no net loss (e.g., Florida, Kentucky, New Jersey) (SRI
         International, 1993).
      *  Honda and Oregon track the number and type of endangered or threatened species impacted
         by highway construction and operation (SRI International, 1993).
      4-  . Four states (-13 percent of those responding) have conducted studies on biodiversity effects
         of highways: Louisiana, West Virginia, Virginia, and Pennsylvania (Herbstritt and Marble
        . 1996).                                                                            '
      4  Wisconsin reports that from 1982 to 1989, a total of 11,800  acres of wetlands were lost due
         to permitted discharges of dredged or fill material from state DOT highway projects, or
         almost 70 acres per year (U.S. EPA, 1994b).


 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
 Viewed in broad, relative terms, the habitat impacts of road construction have taken place over
 decades, and new impacts are now growing at an extremely low rate.  While a substantial amount of
 construction occurred in the past, road mileage is barely increasing nationwide. The habitat impacts of
 existing infrastructure, however, are ongoing in the sense that habitats remain fragmented as long as
 they are divided by roads. Furthermore, road construction in certain high-growth locations and near
 sensitive habitats can still have significant impacts.

 The total land area occupied by all existing roads is relatively small: all roads, paved and unpaved,
 occupy less than 0.5 percent of U.S. land area. This may be contrasted with forests, which cover
 roughly 31 percent of the country, and land used for crops and pasture, which also covers large
 percentages of the country (WRI, 1994).  Even wetlands still cover about 5 percent of the lower 48
 states '(Dahl and Johnson, 1991), and the 39 largest metropolitan areas cover about 5 percent of U.S.
 land. This makes clear that roads themselves, and even cities, do not occupy a very large amount of
 potential habitat in simple percentage terms. Their impact on habitat results more from indirect effects.
 on surrounding habitat and bodies of water than from actual displacement of acreage, as discussed
 below.  In addition, the physical land area estimates reported above underestimate the extent of total
35 Lane miles on non-local roads increased from 2,733,309 miles in 1988 to 2,774,914 miles in 1993 (U.S  DOT,
FHWA, 1994c and 1988 edition).
  Note that construction on a project may span more than one year.
                                                                                          43

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
habitat affected by highways since they exclude road shoulders and medians, and transport-related
areas, such as parking lots, garages, and gas stations.

Introducing roads and associated infrastructure into the environment has led to the destruction or
disruption of habitats in the right-of-way. Roads damage existing vegetation, interfere with wildlife
crossings, displace forests and communities of animals and birds, and alter the hydrology of various
areas, including drainage, permeability, and stream flow patterns.

Roads split natural habitats such as forests, causing "fragmentation,"  decreasing habitat size and
reducing interaction with other communities. This fragmentation is known to produce declines in both
the number of species (diversity) and their populations (abundance) (Tolley, 1995). A study of the
influence of narrow forest-dividing corridors (small roads and powerlines) on forest-nesting birds in
southern New Jersey revealed that, although not generally viewed as sources of forest fragmentation,
such corridors measurably affect the diversity and abundance of birds in ways that are associated
typically with the effects of forest fragmentation (Rich et al., 1994).

Highway construction has also been cited as an activity that contributes to wetlands destruction and
loss of mangroves, seagrass, marshes, and swamps—habitats that support a diverse range of species
and provide other desirable functions such as flood control (Hall and  Naik, 1989 as cited in Barrett et
al., 1993). In the past 200 years, the U.S. has lost over half of the original wetlands acreage in the 48
coterminous states. In recent years, 300,000 acres have been lost annually, or a 3 percent loss per
decade. Over half of these recent losses have been caused by conversion to agricultural use, and only
4 percent were identified as conversion to urban land (Dahl and Johnson, 1991). The amount of
wetlands acreage lost annually is over 20 times higher than the amount of new land used by roads.
Furthermore, compensatory mitigation efforts are currently undertaken to mitigate for unavoidable
habitat loss, under a "no net loss" policy. However, a FHWA study evaluating the success of 23
highway-related wetland mitigation projects indicated that very few of the sites resulted in full
replacement of all wetland functions lost to construction (U.S. DOT,  1992). Also, as stated in the
indicators above, some states still report wetlands loss due to highways.

Wetlands are an important resource. Wetlands are essential to over half of the endangered fish species
and half of the endangered amphibian species in the U.S. (Water Environment Federation, 1992). As
some scholars suggest, "Destruction and modification of habitat are probably the most serious causes
of falling amphibian populations [worldwide]. Like other animals, amphibians are threatened when
forests are destroyed and wetlands are filled in or paved. Indeed, such activities probably account for
the decrease in a majority of species threatened today—The loss—deserves attention—because frogs
and their kin...may serve as indicators of the overall condition of the environment." (Blaustein and
Wake, 1995) Wetlands also provide economic benefits: a $28 million sport fishing industry and two
thirds of commercially harvested fish and shellfish species (Water Environment Federation, 1992).

Runoff from construction sites can cause erosion, sedimentation, and  other changes disrupting aquatic
habitats such as fish-spawning areas and river-bottom habitats. Suspended solids reduce the aquatic
food supply by blocking light and reducing photosynthesis.  They also abrade aquatic organisms,
affect fishing and recreation uses, and reduce capacities in downstream reservoirs (Barrett, 1995).

Construction of roads can also reduce water storage and spring flow, threatening species during
droughts. When natural ground cover is present over an entire site, normally less than 10 percent of
the stormwater runs off into nearby rivers and lakes. As paved surfaces increase, both the volume and
the rate of runoff increase. When paved surfaces cover 10-30 percent  of the site area, approximately
44

-------
                                                                          The Indicators: Highway
 , 20 percent of the stormwater can be expected to run off (U.S. EPA, 1982). Pollutants, washed from
 land surfaces and carried by runoff into lakes and streams, may add to existing water quality
 problems, as discussed in the section on runoff impacts/7 Furthermore, paved surfaces prevent natural
 infiltration of stormwater into the ground.

 Other road transportation infrastructure, such as buildings and bridges, also may have habitat impacts.
 For example, bridges and stream crossings are likely to have significant impacts on hydrology and
 aquatic habitat. However, the physical extent of roads is far greater than that of these other structures.


 CAUSAL FACTORS                                 .  ..       ,
      *  Size of habitat fragments between roads and width  of corridors
      *  Lane-miles of new road .(widening and new routes)
     >  Bridges and other highway infrastructure constructed
      *  Type of construction activity (maintenance versus capacity expansion)
      4  Type of road surface (paved/unpaved)                            ,
      4-  Successful implementation of various efforts to avoid or mitigate impacts (e.g., wildlife
         crossings)
      *  Ecological conditions/type of land (i.e., wetlands, forest, etc.)
      4  Species/habitat in and near the right of way            ;
 EMISSIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE

 PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

 QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     *  New building and major land development projects, including highway construction, produce
        sediment and toxic materials which are estimated to degrade up to 5 percent of the nation's
        surface waters (Griffen, 1991). The contribution of highway construction is unknown, but is
        most likely a small proportion.

 QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS     -                        '  -                   '

     4  National statistics for emissions from transportation-related construction activities are
        generally not available. At the local level, emissions from construction are discussed on a  .
        case-by-case basis in the project's EIS.
     *  Construction activity impacts, though localized, may generate sediment levels 10-20 times
        greater than agricultural land uses, affecting aquatic habitat (Griffen, 1991).
     *  • Contamination is often reported as encountered in highway maintenance.
  For a more detailed discussion on pollutants contained in urban runoff, see the section, "Highway and Road
Runoff."
                                                                                           45

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
          CONTAMINATION ENCOUNTERED IN HIGHWAY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
                       (NCHRP, 1993; based on telephone survey of 16 states38)

 *   Lead Paint: All states reported that lead paint residues from bridges were a problem.
 *   Solvents and Pesticides: Four states had significant problems with solvents and pesticides at maintenance
    yards and with solvents as laboratory wastes, from asphalts in particular.
 *   Salt: Two states had problems with salt runoff from maintenance stockpiles contaminating groundwater.
 »   General Maintenance: Six states volunteered that they had problems at their maintenance facilities.
Quwmeo ACTIVITY INDICATORS
     4  Between 4.1 to 12 million tons crude oil equivalent were required to lay the 25,083 miles of
        new road constructed in the U.S. between 1983 and 1993 (VHB, 1992; FHWA, 1995e).
     *  Approximately 90 percent of the steel bridges in the U.S. are protected from corrosion with
        lead-based paints. Use of such paints can lead to significant containment and disposal
        problems (Pinney, 1995).
     *  In 1986, herbicides (e.g., Roundup and 2,4-D) were used on  1.5 million roadside acres in the
        38 states reporting. Acreage treated rose 56 percent from 1982-1986 while reported acreage
        of responsibility fell by 6 percent (TRB, 1988).

 Roadside Acres Treated with Herbicides

f 1,400 .
0
* 1,000 .

I 600 .
t200 .
n












; >".>.













...'..; -j















: • '' ,

•*: ' !











                                                  Acres Treated with Herbicide
                                                                  - Roadside Treated 0.3%

                                                                        Cropland
             1980      1983      1986
                   Source: TRB, 1988.
Source: TRB, 1988
OTHER luacATOffS AND LOCAL EXAMPLES
     *  Highway construction in West Virginia uncovered pits and caverns overlaying an aquifer
        supplying a fish hatchery. Large quantities of clay and silt washed into the caverns, resulting
        in very turbid springflow during storms. In one dramatic (not typical) event, more than
        150,000 trout died due to silt build-up on their gills (Garton, 1977 as cited in Barrett et al.,
        1993).
     *  Repainting of the Verrazano Bridge is expected to generate 2,800 tons of hazardous waste,
        and will involve a containment system with negative air pressure to capture paint spray
        (Greenman et al., 1995).
38 States surveyed: Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota,  Missouri, Montana, New
Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.
46

-------
                                                                         The Indicators: Highway
  DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT       -
  The quantity of emissions from construction operations is related to the area of land being worked and
  the type and level of construction activity. The environmental impact of any particular project   •
  depends on the location and condition of the surrounding area, the size and type of road constructed,
  and the project's duration. Environmental impacts will also vary according to construction techniques
  and pollution management techniques employed, as well as mitigation measures undertaken.
  Emissions during road construction are associated with land clearing, blasting/ground excavation,
  and cut and fill operations. The construction of the facility itself may cause changes in turbidity,
  suspended solids concentration, and color of receiving waters. Temporary storage facilities for
  equipment and supplies used during the construction phase may also damage vegetation and displace
  communities of animals. Note that it is difficult to isolate the effects of highway construction from the
  effects of land-use changes, socioeconomic changes, and natural ecological changes in receiving
  water bodies.                     '

  Dust emissions, much of which result from equipment traffic over temporary roads at the construction
  site, may have substantial temporary impacts on local air and water quality. Construction can also
  affect the environment through exhau'st emissions from machinery and haulage vehicles, spillage
  during refueling, and noise. In general, between^VO and 800 tons of crude oil equivalent are required
  to lay 1 mile of a paved four-lane highway (OECD, 1988 as cited in VHB, 1992). This figure does not
  include energy used in asphalt production or preparing the ground for paving. Based on this estimate,
  between 4.1 to 12 million tons crude oil equivalent would be required to lay trie 25,083 miles of new
  road constructed in the U.S. between 1983  and 1993 if they all consisted of paved highway (Apogee
  estimate).

  Hazardous waste in the right-of-way is another type ,of problem associated with road construction and
  maintenance. Sometimes the problem is discovered when a major project unexpectedly runs into
  hazardous waste during construction. The most common problems encountered by DOTs working in
  the right-of-way are asbestos, underground storage tanks (USTs) (usually storing gasoline, diesel, or
  other petroleum products), and other petroleum wastes, but the range of potential hazardous wastes
  also includes organic and inorganic compounds, pesticides, cyanides, corrosives, and biological and
  radioactive wastes (NCHRP, 1993). . '    •>                          :

  Often, road maintenance facilities and operations are themselves the source of hazardous waste
  problems due to the use of hazardous materials, such as lead paint, solvents, and pesticides, in
  operations and maintenance activities. Some states track progress in replacing toxic products or
  improving processes used in construction and maintenance (e.g., Washington) (SRI International
  1993).

 Lead-based paints were commonly used to paint bridges in the first half of this century; zinc-based
 paints.have been used more recently. There is a potential for contaminant releases where toxic
 substances are utilized during construction and maintenance. For example, heavy metals have been
 found to create health and environmental problems, and elevated levels of lead have been discovered
 in soils near bridges. Near the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, highly contaminated sand and
 soils were fenced off and closed to the public and then were removed or treated (Witt, 1995).

 Many bridges with lead-based paint are undergoing lead abatement and recoating efforts. The
• Manhattan Bridge in New York City is the site of the largest lead abatement and recoating project in
 the country, at a cost of $85 million (Greenman'et al., 1995). •
                                                                                          47

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
It should be noted that construction of new capacity also may induce additional travel, which would
have environmental impacts as well. This indirect impact of construction is not considered here, since
the impacts of travel are considered in the section on travel.
CAUSAL FACTORS
     •  Level of construction activity
     *  Type and quantity of energy consumed during construction/maintenance activities
     4  Emissions control technologies for plant and equipment
     4  Quantity of hazardous material buried in the right of way and/or used in maintenance
        operations and how it is managed when found
     4  Topographical conditions (hills, valleys, etc.)
     4  Climatic conditions (temperature, wind, rain, etc.)
     4  Population density
     •  Local environmental resources/habitats
RELEASES OFDEICING COMPOUNDS
PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS
QwwrwEO OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     4  Typically, 5-10 percent of trees along heavily traveled roads are affected by road salt
        application. Based on typical experiences in the states, salting of a hypothetical road could
        kill 1 to 25 roadside trees per year, depending on the road's salt application rates and
        proximity to trees (TRB, 1991).
     4  In 1992, 17 states in the U.S. reported that road salting is a significant source of ground
        water contamination, and four reported wetlands impacts from salinity (U.S. EPA, 1994b).
     4  Four states report degraded wetlands integrity due to salinity (U.S. EPA, 1994b).
     4  Salt was cited as a cause of 11 percent of impaired river miles in 1992 (U.S. EPA, 1994b).
         States Reporting Degraded
     Wetlands Integrity Due to Salinity
Impaired River Miles
               12% by Salt
                                                      88% by Other Causes
                                 Source: U.S. EPA, 1994b.
48

-------
                                                                       The Indicators: Highway
      *  Specific outcomes, including wildlife habitat damage, reduced fish stocks, loss of unique
         natural features, and corrosion damage to vehicles from increased salinity, are not quantified
         nationally.

 QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS                      .                  .
      +  No quantified data are available to estimate how much road salt enters groundwater, rivers,
         and lakes.

 QUANTIFIED ACTIVITY INDICATORS  -                                      •       ,
     >  In the past decade, 10 million tons of rock salt have been applied in a typical year, but 1994
         and 1995 applications were unusually high, as shown in the graph below (Salt Institute
         1992).

                         Highway  Deicing  Salt Sales
                                      (1940-1994)
                                      1960
1980
2000
 OTHER QUANTIFIED DATA AND LOCAL EXAMPLES
     +  The cost of installing corrosion protection features during bridge deck construction and
        maintenance will total between $125-$325 million per year during the next 10 years,
        according to a TRB study. An equivalent amount will be spent on the protection and repair of
        other affected bridge components, such as structural components exposed to salt from splash,
        spray, and poor deck drainage (TR News, 1992).
     4  A study of streams 50-100 meters downstream from a highway in New York State found
        chloride concentrations up to 30 times higher than comparative upstream levels. Elevated
        levels lasted for 6 months after termination of winter salt application (Demers and Sage
       ; 1990).

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT  '
Rock salt is the principal deicing agent used in winter road maintenance throughout the nation. The
use of road salt allows highway travel during snow conditions and is important for delivery of vital
goods and services (including emergency support vehicles which save lives) to large segments of the
country. Although salt is cheap and effective, it can cause adverse secondary effects. A recent
                                                                                       49

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 literature review ranked the top three environmental impacts of road salt as (from most severe to
 least): 1) effects on roadside vegetation, 2) harm to soil structure, and 3) impacts on drinking water
 and aquatic life (TRB, 1991).

 Road salt disintegrates pavements, corrodes auto bodies and bridges, pollutes groundwater, and alters
 the water chemistry of nearby lakes, rivers, and wetlands. Freshwater plants are- often unable to
 survive in wetlands areas that receive high quantities of salt-polluted runoff. The actual extent of
 water contamination and habitat alteration per quantity of road salt used depend on highly site-
 specific conditions such as watershed characteristics, amount of runoff and/or snowmelt, and type of
 indigenous vegetation. The effect of'deicing runoff is not limited to roadside vegetation: 90 percent of
 the salt applied to the street of Buffalo, NY, for example, enters into the city sewerage system and
 then reaches Lake Ontario (Tolley, 1995).

 Calcium magnesium acetate (CMA) has been developed as an environmentally benign, non-corrosive
 alternative to road salt for deicing, but its application has been limited due to its higher price and
 greater volume demands. To be effective, it must be applied early in a storm and used in quantities 20-
 30 percent greater than salt. In addition, CMA is often less effective man salt in freezing rain, dry
 snow, or light traffic; and it costs  10-25 percent more. And although widespread use of CMA might
 reduce corrosion of motor vehicles and infrastructure components not already contaminated, its use
 would have little effect on many older infrastructure components already contaminated by salt (TR
 News, 1992). CMA has been extensively studied as an option (TRB, 1991).

 CAUSAL FACTORS
     *   Amount of roadway deicing agent applied
     *   Type of deicing agent used
     *   Climate/weather conditions (amount of snow, ice, rainfall)
     *   Amount of high salinity runoff/snowmelt that reaches bodies of water (based on runoff
         controls and local geography)
     «•   Depth of groundwater table
     *   Sensitivity of nearby habitats
HIGHWAY RUNOFF

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

QtMOTlfiCD OOrCOM£ff?ES£fl.7S INDICATORS
     *  In 1992, urban runoff contributed to the impairment of 11 percent of the nation's assessed
        river miles, 24 percent of assessed lake acres, and 59 percent of assessed ocean shore miles.
        It was cited as a major source of impairment for 5-15 percent of assessed surface water
        bodies (U.S. EPA, 1994b). The exact contribution of transportation to urban runoff is not
        known, but it is expected to be large, since road surfaces occupy a significant portion of land
        in urban areas, 19 percent according to Tolley,  1995.
50

-------
                                                                            The Indicators:  Highway
                         Percentage  Impaired  by Urban Runoff
        Assessed river miles

                             11%
Lakes             Ocean shore miles

           24%         ^""~~T^fe^  59%
                                     Source: U.S. EPA, 1994b.

 QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS.
      *  Average pollutant concentrations of lead and copper in road runoff are more than twice as
         great as those from residential and commercial areas (U.S. DOT, 1986; U.S. EPA, 1983).
      *  Pollutant concentration levels in highway runoff exceed concentrations from residential and
         commercial areas (see table).
      *  Oil and grease in road runoff may total hundreds of thousands of tons per year (Apogee
         estimate).39
39
  Simply as an example to provide perspective, suppose that a meter of rainfall and water in the form of snow is
typical per year (not an unreasonable figure, at least for some parts of the country),  this means that roughly a
meter of water falls on a square meter of pavement, or a volume of 1 cubic meter of water per year. If oil and
grease concentration in this water is 9 mg/1 as it runs off, the mass of oil and grease in this cubic meter would be
9 grams. This would equal almost a metric ton of oil and grease per year per 100,000 square meters of road
surface (a length of road 10 meters wide and 10 km long).  Assuming roughly 3 meters width per lane'and
perhaps about 4 million paved lane-miles, there are approximately 20,000  square kilometers of paved road in the
U.o.               -                '
The above implies there could be 200,000 metric tons of oil and grease in road runoff annually nationwide if the
above assumptions were valid (actual average rainfall may be half as high). It is worth noting that this very crude
estimate corresponds to a scenario where the average U.S. vehicle (of which there are roughly 200 million) leaks
1 liter of oil and grease onto roads per year, or less than one tenth of a quart per month (assuming oil has the
density of water for simplicity here). This average rate of leakage seems at least plausible.  It is also worth noting
that if such loadings are occurring, they are larger than estimated improper disposal of used motor oil and larger °
than reported air or water releases of many pollutants in auto manufacture.
                                                                                             5L

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
              Selected Road and Highway Storm Water Pollutant Concentrations
        and Comparisons with Typical Runoff from Residential and Commercial Areas
Constituent
BOD (biological oxygen demand)
COD (chemical oxygen demand)
TKN (a measure of nitrogen)
Total Phosphate
Lead
Copper
Cadmium
Nickel
Oil and grease
PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons)
Pesticides/Herbicides
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls)
Road/Highway Runoff from Residential
Runoff Mean and Commercial Areas
Concentration (mg/1)
(mg/1)
24
160
3.0
0.9
4.3
0.19
0.02
5.0
9
4.6
0.03
0.335
12
94
2.3
0.5
0.24
0.053
-
-
-
'

"
       Source: U.S. DOT, 1986; U.S. EPA, 1982 as cited in Weiss, 1993. Note: lead levels have dropped considerably
       since these estimates were developed.

     4  Highways have been found to contribute up to 50 percent of suspended solids, 16 percent of
        hydrocarbons, and 75 percent of metals in some streams (Hamilton and Harrison, 1991).

               Highway Contribution to Some Streams: Loading


        Suspended solids            Hydrocarbon             Metal input
                                       .»•••*""—IIlfete».               ^—Tiiiife^
                          50%      /             16%     /   '           75%
                            Source: Hamilton and Harrison, 1991.
The impacts of runoff, of course, depend on many factors other than tons emitted. Oil and grease may
undergo biodegradation and dilution before they ever reach any body of water or sensitive ecosystem.

       AcmnY INDICATORS
     4  Roads occupy about 19 percent of the surface areas in large cities (Tolley, 1995).
     *  The percentage of roads in the U.S. that are paved has increased from about 27.3 percent in
        1953 to 58.2 percent in 1993 (FHWA, 1994c).
52

-------
                                                                   The Indicators: Highway
        Total Road and Street Mileage in the United States
                       By Surface Type (1900-1993)
                                                Soil Surfaced,
                                                    vel/Stone
                       1920
OTHER QUANTIFIED DATA AND LOCAL EXAMPLES
1940   1960    1980  1993
Source: FHWA, 1995c
        Of the vehicle-related particulates in highway runoff, 37 percent come from tire wear, 37
        percent from pavement wear, 18.5 percent from engine and brake wear, and 7.5 percent from
        settleable exhaust (PEDCO as cited in Hamilton and Harris, 1991).
        One study of runoff in California's Santa Clara Valley found that vehicles were the source of
        67 percent of the zinc, 50 percent of the copper, and 50 percent of the cadmium found hi
        runoff. (Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program as cited in Weiss,
        1993)                       ,
        In a study to assess the effects of highway construction on water quantity and quality in
        creeks near construction in the Edwards aquifer (Texas) district, downstream concentrations
        of total suspended solids below the right-of-way during construction of a highway in Texas
        were roughly 10 times greater than before construction began. Flow rate in the creek nearby •
        also increased significantly due to increased impermeable ground cover. Silt fences
        sometimes used to control such sediment were found to be ineffective in the Texas study, and
        problems were also seen in the expensive runoff control systems used (a sedimentation basin
        and sand filter). (Barrett et al., 1995)
        Over 50 percent of the annual pollutant loads in entering a section of the Pawtuxet River ,
        adjacent to 1-95 in Rhode Island came from highway runoff (Hoffman, 1985). .
        Investigations on a small Norwegian lake ecosystem found that the road had no effects on
        oxygen condition but considerable effects on conductivity and high concentrations of
        cadmium, zinc, sodium, and chloride.  Also the diversity and abundance of the benthic
        communities near the highway were reduced relative to a control location (Baekken, 1994).
                                                                                   53

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
Highway contaminants are deposited on roadway surfaces, median areas, and rights-of-way from
atmospheric fallout, fuel combustion processes, lubrication system losses, tire and brake wear,
transportation load losses, deicing agents, and paint from infrastructure. During storm events,
rainwater first washes out atmospheric pollutants and, upon surface impact (or snowmelt), picks up
roadway deposits, and runs off into receiving water bodies. This highway runoff can be highly
polluted and have negative impacts—such as sedimentation, eutrophication, accumulation of
pollutants in sediments and benthic organisms, and destruction of native species—on receiving
waters.

Runoff from roads is affected by both the amount and type of infrastructure (paved or unpaved
surfaces), as well as by the amount of travel.40 Whether the road is paved or not has a great effect on
runoff. Pavement and structures may cover soils and destroy vegetation that would otherwise slow
and absorb runoff before it reaches receiving bodies of water. The graph above shows that while road
mileage has not been growing especially quickly, paved mileage has been growing very rapidly. This
has implications for increased runoff impacts, but also has other implications,  such as reduced
particulate emissions from reentrained dust and perhaps higher speeds of travel and greater emissions
per VMT for certain pollutants. Although these tradeoffs are not discussed further here, the trend in
paved mileage is notable.

FHWA research in the 1970s on highway runoff water quality found that runoff had significant
effects only from highways with traffic volumes greater than 30,000 vehicles per day (major freeways
and urban arterials). Average daily traffic (ADT) has  a strong influence on the quality of stormwater
as it leaves the highway; because ADT levels are higher in urban areas than rural locations, pollutant
levels in highway runoff are  higher in urban areas.

The impacts and significance of roadway runoff are highly site-specific. The quantity of runoff
generated depends on the frequency, intensity, and duration of precipitation in an area. The water
quality characteristics of runoff are affected by local air quality (because of deposition of air
pollutants onto roads)  and, to some extent, the level of traffic activity. The quantity  of pollutants
originating from highways and motor vehicles, however, is not well understood as pollutants are hard
to measure and vary by location.

Pollutants found in runoff are generally classified under six broad categories: suspended solids or
particulates, oxygen-consuming constituents (BOD, COD), nutrients, heavy metals,  trace organics,
and microorganisms. Direct vehicle deposits are a major source of particulates and heavy metals:
settleable exhaust, copper from brake pads, tire and asphalt wear deposits, and drips of oil, grease,
antifreeze, hydraulic fluids, and cleaning agents. An estimated 46 percent of vehicles on U.S. roads
leak hazardous fluids (AAMA, 1990). Indirectly, vehicles also contribute by carrying solids from
parking lots, urban roadways, construction sites, farms, and dirt roads. More than 95 percent of the
solids on roadways originate from sources other than the vehicles themselves (Barrett et al., 1993).
Secondary runoff pollutant sources associated with vehicular traffic include gas stations and other
auto-related facilities,  oil production and transportation operations, petroleum refineries, and
improper disposal of used motor oil. Nitrogen and phosphorus-based nutrients generally originate
from atmospheric and roadside fertilizer applications.  Atmospheric deposition is the main source of
PCBs.
40 Note that this impact is discussed here alone rather than in both this section and the road vehicle travel section.
54

-------
                                                                        The Indicators: Highway
These pollutants can harm the environment in various ways. Oxygen consumption (from high BOD)
harms aquatic life, while nutrients cause eutrophication, where excess aquatic plant growth can block
sunlight, also harming aquatic life. Toxic substances can affect human health or various plant of
animal species.

CAUSAL FACTORS
    *   Level of traffic activity: .the number of vehicles during a storm event (VPS) is a better
        determinant of pollutant loading than the average daily traffic (ADT) or antecedent dry
        period (Barrett et al., 1993). DQT considers impacts negligible on roads with less than
        30,000 ADT. Levels over 30,000 ADT are not very common outside urban areas, though
        some roads surpass 200,000 ADT.
    *   Rate of deposition of contaminants on road surface per vehicle
    *   Paved surface area (see graphic on growth in paved surface above)
    *   Precipitation activity: antecedent dry period, storm intensity and duration, total amount of
        ramfall/snowmelt
    *   Drainage characteristics
  >  *•  Ecology and other aspects of receiving water bodies: type, size, diversity, potential for
        dispersion
    *   Toxicity and chemical/physical characteristics of pollutants
                                                                                         55

-------

-------
                                                                        The Indicators: Highway
                        2. MOTOR VEHICLE AND PARTS MANUFACTURE

 The manufacture of motor vehicles and parts results in environmental impacts through the release of
 toxics and other pollutants to the air, soil, and water.

                                                               Toxic Releases and
                                                               Other Emissions
 TOXIC RELEASES AND OTHER EMISSIONS
 PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS
QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
        No quantified data on human health impacts, such as increased incidence of cancer from
        toxics, or habitat and species impacts are available.
QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS
     4  114.5 million pounds (or about 57,000 tons) of toxic chemicals were reported released on-
        site from vehicle manufacturing facilities in 1993 (see table).41
41 Note that these figures do not include impacts of equipment and parts manufactured outside the U.S. but do
count impacts of exported U.S. products.
                                                                                         57

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
     Toxic Chemicals Released from Vehicle Manufacturing Facilities and Related Sources
                                      (Pounds per Year)
SIC
Code
3711
3713
3714
3715
3716
3537
3751
4213
5013

Industry Type
Motor Vehicles &
Passenger Car Bodies
Truck & Bus Bodies
Motor Vehicle Parts
& Accessories
Truck Trailers
Motor Homes
Industrial Trucks,
Tractors, Trailers &
Stackers
Motorcycles, Bicycles
& Parts
Trucking (No Local)
Wholesale-Motor
Vehicle Supplies &
New Parts
TOTAL HIGHWAY
VEHICLES
Air
52,878,028
12,977,951
34,540,544
2,522,371
2,680,082
561,110
6,740,758
56,763
12,259
112,969,866
On-Site Releases
Water Land
3,038
3,916
147,394
27
,
10
8,209 .

60
162,654
255
3,983
1,348,978
1,500
-
5
.
10
-
1,354,731
Total
52,881,321
12,985,850
36,036,916
2,523,898
2,680,082
561,125
6,748,967
56,773
.12,319
114,487,251
POTW
Transfer
2,519,072
260,887
890,432
1,894
250
10,000
3,029
_
-
.. 3,685,564
Off-Site
Locations
Transfer
51,603,667
15,907,099
112,999,744
6,223,948
395,759
672,320
6,033,915
27,705
7,075,069
200,959,226
Source: Toxic Releases Inventory, 1993
POTW = Publicly owned treatment works
SIC = Standard Industrial Classification

     *  About 33 percent of the industry's TRI wastes were managed through on-site recycling,
        energy recover}', or treatment rather than being released or transferred in 1993 (U.S. EPA,
        1995b).
     *  In 1993, 609 facilities reported TRI releases in the motor vehicle manufacturing industry
        (only large facilities are required to report), and the average facility reported 130,000 pounds
        (65 tons) of toxic releases.
58

-------
                                                                       The Indicators: Highway
     Vehicle Manufacturing Industry's Contribution to:
    GNP
              ,  4.0%
Toxic Release
Inventory
                                     4.3%
Toxic Releases
to Air Only
                                     6.8%
Priority
Pollutants
                                                            0.3%
         The motor vehicles, bodies, parts, and accessories industries also emit the following
         quantities of other pollutants per year:

                    Other Emissions from Vehicle Manufacturing Facilities
Pollutant
•


CO
N02
PM-10
TP
S02-
VOC
Short tons per
year emitted in
these
industries
• 35,303
23,725
2,406
12,853
25,462
101,275 '
U.S. total for all
industries


97,208,000
23,402,000
45,489,000
7,836,000
21,888,000
23,312,000
Percentage^ total
for all industries


0.04%
0.10%
0.01%
0.16%
0.12%
0.43%
        Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, AIRS Database, May 1995.

     *  It is noteworthy that emissions from vehicle travel are much higher than emissions from
        vehicle manufacture, at least for several key pollutants.

OTHER QUANTIFIED DATA AND LOCAL EXAMPLES   .
     4 ' One General Motors assembly plant has reduced packaging.waste going to landfills per
        vehicle to less than one pound per vehicle (U.S. EPA, 1995b).
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
The motor vehicle and equipment industry is the largest manufacturing industry in North America,
accounting for about 4 percent of gross national product (GNP). There are approximately 4,467 motor
vehicle and equipment facilities in the U.S., 3-9 percent of which are in the Great Lakes Region (U.S.
EPA,1995b).

The manufacture of automobiles, trucks, and other road vehicles involves the use of a variety of
materials and chemicals. During the manufacturing process, toxic chemicals are released from vehicle
manufacturing facilities into the environment. Releases occur as on-site discharges of toxic chemicals,
                                                                                        59

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 including emissions to the air, discharges to water, releases to land, and contained disposal or
 injection underground. Chemicals are transferred off-site when they are shipped to other locations, as
 the following diagram shows.
           On-Site Emissions
Air
            Land
                                   Off-Site
                                   Transfers
                       Water
                                       Underground
                                       Injection
 On-site releases to air occur as either stack emissions, through confined air streams such as stacks or
 vents, or fugitive emissions, which include equipment leaks, evaporative losses from surface
 impoundments and spills, and releases from building ventilation systems.  Surface water releases
 occur through process and treatment discharge pipes, as well as diffuse runoff from the plant site.
 Releases to land may result from landfills, surface impoundments, and other types of land disposal
 within the boundaries of the reporting facility. Underground injection is a contained release of a fluid
 into a subsurface well for the purpose of waste disposal.

 Off-site transfers represent a movement of the material or chemical away from the reporting facility.
 However, except for off-site transfers for disposal, these quantities do not necessarily represent entry
 of the chemical into the environment. Chemicals are often shipped to other locations for recycling,
 energy recovery, or treatment.  In many cases, transfers are to publicly owned treatment works
 (POTWs).  Wastewaters are transferred through pipes or sewers to a POTW, where treatment or
 removal of a material or chemical from the water depends upon the nature of the chemical and
 treatment methods used. Some chemicals are destroyed in treatment.  Others evaporate into the
 atmosphere. Some are removed but are not destroyed by treatment and may be disposed of in landfills
 (U.S. EPA, 1992).

 The top five toxic pollutants (by volume) reported released include xylene, glycol ethers, toluene,
 methyl isobutyl ketone, and N-butyl alcohol These are solvents used to clean equipment and metal
 parts and used in many coatings and finishes (U.S. EPA, 1995b). It should also be noted that the
 industry has reduced toxic releases  considerably in the recent years.

 Other non-toxic air pollutant are emitted by the motor vehicle manufacturing industry, such as carbon
 monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).  These pollutants
 can cause human health effects, as well as materials damage and visibility degradation.
60

-------
                                                                        The Indicators: Highway
CAUSAL FACTORS
     *  Number of vehicles built                           '
     *  Amount of, chemicals used per vehicle
     4  Efficiency of controls and'efforts to reuse or recycle chemicals, including pollution
        prevention                      *
     *  Amount of chemicals transferred to other locations for recycling, energy recovery, or
        treatment
     *  Types of chemicals released and toxicity
     *  Population density and extent of exposure
     4  Environmental conditions such as climate, topography, or hydrogeology affecting fate and
        transport of chemicals in the environment
                                                                                        61

-------

-------
                                                                       The Indicators: Highway
                                 3. ROAD VEHICLE TRAVEL

 Road vehicle travel is the dominant form of transportation in the United States. About 2.3 trillion
 vehicle miles were traveled on U.S. roads in 1994 by passenger cars, motorcycles, buses, light-duty
 trucks, and heavy-duty trucks (FHWA, 1995d).  Vehicle travel has a number of environmental effects.
 Vehicles emit air pollutants from their exhaust, evaporation, use of air conditioners, as well a's
 fugitive dust which is stirred up from the road surface by automobiles.  In addition, vehicles create
 noise, and strike and kill animals that attempt to cross roadways. Hazardous materials incidents may
 release harmful chemicals to the environment.

 These impacts are discussed below. For all of these impacts, data on travel is an activity indicator
 that provides a crude indication of environmental damage. Information on vehicle travel activity is
 presented in Appendix A.
                             Tailpipe and
                             Evaporative
                             Emissions
Emissions of
Refrigerant
Agents from Air
Conditioners
                                                          HAZMAT Spills
             Roadkill
TAILPIPE AND EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS
QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS          .                              •
    *  Air pollution from highways caused a significant number of health effects in 1991 (these
        estimates include health impacts from travel, road dust, and upstream activities) (McCubbin
        and Delucchi, 1995):
       •f   Approximately 20,000-46,000 cases of chronic respiratory illness (chronic cough,
           phlegm, wheezing, chest illness, and bronchitis)
       *   Roughly 50-70 million respiratory-related restricted activity days (RRADs), of which
           about 43-60 million of these can be attributed to particulate matter alone
       *   An estimated 530 cases of cancer from air toxics associated with highway use. Estimates
           of cancer risk, however, are highly uncertain. Various estimates have attributed 50 to
                                                                                        63

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
           19,000 cancer deaths per year to carcinogens from motor vehicle emissions (U.S. EPA,
           1993c). Much of this uncertainty is over the carcinogenicity of diesel particulate matter.
           Heavy duty diesel trucks account for perhaps 25 percent to almost 100 percent of the
           cancer risk from motor vehicles (U.S. EPA, 1989a).
        *  About 852 million headaches from CO associated with motor vehicle use.
        *  An estimated 40,000 premature deaths in the U.S.—of which 33,300 can be attributed to
           particulate matter—a number comparable to the number of deaths from motor vehicle
           accidents.
              Comparison of Estimated Mortality, 1991

                 CO
                JC
                 OS
                 CD
                Q
                *5
                 CO
                "i
                 CO
                 CO
                 o
                H
                      Motor Vehicle      Motor Vehicle
                         Accidents         Air Pollution
              Source: Motor vehicle estimate from McCubbin and Delucchi, 1995.

        Impacts on plants and animals, including forests and crops, have generally not been
        quantified.


        OUTPUT INDICATORS
     *  In 1994, highway vehicle operations were responsible for the following emissions
        nationwide (U.S. EPA, 1995e):
40-
30-
20-
10-
n -







f, s

Ozone
Particulates
(includes road dust)
         Pollutant
Quantity Emitted
 (1994, thousand
   short tons )
Percentage of total
 Emissions of that
    Pollutant42
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen Oxides (NO*)
Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Particulate Matter (PM-10)
Lead (Pb)
61,070
7,530
6,295

295
311
1.4
' 62.3%
31.9%
27.2%

1.4%
0.7% •
28.3%
42
  Note: percentages are based on anthropogenic emissions, except for PM-10, which includes natural emissions.
64

-------
                                                                       The Indicators: Highway
                          Highway Share of Air Pollutants Emitted, 1994
                     CO emissions
              38%
              Other
62%
From
vehicles
                    VOC emissions
              73%
              Other
 27%
From
vehicles
                 NOX emissions
68%
                                               Other  1
                        32%
                       From
                       vehicles
                  Pb emissions
 62%
 Other
                                                                         28%
                                                                         From
                                                                        vehicles
         In 1993, CO2 emissions from highway vehicle operations accounted for approximately 320
         million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtCe), or 23percent of total national
         anthropomorphic CO2 emissions (Apogee estimate).43

         Highway vehicle travel contributed to emissions of other greenhouse gases, as reported
         below (U.S. EPA, 1994a):
                    Pollutant
                  Quantity Emitted
                   (1990, thousand
                    metric tons)
                    Methane
                    Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
                              201
                               87
        In 1990, highway vehicle operations were responsible for the following emissions of toxics
        (U.S. EPA, 1995e):           .
Pollutant
Benzene
Butadiene
Formaldehyde
Quantity Emitted
(1990, short tons)
217,765
41,883
101,722
Percent of total
Emissions of that
Pollutant
45% -
41%
37%
'.•>•• ' .
43 Estimate is based on the following methodology: transportation sector energy use by fuel type within a mode
(DOE/EIA, 1995b) was multiplied by carbon coefficients (mmtCe/quadriliion Btu) for each.fuel (DOE/EIA,
1995a), then adjusted by fraction of carbon that does not oxidize during combustion (DOE/EIA, 1995a). Note
.that this estimate does not account for upstream emissions, such as emissions from car assembly and fuel
production; refer to DeLuchi, 1991, for carbon coefficients needed to compute total fuel-cycle CO2 emissions.
                                                                                       65

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
                             Highway Share of Toxics Emitted, 1990
                   BENZENE
                                45%
                                From
                               Vehicles
                                               BUTADIENE
 41%
 From
Vehicles
                                                                         FORMALDAHYDE
 37%
 From
Vehicles
        The share of total emissions attributable to on-road mobile sources varies greatly by location:
        the share of NOX can range from 20 to 60 percent of total (not only 'anthropogenic) emissions
        in most ozone nonattainment areas, and on-road VOC emissions can range from 10 to 40
        percent of the total (Apogee, 1996).
CO Emissions from Highway Vehicles

Year     Thousand  Percentage of
          Short Tons Total CO
                      Emissions
  CO Emissions
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
30,121
45,196
64,266
88,034
78,049
77,387
73,347
71,250
71,081
66,050
62,858
62,074
59,859
59,989
61,070
32.2
44.0
58.6
68.7
67.5
67.5
67.2
66.0
61.4
64.0
62.5
63.7
63.7
63.T
62.3


CO
c
°
•c
o
.c
W
T3
C
CB
in
=]
O
jr

90,000
80,000
/'O.OOO

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000
10,000
                                                        1940
                                                                                     2000
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e.

