National Academies Press: OpenBook

Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation (2012)

Chapter: Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector

« Previous: Chapter 5 - Benchmarking Framework for Addressing Air Quality Impacts of Freight Transportation
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22668.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22668.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22668.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22668.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22668.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22668.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22668.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22668.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22668.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22668.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22668.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22668.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22668.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22668.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22668.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22668.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22668.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22668.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22668.
×
Page 54

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

36 C h a p t e r 6 This handbook presents metrics and benchmarking approaches in separate sections for truck carriers, rail carriers, air carriers, marine carriers, marine ports, airports, and ship- pers and receivers. Each of these is described in the following sections. For each section, key issues, benchmarking metrics, and programs and tools for environmental benchmarking are discussed. 6.1 Truck Carriers Key Issues The various types of vehicles, routes, and operations make benchmarking the environmen- tal performance of truck carriers challenging since the differences make it difficult to compare “apples to apples.” Specific challenges are discussed below. Vehicle classes. There are six different classes of freight trucks, categorized by vehicle weight (Class 3 to Class 8B), as shown in Exhibit 13. The Class 8B 5-axle combination truck is most commonly used in long-haul freight movement. The weight of these vehicles alone influences fuel economy, which determines, in part, vehi- cle emissions rates. Fleet-level environmental performance benchmarks would thus typically account for truck classes. Vehicle and cargo type. It is important to recognize differences within vehicle classes. For example, a reefer will produce more emissions than a comparable vehicle in its class because it uses additional fuel to regulate the temperature of the refrigeration unit. Exhibit 14 shows the fleet segments used to benchmark performance in the SmartWay Transport Partnership. The partnership provides data to benchmark different carrier segments. Vehicle types include dry vans/chassis, reefer, flatbed, tanker, specialized, and mixed. Each of these types has different aerodynamic profiles and typical cargo characteristics and differs in many other ways that affect their average fuel economy and emissions profile. Additionally, the payload of the vehicle will affect the emissions rate. Vehicles used to haul heavy freight will emit more than those that typically haul lighter loads. The model year of the engine used has a large impact on the emissions profile of the vehicle. Vehicle routes. Vehicle routes will greatly affect the level of emissions produced. For exam- ple, routes with steep terrain or routes within climates with extreme temperatures will produce greater emission levels than routes on flat terrain and routes in regions with moderate tem- peratures. Additionally, a long-haul truck traveling on uncongested highways will produce fewer Environmental Benchmarking Approaches and Metrics by Sector

environmental Benchmarking approaches and Metrics by Sector 37 emissions per mile than a similar truck that operates in stop-and-go traffic to deliver freight in an urban area. Truck service type. Trucks perform different types of services—TL, LTL, parcel delivery, dray- age, etc. The very nature of service will affect the emissions rate of the vehicle so it may be desirable to segment the services for benchmarking. The same truck operating in a TL highway environment would tend to emit less per mile than the same LTL vehicle making multiple pick- ups and deliveries. Additionally, comparing idle time across all types of services can be difficult, since an LTL and parcel delivery service is likely to accrue more workday idling, while a TL service will average more overnight idling.9 Empty miles/travel time performance across different truck services would also be expected to differ. LTL services tend to have fewer empty miles because the density of their business operations allows them to design more efficient pick-up and delivery routes. Private fleets can also be segmented by operation type, including long haul, interplant, direct store delivery, or other types. Class Weight (lbs) Vehicle Type Class 3 10,001 to 14,000 Walk-in, conventional van, city delivery Class 4 14,001 to 16,000 Conventional van, city delivery, large walk-in Class 5 16,001 to 19,500 City delivery, large walk-in Class 6 19,501 to 26,000 Beverage, single-axle van, rack Class 7 26,001 to 33,000 Refuse, furniture, medium conventional Class 8A 33,001 to 60,000 Dump, refuse, concrete, other straight trucks Class 8B 60,001 & over 5+ axle combination trucks Exhibit 13. Vehicle classes. Truck carriers Truckload dry van Less-than-truckload dry van Package delivery Moving Expedited Drayage Tanker Flatbed Refrigerated Auto carrier Heavy/bulk Specialized Mixed (no predominant operation or equipment type) Logistics companies Multimodal carriers (truck and rail intermodal operations) Exhibit 14. SmartWay Carrier Segmentation 9Workday idling refers to idling at pick-up and delivery stops. Long duration idling refers to idling a vehicle overnight or for a long period of time to operate air conditioning or heating.

38 handbook on applying environmental Benchmarking in Freight transportation Metrics Exhibit 15 shows environmental performance metrics for truck carriers and identifies the level of analysis at which each could be used. Programs and Tools The EPA SmartWay Truck Carrier Model collects data on fuel use for a company’s individual operating unit level, which allows each operational unit to be compared against similar units (e.g., flatbed to flatbed, auto carrier to auto carrier, LTL to LTL, tanker to tanker, etc.). See http://www.epa.gov/smartway/partnership/trucks.htm for further information. EPA SmartWay DrayFLEET Model assesses truck emissions and various technical and man- agement options for reducing emissions and fuel consumption from truck drayage activity. These might include virtual container yards, chassis pools, or on-dock rail. The user can also assess technological options targeted to drayage trucks (such as diesel particulate filters or oxida- tion catalysts, idle control technologies, etc.). See http://www.epa.gov/smartway/documents/partnership/trucks/drayage/smartway-dray- fleet-v1-0f-users-guide.pdf for further information. The Truckload Carriers Association, with the assistance of the company Decisiv Best Prac- tices, conducts a benchmarking program that enables truckload carriers to compare operating Functional Unit Environmental Performance Metric Level of Analysis O rg an iz at io n Fl ee t Fa ci lit y Co rr id or Total Miles Average emissions (CO2, NOx, PM) per mile Average MPG % empty miles Average customer density per route Revenue Miles Average emissions per revenue mile Ton-Miles Average emissions per ton-mile Average gallons of fuel consumed per ton-mile Revenue Average emissions per unit of transportation revenue Volume of Goods Moved Emissions per cubic foot-miles Truck/Trailer Improvements % trucks with transmission and drivetrain improvements % trucks with engine improvements % trucks with aerodynamic improvements % trucks with rolling resistance improvements Engine Operating Hours Idling hours as a % of total engine-on hours Truck Terminal Total annual emissions from truck terminal per average number of trucks serviced at the terminal LEED certification score % of facilities LEED certified Year of Company Operation SmartWay Rank DOW Jones Sustainability Index Exhibit 15. Truck carrier metrics.

