Roadway Construction
Sustainability Impacts
Review of Life-Cycle Assessments
Stephen T. Muench
Each year the United States places about $100 billion of roadway
construction. This level of activity suggests possibly significant sustain-
ability implications in the construction activities for this work. One
means to quantify some of these impacts is through life-cycle assessment
(LCA). A review of 14 roadway construction LCA papers reveals some
common ideas about the ecological impacts of roadway construction.
Some key observations are that (a) the energy expended during roadway
construction is roughly equivalent to that used by traffic operating on the
facility for 1 or 2 years, (b) total energy use during roadway construction
varies but is typically on the order of 3 to 7 TJ/lane mile, (c) total CO2
emissions during roadway construction vary but are typically 200 to
600 Mg/lane mile, (d) materials production makes up 60% to 80% of
energy use and 60% to 90% of CO2 emissions associated with construction,
(e) construction activities at the jobsite make up less than 5% of energy use
and CO2 emissions, and ( f) transportation associated with construction
makes up 10% to 30% of energy use and about 10% of CO2 emissions
associated with construction.
Each year the United States places about $100 billion of roadway
construction (1). The sustainability implications of this infrastructure
are often discussed in relation to traffic use or planning decisions;
however, the act of construction itself can have significant sustainabil-
ity impacts. One means to quantify some of these impacts is through
an agreed-on accountinglike process such as life-cycle assessment
(LCA). While there are several approaches to LCA, such as eco-
nomic input–output and process-based (2)—and certainly each
construction case is unique—a review of existing roadway LCA liter-
ature reveals some common ideas that could form the basis for a
general treatment of (a) the impact of roadway construction in relation
to use and operation and (b) the relative impacts of different compo-
nents of roadway construction. Examination of trends in the building
industry shows that sustainability likely will become a greater focus
for roadway construction in the near future and have substantial
impact on roadway sustainability and the construction market.
This paper first provides a sustainability definition and a review
of building industry efforts so as to provide context for what roadway
construction actions can be considered sustainable, why they might
be sustainable, and what effect they may have on the market and
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington,
Box 352700, Seattle, WA 98195-2700. stmuench@uw.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2151, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2010, pp. 36–45.
DOI: 10.3141/2151-05
36
sustainability in general. Specifically, the ecological component of
sustainability will be addressed through a review of LCA literature
that provides quantifiable results. This literature review does not
include the substantial body of sustainability work in the planning
sector but rather focuses on construction alone.
DEFINITION OF SUSTAINABILITY
This paper defines “sustainability” as “a system characteristic that
reflects the system’s capacity to support natural laws and human
values.” “Natural laws” refers to three basic principles that must be
upheld to maintain earth’s ecosystem, as discussed by Robèrt (3).
These are summarized as follows:
1. Do not extract substances from the earth at a faster pace than
their slow redeposit and reintegration into the earth.
2. Do not produce substances at a faster pace than they can be
broken down and integrated into nature near its current equilibrium.
3. Do not degrade ecosystems because the world’s health and
prosperity depend on their proper functioning.
“Human values” refers to equity and economy. “Equity,” which
is essentially Robèrt’s (3) fourth principle, is interpreted as a pri-
marily human concept of meeting people’s nine fundamental needs:
subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, leisure,
creation, identity, and freedom (4). “Economy” is broadly interpreted
as management of human, manufactured, natural, and financial
capital (5). Thus, by this definition, economy refers to project finance,
but it also refers to items such as forest resources management and
carbon cap-and-trade schemes.
In total, this definition of sustainability contains the key elements
of ecology, equity, and economy and is essentially consistent but more
actionable on a project scale than the often-quoted United Nations
1987 Brundtland Commission report excerpt of its definition of
sustainability: “Development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs” (A/RES/42/187). It is also compatible with the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (6).
Beyond ecology, equity, and economy are four other essential
components to a sustainability definition. First, sustainability is
context sensitive. Hence, for a particular project, the project’s extent
in space and time (i.e., its scope and life cycle) and performance
expectations (i.e., design life, metrics of performance, and assessment
of risks) must be part of the definition. Second, what transforms
sustainability from concept to reality are experience (in the form of
technical expertise and historical information that drive current
Muench
decisions) and exposure (in the form of education and training) of
the construction profession and the general public to the idea of
sustainability and its importance. In total, this sustainability definition
has seven components: ecology, equity, economy, extent, expectations,
experience, and exposure.
On the basis of this definition, LCAs cannot entirely address
sustainability because they lack the data or accounting ability to
be able to address fully concepts like affection, understanding,
leisure, identity, freedom, experience, and exposure. While there
are other aspects of sustainability that construction does address
