The public sector has an opportunity to support the trucking industry’s sustainability goals through a variety of practices, including developing reasonable regulations, standards and incentives, supporting research and testing, and pursuing congestion mitigation.
Regulations, Standards and Incentives
The trucking industry is subject to myriad federal, state and local policies, regulations, and incentives ranging from hazardous materials and emissions-related rules to driver’s Hours-of-Service and drug and alcohol testing regulations. Specifically related to sustainability are:
- Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles (regulated by the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA));
- Commercial Vehicle Size and Weight Limits (regulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA));
- Idling Limits (varies by state);
- Speed Limits (varies by state);
- SmartWay Program (managed by the EPA); and
- Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (managed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. The EPA collaborated with NHTSA to promulgate GHG emissions and fuel economy standards for heavy-duty trucks. These requirements set specific standards for engines as well as vehicles beginning in model year 2014.[1] As a result, model year 2017 trucks meeting the final standards were estimated to reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption by as much as 20 percent compared to a model year 2010 truck. EPA and NHTSA project a lifetime fuel cost savings of $50 billion for vehicles built from model year 2014 to 2018.
A second phase of this program was enacted in 2016 which requires additional reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption.[2] Trucks meeting these standards, which will apply through model year 2027 and beyond, will reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption by as much as an additional 25 percent. EPA and NHTSA project an additional lifetime fuel cost savings of $170 billion from these vehicles.
EPA’s Clean Trucks Plan. On August 5, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced its Clean Trucks Plan which included the following actions:[3]
- EPA will propose and finalize new emission standards to reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) pollution beginning with trucks in the model year 2027;
- EPA will assess the impact of zero-emission technologies on the overall effectiveness of the Phase 2 GHG program and if targeted adjustments to the GHG standards in 2027 may be warranted; and
- EPA is working on new GHG emission standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles starting in the model year 2030.
On December 20, 2022, EPA adopted a final rule, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards.”[4] The final rule establishes more stringent NOx standards and lower NOx emissions over a much wider range of driving conditions. It also includes significant increases in the emissions-related warranty periods and requires manufacturers to validate these emission control systems over longer useful life periods.
In March 2024, EPA enacted a third phase of GHG emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks. This rulemaking set forth more stringent environmental standards for model year 2027 to 2032 trucks, relying largely on increasing sales of electric vehicles. These new standards were expected to lead to significant reductions in emissions, potentially up to a 60 percent reduction beyond Phase 2 standards.[5]
In March 2025, EPA committed to a formal re-evaluation of the NOx rule, focusing on the significant cost associated with this regulation.[6] Additionally, EPA announced their reconsideration of the Phase 3 GHG standards citing the standards as unrealistic and costly.[7]
While previous emissions reductions and corresponding fuel savings have provided significant benefits to the industry, industry stakeholders are concerned about the cost of purchasing new equipment. To advance further fuel saving practices, the public sector can offer incentives to encourage the purchase of these technologies. Tax credits, grants or loans are examples of incentives that could accelerate the manufacture, purchase and use of newer, more efficient trucks.
Commercial Vehicle Size and Weight Limits. National weight standards apply to all commercial vehicles operating on the Interstate Highway System.[8] Table 3.1 shows the federal commercial vehicle maximum weight limits. States may set their own standards for state highways.
Table 3.1. Federal Commercial Vehicle Weight Limits
National length standards apply to all commercial vehicles operating on the “National Network” of highways. The National Network includes the Interstate System as well as other highways, formerly classified as “Primary System” routes, capable of safely handling larger commercial vehicles. The federal vehicle length limits are primarily minimums that states must allow. However, many states have maximum lengths for semitrailer and multi-trailer truck combinations that have been in place since the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) took effect on June 1, 1991.
The use of longer and/or heavier vehicle configurations represents an opportunity to meet sustainability goals. Trucking companies currently operate higher productivity vehicles (HPVs) where the option is available, and they make operational sense. HPVs have been shown to improve fuel efficiency, as measured in ton-miles per gallon, from 20 percent to nearly 40 percent.[9] HPV use would likely expand if allowed in additional states due to the potential fuel savings and other efficiency improvements afforded by these configurations. Federal, and possibly state legislation, however, is needed to allow size and weight increases. Additionally, an extensive network of HPV roadways that allows carriers to operate throughout the country without having to decouple trailers or breakdown loads would likely increase adoption rates.