environmental Benchmarking approaches and Metrics by Sector 39 benchmarks and identify best practices that contribute to superior performance. Participat- ing carriers are segmented into groups of 12 to 20 companies according to carrier specialties (e.g., refrigerated, dry van, flatbed). Every month, participating carriers submit their finan- cial statements to Decisiv, which in turn produces a financial composite that ranks the carriers according to key factors. Decisiv sends each member a copy of its group’s composite that contains the comparative statistics compiled from their statements. The groups meet three times per year for a period of 1 to 2 days each to share their best practices and processes that aid them in reduc- ing costs and improving efficiencies. See http://www.truckload.org/About-The-Program for further information. The Diesel Emissions Quantifier (Quantifier) is an interactive tool to help state/local gov- ernments, fleet owners/operators, school districts, municipalities, contractors, port authorities, and others estimate emission reductions and cost effectiveness for clean diesel projects. Esti- mates are made using specific information about a fleet. For those applying to EPA or some other federal or state/local funding assistance program, this site will help with preparing and submitting diesel emissions data. EPA has built the Quantifier based on existing EPA tools and guidance and it can be used by potential grantees, state and local governments, metropolitan planning organizations, and fleet owners and operators, among others. The Quantifier uses emission factors and other information from EPA’s MOVES 2010 Model and the NONROAD 2008 Model. See http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/quantifier/index.htm for further information. 6.2 Rail Carriers Key Issues Benchmarking the performance of rail carriers requires consideration of various different fac- tors, including differences between classes of railroads, equipment, facilities, cargos, geography, and rail lines. Variation in class. Freight railroads may be divided into three classes based on operating revenue, which is influenced by the size and function of the railroad. The size of a rail carrier may determine the scale of resources that may be available to invest in equipment, operational improvements, and infrastructure to improve environmental performance. In addition, some operational and equipment strategies that are appropriate for a large Class I carrier may be unavailable to smaller regional or short-line carriers. Variation in equipment. Different types of equipment are used in railroad locomotive and car fleets and this equipment produces varying levels of pollution. • Switch locomotives, typically 2,000 hp or less, are the least powerful locomotives and are used in freight yards to assemble and disassemble trains or for short hauls of small trains. Some larger road switchers can be rated as high as 2,300 hp. • Freight line-haul locomotives are the most powerful locomotives and are used to power freight train operations over long distances. Older line-haul locomotives are typically powered by engines of approximately 2,000–3,000 hp, while newer line-haul locomotives are powered by engines of approximately 3,500–5,000 hp.10 10EPA, Locomotive Emission Standards, Regulatory Support Document, April 1998.

40 handbook on applying environmental Benchmarking in Freight transportation Exhibit 16 shows U.S. EPA emissions standards for line-haul and switch locomotives. Because EPA has phased in emissions standards over time, the age of the equipment has a large impact on the air emissions generated. Railcar characteristics may also affect fuel efficiency and environmental performance. For instance, covered hopper cars and tank cars achieve higher levels of gross ton-miles per gallon than auto rack cars. Based on these equipment differ- ences, it may be desirable to segment equipment by locomo- tive type, age, and railcar characteristics. Variation in facilities. Various facility types are employed in rail freight movement, including intermodal facilities and classification yards. Intermodal terminals, located at the ori- gin and destination of an intermodal rail corridor, are used to store and transfer container shipments between truck and rail. Containers are handled by various equipment, including gantry cranes and yard tractors. Additionally, drayage trucks are required at most origins and destinations to transport intermodal containers between the intermodal terminal and the ultimate origin or destination. Since most shippers are not located at the rail yard, the drays complete the first or last legs of the container shipment. Drayage trucks are typi- cally older, having been retired from short-haul or long-haul service, and have a lower fuel economy in many regions. The emissions generated from yard equipment and the operation of drayage trucks at the facility are included in the total emis- sions generated from the facility. The overall effect of yard equipment tends to be small since the fuel consumed in the rail yard is dwarfed by other sources of consumption. Dray- age trucks may not be used if a rail yard receives cargo from a port with on-dock rail facilities. Classification yards are used to sort cars onto differ- ent tracks so the cars can be assembled into trains. There are two types of classification yards—flat yards and hump yards. In a flat yard, cars are organized by flat switching or Line Haul Engines Switching Engines Emission Standard Applicable Year NOx PM NOx PM Uncontrolled Emissions 13.0 0.32 17.4 0.44 Tier 0 rebuild 2001 9.5 0.60 14.0 0.72 Tier 0 rebuild* 2008 / 2010 8.0 0.22 11.8 0.26 Tier 1 2002 – 2004 7.4 0.45 11.0 0.54 Tier 1 rebuild* 2008 / 2010 7.4 0.22 11.0 0.26 Tier 2 2005 5.5 0.20 8.1 0.24 Tier 2 rebuild* 2008 / 2013 5.5 0.10 8.1 0.13 Tier 3 2011 – 2012 5.5 0.10 5.0 0.10 Tier 4 2015 1.3 0.03 1.3 0.03 Note: *These are retrofit standards at the time of rebuild and phased in as retrofit kit availability allows. Source: Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters per Cylinder. EPA420-R-08-001. March 2008. Exhibit 16. Emission standards for locomotive engines (g/hp-hr). CN’s GHG Benchmarking Program CN has participated in the climate-change reporting program of the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) for the past 5 years; CDP recently recognized CN for excellence in climate-change reporting among Canadian companies. In addition, CN has worked with the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia to enable companies to generate carbon offsets by shifting freight from truck to rail. CN has also conducted several corridor-based analyses of the energy and environmental impacts of shipping freight via alternative rail routes. These studies have modeled the fuel economy and fuel consumption of double-stack intermodal trains using four different but complementary metrics. Each route was analyzed both for locomotive efficiency, which measures the fuel economy of a train from origin to destination, and corridor efficiency, a broader metric that captures efficiency of the overall freight movement including drayage trips, intermodal equipment operation, and empty railcar movements. The GHG emissions’ impact on each corridor was also estimated. One purpose of these corridor analyses is to demonstrate to shippers the fuel economy and environmental benefits that CN’s routes hold over competing corridors, routes, and railroads.

