Research in Transportation Economics 48 (2014) 323e329

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Transportation Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/retrec

Exhaust emissions of transit buses: Brazil and India case studies

Erin Cooper a, *, 1, Magdala Arioli b, c, Aileen Carrigan a, Luis Antonio Lindau b, c
a
EMBARQ, Washington, DC, USA
b
EMBARQ Brasil, Porto Alegre, Brazil
c rio de Sistemas de Transporte, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, UFRGS, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Laborato

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In order to aid fleet fuel choices, specifically in Brazil and India, this report compiles emissions testing
Available online 11 November 2014 data from in-use or real world drive cycle tests. The data is used to compare the range of emissions for
four emissions that are commonly regulated by emissions standards (CO, THC, NOx, PM) and CO2
Keywords: emissions. The combined results of the analysis show some of the best performing fuel options in Brazil
Transit bus emissions and India are 20% blend Biodiesel with Diesel Particular Filter and Selective Catalytic Reduction
Heavy-duty vehicles
(B20 þ DPF þ SCR) and Compressed Natural Gas with Three Way Catalyst (CNG þ 3WC). However, other
CO2
fuel or technology options provide meaningful results e CNG fuels or Hybrid buses can provide signif-
Air pollution
icant PM reductions or CO2 reductions, respectively. For fleet decisions, further aspects of the local
context should be considered as well, such as the impact of maintenance practices, altitude, and local
driving cycles on emissions when making vehicle decisions. Also, the usual practice of covering the
capital costs out of user fares may not be applicable for the introduction of cleaner buses; the use of
national and international funds may be applicable, as the cleaner technologies help achieve energy
consumption or emissions reduction targets.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Transport is an important component of urban strategies to
meet local and global environmental goals, such as air pollution
and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets. Mexico City, for
example, was able to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent
emissions by 4.8 million metric tons (Ecoseed, 2011) while
improving the local air quality (ICLEI, 2010). Transport was a major
contributor, including the use of cleaner vehicles (An, Earley, &
Green-Weiskel, 2011). While focus is often on light-duty vehicles,
freight and sometimes buses, are responsible for more CO2 emis-
sions in low and middle income countries (Schipper, Fabian, &
Leather, 2009). The situation is similar with air pollutants that
result in health problems (Walsh, 2012).
Knowing that cleaner transit vehicles can contribute to impor-
tant air pollutant and CO2 reductions begs the question, which fuel
type is the best? Though there is abundant information regarding
the impact of alternative fuels and technologies on emissions
(UNEP, 2009), it is often difficult for transit agencies to determine
* Corresponding author. EMBARQ, World Resources Institute, 10 G St. NE #800,
Washington, DC 20002, USA. Tel.: þ1 202 729 7730.
E-mail address: ecooper@wri.org (E. Cooper).
1
Presenting author.
which is the best fuel and technology to reduce emissions in their
specific location. The reports and information that are available
often reflect conditions in the US or Europe, and within a specific
city and set of operating conditions, which is not directly trans-
ferable to cities worldwide. This report aims to interpret the
available data for use in a variety of cases.
The question of which bus is best also goes beyond simply
choosing a cleaner fuel to understanding the context of govern-
ment and transit agency policies that impact fleet decisions. How
fleets are operated and procured, publicly or privately, and the
amount of subsidy supporting transit has an impact on the like-
lihood of changing to renewable fuels. Related government pol-
icies range from mandating the use of a particular fuel, to
supporting renewable fuels, to developing targets which need to
be achieved regardless of fuel type. One important set of policies
are emissions standards. Emissions standards have been set in
many countries to drive technological innovation to reduce
emissions (An et al., 2011). These standards are considered tech-
nology neutral, in that any fuel or technology that can meet the
standards can be used. As a result, emissions rates of regulated
emissions for all fuel types are moving closer to the same value as
emissions standards improve. Nevertheless, different fuels still
have different emissions characteristics which also vary by country
as fuel quality varies. At the same time, as sustainability becomes
more important, fleet operators in the public or private sector, are