Idling Limits. While there are currently no federal standards, some states, cities and
other municipalities limit vehicle idling within their jurisdictions. Currently, more than 60 states, counties or cities regulate the amount of time that a commercial vehicle may idle.[10] California has also adopted regulations that require additional emission controls while idling diesel engines, APUs and fuel-fired heaters.[11] To address the inconsistencies among the various idling regulations, the U.S. EPA developed a model idling law that states can use when adopting new or modifying existing rules.[12] Since drivers must maintain comfort while in their trucks, idling regulations need to be flexible enough to account for a variety of situations.
Research estimates that an idling tractor-semitrailer not only contributes to air and noise pollution, but consumes from 0.64 to 1.15 gallons of fuel per hour, depending upon the engine’s idling setting and load.[13] It has been estimated that large truck idling annually consumes 1 billion gallons of fuel during mandatory rest periods alone.[14] Consequently, idle reduction strategies are critical to reducing fuel use in the trucking industry. Several national and state incentive programs have provided low- or no-cost loans, lease-to-own options, grants and tax credits to purchase idle reduction technologies. For example, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management administers a DieselWise Grant Program that provides funding spanning from $50,000 to $250,000 for eligible projects that reduce diesel emissions. Projects involving the installation of SmartWay verified idle reduction technologies are eligible to receive funding from DieselWise.[15]
Additionally, a 400-pound weight exemption for APUs was signed into federal law as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. [16] This law allows an increase in the maximum gross vehicle weight limit when traveling on the Interstate System to compensate for the additional weight of an APU. This law does not preempt state statutes, however, and states are not compelled to enact the increased weight allowance. The 2012 federal surface transportation reauthorization law (MAP-21) allows states to increase this weight exemption to 550 pounds. As a result, in recent years many states have adopted either legislation to increase the weight exemption to 550 pounds or enforcement policies that permit 550-pound weight exemption for APUs.[17]
Figure 3.1. State Recognition of the Auxiliary Power Unit Weight Exemption to GVW Limit: 23 CFR 658.17(n)
In addition to states having different idling regulations, they also have different weight exemptions for this popular idle reduction technology. The public sector could further assist the trucking industry by implementing consistent (and reasonable) idling regulations and weight exemptions.
Truck Parking. The truck parking shortage presents numerous challenges to the trucking industry. Particularly relevant to the trucking industry’s sustainability efforts is the excessive time that drivers spend driving around searching for available truck parking. Previous research suggests that many drivers spend more than 30 minutes per day searching for truck parking.[18] This additional time on the road leads to unnecessary emissions that could be mitigated with a sufficient supply of parking spaces.
Most truck parking is provided at private truck stops; however, ATRI research revealed the unique role that public rest areas play in drivers’ daily operations.[19] Furthermore, ATRI conducted a separate study on publicly provided truck parking that included: case studies, best practices in public sector truck parking expansion, and an online dashboard that allows users to assess 47 states across key truck parking metrics.[20] The public sector expanding truck parking capacity would add much needed supply to a constrained system, thereby reducing truck parking search times and unnecessary emissions. To achieve this, state DOTs can engage in public-private partnerships, repurpose state-owned land for truck parking (e.g., weigh stations), and apply for federal funding.
Federal Excise Tax. The federal government levies a 12 percent federal excise tax (FET) on the first retail sale of new heavy-duty trucks and trailers (herein referred to as Truck FET). ATRI analyzed safety and environmental benefits from repealing the tax.
The research outlined several cogent assumptions and constructed reasonable hypothetical scenarios using reputable data sources. At the crux of the analysis is the idea, rooted in basic economic thought, that since the truck FET effectively adds 12 percent onto the retail price of new trucks, new sales would increase upon a repeal of the truck FET. The report highlighted that although there might be benefits from a potential truck FET repeal, revenue from the truck FET contributed approximately 14 percent of all highway trust fund revenue, so consideration needs to be given to replacing the lost revenue.
The researchers developed scenarios to produce estimated environmental benefits from repealing the truck FET. These benefits were primarily driven by an assumed increase in new truck sales and accelerating the replacement of old, less environmentally friendly vehicles. Environmental benefits were calculated by comparing CO2 levels from actual new truck sales in 2024 (referred to as baseline) to several different hypothetical increases in 2024 new truck sales. A 5 percent increase in new truck sales led to a 4 percent reduction in CO2 emissions compared to 2024 baseline levels, while increasing new sales by 20 percent resulted in a 16 percent reduction in CO2 emissions.[21] As technological advancements in lower-emission trucks continue to proliferate, the public sector can explore ways to incentivize and reduce barriers to purchasing new trucks.