environmental Benchmarking approaches and Metrics by Sector 41 kicking. In flat switching, cars are coupled and decoupled by moving the train forward and backward to switch the cuts. In kicking, trains are uncoupled by rapid engine acceleration, which kicks cars forward. In hump yards, trains are pushed up hills to store energy, which is used to sort the cars. Intermodal terminals and classification yards will differ in the level of emissions produced. For example, intermodal terminals have idling emissions from trains and trucks, whereas classifica- tion yards will also have emissions from switch locomotives. Regional differences in congestion and the drayage truck population serving intermodal facilities will likely affect the overall envi- ronmental impact of operating the terminal. Variation in haul. Railroads provide three distinct types of services: (1) unit train service, (2) intermodal service, and (3) carload service. These haul types will differ in the level of emissions produced. For example, unit train service is likely to produce fewer idling emissions than carload service because unit train service can provide point-to-point service. Trains that provide carload service transport commodities for shippers who load one or a few cars at a time, resulting in more stops and the need to move cars to different trains. Because intermodal service involves loading trailers and containers onto railcars, it may involve idling emissions from trucks. Variation in rail lines. The variation in rail lines can affect fuel efficiency. Typically, railway corridors are laid out to minimize grades, which are typically less than 1 percent and rarely in excess of 2 percent. Depending on the rail alignment and altitude profile, the effort to overcome grades can account for a significant portion of fuel consumed along a route. In addition to grade differences, track curvature, route circuitry, and other rail line characteristics also affect fuel use and air emissions. Metrics Rail carrier metrics are provided in Exhibit 17. Programs and Tools The SmartWay Transport Partnership helps rail carriers assess, calculate, and track their fuel consumption and find ways to improve efficiency. SmartWay Rail Carriers (Class 1, 2, or 3) improve fuel efficiency by implementing strategies such as double stacking railcars, reducing idling at switch yards, and reducing empty hauls. EPA will soon release a new SmartWay Rail Tool that will enable rail carriers to individually benchmark multiple divisions and/or fleets, define fleet composition, characterize fleet activity, and track annual changes in performance. See http://www.epa.gov/smartway/partnership/rail.htm for further information. Association of American Railroads (AAR) developed the Train Energy Model (TEM) under the AAR’s Energy Program. This model is a train performance simulator used to predict fuel consumption and emissions for any train on any route. CSX and BNSF have carbon calculators that allow a shipper to compare its carbon footprint by shipper commodity type for rail versus other transport modes. See http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/customers/tools/carbon-calculator/ and http://www.bnsf. com/communities/bnsf-and-the-environment/carbon-estimator/ for further information.

42 handbook on applying environmental Benchmarking in Freight transportation Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) is a database of publicly disclosed greenhouse gas emissions from organizations around the world. Companies disclose this information to set reduction targets, make performance improvements, and benchmark against their peers. CDP groups companies into different categories. CN and CSX both participate in this program. See https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Pages/HomePage.aspx for further information. 6.3 Air Carriers Key Issues There are a number of different segments to the air cargo market. The environmental perfor- mance of carriers is affected by the market segment in which they predominantly operate. DOT certificates define the type of service that a carrier may conduct (passenger and cargo or cargo only, scheduled or charter, foreign or domestic). The U.S. air freight industry has four major sectors: Functional Unit Environmental Performance Metric Level of Analysis O rg an iz at io n Fl ee t Fa ci lit y Co rr id or Ton-miles Average emissions (CO 2, SOx, NOx, PM) per ton-mile Average fuel use per ton-mile Average revenue ton-miles per gallon Tons Average gallons of fuel per revenue ton Equipment in operation % of equipment by EPA emissions standard tier % of Tier 2 locomotives compliant with Tier 2 rebuild standards % of locomotives equipped with Automatic Engine Start Stop (AESS) devices % of switching locomotives using clean technology/hybrids % of forklifts that are electric at facility Hours of operation Average % idle time Average emissions per hour of idling Idling hours Car miles % empty carload miles Emissions per car-mile Intermodal train loading Slot utilization Train feet per unit Slot efficiency Day of operation Total annual emissions (CO2, SOx, NOx, PM) from facility per number of outgoing trains Total emissions per facility Containers Emissions per container Truck wait time per container Truck idle time per container Year of operation SmartWay Rank Total annual emissions (CO2, SOx, NOx, PM) Corporate initiatives SmartWay Membership Environmental management system implementation Public reporting of environmental/sustainability info Environmental enforcement and compliance task forces Community or public perception % of community with positive views toward corporate environmental performance Exhibit 17. Rail carrier metrics.

