Tools for Addressing Community Concerns Tim Eaton General Manager Safety and Environment

Resident Concerns about Freight Safety Noise Air Quality Health Amenity

ALGA Draft Strategy safer, quieter, cleaner freight vehicles alleviating freight impacts on local amenity minimising community impacts good safety and environmental outcomes

NTC programs Safety Environment fatigue (inc rest areas) speed heavy Vehicle Safety Strategy Environment noise emissions

Air Quality New Vehicle Emission Standards Fuel Quality Standards In-service Emission Standards Maintenance is the key

Light Vehicles Euro 4 for petrol, LPG, NG in 2008/10 95 and 98 RON petrol at 50ppm sulfur 2008 10ppm sulfur levels under review (2010?)

Heavy Vehicles Euro 4 for diesel engines in 2007/8 (noise standards at same time) 10ppm sulfur diesel in 2009 Euro 5 for diesel engines in 2010/11 (US and Japanese as alternatives) On-board diagnostics mandatory

Emission Reduction Already Achieved In 8 years we’ve come a long way!!! Vehicles deliver 75% lower NOx emissions. Particulates reduced by over 90%.

USA On-Highway Regulations 1988 to 2010 EPA ‘88 EPA ‘91 EPA 07/10 EPA ‘04 EPA ‘94 EPA ‘98

Emission std close-up

Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI) Caterpillar HCCI Results (2003) Emissions are IN cylinder

Path taken Euro5 Euro4

Evolution of On-Highway Standards EPA & Euro 0.01 0.10 0.2 1.2 2.5 4.0 5.0 EPA 1994 EPA 1999 EPA 2004 PARTICULATE [g/HP-hr] NOx [g/HP-hr] Euro 2 1996 Euro 3 2001 EPA 2010 EPA 2007 (avg) Euro 5 2009 Euro 4 2006 0.075 0.11 0.015 ULSD 15 PPM (6/06) 500 PPM (6/93) SULFUR EPA 10 PPM (1/09) (10/96) Euro

Recirculated and cooled exhaust gas Technical solutions Engine control unit Urea Air Catalytic converter Engine Exhaust gas NH3 + NOx → N2 + H2O Recirculated and cooled exhaust gas I will now shortly describe how we look upon the two solutions to the NOx emission challenge … cooled EGR … and SCR. We are working with both technologies … so what are the benefits and the drawbacks from a customer’s point of view? Intake air Exhaust gas Cooled EGR SCR * ** * Exhaust gas recirculation ** Selective catalytic reduction

Urea supply and price still unclear Operating economy Scania SCR Scania EGR Fuel saving 3-4% (V8) Urea solution 5-6% Euro 5 Urea solution Fuel saving 3-4% (V8) Euro 4 3-4% Fuel Euro 3 Fuel Euro 4 Fuel Euro 5 Scania has managed to maintain about the same fuel economy from Euro 1 to Euro 2 … to Euro 3 … and now, with Scania EGR for Euro 4. With our full range of Euro 5 engines with Scania EGR … we will be able to do it again. Lower emissions without any fuel penalty. We know that an SCR vehicle consumes slightly less fuel ... but you need to add the cost of the urea solution. To reach Euro 5 with SCR, you need to add up to 6% of urea solution. These are examples for our V8 engines with SCR. Then you need to add the cost for the urea solution. The pump price of the urea solution in Germany … where it is available at a few service stations … is around 60 cents. In a 10-litre canister it may cost up to 70 cents per litre. (So far, there is no tax on it.) All-in-all, our conclusion is that the balance is very even. The price of the urea solution can tip the balance either way. SCR involves some extra handling and there is an important difference in environmental performance. But there are other factors to consider as well. Proven technology Urea supply and price still unclear

Integrating Critical Subsystems

Fuel consumed per tonne-km (= CO2 emissions) More efficient road transport Engine improvement Rolling resistance Aerodynamic drag Increased payload capacity 50% Driver influence 10 percent A lot has happened in transport efficiency since 1970. The amount of fuel needed to transport one tonne has been halved … thanks to various technical gains and legislation changes. Powertrain improvements account for 10 percent … which may seem low ... but that’s quite an achievement … since during this period we have passed several steps in emission control. Other technical steps have been taken in rolling resistance and aerodynamics. The increase in load-carrying capacity has been achieved partly through vehicle re-design ... for less weight and more space for the cargo ... but the authorities have also contributed by changing the regulations ... for example by raising the permitted gross weights. But more can be done. Scania's driver training programme shows clearly that the difference in fuel efficiency between a bad driver and a good one … can be as much as 20 percent … and driver training has a lasting effect of around 10 percent in fuel saving. Let’s now look deeper into the potential of powertrain technology. 1970 2000 Fuel consumed per tonne-km (= CO2 emissions)

Environmental Performance No of trucks 2 3 7 11 Fuel Syd-Bris 1.105 L 1.300 L 2.191 L 2.860 L NOx kg 22 26 44 57 PM g 390 460 770 1000 CO2 ton 3,0 3,5 5,9 7,7 (Minus 2 Pallets) Source: Volvo Trucks