Speed Limits. The federal government first created a national maximum speed limit in 1974 in reaction to the oil crisis with the Middle East. The law prohibited states from setting speed limits above 55 miles per hour to conserve fuel and reduce that nation’s dependence on foreign oil. The law was subsequently modified in 1987-88 to allow for a maximum posted speed of 65 mph on certain roadways and Congress ultimately repealed the law in 1995 which returned speed limit setting authority to the states. Currently, speed limits range from 55 mph on many urban interstates to 85 mph on certain rural, limited access interstates in Texas. In addition, several states have raised the speed limits for passenger vehicles while retaining a lower rate for trucks, thereby creating a differential speed limit. Increased speed variance on roadways often leads to increased vehicle interaction and accident exposure.
In addition to safety issues, speed limits play a critical role in vehicle fuel consumption. Several studies have shown that trucks consume more fuel when traveling at higher speeds. For example, increasing speeds from 55 to 75 mph can increase fuel consumption by 39 percent.[22] And while lower speeds do increase travel times, a change from 75 mph to 65 mph speed increases travel times just 15.5 percent. As a result, establishing reasonable speed limits which account for fuel savings is another important public sector practice in support of sustainability.
SmartWay Program. The U.S. EPA’s SmartWay Program is an example of an innovative, voluntary collaboration between the trucking industry, shippers and government. According to EPA, SmartWay partners have saved over 397 million barrels of fuel since 2004, which equates to $55.4 billion in fuel savings.[23] Partners in the program include freight carriers and shippers who commit to benchmark operations, track fuel consumption and improve performance annually. A testing, verification, and designation program to help freight companies identify equipment, technologies and strategies that save fuel and lower emissions is also a component. The program has grown to more than 4,000 partners. Continued funding of this program at a sufficient level to maintain growth and expansion is another means of promoting sustainable practices among the trucking industry.
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act. Since 2008, EPA has funded 73,700 engines or vehicles retrofitted or replaced through the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA).[24] These technologies include emissions and idle control devices, aerodynamic equipment, engine and vehicle replacements, and alternative fuel options. EPA awards these funds through competitive grants to a variety of entities including states, municipalities and certain non-governmental organizations. DERA was reauthorized under Division S- Innovation for the Environment section of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2021 for up to $100 million annually through 2024.[25]
As of May 2025, DERA has not been extended and is presently inactive. Reauthorization of DERA funding through 2029 was passed by the U.S. Senate, yet the reauthorization bill has not yet progressed through the U.S. House of Representatives.[26] Reauthorizing the bill would help promote sustainable practices by advancing the latest generation of efficient, clean diesel technologies.
In addition to regulations, standards and incentives, the government has the unique ability to support and fund independent research. Public sector research and development (R&D) funds are often needed to encourage advances in technology since start-up costs can often deter private sector entrepreneurs. Several R&D opportunities exist for concepts such as engine or fuel modifications, dedicated truck lanes and truck platooning.
New Engine or Fuel Modifications. The federal government has been funding and
coordinating research to improve engine performance since the oil crisis of the 1970s. The public sector has played an important role in advancing several design features, including advanced fuel-injection systems, exhaust aftertreatments and diesel particulate filters. According to a report by the American Energy Innovation Council, the federal government’s $1 billion investment in diesel engine R&D from 1986 through 2007 generated over $70 billion in economic benefits.[27]
The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has actively pursued increased efficiency goals. The DOE and its public, private and academic partners are working in the areas of low temperature combustion, dilute (or lean-burn) gasoline combustion, and clean burning diesel combustion.[28] The emerging research is compatible with the industry trend toward engine downsizing and boosting to improve vehicle fuel economy.
In 2009, the DOE launched a technology innovation program – SuperTruck – that involved partnering with five of the largest truck manufacturers in the country. The program was created to incentivize the industry to markedly improve freight and fuel efficiency compared to the standard Class 8 truck. The DOE provided $284 million in funding that the trucking industry matched dollar-for-dollar.