environmental Benchmarking approaches and Metrics by Sector 43 • Express consignment air carriers (operate as scheduled), • Scheduled passenger airlines that handle cargo, • Scheduled cargo-only carriers, and • Charter air cargo carriers. The types of cargo services the air carriers provide overlap. Scheduled passenger carrying air- lines generally carry freight as extra cargo on passenger flights. Many passenger airlines provide express service for cargo. The express carriers provide both express and standard freight carriage and conduct some charters. Express companies also use other air carriers for some shipments. Many scheduled carriers also provide charters. These overlaps in types of services can complicate efforts to compare environmental perfor- mance. For instance, to include the environmental impacts from the transport of belly cargo in a benchmarking study, one would need to allocate the environmental impacts of passenger aircraft activity between passengers and cargo. For a particular segment of travel for a passenger aircraft, this division is typically done on the basis of the weight of the air freight carried versus the weight of passengers and luggage. Metrics Exhibit 18 shows metrics that can be used by air carriers to benchmark environmental performance. Functional Unit Environmental Performance Metric Level of Analysis O rg an iz at io n Fl ee t Fa ci lit y Co rr id or Available tons Emissions per available ton Kg of landing & take-off emissions per 1,000 kg of available tons Available ton- miles Emissions per available ton-mile Fuel use per 100 available ton-miles Equipment inventory % of fleet having specific energy-efficient or aerodynamic technologies Energy content of fuel used kg-km per mega joule 11 Aviation fuel consumption % of aviation fuel consumed that is “second-generation” biofuel (made from inedible feed stocks) # of packages or shipments Emissions per package / shipment Tons Emissions per ton Ton-miles Emissions per ton-mile Revenue Emissions per $ of revenue kWh of electricity consumption % of electricity used that is from renewable sources Employees % of employees working in facilities certified to ISO 14001 standards Facilities % of facilities certified to ISO 14001 standards Environmental inspections % of environmental inspections resulting in penalties Exhibit 18. Air carrier metrics. 11Hileman, et al., 2008.

44 handbook on applying environmental Benchmarking in Freight transportation Programs and Tools UPS and FedEx have published environmental performance data for their aircraft fleets and for their operations more generally. The European Union (EU) is incorporating aviation activi- ties into its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) for GHGs. All airlines with operations to, from, or within the EU will be required to participate in the trading scheme. As part of this process, airlines began reporting to the EU annual data on CO2 emissions and tonne-kilometers traveled. This data can inform benchmarking studies of air freight operations. 6.4 Marine Carriers Key Issues Benchmarking the performance of marine freight movement requires companies to account for differences in the types of cargo, ship, and vessel characteristics. Ship type. The air emissions associated with freight transport differs across ship types. Key vessel types are shown in Exhibit 19. Vessel characteristics. The size, age, and engine type have a large impact on air emissions. Larger and newer vessels are more efficient, but the channel depth of ports and cargo volumes in specific corridors can limit the opportunities of marine carriers to deploy the largest vessels. There are a variety of engine technologies used for marine freight transport. For instance, resid- ual fuel is used primarily in ocean-going vessels. Ocean-going vessel engines can be classified as propulsion (those that drive the ship) and auxiliary (those that generate electricity for on-board electricity needs). Propulsion engines can further be defined by four types of engines, namely slow speed diesel (SSD) engines, medium speed diesel (MSD) engines, gas turbines (GTs), and steam turbines (STs). Auxiliary engines are typically MSDs. Metrics See Exhibit 20 for marine carrier metrics. Ship Type Description Auto carrier Dry-cargo vessels that carry containerized automobiles. Barge carrier Vessels that tow lashed barges. Bulk carrier Dry-cargo ships that carry loose cargo. Includes dry bulk and break bulk. Container ship Dry-cargo vessels that carry containerized cargo. General cargo Cargo vessels that carry a variety of dry cargo. Tugs/tows Tugboats and towboats that tow or push cargo or barges. Reefer Dry-cargo vessels that allow refrigeration of freight. Roll-on/Roll-off Vessels (including ferries) that handle cargo that is rolled on and off the ship. Tanker Liquid-cargo vessels including chemical tankers, petroleum product tankers, liquid food product tankers, and tank barges. Exhibit 19. Types of vessels used in marine transport.

environmental Benchmarking approaches and Metrics by Sector 45 Programs and Tools International Maritime Organization (IMO). The IMO is coordinating the development of two indices that will allow benchmarking of the carbon intensity of freight transportation provided by individual ocean-going vessels. The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) is a fuel-efficiency tool intended for use at the design stage, enabling designers to compare the fuel efficiency of different ship designs or a specific design with different inputs such as design speed or choice of propeller. In the future, new ships will have to exceed a minimum EEDI score, but currently its use is voluntary. In June 2010, a new container ship owned and operated by Hapag- Lloyd became the first vessel to obtain an EEDI certification.12 Another metric, the Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI), is a tool for measuring the fuel efficiency of an existing ship and, therefore, for gauging the effectiveness of any measures adopted to reduce energy consumption. Since 2005, the EEOI has been applied to hundreds of ships on a trial basis. The tool provides a figure, expressed in grams of CO2 per ton-mile, for the efficiency of a specific ship, enabling comparison of its energy or fuel efficiency to that of similar ships.13 Clean Cargo Working Group. The Clean Cargo Working Group (CCWG) is a private part- nership of shippers and containership operators that is managed by Business for Social Respon- sibility (BSR). According to BSR, the participating carriers move more than 70 percent of global container cargo. Participating carriers complete an annual survey covering the following areas of environmental performance: • Emissions of CO2, SOx, and NOx; • Waste management; 12“GL Issues the First EEDI Certificate,” press release issued by Germanischer Lloyd AG, June 30, 2010, http:// www.gl-group.com/en/press/news_18943.php, accessed Sept. 9, 2010. 13IMO, http://www.imo.org/newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=1773&doc_id=11176, accessed Sept. 16, 2010. Functional Unit Environmental Performance Metric Level of Analysis O rg an iz at io n Fl ee t Fa ci lit y Co rr id or Ton-km, TEU- km g/ton-km g /TEU-km (container) Vessel fleet operation Environmental Ship Index % of vessels equipped for on-shore power while in port Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI) Year of operation Clean Shipping Index Environmental and Energy Efficiency Rating Scheme (DNV Triple-E) Green Marine environmental performance score (scale of 1-5) Exhibit 20. Marine carrier metrics.