-------
                                                                      The Indicators: Highway
NOX Emissions from Highway Vehicles
Year
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Thousand Percentage of
Short Tons Total NOX NOX Emissions
.'Emissions
1 lin ion 9000
JL,JJU lo.U j,uwu j , 	
2,143 21.2 8,000 . . / "\
3,982 28.2 • „ 7,000 •" ./ ^~
7,390 35.8 |. 6.000 . '•/"•' " "
8,621 37.0 5 Klm /.
8,089 35.4 » ' /
7,773 34.8 § """" /
7,651 34.2 1 ^.
7,682 33.1 1'000
7 'IBS ^° 5 - •

7,373 32.5 ' 194° 196° 1980 2000
7,440 32.6 . , Year
7,510 32.3
7,530 31.9 .
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e. .
VOC Emissions from Highway Vehicles
Year
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Thousand Percentage.of
Short Tons total VOC VOC Emissions
, Emissions
/I C17 10 1 i/] goo

7,251 34.6 10QOO /\
10,506 43.0 ^ X \
12,972 42.3 ' o 1o,ooo / , V
8,979 34.7 r cnnn / ^ \
9,376 36.3 « ' / \
8,874 35.5 1 6.°°° X x'
. ' 8,477 34.2 § A nnn '
.8,290 32.2 £••'••.
7,192 30.0 2'°°°
6,854 29.0
6,499 28.4 1940 1960 1980 2000
6,072 27.1
6,103 27.0
6,295 27.2 •- 	 •- •• -. 	 -- - ' 	
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e
                                                                                       67

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
     Emissions from Highway Vehicles
 Year     Thousand   Percentage of
           Short Tons Total SO2
 .''  ] '    	'   '-''"-'.'.  - Emissions
           SO2 Emissions
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
3
103
114
411
521
522
527
538
553
570
571
570
578
517
295
0.0
0.5
0.5
1.3
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.4
1.4
                                                     600
                                                                  1960
                         1980
2000
                                                                        Year
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e
Direct Particulate Matter (PM-10) Emissions from Highway Vehicles44
Year      Thousand   Percentage of
           Short Tons  Total PM-10
                       Emissions
      Particulate (PM) Emissions
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
210
314
554
443
397
363
356
360
369
367
357
349
343
321
311
-
-
-
-
-
0.81%
0.71%
0.86%
0.61%
0.70%
0.82%
0.71%
0.78%
0.75%
0.68%
                                                 •c
                                                 o
                                                 CO
                                                 CO
                                                 Cfl
                                                 I
                                                    600
                                                    500
                                                    400 -
300
200
                                                    100
                                                      1940
                                                                  1960
                                                                             1980
                                                                                         2000
                                                                       Year
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e


44 Percentage of total emissions are not reported for paniculate matter prior to 1985 because of changes in total
emissions inventories; fugitive dust and wind erosion are reported only for the period 1985 to 1994.
68

-------
                                                                        The Indicators: Highway
 Lead Emissions from Highway Vehicles
 Year      Short Tons Percentage of
                       TotalPb
                       Emissions
1970
1975
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
. 1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
171,961
130,206
: 62,189,
15,978
3,589
3,121
2,700
2,161 •
1,690
1,519
1,444 .
1,401
1,403
78.4
82.1
83.0
79.4
49.2
45.5
41.5
35.8
29.8
28.8
, 29.5
28.4
28.3
                                                   01
                                                   I
                                                   I
                                                   W
Lead Emissions
                                                            1970   1975  1980  1985  1990  1995

                                                                           Year
 Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e
 It is important to note that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the values of the emissions
 statistics used for these output indicators. Since actual measurement of all vehicle emissions is
 impractical, the emissions estimates come from models which are based on travel data, speeds,
 vehicle fleet characteristics, and other variables, and emissions factors. These models are updated
 over time, and thus, historical data from different years are not comparable if based on different
 methodologies. For example, EPA reports 1990 CO emissions from highway vehicles as 59,801
 thousand short tons in their National Air Pollutant Emission Trends, 1990-1992 report, and as 62,858
 thousand short tons in their more recent National Air Pollutant Emission Trends,  1993 report.

 There is some evidence that air pollution can have a significant impact on water quality. Not all
 atmospheric deposition results from motor vehicle emissions, but some statistics on such pollution at
 least provide a sense of how air pollution impacts surface waters45:
     4  Estimates of atmospheric nitrogen input to water bodies such as the Chesapeake Bay and
        other major east coast estuaries range from 5 percent to 50 percent of the controllable load of
        nitrogen (most estimates are in the range of 30 percent). The error in such estimates,  .   '
        however, is cited as at least plus or minus 20 percent and up to a factor of two or three,
        depending on location and pollutant considered.            •   .     '
     4  Atmospheric loadings of metals  to water bodies such as the Chesapeake Bay may range from
       - over 95 percent of total loadings in the case of lead to about 10 percent in the case of
        cadmium.
  -  4  Annual fluxes from wet deposition reported at various coastal locations range from under 5
       . mg per square meter for copper,  nickel, and lead to 15-30 mg per square meter for iron and
        zinc.                                                                    •
45
  Air deposition data from AQCG/STAG 1994/95, and Valigura et al., 1994/95
                                                                                         69

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
         Wet deposition of various polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzo[ghi]perylene
         (including some carcinogenic products of incomplete combustion) are in the range of 1-10
         micrograms per square meter per year.

        ACTIVITY INDICATORS
     *   Refer to Appendix A for data on vehicle travel.
 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
 Air pollution is generally considered the main environmental impact of motor vehicle transportation.
 During the combustion process, automotive engines emit several types of pollutants, including:
 carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds and
 other hydrocarbons (VOCs/HCs), particulate matter (PM), and carbon dioxide (CO2). These pollutants
 affect the environment, health, and welfare by causing respiratory and other illnesses, reduced
 visibility, and soiling and corrosion of materials. They also affect the environment by causing adverse
 effects on ecosystems including damage to crops, forests, and other terrestrial and aquatic plants and
 animals. Although CC^is not harmful to human health or habitat directly, it is important as a
 greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming.

 Certain chemicals interact in the air to form secondary pollutants. Ozone is one key secondary
 pollutant, formed by the combination of NOX and VOCs. In addition, the combination of sunlight,
 water, and chemicals like SO2, NOX, and HCs can form secondary particulate matter, as the diagram
 below shows.

 Highway vehicles emit pollutants into the atmosphere during start-up (especially during a cold start),
 travel, and cooling down (hot-soak emissions). Pollution from highway vehicles comes from
 byproducts of fossil fuel combustion process (exhaust) and from evaporation of the fuel itself. In the
 first few minutes of a trip, emissions are higher because the emissions control equipment has not yet
 reached its  optimal operating temperature.

 In addition, pollutants escape into the air through fuel evaporation. With efficient exhaust emission
 controls and gasoline formulations, evaporative losses can account for a majority  of the pollution
 from current model cars on hot days. Evaporative emissions include diurnal emissions (as
 temperature rises  during the day, the fuel tank heats and vents gasoline vapors), running losses
 (vaporization of gasoline during car operations), hot-soak emissions (gasoline evaporation that
 continues after a vehicle is parked since the engine remains hot for a period of time), or refueling
 losses (vapors escape when the tank is filled).46
46 Losses from refueling are counted as stationary^ource emissions by EPA's Office of A:r Quality and Planning
Standards, but can be modeled separately in the MOBILE model.
70

-------
                                                                            The Indicators: Highway
                                                Primary
                                               Pollutants
                                                                    Secondary
                                                                   ' Particulates
                                               Pafficulates,
CAUSAL FACTORS
     *  Number of vehicle trips: number of cold-starts, hot-starts, hot-soaks
     *  Vehicle miles of travel (VMT)
        Vehicle type, age, weight, and emissions control technology
        Type of fuel consumed (gasoline, diesel fuel, etc.)
        Travel characteristics: speed, acceleration, etc. affects emissions per mile
      •
      •
      •
The above factors work in combination to influence the total amount of pollution emitted, as the
following diagram shows:
                                                              Emissions per cow-start, •
                                                              hot-soak by chemical
                                                                             Emissions
                                                                             by chemical
              Vehicle type, age, and
                emissions control
                  technology
                           Travel Conditions
                            (Speed, etc.)
                                          Emissions per gallon
                                            fuel consumed
For example, travel conditions and vehicle type together influence fuel efficiency (gallons of fuel
consumed per mile) and pollutant emissions rates. Typically, faster speeds tend to reduce emissions
per mile, although for some pollutants, emission rates begin to increase once again when travel speeds
exceed a certain level. Meanwhile, different types of vehicles (e.g., gasoline powered automobiles
and diesel trucks) emit different amounts of pollution at any given speed.  Some factors, like
population demographics, influence the level of travel, and thus, indirectly affect emissions levels.
                                                                                              71

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 Factors that influence the amount of environmental damage that occurs from air pollutant emissions
 include:
     4   Topographical conditions (hills, valleys, etc.) affects dispersion/dilution of pollutants
     *   Climatic conditions (temperature, wind, rain, etc.) affects dispersion/dilution of pollutants
         and formation of secondary pollutants
     4   Population density affects number of people exposed to pollution
     *   Sensitivity of local ecosystems

      Topographical
Climate/ \
Meteorological >
Conditions v.
VrxHint, <
Emffl
Transj

jfPoMulante
aortation
/
Amount, of F
Emitted f
Other Soi
\

Population
Density
. Level of Outdoor
\ Activity
v\
V
^ Ambient Air
/Pollutant Levels
it i 1 Ecosvstem and
OllUtant L-woyoiciu cwju.
rom Cr°PTyPe
rces and Density
Locally


h
N,
	 ^-A.

Human
Exposure to
Pollutant

Materials
Exposure to •
Pollutant

Ecosystem and
Crop Exposure
to Pollutant

^
^
	 ^~
^-~


Health Impacts
(Mortality/Morbidity)

Materials
Damage

Ecosystem and
Agriculture
Damage

Global Warming
.' Potential
FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS FROM ROADS

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

QtMOTJREO OUTCOUe/RSSULTS INDICATORS
     *  Paniculate matter associated with motor vehicle use was responsible for approximately
        33,300 deaths (see graphic on particulate-related mortality in emissions section above);
        between 17,700 and 41,600 cases of chronic respiratory illness; 1.12 million asthma attacks;
        and between 42.9 and 59.9 million respiratory restricted activity days (RRADs) in 1991
        (McCubbin and Delucchi, 1995). Of these impacts, road dust is responsible for the great
        majority, since road dust constitutes about 98 percent of particulate matter associated with
        motor vehicles (calculated from U.S. EPA, 1995e).
     *  Quantified national data on materials damage (soiling of buildings) and visibility degradation
        from road dust are not readily available.

QuwnflED OUTPUT INDICATORS
     *  Fugitive dust from highways constituted 32.0 million short tons of particulate matter (PM-
        10) released into the air in 1994 (see table).
     4  Fugitive dust from highways accounts for about 40percent of particulate matter emissions.
72

-------
                                                                       The Indicators: Highway
                 Fugitive Dust Contribution to National PM-10 Emissions, 1994
           Source                      Quantity   Percentage of   Percentage of
                                         Emitted    total fugitive     total PM-10
                                 (thousand short            dust
                                           tons)
Unpaved Roads
Paved Roads
Other
Total Fugitive-Dust
Total All Particulates
(PM-10) , '
12,883
6,358
12,771
32,012
45,431

40%
20%
40%
100%
-

25%
14%
28%
70%
100%

           Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e
 Fugitive Dust Emissions (PM-10), Historical
   Year        Thousand Short Tons
	Unpaved Roads Paved Roads
    1985
 11,644
5,080
    1986
 11,673
5,262
    1987
•11,110
5,530
    1988
12,379
5,900
    1989
11,798
5,769
    1990
11,338
5,992
    1991
11,873
5,969
   1992
11,540
5,942
   1993
12,482
6,095"
   1994
12,883
6,358
 Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e
                                       Fugitive Dust Emissions from Roads

in
c
o
I--
o
w
^
c
co
01
3
0
14 000
12,000

10,000
8,000

6,000

4,000
2,000

— ^— '
„- — — «-— ~*'"*~" '
	 "-: 	 "r

Roads


— 	
ads i
                                                          0 •*-
                                                          1984   1986
1988  1990

   Year
                                                                                  1992  1994
 QUANTIFIED ACTIVITY INDICATORS
     *  Refer to Appendix A for data on vehicle travel.

 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
 Fugitive dust from travel on roads constitutes a significant portion of national PM-10 emissions,
 which in turn contribute to total suspended paniculate matter in air. Dust generated from road travel is
 called "fugitive" because it does not enter the atmosphere in a confined flow stream. Two sources of
 dust are important to consider when evaluating the environmental impacts of road travel: paved and
 uhpavedroads.  '  '   •

 The quantity of dust emissions from a given section o.f unpaved road varies roughly linearly with the
 volume of traffic. When a vehicle traverses a segment of unpaved road, the force of the wheels on the
 road surface causes pulverization of surface material. Particles are lifted and dropped from the rolling
 wheels, and the road surface is exposed to strong air currents in turbulent shear with the surface. The
turbulent wake behind the vehicle continues to act on the surface after the vehicle has passed.
                                                                                        73

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
Fugitive dust from paved roads consists primarily of mineral matter, similar to common sand and soil,
mostly tracked or deposited onto the roadway by vehicle traffic itself. Vehicle carryout from unpaved
areas is probably the largest single source of street deposit. Other particulate matter is emitted directly
by the vehicles from engine exhaust, wear of bearings and brake linings, and abrasion of tires against
the road surface.                                                                    f

Although unpaved roads recently comprised about 42 percent of total road mileage in the U.S., they
accounted for 64 percent of the fugitive dust from travel on roads in 1993. It is notable that paved
road mileage has been growing rapidly, as existing roads are paved at a much higher rate than new
roads are built. As recently as around 1980, unpaved mileage exceeded paved mileage.
CAUSAL FACTORS
     4  Lane mileage, paved and unpaved
     4  VMT, by pavement type
     4  Topographical conditions (hills, valleys, etc.) affecting pollutant dispersion
     4  Climatic conditions (temperature, wind, rain, etc.) affecting pollutant dispersion and
        secondary pollutant formation
     4  Population density affecting potential exposure


EMISSIONS OF REFRIGERANT AGENTS FROM VEHICLE AIR CONDITIONERS

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

Qwmw OUTCOME/RESULTS ImicATORS
     4  Quantified data on the contribution of vehicle refrigerant agents to depletion of the ozone
        layer and global warming are not available.
                                 t
QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS
     4  Nationwide, leaky vehicle air conditioners are responsible for 25 percent of all CFC
        emissions (Washington, 1991).
     4  71,000 metric tons of CFC-12 were released in 1994 from all sources (not only vehicles)
        (DOE, 1995a) ( see table).
          Estimated U.S. Emissions of CFC-12 and HFC-134a (all sources), 1987-1994
                                (thousand metric tons of gas)
Gas
CFC-12
HFC-134a
1987
110
NA
1988
110-
NA
1989
114
NA
1990
112
1
1991
108
1
1992
102
3
1993
99
6
1994
71
10
    Source: DOE, 1995a.
74

-------
                                                                       The Indicators: Highway
 QUANTIFIED ACTIVITY INDICATORS
      4  U.S. autos were responsible for approximately 175 million pounds of CFCs consumed in
         1989 of 700 million total (NRDC, 1993). As of 1996, CFCs are no longer being produced.


 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
 Automobile air conditioners are subject to significant leakage, with nearly all of the refrigerant
 leaking out over a 5-year time period. Until recently, the chlorofluorocarbon CFC-12 has been the
 principal refrigerant agent used in automobile air conditioners. Other major end uses of CFC-12
 include commercial air conditioning, refrigeration (refrigerators and freezers), and as a blowing agent
 for foams, insulation, and packaging. CFCs are potent greenhouse gases.  (U.S. DOE 1995a)

 CFCs are currently being phased out because they damage the stratospheric ozone layer. By signing
 the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and Copenhagen Amendments, the
 U.S. committed to eliminating the production of all CFCs by January 1, 1996. Stratospheric ozone,
 beneficial for its ability to absorb ultraviolet radiation, is, however, also a greenhouse gas. Gases that
 destroy stratospheric ozone thus have indirect cooling effects. Chlorine-containing chemicals such as
 CFCs tend to react with ozone, and the net effect on global climate is ambiguous (U.S. DOE, 1994b).

 Hydrofluorocarbon HFC-134a became the standard automobile air conditioner refrigerant in 1994,
 and HFC emissions will grow rapidly as CFCs gradually disappear from the automobile fleet. HFCs,
 which contain no chlorine, have no effect on ozone and simply are unambiguously greenhouse gases.
 Automobile air conditioners are the principal end-use for HFC-134a. In 1993, Ford sold nearly 40,000
 vehicles that each used about 2 pounds of HFC-134a in their air conditioners. Previous models used
 about 2.5 pounds of CFC-12. As of 1994, practically all new automobiles were using HFC-134a as
 the refrigerant in their air conditioners, and many manufacturers now offer conversion packages
 through their dealerships (DOE, 1994b).                                            .

 CFC-12 has a atmospheric lifetime of 102 years, and one molecule of CFC-12 has a 100 year global  •
 warming potential 8,500 times that of one molecule of CO2. HFC-134a has a lifetime of 14 years. One
 molecule of HFC-134a has a 100-year global warming potential 1,300 times that of one molecule of
 CO2. But the lack of chlorine in HFCs and their shorter atmospheric lifetimes reduce the indirect
 cooling effects of CFCs. Thus, HFC replacement compounds may be worse from a global climate
 perspective than their predecessors.

 The outcome is affected directly by output of CFCs.  It does not depend on climate, geography,
 exposure by humans or habitat, or other factors. Location will influence air-conditioner use since
 areas with high temperatures will tend to emit more CFCs. However, in this case location is a causal
•factor for the emissions, not a factor that influences the outcome of the emissions.

 CAUSAL FACTORS
     *  Quantity of refrigerant agent used
     4  Net global warming potential of refrigerant agent used
     *  Net ozone depleting potential of refrigerant agent used
                                                                                        75

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 NOISE

 PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

 QwwjFfeo OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
   •  4  37.0 percent of the U.S. population was exposed to noise levels from road transport great
         enough to cause annoyance—defined as Leq greater than 55dB(A)—in 1980 (OECD, 1993).
         A more recent estimate is not available.
     4  Significant portions of the U.S. population were exposed to daily noise levels from road
         transport great enough to cause other effects, such as communication interference,
         muscle/gland reaction, and changed motor coordination, as the following chart shows:

            Percent of U.S. Population Exposed to Road Transportation Noise, 1980
                                Outdoor Sound Level in Leq [dB(A)]
>55 dB(A)
Annoyance
>60 dB(A)
Normal
Speech Level
>65dB(A)
Communication
Interference
>70dB(A)
Muscle/Gland
Reaction
>75 dB(A)
Changed Motor
Coordination
             37.0%       18.0%         7.0%            2.0%          0.4%
             Source: OECD, 1993.
     *  Noise levels are site specific and dissipate with increasing distance from the source; as a
        result, an aggregate national noise emissions figure is not meaningful.
     *  Typical noise levels at 100 feet are 50 dB(A) for light auto traffic; 70 dB(A) for freeway
        traffic, and 90 dB(A) for city traffic (BTS, 1994).
     *  Typical noise emissions per vehicle are 85 dB(A) for an auto, 95 dB(A) for a heavy truck,
        100 dB(A) for a bus, and 110 dB(A) for a motorcycle (BTS, 1994).

QwmFisQ ACTIVITY INDICATORS
     4  Refer to Appendix A for data on vehicle travel.

OfHS? QtWOTJREo DATA AND LOCAL EXAMPLES
     *  An FHWA survey estimated that more than 929 miles of noise barriers had been constructed
        as of 199247 (FHWA,  1994b).
     4  Between 1980 and 1992 there were an average of 57 miles of new noise barriers built per
        year (FHWA, 1994b). Note that there are almost 13,000 miles of urban interstate and almost
        150,000 miles of other urban arterials (FHWA, 1993).
     *  Effective noise barriers can lower noise levels by 10-15 decibels (dB), which reduces traffic
        noise by as much as one half in many cases. (FHWA, 1992b)

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
Noise associated with road transport comes from engine operations, pavement-wheel contact,
aerodynamic effects, and vibrating structures during operations. Heavy trucks and buses cause more
  California did not provide data for the years 1990,1991, and 1992.
76

-------
                                                                      The Indicators: Highway
noise per vehicle than cars. The issue of noise is generally discussed in terms of the number or
proportion of people affected. The findings of numerous research projects in OECD countries on the
effects of noise and its wider repercussions indicate that an outdoor sound level of 65 dB(A) is
"unacceptable," and an outdoor level of less than 55 dB(A) is desirable (OECD, 1993). Noise is
thought to cause stress and other health problems and lower property values. It can also affects local
habitats of species near roads.

CAUSAL FACTORS
     4  Level of road activity; traffic volumes
     4  'Speed of traffic
     4  Proportion of heavy vehicles (one truck emits the equivalent noise of 28 to 60 cars)
    ' 4  Population density near road.
     4  Existence and effectiveness of noise barriers
     4  Effectiveness of devices such as mufflers and quiet vehicles             «


HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENTS DURING TRANSPORT

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS            .
     4  No statistics were found regarding the number of species or acres nationwide affected by
        commodity spills or other hazardous materials incidents.

QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS              '•-.'-               •                           i
     4  An average of 646,000 gallons of hazardous materials were reported spilled annually on
        highways from 1990 to 1994, more than three fourths of which was flammable and/or
        combustible liquid (U.S. DOT, RSPA, HMIS database) (see tables and graphics).

     4 - Almost 10,000 hazardous materials releases were reported annually from 1990 to 1994 (U.S.
        DOT, RSPA, HMIS  database) (see tables and graphics).
                       Distribution of Gallons of Hazardous  Materials
                           Spilled in Highway Transport,  1990-1994

                                    All Other
                                       14%
                                                  .     Flammable -
                    Corrosive Material •  /\    ?  1A  Combustible
                               11%   /    \  |K~     \  Liquid
                                      	             55%
                        Combustible
                               Liquid
                                   20%
                               , Source: U.S. DOT, RSPA, HMIS
                                                                                        77

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
              Hazardous Material Highway Incidents, Annual Average, 1990-1994'
                                                                               48
Class
Flammable - Combustible Liquid
Corrosive Material
Poisonous Materials
Combustible Liquid
Miscellaneous HAZMAT
Oxkfizar
Nonflammable Compressed Gas
Flammable Gas
Organic Peroxide
Flammable Solid
Other Regulated Material, Class A
Other Regulated Material, Class E
Poisonous Gas
Very Insensitive Explosive
Flammable Solid (per-1991)
Radioactive Material
Dangerous when Wet Material
Spontaneously Combustible
Other Regulated Material, Class B
Other Regulated Material, Class C
Explosive No Blast Hazard
Explosive Mass Explosion Hazard
Explosive Fire Hazard
Explosives, Class A
Other Regulated Material, Class D
Explosives, Class C
Irritating Material
Infectious Substance (Etiologic)
Explosive Protection Hazard
Total
Number of
Incidents
3,984.0
3,477.2
594.6
552.0
289.2
226.8
138.0
74.4
72.8
42.4
37.8
25.8
21.8
10.8
9.2
9.0
8.2
7.0
3.8
3.6
1.2
1.0
0.8,
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.2
9,594.6
Gallons
Released
358,341.2
71,726.4
5,622.0
132,395.2
26,781.0
5,453.1
28,064.7
10,573.9
135.9
1,048.9
655.5
586.3
265.0
653.1
7.0
2,000.9
2.2
3.6
164.6
1,883.0
0.0
40.3



0.2
2.4

0.1
646,406.3
Pounds Cubic Feet mCi Clean-up Cost
Released Released Released and Loss of
Material
1123.3
11,010.2
9,764.6 15.4

121,406.7
69,305.2
111.7 342,646.0
32,370.3
502.7
1,054.2
. 15.9
42,812.3
400.2 219.0
17,867.4
4,042.7
. 308.0
705.4
145.5
220.5
5,017.7
163.4
5.3
0.2
2,584.4
0.4

0.4
0.2

288,568.6 375,250.6
13,571,050
3,266,310
1,237,813
3,029,450
626,084
293,549
424,636
594,446
61,467
101,809
43,397
110,859
43,093
56,423
13,251
18.9 31,982
1 1 ,297
10,377
9,858
36,949
104,263
24,764
3
27,486
55
64
1,39
185
24
18.9 23,731,081
 Source: U.S. DOT. RSPA, HMIS.

     *  Materials release rates associated with transporting hazardous materials by truck appear to be
        as large as potential releases at .treatment and disposal sites (U.S. EPA, 1984).
     *  The quantity of hazardous materials remaining in the environment after cleanup efforts is
        unknown.

QtMffflFiB) ACTIVITY INDICATORS
     *  Trucks carry over 60 percent of the hazardous materials transported in the U.S. (Atkinson,
        1992).
 1 U.S. DOT, RSPA, HMIS Database.
78

-------
                                                                        The Indicators:  Highway
 OTHER QUANTIFIED DATA AND LOCAL EXAMPLES
     4   Of the 7,585 hazardous materials highway incidents reportecl to HMIS in 1991, 79 percent
         were a result of human error, 15 percent from packaging failure, 3 percent from vehicle
         accidents, and 3 percent from other causes (U.S. DOT, RSPA, 1991).
     4   Approximately 99 percent of the fatalities and injuries in accidents involving hazardous
         materials trucks resulting from physical collision were not related to the hazardous materials
         release (Harwood et al., 1990).


 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT                  .                       -
                                           '
 The potential for commodity releases during highway transportation is important to consider because
 of the large and growing role truck transport plays in domestic freight movement. In 1993, track
 transport accounted for 35 percent of the ton-miles and 53 percent of the tonnage moved during
 d9mestic intercity transport, excluding pipelines (Eno, 1994). In particular, commodity spills of
 hazardous materials may impose substantial costs for product loss, carrier damage, property damage,
 evacuations,  and response personnel and equipment. The Hazardous Materials Information System
 (HMIS) database, maintained by U.S. DOT/RSPA, contains a record of all reported hazardous
 materials incidents occurring during truck transport (except for intrastate only operators), including
 type of material spilled, number of injuries/fatalities, and estimated clean up costs.

 The number of hazardous material incidents is not necessarily indicative of the environmental impact
 of such incidents, since it may be possible to clean up most of the materials released. If not properly
 contained, however, hazardous materials incidents may cause environmental damage such as air and
 water pollutions damage to fish and wildlife, and habitat destruction. The environmental impact of any
 given hazardous materials  spill is highly site-specific.  It depends on the type and quantity of material
 spilled, amount recovered in cleanup,, chemical properties (such as toxicity and combustibility), and
 im'pact area characteristics (such as climatic conditions, flora and fauna density, and local
 topography).  It should be noted that while the overall impact of incidents may be small for the nation
 as a whole, any hazardous  material spill may have severe impacts on flora and fauna in the location of
 occurrence.                            .               ,

 CAUSAL FACTORS                    '
     4   Quantity of hazardous materials transported and distance transported
     *   Accident or spill rate
     4   -Type (toxicity/hazard) and quantity of materials spilled
     4   Effectiveness of cleanup efforts                                 ,
     4   Population density
     4   Sensitivity of local habitats/species


ROADKILL          ,

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS                                                     _'•.-.

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     4   In the United States, roadkill losses are estimated to be at least 1 million animals per day due
        to conflict with traffic while crossing roads (Tolley, 1995).
                                                                                          79

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
      4  When a new road is built, roadkill is estimated to increase by at least 200 percent (Aaberg et
         al., 1978; Green and Reilly, 1974).

 C^mm) OUTPUT INDICATORS
      4  An output indicator for roadkill is not meaningful since the immediate impact—killed
         animals—is an outcome. There are no emissions or indirect means to measure environmental
         harm.

 QUAttmsoAcmtY INDICATORS                                                                  .     "
      4  Refer to Appendix A for data on vehicle travel.

 OTHSiQUANmSDDATAANOLOCALEXAMPLES
      4  In 1981, deer-related accidents constituted 7 percent of police-reported accidents in
         Michigan and resulted in direct costs exceeding $17 million (Hansen and Wolfe, 1983).


 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
 Roads passing through wildlife habitat are a threat to various kinds of wildlife, especially in the first
 several years after a new road is constructed. It may take several years for wildlife to adapt to
 changes such as a new roadway in their habitat. Roadkill incidents in the initial few years of a road
 are at least double the rate of incidents observed over the long term.

 Most studies and statistics on roadkill focus on deer, elk, antelope, moose and similar large wilderness
 animals. However, several studies of specific roadway corridors have documented incidents relating
 to a broader range of creatures  (Foster and Humphrey, 1992). Although few national composite
 figures are available, many states track the number of animal-related incidents on their major
 roadways.

 VMT likely has some relationship to wildlife strikes, but the exact nature of that relationship is
 unclear. In the case of a new road, the introduction of "new" VMT into a region generally results in
 increased strikes. Once the habitat adapts to the presence of the road, however, the impact of
 increased VMT is less clear. Road mileage may have a significant impact on wildlife, strikes, and may
 be a more important factor than VMT. The size of the animal population in a given area is also a
 primary determinant of roadkills.

 There is little consensus regarding the most effective means of preventing roadkill incidents. Wildlife
 often manages to circumvent protective fencing by jumping over, going around, or going through
 open  gates and holes.  Reflectors, lighting, underpasses dedicated to wildlife, mirrors and signage
 have been shown by some studies to be relatively ineffective at changing the behavior of both drivers
 and wildlife (Fomwalt et al., 1980; Colorado Division of Wildlife, 1980; California Department of
 Transportation, 1980; Lehtimaki, 1981).

 CAUSAL FACTORS
     4  Habitat fragmentation, barriers to crossing formed by roads
     4  Lack of driver education on wildlife hazards and alertness
     4  Gaps in barriers and fences due to human activities
     4  Distance between edge of road and forest/vegetation
SO

-------
                                                                    The Indicators: Highway
Visibility (alignment, lighting, etc.)
Location of road relative to wildlife habitat (urban/rural)
                                                                                       81

-------

-------
                                                                     The Indicators: Highway
                     4. MOTOR VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT
Besides vehicles and streets, road transport requires support facilities such as motor freight terminals,
bus yards, fuel storage tanks, and auto fueling and service stations. These are discussed below.
                                                               Releases during
                                                              , Terminal Operations:
                                                              'Tank Truck Cleaning,

 Releases durin
 Passenger Vehicl
 Cleaning,
 Maintenance,
 Repair, and
 Refueling
                                                         Leaking Underground
                                                         Storage Tanks
RELEASES DURING TERMINAL OPERATIONS: TANK TRUCK CLEANING, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND
REFUELING

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS         .

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS                                                    •
    4  Data on water quality impacts to streams, rivers, and lakes, and related habitat due to tank
       truck terminal .operations are not available. Data on health effects from air pollution coming
       from terminals are also not available.

QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS
    4  Tank car and rail car cleaning operations emit 1.25 million pounds of VOCs per year (U.S.
     s  EPA Source Assessment Study of 1978 as cited in U.S. EPA, 1995a).
    *  Data on other wastes generated from motor freight terminal operations have not been
       estimated at the national level (see table for list of wastes generated).
                                                                                     83

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
                            Typical Motor Freight Terminal Operations:
                      Materials Used and Types of Waste Possibly Generated
Process/Operation
Materials Used
                                                             Types of Waste Generated
Unloading or
Cleaning of Tank
Cars
Rust Removal


Painting




Paint Removal



Exterior Washing


Equipment degreasing



Refueling


Changing of batteries
Solvents, alkaline
cleaners
Naval jelly, strong acids,
strong alkalis

Enamels, lacquers,
epoxies, alkyds, acrylics,
primers, solvents
Solvents, paint thinners,
enamel, white .spirits
Solvents, cleaning
solutions

Degreasers, engine
cleaners, acids, alkalis,
cleaning fluids

Gasoline, diesel fuel
Lead-acid batteries
                                                             Acid/alkaline wastes
                                                             Toxic wastes
                                                             Solvent wastes
                                                             Residual tank contents

                                                             Acid/alkaline wastes
                                                             Ignitable wastes
                                                             Toxic wastes
                                                             Paint wastes
                                                             Solvent wastes

                                                             Paint'wastes
                                                             Toxic wastes
                                                             Solvent wastes

                                                             Solvent wastes
                                                             Oil and grease

                                                             Ignitable waste
                                                             Combustible solids
                                                             Acid/alkaline wastes

                                                             Evaporative losses - VOCs
                                                             Fuel drips and spills

                                                             Acid/alkaline wastes
                                                             Batteries (lead acid)  '
Source: U.S. EPA/RCRA Fact Sheet: Motor Freight/Railroad Terminal Operations, 1993; U.S. EPA, 1995a.
     *  There are 1,841 truck/land tank cleaning facilities in the U.S. (EPA Office of Water as cited
         in U.S. EPA, 1995a).so
     *  Approximately 90 percent of transportation equipment cleaning facilities discharge
         wastewater to publicly owned treatment works or combined treatment works (privately .
         owned by multiple facilities) after some amount of treatment. Some facilities discharge
         directly to surface waters under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
         (NPDES) permits or to underground injection wells  under Safe Drinking Water Act permits
         (U.S. EPA, 1995a). Allowable emissions could be tracked based on these permits, although
         actual emissions may vary.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
Terminal operations include short- and long-haul truck activities (such as tank car unloading and
cleaning), furnishing of terminal facilities for passenger or freight traffic, and cleaning and
50 Land facilities are those that clean any combination of the following equipment: tank trucks, rail tank cars,
intermediate bulk carriers, intermodal tank containers.
S1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
84

-------
                                                                         The Indicators: Highway
  maintenance functions including equipment degreasing, exterior washing, and painting. Many of these
  processes use materials that are hazardous or may in turn generate hazardous waste or wastewater. In
  addition, refueling operations impact the environment through spills and drips of fuel, and through
  fuel tank vapors that are displaced when the tank is filled with liquid fuel. The actual impact of
  terminal activities on the environment depends in a large part on the type and volume of operations,
,  level of cleanliness required, type of waste generated, and efficacy of wastewater treatment systems in
  place.

  A significant source of pollution is the cleaning of tank truck interiors. The typical tank truck car has
  a volume of 3,500-8,000 gallons and generates about 500-1,000 gallons of wastewater during
  cleaning, resulting in the output of spent cleaning fluids, fugitive VOC emissions, water treatment
  system sludges, and tank residues. The disposal and treatment of tank heels can also be source of
  pollution for tank cleaning facilities. The typical heel volume of a tank truck car is 5-10 gallons per
  tank, and a facility's wastewater treatment system may be adversely affected by, or may not
  adequately treat, a slug of concentrated tank residue. Incompatible heels are usually segregated and
  resold  to a reclaimer or shipped off-site for disposal. Heels that are composed of detergents, solvents,
  acids, or alkalis can be stored on-site and used as a tank cleaning fluid or to neutralize other tank heels
  (U.S. EPA, 1995a).

 Relatively small amounts waste and wastewater are generated from the washing, maintenance., and
 painting of motor vehicle exteriors. Typical hazardous wastes generated include spent solvents, spent  .
 caustics, strippers, paint chips, and paint sludges. Wastewater is generally treated on-site and then
 discharged to a public treatment works.

 The primary source of toxic chemicals released during terminal operations are substances dissolved or
 suspended in wastewater, primarily during cleaning of tank interiors. Other potential environmental
 impacts of terminal operations include air  emissions and residual wastes. Fugitive emissions of VOCs
 arise from tank heels and residues, cleaning solutions, painting and paint stripping, and refueling
 vapors. Residual wastes are generated as sludges from wastewater treatment systems, residues
 removed from the inside of tanks, and hazardous wastes" from painting, paint removal, and cleanin<* of
 parts (U.S. EPA, 1995a).

 CAUSAL FACTORS             ;                            '                      '
      •f   Number of terminals
      *   Type and level of terminal operations
      *  Materials used during terminal operations
      *  Wastewater treatment capabilities


 RELEASES DURING PASSENGER VEHICLE CLEANING, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND REFUELING

 PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

 QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     *  Data on water quality impacts on streams, rivers, and lakes, and related habitat due to gas
        and service station operations are  not available. Data on health and habitat effects from air
        pollution related to gas and service stations are also not available.
                                                                                          85

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
QtMNDRG) OUTPUT INDICATORS
     *  National statistics are not readily available, although EPA's MOBILE model produces
        emissions factors for hydrocarbons due to refueling on a per mile basis.

QUWTJBEO ACTIVITY INDICATORS
     *  75 percent of transit agencies surveyed collect and treat wastewater from bus washing
        operations.52 (TCRP, 1995a)
     *  65 percent of transit agencies wash their active bus fleets daily during summer months; 81
        percent wash daily during the whiter.53 (TCRP, 1995a)
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
Facilities such as gas stations, maintenance shops, and service stations impact the environment
through runoff of gas, oil, and dirt; waste releases to sewer systems; air emissions; and waste disposal.
Research has found that areas where motor vehicles are serviced, fueled, or parked may have higher
loadings of pollutants in road runoff.

Fueling activities generate air emissions due to VOC losses during transfer. There are two types of
refueling losses: Stage 1 losses associated with the refilling of underground storage tanks, and Stage 2
losses occurring during the transfer of fuel from pump to automobile gas tank. Both Stage 1 and Stage
2 losses are counted as stationary source emissions by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. These are not included in this report because they are not reported separately.

CAUSAL FACTORS
     *  Number of maintenance facilities
     *  Type and level of maintenance operations
     *  Materials used during maintenance operations
     *  Wastewater treatment capabilities
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (USTs) CONTAINING FUEL

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

        OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
        In 1992, 50 states and U.S. territories reported leaking USTs to be a significant source of
        ground water contamination. Above ground storage tanks were reported as a problem by 12
        states (U.S. EPA, 1994b).
52 Based on survey of TCRP survey (1995) of 120 geographically diverse transit agencies in the U.S. and
Canada; 52 respondents.
53 Based on survey of TCRP survey (1995) of 120 geographically diverse transit agencies in the U.S. and
Canada; 52 respondents.
86

-------
                                                                      The Indicators: Highway
 QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS .                                .
     4   34,000 confirmed annual releases from underground storage tanks (USTs) occurred in 1994,
         a 50 percent reduction from the 68,000 releases in 1990 (U.S. EPA as cited in Industrial
         Economics, 1995). A majority of these tanks likely are associated with transportation.
     4   Quantities emitted are unknown.

              Total Releases from  Underground Storage Tanks
                      CO
                           60 -
                        CO
£ I40
o o
                            0
                                      68,000
                                                         34,000
                                       1990
                                    1994
 QUANTIFIED ACTIVITY, INDICATORS
     4  There were 1.6 million active petroleum USTs in 1995, an 11 percent decrease from the
        estimated 1.8 million tanks in 1991 (U.S. EPA, as cited in Industrial Economics, 1995).
     4  More than 20 percent of existing USTs are installed partially or completely below the water
        table (U.S. EPA, as cited in Industrial Economics, 1995).                             .
     *  Over 170,000 USTs are closed annually, resulting in the elimination of many older, bare-
      •  steel tanks (U.S. EPA, as cited in Industrial Economics, 1995).
     *  Some 232,835 leaking UST cleanups have been initiated since 1988; 126,608 of these
        cleanups have been completed (U.S. EPA, as cited in Industrial Economics, 1995).
     4-  Over 1,000 emergency responses to.tank situations relating to potential environmental
        releases are conducted by federal and state UST officials each year (U.S. EPA, as cited in •
        Industrial Economics, 1995).
     4  Highway/road transport accounts for 76 percent of all transportation-related petroleum
        consumption (U.S. DOE, 1994a),

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT  .      '   ,      '                   •       .-  '
Although USTs may contain various hazardous substances or other regulated materials, the vast
majority store petroleum and are commonly discussed in the context of transportation, particularly
highway transportation. EPA estimates that there are approximately T.6 million petroleum USTs and
an additional 37,000 tanks containing hazardous substances (U.S. EPA, as cited in Industrial
Economics, 1995). At the same time, 96.6 percent of all transportation sector operations in the U.S.
use petroleum for fuel. Highway/road transport accounts for-76 percent of all transportation-related
petroleum consumption (U.S. DOE, 1994a).
Leaking USTs can be a major source of groundwater contamination. Releases from tanks and piping
occur from corrosion of older, unprotected steel tanks and piping, or from cracks in tanks made from
                                                                                       87

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 other materials. Overfilling and spillage during refueling are also responsible for significant numbers
 of accidental releases. More stringent regulation of USTs (design, citing, installation, monitoring) is
 resulting in a decrease in the total number of active USTs and the volume of contaminants released.
 The 1986 amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) established a $500
 million Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, financed through a tax on gasoline, to
 cleanup leaking UST sites. In 1998, all existing USTs will require spill protection through catchment
 basins, automatic shutoff devices, overfill alarms, and mandatory corrosion protection for steel tanks
 and piping.

 CAUSAL FACTORS
     *   Number of leaking underground storage tanks (USTs)
     *   Type and quantity of materials released from leaking USTs
     *   Spill protection mechanisms
     *   Cleanup efforts initiated and completed
     *   Location of groundwater table
     4   Sensitivity of local ecosystems
     4   Treatment of drinking water
SS

-------
                                                                  The Indicators: Highway
                         5. DISPOSAL OF VEHICLES AND PARTS
                    Tire Disposal
Vehicle Scrapage
                                          Lead-acid Battery
                                          Disposal
   Motor Oil Disposal
                             Potential Water, Soil, or
                             Air Contamination
SCRAPPAGE OF VEHICLES

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

QuAffriFiED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
    *  Estimates are not available on the health and environmental impacts of landfilling or
        other disposal of"scrapped vehicles.

QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS
                                            ^
    4 National data on emissions from the disposal of vehicles are not^ available.

QUANTIFIED ACTIVITY INDICATORS
    4 Approximately 9 million automobiles (about 94 percent of all scrapped vehicles) are
       collected and recycled annually at one of the 12,000 scrappage/disassembly locations in
       the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 1995b).
    * At least 75 percent of the material collected from scrapped vehicles is recycled for raw-
       material use, and 25 percent landfilled. This comprises about 1.5 percent of total
       municipal landfill waste (U.S. EPA, 1995b).
                                                                                    89

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
                                                 Composition of
   Vehicle Material Waste       Municipal Landfill Material

                          -«•„  -,                          Autos
                     Landfilled
                                          Other
 Recycled                               Landfill Waste


OTHER QUANTIFIED DATA AND LOCAL EXAMPLES
     *  Data on tonnages of these items were not readily available, but about 21 percent of a
        vehicle's weight (total is approx. 3000 pounds) is non-metals (of which, 38 percent is
        plastic, 12 percent fluids, 21 percent rubber, 14 percent glass, and 16 percent other)
        (U.S. EPA, 1995b).

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
When a vehicle is  dismantled, fluids can be recovered, including oil, antifreeze, and refrigerant.
Solid parts such as the radiator and catalytic converter are removed for recycling or reuse. The
battery, fuel tank, and tires are also separated. The remaining vehicle is shredded (at one of the
200 shredding operations in North America) and sorted into ferrous, nonferrous (8.7 percent of
the whole vehicle), and residual components. The residue contains plastics, glass, textiles, metal
fines, and dirt, which are generally all landfilled.

CAUSAL FACTORS
    *  Number of vehicles scrapped
    *  Fraction disposed of properly (through recycling, recovery, etc.)
    4  Use of hazardous materials in vehicles
    *  Recovery rate of materials in scrapped vehicles
MOTOR OIL DISPOSAL

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

Qt*WnF!ED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     •*  Statistics are not available on amount of groundwater contamination or'other
        environmental outcomes specifically attributable to motor oil disposal.

Qwaweo OUTPUT INDICATORS
     *  No data are available on the amount of motor oil that is released to land or water.
90

-------
                                                                    The Indicators: Highway
 QUANTIFIED ACTIVITY INDICATORS
     +  161 million gallons (23 percent) of the 714 million gallons of used motor oil collected
         annually are improperly disposed (U.S. EPA, 1994c).
                                                23% of used oil is
                                              improperly disposed
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
Disposal of used motor oil can pollute sewers, wastewater treatment plants, and groundwater
supplies. Used motor oil contains toxicants such as lead and benzene and, if improperly disposed
of, can be a significant source of water pollution. The oil from just one oil change is enough to
significantly contaminate a million gallons of fresh water.