SuperTruck 1 funding lasted from 2010 to 2016 and was an immense success, with all truck manufacturers meeting or exceeding target goals.[29] Government funding enabled manufacturers to more confidently pursue high-risk/high-reward technologies. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy estimated that widespread adoption of SuperTruck 1 technologies would reduce fuel consumption by 300 million barrels and save the industry nearly $20 billion in fuel costs.[30]
Building on the success of the inaugural SuperTruck program, the SuperTruck 2 program pledged additional funds and set more ambitious goals. The two main goals of SuperTruck 2 were to demonstrate a 55 percent brake thermal efficient (BTE) engine and improve freight efficiency (measured by ton-mpg) by 100 percent. Five truck manufacturers participated, and each surpassed the freight efficiency target while three met the 55 percent BTE goal.
SuperTruck 3 is ongoing and has expanded to include Class 4-8 trucks instead of solely focusing on Class 8 trucks. The goals of SuperTruck 3 are to reduce GHG and air pollution emissions by 75 percent and reduce the total cost of ownership compared to owning a 2021/2022 model year truck. To meet these goals, two manufacturers are developing battery-electric trucks, while three are manufacturing fuel cell electric trucks.[31]
Dedicated Truck Lanes. During the past decade, interest in dedicated truck lanes (DTLs) has increased. DTLs separate truck traffic from passenger vehicles and could improve highway safety, increase efficiency and reduce congestion. Indiana, Illinois, Missouri and Ohio evaluated the economic feasibility of adding four DTLs (two in each direction) to the I-70 corridor running through those four states.[32] The analysis considered the impacts of:
- Spending on operation and maintenance;
- Travel changes such as speed, reliability and safety; and
- Different financing options.
The researchers estimated an economic benefit of $36 billion over 20 years for the counties adjacent to the corridor across the four states and 258,000 job-years of additional employment from 2015 through 2030.
In 2019, the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) announced their plan to implement DTLs alongside a popular freight corridor on I-75. GDOT heralds their plan as the “first of its kind” and projected a budget of $1.8 billion to complete the project. As of 2025, construction has not yet begun and, according to GDOT, the project is currently in the project development phase.[33] Examples such as these highlight the potential for DTLs to further promote efficiency gains and safety improvements.
Truck Platooning. In theory, truck platooning would use advanced driving system technologies to allow two or more trucks to wirelessly share data that would allow the trucks to follow much more closely than would be safe with just human operators. The primary benefit would ostensibly be improved fuel economy from improvements aerodynamics.[34] A field test of a two-truck platoon conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that the lead truck could reduce fuel consumption by up to 5 percent, with the following truck reducing fuel consumption by as much as 10 percent. [35]
In recent years truck platooning has fallen out of favor, primarily because there is no reduction in secondary costs such as truck driver labor to offset the platooning system installation and maintenance costs. In addition, the complexity of managing different truck weights, braking systems, urban driving environments, road grades and financial transactions between competitors – makes platooning untenable at this point in time. [36] Consequently, large fleets are moving away from the concept and most platooning vendors have gone out of business. [37]
Trucks operate more efficiently in free-flowing traffic than in congestion. A fully loaded tractor-semitrailer uses significantly more fuel while shifting through the gears to reach a free-flow highway speed than it does simply to maintain momentum. Transportation Research Board (TRB) research findings indicate a correlation between fuel consumption and the operating speed of large trucks, stating:
“…the effect of the increased transient behavior at low speeds is to raise the quantity of fuel consumed at low speeds. This is mainly due to the wasting of energy with service brakes and the associated need for propulsion energy during the next acceleration event. In addition, some powertrains are less efficient under transient operation than under steady operation.” [38]
Congested travel conditions are widespread throughout the U.S., especially in urban areas. The FHWA measures recurring congestion on the National Highway System (NHS) for both passenger vehicles and truck traffic. These measurements indicate that peak travel period congestion, where average vehicle speed slows to below posted speed limits, occurred on 14,608 miles of highway in 2015 (see Figure 3.2). [39] Additionally, such congestion led to “stop-and-go” conditions on an additional 10,383 miles.