46 handbook on applying environmental Benchmarking in Freight transportation • Water effluents; • Chemical use; • Environmental management systems; • Vessel recycling; and • Transparency. Aggregated environmental performance data is released to the group’s membership annually, allowing shippers and carriers to compare a carrier’s performance against its peers. World Ports Climate Initiative. The World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI) has developed an Environmental Ship Index (ESI) that is intended to identify ocean-going vessels that exceed current standards for reducing air emissions.14 As currently designed, the ESI only takes a vessel’s NOx and SOx emissions directly into account. It also provides a small score improvement if a carrier reports on the vessel’s energy efficiency. The overall ESI ranges from zero for a ship that merely meets current environmental performance regulations to 100 for a ship that emits no SOx or NOx and for which a carrier has reported energy efficiency data. DNV. In June 2009, DNV, a Norway-based classification society and consultancy, introduced an environmental rating system for ocean-going vessels called the Environmental and Energy Efficiency Rating Scheme, or DNV Triple-E. The rating system looks at the following features of a vessel and the carrier that operates it: • Comprehensiveness of a carrier’s environmental management systems; • Fuel-efficient operation as part of policies, action plans, and daily operations; • Energy-efficient ship design; and • Verifiable monitoring, measurements, and documentation schemes. Each element is audited and given a score of 1 to 4, with 1 as the highest rating. Although sev- eral of these areas of assessment are related to a carrier’s overall management systems for its fleet, final ratings are given to individual ships and documented in the form of a stamped and signed DNV Declaration.15 As of December 2011, six vessels had received a Triple-E rating. Clean Shipping Project. The Clean Shipping Project started in Sweden in 2007. The project developed a Clean Shipping Index to help Swedish cargo owners select carriers with superior environmental performance. The project is beginning to receive more international attention and will likely be expanded beyond Sweden. In 2010, the project received an award for Green Shipping Initiative of the Year at a Sustainable Shipping awards ceremony in London.16 As of June 2010, the classification company Lloyd’s Register began offering verification of Clean Shipping Index scores.17 The Clean Shipping Index is based on data collected through a survey of 20 questions on a carrier’s environmental performance. Data is collected for individual vessels, but the resulting 14World Ports Climate Initiative, “Environmental Ship Index: An Instrument to Measure a Ship’s Air Emission Performance,” June 2010, http://www.wpci.nl/projects/environmental_ship_index.php. 15DNV, “DNV Triple-E: Environmental and Energy Efficiency Rating Scheme,” http://www.dnv.co.za/industry/ maritime/publicationsanddownloads/publications/dnvcontainershipupdate/2009/02/dnvtriplee.asp, accessed Sept. 9, 2010. 16More information on the winners of the 2010 Sustainable Shipping awards is available at http://www. sustainableshipping.com/events/2010/london/winners.html. 17Lloyd’s Register Group, “ ‘Clean Shipping Index’ Verification Service Offered by Lloyd’s Register,” press release dated June 24, 2010, http://www.lr.org/news_and_events/press-releases/199666-clean-shipping-index- verification-service-offered-by-lloyds-register.aspx, accessed Sept. 16, 2010.

environmental Benchmarking approaches and Metrics by Sector 47 scores are for a carrier’s fleet. The index is focused on environmental impacts in the following five areas: • SOx and PM emissions, • NOx emissions, • CO2 emissions, • Chemicals, and • Water and waste control. Green Marine. The Green Marine Program is an environmental initiative of U.S. and Cana- dian companies and organizations active in the marine industry operating on the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes. These include both carriers and operators of ports and terminals. The program has developed a system for assessing and scoring the environmental performance of its members. Participating carriers receive scores in the following areas of environmental impacts: • Air emissions of SOx, NOx, and GHGs; • Invasive species/ballast water management; • Cargo residues; and • Oily water. For each of these areas, carriers are given a score of 1 to 5, which are defined as follows (note that a particular level can only be attained if all the criteria of the previous levels have been fulfilled): • Level 1—Regulatory compliance; • Level 2—Systematic use of a defined number of best practices; • Level 3—Integration of best practices into an adopted management plan and quantifiable understanding of environmental impact; • Level 4—Introduction of new technologies; and • Level 5—Excellence and leadership. To a large extent, the Green Marine scoring system is based on whether carriers have adopted a set of pre-defined practices. This is evident in Exhibit 21, which shows the scoring criteria for SOx emissions. For that reason, it is not useful in its entirety for a benchmarking exercise, which would first measure carriers’ performance and then seek to uncover the practices contributing to superior performance.18 However, to obtain the highest scores on some measures, carriers do have to meet performance criteria. For example, to obtain the highest score in the area of SOx emissions, a carrier must allocate 75 percent of the company’s annual fuel consumption to fuel with sulfur content of 1.5 percent or less or use technologies to attain the same level of sulfur emissions. For carriers that meet that criterion, a benchmarking analysis could be used to deter- mine how they did so. The Total Energy & Emissions Analysis for Marine Systems Model (TEAMS) is the first-ever model able to calculate total fuel-cycle emissions and energy use for marine vessels. TEAMS cap- tures “well-to-hull” energy use and emissions—that is, energy and emissions along the entire fuel pathway (extraction → processing → distribution → use in vessels). TEAMS conducts analyses for six fuel pathways as follows: 1. Petroleum to residual oil; 2. Petroleum to conventional diesel; 3. Petroleum to low-sulfur diesel; 18In fact, although Green Marine publishes the scores for participating carriers and ports, the program explicitly states that it does not wish to invite comparison among participants.