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2014.09.059
0739-8859/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
324 E. Cooper et al. / Research in Transportation Economics 48 (2014) 323e329
interested in investing in the most effective technologies to make
the largest emissions reductions.
To aid fleet operators in making their fleet selection decisions,
this paper looks at fuel and technology combinations that will be
relevant for transit vehicles over the next decade in Brazil and India.
Emissions data was collected from reports by transit agencies and
research institutes reflecting on-road emissions testing or labora-
tory testing using real city drive cycles. The resulting analysis shows
likely emissions ranges from each of the fuel and technology
combinations. This information can be used to inform fleet de-
cisions intended to reduce emissions and potentially meet air
quality and GHG reduction targets as they are developed.
2. Theory
For decades, fuel combustion in vehicles has been linked to air
quality and health problems. Air pollution is a major environmental
health problem affecting people worldwide. According to the
World Health Organization (WHO), more than two million pre-
mature deaths each year can be attributed to the effects of urban
outdoor air pollution, at least partly caused by fuel combustion
(WHO, 2006). More recently, the relationship between these issues
and specific pollutants, listed below, has become clearer through
research. Another major concern of vehicle exhaust is the impact of
greenhouse gas emissions on global climate change. Roughly 23% of
GHG emissions energy related are produced by the transport sector
(IPCC, 2007).
Harmful vehicle exhaust emissions, with a variety of affects
contributing to environmental and health problems, have been
identified and are regulated by improving fuel quality, by improving
vehicle technology or fuel economy, or remain unregulated. This
paper looks at the pollutants that are regulated through vehicle
emissions standards (Carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC),
Nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM)) because of their
impact and because a large amount of data is available regarding
these emissions due to the fact that they are regulated. Though still
unregulated in most places, this paper also looks at CO2 emissions.
Regulation of GHG emissions is more recent in the United States
and Europe. The European Union emission standard for GHG
emissions currently covers only passenger cars and vans, but not
heavy-duty vehicles. Because there is currently no after-treatment
technology that can reduce CO2 emissions from road vehicles, CO2
reductions are achieved through fuel efficiency improvements
(Lindqvist, 2012). In the United States, the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) have developed the first GHG regulations
for heavy-duty engines and vehicles. According to EPA, the regu-
lations will be phased in starting in 2014, and by 2018 the regula-
tions should create an average reduction in GHG emissions per
vehicle by 17 percent. The proposed standards are expected to save
more than six billion barrels of oil through 2025 and reduce more
than 3.1 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions (EPA, 2012).
Interest in using alternative fuels has grown as a way of
exploring possible improvements over diesel in air quality and
greenhouse gas emissions. In selecting particular bus technologies,
transit agencies must balance fuel and vehicle availability, local
conditions, service needs, and costs. Various fuel options have been
tested as part of national programs through institute testing and
agency pilot programs and locally through agency testing (Cooper,
Arioli, Carrigan, & Jain, 2012). Despite this testing, these results
may not apply to other locations and are often not aggregated into
one database where direct comparisons between fuels can be made.
Also, among many possible fuels and exhaust after-treatment
technology combinations, not all of these combinations will be
available in the next decade in all countries and at all transit
agencies. Table 1 shows the fuels currently being used by agencies in
two target countries of this report. Brazil has a wide variety of fuels
available. In India, as a result of a Supreme Court order, 13 major
cities were required to use CNG buses starting in 2001, while diesel
fuel is still available for buses in other cities (Roychowdhry, 2010).
2.1. Fuel and technology alternatives
The following is a discussion of fuels, associated technologies,
and emissions characteristics. This provides background for the
analysis by showing the general characteristics of fuels. However
these general characteristics do not capture the full range of
emissions impact of the fuel which is assessed in the analysis. This
also does not discuss lifecycle emissions related to particular fuels
or fuel sources. Lifecycle emissions can make a significant impact
on the total GHG emissions of a fuel relative to other fuels, partic-
ularly for biodiesel and ethanol.
2.1.1. Diesel
While searching for optimal alternative fuels, it is important to
understand why diesel remains an important fuel in urban transit:
its high energy density allows for a smaller volume of fuel to
transport a bus further. Many improvements have been made to
diesel buses over decades to reduce emissions, and the most recent
emissions standards in the US show that buses using any fuel type
will comply with the same stringent emissions standards.
Most diesel fuel available is petroleum diesel refined from crude
oil (TCRP, 2011). Individual countries offer various grades of diesel
that have different sulfur contents. Diesel emissions are affected by
the amount of sulfur in the diesel as well as the emission-reduction
technologies. Reducing sulfur content in fuels is also a major
concern (UNEP, 2007), not only for reducing air pollution related to
sulfur, but also to allow for the use of exhaust after-treatment
technologies. Diesel fuel in developing countries commonly have
sulfur content levels above 500 parts per million (ppm); sulfur
levels below this value allow for the use oxidation catalysts. Below
50 ppm, additional emissions reduction technologies are available
(UNEP, 2007). Major pollutant concerns for diesel fuel are NOx and
PM emissions (Nylund, Erkkila, Lappi, & Ikonen, 2004).
There are many technologies that help to reduce diesel
emissions:
 A Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC) utilizes a chemical process to
break down pollutants from diesel engines in the exhaust
stream, turning them into less harmful compounds. This re-
duces PM, HC, and CO emissions (Translink, 2006). DOC can only
be used below 500 ppm sulfur content in diesel (UNEP, 2007).
Table 1
Fuels and technologies currently being used by transit agencies in Brazil and India.
Brazil India
Fuel Low-sulfur diesel x x
Diesel x x
Ethanol x
B5 x
B20 x
B100 x
CNG x
Technology Hybrid x
DPF x x
EGR x x
SCR x x
OC x x
3WC x
Low-sulfur diesel is 50 ppm.
3WC e Three-way catalyst.
 E. Cooper et al. / Research in Transportation Economics 48 (2014) 323e329 325