CAUSAL FACTORS
     *  Quantity of oil used in motor vehicle operations.
     *  Recovery rate
     *  Groundwater contamination and seepage-prevention measures at the disposal site
     V  Sensitivity of local ecosystems
     *  Water treatment technologies
TIRE DISPOSAL

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS          '
     *  Statistics are not available, on amount of groundwater contamination, air pollution, or
        other environmental outcomes specifically attributable to disposal of tires from motor
        vehicles.                                                               .

QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS  .     '
     4  Waste tire incineration was responsible for approximately 2 pounds of polychlorinated
        biphenyl (PCB) emissions out of total national emissions of 282 pounds in 1990. Since
        1990, the rate of tire incineration has increased dramatically (U.S. EPA, 1995e).

QUANTIFIED ACTIVITY INDICATORS
     +  In 1995, 252 million scrap tires were generated, with 69 percent recovered (174.5
        million). 74.4 percent of those recovered were burned as tire-derived fuel (Scrap Tire
        Management Council)
                                                                                       91

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
         In the early 1990s, by contrast, 242 million tires were scrapped annually, with only a 30
         percent recovery rate, leaving 169 million tires to be landfilled or stockpiled each year
         (U.S. EPA, 1993b).
         In 1990,1.6 million tons of rubber tires were discarded into the municipal waste stream,
         accounting for 1.0 percent of municipal waste stream (U.S. EPA, 1992).
         Approximately 800 million tires remain in stockpiles in the U.S. (Hilts, 1996).
                                     TIRE DISPOSAL
       Landfilled
Recovered
 Recycled
  174.5M
   69%
                                                                 Burned for
                                                                   „„ Fuel
                                                                     74%
     300
         Scrap Tire Generation in the United States
                           Tires Consumed by Reuse Markets
    250 -
    200 -
     150 -
     100
I — I





—






—

IUU70
•o
1 80%
a:
jg 60%
15 40%
| 20%
o
°- no,
11%
1 -:.'•-'.(
1 "I
70%


1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 199° 1995
Source:US EPA, Markets tor Scrap Tires, 1 991 . Source:Hilts, 1 996.
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
Disposal of used tires from motor vehicles can pollute sewers, wastewater treatment plants, and
groundwater supplies, as well as take up landfill capacity. Many landfills do not allow tire
disposal because tires decompose extremely slowly; they collect gases released by decomposing
garbage, and then gradually float up to the surface of the landfill. In addition, used tires contain
oil, making them a fire hazard, and may retain stagnant water, an ideal breeding ground for
mosquitoes.

Tires pose a considerable fire hazard because once ignited, they can emit toxic gases, such as
polyaromatic hydrocarbons, CO, SO2, NO2, and HC1 (U.S. EPA, October 1991). The use of water
to extinguish tire fires can result in soil and water contamination from oils generated by the
burning tires. Furthermore, these fires can be extremely difficult to extinguish. Stockpiles of
tires have been known to bum continuously for more than a year (U.S. EPA, October 1991).
92

-------
                                                                     The Indicators: Highway
  CAUSAL FACTORS                                                     i
       4  Quantity of tires disposed (based on number of vehicles and tire service life)
       *  Recovery rate
       4  Method of disposal or recycling
       *  Proximity to human population or habitat
       4  Toxic constituents in tires
  LEAD-ACID BATTERIES DISPOSAL

  PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

  QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
      4   Statistics are not available on amount of groundwater contamination or other
          environmental outcomes specifically attributable to disposal of batteries.   •          '

  QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS                                 •                   .    -
      4   No data are readily available on discharge of toxics from the disposal of lead-acid
          batteries.

  QUANTIFIED ACTIVITY INDICATORS       -                '
      4  In 1990, 1.7 million tons of spent lead-acid batteries were generated in the municipal
      . •  waste stream, but 96.6 percent of these were recovered and recycled nationwide, leaving
         only 100,000 tons to be discarded (U.S. EPA, 1992).
      4  In 1990, 100,000 tons of spent lead-acid batteries were discarded into the municipal
         waste stream, which is less than 0.05 percent of the total municipal waste stream (U.S.
         EPA, 1992).
      4  According to the U.S. Bureau of Mines, about 79 percent of lead consumed in 1989 was
         used in lead-acid batteries. Close to three fourths (by weight), or 0.75 million metric
         tons, of the lead-acid batteries shipped domestically in 1989 were automotive batteries
         (U.S. EPA, January 1992).     •                                                   '
      4  The 1985 battery recycling rate was estimated to be 69.5 percent in a report prepared for
         EPA in 1987.  The report also found that battery recycling rates fluctuated widely over
         the period 1960 to  1985, with recycling rates having a strong correlation to the price of  .
         lead (U.S. EPA, January 1992).
      4  A 1991 study by the Battery Council International (BCI), a battery manufacturers' trade
         association, estimated that the lead-acid battery recycling rate (excluding "consumer"
         batteries) is roughly 95 percent. A study by the Oregon Department of Environmental
         Quality estimated that the state of Oregon's lead-acid battery recycling rate was between
         90 and 99.9 percent for 1990 (U.S. EPA, January 1992).

. DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT                         .      •     .       .
 Disposal of used parts and fluids from vehicles and batteries can pollute sewers, waste water
 treatment plants, and groundwater supplies, as well as take up landfill  capacity. The typical car
 battery weighs 30-36 pounds and contains 18-20 pounds of lead acid and electrolyte solution.
 Lead-acid batteries, primarilyfrom automobiles, rank first, by a wide margin, of the products
 containing lead that enter the waste stream.. The disposal (versus recycling) of such batteries
                                                                                       93

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
means the introduction of lead, sulfuric acid, and polypropylene, all hazardous waste, into
landfills or the environment.

An accurate battery recycling rate is difficult to establish due to a number of factors, including
fluctuations in annual battery sales, time lags in data due to various batteries' life spans, and
imports and exports of batteries and scrap lead. Still, information from several sources suggests
that the recycling rate for lead-acid batteries is increasing (U.S. EPA, January 1992).   Recycling
of batteries to recover lead has a significant influence on the amount of lead discarded. A
number of states have made a strong commitment to recycling.

CAUSAL FACTORS
     4  Quantity of batteries used in motor vehicle operations
     *  Recovery rate
     4  Groundwater contamination and seepage prevention measures at the disposal site
     4  Proximity to human population or habitat
94

-------
                                                                            The Indicators:  Rail
                        EjJU.fc  ENVIRONMENTAL* INDICATOR'S
This section presents the quantitative indicators available for tracking the nationwide environmental
impacts of rail transportation. Rail is defined broadly to encompass freight transportation, as well as
intercity (Amtrak) and intracity passenger rail. Intracity passenger rail includes heavy rail (subways
and elevated systems), light rail, and commuter rail. In some cases, data for all these forms of
transportation were not available, so rail indicators may provide partial data (for example, transit
impacts may be excluded in some categories). For each of the five basic categories of activities
affecting the environment, the various impacts are listed.
HOW EACH IMPACT IS PRESENTED IN THIS SECTION

Each environmental impact is covered in one or more pages of text and graphics, with the following
key subsections:               '

4   Presentation of indicators

        The key indicators that have been quantified are presented. Outcome
        indicators are listed first since they provide information on end results and
        are theoretically the most desirable type of indicator. Unfortunately, actual
        quantified data are often unavailable or of poor quality. In many instances,
        the only available data on outcomes are the number of states reporting a
        problem. This information is often incomplete (not all states may examine the
        problem), vague (states may define the problem differently), or only
        somewhat relevant (the contribution of transportation to the problem may be
        unknown). As a result, output indicators—such as emissions data—are
        presented. These statistics may be an easier and more valid measure.for
        policy makers to examine and track over time. Finally, activity indicators
        (defined broadly to include infrastructure, travel, and other activities) are
        listed when they are the best available indicators  or when outcome and output
        indicators are not adequate.

        To avoid repetition within the report, basic infrastructure and travel
        indicators are listed in Appendix A for each mode of transportation. .
        Appendix B contains additional relevant statistics on monetized values of
        health and other impacts; these outcome indicators are listed separately since
        there is generally more uncertainty regarding these figures.

•   Description of impact

        The nature of the  impact is briefly defined  and explained here..  More
        complete descriptions of these impacts are available in reference works  listed
        in the bibliography.          ,
                                                                                          95

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 •   Causal factors: Variables that change over time and between locations

        Policy makers find it very useful to understand the driving forces behind
        environmental impacts. Understanding the key causal factors is critical to
        explaining observed trends in indicators. They also help in estimating how
        local impacts may differ from national averages. These causal variables, then,
        explain how the impacts differ over time and geographic location. Most
        importantly, they suggest potential policy levers.  Policies can be designed to
        focus on any of the key variables (e.g., grams emitted per mile) that
        determine the magnitude of an environmental impact.

 The following table provides an overview of the available indicators for each impact. It is important to
 note two points about what is included in this table: First, indicators are listed only where they have
 been quantified at the national level; if an impact has not been-quantified, no "potential" indicator is
 listed here. For each specific activity and its impact, the table provides a summary of the availability
 of quantitative data for indicators of outcomes, output, and activity. Second, the table shows only the
 best indicator for each impact rather than listing various alternative types of indicators for a given  ,
 impact. The exceptions to this are when multiple indicators are needed to address all aspects of an
 issue or where some indicators are otherwise insufficient. Although outcome indicators are
 theoretically the most desirable type of indicator, actual quantified outcome data are often unavailable
 or of poor quality. As a result, output indicators—such as emissions levels—tend to be the most
 reliable and valid measures available hi most cases. Activity indicators are presented in this table
 when they are the best available indicators or when outcome and output indicators are not adequate.
96

-------
 <2


 I
 o
 Q.
 CO


 I




 (T

 T3
 .2

 *•&

 CO

 a

 co

 o

 to
 _o


 _E


 "5

 o
 co


 I

CO

r
. i-
o
?* •«* -4
•S 1 i
sfj £ I
1 |?
*"* t8 3J
•t* *•* ^9
& -Gw *j|
-< A O
' 1
ll 1
ill
"Si!
5*> ^
0 i'S
j,
95 1
Sirf SJ

"*•* *"j
£jj ,55
T3 e?
S «M
I—I §

S S «
s* s
jg ;£» oa
£11










>i
•**
s
•3









,




s
-i
a
S3
J
^N
^j



42
U
Intenan
1

J
u
1
c

^^
^"^

>-J
s
3*
1
•^
«> >>
National estimates of habitat
. fragmentation and other impae
are not available. Rail track ma
be elevated, surface, or
underground.
•8 •
0 CO
2 . c
c "«
8 «
Hi-
^- "O O
ill
£ i z

o 2
> -3
O t. -
S' «s '
• Cumulative land arc
by surface track
• New land area taken





/^s
^o
o

5
S
-
I . •


s
3
3
T3
3
5

2n
3
Q
3
3
a
S '
Creosote is a toxic preservant t
is applied to rail crossties.

.3
J5
8
CO __
CO ^i.
O "^
w *
O ^
t4_! ~

11
Z, H


(Data unavailable)





y— • S
JJ>
3
JH
3
>
2
3
2
3


5
2
*5
8
¥ u



•^ s
5 C
\ '3
o 5
1- a





,









,









 ^ -£j ai
o o cd cz
oo 2 o j__
"§ "° " ^
^ O C ffl












g
5

Some of the quantity released i:
- generally recovered, and is not
permanent release to the
environment.





h




*ea
1
CB
• Type and quantity of
reported released






3?
3


B
3
CO
B


2
3
3
2
-»
3 t;
ca o
= n. -
*— CO
3 2
I w>
s-E
« 3

-------



































1
t:
1
1
&
i^^
}
e
^
S
g
r the Environ
a1
S
-I
2


























































„
s
£





oil
*ff* if t§
^o H J
f^ gj ^£

*^«|
^ |<
33 §H
0 c
i
s S §
o *•* 3
"*"*Ȥ

*O g *!

f^"* 3
tfl
, r--T X

a •§ w
O K o
2l
o &«
il
^ -S
^^ Q
»> d3
Outcomi
HKiIlhori
Measure




^
i ii nl
T
"3
'
eo
a
1 -
S 0
•o =
l_ O
o S
nental effects
nk interiors hi
intified.
g s §.
*n? ^ C3
e ^ 8
£11 O JD













•a
o
1
Q
>
"o
^
.^s
e
e:
f




JO
75
°C3
(Data unav
ea
c
"S
"s
11-
t_ (5 ,~
£} .2 5
*C o e?
3 .. 5
^3 g e
|3 o a
i s s
Sll


.2
^ .T^
c n:
O«_>
•— 3
75 o "3
are of total n
s from electri
been estimate
~!a o °
J» 'Z •—
"S "5 H
P^ 5^ ?^





'o
•n _
Ij g
"S >%

0 -3
1 1
Js
oT
2 -3
O'Jo
U e*
*o U
>% O
•H >
C .1
ca X
0-S




s
»
*3
(Data unav
eo
e

in utililies pov,
,8
c/i
s
S
1 s
S3 2









































1
s

c^
5
1
i
a.
S
^
"3
V3
O
0,
CA
•S
c
0
•o
c
I
= S
.2 u
"ea ~Z
£ o,
£ 2

z'S
•a
—
S —
« ^
f^ QJ
*- eo
O
J2 D*
° -3
g: u
O w
c _g

"E'8
If
3 ~


-s-
I
"5
>
c
3

"S
^



2
S
'S
(Data unav



arts disposal
0.
•o
G
es

S
1
00
a\

-------
                                                                           The Indicators: Rail
             1. RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND ABANDONMENT

 Although rail construction was once significant, new construction is extremely limited in comparison
 to historical levels. Purposes for new construction include more efficient operations, competitive
 service, better access to industrial facilities, and high-speed passenger service. The only recent
 growth in rail transportation infrastructure of significance is transit rail. In practice, abandonment of
 rail lines and facilities is more of an issue than new construction. Although the short line and
 regional railroad industry continues to grow, accounting for nearly 25 percent of the nation's
 174,000-mile railroad system, currently most new short line and regional railroads have been created
 from marginal lines purchased from Class I railroads that would otherwise have abandoned them
 (ICC, 1993). Until recently, in the U.S., the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) has authorized
 and monitored interstate railway track construction and abandonment and played a role in
 environmental impact assessment.

 In addition to long-term land take in the right of way, railway construction or salvage activities may
 have temporary, but'significant, environmental impacts due to drilling and excavation activities,
 disposal of excess material, and discovery of hazardous material in the right-of-way.
                            Air Pollutant Emissions during
                            Construction/maintenance
                                                                    Habitat Disruption
HABITAT DISRUPTION AND LAND TAKE

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS
            f   - *'    -                                              .
QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS                ,               ••.'••
    *   The number of species or acres of sensitive habitat adversely affected by rail construction
        and/or abandonment is not known. Since construction and abandonment cases have been
                                                                                        99

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
         subject to environmental review by the ICC, the impacts of such activities presumably have
         been considered and minimized.

 QUANTIFIED OUTPUT tecaTtws
     *  In 1993, 1 .3 square miles of land were taken for new construction of intercity track, and
         land area used for intercity rail transport grew by about 0.05 percent (Apogee estimate based
         on ICC, 1993; Carpenter, 1994).
     4  Railway track and buffers occupy about 4 percent of the surface area in large cities (Tolley,
         1995).
     *  Existing intercity (freight) rail covers an estimated 2,784 square miles of land in the U.S.,
         occupying less than 0.1 percent of total land area (ICC, 1993; Carpenter, 1994).
     4   In 1993, 82 new miles of intercity track were constructed (ICC, 1993).
     4   In 1993, 441, 381 tons of new rail were laid (AAR, 1993).
     4   As of January 1995, 170 miles of commuter rail, 71 miles of heavy rail, and 83 miles of
         light rail were under construction in the U.S. (APTA, 1995).
     4   Existing rail mileage is 177,000 miles of track, of which 168,964 miles are owned and
         operated by freight railroads; Amtrak operates a majority of its system on track owned by
         freight companies (AAR, 1993). Miles of track owned by Class I railroads has been
         decreasing due to sale of track to non-Class I railroads and some abandonment.
                                  Miles of Track Owned
                                      Class I Railroads
                          400,000

                          350,000

                          300,000

                       |  250,000

                       O  200,000 •

                       :i  150,000
                       E
                          100,000

                          50,000
                               1920

                                        1940
                                                 1960
                                                          1980
2000
                                     Source: AAR, 1994.

        Passenger rail stations include 540 stations served by Amtrak (Amtrak, 1994), 911 heavy
        rail transit stations (U.S. DOT, 1994), and 958 commuter rail stations (U.S. DOT, 1994).54
        The ICC authorized over 1,897 miles of track abandonment in Fiscal Year 1993, and 1,824
        miles the previous year. Environmental review was conducted for over 130 abandonment
        cases in Fiscal Year 1993, and in 60 cases the ICC imposed limitations on salvage activities
        to prevent wildlife disturbance or other environmental impacts (ICC, 1993).
54 Figures for Amtrak stations are from 1994, heavy rail and commuter rail stations from 1990.
100

-------
                                                                             The Indicators: Rail
 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT              '                                              •
 Since the addition of new railway infrastructure involves land take in the right-of-way and
 fragmentation of habitat, both flora and fauna in wetlands and terrestrial habitats are affected. The
 average width of land occupied by a railway track and buffer zone is about 0.016 miles (25 meters)
 (Carpenter, 1994). Rail transport thus requires about 0.016 square miles of land space per mile of
 railway track and surrounding buffer; as a result, only about 2,784, square miles of land in the U.S.
 are devoted to railway infrastructure.

 The linear nature of railway lines leads to the splitting of natural habitats, possibly decreasing habitat
 size and reducing interaction between communities of species. Railway structures may damage
 existing vegetation, interfere with wildlife crossings, displace communities of animals and birds,
 and/or alter the hydrology of the area, such as drainage and stream flow patterns. Over time, rail lines
 can act as long-terms dams, causing the buildup of wetlands in the area. Certain species may also
 become accustomed to nesting along the right-of-way. When rail lines are abandoned, salvage
 activities (such as the removal of track, bridges, or culverts) may cause wetlands destruction or
 habitat disruption.

 Measures can be taken, however, to mitigate environmental damage, such as route selection to bypass
 particularly sensitive areas, compensatory habitat creation and relocation, fine adjustments to vertical
 or horizontal alignments, and limiting salvage and construction activities to certain times and
 locations. In 1993, the ICC conducted over 130 environmental reviews for rail abandonment cases
 and imposed salvage restrictions in approximately 60 of these cases to mitigate impacts on
 environmental resources (ICC, 1993). Limitations on salvage activities include restricting salvage to
 certain times of year when species  of concern are not present or breeding in the area, and limiting
 salvage to the right-of-way to prevent disturbing nearby wildlife habitat.

Many heavy-rail systems have been constructed underground as subways, either through cut-and-
 cover methods or tunneling. While subways typically are built in highly urban areas, this
 construction may still have environmental impacts related to,drainage, soils, and geology.

 CAUSAL FACTORS
    *  Miles of track constructed                                          ~     '         - '.
    *  Miles of track abandoned  and salvaged
    *  Current land use                                                                '
    *  Type of construction (elevated, at-grade, underground)
    *  Ecological conditions/type of land (i.e., wetlands, forest, etc.)
EMISSIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     *  No data are available on the health or habitat effects of emissions from rail station
        construction or laying of rail track.
                                                                                          101

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 QUWIBSJ OUTPUT INDICATORS
      4  National statistics for emissions from construction are not collected because of their
         temporary and project-specific nature. They are unlikely to be large in national terms given
         the limited amount of construction.
     *  Class I railroads laid 13,233,000 crossties and 441,38 1 tons of new rail in 1993 (AAR,
         1993).  Creosote is a toxic preservant that is applied to crossties.
                                    Class 1 Railroads
                             Tons  of  New Rail Laid
                           2,500
                                1920  1940  1960  1980  2000
                                     Source: AAR, 1994.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
Construction or salvage of plant and equipment can affect the environment through diesel fumes
from excavating machinery and haulage vehicles, spillage during refueling, dust from earthworks,
and noise. In addition, construction traffic may also emit air pollutants.

CAUSAL FACTORS
     *  Miles of track constructed, tons of new rail laid
     *  Miles ,of track salvaged
     •  Level of construction and/or salvage activities
     •  Fuel consumed by construction equipment
     *  Topographical conditions (hills, valleys, etc.)
     *  Climatic conditions (temperature, wind, rain, etc.)
     +  Population density
102

-------
                                                                             The Indicators: Rail
                           2. RAIL CAR AND PARTS MANUFACTURE

 The manufacture of railcars, locomotives, and parts results in environmental impacts through the
 release of toxics to the air, soil, and water.

                                                                 Toxic Releases
 TOXICRELEASES

 PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

 QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     *  No quantified data on human health impacts, such as increased incidence of cancer from
        toxics, or habitat and species impacts are available.

 QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS                                   .                      '.-'.•
     *  Nearly 2.2 million pounds of toxic chemicals were reported released on-site from railroad
        equipment manufacturing facilities in 1993 (U.S. EPA, 1995d).55
55
  Impacts of imported equipment and parts are not counted here. Only U.S. facilities are included here,
including the impacts of exported equipment
                                                                                          103

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
         Toxic Chemicals Released from Railroad Equipment Manufacturing Facilities
                                      (pounds per year)
SIC 	 Industry
Code Type
3743 Railroad
Equipment
On-Site Releases
Air Water Land .Underground Total
Injection
2,157,138 458 15
500 2,158,111
Off-Site
POTW locations
Transfer Transfer
176,632 8,165,741
 Source:  U.S. EPA, 1993 Toxic Releases Inventory (1995)
 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
 The manufacture of railroad vehicles and engines involves use of a variety of materials and
 chemicals. During the various processes, toxic'chemicals are released from vehicle manufacturing
 facilities into the environment. Releases occur as on-site discharges of toxic chemicals, including
 emissions to the air, discharges to water, releases to land, and contained disposal or injection
 underground.  In addition, chemicals are transferred off-site, as the following diagram shows.
           On-Site Emissions
Air
           Land
                                   Off-Site
                                   Transfers
                      Water
                                      Underground
                                      Injection
On-site releases to air occur as either stack emissions, through confined air streams, fugitive
emissions, which include equipment leaks, evaporative losses from surface impoundments and spills;
and/or releases from building ventilation systems. Surface water releases may include releases from
discharge pipes and from diffuse runoff from the plant facility's parking lots, roofs, and other areas.
Releases to land may include disposal in landfills, surface impoundments, and other types of land
disposal within the boundaries of the reporting facility. Underground injection is a contained release
of a fluid into a subsurface well.

Off-site transfers involve shipments of chemicals away from the reporting facility. Except for off-
site transfers for disposal, these quantities do not necessarily represent entry of the chemical into the
environment. Chemicals are often shipped to other locations for recycling, energy recovery, or
treatment at publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). Wastewaters are transferred through pipes
or sewers to a POTW, where treatment or removal of a chemical from the water depends upon the
nature of the chemical and treatment methods used. Some chemicals are destroyed in treatment.
104

-------
                                                                           The Indicators: Rail
Others evaporate into the atmosphere. Some are removed but are not destroyed by treatment and
may be disposed of in landfills (U.S. EPA, 1992b).                           ;           ,

CAUSAL FACTORS                  .
    *  Number of vehicles or parts built
    4  Amount of chemicals, used in manufacture per vehicle or part
    *  Efficiency of processes and pollution prevention efforts
    4  Amount of chemicals transferred to other locations for recycling, energy recovery, or
        treatment
    *  Types of chemicals released and toxicity
    4-  Population density and extent of exposure
    4  Environmental conditions such as climate and topography
                                                                                       105

-------

-------
                                                                            The Indicators: Rail
                                       3. RAIL TRAVEL
Rail transport directly affects the environment through emissions from fuel combustion, noise, and
hazardous materials incidents.  These impacts are discussed below. In most cases, the amount of
travel (freight and passenger) is an activity indicator that provides a crude indication of the level of
effect. Additional data on rail travel activity are presented in Appendix A.
                                                Exhaust
                                                Emissions
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS                                •.'•..

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     *  No data are available on the health or habitat effects of emissions from rail travel.

QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS      •                                       .
   .  *  In 1994, railroad operations were responsible for the following emissions nationwide (U.S.
        EPA, 1995e):
         Pollutant
Quantity Emitted
 (1994, thousand
   short tons)
Percentage of total
 Emissions of that
     Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs) '
Sulfur Dioxide. (SO2)
Paniculate Matter (PM-10)
Ammonia
124
947
43

69
48
1.79
0.13 %
4.01 %
0.19 % •

0.33 %
0.11 %"*
0.03 %
                                                                                        107

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts, of Transportation
        In 1993, CO2 emissions from railroad operations accounted for approximately 12 million
        metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtCe), or 0.9 percent of total national anthropomorphic
        COa emissions (Apogee estimate).56
        Railroad travel contributed to emissions of other greenhouse gases, as reported below (U.S.
        EPA,  1994a):
                   Pollutant
                   Methane
                   Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
  Quantity Emitted
  (1990, thousand
    metric tons)
               2
               1
CO Emissions from Railroads
Year
1970
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Thousand
Short Tons
65
96
106
109
112
118
121
122
122
124
124
124
Percentage of
Total National
Emissions
0.05 %
0.08 %
0.09 %
0.10 %
0.10 %
0.10 %
0.12%
0.12%'
0.13 %
0.13 %
0.13 %
0.13 %
                                                               CO Emissions
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e.
                                                 in
                                                 I
                                                 o
                                                 to
                                                 o
140

120

100

 80

 60 •

 40

 20
                                                      0
                                                      1970  1975  1980   1985   1990   1995
                                                                     Year
56 Estimate is based on the following methodology: transportation sector energy use by fuel type
within a mode (DOE/EIA, 1995b) was multiplied by carbon coefficients (mmtCe/quadrillion Btu) for
each fuel (DOE/EIA, 1995a), then adjusted by fraction of carbon that does not oxidize during
combustion (DOE/EIA, 1995a). Note that this estimate does not account for upstream emissions,
such as emissions from car assembly and fuel production.
108

-------
                                                                           The Indicators: Rail
NOX Emissions from Railroads
.Year
1970 ,
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
. 1992
1993
• 1994 •
Thousand
Short Tons
495
731
808
829
854
897
923
929
929 .
. 946
945
947
Percentage of NOX Emissions
Total National , 1000 r— — -• 	 - 	 - 	 	 	 	 ,
Emissions " Qm I ^ — • — •
2.40 % ' son I ^/ ,
.3.13% I 7m ^ .
3.53% - t: snn / •-.
3"71% 1 500 K
3.81% ,1 '
3-80% \ :
3'97% 1 -
4.03% ' ^°°
4.10% '°°
4 14 % ' •
4.06% Yoar
4.01% .
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e.
VOC Emissions from Railroads
Year
1970
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994 '
Thousand '
Short Tons
22
33
37
38
39
41
42
42
42'
43
43
43 . ',
Percentage of VOC Emissions
rTt'rt+0l iSIo^irLnol^ 4*5 i
loiai ixauonai H0
Emissions ' 40 / /~~
0.07% „ ^
0.13% £ /
0.14% ^ £ 3° ' / ,
0.15% | 25 X
0.16% ? 20
0.16% ' "15
0.18% . 1 10
0.18%
0.18% 5

.19 % . . u •
nino/ iy/0 1980 1990 2000
U.iy /o Year
0.19% ; 	
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e.
                                                                                        109

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
SO2 Emissions from Railroads
Year Thousand
n; , „!> 	 !' ::',! inl, &IIIL u V ' „, .
Short Tons
1970 36
1980 53
1985 59
1986 60
1987 62
1988 65
1989 67
1990 68
1991 68
1992 69
1993 69
1994 69
Percentage of
Total National
Emissions
0.12%
0.20%
0.25%
0.27%
0.28%
0.29%
0.29%
0.30%
0.31%
0.32%
0.32%
0.33%
70
60
01
g 50
|j 40
en
"g 30
n
CO
o 20
jc
10
0
19
SO2 Emissions

70 1980 1990 2000
Year
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e.
PM Emissions from Railroads57
Year Thousand
•'. .Short Tons
1970 25
1980 37
1985 41
1986 42
1987 43
1988 45
1989 47
1990 47
1991 47
1992 48
1993 48
1994 48
Percentage of
Total National
Emissions
-
-
0.09%
0.08%
0.10%
0.07%
0.09%
0.11%
0.10%
0.11%
0.1-1%
0.11%
50
45
40
CO
o 35
r so
to 25
1 20
CO
i 15
f 10
5 -
PM Emissions
_^f- 	
i 	 	 !
'1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Year
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e.
QuAtmFiSDAcnvrrY INDICATORS
     *   Refer to Appendix A for data on rail travel.
37 Percentage of total emissions are not reported for paniculate matter prior to 1985 because of changes in total
emissions inventories; fugitive dust arid wind erosion are reported only for the period 1985 to 1994.
110

-------
                                                                            The Indicators: Rail
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT      '             .              •
Exhaust emissions from fuel combustion are a function of type and quantity of energy consumed.
Quantity of energy consumed, in turn, depends on fuel efficiency and distance traveled. Trains in the
U.S. generally burn diesel fuel, but some, particularly in passenger transport, use electric power
sources. Note that while electric trains themselves are "clean" and do not emit air pollutants, electric
generating facilities, depending on power source, may emit CO, NOX, PM, SOX, VOC, and CO2.

CAUSAL FACTORS
     4  Vehicle miles of travel (VMT), by type of engine
     *  Fuel efficiency      i                                 '               •       -
     *  Fuel consumed, by type                                                .
     *  Emissions rates
     V Topographical conditions affecting pollutant dispersion (hills, valleys, etc.)
     *  Climatic conditions affecting pollutant dispersion and formation (temperature, wind, rain,
        etc.)                                •
     *  Population density-exposure to pollution


NOISE

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS '

QUANTIFIED OurcoME/RESULTSjNDicATORS   '
     * . Less than 3 percent of the U.S. population in 1980 was exposed to noise levels from rail
        operations great enough to cause annoyance—expressed in Leq greater than 55 dB(A)  -
        (OECD, 1993). A more recent estimate is not available.
   .  *  A small portion of the U.S. population was exposed to daily noise levels from rail transport
        great enough to cause other effects, such as communication interference, muscle/gland -
        reaction, and changed motor  coordination, as the following chart shows:

       Percentage of U.S. Population Exposed to Rail  Transportation Noise, 1980
                                   Outdoor Sound Level in Leq [djB(A)l
>55 dB(A)
Annoyance
>60 dB(A)
Normal
Speech Level
>65 dB(A)
Communication
Interference
• ' * '
>70dB(A)
Muscle/Gland
Reaction
:>75dB(A)
Changed
Motor
Coordination
         2.4%         1.4%          1.0%              0.2%             n/a
         Source: OECD, 1993.      '        :           '"_      :
                                                                                         111

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
                                    U.S. population exposed to
                                     annoying" noise levels
                                    from railroads: 3%
                  Source: OECD, 1993.


QtwmKED OUTPUT toontws
     4  Noise levels are site specific and dissipate with increasing distance from the source; as a
        result, an aggregate national noise emissions figure is not meaningful.
     4  Typical noise emissions are 100 dB(A) for a diesel train, and 120 dB(A) for a locomotive
        whistle (BTS, 1994).

QuwnReo ACTIVITYINDICATORS
     4  Refer to Appendix A for data on rail travel.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
Noise associated with rail transport comes from engine operations, rail-wheel contact, aerodynamic
effects, and vibrating structures during operations. The issue of noise is generally discussed in terms
of the number or proportion of people affected. The findings of numerous research projects in OECD
countries on the effects of noise and its wider repercussions indicate that an outdoor sound level of
65 dB(A) is "unacceptable," and an outdoor level of less than 55 dB(A) is desirable (OECD, 1993).
Although at the national level, railroad noise does not appear to be a significant problem, at the local
level, noise impacts from rail may be severe depending on population density near rail lines and
frequency of operations.

CAUSAL FACTORS
     • Level of rail activity (miles of travel, frequency of service) by rail type
     4  Speed
     4 Population density near rail
     4 Distance between population/housing and rail operations
     4 Background noise level
     4 Natural noise barriers (topography, vegetation)
     4 Designed noise barriers and control devices

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENTS DURING TRANSPORT

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS      •   •

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     4  No statistics were found regarding the number of species or acres nationwide affected by
       commodity spills.
112

-------
                                                              The Indicators: Rail
QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS
    * An average of 1,172 hazardous materials spills occurred annually during rail transport in the
      U.S. between 1990 and 1994, some of which were recovered (HMIS, 1995) (see table and
      graphic).

             Distribution of'Gallons of Hazardous Materials
                   Spilled in Rail Transport, 1990-1994
           Misc. Hazardous Material
                          20%
                  Combustible
                        Liquid
                         16%
                                                 Flammable -
                                                 Combustible
                                                 Liquid
                                                  41%
                                  Corrosive Material
                                     •   ,23%
                              Source: HMIS, 1991
                                                                         113

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
                 Hazardous Materials Rail Incidents, Annual Average, 1990-94
Class


Corrosive Material
Flammable - Combustible Liquid
Nonflammable Compressed Gas
Flammable Gas
Combustible Liquid
Oxidizer
Miscellaneous Hazardous Material
Poisonous Materials
Poisonous Gas
Other Regulated Material, Class E
Flammable Solid
Flammable Solid (per-1991)
Spontaneously Combustible
Dangerous when Wet Material
Other Regulated Material, Class C
Other Regulated Material, Class A
Very Insensitive Explosive
Radioactive Material
Total
Number of
Incidents

523.6
288.6
102.2
76.0
64.4
36.0
28.0
23.0
12.2
5;8
3.6
2,2
2.0
1.6
. 1.2
1.0
0.2
0.2
1,171.8
Gallons
Released

91,002.8
165,626.3
40,942.2
10,965.3 ,
63,107.3
1,721.0
14,096.9
8,524.5
4.8
12.5
55.3
0.2
0.0
0.3
40.6
7,401.1
0.0
0.0
'403,701.0
Pounds
Released

714.1

1.6


416,904.7
65,599.8
34,107.6
0.6
100,041.2
248.8
1,009.8
20,586.2
544.4
220.5

20.0

639,999.2
Cubic Feet $ Clean-up Cost
Released and Loss of
Material
1,459,253
3,323,142
506.0 98,560
, 843.2 314,359
813,559
696,681
156,403
2,492,427
0.1 283,551
225,128
9,985
222,404
79,179
22,400
2,000
349,403
10
0
1,349.2 10,548,645.2
  Source: HMIS Database
     *  The quantity of hazardous materials remaining in the environment after cleanup efforts is
        unknown.

OTHER Quwnweo DATA AM LOCAL EXAMPLES
     4  For Class I railroads in 1993, chemicals and allied products accounted for 135,063 tons (9.7
        percent) of freight originated. Petroleum and coke accounted for 40,132 tons (2.9 percent)
        originated (AAR, 1993).
     4  Of the 1,130 hazardous materials rail incidents reported to HMIS in 1991, 41% resulted
        from human error, 50 percent from packaging failure, 5 percent from vehicle
        accidents/derailments, and 4 percent from other causes (HMIS, 1991).
     *  Class I claims for freight loss and damage, including non-hazardous commodities, accounted
        for only 0.34 percent of Class I freight revenue in 1993 (AAR, 1993).
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
The potential for commodity spills during rail transportation is important to consider because of the
large, albeit decreasing, role rail plays in domestic freight movement. In 1993, rail transport
accounted for 46 percent of the ton-miles and 29 percent of the tonnage moved during domestic
intercity transport, excluding pipelines (Eno, 1994). In particular, commodity spills of hazardous
materials may impose substantial costs for product loss, carrier damage, property damage,
evacuations, and response personnel and equipment. The Hazardous Materials Information System
(HMIS) database, maintained by U.S. DOT/Research and Special Projects Administration (RSPA),
114

-------
                                                                            The Indicators: Rail
contains a record of all reported hazardous materials incidents occurring during rail transport,
including type of material released, number of injuries/fatalities, and estimated cleanup costs.'

The number of hazardous material incidents is not necessarily indicative of the environmental impact
of such incidents, since it may be possible to clean up most of the materials released. If not properly
contained, however, hazardous materials incidents may cause long-term environmental damage such
as water pollution, damage to fish and wildlife, habitat destruction, and aesthetic or recreational
losses.. The environmental impact of any given hazardous materials spill is highly site-specific. It
depends on the type and quantity of material spilled, amount recovered in cleanup, chemical
properties (such as toxicity and combustibility), and impact area characteristics (such as climatic
conditions, flora and fauna density, and local topography). It should be noted that while the overall
impact of rail spills may be small for the nation as a whole, any hazardous material spill may have
severe impacts on flora and fauna in the location of occurrence.

CAUSAL FACTORS
    *  Quantity of hazardous materials transported and distance transported
    4  Accident or spill rate                                                     •
    *  Type and quantity of materials spilled
    4-  Cleanup efforts                    ,        :
    4  Population density
    *  Sensitivity of local habitats/species
                                                                                        115

-------

-------
                                                                          The Indicators: Rail
                         4. RAIL CAR MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT
 Besides trains and track, rail transport requires, support facilities such as terminal areas, fueling
 stations, and electric generating facilities (to power electrified passenger rail systems).
              Emissions from
              Utilities powering Rail
Releases during Terminal Operations:
Cleaning and Maintenance
 RELEASES DURING TERMINAL OPERATIONS: CAR CLEANING, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND
 REFUELING

 PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

^QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     4  Data on water quality impacts on streams, rivers, and lakes, and related habitat due to rail
        terminal operations are not available. Data on health effects from air pollution coming from
        terminals are also not available.                          .             .

 QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS
     *  Tank car and rail car cleaning operations emit 1.25 million pounds of VOCs per year (EPA
     „   Source Assessment Study of 1978 as cited in U.S. EPA, 1995).
     4  Quantified estimates of other emissions are not known nationally. However, a variety of
        wastes are known to be generated from typical railroad terminal operations.
                                                                                       117

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
                             Typical Railroad Terminal Operations:
                     Materials Used and Types of Waste Possibly Generated
      Process/Operation
Materials Used
Types of Waste Generated
      Unloading or
      Cleaning of Tank
      Cars
      Rust Removal


      Painting




      Paint Removal



      Exterior Washing


      Equipment degreasing



      Refueling
Solvents, alkaline cleaners
Naval jelly, strong acids,
strong alkalies

Enamels, lacquers, epoxies,
alkyds, acrylics, primers,
solvents
Solvents, paint thinners,
enamel, white spirits
Solvents, cleaning solutions
Degreasers, engine cleaners,
acids, alkalies, cleaning
fluids

Diesel fuel
Acid/alkaline wastes
Toxic wastes
Solvent wastes
Residual tank contents

Acid/alkaline wastes
Ignitable wastes
Toxic wastes
Paint wastes
Solvent wastes

Paint wastes
Toxic wastes
Solvent wastes

Solvent wastes
Oil and grease

Ignitable waste
Combustible solids
Acid/alkaline wastes

Evaporative losses
Fuel drips and spills
        Source: U.S. EPA/RCRA Fact Sheet: Motor Freight/Railroad Terminal Operations, 1993; U.S. EPA, 1995
QUAtmFtsoAcmnY INDICATORS
     4  Approximately 90 percent of transportation equipment cleaning facilities discharge
         wastewater to POTWs or combined treatment works (privately owned by multiple facilities)
         after some amount of treatment. Some facilities discharge directly to surface waters under
         NPDES permits or to underground injection wells under Safe Drinking Water Act permits
         (U.S. EPA, 1995).

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
Terminal operations include line haul railroad activities (such as tank car unloading and cleaning,
equipment degreasing, exterior washing, and painting), furnishing of terminal facilities for passenger
or freight traffic, and the movement of railroad cars between terminal yards. Many of these processes
use materials that are hazardous or may in turn generate hazardous waste or wastewater. In addition,
refueling operations impact the environment through spills and drips of fuel, and through fuel tank
vapors that are displaced when the tank is filled with liquid fuel. The actual impact of terminal
activities on the environment depends in a large part on the type and volume of operations, level of
cleanliness required, type of waste generated, and efficacy of wastewater treatment.systems in place.

The cleaning of rail tank interiors is a major source of pollution during terminal operations. The
typical rail tank car has a volume of 20,000-30,000 gallons and generates about 3,000-5,000 gallons
of wastewater during cleaning, resulting in the output of spent cleaning fluids, fugitive VOC
118

-------
                                                                             The Indicators: Rail
 emissions, water treatment system sludges, and tank residues. The disposal and treatment of tank
 heels can also be a source of pollution for tank cleaning facilities. The typical heel volume of a rail
 tank car (i.e., amount left in tank after unloading) is 10-30 gallons per tank, and a facility's
 wastewater treatment system may be adversely affected by, or may not adequately treat, a slug of
 concentrated tank residue. Incompatible heels are usually segregated and resold to a reclaimer or
 shipped off-site for disposal. Heels that are composed of detergents, solvents, acids, of alkalis can be
 stored on-site and used as tank cleaning fluids or to neutralize other tank heels.

 Relatively small amounts of waste and wastewater are generated from the washing and maintenance
 of rail car exteriors. Typical hazardous wastes generated include spent solvents, spent caustics, paint
 chips, and paint sludges. Wastewater is generally treated pn-site and then discharged to a public
 treatment works (U.S. EPA, 1995).

 The primary source of toxic chemicals released are substances dissolved or suspended in wastewater,
 primarily during the cleaning of tank interiors. Other potential environmental impacts of terminal
 operations include air emissions and residual wastes. Fugitive emissions of VOCs arise from tank
 heels and residues, cleaning solutions, painting and paint stripping,  and refueling vapors. Residual
 wastes are generated as sludges from wastewater treatment systems, residues removed from the
 inside of tanks, and hazardous wastes from painting, paint removal, and cleaning of parts (U.S. EPA,
 1995).      '

 CAUSAL FACTORS
      *   Number of terminals
      *   Type and level of terminal operations
      4   Materials used during terminal operations
      4   Wastewater treatment capabilities
EMISSIONS FROM UTILITIES POWERING RAIL*

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS                                            '

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATOBS
     4  No data are available on the health or habitat effects of emissions from utilities powering
        rail..

QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS
     *  Rail transport's share of emissions from electric utilities accounts for less than 0.01 percent
        of total national emission's of CO, NOX, TP, SOX, VOC, and lead (U.S. EPA, 1995e; DOE,
        1994a).                          !
58 Emissions from utilities powering rail could also be categorized as part of rail travel, but they are
listed here because utilities are legally stationary sources, and emissions do not occur near the point
of travel.
                                                                                          119

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
                      Rail Share of Emissions from Electric Utilities, 1992
       Type of Emission
  National Emissions
      from Utilities
(thousand short tons)
 RailShare (0.2%)
of Utility Emissions
   (thousand short
           tons)
Percentage of Total
National Emissions
        from Rail
CO
NOx
Total Particulates (TP)
SOX
VOC
Lead
313
7,473
255 «
15,417
34
0.059
0.63
14.95
0.51
30.8
0.07
<0.01
< 0.01 %
<0.01 %
< 0.01 %
< 0.01 %
< 0.01 %
<0.01 %
        Source: U.S. EPA, 1993a; DOE, 1994a

QuANmso ACTIVITY INDICATORS
     «•  Passenger rail transport accounted for 0.2 percent of total national electric consumption in
        1992. Electric rail did not consume any nuclear or hydro-electric power in 1992 (U.S. DOE,
        1994a).
     *  Passenger rail transport consumed 59.8 trillion Btu of electricity in 1993, compared with
        21.6 trillion Btu of diesel fuel (U.S. DOE, 1995c)

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
To the extent that passenger transport by rail is the only significant transportation-related consumer
(excluding pipelines) of electricity for fuel, and that electricity provides about 75 percent of the
energy used in such operations, emissions from utilities should be considered when evaluating the
environmental impacts of rail. The contribution of electric rail transport to atmospheric pollution
depends of the type of power source used to generate electricity.