Figure 3.2. Peak-Period Congestion on the NHS, 2015
FHWA also estimated recurring peak-period congestion for the year 2045, assuming no increases in the network capacity. As shown in Figure 3.3, it was estimated that, due to increasing demand for the highway system, traffic will slow below the posted speed limit on 22,907 miles of the NHS and congested conditions will be present on an additional 55,795 miles. [40]
Figure 3.3. Estimated Peak-Period Congestion on the NHS, 2045
According to the recent ATRI report, Cost of Congestion to the Trucking Industry, delays of large trucks on the Interstate Highway System cost the industry more than $108.8 billion in 2022. [41] Additionally, when roadway conditions are not reliable, key “just in time” deliveries can be delayed, possibly impacting actions farther down the supply chain. Texas A&M’s Transportation Institute identifies several strategies, including infrastructure investment-related approaches to alleviating congestion, such as adding capacity to critical corridors through additional lane construction or constructing new streets and highways. [42]
An example of a state-level congestion cost measurement can be found in a Florida DOT study that utilized historical traffic density data (2003 – 2007) to quantify increased traffic congestion levels. [43] This study estimated that costs attributable to congestion ranged from approximately $5 billion in 2003 to nearly $7 billion in 2007 for Florida motorists. While the research did not specifically quantify the congestion costs for trucks, the authors noted that the increased levels of congestion directly contributed to higher shipping costs, delayed or missed deliveries, and increased inventories due to the unreliability of the transportation system.
An American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) report observed as early as 2010 that freight transportation is facing a “capacity crisis.” [44] The report stated that interstate traffic grew 150 percent from 1980 to 2006, while at the same time capacity increased by only 15 percent. The report found that many current systems are at or near capacity and additional investments are required to maintain and improve infrastructure to meet the expected demands.
Bottlenecks on major highways and urban interstate interchanges are also cited in the AASHTO report as a significant problem for the freight transportation system. Additionally, an annual report by ATRI has found that congested travel at many of the nation’s worst bottlenecks significantly hinders truck movements, and therefore fuel economy, with regular, recurring average vehicle speeds as low as 16 mph during AM and PM peak travel periods on the Interstate Highway System. [45]
One example of successful congestion mitigation is the southbound I-675 and I-75 interchange near Atlanta, GA. In early 2009, the Georgia DOT completed a project that added a lane at this location specifically to alleviate congestion. Using data from its Freight Performance Measures initiative, ATRI compared average speeds for the interchange from 2007 to 2020. The research found an average weekday PM peak-period speed of 25.3 mph in 2007 compared to 53.9 mph in 2020, an 85 percent increase.
ATRI’s congestion analysis provides actionable information that stakeholders have used to drive change. For example, the Jane Byrne Interchange in Chicago (I-90;I-94;I-290) held the number one rank in ATRI’s annual bottleneck report for three consecutive years (2007-2010). Consequently, former Illinois Governor Pat Quinn committed an initial $450 million to restructure the intersection to mitigate congestion, citing ATRI’s bottleneck list in a press release.
Since reconstruction, vehicle speeds during daytime hours improved as much as 69 percent, with daytime vehicle speeds pre-construction ranging from 12 MPH to 37 MPH and improving to 21 MPH to 40 MPH post-construction. Furthermore, ATRI analysis revealed that average rush-hour truck speeds increased nearly 25 percent, rising from an average speed of 22 MPH before construction to 27 MPH at project completion. [46]
To address the significant congestion problem, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission recommended in its Transportation for Tomorrow report that a “distinct program be established to fund projects that reduce congestion in [the] largest metropolitan areas.” [47] Additionally, the study found that the capital investment levels required to improve key highway conditions and performance measures through 2055 would average between $185 and $276 billion annually (in 2006 dollars). Such investment levels would constitute a significant increase in spending over the annual $68 billion funding level at the time of the report.
The FAST (Fixing America’s Surface Transportation) Act and its predecessor, MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century) attempted to address some of these issues by establishing a national policy to improve freight movement in the U.S. [48] The bills included a number of provisions that identify freight-significant highway bottlenecks, improve the national freight network performance and support investment in freight-related surface transportation projects.
MAP21 also contained a provision for a congestion management process (CMP). CMPs are a systematic approach for managing congestion and provide strategies for congestion management that meet local and state needs. CMPs are required for metropolitan areas with populations exceeding 200,000 known as Transportation Management Areas (TMAs). Federal law requires that in all TMAs, CMPs should be developed and implemented in the metropolitan transportation planning process, however there are not clear guidelines onto how methods and approaches are dictated. [49]
Public sector action is the key to reducing congestion in support of advancing sustainable practices. Identifying areas where freight congestion is most significant to prioritize congestion mitigation efforts is an important first step. Using this information to perform cost-benefit assessments which consider fuel savings and efficiency benefits can further help to prioritize these investments. And finally, identifying adequate levels of funding to support these investments are all public sector practices that can support sustainability goals.