(e.g., economics as well as equity issues such as subsistence, partic-
ipation, creation, and identity), the following LCA review specifically
addresses the ecology component of sustainability. Even more nar-
rowly, this component is addressed in relation to energy use and CO2
emissions associated with construction activities. Other sustainability
impacts (e.g., employment, cost, visual quality, water quality, etc.),
while significant, are not addressed in this paper.
BACKGROUND IN THE BUILDING INDUSTRY
Before exploring the ecological sustainability impacts of roadway
construction, it is useful to view construction impacts in the more
mature (in sustainability applications) building industry. These
impacts can broadly be viewed from the perspectives of (a) market
and (b) sustainability.
Market Impacts
Within the building industry are many sustainability-type rating
systems (e.g., Green Globes, Built Green) in the United States alone;
however, the dominant one by far is the U.S. Green Building Coun-
cil’s (USGBC’s) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED). The increased popularity of these rating systems, arguably
the result of the public’s increased interest in sustainability, has
helped create and grow a distinct construction market for sustain-
ability that includes contractors, designers, materials suppliers, and
sustainability consultants. And the size of this market is substantial.
McGraw-Hill Construction estimates the green building market
alone to be $36 billion to $49 billion today (7 ). Further, it reports,
“Green seems to be one area of construction insulated by the down-
turn, and we expect [that] green building will continue to grow
over the next five years despite negative market conditions to be a
$96 [billion]-$140 billion market.” As further evidence, each year
Engineering News-Record reports on the top green contractors in
“revenue from projects registered with or certified by third-party
rating groups under objective environmental or sustainable devel-
opment standards” (8). By this measure, the “Top 100 Green Con-
tractors” generated $38.69 billion in 2008 revenue from so-called
“green projects,” which is an increase of 69.9% from 2007. Impor-
tantly, that number represents 26.2% of the total contracting revenue
for this group, and, while there are certainly specialty green contrac-
tors in the group, it also includes such industry mainstays as The
Turner Corporation; Skanska USA Inc.; Bovis Lend Lease; PCL
Construction Enterprises, Inc.; and Hoffman Corporation, to name
a few. For 2008, 28 contractors each report over 100 accredited staff,
the most being from Turner (reporting 1,040). It could be argued that
the existence of the more popular rating systems has created new
markets in more sustainable materials and led to industry innovation
in sustainability.
37
Sustainability Impacts
Beyond market data, it becomes more difficult, but not impossible,
to quantify the impacts of an industry focus on sustainability. Looking
at only the USGBC’s LEED system, one sees that several common
impact themes exist. First, advantages are usually discussed in the
following categories:
• Superior buildings. LEED requirements create a better environ-
ment that can improve occupant comfort, health, and productivity.
Kats et al. concluded that productivity and health improvements
constituted 70% of the financial benefits of a LEED-certified build-
ing (9). However, placing a value on benefits like worker productivity
can be difficult and subjective (10).
• Reduced environmental impact. LEED requirements result in
a building that creates less waste and is more efficient in energy and
water use (10).
• Positive return on investment. LEED-certified buildings have
a lower life-cycle cost. It is generally argued that energy efficiency,
worker productivity, and other LEED features offer life-cycle savings
of about 10 times their initial cost premium. Some benefit valuation
is highly subjective (11).
Major criticisms are usually in the following categories:
• Certification is expensive and bureaucratic. Certification can
cost between $1,250 and $22,500 in fees plus appeals, time, and
resources (12). LEED reviews can be overly focused on unimportant
details and overly bureaucratic (13).
• LEED can shift design focus from good design to obtaining
LEED credits. Potential marketing aspects of certification begin to
drive design.
• The credits are not weighted to reflect environmental impacts
and importance. This criticism was common for older versions of
LEED (e.g., LEED NC v. 2.2B) but has abated somewhat for newer
versions that attempt to weight credits. However, credit weighting is
not transparent; meaning that it is not entirely clear why a particular
credit receives a particular point value.
• Initial costs for LEED projects are higher. Most estimates (9, 11,
13, 14) put initial costs at 0% to 8% more than similar non-LEED
buildings.
In summary, there are several substantial positive benefits of LEED
use while there are also some criticisms that can still be addressed.
Notably, the criticisms are directed at process rather than the general
idea of sustainability that pursuing LEED tends to promote.
REVIEW OF LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT
A literature search was conducted for roadway-related LCA docu-
ments that contained adequate supporting information on (a) a sys-
tem definition; (b) the pavement structure analyzed; (c) total energy
use, total CO2 production, or both; and (d) an identified method
for performing the analysis. Through use of these criteria, 14 road-
way LCA papers (15–28) consisting of 66 assessments of either
actual or hypothetical roadways were selected for review (Table 1).
Six papers addressed portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements
(12 assessments), while all 14 addressed hot-mix asphalt (HMA) pave-
ments (54 assessments). Two papers (18, 24) used the PaLATE (29)
Excel-based software tool, which employs an economic input–output
38 Transportation Research Record 2151