While air pollution from nuclear and hydro-electric power stations is minimal, coal and other fossil
fuel power plants emit large quantities of NOX, SOX, and paniculate matter, as well as smaller <
amounts of CO, VOC, and lead. Such power plants may be significant contributors to acid rain, for
example. Water pollution from nuclear, coal, and other fossil fuel power plants consists primarily of
thermal discharges from cooling water, which can cause substantial adverse impacts to water
chemistry, habitat, and species. Thermal discharges are regulated under the Clean Water Act.
Hydro-electric power stations affect the flow and temperature of rivers by retaining water in
reservoirs.

CAUSAL FACTORS
     *  Electrified rail VMT
     4  Quantity of electricity consumed (total or per VMT)
     *  Power source/technology used to generate electricity
     4  Emissions controls at power plants
     4  Topographical conditions (hills, valleys, etc.)
     4  Climatic conditions (temperature, wind, rain, etc.)                                   •
     4  Population density
120

-------
                                                                             The Indicators: Rail
                           5. DISPOSAL OF RAIL CARS AND PARTS
RAIL CAR AND PARTS DISPOSAL

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     4  Estimates are not available on the health and environmental impacts of landfilling or other
        disposal of scrapped rail cars and parts.

QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS                                              ,
     *  National data on emissions from the disposal of vehicles are not available.

QUANTIFIED ACTIVITY INDICATORS                '                             "       •    '
     4  Each year, 35,000 new rail cars are installed, suggesting that a comparable number are
        scrapped or exported annually since the .fleet size is not increasing significantly. (AAR,
        1993).            .  ,

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACTS      '                           .
Rail cars and their parts—such as nickel-cadmium batteries, metals, spent oil—are scrapped,
refurbished or recycled'as they wear out. In addition, many rail cars and their components are
exported. However, disposal practices may allow the release of toxic substances into water, air, or
soil,

CAUSAL FACTORS
     * . Quantity of metals and Oil used in rail operations.
     *  Recovery rate
     *  Groundwater contamination and seepage prevention measures at the disposal site
                                                                                          121

-------

-------
                                                                         The Indicators: Aviation
                     AV1A"TIQN
This section presents the quantitative indicators available for tracking the nationwide environmental
impacts of aviation. There are three key environmental issues for which there is enough quantitative
data to produce national indicators. Other types of environmental impacts are identified and
intermittently tracked by airports, states, and EPA through individual environmental impact
statements (EISs), but data are not consolidated at the national level. For each of the five basic
categories of activities affecting the environment, the various impacts are listed.
HOW EACH IMPACT IS PRESENTED IN THIS SECTION

Each environmental impact is covered in one or more pages of text and graphics, with the following
key subsections:

*   Presentation of indicators

        The key indicators that have been quantified are presented. Outcome
        indicators are listed first since they provide information on end results and
        are theoretically the most desirable type of indicator. Unfortunately, actual
        quantified data are often unavailable or of poor quality. In many instances,
        the only available data on outcomes are the number of states reporting a
        problem. This information is often incomplete (not all states may examine the
        problem), vague (states may define the problem differently), or only
        somewhat relevant (the contribution of transportation to the problem may be
        unknown). As a result, output indicators—such as  emissions data—are
        presented. These statistics may be an easier and more valid measure for
        policy makers to examine and track over time. Activity indicators (defined
        broadly to include infrastructure, travel, and other  activities) are listed when
        they are the best available indicators or when outcome and output indicators
        are not adequate. In some cases, local examples are also provided.

        To avoid repetition within the report, basic infrastructure and travel
        indicators are listed in Appendix A for each mode  of transportation.
        Appendix B contains additional relevant statistics on monetized values of
        health and other impacts; these outcome indicators are listed separately since
        there is generally more uncertainty regarding these figures.

*  Description of impact

        The nature of the impact is briefly defined and explained here. More
        complete descriptions of these impacts are available in reference works listed
        in the bibliography.
                                                                                          123

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 +   Causal factors: Variables that change over time and between locations

        Policy makers find it very useful to understand the driving forces behind
        environmental impacts. Understanding the key causal factors, such as VMT or
        emissions rates in grams per mile, is critical to explaining observed trends in
        indicators. They also help in estimating how local impacts may differ from national       ,
        averages. These causal variables, then, explain how the impacts differ over time and
        geographic location. Most importantly, they suggest potential policy levers. Policies
        can be designed to focus on any of the key variables (e.g., grams emitted per mile)
        that determine the magnitude of an environmental impact.

 The following table provides an overview of the available indicators for each impact. It is important to
 note two points about what is included hi this table: First, indicators are listed only where they have
 been quantified at the national level; if an impact has not been quantified, no "potential" indicator is
 listed here. For each specific activity and its impact, the table provides a summary of the availability
 of quantitative data for indicators of outcomes, output, and activity.  Second, the table shows only the
 best indicator for each impact rather than listing various alternative types of indicators for a given
 impact. The exceptions are when multiple indicators are needed to address all aspects of an issue or
 where some indicators are otherwise insufficient. Although outcome indicators are theoretically the
 most desirable type of indicator, actual quantified outcome data are often unavailable or of poor
 quality. As a result, output indicators—such as emissions levels—tend to be the most reliable and
 valid measures available in most cases. Activity indicators are presented in this table when they are
 the best available indicators or when outcome and output indicators are not adequate.
124

-------
 DC



 g

 CO
 o
 111
 co
 cc
 o

•s
 o
 a
 o
o


DC
CO



^
15
Z
\
n
o
•1 1 2
*J S a
03 I* fl
! jf c
til
^Sc
b
o
§i
S
:ea
2 ?j
o ^
1 SS a
• )•* >fi M
""53 M "§ &
Construction related activil
generally result in tempora:
visual, noise,- air quality, er
water quality, and solid wa
impacts.


« Number of airports
constructed
• Length of runways
constructed







2?
15
CO
"cS
§
a
3
CS
s



'S*.
3
cs
•5
CO
c
3
I

C
O
s
o
to
I

S 8
C c
3 C3 .

n c
2 '5
CO S
11
C
00
-S -13 S

Glycol and urea may mix v
runway runoff and other lo
sources of stormwater resui
overland flow, and release
surface waters.

.2
• Quantity of deicing age
used


"S „
co *~
cs •*=;
j— CS
5a -
•38,
cfl-£
0 ^
3 13
•s s
c ^
S 0
uZ 0>
u -J=
OH -a
•

'

"a?

—
'5 " '
CS
C
S
es
9- ' '

•a
1
O
o
00
c
o
•§


o
W5 • ' • .
cc
a>
1






cc?
• Cumulative number of
airports
• Number/percentage of
airports with paved run







S"
s
CO
"S
1
3
cs
CS
a.



'3?
«
"5
CS

3
rt




O

d
ti
O
gf






























|
S'
s
1
1

s
>^

1
.g

^

05
O CJ
•*-* 2 ?i
o 'S a
Impacts of imported
products/components are n
included in statistics. Emis:
of non-toxic air pollutants :
unknown.
^
*S
• Number of new jet airc
. delivered
o
VI
£3 C
ju 'O
£< *o
•5 5
o> o
S.I . -
o ^ .: "
i -^ "
o g ^
£> J s

? ••



"cT
15
S
ro

3
5
«J




8
en
CO
I>
O
|

-------


1

x«
o
of;
"?•* S
C.3 ?•"* 1
j-2 **le
£ § g
,£?! 1
H|j
S ^s
"a J I
3*1 |
OWKS
g 1
O ££
"S ^
•H -gj
"M ^
£> m
S *" 6>
§ 5 I

111









1






































r-^±

S

3, Aviation !

ef
u. .>.
There are cases where fuel
dumping in the atmosphere has
occurred. For most pollutants,
altitude of emissions is unknov
although damage is known to
differ depending on altitude



e
.S
f"~

3
8
1
!i
9,
2
•o
«
U
§

o ,
'i 1
§ J
a a
•



'o
5
~
s
3
&
|





_

I
s
3
i


For most pollutants, altitude of
emissions is unknown,











U
0
> g
.3


o ^.
•| (X 1
d^l
•



•o1
i
3
a
c
3
&
s-




3
L)

•a
3
3
Low altitude/gi
emissions
c
Improvements in aircraft desigi
has reduced noise despite
tremendous growth in airline
traffic.











"i 1
S jg
CO S
•i •§
53  >> e
•
= "e ^
O O CJ
— .3 ^=
_CS C3 j-
Q.'S -g
O to * „
D."O "g •§
"o _o _a .g
CO O Q ^
fi i|
CJ Q 0> O
a) di ••-" "O
°" o c: ca









a
3
«i ca -a
Some of the quantity released i
generally recovered, and is not
permanent release to the
environment. Amount recovere
is not measured.











o
"cO
g
O
C3 «5
3 Q?
f|
a> b;
H-l
•



^
a
3
ed
C
3
rf
3



^
u
3

S
3 ^
s s
E S-
c« B
3 CO
1 00
0 C
I'i
33 -o




































S
*

1
fit,
<5
' "S
.0
£
•3













u
o

1
CJ M
OJ
o "o3
C P-t
^ =
cy «
•



-jj.
IB
CO
CO
c
3
CO
CO .
l_
o
o.
a.

•a

3
2

Emissions frorr
equipment


























.




1
E
5J

tjj^
»
^

^5
^..v
1
I
e
Longevity of the airline fleet,
exportation, and recycling result
relatively low rates of aircraft,
scrappage.
•a
a
o
o
...-*
C3
g
'S
(4-4
O
|
^



-3-
3
eg

c
ctf
CO




'«?
CO
eg
1
3
CO
13



^^
CO
O
n. • •
«•
-3
a
is
Airplane and pi
VO
cs

-------
                                                                       The Indicators: Aviation
                1, AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND EXPANSION

 Airport construction, maintenance, and expansion result in a number of environmental effects.
 Common problems associated with infrastructure include habitat disruption, hydrologic alterations,
 introduction of deicing compounds to the environment, and increased runoff. In addition, airport
 construction activities may have temporary environmental impacts, such as air pollutant emissions
 from construction equipment, These impacts are discussed below, and further material on
 infrastructure is available in Appendix A.

                           Air Pollutant Emissions during
                          , Construction/maintenance
                                                           Habitat Disruption
                                                    Airport Runoff
                                                    affecting Water
                                                    'Quality1
  Application of
  De-icing
  Compounds
/     /I
HABITAT DISRUPTION AND LAND TAKE

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS.

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS                -   - •  •    •
     *  The number of species or acres of sensitive habitat adversely affected by airport construction
        and expansion is not known.

QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS
     +  No quantified data are readily available on the amount of land taken annually or
        cumulatively by airport runways and other infrastructure.

QUANTIFIED ACTIVITY INDICATORS                                 -•
     4 Only one major scheduled passenger service airport (Denver, International Airport) has been
       constructed since 1974. However, the total number of airports (including private airports) in
                                                                                      127

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
        the U.S. has increased by about 3,182 from 1980 to 1994—a nearly 21 percent increase—
        from 15,161 in 1980 to 18,343 in 1994 (BTS, 1994). .
     *  In 1994, there were planned construction activities at 60 major airports for approximately
        1,022,350 feet (194 miles) of new runway/taxiway (FAA, ACE Plan, 1994). Generally, this
        construction will be done over a period of five or more years.
     *  There were 18,343 airports in the U.S. in 1994, which is more airports than in eyery other
        nation in the world combined (BTS, 1994).
     *  Airports vary significantly in size.  The U.S. contains 26 large hub airports (handling 1
        percent or more of total air passenger enplanements) and 570 commercial service airports
        (2,500 or more enplanements "annually) (BTS, 1994).

Owe? QUANTIFIED DATA AW LOCAL EXAMPLES
     *  A typical major new airport requires approximately 25,000 acres of land (Wood and
        Johnson, 1989).                           .
     4  Runway construction at Dallas/Fort-Worth International Airport was expected to
        significantly affect some natural features and resources. Wetlands that existed on the
        property included drainage-ways, creeks, and small isolated systems that would be affected
        by runway construction (U.S. DOT, DFW Air Development Plan, 1991).

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
Airport construction and expansion activities have the potential to affect endangered or threatened
species. Impacts on wildlife from construction activity depend on the extent and types of habitat that
are disturbed and the availability of comparable habitats near the site. Long term impacts from
increased airport surfaces include elimination of and damage to existing vegetation, interference with
wildlife, displacement of forests and communities of animals and birds, and alteration in the
hydrology of various areas.

CAUSAL FACTORS
     4  Number of new airports constructed
     *  Number of runway and other airport capacity enhancements
     4  Ecological conditions/type of land (i.e., wetlands, forest, etc.) "
     •  Successful airport implementation of various efforts to avoid or mitigate impacts (i.e.,
        stormwater treatment)
EMISSIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

Qttt/vneeo OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     *  No data are available on the health or habitat effects of emissions from airport construction
        or maintenance.

QUWOTJED OUTPUT INDICATORS
     V  National statistics for emissions from airport-related construction activities are generally not
        available. At the local level, emissions from construction are discussed on a case-by-case,
        basis in the project's EIS.
128

-------
                                                                        The Indicators: Aviation
 QUANTIFIED ACTIVITY INDICATORS                   .       •
     '4   Only one major scheduled passenger service airport (Denver International Airport) has been
         constructed since 1974.
     *   In 1994, there were planned runway/taxiway construction activities at 60 major airports for
         approximately 1,022,350 feet (194 .miles) of new runway/taxiway (FAA, ACE Plan, 1994).
         Generally, this construction will be done over a period of five or more years.
     4   Thenumber of airports in the U.S. has increased by about 3,182 from 1980 to 1994—a
         nearly 21 percent increase—from 15,161 in 1980 to 18,343 in 1994 (BTS, 1994).
     4   National data on the amount of fuel consumed during airport construction and maintenance
         have not been identified.

 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
 Construction-related activities generally result in temporary visual, noise, air quality, erosion, water
 quality, and solid waste impacts. Emissions during airport construction and expansion are associated
 with land clearing, blasting, ground excavation, earth moving; cement, asphalt, and aggregate
 handling; heavy equipment operation; use of haul roads; and wind erosion of exposed areas and
 material storage piles. The quantity of emissions from construction operations is proportional to the
 area of land being worked and the level of construction activity. Dust emissions, a large portion of
 which result from equipment traffic over temporary roads at the construction site, may have
 substantial temporary impacts on local air and water quality.

 Construction can also affect the environment through exhaust emissions from machinery and haulage
 vehicles, spillage during refueling, and noise. The environmental impact of any particular project
 depends on the condition of the surrounding area, the size of airport, and the length of project
 duration. Temporary storage facilities for equipment and supplies used during the construction phase
 may also damage vegetation and displace communities of animals.

 Hazardous waste on airport property (especially older army and air force bases) is another type of
 problem associated with airport construction and expansion. Sometimes the problem is discovered
 when a major 'construction project unexpectedly runs into hazardous material.

 Often, airport construction, maintenance and operations are-themselves the source of hazardous waste
problems due to the use of hazardous materials, .such as lead paint, solvents, and pesticides.

CAUSAL FACTORS                                                                     .    •
    *  Number of new airports constructed
    4  Number of runway and other airport capacity enhancements
    4  Ecological conditions/type of land (i.e., wetlands, forest,  etc.)
    4  Successful airport implementation of various efforts to avoid or mitigate impacts (i.e.,
        stormwater treatment)
                                                                                        129

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
RELEASES OF DEICING COMPOUNDS

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

QtavBRS? OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS                                    >
     •  No data are available to quantify the extent to which deicing chemicals in airport runoff
        cause groundwater contamination and habitat or health effects.
OUWTJRED
     4  Deicing one aircraft typically results in the pollution load about equal to the daily wastewater
        of 5,000 people (Backer, et al, 1994).
     4  A recent survey shows that 46 percent of the airports discharge runway runoff directly into
        public waterways without treatment or monitoring (Airport Magazine, March/April 1991).
     4  As much as 64 to 100 percent of applied urea may discharge directly to surface waters
        through overland flow (D'ltri, 1992).
     4  Some 75 percent of glycol used at airports ends up in surface drainage during spring thaw
        (Eady, 1990).

QUANTtFKDAcmTY INDICATORS
     *  Based on the 1989-90 season, the nationwide use of deicing products is estimated at 1 1.5
        million gallons per year (D'ltri, 1992).
     *  The amount of deicer required per aircraft ranges from 10 gallons to several thousand gallons
        (D'ltri, 1992).
     *  Mean annual glycol usage at airports surveyed is 44,589 gallons (AAAE).
     *  Large airports can use over 150,000 gallons of deicer in a single storm event (D'ltri, 1992).

OTHER QuwnBeo DATA AND LOCAL EXAMPLES
     4  Of the deicing solution applied to aircraft, it is estimated that 49 to 80 percent falls to  the
        apron (D'ltri, 1992).
     4  Organic, alcohol-based chemicals used to de-ice airplanes at the Des Moines International
        Airport are winding up in Yeader Creek every winter, according to state and airport officials.
        As they decompose, the compounds take oxygen out of the water, harming small fish and
        algae and helping an unsightly fungus (Des Moines Register, November 19, 1993).
     4  Glycol-based deicing fluid has recently (March 1996) been connected to onion-like odors at
        Milwaukee's General Mitchell International Airport. Toll operators have complained of
        similar odors, headaches, nausea, sore throats, and itchy eyes from Boston's Logan
        International Airport (ENR, March, 1996).
     4  At Logan International Airport, deicing runoff flows into storm drains and is discharged
        untreated into nearby areas, including Boston Harbor (ENR, March,, 1996).
     4  In Milwaukee, untreated deicing fluid flows across 400 acres of airport land and drains into
        Lake Michigan (ENR, March,  1996).
130

-------
                                                                          The Indicators: Aviation
 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT      •                                     •
 Airports' wintertime use of deicing chemicals on aircraft and runways/taxi ways is beginning to
 receive greater attention. Aircraft deicers used in North America have formulations based on ethylene
 or propylene glycol. Runway deicers are typically formulated with urea and glycols. As mentioned
 above, it is estimated that 11.5 million gallons of deicing products are used every year. Of the deicing
 solution applied to aircraft, it is estimated that 49 to 80 percent falls to the apron. The amount of
 deicer required per aircraft ranges from 10 gallons to several thousand gallons.

 Urea and glycols may rapidly appear in stormwater runoff or.temporarily remain in snow piles. The
 aquatic toxicity of ethylene and propylene glycols is relatively low and oral toxicity to humans and
• terrestrial.life is also relatively low. Presence of ethylene glycol in the environment as puddles,
 howeyer, may pose hazards to animals attracted to its sweet taste. Although none of the glycols used
 in deicers have been shown experimentally to be harmful, the animal carcinogen 1,4-dioxane does
 occur as a trace contaminant in technical grade ethylene glycol. Although glycols  are biodegradable
 under normal conditions, the biodegradation is so rapid and oxygen demanding that they can affect
 oxygen-dependent aquatic life in receiving waters.

 The urea that is used in runway deicers Degrades to ammonia and the ammonia is converted to nitrate.
 Although both of these processes  are slowed considerably at wintertime temperatures, the formation
 of ammonia and nitrate from urea pose environmental concerns. The toxicity of ammonia to aquatic
 life is high and excessive nitrate exposure through contaminated drinking water can be hazardous to
humans (D'ltri,  1992).

Unless captured in on-site collection basins or discharged to a municipal wastewater treatment plant,
glycol and urea may mix with runway and other local sources of stormwater resulting in pn-site
puddling and soil infiltration, overland flow, and release to surface waters.

CAUSAL FACTORS                                         '                            ,
     *  Amount of aircraft/runway deicing agents applied
     *  Type of deicing agent used
   .  *  Climate/weather conditions (amount of snow, ice, rainfall)  .
     *  Amount of high salinity rainfall/snowmelt that reaches bodies of water (based on runoff
        controls and local geography)      .
     4  Depth of ground water table                     •
     *  Sensitivity of nearby habitats


AIRPORTRUNOFF

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS'                           .

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     *  No data are available to quantify the extent to which airport runoff causes groundwater
        contamination, impairment of water quality in rivers and lakes, and habitat or health effects.

QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS
   ,  4  No data are readily available to quantify the pollutant loading of runoff from airports.
                                                                                          131

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
QfMmnsD ACTIVITY INDICATORS
     *  There were 18,343 airports in the U.S. in 1994, which is more airports than in every other
        nation in the world combined (BTS, 1994).
     *  Most airports are small private-use airports, many of which have unpaved runways, as the
        following table shows:

                                     U.S. Airports, 1992

Public-Use Airports
Private-Use Airports
Total All Airports
Number
5,545
12,301
17,846
Percentage
with Paved
Runways
71.7
36.6
47.5
Percentage
with Lighted
Runways
72.3
7.6
27.7
                                        Source: BTS, 1994
     4  High flows from a nearby airport during major storm events are believed to be responsible
        for displacing juvenile fish from the Des Moines Creek.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
Water quality in wetlands and streams may be affected by construction and post-construction
activities. Stormwater run-off from runways/taxiways, aprons, roads and parking lots, for example,
will result in an increase in pollutant loading to wetlands and streams unless stormwater treatment
facilities are included as part of airport construction. An increase in the amount of such impervious
surface area and the elimination of recharge areas such as wetlands affects the low flow
characteristics of steams by reducing groundwater recharge capabilities. This may result in the
reduction of carrying capacity of streams and elevated water temperatures, which, in turn, may
increase stress levels in fish, as well as reduction in feeding and growth levels.
CAUSAL FACTORS
     *  Number of airports and paved surface area
     *  Number of runway and other airport capacity enhancements
     *  Precipitation activity
     4  Drainage characteristics
     *  Ecology and other aspects of receiving water bodies: type, size, diversity, potential for
        dispersion
     *  Successful implementation of mitigation efforts (i.e., stormwater treatment)
132

-------
                                                                          The Indicators: Aviation
                           2. AIRCRAFT AND PARTS MANUFACTURE

 The manufacture of aircraft and parts results in environmental impacts through- the release of toxics to
 the air, soil, and water.,     .                                  ,

                                                                    toxic Releases
 TOXIC RELEASES

 PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

 QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     *  No quantified data on human health impacts, such as increased incidence of cancer from
        toxics, or habitat and species impacts are available.

 QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS                       •
     4-  28.7 million pounds of toxic chemicals were reported released on-site from aircraft
        manufacturing facilities in 1993 (see table).59
59
  Impacts of imported equipment and parts are not counted here. Only U.S. facilities are included here,
including the impacts of exported equipment.                 •
                                                                                           133

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
     Toxic Chemicals Released from Aircraft Manufacturing Facilities and Related Sources
                                      (Pounds per Year)
SIC Industry Type
Code
3720 Aircraft & Parts
3721 Aircraft
3724 Aircraft Engines &
Engine Parts
3728 Aircraft Part & Auxiliary
Equipment, NEC
4581 Airports, Flying Reids &
Airport Terminal Services
TOTAL AIRCRAFT
On-Site Releases
Air Water Land
75,790
12,239,470 4,917 81
5,848,914 ' 50,519 122
10,331,033 2,465 81,210
60,000
28,495,207 57,901 141,413
Total
75,790
12,244,468
5,899,555
10,414,708
60,000
28,694,521
POTW Transfer Off-Site
Locations
Transfer
14,339
125,166 4,632,947
31,527 18,165,359
87,773 6,594,777

244,466 29,947,422
       Source: Toxic Releases Inventory, 1993
       POTW = Publicly owned treatment works
       SIC = Standard Industrial Classification

     *  The top five pollutants (by volume) reported (SIC code 3721) released include methyl ethyl
        ketone, trichloroethane, dichloromethane, tetrachloroethylene, and toluene. These are
        solvents used to clean equipment and metal parts, and are used in many coatings and finishes
        (U.S. EPA, 1995f).
     *  At one plant where the aircraft painting hangar was used as a test site, approximately 51 tons
        of VOCs were emitted per year (based on 1988 emission estimates), representing
        approximately 7 percent of the total VOC emissions (on a mass basis) into the air from the
        plant, and making the hangar the second largest source of airborne VOC emissions at the
        plant (Larsen and Pilat, September 1991).

QtwmfJED ACTIVITY INDICATORS
     *  Between  1990 and 1993, 947 new jet aircraft were delivered to U.S. customers (Boeing,
        1993).

Omen QUWTIPHD DA TA AND LOCAL EXAMPLES
     *  In July 1991, Lockheed joined EPA's 33/50 Program, agreeing to voluntarily reduce releases
        and transfers of targeted chemicals by 33 percent in 1992 and by 50 percent in 1995, using
        1988 as a baseline year. Based upon 1988 figures, these reductions would total 1,820,094
        and 2,757,718 pounds, respectively. In the 1988 baseline year, Lockheed companies reported
        releases and transfers of 6,842,485 pounds of all TRI chemicals  (U.S. EPA's,  1995f).
     *  By eliminating chlorinated solvent usage in metal cleaning, printed circuit board coating
        operations, and hazardous chemical use during paint stripping by using plastic media
        blasting, Lockheed surpassed its 33/50 Program commitment far in advance of set deadlines,
        reporting 1,298 pounds of releases and transfers of 33/50 Program chemicals in 1993,
        compared with 5,515,435 pounds in 1988'.  This reduction included a complete elimination of
        releases and transfers of cadmium compounds, lead compounds, and tetrachloroethylene.
        The other major contributors to Lockheed's success include the following reductions:
134

-------
                                                                         The Indicators: Aviation
           Chemical
             Amount Reduced
           Dichloromethane
           Methyl Ethyl Ketone
           Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
           Toluene
           1,1,1 - Tricholorethane
           Trichloroethylene
           Xylene  	•
             88,085 pounds (51 percent)
             115,371 pounds (80 percent)
             23,128 pounds (80 percent)
            , 74,884 pounds (86 percent)
             293,493 pounds (73 percent)
             482,103 pounds (76 percent)
             73,198 pounds (85 percent)
        • Source: U.S. EPA, 1995f.

 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
 The manufacture of aircraft involves use of a variety of materials and chemicals. During the
 manufacturing process, toxic chemicals are released from vehicle manufacturing facilities into the
 environment. Releases occur as on-site discharges of toxic chemicals, including emissions to the air,
 discharges to water, releases to land, and contained disposal or injection underground. Chemicals are
 transferred off-site when they are shipped to other locations, as the following diagram shows.
            On-Site Emissions
Air
            Land
                                    Off-Site
                                    Transfers
                       Water
                                       Underground
                                       Injection
 On-site releases to air occur as either stack emissions, through confined air streams such as stacks or
 vents, or fugitive emissions, which include equipment leaks, evaporative losses from surface
 impoundments and spills, and releases from building ventilation systems. Surface water releases may
 include releases to rivers, lakes, oceans, and other bodies of water. Releases to land may include
Jandfills, surface impoundments, and other types of land disposal within the boundaries of the
 reporting facility. Underground injection is a contained release of a fluid into a subsurface well for
 the purpose of waste disposal.

 Off-site transfers represent a movement of the chemical away from the reporting facility. Except for
 off-site transfers for disposal, these quantities do not necessarily represent entry of the chemical into
 the environment. Chemicals are often shipped to other locations for recycling, energy recovery, or
 treatment.  Transfers often are to publicly owned treatment works  (POTWs). Waste waters are
. transferred through pipes or sewers to a POTW, where treatment or removal of a chemical from the
 water depends upon the nature of the chemical and treatment methods used. Some chemicals are
                                                                                          135

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 destroyed in treatment.  Others evaporate into the atmosphere.  Some are removed but are not
 destroyed by treatment and may be disposed of in landfills (U.S. EPA,  1992).

 CAUSAL FACTORS
     *  Number of aircraft built
     *  Amount of chemicals used per aircraft
     *  Efficiency in mitigation efforts
     4  Types of chemicals released and toxicity
     4-  Population density and extent of exposure
     *  Environmental conditions such as climate, topography, or hydrogeology affecting fate and
         transport of chemicals into the environment
136

-------
                                                                        The Indicators: Aviation
                                    3. AVIATION TRAVEL

 Air travel has increased at a rate of 5.0 percent per year over the past decade and is expected to
 continue at this rapid pace over the next decade. In fact, Boeing projects that world air travel will
 increase by 70 percent over the next 10 years. Boeing estimates that 15,900 aircraft will be added to
 the world,fleet by 2015. This significant growth has important implications for aircraft noise and
 atmospheric emissions.
                                                        High Altitude
                                                        Emissions
           Low Altitude
           Emissions
HIGH ALTITUDE EMISSIONS

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS    .         ,               .

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     *  In terms of global warming, NOX emitted from aircraft above 10,000 feet have up to 5Q times
        the effect of NOX emitted closer to the ground (WWF, 1991).
     *  Quantitative data on the amount of global warming and stratospheric ozone loss due to high
        altitude aircraft emissions are not available.
                                                                                        137

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 Owmw OUTPUT INDICATORS
      4  In 1993, CO2 emissions from aviation accounted for approximately 45 million metric tons of
         carbon equivalent (mmtCe), or 3 percent of total national CO2 emissions (Apogee
         estimate).60
      4  Air transport is responsible for at least 2 percent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions (EDF,
         1994).
      *  Aviation contributed to emissions of other greenhouse gases, as reported below (U.S. EPA,
         1994a):
                     Pollutant
                                         Quantity Emitted
                                          (1990, thousand
                                            metric tons)
                     Methane (CEU)
                     Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
                                                negligible
     4   Although environmental significance varies by altitude, most pollutants are emitted by
         aircraft at all levels. For data on total emissions of NOX, CO, VOC, SO2, and PM, by aircraft,
         see the following section on "Ground Level Emissions." These data are not broken down by
         altitude.
     *   The nation's commercial airlines consumed 16 billion gallons of jet fuel in 1992 (Business
         Dateline; Minneapolis/ St. Paul City Business).
     4   Aircraft consume about 2.5 percent of fossil fuel used (Green and Santini, 1993).
     4   Energy use by air carriers has increased significantly since 1970, totaling over 2,144 trillion
         Btu in 1992 (see table and graphic).  However, energy use per passenger mile has decreased
         by 58 percent since 1970 (U.S. DOE, 1994a).
 Energy Use By Air Carriers8'
    Year       Energy Use
	(trillion Btu)
                                      Energy Use By Air Carriers
    1970
1363.4
    1975
1283.4
    1980
1489.6
    1985
1701.5
    1990
2191.3
    1991
2069.2
1970   1975
    1992
2144.2
Source:  U.S. DOE. 1994a.
1980   1985

   Year
1990   1995
*° Estimate is based on the following methodology: transportation sector energy use by fuel type within a mode
(DOE/EIA, 1995b) was multiplied by carbon coefficients (mmtCe/quadrillion Btu) for each fuel (DOE/EIA,
1995a), then adjusted by fraction of carbon that does not oxidize during combustion (DOE/EIA, 1995a). Note
that this estimate docs not account for upstream emissions, such as emissions from aircraft assembly and fuel
production; refer to DeLuchi, 1991, for carbon coefficients needed to compute total fuel-cycle CO2 emissions.
  Energy use includes fuel purchased abroad for international flights.
138

-------
                                                                        The Indicators: Aviation
     *  Aviation is one of the few petroleum users projected to have a continuing growth in fuel
         consumption of approximately 30 percent from 1990 to 2000 worldwide (Green and Santini,
         1993).                    ,
     *  Fuel dumping is typically done above 10,000 feet so that the fuel will evaporate before
         reaching the ground. But even small amounts of pollution at that altitude can amount to much
         bigger problems, scientists believe (Business Dateline; Minneapolis St. Paul City Business).

.OTHER QUANTIFIED DATA AND LOCAL EXAMPLES         ,
     4  On at least 68 occasions in 1992, Northwest jets dumped fuel before they could get down to
         a safe landing weight.  The airline dumped about 471,500 gallons of jet fuel and lost about
         $300,000 in the process (Business Dateline; Minneapolis St. Paul City Business).
 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
 Aircraft emissions can occur at three altitude zones: (1) the boundary layer, (2) the upper troposphere,
 and (3) the lower stratosphere. CO2, NOX, CO, VOC, SO2, and PM are emitted by aircraft at all
 altitudes. With the exception of CO2, their environmental significance varies on the altitude of
 emission (EDF, 1994). There is, however, a great deal of uncertainty in the quantity of pollution
 emitted by aircraft at different altitude levels.

 Aircraft spend most of their time in the cruise mode, directly injecting most nitrogen oxides into the
 higher levels of the atmosphere (WWF, 1994).  According the World Meteorological Organization
 (WMO), the addition of NOX to the atmosphere is expected to decrease ozone in the stratosphere.
 Also, NOX emissions are expected to increase ozone in the troposphere, which may be a cause of
 global warming. In terms of ozone formation, NOX emissions from aircraft may have 50 times the
 effect per unit emitted compared  with surface level anthropogenic emissions (WWF, 1991). The
 resulting changes in ozone, water vapor, and aerosol loading in the altitudes around the tropopause
 may have a climatic impact.

 Anthropogenic NOX emissions also contribute to acid rain which may have a direct effect on wildlife,
 ecosystems, and buildings, although aircraft account for less than 2 percent of total anthropogenic
 NOX emissions, the tremendous growth in air travel may have  future implications on acid rain.

 Water vapor emissions may lead to increases in the formation of high altitude clouds, which act as a
 potential global warming agent. Water vapor emissions may also increase the formation of polar
 stratospheric clouds that are implicated in ozone loss and the formation of the ozone hole (WWF,
 1994).

 Although other gases are emitted by aircraft at all altitudes, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
 oxide are described here in order to describe the major greenhouse gases together. It is estimated that
 CO2 emissions from aircraft account for about 2-3 percent of the total global emissions from fossil
 fuels. According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), CO2,emissions are responsible, for at least 2
 percent of global warming. In addition, according to WWF, NOX and water from aircraft may be as
 large as their emissions of CO2.

 It is also believed that the dumping of jet fuel can cause severe hydrocarbon pollution, which
 contributes toward global warming (Business Dateline;  Minneapolis/St. Paul City Business). Fuel
                                                                                          139

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts-of Transportation
 dumping is typically done above 10,000 feet so that the fuel will evaporate before reaching the
 ground. However, scientists believe that even small amounts of pollution at that altitude can amount
 to more significant problems than at lower levels (Business Dateline; Minneapolis/St. Paul City
 Business).
 CAUSAL FACTORS
     *   Altitude of aircraft in cruise mode
     *   Type of aircraft and engine
     *   Number of aircraft
     4   Quantity of fuel dumped at 10,000 feet


 LOW ALTITUDE/GROUND LEVEL EMISSIONS

 PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

 Qwnmso OUTCOM&RESULTS /NOKMTORS
     »   No data are available on the health or habitat effects of low altitude emissions by aircraft.
         In 1994, aircraft operations were responsible for the following emissions nationwide (U.S.
         EPA, 1995e):                                         >
Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen Oxides (NO*)
Volatile Organic Comp. (VOCs)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Particulate Matter (PM-10)
Butadiene*
Quantity Emitted
(1994, thousand
short tons)
1,063
153
212
8
48.
107 short tons
Percentage of total
Emissions of that
Pollutant62
1.08 percent
0.65 percent
0.91 percent
0.04 percent
0.11 percent
0.10 percent
        *Note: Butadiene estimate is for 1990; units are in short tons.
62 Note: percentages are based on anthropogenic emissions, except for PM-10, which includes natural emissions.
140

-------
                                                                       The Indicators: Aviation

Year
1970
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
CO Emissions from Aircraft
Thousand Percentage of
Short Tons Total CO
Emissions
506 0.40%
743 0.64%
831 0.72%
858 , 0.79%
887 0.82%
931 ' 0.80%
955 0.93%
966 0.96%
962 0.99%
980 1.04%
1,019 ' 1.08%
1,063 ' 1.08%
CO Emissions
-|OQO
«, 1000
* 800. •
o ^^^
w 600 ^^
r -^
| 400
o
jE 200
0
.
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Year
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e.
NOX Emissions from Aircraft
Year
. 1970
1980
'1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991.
1992
1993
1994
Thousand Percentage of
Short Tons Total NOX
, • Emissions
• 72 . 0.35%
106 0.46% •
119 0.52%
123 0.55% .
128 0.57%
134 0.57%
138 0.59%
139 , 0.60%
139 0.61%
141 0.62%
147 0.63%
153 0.65%
NOX Emissions
160 —
I
140 !
: | »|. -
r 100 |. ^^
0 ^^^
• W. 80 -L-^^"^
i -r
o 40 ! .
H 20 j
0 • '
j
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Year
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e.
                                                                                        141

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
VOC Emissions from Aircraft
;TYear
1970
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Thousand Percentage of
Short Tons Total VOC
1 " 	 ; ' .";• "";• ; ' Emissions
97 0.32%
146 0.56%
165 0.64%
170 0.68%
176 0.71%
185 0.72%
190 0.79%
192 0.81%
192 0.84%
195 0.87%
203 0.90%
212 0.91%
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e.
SO2 Emissions from Aircraft
Year
lii
1970
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Thousand Percentage of
Short Total SO2
Tons Emissions
4 0.01%
6 0.02%
6 0.03%
6 0.03%
7 0.03%
7 0.03%
7 0.03%
7 0.03%
7 0.03%
7 0.03%
8 0.04%
8 0.04%
VOC Emissions
^^n ,,,,,, „ , „ , L
\
£ 200 j ^/ 1
° ' ^^~^ l
5 150 ^-^"^ j
•^ ^^"^ \
in • ^^ — !
? 100 -"•""^
CO ' ' '
en
5 50 :
1- '• '
1970 1975 -1980 1985 1990 1995
Year
SO2 Emissions
18
« 16
£ 14
' 5 12
OT 10 •
| 8 T. . ' • • • ' 	 /- •
^— —— — —
i 4— — -
"•«
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Year
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e.
142

-------
                                                                          The Indicators: Aviation
 Particulate Matter (PM-10) Emissions from Aircraft
                                                     63
Year Thousand Percentage
Short Tons of Total PM-
10 Emissions
1970
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
21
33
37
38
40
42
43
44
44
44
46
48
-
-
0.08%
0.08%
Q.10%
0.07%
0.08%
0.10%
0.09%
0.10%
0.11%
0.11%
                                                            Particulate (PM) Emissions
                                                          1970   1975  1980   1985   1990   1995

                                                                         Year
Source:  U.S. EPA, 1995e.


QUANTIFIED ACTIVITY INDICATORS
     4   Refer to Appendix A for data on vehicle travel.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT                '     •   .          *                                   •
Ground-level emissions result from five specific modes in the landing and takeoff cycle (LTO):
     *   Approach
     4   Taxi/idle-in
     4   Taxi-idle-out                       .
     *   Takeoff
     4   Climb-out                                                                         >

The factors that determine the quantity of pollutants emitted by aircraft depend on the duration of
each operating mode and the fuel consumption rate. HC and CO emissions are very high when the
aircraft is in taxi-idle mode. Emissions fall when the aircraft moves into higher power operating
modes (CEPA, 1994). NOX emissions, on the other hand, are low when engine power is low but
increase  as power level is increased. In addition, particulate emissions are higher at low power rates
and improve  at higher engine power. The table below presents the LTO cycle times for the three
commercial aircraft types:
63 Percentage of total emissions are not reported for particulate matter prior to 1985 because of changes in total
emissions inventories; fugitive dust and wind erosion are reported only for the period 1985 to 1994.
                                                                                           143

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
                    Default Time-in-Mode for Commercial Aircraft (minutes)
 Aircraft                    Taxi/      Takeoff    Climb-    Approach    Taxi/      Total
                             idle-out               out                      idle-in
Jumbo, long & medium
range jet
Turboprop
Transport-piston
19.0

19.0
6.5
.07

.05
0.6
2.2

2.5
5.0.
4.0

4.5
4.6
7.0

7.0
6.5
32.9

33.5
23.2
The nature of pollutants emitted by aircraft is the same as those emitted by on-road mobile sources.
Similar to on-road mobile sources, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides
(NO,), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and particulate matter (PM) are all byproducts of the
combustion process. These pollutants affect the environment, health, and welfare by causing
respiratory and other illnesses, reduced visibility, and soiling and corrosion of materials. They also
affect the environment by causing adverse effects on ecosystems including damage to crops, forests,
and other terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals. Although CO2 is not harmful to human health or
habitat directly, it is an important greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming.

Certain chemicals interact ip the air to create secondary chemicals. Ozone is a key secondary
pollutant, caused by the interaction of NOX and VOCs. In addition, the combination of sunlight, water,
and chemicals like SO2, NOX, and HCs can form secondary particulate matter.

It is important to note, however, that these pollutants are also emitted by other sources, including
motor vehicles, dry cleaning establishments, and painting factories. In fact, aircraft only account for a
small percentage of the pollutants emitted. The quantity of pollutants emitted from aircraft operations
is a function of the type of aircraft and engine, mode of operation, and how long the engine is
operated in each mode.

CAUSAL FACTORS
     *  Number of aircraft
     *  Type of aircraft/engine type
     *  Landing and take-off cycle (LTO) cycle
     t  Airport congestion levels
     4  Meteorological conditions
NOISE

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

QuwnRED Otrco«MsH£SW.7S INDICATORS
     *  In 1989, FAA estimated that 3.2 million people lived in noise-impacted areas, which the
        agency defines as receiving noise levels of DNL 65 or above (DNL = day-night sound level,
        a common measurement of community noise exposure (GAO-ns).64
M DNL represents an energy-averaged sound level for a 24-hour period measured from midnight to midnight
after adding 10 decibels to nighttime noise events between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.). It is equivalent to Ldn.
144

-------
                                                                          The Indicators: Aviation
     4   Population exposed to day-night noise level (DNL) of 65 dB or greater from aircraft has
         fallen from approximately 7.0 million to 1.7 million, largely due to the phasing out of Stage 2
         aircraft and increased use of Stage 3 aircraft.
 Population Exposed
 to DNL 65 dB
                                       Population Exposed DNL 65 dB
   Year
Population in
  Millions
   1975
     7.0
   1980'
     5.2
   1985
     3.4
   1990
     2.7
   1995
    1.7*
   2000
    0.4*
                1994
         Predicted 62.0% Stage 3
          Actual
                                                                             2000
*Prediction based on Stage 3
implementation
Source: FAA, 1995b.