48 handbook on applying environmental Benchmarking in Freight transportation 4. Natural gas to compressed natural gas; 5. Natural gas to Fischer-Tropsch diesel; and 6. Soybeans to biodiesel. TEAMS calculates total fuel-cycle emissions of three greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide [CO2], nitrous oxide [N2O], and methane [CH4]) and five criteria pollutants (volatile organic com- pounds [VOCs], carbon monoxide [CO], nitrogen oxides [NOx], particulate matter with aero- dynamic diameters of 10 micrometers or less [PM10], and sulfur oxides [SOx]). TEAMS also calculates total energy consumption, fossil fuel consumption, and petroleum consumption asso- ciated with each of its six fuel cycles. TEAMS can be used to study emissions from a variety of user-defined vessels, including cargo ships, passenger ferries, and container ships. 6.5 Marine Ports Key Issues When benchmarking the environmental performance of ports (or specific types of terminals or operations at ports), it is necessary to consider the boundaries within which performance will be measured. To make accurate comparisons among ports or port facilities, the boundaries for data collection need to be consistent or the data must be adjusted accordingly. Ports confront the issue of determining an analytical boundary when conducting inventories of their air emis- sions. For example, when estimating air emissions from heavy-duty trucks that service a port, one may choose to include emissions from queuing at terminal entry gates, from travel and idling within the terminals, and from queuing at the terminal exit gates. Alternatively, for freight leav- ing the port by truck, one could include the emissions from truck travel to the cargo’s first point of rest within the local air basin or up to the basin’s boundary, whichever comes first. If the region in which the port is located is not yet in compliance with federal air quality standards, one could use the federally designated boundaries of the non-attainment area. The same issue arises with regard to ocean-going vessels. A benchmarking study could consider only the emissions produced while ocean-going vessels are docked or “hotelling” at the port. Alternatively, it could also include emissions produced while the vessel is traveling within a certain distance of the port (e.g., 20 nautical miles). Some ports have taken steps to encourage or require vessels to reduce speed or switch to cleaner fuels when within a certain distance of the port. Using a boundary that extends out to sea would capture the effects of such initiatives on a port’s environmental performance. Level Requirements 1 Comply with existing regulatory requirements. 2 Distribute an internal directive to ensure that a set of five specified practices is applied on all its ships. 3 Complete an annual SOx emissions inventory for the company's entire fleet. For at least one ship, use marine diesel or a fuel with sulfur content of 0.5% or less when ship is docked. 4 Allocate 25 % of the company's annual fuel consumption to fuel with sulfur content of 1.5% or less, or use technologies to attain the same level of sulfur emissions. For a majority of fleet, use marine diesel or a fuel with sulfur content of 0.5% or less when ships are docked. 5 Allocate 75 % of the company's annual fuel consumption to fuel with sulfur content of 1.5% or less, or use technologies to attain the same level of sulfur emissions. For entire fleet, use marine diesel or a fuel with sulfur content of 0.5% or less when ships are docked. Exhibit 21. Green Marine carrier scoring levels for SOx emissions.19 19Green Marine, 2009 Self-Evaluation Guide for Shipowners, http://www.green-marine.org/images/stories/ shipownersinteractiveselfevaluationguide2009.pdf

environmental Benchmarking approaches and Metrics by Sector 49 Functional Unit Environmental Performance Metric Level of Analysis O rg an iz at io n Fl ee t Fa ci lit y Co rr id or Work units (e.g., container movements, tons handled, hours of operation) Emissions per work unit Fuel consumption per work unit Drayage trips per container Drayage VMT per container Equipment or infrastructure inventory % of cranes electrified % of yard trucks using alternative fuels % of tugs using low-sulfur fuels % of equipment meeting specific U.S. EPA engine emissions standards Vessel calls % of vessel calls using shore power % of vessel calls using low-sulfur fuels for auxiliary power % of vessel calls complying with speed reduction program Truck visits Average minutes of delay at gates per truck visit Port truck VMT per visit Kilowatt-hours (kWh) % of electricity from renewable sources Square footage of terminal(s) Emissions per square foot related to electricity, heating, and cooling Container movements % of containers moving by on-dock rail % of containers moving by near-dock rail Exhibit 22. Marine port metrics. Metrics Exhibit 22 provides marine port metrics. Programs and Tools Increasingly, ports are completing emissions inventories and developing clean air strategies or plans. The most comprehensive of these plans include goals and performance measures for gauging progress toward those goals over time. Benchmarking the Port of Seattle’s Performance The Port of Seattle Carbon Footprint Study benchmarks the carbon footprint of specific trade gateways and was the first of its kind. The study is an important tool in the larger effort to measure environmental performance and enhance the competitive position of the port. The study was conducted to measure the corridor-level emissions impacts of freight moved through Seattle compared to freight moved through other ports. The study covers shipments from Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Singapore to Chicago, Columbus, and Memphis by vessel and rail through the ports of Prince Rupert, Seattle, Oakland, and Los Angeles/Long Beach. It also analyzes routes via the Panama and Suez Canals through the ports of Houston, Savannah, Norfolk, and New York. Ships sized at 4,500, 6,500, 8,500, and 12,500 TEUs (20-foot equivalent units) were included in the study, as was the year 2014 expansion of the Panama Canal. According to the study, Seattle is the “Green Gateway” to 180 million American consumers. Intermodal shipments moving from Asia to the Midwest through the Port of Seattle produced fewer greenhouse gas emissions compared to East Coast ports.