TABLE 1 Life-Cycle Assessments Analyzed

Surface Type & Base Type & Consider Analysis

Publication Location Depth (mm)a Depth (mm)a Maint.? Period (years)

Stripple (15) Sweden HMA 160 None Yes 40

Stripple (16) Sweden HMA 80 Gran. 1,500 Yes 40
Stripple (16) Sweden Cold mix 80 Gran. 1,500 Yes 40
Stripple (16) Sweden JPCP 150 Gran. 1,500 Yes 40
Mroueh et al. (17) Helsinki, Fin. HMA 160 Gran. 750 Yes 50
Mroueh et al. (17) Helsinki, Fin. HMA 50 Gran. 1,000 Yes 50
Mroueh et al. (17) Helsinki, Fin. HMA 160 Gran. 700 Yes 50
Mroueh et al. (17) Helsinki, Fin. HMA 160 Gran. 700 Yes 50
Mroueh et al. (17) Helsinki, Fin. HMA 160 Gran. 800 Yes 50
Mroueh et al. (17) Helsinki, Fin. HMA 80 Gran. 850 Yes 50
Mroueh et al. (17) Helsinki, Fin. HMA 160 Gran. 550 Yes 50
Horvath (18) None stated HMA 75 Gran. 775 No N/A
Treloar et al. (19) Australia CRCP unknownc PCC unknownc No 40
Treloar et al. (19) Australia JPCP unknownc PCC unknownc No 40
Treloar et al. (19) Australia HMA unknownc PCC unknownc No 40
Treloar et al. (19) Australia Comp. unknownc PCC unknownc No 40
Treloar et al. (19) Australia HMA unknownc None No 40
Treloar et al. (19) Australia Gran. unknownc None No 40
Treloar et al. (19) Australia HMA unknownc PCC unknownc No 40
Treloar et al. (19) Australia HMA unknownc PCC unknownc No 40
Zapata & Gambatese (20) United States CRCP 220 Gran. 150 No N/A
Zapata & Gambatese (20) United States HMA 300 Gran. 150 No N/A
Rajendran & Gambatese (21) None stated CRCP 250 Gran. 150 No N/A
Rajendran & Gambatese (21) None stated HMA 220 Gran. 150 No N/A
Athena Institute (22) Canada HMA 170 Gran. 735 Yes 50
Athena Institute (22) Canada HMA 170 Gran. 315 Yes 50
Athena Institute (22) Canada JPCP 200 Gran. 300 Yes 50
Athena Institute (22) Canada JPCP 190 Gran. 150 Yes 50
Athena Institute (22) Canada HMA 205 Gran. 735 Yes 50
Athena Institute (22) Canada HMA 225 Gran. 300 Yes 50
Athena Institute (22) Canada JPCP 215 Gran. 150 Yes 50
Athena Institute (22) Canada JPCP 190 Gran. 150 Yes 50
Athena Institute (22) Quebec, Can. HMA 240 Gran. 839 Yes 50
Athena Institute (22) Quebec, Can. JPCP 240 Gran. 839 Yes 50
Athena Institute (22) Ontario, Can. HMA 300 Gran. 600 Yes 50
Athena Institute (22) Ontario, Can. JPCP 260 Gran. 400 Yes 50
IERD (23)b Czech Rep. HMA unknownc Gran. unknownc No 20
IERD (23)b Czech Rep. HMA unknownc Gran. unknownc No 20
IERD (23)b France HMA unknownc Gran. unknownc No 20
IERD (23)b France HMA unknownc Gran. unknownc No 20
IERD (23)b France HMA unknownc Gran. unknownc No 20
IERD (23)b France HMA unknownc Gran. unknownc No 20
IERD (23)b Ireland HMA unknownc Gran. unknownc No 20
IERD (23)b Ireland HMA unknownc Gran. unknownc No 20
IERD (23)b Ireland HMA unknownc Gran. unknownc No 20
IERD (23)b Ireland HMA unknownc Gran. unknownc No 20
IERD (23)b Ireland HMA unknownc Gran. unknownc No 20
IERD (23)b Portugal HMA unknownc Gran. unknownc No 20
IERD (23)b Portugal HMA unknownc Gran. unknownc No 20
IERD (23)b Sweden HMA unknownc Gran. unknownc No 20
IERD (23)b Sweden HMA unknownc Gran. unknownc No 20
(continued)
Muench 39

TABLE 1 (continued) Life-Cycle Assessments Analyzed

Surface Type & Base Type & Consider Analysis

Publication Location Depth (mm)a Depth (mm)a Maint.? Period (years)

Carpenter et al. (24) Lodi, Wisc. HMA 125 Gran. 855 No N/A
Carpenter et al. (24) Lodi, Wisc. HMA 125 Gran. 1,095 No N/A
Weiland (25) Seattle, Wash. JPCP 325 None Yes 50
Weiland (25) Seattle, Wash. HMA 325 None Yes 50
Weiland (25) Seattle, Wash. CSOL 125 None Yes 50
Chiu et al. (26) None stated HMA 50 None Yes 40
Chiu et al. (26) None stated HMA + RAP 50 None Yes 40
Chiu et al. (26) None stated RHMA 50 None Yes 40
Chiu et al. (26) None stated Glassphalt 50 None Yes 40
Huang et al. (27) London HMA all virgin 317 None No N/A
Huang et al. (27) London HMA 317 None No N/A
Huang et al. (27) London HMA no glass 317 None No N/A
Huang et al. (27) London HMA no IBA 317 None No N/A
Huang et al. (27) London HMA no RAP 317 None No N/A
Huang et al. (28) United Kingdom HMA 50 None No N/A

a
HMA = hot mix asphalt, JPCP = jointed plain concrete, CRCP = continuously reinforced concrete, PCC = portland cement concrete,
gran. = granular, CSOL = crack-seat-and-overlay rehabilitation process, RHMA = rubber HMA, glassphalt = HMA with recycled glass
added, Comp. = composite pavement—HMA and PCC together, RAP = reclaimed asphalt pavement, IBA = incinerator bottom ash,
all virgin = no recycled materials.
b
This study, Integration of the Measurement of Energy Usage into Road Design (IERD), examined a number of options for each roadway
(Czech = 2, France = 4, Ireland = 5, Portugal = 2, Sweden = 2).
c
Depth unknown, because accounting was based on volume, and no roadway width was given.