     *  About 9 percent of the U.S. population in 1980 was exposed to noise levels from aircraft
        great enough to cause annoyance—expressed in Leq greater than 55 dB(A)] (OECD, .1993).
     *  A small portion of the U.S. population was exposed to daily noise levels from aircraft great
        enough to cause other effects, such as communication interference, muscle/gland reaction,
        and changed motor coordination, as the following chart shows:

               Percent of U.S. Population Exposed to Aircraft Noise, 1980
                                    Outdoor Sound Level in Leq [dB(A)]
>55 dB(A)
Annoyance
>60 dB(A)
Normal Speech
Level
>65dB(A)
Communication
Interference
>70dB(A)
Muscle/Gland
Reaction
>75dB(A)
Changed Motor
Coordination
         9.0 percent   4.0 percent
                           2.0 percent
0.4 percent
0.1 percent
         Source: OECD, 1993.
QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS
    *  Noise levels are site specific and dissipate with increasing distance from the source; as a
        result, an aggregate national noise emissions figure is not meaningful.
    *  Typical noise emissions at takeoff and landing are:
Aircraft
Propeller
DC 10
727 -
707
.747
Takeoff, dBA
88
90
97
102
104
Landing, dBA
78
83
87 ,
95
93
                                               Source: BTS, 1994.
                                                                                           145

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
     *   Refer to Appendix A for data on aviation travel.

OTHER QUWTCRED DA TA AND LOCAL EXAMPLES
     *   According to an 1985 FAA report, a one decibel increase in DNL usually results in a 0.5 to
         2.0 percent decrease in property values (GAO).                            '
     *   In September 1992 and in May 1994, the City of Grapevine conducted surveys within the
         Sunshine Harbor subdivision immediately north of the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport. The
         surveys had the following results:
        -  94 percent of the respondents indicated that their normal activities (i.e., watching TV,
           talking on the phone) were interrupted by noise (September 1992 survey); 92 percent in
           the May 1994 survey.
        —  64 percent of the respondents indicated that their sleep was regularly interrupted by
           aircraft noise (September 1992 survey); 71 percent in the May 1994 survey.
        -  61 percent of respondents indicated that their quality of life had been effected, in some
           way by the operation of the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport.  Of those responses, noise
           pollution was ranked as the number one problem affecting quality of life.
        —  19 percent of the respondents indicated that their children had been endangered outdoors
           because of noise levels. Most felt that this is because the children cannot hear cars
           coming down the street.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
The widespread introduction of jet aircraft in the 1960s and the tremendous growth in airline traffic
after deregulation in 1978 resulted in a considerable increase in aircraft noise. Noise is the most cited
and recognized environmental impact from aircraft and significantly affects millions of people  in the
U.S. every day. As a result, most of the nation's predominantly jet airports developed noise control
programs. The federal government also issued regulations defining three classes of aircraft in terms of
their noise levels:

        Stage 1: aircraft certified before 1969 that do not meet the noise standards issued in that year
        Stage 2: aircraft meeting the 1969 standards
        Stage 3: aircraft complying with the latest standards issued in 1977

Because of the long operating life of commercial jets,  the FAA issued a new rule in  1976 to phase out
all Stage 1 aircraft by 1985.

Although all aircraft designs certified after March 1977 had to  meet  Stage 3 noise standards, Stage 2
designs continued to be manufactured until 1988. As a result, Stage 2 aircraft are still widely in use
and consist of about 45 percent of the U.S. air carrier fleet as of December 31, 1994. In 1990, new
legislation was introduced to phase out Stage 2 aircraft. This legislation set the phase-out of Stage 2
aircraft by the end of 1999 (FAA, 1994 Progress Report).

There are three main documented environmental effects of aviation noise:

1.   Hearing loss is a well-documented effect of noise in general, but is not generally a concern in
    community airport noise problems. Even in a very noisy airport environment, the duration of
    noise is not sufficiently long to cause hearing loss. The  Occupational Safety and Health
    Administration (OSHA) has defined a noise exposure limit of 90 dBA for 8 hours per day to
146

-------
                                                                        The Indicators: Aviation
    prevent hearing loss. The typical indoor maximum noise level in the 65 dBA noise contour will
    range from 55 to'75 dBA.

2.  Communication and sleep interference are also major environmental concerns associated with
    aircraft noise. These interferences lead to a difficult to quantify "annoyance" factor, since people
    respond differently to noise. In general, however, annoyance can be measured based on the types
    of activities disrupted by the noise (i.e., speech or sleep interference).

3.  Some research also points to physiological, psychological, and social behavior problems
    stemming from noise effect on humans (FAA, 1985). These effects, however, are subject to
    debate, but generally include changes in pulse rate and blood pressure. Some studies have pointed
    to increased risk of hypertension as well as other stress related problems. There is some evidence
    to show that noise may have the greatest impacts on children and those with a variety of mental
    illnesses.

In addition, aircraft noise has also been shown to affect real estate values,  land use, wildlife and farm
animals (FAA, 1985).

CAUSAL FACTORS      •
     4  Number of aircraft operations  .
     4  Population in area affected by aircraft noise
     4  Number of Stage 2 aircraft
     4  Aircraft flight path       ,
     4  Aircraft glide path
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENTS DURING TRANSPORT

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     4  No statistics were found regarding the number of species or acres nationwide affected by
        commodity spills.

QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS
     4  An average of 256 gallons and 477 pounds of hazardous materials were reported released
        during aviation transport between 1990 and 1994.
     4  An average of 518 releases were reported annually, more than 60 percent of which consisted
        of flammable-combustible liquid.                         .    . .
                                                                                         147

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
Aviation Hazardous Material Incidents, Annual Average, 1990-1994
Class

Flammable - Combustible Liquid
Corrosive Material
Poisonous Materials
Misc. Hazardous Material
Other Regulated Material, Class D
Nonflammable Compressed Gas
Flammable Gas
Other Regulated Material, Class A
Radioactive Material
Oxidizer
Combustible Liquid
Organic Peroxide
Infectious Substance (Etiologic)
Flammable Solid
Flammable Solid (pre 1991)
Other Regulated Material, Class B
Dangerous When Wet Material
Explosive Projection Hazard
Explosive No Blast Hazard
Poisonous Gas
Other Regulated Material, Class E
Explosives, Class A
Explosives. Class C
Total
Number of
Incidents
316.2
92.2
30.2
18.0
15.6
10.0
9.6
4.8
4.2
4.0
2.8
2.2
2.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
518.4
Gallons
Released
174.8
48.0
13.8
8.4
1.0
2.9
0.9
1.3
0.0
0.4
6.8
0.0
0.0


0.1



0.2
0.1


258.9
Pounds
Released
11.0
0.4
23.3
59.3
5.3
9.2



223.1
•11.0

0.0
4.4
4.8
0.4
15.3

8.8


100.0

476.4
Cubic feet • Clean-up Cost and
Released Loss of Material
29,431
51,177
17,070
4,433
1,075
582
417
147
80.9 991
514
3,205
50
100
7
0
7,393
110
0.
120
0
40
100
0
80.9 116,961
Source: HMIS
     *   Aviation accounted for only 3.2 percent of all transportation-related hazardous materials
         incidents reported to HMIS in 1991 (HMIS, 1991).
     *   The quantity of hazardous materials remaining in the environment after cleanup is unknown.

OTHER QuwmzD DATA AND LOCAL EXAMPLES
     *   Of the 293 aviation-related incidents reported in 1991, 76 percent resulted from human error,
         15 percent from packaging failure, and 28 percent from other causes, not including vehicle
         accidents.  No incidents occurred as a result of vehicle accidents (HMIS, 1991).

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
Hazardous materials releases during aviation may occur en route, as well as during the
loading/unloading process. Hazardous materials incidents may cause environmental damage such as
air and water pollution, damage to fish and wildlife, and habitat destruction. The environmental
impact of any given hazardous material release is highly site-specific. It depends on the type and
quantity of material released, amount recovered in cleanup, chemical properties (such as toxicity and
combustibility), and impact area characteristics (such as climatic conditions, flora and fauna density,
and local topography). While the nationwide impact of hazardous materials releases from aviation
may be small, any hazardous materials incident may have severe impacts on the flora and fauna in the
location of occurrence.
148

-------
                                                                         The Indicators: Aviation
CAUSAL FACTORS            •    '
     *  Type and quantity of hazardous material transported
     4  Number of incidents .
     4  Quantity of material released
     4  Toxicity/hazard of materials released
     4  Effectiveness of cleanup efforts
     4  Population density
     4  Sensitivity and location of affected ecosystems
                                                                                           149

-------

-------
                                                                       The Indicators: Aviation
                                  4. AIRPORT OPERATION

 The growth in air travel has increased at a rapid pace over the past decade. Although airports account
 for only a small portion of total regional, environmental impacts, the growth in air travel has raised
 concern that airport-generated environmental impacts will continue to increase. It is important to note
 that only one new major airport has been built since 1974. This, in turn, raises concerns that
 congestion levels at major airports will continue to increase. Airport operations include cleaning,
 maintenance, repair, and fueling of aircraft, as well as baggage handling and other cargo support
 services. Environmental impacts of these operations include air emissions from ground support
 equipment, fuel spills, oil leakages, and emissions of toxic substances.
                                       Emissions from
                                       Ground Support
                                         Equipment
 EMISSIONS FROM GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT INVOLVED IN AIRCRAFT LOADING, CLEANING,
 MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND REFUELING

 PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

' QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
        *  No national data are available on the health or habitat effects of emissions from airport
           ground support equipment.                           .

 QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS
        4  Emissions from ground support equipment (GSEs) range from 2-6 percent of total
           emissions at commercial airports (CEPA, 1994).
                                                                                       151

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
CO Emissions from Airport Service 	
Year
1970
1980
1985
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Thousand
Short Tons
33
48
54
62
62
63
65
68
Percentage Total
Emissions from
Airport Service t:
0.03% | 60 _^___ _— -***-**
0.04% c g 40 __— — 	 *~~
0.05% 3 "~ 20 "
0.06% £ 0
0-06% 1970 1975 1980 1985 lggo 1995
0-07%
0.07%
0.07%
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e.
NOx Emissions from Airport Service
Year
1970
1980
1985
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Thousand
Short Tons
1! |J -•'•' ;;•! "
78
113
125
144
144
146
152
159
Percentage ^emissions
Total Emissions
«. .'. 	 . ?flO ... »,.,,„,„ M „•,,.,.,„ • • • 	 „,»„,„,,-
from Airport r
Service g 150 ^++++*
0.38% ? § 100 ^-— ^—- ^^
0.49% . % "- so * | ' .
0.55% . 5 i
Jr_ Q I 	 .„ 	 	 	 	 . I „„„„,. 	 „„„„„„.,„„„„•
0-63% 1Q7n 1P7C; 1pftn 1PRE; 1qqn -(Qprq
0.64%
0.64% Y"
0.65% • - 	 • --- 	 • ", - 	 •• 	 - 	
0.67%
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e.
VOC Emissions from Airport Service
Year
1970
1980
1985
1990
1991
1992
1993
IOQ4
Thousand
Short Tons
9
13
15
17
17
17
18
18
Percentage ..^.^. _ . .
Total Emissions VOC Em.ssions
from Airport „
••'_'.-• r on 	 	
Service - o rT".j*-»
0.03% t 15 ^___-*— " ***j
0.05% | 10.^-— 	 ~"*
0.06% 1 _ •
0.07% S
0 07% £
.:,,'..':,,.... 	 I- 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
0.08%
0.08% Yeai
0.08% .... . .. 	 	 ._ 	 	 .... 	 	 	
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e.
152

-------
                                                                         The Indicators:  Aviation
Particulate Matter (PM-10) Emissions from Airport Service65
   Year ,    Thousand     Percentage
            Short Tons   Total Emissions
                          from Airport
                            Service
Particulate (PM) Emissions
1970, '
1980
1985
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994 '
8.
12
13
15
15
16
16
17
-
-
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.04%
0.04%
0.04%
                                                             1970   1975
           1980   1985    1990
              Year
                                                                                               1995
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e.                .    '     •         •


DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT                                ,
A variety of ground support equipment (GSE) are used to move, service, load, fuel, and power aircraft
at airports:
     4  Baggage tractors
     *  Aircraft tractors                •
     4  Ground power units                        .
     4  Air-conditioning units
     4  Air start units        ,
     4  Baggage conveyors
     4  Auxiliary power units
     4  Other secondary GSE (forklifts, deicing vehicles, lavatory vehicles, fuel vehicles, etc.)

The majority of GSE have engines that operate on gasoline, diesel, or LPG (most APUs burn jet fuel).
Like on-road mobile sources,  GSE have tailpipe,  evaporative, and crankcase HC emissions. NOX and
PM are also emitted from the  tailpipe.,Their effects on the environment, therefore, are similar to on-
road mobile sources and aircraft (CEPA, 1994).

Other environmental impacts  associated with airport operations include fuel, oil, and other substance
spills, as well as release of toxic chemicals. These releases occur during aircraft cleaning,
maintenance, repair, and refueling.

CAUSAL FACTORS
  .  4  Number of aircraft support vehicles
     4  Type of fuel used and size of engine
     4  Distance traveled by aircraft support vehicles                                     \
     4  Number of trips (operations)/number of  cold starts
     4  Fuel efficiency
     4  Type and level of maintenance operations
65 Percentage of total emissions are not reported for paniculate matter prior to 1985 because of changes in total
emissions inventories; fugitive dust and wind erosion are reported only for the period 1985 to 1994.
                                                                                           153

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
        Materials used during maintenance operations
        Wastewater treatment capabilities
154

-------
                                                                          The Indicators: Aviation
                            5. DISPOSAL OF AIRCRAFT AND PARTS
AIRPLANE AND PARTS DISPOSAL

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     +  Estimates are not available on the healtbi and habitat impacts of landfilling or other disposal
        of scrapped airplanes and parts.

QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS                                                    .            ,
     *  No data are readily available on the amount of aircraft and parts disposed annually.

QUANTIFIED ACTIVITY INDICATORS                   -                         •   "
     4  World air carriers placed orders for an estimated 490 large jet aircraft with U.S. and foreign
        aircraft manufacturers during FY 1995, 54.0 percent more orders than in 1994. Aircraft
        manufacturers delivered approximately 449 large jet aircraft worldwide in 1995 (Boeing,
        1995). Although the air carrier fleet is increasing, the increase in aircraft suggests that as
        they reach the end of their lifecycle, additional aircraft and parts will be either disposed or
        recycled.                                              "

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
Disposal of airplanes and parts consists  of refuse from the use and maintenance of aircraft and ground
support equipment, as well as other sources. In general, this waste includes batteries, tires, brake pads,
and other used  vehicle components. Data on the amount of waste are unavailable on the national level.

Airplanes often are shifted to other uses when retired from commercial service, or are exported. This
fact, coupled with the longevity of the current fleet of airplanes, results in relatively low rates of
scrappage.
                                                                                            155

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 CAUSALFACTORS
     *  Number of aircraft scrapped
     *  Quantity of metals and oil used in operations
     *  Disposal method/recovery rate of materials
     4  Groundwater contamination and seepage prevention measures at the disposal site
156

-------
                                                                       The Indicators: Maritime
                       ASi IT i n i EH VI-B b« H ij»j A L-* I n oYc A TO R s
This section presents the quantitative indicators available for tracking the nationwide environmental
impacts of maritime transportation. In this report, maritime transportation is defined to include all
water-borne mobile sources, such as ocean-going vessels, inland barges, and recreational boats. For
each of the five basic categories of activities affecting the environment, the various impacts are listed.


HOW EACH IMPACT IS PRESENTED IN THIS SECTION

Each environmental impact is covered in one or more pages of text and graphics, with the following
key subsections:

*   Presentation of indicators

       The key indicators that have been quantified are presented. Outcome
       indicators are listed first since they provide information on end results and
       are theoretically the most desirable type of indicator. Unfortunately, actual
       quantified data are often unavailable or of poor quality. In many instances,
       the only available data on outcomes are the number of states reporting a
       . problem. This information is often incomplete (not all states may examine the
       problem), vague (states may define the problem differently), or only
       somewhat relevant (the contribution of transportation to the problem may be
       unknown). As a result, output indicators—such as emissions data—are
       presented. These statistics may be an easier and more valid measure for.
       policy makers to examine and track over time. Activity indicators (defined
       broadly to include, infrastructure, travel, and other activities) are listed when
       they are the best available indicators or when outcome and output indicators
       are not adequate. In some cases, local examples are also provided.

       To avoid repetition within the report, basic infrastructure and travel
       indicators are listed in Appendix A for each mode of transportation.
       Appendix B contains additional relevant  statistics on monetized values of
       health and other impacts; these outcome indicators are listed separately since
       there is generally more uncertainty regarding these figures.

*  Description of impact

       The nature of the impact is briefly defined and explained here. More'
       complete descriptions of these impacts are available in reference works listed
       in the bibliography.

*  Causal factors: Variables that change over time and between locations

       Policy makers find it very useful to understand the driving forces behind
       environmental impacts. Understanding the key causal factors is critical to explaining
                                                                                          157

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
        observed trends in indicators. They also help in estimating how local impacts may
        differ from national averages. These causal variables, then, explain how the impacts
        differ over time and geographic location. Most importantly, they suggest potential
        policy levers. Policies can be designed to focus on any of the key variables (e.g.,
        grams emitted per mile) that determine the magnitude of an environmental impact.

 The following table provides an overview of the available indicators for each impact. It is important to
 note two points about what is included in this table: First, indicators are listed only where they have
 been quantified at the national level; if an impact has not been quantified, no "potential" indicator is
 listed here. For each specific activity and its impact, the table provides a summary of the availability
 of quantitative data for indicators of outcomes, output, and activity. Second, the table shows only the
 best indicator for each impact rather than listing various alternative types of indicators for a given
 impact. The exceptions are when multiple indicators are needed to address all aspects of an issue or
 where some indicators are otherwise insufficient. Although outcome indicators are theoretically the
 most desirable type of indicator, actual quantified outcome data are often unavailable or of poor
 quality. As a result, output indicators—such as emissions levels—tend to be the most reliable and
 valid measures available in most cases. Activity indicators are presented in this table when they are
 the best available indicators or when outcome and output indicators are not adequate.
158

-------
O
a
cc
o
o.
uu
a
UJ
tn
cc
I
a
 C
»C ^3 cS
•g ^ a w 73
§ >> 
•-* "o3 "5* *•* >•» -, ®^ w '
"oS "O ^ Qi g etf ^ "O S
•£?'§: <£? o >> ^ g -o *C
cs >-» O *g r- a> p, __ £~
^ ^ ^ -S >,n
14-1 ^ Sb ^5 ^ fll CJ C3
S S'-S Hi? " H I i
tH P « .§ ft" d "- a'


I ll if ill Si

I
! «
l-cf
"3 s
"S s
s 1
11 .
*KJ
*c
o
' e«
s
•o
0>
oo
•a
2
•o
t^,
o
>v
1
a
•




t
en
c
1>S
1 1
'•g CO
!!
"(3 _nt
*i ^
j

w
00 C
en C O
1 "ob S
« -o o
_fl rt). >
2 -S S
o S I1
o •«
lt§
2 S "i ' - '
O co OO
n s, ">
|SS.
0 1 £
2 -a o
Q i fe






















"3 °°
"g-a-a M
| 3 5 §-?
^ « IT &•§
g cq 0 3 cc
on 2 « CL S
• Quantity of dred
disposed at varic
ocean, coastal w
used for various
(e.g., wetlands ci


0
o
0 H
_ 3
CO O
CO 'CO
• States reporting dispo
dredged material as a
direct wetlands losses




o
CQ
O
' Q*
•2=3 •
Habitat disruption a
contamination from
dredged material

CO ^ to ^*
•g s 8-.2
"2 .H w t-
j; t! 5 >
'S -3 to »
§- co .£ X)
1-^11 '
tf'Sl 3 co
c w w o i2
•S 3 
cd
C
3
SJ
is
- — *

u
3
5
5 s«
3 til
i ex
= T3
Toxic releases durir
of maritime vessels






































*!
3. Maritime Thf






















,0
J|
|8
*S cu u







Data unavailable)
*• — '




5
X
5
3
3
5
                                                                                                                                  ON

-------

1

fe
o
Activity Indicators
Infrastructure, Travel,
Other Action Measure
&
eJ"
IP
ir. S.
i§u
o *s si
*° >2 *
>S "is
5i§
a-1? 1
<3 1H c
O tsj &!

1
2 8
O PS
"is? "«
Outcome India
Health or Ecologlci
Measure









>j
5
<
•s «
Given the highly local nature (
this problem, national outcomi
indicators, and even output
indicators are unavailable.



(Data unavailable)



.0
C3
a
3
a
5
Q




(Data unavailable)



^

1

L*
(i

I 1
•a-g
S 3:
o ,_,
Total environmental impacts
caused by introduction of
nonnative species are difficult
estimate, since effects may tak
an extremely long time to occt




l!
ii
•= J3
' i
•3 .3
ll
O Q
11





e
S
&



1
C/I
|
"c3
C
S
o
c
c
o
3
—






c
is 1
•£ S
foil and o
wastes reli
s
Quantity o
lazardous
J.S. water
*~f P^« *— '




(Data unavailable)



i
3
•o
5

VI
3
3 tJ
II
eft C
3 ca
3 —
3 CO
a _n
s-i
•3 P c o
No national indicators of anim
losses from vessel collisions ai
available, but studies have bee
conducted for individual soeci







JU
JD
eg
s
>
a
G
3
a
"«
Q,

•g
S-g
C en H
• Numbers of certai;
endangered specie
collisions with ves







on
5
»
1
u
§
!>


o ta
_E -a

• Quantity of garbage
generated by the marit
sector (amount disposi
sea is unknown)



'(5s
3
*S
1'
7
03
ts
Q,

CA
•S3 e
cj -S
CO «^
a- a
M O CA
c S "C
• Numbers of certail
killed by entanglei
plastic marine deb
S
CA
ra
T3

"3
en
O
00
c
s.
3
•3
•s
§
^D
3
6



.2
CJ
• Percentage of commer
vessels with on-board
sanitation devices



3?
3
ata unavai
Q
2 o
B "
^ T3
efl ^
— ca
• Percentage of shel
reported contamin
sewage dumping








BO
5.
5
^
1
y
CO
















inceand Support
^
K


•|

**^

1
^>-
~
••e
1
^



_tj
"5
• Number of marine rep;
establishments

'S
CO
f hazardou
emitted
o „
£••£
11





(Data unavailable)



oo

3
•a

1 c
— .9
"o ts
=- 55
•s g-
|1
3 S
as S





•










refe and Parts
n-l


tt

;c

•J§
el-
's
g
1
«o
4^
Boat scrappage estimates are
unavailable, but changes in fie
. size may provide some
information.



(Data unavailable)



3
1
"C3
Q




3
ca
1
p
a



._,

M
S

M
g
2 — •
3 ^

s ca
It
CO T3

-------
                                                                    The Indicators: Maritime
          1. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS
 In order to allow passage for various types of marine vessels, some waterways require navigation
 improvements. The most common navigation improvement is dredging. Development and
 maintenan'ce of navigation improvements can cause serious environmental harm. Problems include
 degradation of habitats, hydrologic alterations, contaminated sediments, and deterioration of water
 quality. These impacts are discussed below.
  Habitat Disruption
  and Contamination
  from Disposal of
  Dredged Material
                                 Direct Deterioration of
                                Habitat and Water Quality
                                from Dredging and other
                                Navigation Improvements
Land Take and
Habitat Disruption
for Ports and
Marinas
DIRECT DETERIORATION OF HABITATS AND WATER QUALITY FROM DREDGING OR OTHER
NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS          •     .                                           •
     «• In 1992, nine states reported that dredging was a source of wetlands loss (Council on
       Environmental Quality, 1993).               ,
     * Between 5 and 15 percent of surface waters (and aquatic life in them) are affected by
       hydrorriodification projects (Griffin, 1991). Note that only a portion of hydromodification
       projects have a primary purpose of allowing or improving maritime transportation. Many
       hydromodification projects are implemented for other purposes, such as water supply,
       recreation, hydroelectric power production, and flood control.
     * Of 14 reporting states, 9 listed channelization as a source of wetlands degradation in 1992
       .(U.S.EPA, 1994b).66                   .       •   '  ' '
66
  The portion of channelization projects constructed to improve maritime navigation is unknown.
                                                                                     161

-------
 Indicators oftlie Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 QUWWJHJ OUTPUT INOKATOFIS
         Dredged material generated in the U.S. is estimated to total between 400 and 480 million
         cubic yards annually, based on a number of studies (Cullinane et al., 1990).
         Based on studies from the mid 1980s, 79 percent of dredged material is generated by
         maintenance projects, and 21 percent is generated by new work. (Cullinane et al., 1990) 84 to
         101 million cubic yards of dredged material, therefore, are generated annually by new work,
         and 316 to 379 million cubic yards are from maintenance projects (Apogee estimate).
         Sediments from maintenance dredging are more likely than sediments from new work to be
         contaminated because they are composed of recent deposits. Sediments that originate from
         new work, on the other hand, are cleaner because they were deposited before
         industrialization of the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 1989b).

                       Lower-bound Estimates of Annual Quantities Dredged
                         from U.S. Waters by Various Sources, 1991 -199867
               ,;!:, ("jji "',,, ;!",,, , ')•(/;• Jiv'lEi; i liSif:',;"1:;,!
               iiMJili	ill	iJ	iliillhousai
Wear*'',,,
IP n '• iili', 'i ,'" i'
1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

: 	 ^^sj^
100,243
78.0%
76,580
88.3%
114,608
89.0%
98,532
85.0%
96,429
80.5%
91,803
82.4%
85,412
81.2%
92,959
88.8%
^^Authorities: '
24,401
19.0%
6,460
'7.4%
10,126
7.9%
13,085
11.3%
19,419
16.2%
18,262
13.7%
15,888
15.1%
7,970
7.6%
Other
... ,,,.,,,.•' i v*..,,. ,: '.;.,, . .^H
3,906
3.0%
3,734
4.3%
4,020
3.1%
4,247
3.7%
3,935
3.3%
4,345
3.9%
3,935
3.7%
3,795
3.6%

128,550
100.0%
86,774
100.0%
128,754
100.0%
115,864
100.0%
119,783
100.0%
111,410
100.0%
105,235
100.0%
104,724
100.0%
               Source: American Association of Port Authorities, 1995.
 7 Figures for the years 1991 to 1993 are actual amounts, while figures for years beyond 1993 are projections.
Figures are from a survey of sources. Not all sources responded to the survey, so the figures do not represent total
quantities for the nation. Responses from the Army Corps of Engineers represent national figures, but only 46 (61
percent) of U.S. member ports responded. Quantities obtained from the survey seem to be approximately one
third of actual quantities for each source, and USAGE numbers are low compared with other estimates.
162

-------
                                                                        The Indicators:  Maritime
                          0)
                         •o
                               Quantities Dredged  from
                                        U.S. Waters
W
O
la
•3
O
H—
0
V)
c
o
150 -j

100 -

50 -

0 -

•* f^Km,
- \y ^^^*B*
•^P"


i i
i i

                                                                    Reported
                                                                    Projected
                                   1990    1995   2000
                          Source: American Association of Port Authorities, 1995.


 QUANTIFIED ACTIVITY INDICATORS
      *  Th'e U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintains approximately 25,000 miles of commercially
         navigable channels, serving 400 ports, including 130 of the nation's 150 largest cities (U S
         EPA, 1989b).

 OTHER QUANTIFIED DATA AND LOCAL EXAMPLES
      4  One study revealed that the immediate effects of dredging on a soft-bottom habitat were a 40
         percent loss in number of species, 65 percent loss in density of macroinfauna, and a 90
         percent loss in biomass of invertebrates (Canter, 1985).
      * . In a study of the Wild Rice Creek Watershed in North and South Dakota, wetland drainage
         rates were 5.3 times higher in channeled sections than those in unchanneled sections (Canter
         1985).                         . .                                             -      '


 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
 Navigation improvements have the potential to cause a variety of harmful environmental impacts.
.Dredging is the primary infrastructure activity undertaken to improve navigation for water-borne
 transportation. In addition, engineering projects,'such as stream channelization, have environmental
 impacts. While channelization  projects are typically not undertaken to improve transportation, they
 may reduce flooding and prevent changes in a river's course, which affects inland transport. Other
 infrastructure improvements may influence the amount of recreational boating.

 Two aspects of dredging can cause environmental damage: (1) disturbance and removal of bottom
 material and (2)  disposal of dredged material. The second of these impacts is discussed in the next
 section. Dredging, which involves the mechanical displacement Of sediments for the purpose of
 creating, maintaining,  or extending ports and navigational waterways, necessarily disrupts bottom
 habitats (U.S. EPA, 1989b). One study revealed that the immediate effects of dredging on benthic and
.other animal communities can be substantial, although dredged areas recover if left undisturbed
 (Canter, 1985). Maintenance dredging, however, which entails dredging a particular channel -
periodically to sustain a prescribed depth, can prohibit recovery. Dredging can also alter natural water
                                                                                         163

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
circulation patterns, which can affect ecosystems in a variety of ways, such as through increased or
decreased salinity (Canter, 1985).

Engineering projects, such as stream channelization, result in changes in water flow patterns, often
with serious side effects, such as increases in sediment deposits (Griffin, 1991). It should be noted
that many channelization and dam projects are not undertaken for the purpose of navigation
improvement. Channelization projects can have negative impacts on water quality, aquatic
ecosystems, and terrestrial ecosystems. Some possible water quality problems associated with
channelization are altered turbidity and pH values, conductivity, dissolved oxygen levels, and
temperatures in streams. Fluvial ecosystems can experience decreased habitat variability, reduced
invertebrate populations, and decreased fish populations due to channelization. Within terrestrial
ecosystems, channelization projects can cause reduced or altered riparian habitat (any habitat located
on the bank of a natural body of water), drained wetlands, decreased bird and mammal populations,
loss of ground cover, and raised water tables (with associated detrimental effect on some tree species)
(Canter, 1985).

It should also be noted that navigation improvements may spur additional maritime travel, which
would have environmental impacts (see the section on travel impacts below). This indirect effect of
navigation improvements is not considered here.

CAUSAL FACTORS
     4  Demand for new or expanded waterways
     •  Need for maintenance dredging
     *  Type of dredge and other construction equipment used
     4  Successful implementation of various efforts to avoid or mitigate impacts
     4  Size of vessels using ports
     4  Species/habitats in channels


HABITAT DISRUPTION AND CONTAMINATION FROM DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

QUANTIFIED OtlTCOM&'RESULTS INDICATORS
     4  Nine states reported that disposal of dredged material  was a source of direct wetlands losses
        in 1992 (U.S. EPA, 1994b).
     4  In a test of the effects of contaminated dredged sediments on eleven species of benthic
        macroinvertebrates by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, one amphipod species
        experienced acute mortality. Other species experienced milder impairments, such as limited
        burrowing activity and tube building. Such impairments can impact the abundance  of a
        species (U.S. EPA, 1989b). Nationwide impacts have not been estimated.

QUAWflflEO OUJPUT/WDfCATOflS
     4  Dredged material is the largest source of waste disposal in U.S. coastal waters (U.S. EPA,
        1989b).
164

-------
                                                                         The Indicators: Maritime
         Estimates of the annual amount of U.S. dredged material disposed in the ocean range from 75
         million to 180 million wet metric tons (U.S. EPA, 1989b). The table below presents
         additional information on quantities of dredged materials disposed in various places.

           Disposal/Use of Dredged Material from U.S. Waters by Various Dredgers, 199368
        *-"'  /" '^JiV*,V*  -A  vw-v\ * Vj^onsaaid^Cubic Yards (Percentage of All
          *""     ^-""-  o-~     >^  -~>        >   -   <     Slaierial)
- * - v , /> ^£ -^i ^ * - ,
'Disposal/Use x «„,'"*"
Ocean Disposal

Coastal Waters Disposal

Great Lakes Disposal

Confined Upland Disposal

Other Disposal
~
Construct. Aggregate

Beach Nourishment

Land Creation

Wetland Creation

Wetland Restoration

Other Beneficial

All Use and Disposal

• U.S. Array s.
^'"C0i:ps
21,817
23.9%
1,207
1.3%
' 0
o.'o%
23,409
25.7%
500
0.5%
300
0.3%
3,689
4.0%
6,500
7.1%
31,528
34.6%
0
0.0%
2,154
' 2.4%
91,104
100.0%
~ . Port "
Autliorities
1,092 '
3.0%
534
1.5%
.0,
0.0%
6,794
18.8%
750
2.1%
200
0.6%
3,565
9.9%
16,418
45.4%
1,700
4.7% '
100
0.3%
5,000
13.8%
36,153 .
100.0%
Oflier
Dredgers
7,535
29.4%
93
0.4% .
0
0.0%
2,817
11.0%
7,000
27.3%
76
0.3%
100
0.4%
0 ,
0.0%
8,000
31.2%
. 0
0.0%
0
0.0%
25,621
100.0%
AH ,,
8 Dredgers
30,444
19.9%
1,834
1.2%
0
0.0%
• 33,020
21.6%
'8,250
5.4%
576
0.%
7,354
• 4.8%
. 22,918
15.0%
41,228
27.0%
100
0.1%
7,154
4.7%
152,878
100.0%
                              Source: American Association of Port Authorities, 1995.
68
  Figures are from a survey of sources. Not all sources responded to the survey, so the figures do not represent'
total quantities for the nation. Responses from the Army Corps of Engineers represent national figures, but only
46 (61 percent) of U.S. member ports responded. Quantities obtained from the survey seem to be low compared
with aggregate estimates from other sources.
                                                                                           165

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
                    Disposal Locations/ Uses of Dredged Material - 1993
                        Other
                     beneficial use
             Ocean
            disposal
                             Wetland
                             creation
                             Beach
                           nourishment
                            Land creation
                    Coastal waters
                    and Great Lakes
                    disposal
               Confined upland
                 disposal
             . Other
Construction  disposal
 aggregate
                         Source: American Association of Port Authorities, 1995.

        The percentage of dredged material in the U.S. that is contaminated enough to require special
        handling is less than 10 percent and possibly lower than 5 percent, although past estimates
        have ranged as high as 30 percent (Cullinane et al., 1990). Certain ports, however, have
        reported much higher percentages. For example, MASSPORT reported that a third of its
        dredged material was contaminated, and the ports of both Jacksonville and San Diego
        reported that half of their material was contaminated in 1993 (American Association of Port
        Authorities, 1995).
        The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers considers approximately 3 percent of its dredged material
        to be highly contaminated and 30 percent to be moderately contaminated (U.S. EPA, 1989b).
        Concentrations of lead, mercury, and other metals in dredged material have been found to be
        much higher than naturally occurring levels in some cases (see table).

                  Chemical Characteristics of Dredged Material Compared with
                              Average Material from the Earth's Crust
Constituent
iiSsissJKpjfefe-i 	 !_,__ „„
Iron
Manganese
Zinc
Copper
Nickel
Chromium
Lead
Cadmium
Mercury
S^SyiztSeSc Organics
Chlorinated pesticides
Polychlorinated biphenyls

Dredged Materials
Stoles per kg
6.02 - 0.90
(0.4 - 10) x 10'3
(0.5 - 8) x lO'3
(0.8 - 9,400) x 10"6
(0.2 - 2.6) x 10'3
(0.02 - 3.8) x 10'3
(5 - 1,900) x 10'6
(0.4-600)xlO-6
(1 - 10) x 10"6
mgperlcg . •• ••>•"•
0-10
0-10
Average Crustal
Materials
Motes per kg „
' 0.61 -- 1.03
(12 - 18) x 10'3
(0.92~1.26)xlO'3
(460 - 1,090) x 1Q-6
(0.62 - 1.69) x 10'3
(0.92 - 1.92) x 10'3
(48 - 77) x ID'6
(0.89--1.6)xlO-6
(0.149 - 0.398) x 10"6
Source: U.S. EPA, 1989b.
166

-------
                                                                       The Indicators: Maritime
OTHER INDICATORS AND LOCAL EXAMPLES
    ' *  Within the New York Bight, dredged material, sewage sludge, and acid and chemical wastes
        (the total of ocean-dumped wastes) contribute 15,000 tons/day of suspended solids, 3,200
        tons/day of chemical oxygen demand, 660 tons/day of total organic carbon, 50 tons/day of -
        ammonia nitrogen, 2 tons/day of cadmium, 0.026 tons/day of mercury, 5.6 tons/day of lead,
        and 9.3 tons/day of zinc. Dredged material is the largest contributor of these pollutants, with
        a low of approximately 50 percent of the total mercury contribution and a high of nearly 100
        percent of the cadmium contribution (U.S. EPA, 1989b).
     *  Repeated disposal of dredged  material at a site in Central Long Island Sound has resulted in
        the formation of several mounds 1 to 3 meters in height with radii of up to 400 meters (U.S.
        EPA, 1989b).                                           '.


DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
Dredging (and other navigation improvements) results in accumulation of extensive amounts of
material from the bottoms of bodies of water. Some of this material is used for beneficial purposes,
such as construction, beach nourishment, land creation, wetland'creation, and wetland restoration.
The rest ,qf this material, especially contaminated sediments, must be disposed.

Disposal of dredged material has the potential to cause far-reaching environmental impacts. There are
two major methods of disposal: (1) disposal in open water, and (2) disp'osal on land. Disposal in open
water can alter bottom habitats, decrease water quality, and befoul marine organisms. Repeated
disposal at a site can form mounds in bottom habitats, because most material sits where it is dumped.
Disposal of dredged material in open waters can affect water quality by physical means, such as
increasing turbidity, or chemical means, such as raising pollutant concentrations. Open water disposal
can harm marine organisms in a number of ways. Benthic organisms can be killed simply by physical
burial under dredged material. A more widespread effect of disposal on marine fauna, however, is
uptake of toxics. Contaminants may impact the benthic community even if dredged material is capped,
and larger animals may ingest contaminants either directly or indirectly through feeding on smaller
animals (U.S. EPA,  1989b).

Disposal of dredged material on land can be beneficial or detrimental, depending for the most part on
the quality cf the material.  Clean material can be used for beneficial projects. Disposal of
contaminated dredged material on land is highly controversial for many reasons, including its high
cost and the possibility of pollution. Contaminants can potentially escape from upland containment
facilities -juid enter groundwater aquifers or surface waters (U.S. EPA, 1989b).
     *                                                           =                '
CAUSAL FACTORS
     *  Level of construction activity                                           ,
     o  Quantity and types of hazardous materials in dredged material
     4  Type of disposal (e.g., capped, uncapped, contained)
     *  Location of disposal (land, coastal waters, open ocean)
     *  Quantity of past dredging activity
                                                                                          167

-------
                                                •   '     4

 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 HABITAT DISRUPTION AND LAND TAKE FOR PORTS AND MARINAS

 PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS
      *  Habitat, species, recreational, and other impacts of ports and marinas have not been
         estimated at the national level.

 QUW?RED OUTPUT INDICATORS
      *  Amount of shoreline acreage developed specifically to support maritime transportation is
         unknown.

 QumnemD ACTIVITY INDICATORS
      *  There are approximately 10,000 marinas in the U.S. (International Marina Institute, 1991
         database).
      *  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintains channels that serve 400 U.S. ports, including
         130 of the nation's 150 largest cities (U.S. EPA, 1989b).

 DESCRFHON OF IMPACT
 Maritime transportation impinges on coastal, riparian, and other marine habitats through the taking of
 land to construct and operate ports and marinas (Button, 1993). In many cases, ports and marinas
 sequester and develop extensive natural areas, resulting in degraded ecosystems and loss of habitats.

 It is extremely difficult to attribute a share of this impact to maritime transportation. A great deal of
 coastal development is not directly related to transportation. For example, some of the development in-
 coastal cities, such as New York City, is directly attributable to maritime transportation (e.g., loading
 docks). Other developments, such as office buildings for managers of loading dock facilities, may or
 may not be attributable to marine transportation. Determining what shoreline development is
 attributable to marine transportation is difficult; determining the portion of habitat loss caused by that
 development is even more difficult.

 CAUSAL FACTORS
     4  Number of new port facilities constructed
     *  Level of expansion of existing ports and marinas
     *  Inappropriate siting of marinas or port facilities
                                                                                      ' *>
168

-------
                                                                         The Indicators: Maritime
                    2. MANUFACTURE OF MARITIME VESSELS AND PARTS

 A large variety of maritime vessels are manufactured. The inventory of vessels includes non-self-
 propelled barges, tankers, and floats; ferries; tankers; towboats; sailing vessels; recreational boats
 (primarily small pleasure craft), and large ocean-liners. The manufacture of these vessels results in
 environmental impacts through the release of toxics to the air, soil, and water.
                                                                 Toxic Releases
 TOXIC RELEASES

 PRESENTATION QF INDICATORS

 QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     *  No quantified data on human health impacts, such as increased incidence of cancer from
        toxics, or habitat and species impacts are available.

 QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS  •
     4  Some 203,722 pounds (or about 102 tons) of toxic chemicals were reported released on-site
        from vessel manufacturing facilities in 1994 (see table).69
69 Impacts of imported equipment and parts are not counted here.  Only U.S. facilities are included here,
including the impacts pf exported equipment.
                                                                                           169

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
        Toxic Chemicals Released from Vessel Manufacturing Facilities (Pounds in 1994)
SIC* Industry Type
Code •

3730 Ship and boat
building and repair
On-Site Releases (Pounds)
Air Water Land Total
203,702 20 0 203,722
POTW" Off-Site
Transfer Locations
Transfer
' 0 ' 36,454
        *SIC = Standard Industrial Classification
        kpOTW = Publicly owned treatment works
        Source:  Toxic Releases Inventory, 1994

 QtMtimEDAcnvnY INDICATORS
     4   The number of vessels in the U.S. has increased dramatically over the past 30 years, as the
         following table shows. The increase in the vessel fleet provides an indication of the amount
         of vessel manufacture, but does not signify that new vessels were produced in the U.S.

          	Vessel Inventory, 1960-1992	
           Year     Non-self propelled   Self-propelled    Recreational boats
                     (barges/floats)	•	(thousands)
1960
1970
1980
1990
1992
16,777
19,377
31,662
31,017
30,899
6,543
6,455
7,130 ,
8,216
8,311
2,450
7,400
14,600
19,500
20,300
                                       Source: BTS, 1995.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
The manufacture of ships and boats involves use of a variety of materials and chemicals. During the
manufacturing process, toxic chemicals are released from vessel manufacturing facilities into the
environment. Releases occur as on-site discharges of toxic chemicals, including emissions to the air
and discharges to water. Chemicals are transferred off-site when they are shipped to other locations.

On-site releases to air occur as either stack emissions, through confined air streams such as stacks or
vents, or fugitive emissions, including equipment leaks, evaporative losses from surface
impoundments and spills, and releases from building ventilation systems. Surface water releases may
include releases from discharge pipes as well as diffuse runoff from land, roofs, parking lots, and
other facility infrastructure.

