Physical Environment Environmental Quality Built Environment Search Policies & Programs

Display All Policies & Programs Contribute Content

Retrofit busses to reduce emissions

Health Factors: Environmental Quality
Decision Makers: Businesses & Employers, Government - Local, Government - State, Government - Federal, Schools
Evidence Rating: Scientifically Supported
Population Reach: 100% of WI's population
Impact on Disparities: No impact on disparities likely

Is this program or policy in use in your community? Tell us about it.

Description

Retrofitting diesel busses involves installing control devices such as diesel particulate filters (DPF), diesel oxidation catalysts (DOC), and closed crankcase ventilation systems (CCV) on diesel powered engines in order to reduce exhaust emissions.

Expected Beneficial Outcomes

Decreased emissions
Improved air quality

Evidence of Effectiveness

There is strong evidence that retrofitting diesel busses decreases environmental exhaust emissions (US EPA-Transportation 2006, Zhang 2011, Barone 2010). Retrofitting diesel busses has also been shown to improve in-cabin air quality by decreasing particulate matter, organic carbon, and elemental carbon in some circumstances (Borak 2007, Trenbath 2009, Barone 2010).

Decreases in emissions associated with retrofitting diesel busses appear to have positive effects on riders' health. A Washington-based study found reductions in bronchitis, asthma, and pneumonia in children in school districts with retrofitted busses (Beatty 2011). Retrofitting may also decrease the costs associated with respiratory disease-related hospitalizations and treatment (Beatty 2011).

A Washington-based cost-benefit analysis finds that school bus retrofitting has positive net benefits (Beatty 2011).

Implementation Examples

United States

The majority of states have either mandatory or voluntary diesel retrofit, repower, and replacement policies in place (CATF-Diesel 2010).

Wisconsin

The Wisconsin DNR and the Wisconsin Clean Diesel Coalition encourage diesel emission reduction strategies. Additionally, Wisconsin Partners for Clean Air (WPCA-cleaner school buses), with support from a federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (US DOT-CMAQ) grant, administers a diesel retrofit program that includes school buses, municipal busses, and off-road equipment in Wisconsin's ozone non-attainment areas, (Door, Kenosha, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Washington, and Waukesha counties).

Implementation Resources

Diesel Clean-up Campaign - Diesel Clean-Up Campaign. Local & state diesel clean-up advocacy. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://dieselcleanup.org/
US EPA-Clean school bus program - US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Clean school bus program. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/
US EPA-NCDC - US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). National clean diesel campaign (NCDC). Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.epa.gov/diesel/

Citations - Evidence

Barone 2010 - Barone TL, Storey JME, Domingo N. An analysis of field-aged diesel particulate filter performance: Particle emissions before, during, and after regeneration. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. 2010;60(8):968-76. Accessed on June 11, 2012
Webpage: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3155/1047-3289.60.8.968
Beatty 2011* - Beatty TKM, Shimshack JP. School buses, diesel emissions, and respiratory health. Journal of Health Economics. 2011;30(5):987-99. Accessed on June 11, 2012
Webpage: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629611000701
Borak 2007* - Borak J, Srianni G. Studies of self-pollution in diesel school buses: Methodological issues. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 2007;4(9):660-8. Accessed on February 29, 2012
Webpage: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15459620701501578?journalCode=uoeh20#preview
Trenbath 2009* - Trenbath K, Hannigan MP, Milford JB. Evaluation of retrofit crankcase ventilation controls and diesel oxidation catalysts for reducing air pollution in school buses. Atmospheric Environment. 2009;43(37):5916-22. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231009007304
US EPA-Transportation 2006 - Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ). Diesel retrofit technology: An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of reducing particulate matter emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines through retrofits. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA); 2006. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.epa.gov/oms/
Zhang 2011* - Zhang Q, Zhu Y. Performance of school bus retrofit systems: Ultrafine particles and other vehicular pollutants. Environmental Science & Technology. 2011;45(15):6475-82. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es201070t

Citations - Implementation Examples

CATF-Diesel 2010 - Clean Air Task Force (CATF). Diesel retrofit/repower/replace policies enacted in States. 2010. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.dieselcleanup.org/downloads/Summary_of_Diesel_Policies_enacted_in_States-CATF.6.13.10.pdf
US DOT-CMAQ - US Department of Transportation (US DOT). Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement (CMAQ) program. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/
WPCA-cleaner school buses - Wisconsin Partners for Clean Air (WPCA). Cleaner school buses full speed ahead. Accessed on June 12, 2012
Webpage: http://www.cleanairwisconsin.org/diesel.php

* Journal subscription may be required for access.

Comments from Users about this Policy/Program (Cost, Feasibility, Lessons Learned)

No comments

X
 

Health Factors

Health Behaviors
Tobacco Use
Diet & Exercise
Alcohol Use
Sexual Activity
 Clinical Care
Access to Care
Quality of Care
 Social & Economic Factors
Education
Employment
Income
Family & Social Support
Community Safety
 Physical Environment
Environmental Quality
Built Environment

Decision Makers

Businesses & Employers
Community Organizations
Government - Local
Government - State
Government - Federal
Healthcare Organizations
Individuals
Schools

Evidence Rating

Level of effectiveness based on a scan of academic literature and key recommendations of leading organizations.

  • Scientifically Supported Numerous studies or systematic review(s) with positive results
  • Some Evidence Research suggests positive impacts; further study may be warranted
  • Expert Opinion Recommended by credible groups*; research evidence limited
  • Insufficient Evidence Evidence limited or unavailable; further study warranted
  • Mixed Evidence Evidence mixed; further study warranted
  • Evidence of Ineffectiveness Research consistently shows program is detrimental or has no effect

Although many policies and programs are recommended by credible groups, we apply the rating ‘expert opinion’ only when policies are recommended but limited scientific evidence of effectiveness is available.

* The American Heritage Dictionary defines credible as 'capable of being believed; plausible.' and 'worthy of confidence; reliable.' To be considered an 'expert recommendation,' policies and programs must be recommended by one or more organizations that are recognized for their impartial expertise in the area of interest and have limited evidence available.

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Impact on Health Disparities

Likely impact of a given policy or program on racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic or other disparities in Wisconsin based on its characteristics (e.g., target audience, mode of delivery, etc.) and best available evidence related to disparities.

  • Likely to decrease disparities
  • No impact on disparities likely
  • Likely to increase disparities