50 handbook on applying environmental Benchmarking in Freight transportation In recent years, there has been an outpouring of generalized guidance for conducting green- house gas inventories; however, two available documents are tailored specifically to the needs of marine ports: • U.S. EPA. Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories (April 2009)20 • World Ports Climate Initiative. Carbon Footprinting for Ports (June 2010)21 EPA SmartWay DrayFLEET Model. This model assesses truck emissions and various tech- nical and management options for reducing emissions and fuel consumption from truck drayage activity. This might include virtual container yards, chassis pools, or on-dock rail. The user can also assess technological options targeted to drayage trucks (such as diesel par- ticulate filters or oxidation catalysts, idle control technologies, etc). See http://www.epa.gov/smartway/documents/partnership/trucks/drayage/smartway-dray- fleet-v1-0f-users-guide.pdf for further information. The Diesel Emissions Quantifier. Quantifier is an interactive tool to help state/local govern- ments, fleet owners/operators, school districts, municipalities, contractors, port authorities, and others estimate emission reductions and cost effectiveness for clean diesel projects. Estimates are made using specific information about a fleet. For those applying to EPA, or some other federal or state/local funding assistance program, this site will help prepare and submit diesel emissions data to EPA. EPA has built the Quantifier based on existing EPA tools and guidance, and the Quantifier can be used by potential grantees, state and local governments, metropolitan plan- ning organizations, and fleet owners and operators, among others. The Quantifier uses emission factors and other information from EPA’s MOVES 2010 Model and the NONROAD 2008 Model. See http://cfpub.epa.gov/quantifier/ for further information. 6.6 Airports Key Issues Determining Boundaries for Performance Measurement. To make accurate comparisons among airports or air freight facilities, the boundaries for data collection need to be consistent or the data must be adjusted accordingly. Boundary issues related to air emissions from aircraft and from vehicles dropping off or picking up air freight are discussed separately below. Boundaries for Emissions from Aircraft. For attributing aircraft emissions of criteria air pol- lutants to an airport, U.S. EPA has developed standard procedures for estimating emissions from aircraft landings, ground activity, and takeoffs. This set of activities is collectively referred to as the “landing and takeoff (LTO) cycle.” EPA procedures call for including all aircraft emissions that occur in the “mixing zone,” the vertical column of air that ultimately affects ground-level concen- trations of pollutants. The height of the mixing zone is roughly 3,000 feet, but it varies according to local meteorological conditions.22 This boundary could be used to estimate and benchmark the emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with freight activity at a particular airport. 20http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/documents/ports-emission-inv-april09.pdf 21http://www.wpci.nl/docs/presentations/PV_DRAFT_WPCI_Carbon_Footprinting_Guidance_Doc- June-30-2010_scg.pdf 22EPA, Procedures for Emissions Inventory, Vol. 4, Chapter 5, http://www.epa.gov/oms/invntory/r92009.pdf. See also FAA, Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases, April 1997, Appendix D: Aircraft Emission Methodology, http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/airquality_ handbook/media/App_D.pdf

environmental Benchmarking approaches and Metrics by Sector 51 Determining the appropriate boundaries for estimating GHG emissions from freight opera- tions at an airport is less clear-cut because the effects of GHG emissions are global rather than local in nature. For the preparation of national GHG inventories, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidance calls for attributing GHG emissions from international aircraft trips to the country of departure.23 In keeping with the IPCC guidance, ACRP Report 11 suggests that for an airport GHG inventory, each flight’s GHG emissions should be attributed to the departure airport only.24 However, alternate approaches may be appropriate for a par- ticular benchmarking study. For example, one could exclude all aircraft emissions during flight and focus only on emissions from all ground operations (including aircraft taxiing and idling). Selecting the appropriate boundary for a benchmarking study of GHG emissions from air freight operations will depend on the organization conducting the study and the purpose of the study. Boundaries for Emissions from Ground Access Vehicles. When benchmarking the air emis- sions related to an air freight facility, one may decide to include emissions from vehicles drop- ping off or picking up freight at an airport, also known as “ground access vehicles.” The same conceptual issues that arise when considering aircraft emissions also arise when considering emissions from ground access vehicles. For criteria air pollutants, one could include emissions from all travel of ground access vehicles within the boundaries of the local air basin. If the region in which the airport is located is not yet in compliance with federal air quality standards, one could use the federally designated boundaries of the non-attainment area. Alternatively, for a more narrow focus, one could benchmark using only on-airport emissions from ground access vehicles, including any resulting from engine idling. Because of the global nature of the impact of GHG emissions, ACRP Report 11 suggests that GHG emissions from ground access vehicles be estimated based on each vehicle’s point of origin, regardless of its location. This recommendation is based on the assumption that the vehicle would not have traveled to the airport unless the driver needed to conduct some activity there.25 Accounting for the Environmental Impacts of Freight Carried by Passenger Aircraft. To include the environmental impacts from the transport of belly cargo in an airport benchmarking study, one would need to allocate environmental impacts of a passenger aircraft activity between passengers and cargo. This division is typically done on the basis of the weight of passengers and luggage versus the weight of air freight. Metrics Exhibit 23 lists airport metrics. Programs and Tools The ACI-NA Environmental Benchmarking Survey is an important resource on comparative environmental performance for airports. The ACI-NA survey covers a wide range of airports, but the data is not specific to freight facilities at airports. 23Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 2, Chapter 3, http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_3_Ch3_Mobile_ Combustion.pdf 24TRB, ACRP Report 11: Guidebook on Preparing Airport Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories, http://www.trb. org/Main/Public/Blurbs/160829.aspx 25TRB, ACRP Report 11, Appendix E, p. 73, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_webdoc_002.pdf

52 handbook on applying environmental Benchmarking in Freight transportation Public reports available from individual airports are another important resource. For exam- ple, Massport’s 2008 Environmental Data Report for Boston Logan International Airport provides detailed environmental data for air cargo operations at its airport. Such data can be useful for comparative purposes. In 2009, TRB published ACRP Report 11: Guidebook on Preparing Airport Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories. This document discusses approaches to, and methods for, estimating GHG emissions from airport operations. 6.7 Shippers and Receivers Key Issues There are a variety of factors that could contribute to differences in the environmental perfor- mance of shippers and receivers. These factors should be acknowledged and accounted for when Functional Unit Environmental Performance Metric Level of Analysis O rg an iz at io n Fl ee t Fa ci lit y Co rr id or Work units (e.g., tons handled, # of landings or take-offs, hours of operation) Fuel consumption per work unit Emissions per work unit Equipment or infrastructure inventory % of ground vehicle and ground service equipment fleet that is low-emission (e.g., electric, natural gas, LNG, CNG, E85, M85, hydrogen, biodiesel) % of equipment meeting specific U.S. EPA engine emissions standards # of aircraft visits % of visits using auxiliary electrical power and/or pre-conditioned air Ground access vehicle trips Average idling time per freight-related visit to airport Tons of freight handled, landing/take-off (LTO) operation Air emissions per ton of freight handled or per LTO Infrastructure inventory % of freight docks or loading bridges equipped with auxiliary electrical power and/or pre-conditioned air Equipment % of ground vehicle and ground service equipment fleet that is low-emission (e.g., electric, natural gas, LNG, CNG, E85, M85, hydrogen, biodiesel) # of aircraft gate visits % of visits using auxiliary electrical power and/or pre-conditioned air # of LTOs Average number of minutes of runway delay per take-off of cargo aircraft Kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity consumption % of total energy used that is from renewable sources Ground access vehicle trips On-airport VMT traveled per visit Average idling time per visit Exhibit 23. Airport metrics.