Off-site transfers represent a movement of the chemical away from the reporting facility. Except for
off-site transfers for disposal, these quantities do not necessarily represent entry of the chemical into
the environment. Chemicals are often shipped to other locations for recycling, energy recovery, or
treatment.

The toxic releases from manufacturing facilities cause many of the same problems as releases from
vessel terminal operations. These problems include ecosystem impacts (e.g., unhealthy wildlife) and
human health effects (e.g., respiratory problems). In general, the scale of pollution from the vessel
170

-------
                                                                       The Indicators: Maritime
building industry is relatively minor compared with inany other industries, such as automobile
manufacturing.               .

CAUSAL FACTORS                                             .         ,
     *  Number of vessels built
     *  Amount of chemicals used per vessel                .
     4 , Efficiency of controls and efforts to reuse or recycle chemicals and other materials, including
        pollution prevention .efforts
     4  Amount of chemicals and materials transferred to other locations for recycling, energy
        recovery, or treatment
     4  Types of chemicals released and toxicity                                .         ,
     *  Population density and extent of exposure'
     4  Environmental conditions such as climate, topography, or hydrogeology affecting fate and
        transport of chemicals and materials in the environment          ,
                                                                                         171

-------

-------
                                                                       The Indicators:  Maritime
                                    3. MARITIME TRAVEL
Maritime travel is responsible for a number of environmental impacts, including air pollution from
fuel consumption; habitat disruption caused by wakes and anchors; wildlife collisions; introduction of
non-native species; and releases of solid waste, sewage, and hazardous materials. Based on data
availability, statistics for both recreational vessels (primarily small pleasure craft) and non-
recreational vessels are presented.  There is some disagreement about whether recreational boating
serves a transportation purpose (the movement of goods or people from one place to another);
however, data on recreational boating are presented here since recreational boats are mobile sources
that have significant impacts on the environment, and it is difficult to separate the recreational
component of any mode of transportation.
         Air Pollutant Emissions
                                        Introduction of
                                        Non-native
                                        Species
                                                  Hazardous
                                                  Materials
                                                  Spills
Habitat Disruption
caused by
Wakes and Anchors
AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     *  No data are available on the health or habitat effects of emissions from water-based travel.

QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS
     4  m 1994, maritime vessel operations were responsible for the following emissions
        nationwide, including recreational vessels (U.S. EPA, 1995e):
                                                                                         173

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
          Pollutant                           Quantity Emitted      Percentage of total
                                               (1994, thousand        Emissions of that
                                                 short tons )   	Pollutant70
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Volatile Organic Comp. (VOCs)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Paniculate Matter (PM-10)
1,319
208
489
206
29
1.35%
0.88%
2.11%
0.98%
0.06%
     4   In 1993, CO2 emissions from maritime vessel operations (including recreational boats and
         international shipping vessels) accounted for approximately 34 million metric tons of carbon
         equivalent (mmtCe), or 2.5 percent of total national anthropomorphic CO2 emissions
         (Apogee estimate).71

     4   Maritime vessels contributed to emissions of other greenhouse gases, as reported below (U.S.
         EPA, 1994a):
                     Pollutant                          Quantity Emitted
                                                         (1990, thousand
                                                           metric tons)
                     Methane (CKO                              3
                     Nitrous Oxide (N2O)	"l
*° Percentages are based on anthropogenic emissions, except for PM-10, which includes natural emissions.
71 Estimate is based on the following methodology: transportation sector energy use by fuel type within a mode
(DOE/ELA, 1995b) was multiplied by carbon coefficients-mmtCe/quadrillion Btu-for each fuel (DOE/EIA,
1995a), then adjusted by fraction of carbon that does not oxidize during combustion (DOE/EIA, 1995a). Note
that this estimate does not account for upstream emissions, such as emissions from vessel assembly and fuel
production.
174

-------
                                                                        The Indicators: Maritime
CO Emissions from Maritime Vessels
Year
1970
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
, 1992
1993
1994 '
Recreational
Vessels
(Thousand
Short Tons)
976
1102
1157
1167
1175
1185
1195
1207
1221
1233
1245 ,
1256
Non ,
Recreational
Vessels (TST),
14
37
' 44
47
50
56
59
58
58
60
62
63
Percentage
Total
National
Emissions
0.77%
0.98%
1.04%
1.11%
1.13%
1.07% '
1.22%
1.26%
1.31%
1.37%
1.39%
1.35%
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e.
                                                                   CO Emissions
                                                         at
                                                         I
                                                         r
                                                         o
                                                         w
                                                         T3
1400

1200

1000

 800

 600

 400

 200
                        - Recreational
                         vessels

                        -Non
                         Recreational
                                                               1970
            1980
              Year
                                                                              1990
NOX Emissions from Maritime Vessels	
  Year  Recreational     Non      " Percentage
            Vessels ,  Recreational     Total
          (Thousand    Vessels     National
         Short Tons)    (TST)      Emissions
1970
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
16
18
19
19
19
19
19
20
' 20 '
20
20
20
40
110
131
140
• 149
165
175-
173
174
179
183
188
0.27%
0.55%
0.66%
0.71%
0.75%
. 0.78%
0.84%
• 0.84%
0.86%
0.87%
. 0.87% :
0.88%
200
        NOx Emissions
                                                                                   Non
                                                                                   Recreational
                                                                                   Vessels

                                                                                   Recreational
                                                                                   Vessels
                                                            1970
                                                                    1980     1990
                                                                       Year
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e.
                                                                                           175

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 VOC Emissions from Maritime Vessels

   Year  Recreational     Non      Percentage

            Vessels   Recreational  Total National
            ""i I! ' i, J''ii '	 '.	 .   ,   '	: , '  '  ",  . ' >!, 1|. ,:: ,' ,, (	^
          (Thousand    Vessels     Emissions

         Short Tons)    (TST)
1970
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
I99J
1992
1993
1994
350
395
413
416
419
422
425
429
434
438
442
446
9
25
30
32
34
38
40
39
40
41
42
43
1.17%
1.62%
1.72%
1.79%
1.83%
1.79%
1.94%
1.98%
2.07%
2.14%
2.14%
2.11%
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e.

SO3 Emissions from Maritime Vessels
Year
1970
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
(Thousand
Short Tons)
43
117
143
154
164
181
193
190
191
197
201
206
Percentage Total
National Emissions
0.14%
0.45%
0.62%
0.68%
0.74%
0.80%
0.83%
0.85%
0.87%
0.90%
0.93%
0.98%
  450


  400
           VOC Emissions
                                                                                      Recreational
                                                                                      Vessels
                                                                                      Non

                                                                                      Recreational
                                                                                      Vessels
                                                               1970
                                                                       1980
                                                                         Year
                    1990
                                                                   SO, Emissions
                                                        U)

                                                       I
                                                       r
                                                        o
                                                       (0
                                                        CO
                                                        (0

                                                        o
                                                          250
                                                          200
150
                                                          100
                                                                        1980       1990
                                                                          Year
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e.
176

-------
                                                                        The Indicators: Maritime
 PM-10 Emissions from Maritime Vessels72
   Year
 (Thousand
ShortTons)
 Percentage Total
National Emissions
                                                                     PM Emissions
1970 ^6
1980
1985
, 1986
1987
• 1988
1989
1990
1991 •
1992
1993
1994
17
20
21
• 23
25
27
26
26
27
28 ,
29
-
0.04%
0.04%
0.05%
0.04%
0.05%
0.06%
0.05%.
0. 06%
0.07%
0.06%
                                                           30
                                                           25
                                              20
                                                         CO
                                                        ' C
                                                         ,2

                                                         o   .'
                                                         W 15
                                                           10
                                                            0
                                                            1970
                                                                        1980
                                                                           Year
                                                                      '1990
Source: U.S. EPA, 1995e.
It is important to note the uncertainty regarding the values used for these output indicators. Since
actual measurement of all vessel emissions is impractical, the emissions estimates come from models,
which can produce varying estimates based on alternative methodologies and assumptions.

There is some evidence that air pollution can have a significant impact on water quality. Some portion
of atmospheric deposition may result from maritime vessel emissions, although statistics on such
pollution cannot be disaggregated to separate modes. See the section on highway air pollutant
emissions for more information on atmospheric deposition.

QUANTIFIED ACTIVITY INDICATORS
     4  Refer to Appendix A for data on maritime travel.
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT      -                     '
Although similar pollutants are emitted from maritime vessels and motor vehicles, there are several
key differences regarding emissions: (1) maritime vessels produce a much lower total quantity of
emissions; (2) emissions from maritime vessels tend to occur over different ecosystems than those
from motor vehicles; and (3) emissions from vessels have a chemical composition different from that
of motor vehicle emissions. Lower quantities of total emissions make the effects of vessel emissions
less pronounced than those of motor vehicles. Although emissions can travel widely and cause harm
in places that are removed from the point of release, emissions from vessels are less likely to affect
humans and land-based ecosystems and structures. Emissions from vessels, however, cause somewhat
different effects, since they produce more SO2, NOX, and PM-10 and less CO and VOC per volume
emitted than motor vehicle emissions (U.S. EPA 1993g).
72
  Percentage of total emissions are not reported for particulate matter prior to 1985 because of changes in total
emissions inventories; fugitive dust and wind erosion are reported only for the period 1985 to 1994.
                                                                                          177

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 Air emissions from vessels affect ecological and human health in a number of ways. Pollutants in
 emissions can cause respiratory and other illnesses, reduced visibility, soiling and corrosion of
 materials, damage to land-based and marine plants and animals, and contribution to global warming.
 While the percentage of total national emissions from vessels is minor compared with some other
 sources of air pollutants, vessel emissions have the potential to cause serious local and regional
 impacts. In addition, unlike auto emissions, total air emissions of pollutants from vessels are on the
 rise in the U.S.

 CAUSAL FACTORS
     4  Number of vessel trips                :
     4  Emissions per volume of fuel consumed, per trip, or per distance traveled, by chemical
     *  Distance traveled
     *  Engine type, age, and emissions control technology
     4  Fuel consumed (by type) affects emissions per mile
     *  Travel characteristics: speed, acceleration, etc. affects emissions per mile
     *  Climatic conditions (temperature, wind, rain, etc.) affects dispersion/dilution of pollutants
         and formation of secondary pollutants
     4  Population density affects number of people exposed to pollution
     4  Rate of wet deposition
     4  Sensitivity of local ecosystems
 HABITAT DISRUPTION CAUSED BY WAKES AND ANCHORS

 PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

 QuwnBH) Oy7COM©ftes«.7s INDICATORS
     4  The total area of shoreline erosion caused by wakes and the amount of vegetation and coral
        damaged and species affected by wakes and anchors is not known.

 QUWTJRED OUTPUT INDICATORS
     4  No data are available regarding the number and size of wakes in sensitive locations.

 QtMWTJRHJ ACTMTYINDICATORS
     4  No data have been found regarding the number of anchors dropped, the amount of traffic, or
        the average size and speed of boats in sensitive locations.

 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
 Several environmental impacts are the result of wakes from large or high-speed maritime vessels and
 anchoring. Wakes from large (e.g., cruise ship) or fast-moving vessels can cause erosion and
 vegetative and coral damage in confined or shallow waters. Wakes can cause strong wave propagation
that is capable of eroding shorelines or stirring up bottom sediments in shallow areas. Vegetation can
be disturbed both by erosion processes and by sedimentation resulting from wakes. Sedimentation
reduces the amount of sunlight available for photosynthetic processes. Corals also are susceptible to
damage from sediments that have been suspended by the action of wakes. The impacts of wakes are
very local in nature and likely to be more pronounced in confined areas of high traffic.
178

-------
                                                                        The Indicators: Maritime
Dropping of anchors from vessels, like wakes, can cause local habitat damage. This damage occurs
through direct physical disruptions, as anchors are dropped on habitats and sometimes dragged
through them. Anchor damage can be especially serious in highly productive but sensitive ecosystems,
such as coral reefs.

CAUSAL FACTORS            -        '
     4  Volume of vessel traffic                     ;
     *  Size of vessels
     *  Speed of vessels    ,                                        •
     *  Number of anchors dropped          •  '
     *  Sensitivity of local ecosystems to physical abuse


INTRODUCTION OF NON-NATIVE SPECIES

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     *  No data are available on the damages to ecosystems or species loss due to introduction of
        nonnative species to habitats via boat. No data are available on impacts to fisheries, water
        treatment facilities, or other resources.

QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS
     *  Over 130 non-native species have been introduced to the Great Lakes since 1800, and nearly
        a third are believed to have been carried in by ships (Council on Environmental Quality,
        1993).
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT                       ,             .                  .
The introduction of non-native species tp certain habitats may result in severe environmental strain or
damage to a functioning ecosystem. Non-native species may compete with native species for food
and force out existing creatures. For example, the zebra mussel, a non-native nuisance species,
probably entered the Great Lakes through discharge of ballast water from an ocean-going vessel. The
mussels could potentially disrupt the food web in the lakes by devouring microscopic plants that form
the foundation of the web. Colonies of zebra mussels also clog water intake pipes at power plants and
water treatment facilities (Council on Environmental Quality, 1993). Other non-native species may
out-compete existing species, resulting in significant alterations to the aquatic ecosystem.

CAUSAL FACTORS
     f   Number of foreign ships entering U.S.  waterways
     *  - Lack of proper disposal or exchange of ballast water or other contaminated cargo
     4   Lack of enforcement of ballast water management                           ,
                                                                                          179.

-------
  Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
  HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENTS DURING TRANSPORT

  PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

  QwmFKo OUTCOME/RESULTS IwtcATORS
      *  No statistics were found regarding the number of species nationwide affected by hazardous
         materials incidents.

  QUANTIFIED OUTPUTIWKATORS
      *  In 1994,5,295 incidents were reported involving oil spills in U.S. navigable waters (U S
         DOT, 1996).

                   Oil Spills from Vessels in U.S. Navigable Waters, 1982-1994
Kill IT
">, Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Numbier of
Incidents
2,209
2,225
2,267
1,662
1,612
1,779 '
2,008
2,268
2,486
2,428
5,310
5,430
5,295
, Gallons ,
Spilled
3,778,982
2,332,256
9,011,868
4,862,911
2,835,916
2,945,770
4,386,289
12,693,817
6,437,158
730,489
665,432
1,177,157
1,276,914
                                   Source: U.S. DOT, 1996.

         Corrosive materials constituted the class of hazardous materials with the largest number of
         reported incidents—17—and the largest reported quantity released—8,446.9 gallons—over
         1990-1994.
180

-------
                                                                            The Indicators: Maritime
 Incidents Involving Releases of Hazardous Materials from Non-Bulk, Interstate Vessels in U.S.
                                   Waters (Total, 1990-1994)73
j,€3ass of Hazardous, t Nuinbeif of , Quantity
r ' *" Material," „ Incidents Released
Corrosive material
Flammable
combustible liquid
Poisonous material
Nonflammable
compressed gas
Oxidizer
Radioactive material
Combustible liquid
Organic peroxide
Other
17
8

6
,3

•. 2
2
1 '
1
1
8,446.9 gal.
578.2 gal.

64.7 gal.
1.5 gal.

0.4 gal.
4.3 Ibs.
3.0 gal.
1.0 gal.
2.0 gal '
Economic
Damages ($)
276,507
, 201,925

8,250
47,880

132,412
3,000
2,300
28
200
                                    Source: U.S. DOT, RSPA, HMIS

     *   Jn 1992, vessels caused 60 percent of all oil spill incidents in navigable waters of the U.S.
         (Council on Environmental Quality, 1993).
     4   Tanker accidents cause 10 to 15 percent of the annual input of oil into the world's oceans
       .  (Miller, 1990).

OTHER QUANTIFIED DATA AND LOCAL EXAMPLES
     V   In 1989, the grounding of the Exxon Valdez oil tanker resulted in a spill of approximately 11
         million gallons of crude oil into wildlife-rich Prince William Sound. The oil slick coated and
         killed more than 34,000 birds,  10,000 sea otters, and an unknown quantity of fish. The total
         count of wildlife deaths from the incident is Unknown because most of the dead animals sank
         and decomposed (Miller, 1990).
     4   Water transportation of hazardous materials is primarily the enforcement responsibility of
         the U.S. Coast Guard. Nine states have adopted the federal regulations for such
         transportation, but none are actively enforcing the regulations (RSPA; National Governors'
         Association).                                                      ,
DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT                                                                       :
Releases of hazardous materials, especially petroleum products, from vessels are one of the most
publicized impacts of maritime transportation: Many factors determine the extent of damages caused
by petroleum spills, including type of oil spilled (crude or refined), quantity spilled, distance of
release from shore, time of year, weather conditions, water temperatures, and currents.
  The data in the HMIS database do not capture releases from bulk marine vessels, which are the most likely class of vessels
to be transporting hazardous materials. Bulk marine vessels and intrastate vessels are not required to report release
information for the data base. The numbers in the table, therefore, are only a tiny fraction of actual volumes released. For
example, petroleum crude oil is classified as a flammable liquid. Comparing the data in this table with the data on oil spills
contained in the previous table reveals the magnitude of underestimation. Data in this table, therefore,  only reveal the types
of wastes being released, and provide some level of insight into the relative quantities of each class of materials released.
                                                                                                181

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 When an oil spill occurs, toxic hydrocarbons, such as benzene and toluene, cause immediate wildlife
 deaths. Shellfish and nonmigratory fish, especially those in the larval stage, are the mpst susceptible
 to these chemicals. Other chemicals form sticky, tar-like globs on the surface that adhere to marine
 wildlife such as birds, otters, and seals, as well as to sand, rocks, and almost all other substances.
 Many animals that come into contact with such chemicals die from drowning or loss of body heat.
 Heavy components of oil that sink to the bottom of bodies of water may have the most profound
 impacts on ecosystems. Such pollution can kill or damage benthic organisms and adversely affect
 food webs (Miller, 1990). Studies of some oil spills have shown that it takes most species of marine
 life 3 years to recover from exposure to large quantities of crude oil. Recovery times may be much
 longer (10 or more years) for exposure to refined oil, especially in areas with weak currents or cold
 waters (Miller, 1990). Oil pollution in the vicinity of shorelines can cause ecological harm in coastal
 ecosystems.

 Humans also experience health effects from oil spills. Exposure depends on how much oil washes
 ashore and how much seafood is contaminated and eaten. For the most part, oil chemicals are not
 biologically magnified in food webs (Miller, 1990), so seafood impacts may not be that large. Some
 of the chemicals resulting from spills, however, such as benzene, are highly toxic to humans (Miller,
 1990).

 Ecosystems and humans also experience impacts from maritime spills of non-petroleum hazardous
 waste. Such spills can lead to wildlife kills, non-swimmable and non-fishable waters, shellfish bed
 closures, and human exposure through contact and food. In  addition, some hazardous substance may
 undergo biological amplification in food chains, causing serious damage to organisms at high trophic
 levels. Human contact with non-petroleum hazardous waste spills can be greater where a hazardous
 substance spill goes undetected and warnings are not given to avoid body-contact through water
 recreation.

 CAUSAL FACTORS
     *  Quantity of hazardous materials transported
     *  Accident or spill rate
     *  Type and quantity of material released
     *  Toxicity/hazard of materials released
     *  Effectiveness of cleanup efforts
     *  Proximity to coastal areas
     *  Sensitivity and location of affected ecosystems
WILDLIFE COLLISIONS

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS                              .

        OUTCOME/RESULTS tacarofls
        Approximately one-third of known right whale fatalities are caused by human activities,
        principally ship strikes in their calving and wintering grounds in the coastal waters of Florida
        and Georgia (Council on Environmental Quality).
182

-------
                                                                        The Indicators: Maritime
                        !

 QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS                        ,                                 '
     4   Data on the number of collisions between maritime vessels and wildlife are not known.

 QUANTIFIED ACTIVITY INDICATORS
     4   Refer to Appendix A for data on maritime travel.

 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT'
 Many slow-moving marine species, especially large mammals and reptiles, are often victims of
 encounters with motorized vessels. Fauna can be killed or severely injured through collisions with  •
 propellers or hulls. Some of the most publicized and damaging U.S. incidents involve endangered
 species, such a.s the West Indian manatee, the right whale, and various species of sea turtles.
 Propellers are a significant source of injuries and deaths for the West Indian manatee in coastal
 Florida.

 CAUSAL FACTORS                                                       •
     *  Number of high-speed motorized vessels
     *  Volume of vessel traffic
     *  Presence and quantity of wildlife


 OVERBOARD DUMPING OF SOLID WASTE

 PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

 QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS
     *  As many as 50,000 northern fur seals die annually from entanglement in plastic marine
        debris, primarily fishing nets and strapping bands (National Research Council, 1995). The
        amount of this debris attributable to vessels as opposed to land-based sources and other
        marine  sources is unknown.                                     .      .
     *  Cases of entanglement have been recorded for 51 of the world's 312 seabird species and 10
        of the world's 75 cetacean species (National Research Council, 1995).
     *  Ingestion of plastic debris has been recorded for at least 108 species of seabirds and 33
        species of fish.
     *  Impacts on human health are unavailable.

QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS  '        .                                             '
     *'  Quantity of garbage disposed of at sea by vessels is unknown.

QUANTIFIED ACTIVITY INDICATORS  •
     +  U.S. maritime sectors generate an estimated total of 825,168 metric tons of garbage annually
        (see table) .>
                                                                                          183

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
                                                                                74
                Estimated Annual Garbage Generation by U.S. Maritime Sectors
                                                                ^^;;^
                                                                   '':''
          «.	i'	•».	'	1;**"	T-	is	 is	i-	'!	i-i	isi' -ini'tei'i-' -i
Recreational Boats
Fishing Vessels
Cargo Ships
Day Boats
U.S. Navy Vessels
U.S. Coast Guard Vessels
U.S. Army Vessels
School Boats
Offshore Industry Service Vessels
Navy Combatant Surface Vessels
Passenger Cruise Ships
Research Vessels
Misc. Private Industry Vessels
7,300,000
129,000
7,800
5,200
284
2,316
580
14
1,500
360
128
125
85
. 159,900
230,500
111,700
57,623
10,262
4,058
254
358
7,665
37,812
201,830
1,779
1,427
' Nearshore
Nearshore and Offshore
Offshore
Nearshore and Offshore
Nearshore and Offshore
Nearshore and Offshore
Nearshore and Offshore
Nearshore and Offshore
Nearshore and Offshore
Offshore
Nearshore
Nearshore and Offshore
Nearshore and Offshore
         Total
7,447,392
825,168
                                Source: National Research Council, 1995.
 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
 The three major types of shipboard solid waste are domestic garbage (e.g., galley waste and food
 packaging), operational garbage (e.g., used fishing gear, fish processing materials, and items used for
 onboard maintenance), and cargo-related garbage (e.g., packaging materials and dunnage) (National
 Research Council, 1995). While garbage generation is substantial for U.S. maritime sectors (see the
 table above), quantifying the amount of garbage dumped overboard is difficult. Maritime travel is not
 the source of all marine debris. Land-based sources and stationary maritime sources, such as oil
 platforms, account for some portion of marine debris. Even data on garbage generation are highly
 uncertain. Other factors, such as the fact that floatable debris can travel extremely long distances and
 cross international borders, also complicate statistics about vessel garbage. While these uncertainties
 affect the accuracy of indicators, the impacts of debris from vessels are genuine and can be described
 to some extent.

 The most readily observable ecological effects of solid waste dumping from marine vessels are
 entanglement, ingestion, and ghost fishing. Entanglement occurs when wildlife come into contact with
 marine debris and become trapped. Affected wildlife includes mammals, turtles, birds, fish, and land
 animals that inhabit coastlines. Researchers believe that substantial numbers of animals die or are
 injured because of entanglement. In fact, entanglement is thought to be the cause of serious
 population declines among some species. Non-deadly injuries can be serious, causing inability to
 breathe, swim, feed, or raise young properly (National Research Council, 1995).
*4 This table depicts garbage generation by U.S. fleets, not overboard dumping. Some of the generated wastes,
however, arc dumped overboard. Many of the vessels generate some portion of their wastes while operating in
non-U.S. waters. Data were collected from various sources dating from 1990 to 1994. Number of vessels was
tabulated as follows:  recreational boats - boats registered in coastal states or in states bordering the Great Lakes;
cargo ships - different ships of all flags calling at U.S. ports.
184

-------
                                                                       The Indicators: Maritime
Ingestion refers to instances in which animals swallow debris. The most publicized cases of ingestion
involve sea turtles and cetaceans swallowing plastic waste. Ingestion of plastic and other debris can
cause immediate death or result in a number of injuries or handicaps to wildlife. While very few data
describe the extent of damage caused by ingestion, many anecdotal cases have been documented
(National Research Council, 1995).

Ghost fishing involves lost or discarded fishing gear that continues to catch finfish and shellfish. The
extent of this problem is not well specified, but some evidence suggests that some lobster, crab, and
other fisheries experience depletion due to ghost fishing. Most of the problems from ghost fishing are
caused by lost or discarded trapping devices, such as gill nets (National Research Council, 1995).

Other possible ecological effects of overboard dumping have not been researched extensively. Effects
on coral reefs, water and sediment toxicity, invertebrates, plants, bottom habitats, and other areas may
be substantial but are not well documented (National Research Council, 1995).      .

In addition to ecological problems, shipboard solid wastes that are dumped overboard can cause
human health problems. These problems are most notably associated with direct human contact with
debris. Examples of this type of problem include wounds on beaches from sharp debris that washes up
on or near shore and injuries caused by contact with hazardous chemicals. Other human health ,
hazards associated with debris include diver entanglement and boat collisions and malfunctions
caused by debris. While human health impacts from overboard dumping of solid waste are possible,
data on exposure are unavailable.

CAUSAL FACTORS
     4  Quantity of food, packaging, fishing equipment, and other items used on vessels
     4  Difficulty in transporting garbage on boats, and ease of overboard disposal
     4  Difficulty in enforcement of laws and policies
     4  Perceptions of the assimilative capacity of large bodies of water
SEWAGE DUMPING

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS                      •
     4  In 1990, pollution from boating and marinas affected 25 percent of the harvest-limited
        shellfishing waters in half of the shellfish-producing states (harvest-limited waters are those
        in which shellfish beds may be contaminated) (Council on Environmental Quality, 1993).
     4  In a survey of nine states, the states revealed that marinas were the third largest source of
       . restrictions on shellfish harvesting (behind urban runoff/storm sewers and municipal
        discharges). In these states, marinas accounted for 51 total harvesting restrictions in 1992
        (U.S. EPA, I994b). It is not clear whether these reported impacts are due to sewage  or other
        toxic releases (e.g., oils, fuel).
     4  No outbreaks of shellfish-borne disease have been traced epidemiologically to discharge of
        sewage from recreational boats. Reported outbreaks, however account for a small fraction of
        all shellfish-borne illness (Hackney and Pierson, eds., 1994).
                                                                                          185

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
      *  Estimates of the total amount of sewage dumped by vessels in U.S. waters ,are not readily
         available.'

 QtmmED ACTIVITY INDICATORS
      *  Some 90 to 95 percent of commercial U.S. vessels have marine sanitation devices on board.
         75 to 80 percent of recreational vessels have marine sanitation devices (U.S. Coast Guard).

 OnER QUANTIFIED DATA AND LOCAL EXAMPLES
      *  Nationwide, shellfish harvesting in waters around marinas is typically restricted during the
         boating season as a precautionary measure (Hackney and Pierson, eds., 1994).
      *  A 1988 survey of 379 boaters in Puget Sound revealed the following problems experienced
         by boaters at shoreside pump-out stations: 17 percent found pump-outs inaccessible, 8
         percent encountered crowded conditions, 5.3 percent experienced unsanitary conditions, 5.3
         percent viewed fees as excessive or did not know how to use facilities, 37 percent
         experienced a complete lack of available pump-outs, 27.4 percent found frequently
         malfunctioning pump-outs (Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission).
 DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
 The popularity of recreational boating in coastal areas has spurred rapid development of marinas,
 many of which are not equipped to collect and process sewage. Boaters who use these marinas often
 dump sewage in the water, rather than transporting it to proper pump-out facilities. Even in cases
 where marinas or ports are equipped with sewage collection facilities, many vessels are still
 responsible for sewage pollution. Some vessels do not contain a marine sanitation device (boat toilet),
 and, as a result, boaters sometimes dump sewage overboard. Some vessels are equipped with marine
 sanitation devices that are meant to treat sewage and dump it in the water. If these devices are
 functioning improperly, untreated sewage can be dumped. Fees for pump-out of sewage holds on
 vessels also give boaters the incentive to dump sewage illegally.

 Sewage from vessels can cause serious local impacts on water quality and human health, especially in
 areas of high recreational boat use. Studies in Puget Sound, Long Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, and
 Chesapeake Bay have shown that boats can be a significant source of human wastes in coastal waters,
 especially where the volume of boat traffic is high and hydrologic flushing is low. The two major
 impacts of sewage discharges are introduction of microbial pathogens into the environment and
 reduction in dissolved oxygen levels. Waterbome bacteria and/or viruses that enter waterways from
 vessel sewage discharges can cause serious ailments  and diseases, such as acute gastroenteritis,
 hepatitis, typhoid, and cholera (U.S. EPA, June 1991). Many marinas are located in or near shellfish-
 growing areas, and sewage dumped from the boats or at marinas has the potential to contaminate
 shellfish (Council on Environmental Quality, 1993). Pathways of exposure for humans include both
 direct water contact and ingestion of contaminated seafood.

 Vessel sewage has a high capacity for reducing dissolved oxygen in bodies of water. Although the
volume of wastewater discharged from vessels is typically small, the organic substances in the
wastewater are highly concentrated. These organics can lead to low levels of dissolved oxygen where
vessel traffic is high. (U.S. EPA, June 1991)
186

-------
                                                                       The Indicators: Maritime
Another effect of vessel sewage occurs when treated wastewaters are discharged from vessels. These
wastewaters are treated with chemical additives, such as chlorine and formaldehyde, which are
generally toxic to marine life (U.S. EPA, June 1991). Vessel sewage that is removed from vessels at
pump-out facilities is typically transported to POTWs for treatment. Impacts of wastewater discharges
from POTWs, therefore, are partially attributable to ves.se! sewage in some cases.

CAUSAL FACTORS
    *  Vessel traffic, especially recreational vessel traffic in an area
    4  Poor siting of marinas near shellfish beds
    4  Poor flushing of marina areas
    4  Difficulties enforcing marine sanitation laws
    4  Lack of functional marine sanitation devices on vessels
    4  Lack of pump-out facilities at marinas
    4  .Inaccessibility, crowding, or malfunction of pump-out facilities at'marinas
                                                                                          187

-------

-------
                                                                      The Indicators: Maritime
                     4. MARITIME VESSEL MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT

Maritime transport requires support facilities such as ports for loading and unloading cargo and
people, repair and maintenance facilities, fueling stations, and marinas. The environmental impacts of
those facilities and indicators of those impacts are discussed below.
                                          Releases of Pollutants
                                          during Terminal
                                          Operations
RELEASES OF POLLUTANTS DURING TERMINAL OPERATIONS
              \            '
PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS                                   •

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS                         •
     4  Data on water quality, habitat, and health impacts associated with maritime vessel terminal
        operations are not available.

QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS
     *  Marine vessel loading and unloading operations are believed to emit as many as 60 of the
        189 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) defined in the Clean Air Act Amendments, including
        benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene. Approximately 350 facilities emitted 8,000
        metric tons of HAPs in 1990 (U.S. EPA, 1994e).
   ' . 4  One investigation reported significant increases in tributyltin levels in marina waters.
        Another study reported significant uptake of lead, copper, and zinc by hard clams at  .
        moderately and poorly flushed marina sites (Hackney and Pierson, eds., 1994).
     *  Data on other wastes generated from marine vessel terminal operations have not been
        estimated at the national level (see table for list of wastes generated).
                                                                                       189

-------
                               Marine Vessel Terminal Operations:
                        Processes and Types of Waste Possibly Generated
        ' • i  ' Processes/Operations""
Description -m' Wastes
           Air emissions from storage tanks and
           open processing equipment emissions
           Grit blasting and chemical stripping
           Spray painting, resin application


           Engine Repair


           Electroplating/metal finishing

           Machine shops

           Equipment cleaning, area washdown

           Degreasing, equipment cleaning,
           chemical paint stripping, reinforced
           plastic fabrication
           Vessel bilge cleaning	
VOC emissions

Wastewater containing blasting media,
organic paint sludges, heavy metals,
stripping chemicals, VOC emissions
Waste paints, thinners, degreasers,
solvents, resins and gelcoat, VOC
emissions
Waste turbine oil, lubricants, degreasers,
mild acids, batteries, carburetor cleaners,
VOC emissions
Cyanide solutions, heavy metal sludges,
corrosive acid, alkali solutions
Spent cutting and lube oils, scrap metal,
degreasers, VOC emissions
Wastewater containing paints, solvents,
oils, and degreasers
Resin and paint contaminated solvents,
VOC emissions

Bilge wastes (oily water)	
                                     Source: U.S. EPA, October 1991.
     4-   There are approximately 700 establishments involved in marine repair in the U.S. (U.S. EPA,
         October 1991).75

OTHER QUANTIFIED DA TA AND LOCAL EXAMPLES
     *   An estimated 0.02 percent of the total volume of fertilizer shipped to/from port facilities in
         Tampa Bay are lost as fugitive air emissions. These fugitive emissions deposit an estimated
         291 tons per year of nitrogen and 424 tons per year of phosphorus into the bay (Tampa Bay
         National Estuary Program, 1994).

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
Terminal operations for maritime vessels involve boat yards and ship yards. Boat yards typically
handle recreational or small commercial boats, offering services such as painting and engine repair.
Ship yards service relatively larger vessels, and often contain extensive industrial machinery.
Operations may include structural repairs,  painting, engine or power plant maintenance,
electroplating, air conditioning and refrigeration service, and electrical repair (U.S. EPA, October
1991). Other terminal operations include vessel unloading and cleaning, vessel storage, and refueling.
Many of these processes use materials that are hazardous or may in turn generate hazardous waste,
vapors, or wastewater (see the table above). The actual impact of terminal activities on the
environment depends  on the type and volume of operations, level of cleanliness required, type of
waste generated, and efficiency of treatment systems in place. Wastes from such facilities, however,
can often seep into waterways and damage marine environments.
w These 700 establishments consist of facilities that fall under SIC codes 3731 and 3732, including ship and boat
building and repair yards.

-------
                                                                         The Indicators: Maritime
 Painting, which is a common operation in marine repair yards, involves three activities that generate
 wastes. The first is surface preparation, which is usually accomplished by abrasive blasting and/or
 chemical stripping.  Surface preparation can cause air and water pollution, as well as generate waste
 material in need of disposal. Application of paints is the second activity. Most top side and interior
 paints are not significantly toxic, unlike some bottom paints. These bottom paints, referred to as
 antifouling paints (to describe their function in preventing barnacle or other marine life growths),
 typically contain toxic pigments such as chromium, titanium dioxide, lead, or tributyltin compounds.
 Topside and interior paints may emit VOCs if oil-based. The third waste-generating activity related
 to vessel painting is equipment cleaning. The equipment used for painting must be cleaned after use,
 sometimes with strong cleaning solvents. Wastewaters generated from this process,may contain
 hazardous substances, and air pollution can result as solvents volatalize (U.S. EPA, October 1991).

 Engine repair work on small boats produces the same types of wastes as auto engine repair, including
 lube oils, hydraulic fluids, waste fuels, hydrocarbon solvents, and batteries. Larger ship yards produce
 higher quantities of engine-related waste and may generate supplementary wastes, such as machine-
 shop cutting fluids and other degreasing and cleaning solvents (U.S. EPA, October 1991).

 Vessel unloading can be a source of marine pollution. Emissions at marine terminal loading
 operations result from the displacement of vapors as liquids are loaded into cargo holds either directly
 through open hatches or from pipe header systems which collect the vapors and vent to the
 atmosphere. In May 1994, EPA proposed a marine vessel rule, which is expected to reduce emissions
 of air toxics by 95 percent (U.S. EPA, 1994e). Releases of hazardous' materials or other pollutants
• can occur during loading and unloading or through dust emissions. For example, portions of fertilizer
 shipments are sometimes spilled in waterways or dust from movement of fertilizer shipments enters
 waterways.

 Vessel cleaning is a significant generator of wastes. The most common waste is bilge waste, which is
 actually generated by the vessels themselves. Bilge waste contains wastewater mixed with oil and fuel
 (U.S. EPA, October 1991).                      -   ' .

 Refueling causes problems similar to those of auto  refueling stations.  One major difference, however,
 is that spills can enter waterways directly during marine refueling. Like auto refueling, VOCs can be
 emitted in vapors. Underground storage tanks used  to hold vessel fuels can also leak their contents .
 into waterways.

 The nature of wastes and emissions generated by terminal operations makes them harmful to many
 forms of life, including humans. Humans can be exposed to toxicants directly (e.g., through
 swimming in polluted waters or breathing polluted  air) or indirectly (e.g., through eating seafood that
 has ingested toxicants). Non-toxic pollution, such as excessive nutrient loading caused by fertilizer
 releases from loading docks, damages ecosystems. Such releases can cause algal blooms, which lead
 to lower water quality (often by reducing the quantity of dissolved oxygen).

 CAUSAL FACTORS
     • 4  Number of terminals
     4  Type and level of terminal operations
     4  Materials used during terminal operations
     4  Fugitive material collection systems in place at port facilities
     4  Wastewater treatment capabilities
                                                                                           191

-------

-------
                                                                       The Indicators: Maritime
                      5. DISPOSAL OF MARITIME VESSELS AND PARTS
SCRAPPAGE OF OLD VESSELS AND DILAPIDATED PARTS

PRESENTATION OF INDICATORS              -

QUANTIFIED OUTCOME/RESULTS INDICATORS                                     .    •
     4  Estimates are not available on the health and environmental impacts of landfilling or other
        disposal of scrapped vehicles.

QUANTIFIED OUTPUT INDICATORS                   '         •
     4  National data on emissions from the disposal of vehicles are not available.

QUANTIFIED ACTIVITY INDICATORS  •                  .                          ,
     *  Data on the number of vessels scrapped/recycled annually in the U.S. have not been
        identified.                            _        ,
     *  The large increase in the inventory of vessels signifies that more vessels will eventually be
        scrapped or recycled than in the past.

DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT
The major impact of vessel scrappage is landfilling and other means of disposal of non-recycled parts,
some of which contain toxic components (e.g., batteries).  The contribution of boat scrappage to
problems associated with landfilling and hazardous waste disposal is unknown.

CAUSAL FACTORS
     4  Number of vessels scrapped
     4  Size of vessels                                            •
     *  Use of hazardous materials in vessels
     4  Disposal method/fraction disposed of properly (recycling, recovery, etc.)
     4  Recovery rate of materials in scrapped vessels
                                                                                          193

-------

-------
                                                                                   Next Steps
                                         NEXT  STEPS
j
 This section describes the logical next steps in the effort to develop and utilize indicators of the
 environmental impacts of transportation. This study has taken some initial steps in presenting a
 framework for indicators and a comprehensive list of environmental impacts. It has also provided
 quantitative data on indicators for various impacts. There are still, however, considerable gaps in the
 data and analyses needed to fully implement environmental indicators in this area. Next steps are  .
 listed below.

 COLLECT RAW DATA OR LOCAL DATA WHERE NEEDED
 This report has made clear that some impacts cannot be tracked at the national level until additional
 data are collected. Sensitivity to existing reporting burdens at the state and local level is important,
 and some additional data collection could be conducted by researchers rather than by requiring data
 submissions. Some data are available in regional or state offices but have never been aggregated at the
 national level. Impacts where new data collection or aggregation would be particularly useful include
 the following:

     *  Wetlands impacts
     *  Habitat fragmentation and disruption from all modes
     *  Hazardous materials entering the environment from incidents
     4  Emissions from vehicle maintenance and repair
     *  Maritime terminal operation releases
     4  Emissions during construction and maintenance of infrastructure
     4  Leaking underground storage tank (LUST) releases attributable to transportation
     *  Scrappage of aircraft, marine vessels, and rail cars/locomotives

 DEVELOP NEW ESTIMATES OF CERTAIN IMPACTS
 National estimates of certain impacts have not been developed to date. In some cases, such estimates
 could be developed without the collection of additional raw data. Existing or new models could be
 applied to develop new national estimates of certain environmental impacts. In particular, new
 estimates of the following impacts are in need of development:

     *   Emissions from road construction and paving
     4   Impacts of-and quantities of emissions from aircraft at high altitudes
    >   Deicing runoff impacts on water quality
  ,   *   Quantities released from spills and leaks at airports
     *   Other runoff impacts on water, quality
     *   Motor vehicle scrappage (tons disposed of, by material)
     *   Noise exposure (updated estimates)
     *   Roadkill (some data collection may be needed)             •

At least two types of estimates should be developed:
    4   Measures of emissions, loadings, or ambient levels, and
    4   Actual health or welfare risks
                                                                                        195

-------
 Indicators oftlie Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 MODEL EMISSIONS/LOADINGS/AMBIENT LEVELS/HABITAT CHANGES
 For'some activities or impacts, such as runoff, nati9nal estimates of typical transportation
 contributions to loadings or .ambient levels are unavailable. Some additional analysis could apply
 existing models to develop national estimates, which could serve as improved indicators of these
 impacts.

 CALCULATE HEALTH AND WELFARE RISKS OF AMBIENT LEVELS
 In some cases, transportation emissions may be known but the results of those emissions have not
 been analyzed. Standard health risk assessment approaches may be used to estimate health impacts,
 using fate and transport or dispersion modeling, exposure modeling, and dose-response data. Welfare
 impacts may be calculated in dollar terms in some cases, based on existing estimates of dollar impacts
 per unit of damage or development of such estimates with standard approaches to valuation of
 environmental assets, such as hedonic pricing, for example.

 DESCRIBE EFFECTIVENESS OF MITIGATION OPTIONS
 Various mitigation options (noise barriers, runoff detention ponds, and wetlands mitigation efforts,
 for example) have been studied to some extent. It would be useful to track the increasing effectiveness
 of such efforts and the extent of their utilization in cases where more direct, accurate estimates of
 actual results are difficult to obtain. In many cases, estimates of environmental impacts implicitly
 assume a certain mitigation or control effectiveness anyway. Although mitigation efforts are not an
 ideal subject for results-oriented indicators, it can be quite useful to compile summaries of trends in
 the effectiveness and usage of mitigation options over time. For example, one might track how many
 airports are following certain management practices  with regard to toxic substances, or what
 percentage of wetland mitigation efforts are successful.