 A Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) removes carbon monoxide, hy- ethanol from corn and sugarcane. Compared to diesel, ethanol
drocarbons and particulate matter from the exhaust. Carbon buses with current technologies have fewer emissions of HC, PM,
monoxide and hydrocarbons are converted to carbon dioxide and CO, and depending on the blend can have lower PM emissions
and water. PM is removed through the oxidization of nitrogen as well (TCRP, 2011).
oxide (NO) into NO2. A DPF can reduce the amount of particulate
emissions from diesel to comparable levels with CNG 2.1.5. Hybrid diesel-electric
(Melendez, Taylor, Zuboy, Wayne, & Smith, 2005). A DPF tends Exhaust emissions associated with a hybrid are the same as the
to have a greater effect on reducing large particles, greater than emissions associated with internal combustion engines, but there
100 nm (Nylund et al., 2004). A DPF is only effective with diesel can be a reduction in emissions resulting from the fact that hybrid
fuel with sulfur content less than 50 ppm (UNEP, 2007). systems consume less fuel. This is a result of the electric motor
 Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) forces exhaust gases (mainly aiding in acceleration and low-speed operations (IEA, 2013).
containing inert nitrogen, CO2, and water vapor) into the engine
cylinders. This recirculation cools the engine, thereby reducing
2.2. Emissions standards
NOx emissions and possibly particulate matter (Murtonen &
Aakko-Saksa, 2009).
National governments use emissions standards and testing to
 Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) reduces NOx, through the
control the amount and types of harmful emissions that are
combination of urea and water with the exhaust gases, to pro-
released into the environment as a direct result of fuel combustion.
duce nitrogen and water (Murtonen & Aakko-Saksa, 2009). SCR
The exhaust emissions considered in this report are based on pol-
can reduce NOx emissions by 75e90 percent (TCRP, 2011).
lutants regulated by both the European Union emissions standards
(Euro) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards,
which include NOx, THC or NMHC, PM, and CO. Table 2 shows the
2.1.2. Natural gas
progression of these standards over time. Emissions standards in
Natural gas is a common fossil energy source with high methane
other countries are often based on these standards. As of 2013,
content that is compressed to increase energy density (TCRP, 2011).
Brazil and India had standards roughly equivalent to Euro V and
CNG emissions are mainly in the form of methane and NOx.
Euro IV respectively.
Compared to diesel, PM and NOx emissions are lower for CNG,
According to the standards, during emissions testing, vehicles
although the amount of reduction varies by bus (Melendez et al.,
must meet emissions limits for a variety of drive cycles. Euro
2005). CNG generally has low particulate emissions, although the
emissions standards use two specific drive cycles. Since 2000, these
fuel still emits particles that are harmful to health. With higher
cycles have been the European Stationary Cycle (ESC), a sequence of
passenger loads, the amount of PM can increase to levels compa-
constant speeds and loads, and the European Transient Cycle (ETC),
rable to diesel (Jayaratne, Ristovski, Meyer, & Morawaska, 2009;
which simulates typical driving patterns. The drive cycles required
Nylund et al., 2004). CNG also emits higher quantities of formal-
for emissions testing in different countries can be based on inter-
dehydes and other nanoparticles with negative health impacts,
national standards as well as driving conditions in different loca-
even with oxidation catalysts.
tions (Dieselnet, 2013).
Several technologies are available to reduce emissions from CNG
While emissions standards are effective incentives for devel-
buses:
oping technologies that reduce emissions, they do not capture
emissions values in all possible scenarios of real world driving. For
 Oxidation Catalysts (OC) are designed to oxidize both CO and
example, reports show that the on-road NOx emissions for Euro IV
HC, resulting in the production of CO2. Oxidation catalysts can
and V vehicles can be higher than the levels shown in the emissions
reduce HC, CO, and CH4 emissions (Johnson Matthey, 2011;
standards (Lowell & Kamakate, 2012). For this reason, this report
Nylund et al., 2004; Translink, 2006).
looks at tests based on real drive cycles or in-use emissions testing.
 Three-way Catalysts (3WC), also known as oxidation-reduction
catalysts, are designed to oxidize both CO and HC and reduce
NOx. This results in the production of CO2, nitrogen, and water 3. Material and methods
(Johnson Matthey, 2011).
The goal of this analysis is to find a range of emissions resulting
from different fuel and technology combinations and understand
2.1.3. Biodiesel which factors contribute to lowering emissions. The fuels and
technologies included in the analyses are listed in Table 1. The
Biodiesel is derived from many sources. The studies referenced
here are primarily biodiesel from soy but canola and tallow are also following describes some key features of the meta-analysis meth-
included as sources. It has high energy content and similar fuel odology; the complete methodology and individual summaries of
efficiency to diesel. It is usually combined with petrol diesel. the studies used for background data are available in Cooper et al.
Vehicle technologies that can be used for diesel can be used for (2012). This report considers additional analyses and data. The
biodiesel blends. Biodiesel is naturally lower in sulfur than diesel, emissions data collected is based on testing performed in a similar
which can also reduce PM emissions (Translink, 2006). The differ-
ence between emissions for diesel and biodiesel depends on the Table 2
percent of the blend or the portion of diesel versus biodiesel. For Euro emissions standards for transit vehicles (g/km).
B20 mixes (i.e., 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent diesel), bio-
Emission standards Date CO THC NOx PM
diesel can reduce HC, CO, and PM emissions, while there can be a
Euro I 1992 8.1 1.98 14.4 0.648
slight increase in NOx emissions (McCormick, Williams, Ireland,
Euro II 1998 7.2 1.98 12.6 0.27
Brimhall, & Hayes, 2006). Euro III 2000 3.78 1.188 9 0.18
Euro IV 2005 2.7 0.828 6.3 0.036
2.1.4. Ethanol Euro V 2008 2.7 0.828 3.6 0.036
Ethanol, or ethyl alcohol, is typically made from corn, sugarcane, EEV 2.7 0.45 3.6 0.036
Euro VI 2013 2.7 0.234 0.72 0.018
or cellulosic feedstock (TCRP, 2011). The studies referenced here are
326 E. Cooper et al. / Research in Transportation Economics 48 (2014) 323e329