LCA method. A review of PaLATE (v. 2) in 2009 for this analysis
showed multiple instances of incorrect data. Correction of some of
these known inconsistencies produced changes in output values by
factors of 2 to 10. Because the version of PaLATE used in these two
papers was unclear—as was whether the papers’ results came from
using the incorrect PaLATE data—those papers were excluded from
further analysis. Work on PaLATE II is underway and is expected
to correct these errors and improve the software. Furthermore, the
Treloar et al. paper (19) did not provide information on roadway
dimensions, which made it difficult to translate its data into standard
1 lane mile quantities.
trends among the remaining 12 papers relating to (a) scope, (b) energy
use, (c) CO2 production, and (d) the fraction of energy and CO2 attrib-
uted to different phases of roadway construction and use. Tables 2
and 3 summarize the results of the literature review. In summary,
statistical median values are used to minimize the influence of extreme
outliers. This section reports general trends associated with roadway
construction, including (a) system scope, (b) construction’s relation
to roadway use, (c) construction’s relation to roadway operations,
(d) construction waste, (e) total construction energy use, ( f ) total
construction CO2 emissions, and (g) the relative contributions of
roadway construction components in the areas of energy use and
CO2 emissions.

Limitations
Each study that was analyzed (and thus this analysis) was subject
to the typical LCA limitations of data availability and quality. This
analysis makes no attempt to grade data quality or study methodology
beyond a simple review of sources. For many of the studies analyzed,
data came from multiple sources that often only generally represented
the specific process being modeled, a common issue in LCA. There-
fore, because of limited data availability, accuracy, and precision,
it may be prudent to interpret roadway LCA results in a general
order-of-magnitude manner. In that sense, rules of thumb provided
by a metaanalysis may best convey the general, uncertain nature of
LCA results.
System Scope
Most papers (10 of 12) considered a roadway’s pavement structure
only. If pavement preservation and maintenance were included,
they were usually included for an analysis period of 40 or 50 years.
Vehicular operation on the road was rarely addressed, but exam-
ples can be found (16, 19). Stripple (15) and the European Union’s
Integration of the Measurement of Energy Usage into Road Design
(23) also included items outside the pavement structure (e.g., land
clearing, signage, etc.). Most studies describe a functional unit
in terms of a length (often 1 km or 1 mi) of a road consisting of
2 to 4 lanes.

General Findings Relation of Roadway Construction to Traffic Use

Although each paper’s focus, assumptions, data sources, and system If a roadway system is defined to include traffic traveling on it, then
boundaries were different, there were still several useful identified the traffic component is the dominant energy user and emissions
40 Transportation Research Record 2151

TABLE 2 LCA Energy Summary

Energy (TJ) % from PCC/HMA % from Construction % from Construction % from

Publicationa,b per lane mi Production Activities Transportation Maintenance

Stripple (15) 3.47 85 3 12 55

Stripple (16) 4.98 — — — 27
Stripple (16) 4.53 — — — 35
Stripple (16) 6.57 — — — 26
Mroueh et al. (17) 4.15 78 2 20 —
Mroueh et al. (17) 3.53 80 2 18 —
Mroueh et al. (17) 2.97 75 2 23 —
Mroueh et al. (17) 3.25 69 2 29 —
Mroueh et al. (17) 2.24 60 2 38 —
Mroueh et al. (17) 3.00 76 2 22 —
Mroueh et al. (17) 3.28 68 2 30 —
Zapata & Gambatese (20) 3.74 97 3 — —
Zapata & Gambatese (20) 3.09 98 2 — —
Athena Institute (22) 5.93 — — — —
Athena Institute (22) 5.40 — — — —
Athena Institute (22) 3.33 — — — —
Athena Institute (22) 3.04 — — — —
Athena Institute (22) 7.91 — — — —
Athena Institute (22) 7.31 — — — —
Athena Institute (22) 4.42 — — — —
Athena Institute (22) 4.12 — — — —
Athena Institute (22) 6.06 — — — —
Athena Institute (22) 10.98 — — — —
Athena Institute (22) 6.09 — — — —
Athena Institute (22) 8.34 — — — —
Weiland (25)c 4.05 70 4 7 7
Weiland (25)c 6.22 61 10 8 7
Weiland (25)c 3.46 62 7 7 6
Huang et al. (27) 4.16 — — — —
Huang et al. (27) 4.07 — — — —
Huang et al. (27) 4.00 — — — —
Huang et al. (27) 4.09 — — — —
Huang et al. (27) 4.20 — — — —
Huang et al. (28) 0.38 — — — —
Average 4.60 75 3 19 22
Median 4.10 75 2 20 26
Standard deviation 1.99 12 3 10 19
High 10.98 98 10 38 55
Low 0.38 60 2 7 3
Count 34 13 13 11 7

a
Only those studies reporting energy use are shown.
b
IERD (23) provided energy numbers but calculated quantities in terms of volume only. Therefore, it was not possible to determine lane widths in
order to express energy on a per lane mile basis.
c
Feedstock energy of the asphalt was not counted where it was possible to remove this energy. In general, it adds about 30% to the total energy use for
HMA options.
Muench 41

TABLE 3 LCA CO 2 Summary

CO2 per lane mi % from PCC/HMA % from Construction % from Construction % from
Studya (tonnes) Production Activities Transportation Maintenance