 CONSIDER IMPACTS NOT LISTED HERE
 In addition to the impacts listed in this report, transportation has other impacts on the environment
 that are due to supporting land-use development patterns and industries. These effects are indirect,
 and often it is difficult to apportion the damage that stems from transportation versus other sources.
 Environmental damage may be caused by a variety of sources:

    *  Gas stations, including auto repair and maintenance
    *  Parking facilities (lots and garages)
    *  Related land-use development patterns
    4  Petroleum industry (transportation's share of these upstream  impacts)
    *  Steel industry (transportation's share of these upstream impacts)
    *  Chemical industry (transportation's share of these upstream impacts)

A broad analysis of transportation as a whole would  include the development of indicators of
environmental harm caused by these related developments and industries.

SET UP ONGOING, CONSISTENT USE OF INDICATORS
This report identifies numerous potential indicators that have not been reported or tracked
consistently to date. It recommends the development of an organized, broad initiative to report a
consistent set of indicators. This effort should take into account the various state, federal, and private
efforts to track the environmental impacts of transportation and use those data in the policy process.
At a minimum, it would be useful to assess which indicators are being quantified annually and which
196

-------
^	    .  •,	Next Steps


are available only for selected years, for example, and to coordinate efforts among various
organizations developing and reporting these indicators.

REGULARLY UPDATE OUTDATED, ONE-TIME ESTIMATES
'Several of the indicators in this report have been quantified only once, or only sporadically - in
surveys or one-time modeling exercises. These estimates should be updated regularly. Examples of
such outdated or one-time estimates that require updating include the following:

     4  Noise exposure                                                              <  •
     4-  Air toxic emissions during travel
     4  Runoff (typical concentrations of pollutants in runoff)
     4  Use of airport deicing agents

CONDUCT POLIQY ANALYSIS
Now that this study has compiled data on environmental impacts, and as improved indicators are
developed, they should be used to improve national policy. This could entail several types" of
relatively modest studies, which could provide policy-relevant results.

COMPARE ACROSS MODES, ACROSS MEDIA, ACROSS IMPACTS
One type of policy  study will involve comparisons. One obvious comparison is between modes. Past
studies have already provided such comparisons, but not on the basis of the wide range of impacts
considered here. Based on the indicators in this report, it is possible to make comparisons of total
environmental .impacts among modes of transportation. However, it is important to keep in mind that
these indicators describe total national impacts of transportation, not impacts per vehicle-mile or
passenger-mile traveled, per ton-mile of freight, or per vehicle produced. As a result, these indicators
should not be used  to make-comparisons of how changes in mode of travel would affect the
environment. Appendix A provides information on the total amount of infrastructure and travel
associated with each mode.                               .

The various environmental media can also be compared with determine whether water or habitat   •
impacts deserve more attention than they have received relative to air quality. The many impacts
could also be compared with provide  a sense of whether certain important environmental effects have
not been sufficiently addressed. Such comparisons can assist in setting legislative or budgetary
priorities.   ,                •                         .              ,

COMPARE TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Several years ago, EPA's "Unfinished Business" report attracted a great deal of attention by
comparing a wide range environmental issues and attempting to identify topics that still required
significant regulatory and scientific work. With this new set of environmental statistics in hand, such
a comparison would be somewhat more complete and feasible.

CONSIDER COSTS OF POLICIES
As discussed earlier in this report, indicators provide only part of the picture. They describe the
potential benefits of environmental and transportation policies, but stop short of considering the costs
of such policies. Indicators should be coupled with cost studies to provide a more complete picture of
policy and technological options and their relative desirability.
                                                                                        197

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 PROVIDE STATE AND LOCAL TOOLS
 Often, planners would like to be able to describe quickly the environmental implications of projected
 increases in VMT or of shifts in highway spending, such as an increase in construction of urban roads.
 One might, at first glance, view the indicators in this report as a means to develop such estimates. For
 example, one might assume that the average national impact per VMT or per lane-mile is also the
 local and marginal impact of added VMT. This is often not the case, however.

 Ideally, further work would determine which impacts vary directly with, VMT and which vary based
 on other parameters. This work would essentially consist of development of models to predict the
 magnitudes of various impacts, based on inputs such as VMT, temperature, or other causal factors
 such as those listed in the report. Some such models exist,  such as the highway runoff predictive
 model, or noise models, but they do not exist for very many of these impacts. Also, the models
 typically require numerous site-specific inputs that are costly to collect. New models could be
 developed, perhaps for screening purposes.
198

-------
                                                                                 Bibliography
                                    BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Aaberg, L., et al. The Animal Accident Project; Part 2: Situation Report. National Swedish Road and
        Traffic Research Institute. 1978.                      .
 Air Quality Coordination Group (AQCG) and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee .
        (STAC) of the Chesapeake Bay Program. "Atmospheric Loadings to the Chesapeake Bay:
        Existing Uncertainties." 1994/5.
 American Association of Airport Executives. Glycol Usage at U.S. Airports and Storm Water
        Sampling. Unpublished.w
 American Association of Port Authorities. 7993 Dredging and Disposal Survey. 1995.
 American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA). Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures 1990.
        1990.
 American Public Transit Association (APTA), 1994-1995 Transit Fact Book. 1995.
 Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation). 7994 Annual Report. 1994.
 APL Stacktrain Services. The Green Alternative: A Transportation Assessment. 1995.
 Apogee Research, Inc. Strategic Analysis of Regional Air Quality Options: Phase 1 Report, Working
        Draft. Prepared for USDOT/FHWA.  1996.
 Apogee Research, Inc. Incorporating Additional Benefits and Disbenefits into the HERS Model for
        National Highway Investment Analysis. Prepared for USDOT/FHWA.  1996b.
 Apogee Research, Inc. 7995 Indicators Report - Interim Draft: Background Material for Annual
        Planning Meeting.  Prepared for the USEPA Environmental Results Branch of the Office of
        Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. 1995.
 Apogee Research, Inc. The Costs of Transportation. Prepared for the Conservation Law Foundation.
        1994.     "                          .
 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Arizona Environment. Spring 1993.
 Armstrong, Janet. "The Wider Implications of Motor Vehicle Infrastructure, Raw Materials, and the
       Environment" in Motor Vehicles in the Environment: Principles and Practice. John Wiley &
       Sons. 1994.                                                               .        .
 Association of American Railroads (AAR). Railroad Facts. Annual. 1994.
 Atkinson, Robert B. and John Cairns, Jr. "Ecological Risks of Highways" in Predicting Ecosystem
       Risk.  1992.
 Backer, David, et al. "Deicing Dilemma," Civil Engineering. July 1994, p. 56.
 Baekken, T. "Effects of Highway Pollutants on a Small Norwegian Lake." Science of the Total
       Environment, 147:131-139, 1994.
 Barrett, Michael. Pollution Control Strategies for Aircraft. World Wildlife Fund: International
      Discussion Paper, 1994.                                              .              '
Barrett, Michael. Aircraft Pollution: Environmental Impacts and Future Solutions. World Wildlife
       Fund: WWF Research Paper, 1991.
Barrett, Michael, et al. "Water Quality Impacts of Highway Construction and  Operation in Texas," TR
       News 179, July-August 1995.           ,
                                                                                       199

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 Barrett, Michael, et al. A Review and Evaluation of the Literature Pertaining to the Quantity and
        Control of Pollution from Highway Runoff and Construction. Center for Transportation
        Research, University of Texas, Austin. 1993.
 Bcllis, E. and H. Graves. "Collision of Vehicles with Deer Studied on Pennsylvania Interstate Road
        Section." Highway Research News, 43:13-17, 1971.
 Bcrman, Laurel, et al. Urban Runoff: Water Quality Solutions. American Public Works Association
        Research Foundation. 1991.
 Blaustein and Wake. "The Puzzle of Declining Amphibian Populations." Scientific American, April
        1995.
 Boeing. Current Market Outlook: World Market Demand and Airplane Supply Requirements. 1995.
 Boeing. World Jet Airplane Inventory. 1993.
 Business Dateline; Minneapolis/St. Paul City Business.
 Button, Kenneth. Transport, the Environment, and Economic Policy. Edward Elgar. 1993.
 California Department of Transportation. Evaluation of Highway Deer Kill Mitigation ofSEI/LAS-
        395,  1980.
 California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Research Division, Air Pollution
        Mitigation Measures for Airports and Associated Activities. 1994.
 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. "Preliminary Investigation of Performance Measures for the National,
        Transportation System." 1995a.
 Cambridge Systematics, Lac. "Compendium of Preliminary Performance Measures for the National
        Transportation System" (NTS). Presented to the USDOT at the November 1995 conference
        on NTS performance measures. 1995b.
 Canter, Larry W. Environmental Impacts of Water Resources Projects. Lewis Publishers, Inc. 1985.
 Carpenter, T.G. The Environmental Impact of Railways. John Wiley & Sons. 1994.
 Cohen, Susan. "Recycling Nickel-Cadmium Batteries." Resource Recycling, April 1993.
 Colorado Department of Public Health. Final Report: Colorado Environment 2000. 1993.
 Colorado Department of Public Health. Progress Report: Colorado Environment 2000. 1990.
 Colorado Division of Wildlife. Regional Deer-Vehicle Accident Research. 1979.
 Conversation with Dee North, Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Mobile Sources, regarding
       emissions from boats and small pleasure craft. 7/26/95.
 Conversation with Ed Molisky, Federal Aviation Administration, regarding the results of an airport
       deicing survey. 7/21/95.
 Conversation with Evie Kalketenidou, United States Department of Transportation, Maritime
       Administration, regarding dredging. 7/25/95.
 Conversation with Paul Borst, Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Solid Waste, regarding
       spent lead-acid batteries. 7/25/95.
 Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality (annual report). 1993.
 Cullinane, M. John et al. Contaminated Dredged Material: Control, Treatment and Disposal
       Practices. Noyes Data Corporation. 1990.                           .
 Dahl, T.E. and C.E. Johnson. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, Mid-
       1970's to Mid-1980's. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
       Washington, DC. 1991.
 "Deicing is a Hot Problem." Engineering News-Record. March 4, 1996, p. 10.
200

-------
                                                                                Bibliography
Delucchi, M., D. Sperling and R. Johnson.  A Comparative Analysis of Future Transportation Fuels.
       UC-Berkeley, 1987, as cited in Litman, 1994.
DeLuchi, Mark. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the Use of Transportation Fuels and
       Electricity. Vol. 1: Main Text. Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National
     .  Laboratory. 1991.
Demers and Sage. "Effects of Road Deieing Salt on Chloride Levels in Four Adirondack Streams."
       Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 49:369^373, 1990.
Des Moines Register. "Iowa: Des Moines Airport Runoff Pollutes Creek in Winter." 11/19/93.
D'ltri (ed.). Chemical Deicers and the Environment. Lewis Publishers. 1992.
Eady, Wilson, et al. Environmental Impacts and Control of Glycol-based Deicer Runoff at Eight
       Canadian Airports. For Transport Canada. 1990.
Eno Transportation Foundation. Transportation in America.  12th ed. 1994.
Environment 2000/State of Washington. The 1991 State of the Environment Report. 1992.
Environment 2000/State of Washington. Toward 2010: An Environmental Action Agenda. 1990.
Environment 2000/State of Washington. The State of the Environment Report. 1989.
Field, Richard and Marie O'Shea. "USEPA Research Program on the Environmental Impacts and
       Control of Highway Deieing Salt Pollution," Chemical Deicers and the Environment. 1992.
Fornwalt, N., et al. Effects of Highway Operations Practices and Facilities on Elk, Mule Deer and
       Pronghorn Antelope. Federal Highway Administration, (FHWA-RD-79-143)  1980.
Foster, Melissa and Stephen Humphrey. Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossings in Reducing Animal/Auto
       Collisions on Interstate 75, Big Cypress Swamp, Florida. Florida Game and Fresh Water
       Commission, 1992.          .
Green, H. and R. Reilly. "Deer Mortality on a Michigan Interstate Highway." Journal of Wildlife
       .Management, 38(1):16-19, 1974.
Greene, David L. and Danilo J. Santini. Transportation and Global Climate Change. ACEEE,
       Washington, D.C., 1993.
Greenman, Steven et al. "Lead Abatement in Suspension Bridge Rehabilitation." IBTTA 1995
       Committee Meeting Proceedings. 1995.          "        .    .
Griffen, Robert: "Introducing NPS Water Pollution." EPA Journal, 17(5), Nov/Dec 1991.
Hackney, Cameron R. and Merle D. Pierson, eds. Environmental Indicators and Shellfish Safety. New
       York: Chapman and Hall, 1994.
Hamilton, Ronald S. and Roy M. Harrison, eds. Highway Pollution. Studies in Environmental Science
       44. Elsevier. 1991.                                 .       -
Hansen, C. and A. Wolfe. "Costs of Deer-Related Automotive Accidents." UMTRI Research Review,
       14(1), 1983.
Hapiak, Fred-Eric and Nigel Thomas. "Aviation Batteries," Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace
       Technology, 67(3), 1995.
Harwood, D.W., et al. "Characteristics of Accidents and Incidents in Highway Transportation of
       Hazardous Materials." Transportation Research Record 1245,  Transportation Research
       Board,  1990.     .          t                                      '   .
Herbstritt, Robert, and Anne Marble. "The Current State of Biodiversity Impact Analysis Among
       State Transportation Agencies." Presented at Transportation Research Board Meeting. 1996.
                                                                                       201

-------
 Indicatory of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 Hilts, Michael. "Broadening the Market for Scrap Tire Rubber." Solid Waste Technologies, 10(1): 14-
         19, January/February 1996.
 "Highway Deicing: Comparing Salt and Calcium Magnesium Acetate, Transportation Research Board
        Report on Comparative Costs." TR News 163, November/December 1992.
 Hoffman, Eva, et al. "Stormwater Runoff-from Highways." Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, volume 25,
        1985.
 IndEco Strategic Consulting, Inc. "Sustainability Indicators: The Transportation Sector." Prepared for
        the Ontario Roundtable on Environment and Economy, Environment Canada, and others:
        1995.
 Industrial Economics, Inc. for United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental
        Pollution Prevention and Control: A Retrospective Look at Indicators and Benefits. Draft,
        1995.                                                                .
 Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality. The Strategy for Improving Water-
        Quality Monitoring in the United States. 1994.
 International Energy Agency. Cars and Climate Change. OECD Publications. 1993..
 Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). 1993 Annual Report.  1993.
 Ketcham, B. and C. Komanoff. Win-Win Transportation: A No-Losers Approach to Financing
        Transport in New York City and the Region. 1992.
 King, Elliot. "Growth  at a Price: Ports and the Environment." Global Trade. July 1992.
 Larson and Pilat. Moving Bed Adsorption System for Control of VOCsfrom an Aircraft Painting
        Facility, Air and Waste Management Association, 1991.
 Lehtimaki, R. "Elks and White-Tail Deer." Tutkimusosaston Julkaisuja. No. 46, 1981.
 Litman, Todd. Transportation Cost Analysis. 1994.
 Lowe, Marcia D. Back on Track:  The Global Rail Revival. Worldwatch Paper 118, Worldwatch
        Institute, 1994.
 Maniatis, Malina. "Stormwater Management." MIS Report, 22(11), November 1990.
 McCarthy, Brent. "Deicing without tears." Airport Support. January 1992.
 McCubbin, D. and M.  Delucchi. Health Effects of Motor Vehicle Air Pollution. 1995.
 McGee, Arthur/SRI International for Federal Highway Administration. Framework for Measuring
       Progress Toward Meeting Federal Highway Environmental Goals: A Survey of State
       Department of Transportation Environmental Programs. 1993.
 McKenna, James T. "Carriers Must Ease Environmental Impact." Aviation Week and Space
       Technology. January 9, 1995.
 Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The Capital Improvement Program. New York, 1994.
 Miller, G. Tyler, Jr. Living in the Environment: An Introduction to Environmental Science. Belmont,
       California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1990.
 Moffet, John et al. The Price of Mobility. Natural Resources Defense Council. 1993.
 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). Hazardous Wastes in Highway Rights-
       of-Way. TRB,  1993.
 National Performance Review, Vice President Al Gore. Creating a Government that Works Better &
       Costs Less. 1993.
 National Research Council, Marine Board. Clean Ships, Clean Ports, Clean Oceans: Controlling
       Garbage and Plastic Wastes at Sea. National Academy Press. 1995.
202

-------
                                                                               Bibliography
National Research Council, Marine Board. Contaminated Marine Sediments — Assessment and
        Remediation. National Academy Press. 1989.
Nelms, Douglas W. "Waste Not, Want Not." Air Transport World. October 1993.
New YorkMTA. "The Capital'Improvement Program." 1994a.
New York MTA. "New York City Transit's Facts and Figures." 1994b.
Oregon Progress Board. Oregon Benchmarks: Standards for Measuring Statewide Progress and
        Institutional Performance. Report to the 1995 Legislature, 1994.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Environmental Indicators. OECD
        Publications. 1994:
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Indicators for the Integration of
        Environmental Concerns into Transport Policies. OECD Publications. 1993.
Pinney and Associates. Lead-Contaminated Paint Removal, Containment, and Disposal: Final
        Report. FHWA Turner Fairbank Research Center, 1995.
Reingold,  Lester and Robert W. Moorman. "Airlines Clean Up!" Air Transport World, October 1993.
Rich, Adam, et al. "Defining Forest Fragmentation by Corridor Width: Theinfluence of Narrow
        Forest-Dividing Corridors 'on Forest-Nesting Birds in Southern New Jersey." Conservation
        Biology, 8(4): 1109-1121, December 1994.
Ross, Marc, et al. Real-World Emissions from Model Year 1993, 2000 and 2010 Passenger Cars.
        American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 1995.
Scrap Tire Management Council. Informational brochure.
SRI International. Framework for Measuring Progress toward Meeting Federal Highway
        Environmental Goals: A Survey of [12] State Department of Transportation Environmental
        Programs. Conducted for FHWA, USDOT. 1993.              .
Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Estimates of Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, and Total
        Suspended Solids Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida. Technical Publication #04-94, 1994.
Tarrer, Ray. "Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Highway Maintenance." XZ7? News 167,
        July/August 1993.                 ,
Tolley, R.S. and B.J. Turton. Transport Systems, Policy and Planning: A Geographic Approach.
       Longman Scientific and Technical. 1995.        •    •  '   .
Transit Cooperative Research Program. Transit Bus Service Line and Cleaning Functions. TRB.
        1995a.
Transit Cooperative Research Program. Waste Control Practices,at Bus Maintenance Facilities. TRB.
    .   . 1995b.
Transmode Consultants for Transportatipn and Climate Change Collaborative. -Ontario Freight
       Movement Study - Final Report. 1995.
Transportation Research Board/National Research Council. "Use of Herbicides in Roadside
       Maintenance," Transportation Research Circular. CIRC Number 342, 1988.
Transportation Research Board/National Research Council. Highway Deicing: Comparing Salt and
        Calcium Magnesium Acetate. Special Report 235, 1991.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. Dredging Information System database.
United States. Army Corps of Engineers, Water Resources Support Center. Waterbome Commerce of
       the United States, 1993, Part 5-National Summaries, WRSC-WCUS-93-5, p. 2-1.
                                                                                      203

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Transportation of Hazardous Materials.
        1986.
 United States Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration. Emissions of Greenhouse
        Gases in the United States, 1987-1994.^l995a.
 United States Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration. Supplement to the Annual
        Energy Outlook 1995. 1995b.
 United States Department of Energy. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 15. Annual Report,
        1995c.
 United States Department of Energy. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 14. Annual Report,
        1994a.
 United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Fuel Oil and Kerosene
        Sales 1993.1994b.
 United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). National
        Transportation Statistics, Annual Report, 1997.
 United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), National
        Transportation Statistics, Annual Report, 1996.
 United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). National
        Transportation Statistics, Annual Report, 1995.
 United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). National
        Transportation Statistics, Annual Report, 1994.                ,
 United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS).
        Transportation Statistics, Annual Report, 1995b.
 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). General
        Aviation Activity Survey. Annual.
 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). FAA Air Traffic
        Activity. Annual.  1996.
 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). FAA Aviation,
        Forecasts Fiscal Years 1996-2007. Annual.  1996.
 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Advisory
        Circular: Change Two to Airport Winter and Safety Operations. 1995a.
 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Reprint of
        Preamble to the Amendments to PART91 Stage 2 Aircraft Phaseout., 1995b.
 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 1994 Aviation
        Capacity Enhancement Plan. Office of System Capacity and Requirements, 1994.
 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Draft
        Environmental Impact Statement: Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, Runway 16/34
        East and Runway 16/34 West. 1990.
 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit
        Administration, Maritime Administration. 1995 Status of the Nation's Surface Transportation
        System: Condition and Performance. 1995a.
 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Maryland
        Department of Transportation. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Contract M 425-101-
        370.1995b.
204

-------
                                                                                Bibliography
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Selected
       Highway Statistics and Charts, 1993. 1995c.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Highway
       Statistics, 1994. Annual Edition. 1995d.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Our Nation's
       Highways: Selected Facts and Figures. 1995e.
United States Department, of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Guidelines
       for Applying Criteria to Designate Routes for Transporting Hazardous Materials. 1994a.
United States Department .of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Highway
       Traffic Noise Barrier Construction Trends. 1994b.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Highway
       Statistics, 1993. Annual Editions. 1994c.                    •
United States Departmentof Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Evaluation
       of Wetland Mitigation Measures. Volume I: Final Report. 1992.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Hazardous
       Waste: Impacts on Highway Project Development, Construction, and Maintenance. Student
       Course Manual. National Highway Institute. 1990.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Visual
       Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. 1981.                              •
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Maritime Administration. The Dredging Process
       in the United States: An Action Plan for Improvement. 1994.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Final
     ,  Environmental Impact Statement/Report and 4(f) Statement: Northeast Corridor Improvement
       Project Electrification - New Haven, CT, to Boston, MA. 1994a.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
       'Accident/Incident Bulletin No. 162, Calendar Year 1993. 1994b.
United States Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA).
       Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS)'database.
United States Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA).
       Issue Papers Prepared as Background for the Symposium on Challenges and Opportunities
       for Global Transportation in the 21st Century.  1995.
United States Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA).
       Annual Report on Hazardous Materials Transportation. 1991.
United States Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)
       and National Governors'  Association. Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulatory and
       Enforcement Programs: A Governor's Guide.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Accompanying Report of the National Performance
       Review. Annual.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA databases are available on-line through the
       EPA web page at http://www.epa.gov.  .
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Profile of the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
       Industry. 1995a.                       .'
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Profile of the Motor Vehicle Assembly Industry.
       1995b.
                                                                                       205

-------
 Indicators of (he Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Profile of the Petroleum Refining Industry. 1995c.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. 7993 Toxics Release Inventory. 1995d.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Air Pollutant Emission Trends, 1900-1994.
        1995e.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's 33/50 Program Company Profile: Lockheed
        Martin, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 1995f.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Prospective Indicators for State Use in Performance
        Partnership Agreements. 1995g.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Providing Information to Decision Makers to
        Protect Human Health and the Environment, Information Resources Management Strategic
        Plan. 1995h.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
        Sinks: 1990-1993. 1994a.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality Inventory: 1992 Report to
        Congress. 1994b.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Regulations and Technology:
        Managing Used Motor Oil. 1994c.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Accompanying Report of the National Performance
        Review. 1994d.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Air Quality and Emission Trends Report,
        1993. Annual Report. 1994e.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Air Quality and Emission Trends Report,
        1992. Annual Report. 1993a.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Your Car (or Truck) and the Environment. 1993b.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Motor Vehicle Related Air Toxics Study. 1993c.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Handbook:  Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention and
        Control Planning.  1993d.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. RCRA Fact Sheet: Motor Freight
        Terminals/Railroad Transportation. 1993e.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. RCRA Fact Sheet: Vehicle Maintenance. 1993f.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Air Pollutant Emission Trends, 1990-1992.
        Annual Report. 1993g.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. .7990 Toxics Release Inventory. 1992a.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
        United States: 1992 Update. 1992b.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. States' Efforts to Promote Lead-Acid Battery
        Recycling. 1992c.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Marine
        Maintenance and Repair Industry. 199la.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Markets for Scrap Tires. 1991b. •
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. NATICH Database Report on State, Local,  and EPA
       Air Toxics Activities, National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse. 199 Ic.
206

-------
                                                                                 Bibliography
 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region I. Guidance for States and Municipalities
        Seeking No-Discharge Area Designation for New England Coastal Waters. 199 Id.
           *                                     .
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Analysis of Air Toxics Emissions, Exposures, Cancer
        Risks and Controllability in Five Urban Areas. Volume I. 1989a.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Characteristics and Effects of Dredged Material
       ' Disposal in the Marine Environment. 1989b.             -
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Products Containing Lead and
        Cadmium in Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1970 to 2000. 1989c.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors,
        AP-42.V.I: Stationary Sources, V.H: Mobile Sources. 1985.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Assessing the Release and Costs Associated with
        Truck Transport of Hazardous Wastes. 1984.
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Results of Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
        1982a.                       -
 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Street Sweeping for Control of Urban Stormwater
        Quality, First Draft. 1982b.         -
 United States General Accounting Office. Highway Planning: Agencies are Attempting to Expedite
        Environmental Reviews, but Barriers Remain. 1994.
 United States General Accounting Office. Transportation Noise: Federal Control and Abatement
        Responsibilities May Need to Be Revised. 1989.    ,
 United States General Accounting Office. EPA Management Review. 1988.
 Valigura et al. Atmospheric Deposition of Nitrogen and Contaminants to Chesapeake  Bay and Its
        Watershed. 1994/95.
 Vendantham and Oppenheimer. Aircraft Emissions and the Global Atmosphere: Long-Term
        Scenarios. Environmental Defense Fund. 1994.
 Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. Environment 1991:.Risks to Vermont and Vermonters. 1991.
 VHB Research and Consulting. Environmental Damage From Transportation. 1992.
 Water Environment Federation, Water Quality 2000: Phase III Report. 1992.
 Wayson Roger L. and William Bowlby. "Airport Air Pollutant Inventories: Pitfalls and Tools."
        Transportation  Research Record 1240, Transportation Research Board.
 Weiss, Kevin. The Water Quality Impacts of Commuting. Unpublished, 1993.
 Wilcox, Douglas A. "The Effects of Deicing Salts in Pinhook Bay, Indiana." Water Resources
       Bulletin. 22:1.
 Witt, Kary. "Getting the Lead Out: Soil Remediation at the Golden Gate'Bridge." IBTTA 1995
        Committee Meetings. 1995.
World Resources Institute. World Resources 1994-95. A Report by The World Resources Institute in
       collaboration with The United Nations Environment Programme and The  United Nations
       Development Programme. New York: Oxford University Press. 1994.
World Resources Institute. The 1992 Information Please Environmental Almanac. 1992.
WorldWatch Institute. The State of the World 1994: a Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress
       Toward a Sustainable Society. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1994.
                                                                                       207

-------

-------
                                                               Infrastructure and Travel Measures
              APPENDIX  A.   INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRAV'gt"
                                       MEASURES
 Infrastructure and travel are useful, but not ideal, indicators of environmental damage from
 transportation. These measures may be classified as activity indicators, since the extent of
 infrastructure and travel activity is often a causal factor that influences the level of environmental
 damage. They provide important information when more direct output and outcome indicators are not
 available. However, it is important to note that environmental damage does not correspond directly
 with infrastructure or activities, and that many other factors complicate an analysis.  For example,
 while vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) is a relevant statistic to examine when discussing vehicle
 emissions, otherfactors—-such as emissions control technologies on vehicles and the amount of
 congestion on roadways—influence the amount of pollution emitted per mile traveled.

 The statistics presented below may be used as activity indicators to supplement the indicators
 presented in the body of this report. Typically, statistics will be most relevant in combination with the
 following basic categories of activities as outlined in the report:
Category described in report
  Appendix section most
         relevant
Example of type of data
Infrastructure construction,
maintenance, and abandonment
Infrastructure
System mileage
Vehicle and parts manufacture     Infrastructure
                                 Vehicle fleet characteristics
Vehicle travel
Vehicle maintenance and
support
Travel
Travel
Miles' of travel
Fuel consumption '
Disposal of used vehicles and      Infrastructure
parts
                                 Vehicle fleet characteristics
Data in this appendix are divided by mode into highway, railroad, aviation, and maritime
transportation.
                                                                                        A-l

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
                                    lODE:
INFRASTRUCTURE
While parking lots, garages, and other facilities, such as gas stations, repair garages, auto sales
dealerships, parts shops, and manufacturing plants could all be discussed, the focus of this discussion
is roads. Highways and roads alone constitute a significant portion of the built environment.


ROAD MILEAGE

Road mileage is at least a crude indicator of some environmental impacts, such as habitat disruption
and runoff.  It provides a sense of the possible magnitude of these effects, but is not a good indicator
of VMT-related effects (e.g., air pollution or HAZMAT incidents) since vehicle travel per mile varies
by type of road, location, and over time.

     «•  Total national road mileage in 1993 was 3,904,721 miles.  This equals about 80 road-feet per
        person.

All public roads and streets in the U.S. are classified by type and use into three major functional
systems: arterials, collectors, and local roads. These major systems are further subdivided into rural
and urban areas.1
                      Road Mileage by Functional System Type, 1993
System
Interstate
Other Arterials
Collectors
Locals
Total
Rural Percentage
Mileage
32,652 0.84
234,129 6.00
715,036 18.31
2,119,826 54.29
3,101,643 79.43
Urban Percentage
Mileage
12,878 0.33
147,514 3.78
85,378 2.19
557,308 14.27
803,078 20.57
Total Percentage
Mileage ;
45,530 1.17
381,643 • 9.78
800,414 20.50
2,677,134 68.56
3,904,721 100.00
                                  Source: U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1994c.
1 Function types are defined as follows: Arterial (including the Interstate and other freeways) - The
highest classification of roads and streets, these provide the highest level of mobility, at the highest
speed, for long uninterrupted distances. Collector - These provide a lower level of mobility than
arterials at lower speeds and for a shorter distance. Collectors connect local roads with arterials and
provide some access to abutting land. Local - The lowest classification of roads, these provide a high
level of access to abutting land, but limited mobility.
A-2

-------
                                                            Infrastructure and Travel Measures
  Mileage by Function System
                                                        Mileage by Urban/Rural Location
            Interstate
            45,530   Other Arterials
             1.2%     381,643  .
                       9.8%
 Locals
2,677,134
• 68.6%
                                                  Urban Mileage
                                                    803,078
                                                     21%
                             Collectors
                             800,414
                              20.5%
                                                                                Rural Mileage
                                                                                 3,101,643
                                                                                   79%
For all 391 urbanized areas in the United States (defined as an area with 50,000 or more persons that
at a minimum, encompasses the land area delineated by the Bureau of the Census):
    '4  Total roadway mileage is 639,045 miles (out of 803,078 miles on all urban roads).
        Average miles of roadway per 1,000 persons is 3.8.
        Total freeway mileage is 18,759 miles.     .             -
        Average percentage of total mileage serving as freeways is 2.9 percent (compared with'U.S.
        average of interstates as 1.2 percent of total mileage).
     4 • Total estimated freeway lane mileage is ,96,657-miles.

However, the amount of roadway mileage per person varies significantly among urbanized areas.
Dallas and Atlanta each have over twice as many roadway miles per person as New York or Los
Angeles. ~                      .
 •
 •
 •
                                                                                    A-3

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
           Average Miles of Roadway per 1,000 persons in Selected Urbanized Areas
                 i Seattle
                                              Mmeapoiis
                                               St. Paul
                                                 4.7
    SanFranci
      Oakland
        2.4
          LosAngefes
             2.1
Chicago
  3-0    Washington
           2.6
     Atlanta
       5.1
     Boston
      3.0
New York
  2.2
                                                                        Miami
                                                                        3.2
                                  Source: U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1994c.
LANEMILES

Lane miles provide a better indicator of environmental impact than road miles since the average
number of lanes varies by type of road. Interstate and other arterial roads tend to have more lanes
than local roads.

     *  In 1993, there were 8.1 million lane-miles of highways in the nation (U.S. DOT, 1995a). This
        equals 166 lane-feet per person.
Lane-Miles by Functional System Type, 1993

Lane-Miles
Percent
Rural
Interstate
Other Arterial
Collector
Local
Subtotal Rural
129,600
518,400
1,425,600
4,228,200
6,309,900
1.6
6.4
17.6
52.2
77.9
• Urban
Interstate
Other Arterial
Collector
Local
Subtotal Urban
Total Highway
Source:
72,900
437,400
178,200
1,109,700
1,790,100
8,100,000
U.S. DOT, 1995a.
0.9
5.4
2.2
13.7
22.1
. ,.. 100

A-4

-------
                                                               Infrastructure and Travel Measures
 AMOUNT OF PAVEMENT
 The amount of pavement is a crude indicator related to runoff and particulate matter, especially road
 dust. In addition, pavement affects travel speeds and, as a result, has some effect on. emissions.
 Habitat disruption and runoff may be smaller problems on unpaved roads since less impervious
 surfaces, culverts, and drainage systems are involved. However, unpaved roads may have significant
 erosion or other drainage and runoff impacts.  In addition, unpaved roads have a much higher rate of
 emissions  of fugitive dust per VMT than paved roads.   '

     *   In 1993, about 58.2 percent of all roads in the U.S. were paved.

 This is  an increase from 51.9 percent in 1983,46.3 percent in 1973, 37.8 percent in 1963, and only
 27.3 percent in 1953 (U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1995e). Essentially all of the unpaved mileage is on lightly
 traveled rural roads
     >   In 1993, over 95 percent of roads in urban areas were paved. However, over half of all rural
         road mileage was unpaved.
Road Type ,
Total Rural
Percent, Rural
Total Urban
Percent, Urban
TOTAL U.S.
' Percent, Total
Unpaved
1,594,579
51.4
38,917
4.8
1,633,496
41.8
Paved
1,507,064
48.6
: 764,161 •
95.2
2,271,225
58.2
TOTAL
3,101,643
100.0
803,078
. 100.0
3,904,721 '
100.0
                                  Source: U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1994c.
                           3,500,000

                           3,000,000
                       g  2,500,000
                       o»

                       "g  2,000,000
                       "5   1 ,500,000
                       
-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
HIGHWAY VEHICLES
The number of vehicles provides some insight into the environmental effects of vehicle manufacture
and disposal and partially explains the rise in VMT by type of vehicle.

     4   There are 194.06 million registered motor vehicles in the U.S.

     *   There are 146,314,296 automobiles, 654,432 buses, and 47,094,754 trucks registered in the
         U.S. (U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1994c). Almost three fourths of all registered vehicles are
         automobiles.

                                     Vehicles Registered, 1993
Type of Vehicle

Passenger cars
Motorcycles
Buses
1 2-axle 4-tire trucks
(light duty)
Other single-unit
trucks
Combination trucks
All motor vehicles
Number of
. . Registered Motor :....
Vehicles, 1993
146,314,296
3,977,856
654,432
40,902,865
4,465,692
1,726,197
198,041,338
                                  Source: U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1994c.

     *•  In 1993, new sales of domestically produced vehicles totaled approximately 6.73 million
        automobiles and 5.29 million trucks (U.S. DOE, 1994a).

                                New Sales of Vehicles in the U.S., 1993
Type of Vehicle
Automobiles
Motorcycles
Recreational vehicles
Trucks
Domestic Import
(thousands) •(thousands) ft
6,734
243
429
5,287
1,783
245
0
394
Total
8,518
488
429
5,681
                                     Source: U.S. DOE,1994a.
TRAVEL

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
VMT is a common measure of travel, chosen for inclusion here because it is a rough but easy to
measure and readily understood indicator of several environmental impacts. All else being equal, an
increase in VMT suggests a rise in certain impacts, such as air pollution and perhaps noise".  Factors
such as technology, congestion, and population density also affect emissions per mile or total impacts
for a given level of VMT. These other factors vary over time and between locations, making VMT a
somewhat limited indicator.  In addition, some impacts do not vary with VMT in a simple linear
manner. For example, a 10 percent increase in VMT may not cause a 10 percent increase in hazardous
materials incidents.  Similarly, a 10 percent reduction in VMT might cause a negligible reduction in
ozone for some cities.
A-6

-------
                                                                 Infrastructure and Travel Measures
 VMT BY ROAD TYPE
 The level of travel by functional system does not correspond proportionately to the number of miles
 or lane-miles of roadway.  Interstate highways contain a disproportionately high share of total vehicle
 travel.  For example, although rural interstates make up only 1.6 percent of lane-miles, and 0.8 percent
 of road miles, they carry 9.1 percent of all vehicle miles.  Urban interstates make up only 0.9 percent
 of lane-miles and 0.3 percent of road miles but carry 13.8 percent of all vehicle miles, thus carrying
 15 times as many vehicles per lane mile as the national average. Although urban roads only
 constitute 22.1 percent of lane-miles and 20.6 percent of road miles, they carry 61.4 percent of all
 vehicle traffic, as the following table shows:

                    Percent Highway Miles, Lane-Miles, and Vehicle-Maes Traveled, 1993
'
Mfles
Lane-Miles
VMT
Rural •'
Interstate
Other Arterial
Collector
Local
Subtotal
0.8
6.0
18.3
• 54.3
79.4
1.6
6.4 .
17.6 ,
, 52.2
77.9
9.1
15.2
9.9
4.5
38.6
Urban.
Interstate
Other Arterial
Collector
Local
Subtotal
Total Highway
0.3
3.8
2.2
14.3
20.6
100.0
0.9
5.4
2.2
13.7
•22.1
- 100.0
13.8
33.7
5.3
8.6
61.4
100.0;
                                  Source: U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1994c.

The following diagram visually depicts the relative size of VMT on various road types in comparison
with lane-miles and road-miles:
                                                                                           A-7

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
                    -
                    o
                    O
                    i1
                    1
                                                               I Urban Interstate
                                                              H Urban Other Arterial
Q Urban Collector
O Urban Local


• Rural Interstate

B Rural Other Arterial

H Rural Collector

Q Rural Local
                                  Miles   Lane-Miles   VMT
INCREASE IN VMT
The amount of road travel in the nation has increased by roughly one third over the past 10 years, with
the most rapid growth in urban areas and on interstate highways. The amount of vehicle travel
increased by nearly 50 percent on urban interstates from 1983 to 1993.
              	Highway Vehicle Miles of Travel (millions of miles)	
              Highways Type:    Increase in annual  Percentage Increase    Average annual
                 	~  ! 	 :  ;'•. •!''•"," ;'":VMT, 19S3-93    annualyMT,l?i83-  percentage%crease,
                                (millions of miles)          93          ; ^   1983-93
Rural
Interstate
Other Arterial
Collector
Local
Subtotal Rural
60,278
61,466
45,015
16,329
183,088
41.6
. 22.5
22.4
20.0
26.1
3.5
2.1
2.0
1.8
2.3
Urban
Interstate
Other Arterial
Collector
Local
Subtotal Urban
All Roads
94,176
177,047
20,679
48,118
340,020
523,108
49.3
33.4
23.9
34.3
35.8
31.7
4.1
2.9
2.2
3.0
3.1
2.8
                                Source: U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1994c.
As the following table shows, the rate of VMT growth has slowed somewhat in recent years.
A-8

-------
                                                                  Infrastructure and Travel Measures
                                   VMT Growth Rates, 1980-95
                              Time Period
    1980-85
                                                    Annualized Rate of
                                                 -Light-Daly VMT Growth
                                                  .  .      3.1%
                                1985-90
                                                          3.9%
1990-95 (estimate)
                                                          2.4%
             Apogee estimate, computed 'from U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1994c., and annual editions, 1980-1992

 Measures of congestion are another relevant group of statistics for understanding environmental
 impacts. Congestion can increase emissions of certain air pollutants per vehicle mile traveled, and is
 also a key factor driving construction of additional highway capacity, which further affects the
 environment.

 Highway travel has increased at a faster rate than the capacity of the highway system.
 •   Travel per lane-mile increased by over 28 percent on urban interstate highways, and by nearly 27
     percent on other urban principlal arterials over the 10 years from 1983 to  1993.
 •   On a per-lane-mile basis, the higher functional systems carried the most travel per lane-mile, with
     urban interstate highways carrying the most travel per lane-mile in 1993, with 12,520 annual'
     average daily traffic per lane-mile.                                                            ,
Highways Type:
1983
1993 Percentage
Increase
Rural
Interstate
Other Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Minor Collector
Local
3,000
1,900
1,180
500
210
50
4,310
2,310
1,410 '
560
240
70
44
22
19
12
14
40
Urban
Interstate
Other Freeway and Expressway
Other Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local
9.810
7,720
4,640
3,000
1,550
420
12,520
9,770
5,540
3,490
1,830
490
28
27
19
16
18
17
I'-. '- •v,v,*3^M*i»dB^r^^i^u,:rv,;V--i:A-:?,i:-!»0 ~ ' ^?&M:^< 4g£
                                      Source: U.S. DOT, 1995a.
VMT PER CAPITA        •
VMT per capita is a useful statistic because it varies by location, suggesting that certain
characteristics of areas, such- as population density, or public policies, such as provision of transit
services, might reduce VMT, and thus reduce environmental impacts.

     «•  For all 391 urbanized areas in the United States, the average daily vehicle miles traveled
        (DVMT) per capita was 20.7 in 1993 (U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1994c).
                                                                                           A-9

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
However, travel per capita varies significantly between metro areas. New York has only 14.5 miles
traveled daily per person on roads, whereas Atlanta has an average 33.7 miles traveled daily per
person on roads. The average resident of the Atlanta metro area travels over twice as many miles
daily in a vehicle as the typical New Yorker.
                      Dafly Vehicle Miles Traveled (P VMT) per Capita, Various Cities
 SanFi
    Oakland
     20.5
     Boston
      18.9
New York
  14.5
       Los Angeles
          21.3
                                                                      Miami
                                                                      18.7
                                   Source: U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1994c.
VMT BY VEHICLE TYPE:
Examining VMT by vehicle type provides some information that helps explain the underlying air
pollutant emissions. Passenger cars dominate travel; trucks tend to be less fuel efficient and emit
more emissions per mile.  Buses constitute a very limited percentage of total vehicle travel, although
they carry more passengers per mile than autos.

                                 Miles of Travel by Vehicle Type, 1993
Type of Vehicle Miles Traveled Percentage of Total
(millions of vehicle Miles Traveled
•i", -, „''.; <•-:••<::•• : ,.>.••.:-.•:•'• 	 ...-.: .:tt •*{;.•!.;•.••.'-• ••
. , ,. ; 	 ,. , :;,"., • 	 :, miles) ; • . . ••. , 	 .:•-;•.-.
Passenger cars
Motorcycles
Buses
2-axle 4-tire trucks
(light duty)
Other single-unit
trucks
Combination trucks
All motor vehicles
' 1,623,972
9,889
6,121 •
-497,201
56,693
102,709
2,296,585
70.7
0.4
0.3
21.6
2.5
4.5
100.0
                                   Source: U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1994c.

Travel by light-duty trucks has been increasing significantly faster than travel by automobiles since
1980.
A-10

-------
                                                                 Infrastructure and Travel Measures
         From 1980 to 1993, auto travel increased by 45.6 percent while light-duty truck travel
         increased by 70.9 percent.