manner to emissions standards testing but using localized drive Table 3

cycles or on-road testing. Most of the data collected for this analysis ANOVA of emissions by fuel without technologies. Emissions are in g/km.

represent emissions results from lab tests. About 10 percent of the Mean T Mean I F-statistic
data is from field tests. Lab tests are performed with a chassis CO CNG 5.5 8.5 4.37*
dynamometer where the bus follows a specific drive cycle while D > 150 6.86 4.04 4.47*
emissions data are collected. Field tests involve collecting emis- D15 7.04 2.14 10.96**
sions data while a bus is being driven on its regular route in a city. Ethanol 4.4 24.5 172.61**
NOx D > 150 12.4 17.5 15.79**
This type of test does not follow a standard drive cycle and collects
PM CNG 0.29 0.028 26.75**
data from buses operating under normal conditions. For both types D > 150 0.21 0.389 9.44**
of tests, different loads or weights are often tested, which has an CO2 D15 1206 1428 22.42**
effect on emissions but is not addressed in this report. Mean T: the mean of the group without the tested fuel/technology
To understand what factors contribute to lower emissions, an Mean I: the mean of the tests for the tested fuel/technology.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test was run for each emissions type. F score: Due to degrees of freedom, the 95% significance level for the F-statistic is
An ANOVA test looks at means of selected groups, comparing the 3.84.
F prob: * denotes significance at 95%, ** denotes significance at 99%.
variance of means between groups to the variance of values within
groups, to see if the difference between the means of these groups
is random or statistically significant. In our analysis, this de- Table 3 shows that CNG is a very good option for reducing PM
termines which fuels or technologies have statistically significant emissions when emissions reduction technologies are not available.
impacts on emissions. There is not enough data to compare each Table 4 shows that technologies are very effective in reducing a
individual fuel and technology combination, so the comparisons variety of emissions, however different technologies have different
are of fuels and technologies separately. For the first comparison of impacts on emissions. Some technologies that reduce the certain
fuel type, all tests were aggregated by fuel type only for tests that critical air pollutants correspond with an increase in CO2 emissions.
consider fuels without technologies. For the comparison of tech- Table 5 gives a summary of this data. This data does not show
nologies, tests for an individual technology were grouped regard- definitively which fuel and technology combination to choose. It
less of fuel. does highlight the clear differences between different fuels and
Additionally, the Inter-quartile method was used to develop a technologies and the importance of technologies in reducing
likely range of values for each technology and remove outliers. This emissions.
likely range was then translated into comparison graphs. Because
exhaust technologies have different effects on different types of 4.2. IQR values for fuels in each country
pollutants, emissions values of the more harmful emissions NOx
and PM, as well GHG emissions, were included to compare the The IQR analysis looks at country specific fuels and technologies
trade-offs between different fuel choices. The results were also to understand emissions performance considering locally available
compared against the current Euro standard requirements in Brazil options. Figs. 1 and 3 show the emissions interquartile ranges for
and India to determine which fuel and technology combinations some of better-performing fuel and technology combinations,
best meet the standards. comparing NOx and PM. Figs. 2 and 4 show the comparison be-
tween PM and CO2.
4. Results and discussion
4.2.1. Discussion of results in the Brazilian context
The results of the ANOVA test and comparison graphs for Brazil The analysis for the Brazilian context included the fuel and
and India are presented below. Further results of the original data technologies currently being used by transit agencies shown in
analysis, which includes other factors such as drive cycle and alti- Table 1. The NOx versus PM graph shows that there are many
tude, are available in a previous report (Cooper et al., 2012).
Table 4
4.1. ANOVA comparing fuels and technologies ANOVA of emissions by technology. Emissions are in g/km.