environmental Benchmarking approaches and Metrics by Sector 53 benchmarking companies. This could be done through the selection of peers or through the design of the performance metrics used. The factors that should be considered include the following: • Use of private/dedicated fleets vs. outside carriers—Private/dedicated fleets may be oper- ated differently than for-hire fleets. For instance, private/dedicated fleets often have a greater percentage of empty miles than for-hire fleets, but the owners of private fleets bear this cost to provide a higher level of service to their customers. • Type of commodity—The type of commodity will influence the choice of transportation mode and the level of service provided. Therefore, when performing a benchmarking study, it may be desirable to segment companies by types of commodities shipped and received. • Geography—Geographical location has multiple influences on freight environmental per- formance. Access to transportation modes varies by geographical location. Topography along the routes to customers or suppliers will affect the fuel efficiency of truck or rail operations. The distance of company facilities from suppliers and customers will also affect the amount of freight activity (e.g., miles, ton-miles), as well as the types of transportation mode selected. • Company size—Some companies may coordinate thousands of different types of products and shipments from various companies, while others coordinate only a handful of goods. The num- ber and amount of commodities received will influence the frequency and type of transportation service needed. It will also affect activity at the loading docks and facilities. Additionally, larger companies may be able to implement operational changes that smaller companies cannot make. Therefore, when doing benchmarking, some consideration should be given to company size. • Facility size—Some receivers have space to accept deliveries when carriers arrive with cargo, while others may have limited loading space at docks, or limited parking areas to drop and hook trailers, which will result in more idling while the truck waits to unload. • Inventory management practices—Companies whose business model depends on lean or “just-in-time” inventories, such as manufacturing and retail operations, will require different transportation services than companies that maintain larger inventory buffer stocks. Metrics See Exhibit 24 for shipper and receiver metrics. Programs and Tools The SmartWay Partnership Shipper Tool is a measurement tool that can be used to evaluate the actions that shippers or third-party logistics companies are taking to save fuel and reduce emissions through their choice of carriers. See http://www.epa.gov/smartway/partnership/shippers.htm for further information. Chainalytics works with shippers to define, measure, and reduce the environmental impact of their supply chains. Chainalytic’s services will help companies to determine a GHG emission baseline and subsequent energy reduction goals. Once the baseline and goals are developed, Chainalytics will work with the supplier to identify opportunities for GHG reductions within the supplier network, inventory, transportation network, and customer policies. See http://www.chainalytics.com/services/sustainability.asp for further information. Supply Chain Council (SCC) developed the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model to assist companies with supply chain management systems and practices. SCC offers a supply chain benchmarking service with APQC based on SCOR Model metrics. Through this service, shippers can set performance goals, calculate performance gaps, and develop company- specific roadmaps. See http://supply-chain.org/scormark for further information.

54 handbook on applying environmental Benchmarking in Freight transportation The Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals offers an online benchmarking service in areas including customer order management and logistics. See http://cscmp.org/resources/benchmark-tool.asp for further information. Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) is a database of publicly disclosed greenhouse gas emis- sions from organizations around the world. Companies disclose this information to set reduc- tion targets, make performance improvements, and benchmark against their peers. CDP groups companies into different categories, including a supply chain category. See https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Pages/HomePage.aspx for further information. Functional Unit Environmental Performance Metric Level of Analysis O rg an iz at io n Fl ee t Fa ci lit y Co rr id or $ of revenue, $ of purchases Total emissions per $ of revenue or $ of purchases Electricity consumption per $ of revenue Electricity consumption per $ of purchases Tons # of shipments Total emissions per ton or per shipment Square footage Electricity-related emissions per square foot Electricity consumption per square foot Electricity % of electricity purchased from renewable sources Year of operation # of people exposed to a specific concentration of emissions from facility # of truck visits Average truck wait time at loading dock Average truck idling time at loading dock # of forklifts % of forklifts that use alternative fuels (e.g., electric, propane) # of vehicles % of alternative-fuel vehicles in light-duty fleet Year of company operation Percentage of SmartWay carriers # of shipments Average miles traveled per shipment Average emissions per shipment Fleet in operation % of trailers with specific fuel-efficiency features (e.g., aerodynamics, weight reduction) $ of revenue Total purchased truck and air miles of transportation per $ of revenue $ of transportation expenditure, $ of revenue % of transportation expenditure by mode % of revenue shipped by mode Ton-miles, miles, volume, trips % of ton-miles by mode % of transportation miles by mode % of volume by mode % of trips by mode # of employees or facilities % of employees working in facilities certified to ISO 14001 standards % of facilities certified to ISO 14001 standards # of inspections % of environmental inspections resulting in penalties Length of supply chain Average distance to shippers or receivers from nearest facility location Regional density of customers Exhibit 24. Shipper and receiver metrics.

Next: Chapter 7 - Benchmarking Implementation Issues »
Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Freight Cooperative Research Program (NFCRP) Report 21: Handbook on Applying Environmental Benchmarking in Freight Transportation explores how benchmarking can be used as a management tool in the freight and logistics industry to promote environmental performance.

The report provides a step-by-step overview of the benchmarking process and describes a framework for applying this process to freight carriers, shippers, and freight hubs.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!