[1] U.S. EPA, “Final Rulemaking: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles” (September 15, 2011), https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-phase-1-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards-and.
[2] U.S. EPA, “Final Rule for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles – Phase 2” (October 2016), https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-phase-2-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards.
[3] U.S. EPA, “Regulatory Update: EPA Announces the “Clean Trucks Plan” (August 2021), Office of Transportation and Air Quality, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-08/420f21057.pdf.
[4] U.S. EPA, “Final Rule and Related Materials for Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards” (December 20, 2022), https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-and-related-materials-control-air-pollution.
[5] U.S. EPA, “Final Rule: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles – Phase 3” (April 22, 2024), https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards-heavy-duty.
[6] U.S. EPA, “EPA Announces Action to Implement POTUS’s Termination of Biden-Harris Electric Vehicle Mandate” (March 12, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-action-implement-potuss-termination-biden-harris-electric-vehicle.
[7] U.S. EPA, “Fact Sheet: Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Powering the Great American Comeback” (March 2025), https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-03/heavy-duty-vehicles-powering-the-great-american-comeback-factsheet.pdf.
[8] Federal Highway Administration, “Federal Size Regulations for Commercial Vehicles” (February 1, 2017), https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/publications/size_regs_final_rpt/index.htm.
[9] American Transportation Research Institute, Energy and Emissions Impact of Operating Higher Productivity Vehicles, Update: 2008 (March 2008), https://truckingresearch.org/2008/03/26/energy-and-emissions-impacts-of-operating-higher-productivity-vehicles/.
[10] American Transportation Research Institute, Compendium of Idling Regulations (accessed on May 22, 2025), https://truckingresearch.org/2020/03/16/idling-regulations-compendium/.
[11] California EPA, “Heavy-Duty Vehicle Idling Information” (accessed on May 22, 2025), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/capp-resource-center/heavy-duty-diesel-vehicle-idling-information.
[12] U.S. EPA, “Model State Idling Law.” (April 2006), https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/900N0700.PDF?Dockey=900N0700.PDF.
[13] Argonne National Laboratory, “Vehicle Idle Reduction Savings Calculator” (accessed on May 22, 2025), https://www.anl.gov/es/reference/vehicle-idle-reduction-savings-worksheet-pdf.
[14] Argonne National Laboratory, “Long-Haul Truck Idling Burns Up Profits” (August 2015), https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/hdv_idling_2015.pdf.
[15] Indiana Department of Environmental Management, “Diesel Wise” (accessed on May 22, 2025), https://www.in.gov/idem/airquality/dieselwise/.
[16] U.S. DOE, “Fact #627: June 14, 2010 Idle Reduction for Heavy Trucks” (accessed on June 23, 2025), https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-627-june-14-2010-idle-reduction-heavy-trucks.
[17] U.S. DOE, “Idle Reduction Weight Exemption” (accessed on May 22, 2025), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/state.
[18] Caroline Boris and Rebecca Brewster, Managing Critical Truck Parking Case Study – Real World Insights from Truck Parking Diaries, American Transportation Research Institute (December 2016), https://truckingresearch.org/2016/12/5342/.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Andrew Fain and Dan Murray, Expanding Truck Parking at Public Rest Areas, American Transportation Research Institute (April 2025), https://truckingresearch.org/2025/04/expanding-truck-parking-at-public-rest-areas/.
[21] Jeffrey Short and Andrew Fain, Repealing the Federal Excise Tax on New Truck Equipment: Impacts and Opportunities for Industry Safety and Operations, American Transportation Research Institute (April 2025), https://truckingresearch.org/2025/04/repealing-the-federal-excise-tax-on-new-truck-equipment-impacts-and-opportunities-for-industry-safety-and-operations/.
[22] Bridgestone Firestone, North America Tire, LLC, “Real Questions, Real Answers: Tires and Truck Fuel Economy” (accessed on May 22, 2025), http://pressureguard.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Tires_and_Truck_Fuel_Economy-BRIDGESTONE.pdf.
[23] U.S. EPA, “SmaryWay Program Highlights for 2024” (December 2024), https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-12/420f24041.pdf.
[24] U.S. EPA, “DERA Fifth Report to Congress: Highlights from the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program” (August 2022), https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1015S8Q.pdf.
[25] U.S. EPA, “Learn About Impacts of Diesel Exhaust and the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA)” (accessed on May 22, 2025), https://www.epa.gov/dera/learn-about-impacts-diesel-exhaust-and-diesel-emissions-reduction-act-dera.