Mean T Mean I F
The Analysis of Variance helps to determine which differences in CO DPF 3.77 0.34 26.96**
emissions are statistically significant. Though tests were run on all EGR 3.67 0.18 23.83**
fuels and emissions combinations, only the significant results are HYBRID 3.42 1.07 8.51**
shown here. Table 3 shows the results for the ANOVA test of CNG OC 3.45 0.97 10.17**
NOx DPF 10.54 7.31 15.07**
and Diesel with 150 and 15 ppm of sulfur, and Ethanol in order to
EGR 10.38 7.55 9.7**
verify the behavior of the emissions without technology. The test SCR 10.58 6.81 19.08**
shows that, not considering emission control technologies, CNG has 3WC 10.71 2.11 62.5**
lower PM emissions, but higher CO emissions than D15 or D150. PM DPF 0.139 0.026 22.5**
Ethanol also has high CO emissions without technologies. D150 also EGR 0.1315 0.036 12.97**
HYBRID 0.128 0.04 9.56**
has higher NOx and PM emissions. SCR 0.135 0.032 16.96**
Table 4 shows significant results of the ANOVA test comparing 3WC 0.12 0.02 7.53**
technologies and emissions performance. Looking at DPFs and CO2 DPF 1213 1502 41.54**
EGRs, the data shows that these clearly reduce CO, NOx, and PM, EGR 1233 1436 19.02**
HYBRID 1294 1131 8.03**
while they are also associated with an increase in CO2 emissions.
SCR 1296 1197 4.7*
Hybrid vehicles significantly reduce CO, PM, and CO2 emissions.
SCRs decrease NOx, PM, and CO2 emissions. For CNG vehicles, OCs Mean T: the mean of the group without the tested fuel/technology.
Mean I: the mean of the tests for the tested fuel/technology.
reduce CO emissions while 3WCs reduce NOx and PM emissions. F score: Due to degrees of freedom, the 95% significance level for the F-statistic is
Table 5 summarizes the key findings for each technology according 3.84.
to pollutant. F prob: * denotes significance at 95%, ** denotes significance at 99%.
 E. Cooper et al. / Research in Transportation Economics 48 (2014) 323e329 327

Table 5 D50 þ Hybrid alternatives show much higher emissions and larger
Summary of emissions changes by technology. ranges of emissions. The D50 þ Hybrids represented in this report
CO NOx PM CO2 are from tests in South America, which could impact emissions
DPF Y Y Y [
results compared to tests run elsewhere.
EGR Y Y Y [ Comparing CO2 and PM, the D15 and Hybrid options show the
SCR Y Y Y lowest CO2 emissions while CNG and Biodiesel generally show
3WC Y Y lower PM emissions. The optimal technology combination to meet
OC Y
the Euro V standard here is less clear. However, combining both
HYBRID Y Y Y
NOx, CO2, and PM considerations, B100 þ DPF þ SCR and
CNG þ 3WC have low emissions in all categories.

technologies that meet the Euro V standards for the same pollut-
ants. From this data, B20 þ DPF þ SCR consistently produces the
lowest emissions for both categories of emissions, followed by
CNG þ 3WC, B100 þ DPF þ SCR and D15 þ DPF þ SCR.
D15 þ DPF þ EGR also shows low emissions, though some can fall
outside of the emissions range for Euro V. The Ethanol þ OC and
4.2.2. Discussion of results in the Indian context
For India, the options that consistently meet Euro IV standards
for both NOx and PM are only CNG vehicles with CNG þ 3WC. Diesel
vehicles tend to have lower CO2 emissions, though CNG þ 3WC also
performs well in terms of CO2e emissions.

Fig. 1. Comparison of NOx and PM emissions.

Fig. 2. Comparison of CO2e and PM emissions.

328 E. Cooper et al. / Research in Transportation Economics 48 (2014) 323e329

Fig. 3. Comparison of NOx and PM emissions.