Stripple (15) 236.8 — — — 55

Stripple (16)
Stripple (16)
Stripple (16)
Mroueh et al. (17)
Mroueh et al. (17)
Mroueh et al. (17)
Mroueh et al. (17)
Mroueh et al. (17)
Mroueh et al. (17)
Mroueh et al. (17)
Athena Institute (22)b
Athena Institute (22)b
Athena Institute (22)b
Athena Institute (22)b
Athena Institute (22)b
Athena Institute (22)b
Athena Institute (22)b
Athena Institute (22)b
Athena Institute (22)b
Athena Institute (22)b
Athena Institute (22)b
Athena Institute (22)b
Weiland (25)
Weiland (25)
Weiland (25)
Huang et al. (27)
Huang et al. (27)
Huang et al. (27)
Huang et al. (27)
Huang et al. (27)
Huang et al. (28)
Average
Median
Standard deviation
High
Low
Count
769.8 — — — —
724.5 — — — —
1,064.0 — — — —
441.1 — — — —
352.4 — — — —
271.6 — — — —
292.8 — — — —
206.4 — — — —
265.3 — — — —
298.2 — — — —
435.6 — — — 36
391.6 — — — 40
407.6 — — — 0
376.7 — — — 0
579.2 — — — 44
529.0 — — — 49
506.2 — — — 11
474.6 — — — 12
712.7 — — — 5
792.3 — — — 46
648.0 — — — 16
600.4 — — — 34
525.0 87 1 4 1
342.8 60 6 10 2
190.6 61 4 9 4
237.6 — — — —
232.5 — — — —
228.2 — — — —
233.9 — — — —
240.8 — — — —
91.9 — — — —
428.1 69 4 8 22
384.2 61 4 9 14
219.8 15 2 3 20
1,064.0 87 6 10 55
91.85 60 1 4 0
32 3 3 3 16