[26] U.S. Congress, Senate, Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2023, S.2195. 118th Congress. Introduced in Senate June 22, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2195/; U.S. Congress, House, Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2023, H.R.5444. introduced in House September 13, 2023, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5444.
[27] J. Rissman and K. Hallie, “Advanced Diesel Internal Combustion Engines” (2014), American Energy Innovation Council, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/03/f30/FY2015%20Advanced%20Combustion%20Engine%20R%26D%20Annual%20Report.pdf.
[28] U.S. DOE, “Advanced Combustion Strategies” (accessed on May 22, 2025), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/advanced-combustion-strategies.
[29] U.S. DOE, “US DOE SuperTruck 3 Initiative Seeks to Reduce Medium/Heavy Truck Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 75%” (June 2024), https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1346-june-10-2024-us-doe-supertruck-3-initiative-seeks-reduce.
[30] American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, “DOE’s SuperTruck Program: Slashing Fuel Waste from Tractor-Trailers” (accessed on May 22, 2025), https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/super-truck-0517.pdf.
[31] U.S. DOE, “US DOE SuperTruck 3 Initiative Seeks to Reduce Medium/Heavy Truck Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 75%” (June 2024), https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1346-june-10-2024-us-doe-supertruck-3-initiative-seeks-reduce.
[32] TREDIS, “I-70 Dedicated Truck Lanes” (accessed on May 22, 2025), https://www.tredis.com/clients/43-x-case-studies/41-i-70-dedicated-truck-lanes.
[33] Georgia DOT, “I-75 Commercial Vehicle Lanes” (accessed on May 1, 2025), https://0014203-gdot.hub.arcgis.com/.
[34] Auburn University et al., “Heavy Truck Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control: Evaluation, Testing, and Stakeholder Engagement for Near Term Deployment: Phase One Final Report” (April 2015), https://truckingresearch.org/2015/05/27/new-research-assesses-potential-for-driver-assistive-truck-platooning/.
[35] National Renewable Energy Laboratory, “Truck Platooning Testing” (accessed on May 22, 2025), https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64133.pdf.
[36] Hualei Cheng et al., “Truck Platooning Reshapes Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Integrated Vehicle Road Infrastructure System” (2023), Nature Communications 14, no. 4495, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-40116-0.
[37] Deborah Lockridge, “Truck Platoon in Operation on I-70” (April 16, 2025), TruckingInfo, https://www.truckinginfo.com/10239350/truck-platoon-in-operation-on-i-70.
[38] National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, “Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles” (2010), https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12845/technologies-and-approaches-to-reducing-the-fuel-consumption-of-medium-and-heavy-duty-vehicles.
[39] U.S. DOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Freight Facts and Figures, (accessed on May 22, 2025), https://www.bts.gov/product/freight-facts-and-figures.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Jeffrey Short and Alex Leslie, Cost of Congestion to the Trucking Industry: 2024 Update, American Transportation Research Institute (2024), https://truckingresearch.org/2024/12/cost-of-congestion-to-the-trucking-industry-2024-update/.
[42] Texas A& M Transportation Institute, “Mobility Investment Priorities – Strategies” (accessed on May 22, 2025), https://mobility.tamu.edu/mip/strategies.php.
[43] Andres G. Blanco et al., “The Economic Cost of Traffic Congestion in Florida” (2010), Florida DOT, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/18299/dot_18299_DS1.pdf.
[44] American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials, “Unlocking Freight” (2010), http://pahighwayinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/FreightReportFinal_77101.pdf.
[45]American Transportation Research Institute, Top 100 Truck Bottlenecks – 2025, https://truckingresearch.org/2025/02/top-100-truck-bottlenecks-2025/.
[46] American Transportation Research Institute, Documenting the Impact of Infrastructure Investments of Traffic Congestion (2025), https://truckingresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Documenting-Impact-of-Investments-ATRI-Bottleneck-02-2025.pdf.
[47] National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, “Transportation for Tomorrow” (2007), https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/18125.
[48] U.S. DOT, “MAP-21 Freight Significant Provisions” (accessed on May 22, 2025), Federal Highway Administration, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/,; U.S. DOT “Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act” (2015), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/.
[49] U.S. DOT, “Congestion Management Process” (accessed on May 22, 2025), Federal Highway Administration, https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/plan4ops/focus_areas/cmp.htm.