This report provides background information for making de-
cisions for the lowest emitting vehicles, but also puts this infor-
mation in the context of cities that are currently making fleet
procurement decisions. One key idea is that though some fuel types
can meet emissions standards for individual pollutants without
advanced technologies. In order to meet emissions standards for all
pollutants, emissions reducing technologies are needed.
Technologies have been developed to meet emissions standards,
and each technology has different impacts on pollutants. This is
particularly true with respect to CO2 equivalent emissions because
emissions standards have only recently been set in some countries
to achieve such reductions. There can also be trade-off between
reducing local air pollution and reducing CO2 emissions. Another
important point is that not all buses' on-road emissions are
meeting the emissions standards, therefore it is important to
continue to review in-use emissions, not just standard testing
procedures (more complete data is shown in Cooper et al., 2012).
Also, focusing on the fuels relevant to the Brazil and India
context helps narrow fleet decision-making to the information that
is relevant for local decisions makers rather than relying on global,
US, or European averages. Decisions weighing the trade-offs be-
tween reducing local air pollution and reducing CO2 emissions may
be made most appropriately at the local or national level depending
on current air quality issues as well as GHG reduction targets.
5. Conclusions
This report compiled emissions testing data from in-use or real
world drive cycle tests. While defining technology neutral stan-
dards could seem enough, real world drive cycle test on existing

Fig. 4. Comparison of CO2e and PM emissions.