                                   Increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled, 1980-1993
                         &
                         CD
                         D_
                                         Cars
                                                  Light-duty
                                                    Trucks
                           Source: U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1995d and annual editions

 PERSON MILES TRAVELED (PMT) BY VEHICLE TYPE
 Person miles traveled provides a sense of some of the benefits gained from travel, in terms of the
 number of people served. Buses provide more service per VMT than cars, with about 21 people per
 vehicle, in comparison with 1.7 people per average car.

                             Person Miles of Travel by Vehicle Type, 1993
Typeof Vehicle Person Miles Average Vehicle
' ' ' ' , , TraYeIetT(infllions of Occupancy -
- ' ' ' miles) -"
Passenger cars
' Motorcycles
Buses
2-axle 4-tire trucks
(light duty)
Other single-unit
trucks
Combination trucks
All motor vehicles
2,825,711
10,878
129,765
750,774
56,693
102,709
3,876,530
1.74
1.10
21.20
1.51
1.46
1.00
1.69
                                  Source: U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1994c.
FUEL CONSUMED
Fuel consumption is a crude but easy to measure indicator of environmental damage. It is relevant to
air emissions, potential spills during storage and transport, and environmental impacts during
extraction and refining.  Fossil fuels also constitute a non-renewable resource.
                                                                                         A-ll

-------
 Indicatory of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
      *   In 1993, motor vehicles consumed 137.194 billion gallons of fuel, up from 132.888 billion
          gallons in 1992 ( U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1994c).

        	Fuel Consumption by Vehicle Type	
             Type of Vehicle
         Passenger cars
         Motorcycles
         Buses
         2-axle 4-tire trucks (light
         duty)	
         Other single-unit trucks
         Combination trucks
         All motor vehicles
Fuel Consumed, 1993       Fuel Efficiency (Average miles per
(thousands of gallons)              . - gallon), 1993
         75,058,655
21.64
            197,780
50.00
            946,878
 6.46
         34,806,524
14.28
          7,667,354
 7.39
         18,517,044
 5.55
        137,194,235
16.74
                                     Source: U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1994c.
A-I2

-------
                                                                 Infrastructure and Travel Measures
 INFRASTRUCTURE


 MILEAGE
 Miles of railway track provide a crude indicator of the extent of habitat destruction from rail facilities.

      *  There were a total of 177,000 miles of railway track in 1993.2
                             Type of Railroad                  MBes of Track
                                                       Owned and Operated3
, Freight
Class I Railroads
Regional Operators
Local Operators
Passenger
Amtrak4
Heavy Rail
Light Rail
i Commuter Rail
Total
123,723
21,581
23,645
775
1,744
687
4,830
177,000
                            Source: AAR, 1993; Amtrak, 1994; U.S. DOT, 1994


 CONSTRUCTION

     4   Miles of new track constructed, 1993:  82 miles (ICC, 1993)
     *   Tons of track laid by Class I railroads, 1993: 441,381 tons (AAR, 1993)5
     *   Cross ties laid by Class I railroads, 1993: 13,223,000 (AAR, 1993)

 FACILITIES

     4   Rail-truck intermodal terminals (number active), 1994: 360 (300) (FRA, 1995)
     4   Stations served by Amtrak, 1994: 540 (Amtrak, 1994)
     4   Heavy rail transit stations, 1990: 911 (U.S. DOT, 1994)
     4   Commuter rail stations, 1990: 958 (U.S. DOT, 1994)
     4   Rail service facilities, 1990: 905    '
2 Freight: AAR, 1993; Amtrak: Amtrak, 1994; Transit: U.S. DOT, 1994
3 Transit rail (heavy, light, commuter) figures from 1990
4 The Amtrak system encompasses 25,000 miles of track, but only 775 miles are owned by Amtrak. Most of the
track in the Amtrak system is owned and operated by freight rail companies.
5 Although Class I railroad systems comprise only 2 percent of the number of railroads in the U.S., they account
for 73 percent of the mileage operated, 89 percent of the employees, and 91 percent of the freight revenue.
6 Transit rail: U.S. DOT, 1994; Freight Tank Cleaning: EPA/Office of Water as cited in EPA, 1995.
                                                                                          A-13

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
                                     Rail Service Facilities, 1990
                                  Type of Service                Number of
                             	.	Facilities
                               Rail Tank Car Cleaning                   809
                               Heavy Rail Maintenance                    43
                               Light Rail Maintenance                    18
                             Commuter Rail Maintenance	35
                                      Total                          905
                                      Source: EPA, 1995; U.S. DOT, 1994
 TRANSIT RAIL SYSTEMS
 The number and size of rail systems provides an indicator of the extent of environmental damage, and
 the concentration of damage in various geographic areas.

 Transit rail systems are concentrated in a small number of large metropolitan areas.

     4   Total number of transit agencies operating passenger rail systems: 50
                        Type of Rail Service         Number of transit authorities
                     :	:,:,	•	i	:-.-	"; :•:!.••.••:..'., •y.v^--^-vV::i ^operating service
                            Heavy Rail                       ,            14
                            Light Rail                                    20
                          Commuter Rail	16
                              Total                                      50
                                        S9urce: APTA, 1994.

Among U.S. transit systems, the New York City metropolitan area dominates in terms of facilities,
with the world's largest subway fleet of 5,951 cars and 469 stations.

The New York City Transit Authority's subway system consists of the following (Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, 1994):

     4  The world's largest subway fleet of 5,951 passenger cars, or 58 percent of all rapid transit
        vehicles nationwide.
     4  469 stations, or 51 percent of all subway stations nationwide.
     4  842 miles of track, including 186 miles in transit yards, shops, and storage areas.
     4   10,900 signals and 2,700 miles of cable.
VEHICLES IN OPERATION
The number of vehicles in operation provides some insight into the environmental effects of vehicle
maintenance and disposal.
A-14

-------
                                                                 Infrastructure and Travel Measures
     * 4  Freight cars in the active fleet, 1993: 1,173,132 (AAR, 1993)7
      4  Locomotives (all diesel) in the active freight fleet, Class I, 1993: 18,161 (AAR, 1994)
      *  Locomotives in Amtrak fleet, 1994: 352 (287 diesel, 65 electric) (Amtrak, 1994)
      4  Passenger cars in Amtrak fleet, 1994: 1,852 (Amtrak, 1994)
      4  Heavy-rail vehicles in the transit fleet, 1993: 10,261(APTA, 1994)
      4  Light-rail vehicles in the transit fleet, 1993: 1,025 (APTA, 1994)
      4;  Commuter rail cars in the transit fleet,  1993: 4,494 (APTA, 1994)


 VEHICLE PURCHASES
 The number of vehicles purchases each year provides some insight into the environmental effects of
 vehicle manufacture, maintenance, and disposal.                                      •    •

      4  New freight cars installed, 1993: 35,239 (plus 8,093 rebuilt cars) (AAR, 1994)8
      4  New locomotives installed, 1993: 504 (plus 217 rebuilt units) (AAR, 1994)9
      4  New passenger rail cars purchased by Amtrak and commuter railroads, 1992: 110 (Eno,
         1994)
      4  New urban transit rail cars purchased by transit authorities, 1992:  198 (Eno, 1994)
      4  Including rebuilt cars, 9Lpassenger cars were delivered to Amtrak, and 353 passenger cars
         (rapid .transit, commuter, and light-rail) were delivered to metropolitan transit authorities in
         the U.S. in 1994.10   .                                                                 •
 TRAVEL

 The level of travel provides an indication of certain impacts, such as emissions from diesel
 locomotives and energy consumption by electric vehicles.

 Freight traffic dominates the total number of car miles traveled by rail, with intraregion transit a
 minor second, and intercity travel third.

     4   Total railcar miles traveled, 1992: 28.98 billion miles11
Type of Travel
Freight
Transit
Amtrak ,
Railcar miles traveled Percentage
of total
27,900,000,000 miles
777,000,000 miles
302,000,000 miles
96.3
2.7
1.0
                   Freight: AAR, 1993 plus 3.8% (Eno, 1994) to reflect other Class H and m traffic;
                                  Amtrak: AAR, 1993; Transit: APTA, 1994
7 Includes all railroads and private car companies
 Includes those installed by Class I railroads, other railroads, and private car owners.
9 Includes those installed by Class I railroads, other railroads, and private car owners.
10 Railway Age. January 1995.
11 Freight: AAR, 1993 plus 3.8 percent (Eno, 1994) to reflect other Class II and III traffic; Amtrak: AAR, 1993;
Transit: APTA, 1994
                                                                                          A-15

-------
    Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
    FREIGHT TRAVEL

         4  Freight ton-miles transported by rail in 1992 was 1,107 billion miles; 37.4 percent of total
            freight ton-miles were transported by rail (Eno, 1994).
         4  The average freight rail trip length was 673 miles (Eno, 1994).
         4  In 1992, 1,646 million tons of freight were transported by rail; 25.0 percent if total freight
            tonnage was transported by rail (Eno, 1994).
         4  Average number of cars per freight train, .Class I, 1993, was 66.4 cars (AAR, 1993).
         4  Average tons per carload, Class I, 1993, was 64.4 tons (AAR, 1993).
         4  Average length of haul, Class 1,1993, was 794 miles (AAR, 1993).
         4  Number of Class I revenue car loadings in 1993 was 21,682,894 (AAR, 1993).
    PASSENGER TRAVEL

         4  Rail passenger miles traveled, 199" : 25.3 billion miles (AAR, 1993).

         4  Over 40 percent of all passenger miles traveled on rail systems in the United States was on
            heavy rail (subway or elevated) systems.

                                      Passenger Rail Travel, 1993
Type of Rail Service
Amtrak
Commuter Rail
Heavy Rail
Light Rail
Total
Passenger Miles Percentage of Total Average Trip Length
Traveled (millions} : 'V.V ';";' ". r '!':'•.. :.' •'•.'••,'• •••'dttOiiisl'.
6,319
7.489
10,740
705
, 25,253
25.0
29.7
42.5
2.8
100.0 '
271.1
21.5 '
3.8
1.6
'
                                         Source: Eno, 1994; APTA, 1994

Because large transit systems .are located in the largest metropolitan areas, the vast majority of all
    customers are in the largest U.S. cities, and especially the Northeast. The New York City
    metropolitan area dominates nationally, with approximately 3.5 million subway customers on an
    average weekday, and about one billion subway passengers per year (New York City MTA, 1994b).
    Overall, about 4 out of every 10 mass transit trips in the United States occur in New York City (New
    York MTA, 1994a).

    ENERGY CONSUMPTION
    Energy consumption provides an indication of total emissions and resources consumed by rail
    transport.

        4  Energy consumption, 1992: 505.7 trillion Btus.  The majority of energy consumption is in
           frieght operations. Overall, rail transport consumed 2.2 percent of total transportation sector
           energy consumption (DOE, 1994a).
   A-16

-------
                                                                 Infrastructure and Travel Measures
                              Freight     '             425.4 Btus-
                              Passenger    '             61.7Btus

                              dieselfuel               441.2 Btus
                              electric power         ,    59.2 Btus

All electric-powered rail is used in passenger operations, not freight.
                                                                                         A-17

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
                                  MODE:  A VI XT-TON
 INFRASTRUCTURE

 The number of aircraft and airports is a crude estimate of the some environmental impacts, such as
 noise, emissions, habitat disruption and runoff. The increase in the number of aircraft may provide a
 basic indicator of emissions and the extent of noise. It is important to remember, however, the newer
 aircraft are more efficient in terms of fuel consumption and emissions and that increases in the
 number of aircraft are not likely to be associated with a similar increase in emissions. The same is true
 for noise—newer aircraft are required to meet the quieter Stage 3 noise standards.
 AIRPORTS
 The number of airports is a basic indicator of habitat disruption and runoff. Although only one major
 new airport has been constructed in the last 20 years, there has been construction of a number of
 smaller public and private airports. This increase in airports in general, may have implications on
 habitat and runoff.

     +   There were 18,343 airports in the U.S. in 1994, which is more airports than in every other
         nation in the world combined (U.S. DOT, BTS, 1994).

     4-   The number of airports in the U.S. has increased by 3,182 from 1980 to 1992—a nearly 21
         percent increase—from 15,161 in 1980 to 18,343 in 1994 (U.S. DOT, BTS, 1994).
Year
1980
1990
1992
1993
1994
Number of Airports
15,161
17,490
17,846
18,317
18,343
                                   Source: U.S. DOT, BTS, 1994

        Airports vary significantly in size. The U.S. contains 26 large hub airports (handling 1
        percent or more of total air passenger enplanements) and 570 commercial service'airports
        (2,500 or more enplanements annually) (U.S. DOT, BTS, 1994). Most airports are small
        private-use airports, many of which have unpaved runways, as the following table shows:

                                        U.S. Airports, 1992

Public-Use Airports
Private-Use Airports
Total All Airports
Number
5,545
12,301
17,846
Percentage
with Paved
Runways-
71.7
36.6
47.5
Percentage with
Lighted
Runways
72.3
7.6
27.7
                                      Source: U.S. DOT, BTS, 1994
A-18

-------
 	;	_	Infrastructure and Travel Measures


 AIR CARRIER FLEET

      4  World air earners placed orders for an estimated 490 large jet aircraft with U.S. and foreign
       •  aircraft manufacturers during FY 1995, 54.0 percent more orders than in 1994. Of this total,
         338 (69.0 percent) were for two-engine narrowbody (B-737, B-757, MD-80, MD-90, A-
   ^      320/321 and F-100) aircraft (Boeing, 1995).

      *  Aircraft manufacturers delivered approximately 449 large jet aircraft worldwide in 1995. Of
         this total, 287 (63.9 percent) were two-engine narrowbody aircraft, and 90 (20.0 percent)
         were for two-engine widebody aircraft (Boeing, 1995).

      *  At the year ending December 1995, the fleet for U.S. air carriers increased by an estimated
         138 aircraft, an increase of 3.0 percent.' This compares with 1994, when the fleet increased
         by 156 aircraft (U.S. DOT, BTS, 1995).

      *  Total fleet of air carriers has increased, while the fleet of general aviation aircraft has
         decreased, since 1980 (U.S. DOT, BTS, 1994).
Year


1980
1990
1992
1993
1994
Number of Aircraft
Air Carrier

2,818
4,727
4,884
'. 5,234
5,221
General
Aviation
202,487
196,800
183,620 '
176,006
170,600 -
                                   Source: U.S. DOt, BTS, 1994


TRAVEL

Demand for aviation has grown rapidly over the last 30 years and is expected to continue to do so for
the next decade. For.example, passenger enplanements, a key measure of demand for air services, has
grown by an average of 1.27 percent annually over the last 10 years. Underlying this basic statistic,
however, are a series of important trends that can have a direct influence on the implications for
environmental impacts. For example, perhaps the single most important determinant of the level of
environmental impact of aviation activity is aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings), which
indicate the overall number of aircraft flights.

Operations are a function of several factors that change over time:

     *  Passenger and cargo demand (domestic and international)
     4  Aircraft load factors (the percentage of seats or cargo space filled)
     4  The amount of "hubbing" (connecting)
     4  Aircraft size

Combined aircraft operations have grown little over the last 5 years despite rapidly increasing travel
demand. This slow growth has been due in large part to dramatic increases in aircraft load factors.
                                                                                       A-19

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 However, as load factors approach a technical maximum, the number of commercial operations will
 need to grow to meet demand. As a result, the environmental impacts per passenger may increase.
 Still, environmental consequences are a function of a number of factors, including operations and
 aircraft engine efficiency.

 Activities associated with airport operations are discussed below.

 TOTAL COMBINED AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT AIRPORTS
 Total combined aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) at airports, including air carrier, air
 taxi/commuter, general aviation and military categories totaled 62.5 million in 1995, representing a
 0.3 percent increase from 1994 (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).
 Fiscal Year
    1985
    1986
    1987
    1988
    1989
    1990
    1991
    1992
    1993
    1994
    1995
   2007*
*projcctlon
Source: U.S.
 Total Combined
 	,, Aircraft
  Operations at
    Airports
  (InMillions)
      57.9
      59.0
      61.0
      61.3
      61.4
      64.9
      62.8
      63.2
      61.9
      62.3
      62.5
     74.5
DOT, FAA, 1996.
                                        Total Combined Aircraft Operations at
                                                 1990
1995   2000

 Fiscal Year
                                                                      2005   2010
REVENUE PASSENGER MILES

     *  U.S. scheduled air carriers recorded .a total of 558 billion revenue passenger miles in 1995,
        up 3.6 percent from the previous year (U.S. DOT, BTS, 1997).

     4  International growth is anticipated to be somewhat higher than domestic growth, with the
        average annual growth in RPMs during the 1995-2007 forecast period being 5.3 percent,
        compared with 3.8 percent for the domestic market (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).

     *  In the year 2007, the international share of the U.S. carriers' system RPMs is expected to be
        30.2 percent, up from 26.9 percent in 1995 and 21.1 percent in 1980 (U.S. DOT, FAA,
        1996).
12 Energy use includes fuel purchased abroad for international flights.
A-2Q

-------
                                                              Infrastructure and Travel Measures
 DOMESTIC REVENUE PASSENGER MILES
         Scheduled domestic revenue passenger miles (RPMs) totaled 392.4 billion in 1995, up 5.7
         percent from 1994 (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996). This outcome was largely the result of the
         relatively strong growth in the economy and the continued decline in real yields.
                                              Revenue Passenger Miles
                                       700
Fiscal Year
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
2007*
projection
Source: U.S.
'Revenue
Passenger Miles
" (billions)
330,6
358.5
398.1
416.0
429.0
339.2
333.6
346.7
348,6
371.3
392.4
617,3
DOT,' FAA, 1996.
                                         1985   1990
                                                       1995   2000
                                                        Fiscal Year
2005   2010
INTERNATIONAL REVENUE PASSENGER MILES

     *  International RPMs grew 4.1 percent in 1995. The growth was uneven, however, with
        increases of 10.4 percent in Latin American markets, 6.0 percent in Pacific markets, and only
        0.3 percent in Atlantic markets (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).
                                            i
     *  Total RPMs in international markets are expected to approximately double during the
        forecast period, increasing from 144.2 billion in 1995 to 266.6 billion in 2007. The average
        annual growth rate over this period is 5.3 percent (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).


PASSENGER ENPLANEMENTS                         '

     4  In 1995, U.S. scheduled air carriers enplaned a total of 544.3 million passengers (U.S. DOT,
        FAA,  1996).                                           ,                   .

     4  Overall average annual growth in system passenger enplanements for the 12-year forecast
        period, 1995-2007, is expected to be 3.9 percent (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).

   .  4  In 1995, 91.1 percent of enplanements were domestic. This will drop to 89.5 percent in 2007
        (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).
                                                                                     A-21

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 DOMESTIC PASSENGER ENPLANEMENTS
     *   Domestic passenger enplanements (495.9 million) increased by 5.1 percent in 1995; in 1994
         the increase was 8.8 percent (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).
  •Fiscal
 5'Year
    1985
    1986
    1987
    1988
    1989
    1990
    1991
    1992
    1993
    1994
    1995
   2007*
   Domestic
  Passenger
Enplanements
  (millions)
*projection
Source: U.S.
     375.0
     409.8
     444.9
     448.5
     452.4
     424.1
     413.3
     430.3
     434.0
     472.0
     495.9
     766.8
DOT, FAA, 1996.
                                        Revenue Passenger Enplanements
                                        1985   1990
1995   2000

 Rscal Year
                                                         2005   2010
     *  The growth in domestic enplanements is expected to average 3.7 percent during the 12-year
        forecast period, with the number of domestic enplanements reaching 766.8 million in 2007
        (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).

INTERNATIONAL PASSENGER ENPLANEMENTS
                                        '      V

     *  A total of 48.4 million passengers were enplaned by U.S. scheduled international airlines in
        1995, up 4.6 percent (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).

     *  The average annual rate of growth during the 1995-2007 forecast period will be 5.3 percent
        (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).
PASSENGER LOAD FACTOR

     *  U.S. scheduled air carriers recorded a system-wide load factor of 66.8 percent in 1995, up
        significantly from the previous peak of 65.7 reached in 1994 (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).
A-22

-------
                                                               Infrastructure ahd Travel Measures
 DOMESTIC PASSENGER LOAD FACTOR

      *  U.S. scheduled domestic air carriers had a load factor of 65.2 percent in 1995, up 1.0 point
         from 1994. Domestic load factors have varied very little over the period 1985 through 1993<
         ranging from a low of 60.3 percent in 1986 to 65.2 percent in 1995 (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).

      4  Capacity increased 4.1 percent between 1994 and 1995 (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).


 INTERNATIONAL PASSENGER LOAD FACTOR                                                        •

      4  The international load factor edged up to 71:4 percent in 1995, up from 70.0 percent in
         1994—the highest annual load factor in history. The previous high of 69.2 percent was
         achieved in 1990 (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).                                        ,

      4  The international load factor is forecast to remain relatively stable over the twelve year
         forecast period, increasing from 71.4 percent in 1995 to 71.6 percent in 2007 (U.S. DOT,
         FAA, 1996),


 Am CARGO TRAFFIC

      4  Air cargo revenue ton miles (RTMs) flown by U.S. air carriers reporting on BTS Form 41
         totaled 23.2 billion in 1995, up 11.5 percent from 1994 (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).

      4  Freight/express RTMs increased 12.5 percent, while mail RTMs increased 4.4 percent.   .
         Domestic cargo RTMs were up 9.0 percent, while international RTMs increased 14.4 percent
         (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).


 ENERGY CONSUMPTION
     4   Energy consumption by air carriers has increased significantly since 1970.

 Energy Use By Air Carriers13
   Year      Energy Use v                             Energy Use By Air Carriers
	    (trillion Btn)
   1970        1363.4  '  '   -
   1975        1283.4
   1980   ~~1489.6
   1985        1701.5   ~
   1990        2191.3
   1991        2069.2    "               '
                                                 1970    1975   1980   1985    1990   1995
   1992        2144.2
                                                                 Year
Source: U.S. DOE. 1994a.
13 Energy use includes fuel purchased abroad for international flights.
                                                                                       A-23

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
                               Change in Energy Use per Passenger Mile, 1970-92
aair/o
300%
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%

-50%
-100%
-1KIW.
275%
-
-
-
-











Passenger Mile
Passenger Total Energy
Miles
Use ,58%

JET FUEL CONSUMPTION
        Fuel consumption in aviation increased to a record high of 17,795 million gallons in 1995.
Fiscal Year
 Total Jet Fuel &
 Aviation Gasoline
 Fuel Consumption
(millions of gallons)
   1985
     13,437
   1986
     14,412
   1987
     15,313
   1988
     16,146
   1989
     16,713
   1990
     17,207
   1991
     16,590
   1992
     16,610
   1993
     16,754
   1994
     17,163
   1995
     17,795
   2007»
     27,156
*projeetion
Source: U.S.
DOT, FAA, 1996.
in
c
o
75
O
a>
O
     Total Jet Fuel Aviation & Gasoline
             Fuel Consumption
   30,000 r

   25,000
                                                                               1
         1985   1990  1995  2000  2005   2010

                      Fiscal Year
PASSENGER TRIP LENGTH

     *  The average system passenger trip length (986 miles) increased by 2.1 miles in 1995, largely
        the result of increases in trip lengths in the domestic, Atlantic, and Latin American routes
        (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).

     *  The domestic passenger trip length increased about 5 miles, primarily due to some of the
        major carriers eliminating short-haul markets and/or turning these markets over to their code-
        sharing regional partners (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).
A-24

-------
                                                               Infrastructure and Travel Measures
     4  In 1995, seven put of the nine majors increased their trip lengths, while the average domestic
        trip length for all major carriers increased more than 7 miles (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).
AIRBORNE HOURS
     4  U.S. commercial air carriers flew an estimated total of 11.9 million hours in 1995, up from
        11.5 million hours in 1994 (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).
Fiscal Year
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
• 1994
1995
2007* '
*projection
Source: U.S.
Total Airborne
' Hours
(in thousands)
7,718
8,774
9,397
9,842
10.097
10,457-
' 10,480
10,679
11,138
' 11,482
11,940
18,212
DOT, FAA, 199<
                                    CO
                                    •o
                                    05
                                    eo
                                    o
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
 8,000
 6,000
 4,000
 2,000
                                               Total Airborne Hours
                                            1985  1990  1995   2000   2005   2010

                                                         Fiscal Year
        Two aircraft categories accounted for over three fourths of total airborne hours: two-engine'
        narrowbody aircraft (63.9 percent) and three-engine narrowbody (13.0 percent). In 2007, the
        number of hours is forecast to increase to 18.2 million, an average annual increase of 3.7
        percent.          -      .            '

        Two-engine aircraft (both narrowbody and widebody) are projected to account for 85.7
        percent of all airborne hours flown in 2007. Two-engine narrowbody aircraft make up 15.1
        percent of the hours in 2007, up an average of 9.1 percent per year (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).

        The number of hours flown by three-engine narrowbody aircraft will decline significantly
        over the forecast period.  Hours for this aircraft type drop from 1.6 million in 1995 to 0.9
        million in 2007, of 44.6 percent (U.S. DOT, FAA, 1996).
                                                                                       A-25

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
                                    MQDE:   MARITIME
 INFRASTRUCTURE

 NAVIGABLE WATERWAY MILEAGE

     4  Mileage of commercially navigable waterways has remained stable since 1990.

                         Mileage of Commercially Navigable Waterways

                         "!" ..... 1970 ; " '.. ....... j98o   ....... .ig&oi:?':,:^^    71993 ............. ' ....... 1994 ...........
                 25,253     25,543   .  25,543     25,777     25,777    25,777    25,777
                                     Source: U.S. DOT, BTS, 1996.
MARITIME VESSELS

     4   The vast majority of vessels in the U.S. are recreational boats.


                                      Number of U.S. Vessels

                             I960  ~   137ti ............. iSfSO "'.". "•".'-"• llS^'""^:""'-riM2"'V:--V
       1 ::„'" , i!-^,''' ...... ;»"!'! .'I f ', "''"'-"i, |!'"!r IlSiih1 ir ....... "I1*!1,,,! "I. * : ...... 1,1:" M1 rf^F1!1 ;;r*' ^iiii'iA;;!^:^;';1 (::,:'i ^?z^:3^®»^'i:®»M»^^^^^:*
      iType of Vessd _    .-  . ..  .••   ••;• .; '.'•-.:' ":f.-:--''v ,r\ : ;;?:vi^/-'     A----V;- ;-:
      Non-self-propelled        16,777     19,377    31,662      31,017     30,899     30,785     30,723
      Total self-propelled         6,543     6,455     7,130       8,216      8,311     8,323      8,341
      Total U.S. flag            5,852     1,579      864        636       603       564       543
      merchant marine
      Recreational _ : _   8.600,000   11,000,000  11,100.000  11,300,000  11,400,000
                                     Source: U.S. DOT, BTS,' 1996.
PORTS
     4   There were 196 commercial ports (ports receiving commerce over 1,000,000 tons) in the
         U.S. in  1993 (U.S. DOT, BTS, 1995b).
A-26

-------
                                                                     Infrastructure and Travel Measures
 TRAVEL
 VESSEL USE
                         U.S. Ports, Ranked by Total Tons Shipped in 1993
PfsWffc j*0ft N3JBGMJ •" •"•










1
2
3
4
5
6
7
• 8
9
10
Port of South Louisiana, LA
Houston, TX
New York, NY &NJ
Valdez, AK
Baton Rouge, LA
New Orleans, LA
Corpus Christi', TX
Long Beach, CA
Texas City, TX
Plaquemine, LA
Tons Shipped
193,796,104
141,476,979
116,735,760
85,722,337
85,078,863
67,037,285
59,649,751
54,320,932
53,652,781
' 53,110,120
                                Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1993.
          Although the typical recreational boat is used less often (days per year) than other vessels,
          recreational boats comprise the majority of vessel days.

                          Vessel Utilization in the U.S. Maritime Sector14
                                                 Day sot Vessel Use Per
                                                            '   W
                                                               Year
    Estimated Annual
JfoBBheritf Vessd Days
Recreational Boats
Hshing Vessels
Cargo Ships
Day Boats
U.S. Navy Vessels
U.S. Coast Guard Vessels
U.S. Army Vessels
School Boats
Offshore Industry Service Vessels
Navy Combatant Surface Vessels
Passenger Cruise 'Ships
Research Vessels
Misc. Private Industry Vessels
. Total
7,300,000
129,000
7,800
5,200
284
2,316
580
. 14
1,500
'. 360
128
125
85
7,447,392
21.9
240.9
350.4
240.9
120.5
109.5
73.0 •
127.8
365.0
120.5
350.4
200.8
365.0

159,870,000
31,076,100
2,733,120
1,252,680
34,222
253,602
42,340
1,789
547,500
43,380
44,851
25,100
31,025
195,955,709
                               Adapted from National Research Council, 1995.
14
  U.S. maritime sectors include foreign-flag vessels that call at U.S. ports in addition to all U.S.-flag vessels.
Data were collected from various sources dating from 1990 to 1994. Number of vessels was tabulated as
follows: Recreational boats: boats registered in coastal states or in states bordering the Great Lakes. Cargo Ships:
different ships of all flags calling at U.S. ports.
                                                                                              A-27

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
         Coastwise and internal shipping of freight on water (in ton-miles) has increased significantly
         from I960 to 1994, while lakewise and intraport ton-miles have fallen.

                              Ton-Miles of Domestic Water Freight
	 I III 1 1 T ill ] II 1 i
Place of Travel
Coastwise
Internal
Lake wise
Intraport

ll ii i mill in 111 i in
1960
256,000
89,614
65,990
1.730
	 f IT i1 ii '
1970
359,748
155,816
79,416
1,179
1980
631,149
227,343
61,747
1,596
*1990
479,134
292,393
60,930
1,087
*" * 1992
502,311
297,639
55,785
950
1993 *
448,404
283,894
56,438
921
' * 3.994
457,601
297,762
58,263
1,293
                                     Source: U.S. DOT, BTS, 1996.
                 Average Length of Haul for Domestic Interstate Freight Vessels
UK "
Place of Travel
Coastwise
Internal
Likewise
P n i i ||i
1960 *
1,496
282
522
«)i if i
¥ 1 « r f
197Q
1,509
330
506
1980
1,915
405
536
1990
1,604
469
553
1992
1,762
479
519
1993
1,650
468
514
                                     Source: U.S. DOT, BTS, 1996.
     *   Petroleum and petroleum products comprise the majority of waterborne freight traffic, in ton-
         miles.
                          Domestic Waterborne Freight Traffic, 199315

                       ............. l ............ ; ......... • ....... |i .................... , .i; .......... 4|.i<;iiii< i.,. ..... AH Bodies .; t Coastwise   Lakewise  , Internal  Intraport
                           '  '                 " " '   '" "'        '        
-------
                                                               Infrastructure and Travel Measures
            Refined Petroleum Products Transported by Water Carriers in the U.S.
                           Year
                           ~
,'BaifoasofToH- JP«r«mtage«TTata!U,S.
           "     ~  -eleisan Products
                     Transportation
1975
1980
1985
1990
1991
1992
1993
257.4
230.4
141-.2
157.8
152.2
158.0
146.2
50.0
46.8
' . . - 34.5
35.2
35.0
35.5
32.7
                                   Source: U.S. DOT, BTS, 1996.
FUEL CONSUMPTION

     *  Vessel fuel consumption has decreased during the time period 1980 to 1993.

                               Fuel Consumed by U.S. Vessels
                                            Thousands of Barrels Consumed
                                           197S
                                                    1988
                                                             1990
                                                                      1992
                                                                            '1993
Diesel fuel & distillate
Residual fuel oil
Gasoline
Total
18,730
94,084
9,200
122,014
19,503
89,850
' 14,238
123,591
35,201
213,131
25,048
273,380
52,310
148,764
30,962
232,036
52,824
171,407
31,337
255,568
48,661
149,283
20,802
218,746
                                   Source: U.S. DOT, BTS, 1996.
                                                                                       A-29

-------

-------
                                                                    Additional Statistics on Impacts
          APPENDIX  B.   ADDITIONAL  STATISTICS  ON
  Monetized values of health and welfare effects are useful because they measure the ultimate outcomes
  of pollution in comparable units. The weakness with using these indicators is that they are often
  uncertain. Given the numerous assumptions and methods that are used to determine the actual
  outcomes and the appropriate dollar values to assign to these outcomes, a broad range of dollar values
 • appears in the literature. While these estimates are useful for understanding the magnitude of various
  problems, they are listed in this appendix separately from the other indicators because of the higher
  degree of uncertainty about these estimates and because monetized estimates are not available for
  many impacts.                      •              .
                                               EfFECTS  '
 Health effects are an end result of pollutant emissions. As an outcome measure, health effects are an
 ideal indicator of harm caused by transportation activities, providing direct and useful information on
 the results of pollution. In practice, however, this indicator is somewhat problematic due to a high
 degree of uncertainty in estimates.                           .

 Estimating health effects requires use of dose-response functions which explain the human health
 response to a particular dose of a pollutant over a period of time. The proper population exposure
 must be estimated in combination with the dose-response function in order to determine health
 impacts properly: Sub-populations which are most affected, such as children or asthmatics, may be
 separated if separate dose-response functions have been developed.

 Since the dose-response function is based on an ambient-level "dose" of pollutant, the portion of the
 ambient level that is attributable to transportation sources must be estimated. Various methods might
 be used to estimate how auto emissions affect ambient levels of air pollution, and these may be quite
 complex,, involving dispersion models which take into account geography, climate, wind, natural
 barriers, and other elements of topography. Difficulty arises since some ambient pollutants, such as
 ozone, are not emitted directly from vehicles. Instead, ozone is formed through a process which
 involves NOX and VOCs as precursors. Even if transportation is responsible for 30 percent of NOX
 emissions in a region, transportation may not be responsible for 30 percent of the ozone in the"
 atmosphere.

 A number of estimates are listed below, some developed through very simplified methodologies:

     4   Ketcham and Komanoff (1993) estimate that air pollution from motor vehicles causes 15,000
         deaths annually, based on 75,000 deaths annually from air pollution with 20 percent
         attributable to motor vehicles.16                  '

     *  Delucchi, Sperling, and Johnson (1987) assume that motor vehicle air pollution causes 7,500
        to 31,250 deaths annually, based on  15-25 percent of 50,000 to 125,000 deaths from air
        pollution annually.17                                                    -
16 Ketcham, B. and C. Komanoff, 1992.                       .                  ,
  Delucchi, M., D. Sperling and R. Johnson. A Comparative Analysis of Future Transportation Fuels. UC-
Berkeley, 1987, as cited in Litman, 1994.
                                                                                         B-l

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
     *  McCubbin and Delucchi (1995) estimate various adverse health affects from motor vehicles
        using dose-response functions, as listed in the following table.18  Their findings suggest that
        paniculate matter, especially road dust, is responsible for the majority of health effects,
        including from 50 to 70 million cases of respiratory-related restricted activity days (RRAD)
        annually, and 19,700 to 46,100 cases of chronic respiratory illness.

Estimated Cases of Adverse Health Effect (thousands of cases), 1991 from Motor Vehicle
Pollution
Health
Effect
Mortality
Airway
obstructive
disease
(chronic
respiratory
illness)
Respiratory-
related
restricted
activity days
(RRAD)
Cancer-oral
Cancer-lung
Cancer-
Leukemia
Cancer-other
Asthma
attacks
Headaches
Excess
phlegm
Eye irritation
Sore throat
Lower
respiratory
illness
Upper
respiratory
illness
Air Pollutant
CO








852,251





NOx, in a
£
nitrate
PM
2.8
1.3-3.1
4,994 -
6,960




65






unbient air
s:
NO2









139,184 -
140,153
63,860 -
64,322
57,462 -
57.871


SOx
Sulfate
PM
0.9
0.4 - 1.0
1,502 -
2,087
J




21






Direct
PM
33.3
17.7-
41.6
42,948 -
59,899




1,115






VOCsina
a
Organic
PM
0.3
0.1 - 0.3
510-
712




7






unbient air
s:
Ozone
0-3.8






2,879
-

17,533 -
23,592

9,676 -
13,008
18,179-
24,440
Toxics



0.01
0.23
0.06
0.23







Total
37.3-41.1
19.7-46.1
49,954 -
69,658
0.01
0.23
0.06
0.23
4,087
852,251
139,184 -
140,153

57,462 -
57,871
9,676 -
13,008
18,179-
24,440
Source: McCubbin and Delucchi. Health Effects of Motor Vehicle Air Pollution. July 1995.
is McCubbin, D. and M. Delucchi. 1995.
B-2

-------
ff!
    .1


                                                                                S
                                                                                           ON
                                                                                           CS
                                                                                           «
                                                                                           "3
                                                                                           a!
                                                                                           o
                                                                                           "><
                                                                                           o
                                                                                           fr-l

-------
Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
                                MO NET 12 Eft V AX UES
HIGHWAYS

TAILPIPE AND EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
Emissions from vehicle travel are responsible for five major categories of costs which may be
monetized:
     4  Human health impacts
     4  Materials damage
     *  Agriculture damage
     *  Visibility degradation
     4  Global Warming

OVERALL AIR POLLUTION COSTS
•   Moffet, 1993, estimates air pollution costs as $86 to $160 billion annually from autos and
    $34 to $62 billion annually from light trucks.19
•   Cannon, 1990, estimates total U.S. automobile emissions costs are approximately $50 billion
    annually.
•   The Office of Technology Assessment (1994) has estimated U.S. annual automobile air
    pollution costs, including human health effects, global warming, agricultural losses, material
    effects, visibility and aesthetic losses, to range from $47 to 242 billion.20
•   Litman (1994) estimates national air pollution costs as $110 billion.21
HUMAN HEALTH COSTS
•   McCubbin and Delucchi estimate emissions from auto travel are responsible for $64 to 223
    billion per year in health costs in 1991, including road dust. Parficulates are responsible for
    about 93-97 percent of the total.22
•   Ketcham and Komanoff (1993) estimate U.S. national automobile air pollution health costs
    at $30 billion.
•   Delucchi, Sperling, and Johnson (1987) estimate that roadway use causes from $7.5 to 181.3
    billion per year in health damage (converted to 1991 dollars by DRI/McGraw-Hill).

MATERIALS DAMAGE
•   Emissions from auto travel have been estimated as responsible for about $4 billion dollars
    annually in materials damage.
•   Delucchi, Sperling, and Johnson (1987) estimate that roadway use causes from $3.9 to 11.7
    billion per year in materials damage (converted to 1991$ by DRI/McGraw-ttill).
l9Moffet,1993,p.48.
^ILS. Officeof Technology Assessment. Saving Energy in U.S. Transportation. 1994, p. 108, as cited in
Litman, 1994.
21 Litman, T. Transportation Cost Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and Implications. December, 1994. p.
3,10-8.
22 McCubbin and Delucchi. 1995. Table 6.
B-4

-------
 AGRICULTURE DAMAGE                                      '  .
 •  Emissions from auto travelhave been estimated as responsible for about $1.3 to $3.5 billion
    dollars annually in damage to crops and agriculture.
 •  Delucchi, Sperling, 2nd Johnson (1987) estimate that roadway use causes from $2.0 to 8.0
    billion per year in crop damage (converted to 1991$ by DRI/McGraw-Hill).

 VISIBILITY DEGRADATION
 •  Emissions from auto travel have been estimated as responsible for about $4 billion dollars
    annually in visibility loss.         ,
 •  U.S. aesthetic costs of smog have been estimated at $7.9 billion annually in 1982 (Crandall,
    Robert, et al. Regulating the Automobile, Brookings Institute, Washington DC, 1986).

 GLOBAL WARMING
 •  Emissions from auto travel have been estimated as responsible for about $26 billion dollars
    annually from the risk of global warming.
 •  DRI/McGraw-Hill (1994) estimates that roadway use is responsible for $1.8 to 8.6 billion
    dollars per year in damage from climate change (1991$)

 FUGITIVE DUST FROM ROADS
 •  McCubbin and Delucchi estimate that fugitive dust caused $59 to 216 billion dollars in
    human health cost damages in 1991.23
 •  The monetized cost of health damage from fugitive dust exceeds the health damage costs
    from tailpipe and evaporative emissions.
NOISE AND VIBRATION
•   Ketcham (1991) estimates that roadway use is responsible for $4.1 to 6.6 billion dollars in
    noise damage annually (1991 $).24
•   Konheim and Ketcham (1991) estimate that roadway use is responsible for $0.3 billion
    dollars in vibration damage annually (1991 $).25
•   Ma'cKenzie used estimates developed by Hokanson for the U.S. DOT to calculate total U.S.
    noise costs from roadway use to be $9 billion annually.26
•   Changes in the value of U.S. houses between 0.08% and 0.88% occur per one unit change in-
    Leq.27       '
23 McCubbin and Delucchi. July 1995. Table 6.                                   •         "
24 Ketcham, Brian. Making Transportation Choices Based on Real Costs. October 1991, as reported by
DRI/McGraw-Hill, 1994.
25 Konheim and Ketcham. "Toward a More Balanced Distribution of Transportation Funds." Draft, 1991,
as cited in DRI/McGraw-Hill, 1994.
26 MacKenzie, J., R. Dower and D. Chen.  The Going Rate. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.,
1992, p.21.                                                          ,              -     -
27 Pearce and Markandya, 1986 and Button, 1990, as cited in Moffet, 1993, p. 34.
                                                                                     B-5

-------
 Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation
 LEAKING FUEL TANKS AND OIL SPILLS
 •  The Office of Technology Assessment (1994) estimated that leaking fuel tanks and oil spills
    associated with motor vehicle use cost $1 to 3 billion per year in the U.S.28
 *  Lee estimates that annual uncompensated oil spills average $2 billion.29       •
 ROADWAY DEICING
 •   An Apogee survey of cost estimates of damage attributable to roadway deicing found a range
    of from about $4.7 billion to $8 billion annually.                         ,
 *   Murray and Ernst (1976) estimate damage from road salting nationwide is $4.7 billion
    annually (converted to 1993$ by Lee).30
 •   A 1976 EPA study identified $8 billion in damages (1990 dollars) from road salt. Over 90
    percent of this damage was to vehicles and highway structures. $600 million was damage to
    water supplies, health, and vegetation.31                         .           '            .
 *   NRDC estimates the aesthetic damage to vegetation caused by road de-icing is about $650
    million per year32
 WASTE DISPOSAL
 •   Lee estimates external waste disposal costs associated with highways as $4.2 billion. This
    value includes $0.5 billion for waste oil, $0.7 billion for' scrapped cars, and $3.0 billion for
    used tires.33
as U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. Saving Energy in U.S. Transportation. 1994, p. 108, as cited in
Litman, 1994.
29 Lee, D. Full Cost Pricing of Highways.  Paper presented at TRB. 1995:
30 Murray and Ernst. Economic Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Highway Deicing.  EPA, 1976,
as cited in Litman, 1994.
31 1976 EPA study (Murray and Ernst), as cited by NRDC, 1993.
32 NRDC, 1993, p. 50.
MLcc, D. Full Cost Pricing of Highways. Paper presented at TRB. 1995.
B-6

-------