a
Only those studies reporting CO2 emissions or global warming potential (GWP) are shown.
b
These numbers are GWP instead of CO2 emissions. They are treated the same here with the logic that the resulting order-of-magnitude estimates
will not be significantly affected.
42
producer. Stripple (16) estimated the energy used by traffic over
40 years of use to be about 20 times as great as the energy used in
initial construction and maintenance. This correlates well with the
European Union project Integration of the Measurement of Energy
Usage into Road Design (23), which drew on a range of new roadway
designs and estimated this multiple to be about 18 over 20 years of use.
Based on these analyses, a good rule of thumb to draw is that the
energy expended in initial construction of a new roadway is roughly
equivalent to the energy used by traffic on the facility for 1 or 2 years.
Although this ratio has not been calculated for rehabilitation work
(e.g., HMA overlays or PCC diamond grinding), it is likely to be
substantially less given the generally lesser material volumes involved
in typical maintenance work.
Relation of Roadway Construction to Operations
Operations are defined as those necessary equipment, actions, and
operations that are needed routinely to ensure proper and safe road-
way use. They include items such as lighting, traffic signals, deicing,
sanding, drawbridge actions, toll booths, and so on. Stripple (16)
found that for the roadways analyzed the largest contributors to oper-
ations were traffic control (signals) and roadway lighting. He calcu-
lated that, over a 40-year life cycle for traffic of 5,000 vehicles/day,
traffic control and lighting combined was about equal to 10% of
the traffic’s energy use or about 4 years of traffic use. Without road
lights and traffic control, Stripple (16) determined that this value
dropped to about 5% or about 2 years of traffic use. If construc-
tion energy expenditure is equivalent to about 1 or 2 years of traf-
fic energy expenditure, then construction energy ranges from about
25% to 100% of operations energy.
Waste
Only one paper (21) reported waste generation. Data came from
literature review and a survey of construction industry firms
(17 responses). The study generally found that a majority of waste
comes from disposing of a pavement at end of life (more than 50%
of the waste associated with PCC and HMA pavements comes from
this activity).
Total Energy Use
Eight papers reported total energy use from 34 assessments with a
median value of 4.10 TJ/lane mile. From the results in Table 2, it can
be loosely stated that energy expenditures per lane mile of pavement
typically range from 3 to 7 TJ, depending upon the pavement section,
maintenance activities, and LCA scope.
CO2 Emissions
Six papers reported total CO2 emissions from 20 assessments.
One additional paper reported global warming potential rather than
total CO2 emissions on another 12 assessments. The results were
more variable than for energy, with a median value of 384.2 Mg/lane
mile. From these results, it can be loosely stated that CO2 emis-
sions per lane mile of pavement typically range from 200 to 600 Mg,
Transportation Research Record 2151
depending on the pavement section, maintenance activities, and
LCA scope.
Contribution of Roadway Construction Components
Several papers broke down energy use and CO2 emissions into what
this analysis describes as three broadly defined construction compo-
nents (materials production, pavement construction, and transportation
associated with construction) and two categories (initial construction
and maintenance–preservation activities). Although the number of
papers is limited, the percentages are reasonably consistent. From
Tables 2 and 3, the following general conclusions are reasonable:
materials production accounts for about 60% to 80% of energy use
and 60% to 90% percent of CO2 emissions; construction accounts
for less than 5% of energy use and CO2 emissions; and transportation
associated with construction accounts for about 10% to 30% of
energy use and about 10% of CO2 emissions. Maintenance activities
account for a broad range of about 5% to 50% of energy and CO2
emissions. The reason for this wide range is that the analyzed studies
had a wide range of initial pavement structure thickness [2–13 in.
(50–325 mm)] and defined maintenance activities that ranged from
just diamond grinding PCC (involving very little new material) to
multiple HMA overlays combined with an HMA reconstruction
(large amounts of new material). Another useful way to visualize
these relationships is in multiples based on median values:
• Energy use
– Materials production uses about 25 times the energy as
construction.
– Transportation uses about 10 times the energy as construction.
– Maintenance uses about one-fourth the energy of initial
construction.
• CO2 emissions
– With only one paper (25) reporting numbers, there is not
enough data to make generalizations on materials production,
transportation, and construction.
– Maintenance emits about one-fifth the CO2 of initial con-
struction.
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
Interpreting Roadway Construction Energy
and Emissions
An interpretation of results is part of any LCA. While typical
LCA interpretation metrics such as the Tool for the Reduction and
Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (30) are
not discussed here, it might be useful to know the energy expenditure
and CO2 emissions for an average U.S. household for 1 year. The U.S.
Energy Information Agency reports that the average U.S. household
consumes about 94.9 million Btu/year, about 0.1 TJ/year (31). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency typical values for CO2 associated
with electricity, natural gas, and fuel oil indicate that a typical
U.S. household is responsible for about 42,000 lb of CO2 per year,
about 19 Mg/year (32). Thus, the median road construction project
covered by this paper [4.10 TJ (384.2 Mg)] consumes the equivalent
energy of 41 household yearly energy expenditures and produces
the equivalent of about 20 household yearly carbon emissions for
every lane mile constructed.
Muench
Roadway Construction Versus Roadway Use
Ultimately, roadway construction’s contribution to energy use and
emissions associated with transportation is small, by some estimates
(16, 23) in the range of 1/18 to 1/20 that of roadway traffic use. Yet
there is still reason for construction to participate in sustainability
efforts. First, lots of small contributions add up. Typically, there is
about $100 billion of transportation construction put in place each
year in the United States (1), and that represents a large opportunity
for impact. Second, construction is influential in infrastructure
materials use and waste. Construction and demolition waste make
up 20% to 30% of the total waste stream in the United States (33),
of which a substantial amount is from transportation projects. Third,
many sustainability decisions can actually save money in the long term
(e.g., life-cycle costing, more efficient engines, etc.). Therefore,
participation may be able to save the construction industry money.
Finally, sustainability participation creates competitive advantage.
Although sustainability applied to roadways is in its infancy, the build-
ing industry, with the success of LEED, offers the example discussed
earlier: as reported by ENR (8) the top 100 green contractors got 26.2%
($38.69 billion) of their total contracting revenue from building
projects “registered with or certified by third-party rating groups
under objective environmental or sustainable development standards.”
Roadway Operations
Because about half the energy in roadway operation is consumed by