 E. Cooper et al. / Research in Transportation Economics 48 (2014) 323e329
vehicles in the market show that compliance with standards vary
by fuel and emission control technology.
The data was used to compare the range of emissions for four
emissions that are commonly regulated by emissions standards
(CO, THC, NOx, PM) and CO2 emissions. The two part analysis
showed the impact of different fuels and technologies on reducing
or increasing emissions. It also looked at very harmful emissions
(NOx, PM, and CO2) in the contexts of Brazil and India. The com-
bined results of the analysis show some of the best performing fuel
options in Brazil and India are 20% blend Biodiesel with Diesel
Particular Filter and Selective Catalytic Reduction
(B20 þ DPF þ SCR) and Compressed Natural Gas with Three Way
Catalyst (CNG þ 3WC). However, other fuel or technology options
provide meaningful results e CNG fuels or Hybrid buses can pro-
vide significant PM reductions or CO2 reductions, respectively.
Further aspects of the local context should be considered as well,
such as the impact of maintenance practices, altitude, and local
driving cycles on emissions when making vehicle decisions.
It is important to consider the trade-off between these different
fuel and technologies combinations because fleet procurement
decisions will have air quality and GHG implications. Some cities
with severe air quality problems may wish to focus on reducing PM,
while other cities may be able to prioritize reducing CO2 emissions.
Because there is not one fuel or technology that best addresses all
pollutants in all contexts, it is also important to consider the life-
cycle costs and lifecycle emissions of vehicles. Some technologies
may be good for emissions reduction but very expensive, therefore
incentives or grants for purchasing such vehicles may need to be
provided. The usual practice of covering the capital costs out of user
fares may not be applicable for the introduction of cleaner buses;
the use of national and international funds may be applicable, as
the cleaner technologies help achieve energy consumption or
emissions targets. The lifecycle emissions of fuels are also impor-
tant as certain fuels may have low emissions at the point of use but
higher emissions upstream.
Additionally, there are various national and global initiatives to
improve emissions standards, fuel quality, and technologies to
reduce emissions (UNEP, 2007). While these initiatives are in
progress, an understanding of the roadmap for fuel improvements
in each country will allow current fuel and technology decisions for
bus fleets to align with future country goals and emissions targets.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for continuing support from Dario Hi-
dalgo and Umang Jain. Also, those who have contributed to and
reviewed previous work which has helped in developing this pa-
per: Jorge Macias, Hilda Martinez, Cynthia Menendez, Marco Balam
Almanza, Amit Bhatt, Luis Antonio Lindau, Jimmy Mathis, Karl Peet,
Keshav Sondhi, and Rodolfo Lacy Tamayo.
329
References
An, F., Earley, R., & Green-Weiskel, L. (2011). Global overview on fuel efficiency and
motor vehicle emission standards: policy options and perspectives for international
cooperation. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Avail-
able at: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_pdfs/csd-19/Background-
paper3-transport.pdf Accessed 25.07.13.
Cooper, E., Arioli, M., Carrigan, A., & Jain, U. (2012). Exhaust emissions of transit buses