Understanding Road Use Future Directions Brisbane Urban Corridor Trial Five monitoring stations supporting night-time truck trial on Logan Motorway. Development of real-time data analysis tools Integration with vehicle classifiers and Weigh in Motion Site Installation into Other Major Road Corridors Gateway Upgrade Project

The Problem: Vehicle Noise ADR 83/00 gazetted in March new generation of standards for all vehicles (motorbikes to trucks). Lowers engine noise levels Won’t do anything about engine brakes Engine brakes major source of community complaint ATC asked NTC to address the matter

What are Engine Brakes? Secondary retarders Assists heavy vehicles to slow down without use of service brakes (no cost!) exhaust brakes hydraulic retarders electromagnetic retarders regenerative brakes (future) engine brakes Jacobs or “Jake Brake”

Hydraulic retarders: Quiet! “the thing that impressed us most was Scania’s brilliant, and utterly silent, hydraulic retarder. If the Scania was hauling 42tonnes and slowing down outside your bedroom window, you wouldn’t know about it. Urban dwellers can thank Scania for that. Truck operators can thank them for making possible real reductions in wheel brake maintenance costs. This is the most comfortable Truck I’ve ever driven” Barry Ashenhurst “Welcome to first class” in Truck Australia, May 2002

Other engine brakes: Quiet! VGT gives quieter maximum braking capacity fuel savings of 5% 20% less weight noise levels one quarter of predecessor reduced operating costs 15% to 20% source www.iveco.com.au

Jacobs Engine Brake

Normal compression stroke With Jake-brake engaged Courtesy www.Jake-Brake.com

Some Facts: Secondary retarders are a cost saving device They save wear on the service brakes They are not mandated anywhere in the world, but almost every heavy truck has one Most forms of secondary retarders remain quiet throughout their lifetime All engine brakes are reasonably quiet when new because the oem mufflers are well designed in in good condition Jacobs brake will become noisy when mufflers deteriorate or are replaced with inferior produce The vehicle will still meets the in-service noise standard because it’s a stationary test (engine brake won’t work)

Solutions We just need them to fit decent mufflers! Many ways of achieving this: do a stationary test X reverse-drive by under controlled conditions X pull-over noisy vehicles and check muffler integrity X roadside measurement using agreed descriptor ? Providing incentives etc is not a performance based outcome and might cause perverse outcomes - ie noisy hydraulic retarders Restricting the use creates a safety issue - a battle we can’t win Yes we want to ensure good maintenance but how? There are already maintenance systems in place and we still have noisy engine brakes

2002/3 Test Program 600 trucks tested on the road 6 locations in NSW & SA Release “Engine Brake Noise: Development of a Roadside Test Procedure” on 1 September 2003 Proposes modulation characteristic to identify trucks with noisy engine brakes Decibels poor method of capturing annoying noise such as engine brakes

Modulation characteristic

Picking a ‘threshold’ level of annoyance using modulation RTA engage experts to design methodology to determine a reasonable level January 2006 Run a series of panels using community participants Pick a reasonable threshold level during public consultation

Unacceptable Modulation No modulation

Practical application of the modulation characteristic Need to be able to identify noisy engine brakes quickly and efficiently (at the roadside) Need standard measurement equipment with ‘modulation’ feature Put it in a camera and run a trial

Key issue: Can all trucks meet the new standard at a reasonable cost? We know it’s just about mufflers RTA test program Use available mufflers (varying quality) Give industry information about the choice of the muffler

Proposed regulation Set in-service noise limit for engine brakes based on a community derived ‘annoyance’ level Application Australia-wide Level of enforcement up to jurisdictions Engine brake ‘bans’ in certain areas Address the safety issue Not mandated Only plausible safety argument is for long, steep descents Flat low-speed highly populated environments may demand no engine brake noise at all

Key Costs and Benefits Cost to truck operators with poor mufflers: Either upgrade muffler(s) or Rely more on the service brakes (wear and tear) Enforcement Costs Benefit to community of reduction in engine brake noise (‘internalise externality’) Engaged ARRB to assist with analysis Positive outcome over longer term

Process Public consultation phase is critical Opportunity to review methodology Need to set a reasonable level Reasonable for both operators and the community Need to consult on perceived safety issues Fine tune costs and benefits Confirm the relative importance of this issue to the community

Process (cont) Consider submissions, hold meetings, release public response document Propose final policy supported by RIS Formal submission to ATC Jurisdictions build into road transport or environment legislation

Crash-zone concept Energy absorption enough to transform a 80 - 90 km/h car to truck frontal collision into an equal 60 km/h crash

300 mm length and 150 - 250 kg weight added. Extra weight and length Crash-zone concept 300 mm length and 150 - 250 kg weight added. Extra weight and length should be permitted 300 mm

Crash-zone concept Trailer-back Cars