lighting and traffic signals, adjustments to these items will have the
biggest operational impact. Specifically, a shift from incandescent
to solid-state lighting (SSL) has the potential for significant reduc-
tion in roadway operations energy expenditures. In field tests, light-
emitting diode (LED) lamps have shown energy savings between
30% and 75% (34, 35), while LED signal lights have been the U.S.
standard since January 2006 [Energy Policy Act of 2005 (PL 109-58),
Aug 8. 2005]. Further, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Star
program now has standards in place for SSL luminaires (street lights),
which should help with adoption.
Materials Production
The majority of roadway construction energy use and emissions
come from the materials production component of the process.
The largest percentages by far come from HMA and PCC pro-
duction (16, 25). Therefore, improvements to the HMA and PCC
production processes are likely to have the largest impact roadway
construction sustainability.
Transportation Associated with Construction
Transportation associated with construction contributes in the range
of 10% to 30% to overall roadway construction energy use and
emissions. Because aggregate, PCC, and HMA are relatively cheap
materials (compared with consumer goods on a weight basis) costs
are controlled and competitive bids are often won on the basis of
close proximity of the material source to the construction project.
Therefore, efforts to encourage the use of local materials (such as
those in the food and building industries) may not have much effect
because most roadway construction materials are already local. For
43
instance, LEED for New Construction 3.0 defines a regional material
as one manufactured within 500 mi of the construction site. Most
aggregate sources and HMA–PCC plants are likely to be within 50 mi
of a construction site for roadway construction.
HMA Versus PCC
One of the debates in roadway construction goes on between the HMA
and the PCC industries about the relative merits of each material
type. In the studies analyzed, the particular accounting system
being used, system boundaries (e.g., assumptions on design, material
sources, and inclusion of recycled material), and data sources, rather
than any real and universally consistent advantage, seem to make up
the majority of differences between surface types when energy use
and CO2 emissions are compared. Ultimately, energy use and CO2
emissions of the two materials are not orders of magnitude apart.
This situation suggests that efforts focused on reducing energy use
and emissions for both materials may be most productive.
Accounting for HMA Feedstock Energy
According to Green, “Feedstock energy represents the energy
inherent in fuels that are taken into a manufacturing process but used
as materials rather than fuels” (36). In the case of HMA, the asphalt
used can be classified as feedstock energy and, by ISO 14040/44
standards, should be counted toward energy consumption of the
process. The logic for this accounting is that it represents a depletion
of available energy reserves and should be counted against energy use.
By this accounting process, roughly another 30% is added to the
energy use of HMA processes (22). Others offer the following argu-
ments against taking into account feedstock energy: asphalt in the
HMA is not burned for fuel at the end of the life cycle, and asphalt
and aggregate can be reused as new pavement in the form of reclaimed
asphalt pavement (37). Likely the best solution is to account for it
but to show it clearly as a separate energy use (22, 37).
Future Trends
It is likely that energy and emissions associated with roadway
construction, or any industry, will be scrutinized more carefully. As
a beginning point, green house gas (GHG) emissions are likely to
be subject to a cap-and-trade scheme in the United States and are
increasingly being addressed through the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) as several court cases suggest (38, 39). It may be
that other resources, such as energy and water, will eventually follow.
As this scrutiny increases, there will likely be more tools to help in
analysis. In roadway construction, PaLATE and ROAD-RES are
available LCA tools for pavement structures, and the International
Road Federation is now producing CHANGER, a GHG calculator
tailored especially to road infrastructure construction and mainte-
nance projects. Finally, it seems plausible that once industry has a
fair idea what energy, emissions, and other resources are associated
with roadway construction, it will begin to adopt (either voluntarily
or by regulation) efficiency standards associated with these items
as has happened within the automobile industry (fuel efficiency
standards), power generation (clean energy portfolio requirements)
and even toilets (maximum allowable flow).
44
SUMMARY
Each year, the United States makes a substantial investment in road-
way construction, and this has a substantial impact on sustainability
and specifically the planet’s ecology. That impact can be difficult to
quantify; however, a number of publications that have attempted to
do so. This paper reviewed the literature for LCA (and related) pub-
lications in an attempt to reveal some common ideas that could form
the basis for a general treatment of (a) the impact of roadway con-
struction in relation to use and operation and (b) the relative impacts
of different components of roadway construction. Conclusions reached
are these:
• Most LCA publications tend to focus on the pavement section
alone, although there are several notable exceptions.
• The energy expended during roadway construction is roughly
equivalent to the energy used by traffic operating on the facility for
1 or 2 years. This does not imply that the construction industry
should avoid participating in sustainability efforts. On the contrary,
many sustainability improvements can also save money and create
competitive advantage.
• The energy expended for construction is about 25% to 100% of
the energy expended during roadway operation (e.g., lighting, signals,
snow removal) over a 40-year analysis period.
• Overwhelmingly, the largest source of waste in roadways is in
material disposal at the facility’s end of life. This fact emphasizes
the high impact of recycling or reusing these materials.
• Total energy use during roadway construction varies depending
on pavement section, maintenance activities, and LCA scope but is
typically in the range of 3 to 7 TJ/lane mile.
• Total CO2 emissions during roadway construction vary depend-
ing on pavement section, maintenance activities, and LCA scope but
are typically in the range of 200 to 600 Mg/lane mile.
• The relative contributions of energy use and CO2 emissions
during construction are as follows:
– Materials production contributes 60% to 80% of energy use
and 60% to 90% of CO2 emissions. Therefore, the largest impacts
may be achieved from improvements in materials production.
– Construction activities at the jobsite contribute less than 5%
of energy use and CO2 emissions.
– Transportation associated with construction account for 10%
to 30% of energy use and about 10% of CO2 emissions. How-
ever, most major materials associated with roadway construction
(especially pavement construction) are already considered regional
by most standards.
• Maintenance activities over the life of a roadway (usually
expressed as 40 or 50 years) can account for 5% to 50% of energy
use and CO2 emissions associated with initial construction.
• The data gaps and uncertainties in LCA as it is applied to road-
ways now suggest that the competing HMA and PCC industries
show similar magnitudes of energy use and CO2 emissions.