e sustainable urban transportation fuels and vehicles. EMBARQ working paper.
Dieselnet. (2013). Emissions test cycles. Available at: http://www.dieselnet.com/
standards/cycles/.
Ecoseed. (2011). Mexico City reduces GHG emissions by 5.7 million metric tons.
Available at: http://www.ecoseed.org/business/13862-mexico-city-reduces-
ghg-emissions-by-5-7-million-metric-tons Accessed 12.07.13.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2012). Air pollutants. http://www.epa.gov/
air/airpollutants.html.
ICLEI. (2010). Mexico City's Green Plan: EcoMobility in motion. Case study 121 Mexico
City. Available at: http://www.ecomobility.org/fileadmin/template/project_
templates/ecomobility/files/Publications/CS_Mexico_city.pdf Accessed 25.07.13.
International Energy Agency. (2013). Hybrid electric vehicles. Available at: http://
www.ieahev.org/about-the-technologies/hybrid-electric-vehicles/.
IPCC. (2007). Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Geneva, Switzerland.
Jayaratne, E., Ristovski, Z., Meyer, N., & Morawaska, L. (2009). Particle and gaseous
emissions from compressed natural gas and ultralow sulphur diesel-fuelled
buses at four steady engine loads. Science of the Total Environment, 407,
2845e2852.
Lindqvist, K. (2012). Emission standards for light and heavy road vehicles. Gotenburg,
Sweden: Air Pollution & Climate Secretariat.
Lowell, D., & Kamakate, F. (2012). Urban off-cycle NOx emissions from Euro IV/V trucks
and buses. Washington, DC: International Council on Clean Transportation.
Johnson Matthey. (2011). Available at: http://ect.jmcatalysts.com/emission-control-
technologies-oxidation-catalysts Accessed 25.07.13.
McCormick, R. L., Williams, A., Ireland, J., Brimhall, M., & Hayes, R. R. (2006). Effects
of biodiesel blends on vehicle emissions. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Melendez, M., Taylor, J., Zuboy, J., Wayne, W. S., & Smith, D. (2005). Emission testing
of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) natural Gas and
diesel transit buses. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Murtonen, T., & Aakko-Saksa, P. (2009). Alternative fuels with heavy-duty engines and
vehicles. Finland: VTT.
Nylund, N., Erkkila, K., Lappi, M., & Ikonen, M. (2004). Transit bus emission study:
comparison of emissions from diesel and natural gas buses. Finland: VTT.
Roychowdhry, A. (2010). CNG programme in India: future challenges. Center for
Science and Environment.
Schipper, L., Fabian, H., & Leather, J. (2009). Transport and carbon dioxide emissions:
forecasts, options analysis, and evaluation. Manila, Philippines: Asian Develop-
ment Bank.
Transit Cooperative Research Program. (2011). TCRP report 146: guidebook for eval-
uating fuel choices for post-1020 transit bus procurements. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board.
TransLink. (2006). Bus technology & alternative fuels demonstration project, phase 1 e
test program report. Vancouver, Canada: TransLink.
UNEP. (2007). Opening the door to cleaner vehicles in developing and transition
countries: the role of lower sulphur fuels. Nairobi, Kenya.
UNEP. (2009). Cleaning up urban bus fleets with a focus on developing and transition
countries. Nairobi, Kenya.
Walsh, M. P. (2012). Reducing air pollution from buses and commercial vehicles.
Available at: http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/Walsh_Bangalore_
july2012.pdf Accessed 25.07.13.
World Health Organization. (2006). WHO air quality guidelines for particulate matter,
ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Global update 2005. Summary of risk
assessment.