It seems likely that sustainability will play a larger role in proj-
ect decisions in the future, which means expanding the traditional
scope of measured and, ultimately, regulated ecological impacts
so that items like energy use and emissions are also considered.
If other industries are an example, this implies that sustainability
will also have a larger role in the construction marketplace in
the future.
Transportation Research Record 2151
REFERENCES
1. Manufacturing, Mining, and Construction Statistics, Total Construction.
U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2009. http://www.
census.gov/const/www/totpage.html. Accessed July 28, 2009.
2. Scientific Applications International Corporation. Life Cycle Assessment:
Principles and Practice. Cincinnati, Ohio. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2006.
3. Robèrt, K.-H. The Natural Step: A Framework for Achieving Sustain-
ability in Our Organizations. Pegasus Communications, Cambridge,
Mass., 1997.
4. Max-Neef, M. A., A. Elizalde, and H. Hopenhayn. Human Scale Devel-
opment: Conception, Application and Further Reflections. Apex Press,
New York, 1991.
5. Hawken, P., A. B. Lovins, and L. H. Lovins. Natural Capitalism: Creating
the Next Industrial Revolution. Little, Brown and Co., Boston, Mass., 1999.
6. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis Reports, 2005. http://www.
maweb.org/en. Accessed Nov. 12, 2008.
7. 2009 Green Outlook: Trends Driving Change. McGraw-Hill, New York,
2008.
8. Tulacz, G. J. The Top 100 Green Contractors. ENR, Vol. 263, No. 9,
Sept. 14, 2009. pp. 112–118.
9. Kats, G., A. Berman, E. Mills, and J. Perlman. The Costs and Financial
Benefits of Green Buildings. Report to California’s Sustainable Building
Task Force. Capital E, Washington, D.C., 2003.
10. Schendler, A., and R. Udall. LEED is Broken; Let’s Fix It. Grist: Envi-
ronmental News and Commentary, 2005. www.grist.org/comments/
soapbox/2005/10/26/leed/index1.html#20. Accessed July 10, 2007.
11. Dorsey, J., and J. Sieving. The Cost of LEED: Silver for Free if. . . .
Presented at Colorado Renewable Energy Conference. Brendle Group,
Inc., Fort Collins, 2003. http://www.brendlegroup.com/products. Accessed
July 10, 2007.
12. U.S. Green Building Council, Project Certification. http://www.usgbc.
org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1497. Accessed July 30, 2009.
13. Matthiessen, L. F., and P. Morris. Cost of Green Revisited. Davis Langdon,
2007. www.davislangdon.com/USA/Research/ResearchFinder/2007-The-
Cost-of-Green-Revisited. Accessed July 12, 2007.
14. Steven Winter Associates, Inc. GSA LEED Cost Study. GS-11P-99-
MAD-0565. U.S. General Services Administration, 2004.
15. Stripple, H. Life Cycle Inventory of Asphalt Pavements. Report for the
European Asphalt Pavement Association (EAPA) and Eurobitume. IVL
Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd., Stockholm, Sweden,
2000.
16. Stripple, H. Life Cycle Assessment of Road: A Pilot Study for Inventory
Analysis, 2nd rev. ed. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute
Ltd., Stockholm, Sweden, 2001.
17. Mroueh, U.-M., P. Eskola, and J. Laine-Ylijoki. Life-Cycle Impacts of
the Use of Industrial By-Products in Road and Earth Construction.
Waste Management, Vol. 21, 2001, pp. 271–277.
18. Horvath, A. Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Assessment of
Using Recycled Materials for Asphalt Pavements. University of California
Transportation Center, Berkeley, Calif., 2003.
19. Treloar, G. J.; P. E. D. Love, and R. H. Crawford. Hybrid Life-Cycle
Inventory for Road Construction and Use. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 130, No. 1, 2004, pp. 43–49.
20. Zapata, P., and J. A. Gambatese. Energy Consumption of Asphalt and
Reinforced Concrete Pavement Materials and Construction. Journal of
Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2005, pp. 9–20.
21. Rajendran, S., and J. A. Gambatese. Solid Waste Generation in Asphalt
and Reinforced Concrete Roadway Life Cycles. Journal of Infrastructure
Systems, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2005, pp. 88–96.
22. Athena Institute. A Life-Cycle Perspective on Concrete and Asphalt
Roadways: Embodied Primary Energy and Global Warming Potential.
Report to Cement Association of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 2006.
23. Tramore House Regional Design Office. Integration of the Measurement
of Energy Usage into Road Design. Final Report to the Commission
of European Directorate-General for Energy and Transport. Tramore,
Waterford, Ireland, 2006.
24. Carpenter, A. C., K. H. Gardner, J. Fopiano, C. H. Benson, and
T. B. Edil. Life Cycle Based Risk Assessment of Recycled Materials
in Roadway Construction. Waste Management, Vol. 27, No. 10, 2007,
pp. 1458–1464.
Muench
25. Weiland, C. D. Life Cycle Assessment of Portland Cement Concrete
Interstate Highway Rehabilitation and Replacement. Master’s thesis.
University of Washington, Seattle, 2008.
26. Chiu, C.-T., T.-H. Hsu, and W.-F. Yang. Life Cycle Assessment on Using
Recycled Materials for Rehabilitating Asphalt Pavements. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 52, No. 3, 2008, pp. 545–556.
27. Huang, Y., R. Bird, and M. Bell. A Comparative Study of the Emissions
by Road Maintenance Works and the Disrupted Traffic Using Life Cycle
Assessment and Micro-Simulation. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, Vol. 14, 2009, pp. 197–204.
28. Huang, Y., R. Bird, and O. Heidrich. Development of a Life Cycle Assess-
ment Tool for Construction and Maintenance of Asphalt Pavements.
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17, 2009, pp. 283–296.
29. Consortium on Green Design and Manufacturing. Pavement Life-Cycle
Assessment Tool for Environmental and Economic Effects. University of
California, Berkeley, Calif., 2007. http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/∼horvath/
palate.html. Accessed July 30, 2009.
30. Bare, J. C., G. A. Norris, D. W. Pennington, and T. McKone. TRACI:
The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other
Environmental Impacts. Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 6, No. 3–4,
2003, pp. 49–78.
31. 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). Energy Informa-
tion Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, 2009. http://www.eia.doe.
gov/emeu/recs/contents.html. Accessed July 21, 2009.
45
32. Household Emissions Calculator Assumptions and References. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
emissions/ind_assumptions.html. Accessed July 30, 2009.
33. Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
Study commissioned by California Integrated Waste Management Board
(IWMB), Sacramento, 2004.
34. Wu, M. S., H. H. Huang, B. J. Huang, C. W. Tang, and C. W. Cheng.
Economic Feasability of Solar-Powered LED Roadway Lighting.
Renewable Energy, Vol. 34, 2009, pp. 1934–1938.
35. Long, X., R. Liao, and J. Zhou. Development of Street Lighting System-
Based Novel High Brightness LED Modules. IET Optoelectronics, Vol. 3,
2008, pp. 40–46.
36. Green, J. A. S. (ed.). Aluminum Recycling and Processing for Energy
Conservation and Sustainability, ASM International, Materials Park,
Ohio, 2007.
37. Joint Task Group Fuel Efficiency. Environmental Impacts and Fuel Effi-
ciency of Road Pavements, European Asphalt Pavement Association
and Eurobitume, Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
38. Dupont, N. A. NEPA and Climate Change: Are We at the “Tipping Point”?
Natural Resources & Environment, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2009, pp. 18–21.
39. Gerrard, M. B. (ed.). Global Climate Change and U.S. Law. American
Bar Association, Chicago, Ill., 2007.
The Construction Management Committee peer-reviewed this paper.